Experts question Windows patch policy

TalkBack 50 of 68:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

I think you're seeing...

...dislike of the company, not of its fans.

Quite a few of us Linux users were bitten pretty bad by Windows in the past. Especially in the Win9x era, there were times when hackers could take over a machine and there was simply nothing you could do about it. Windows has been driving security-minded folks bonkers for years.

For a lot of us, we simply reached a point where we decided enough is enough. The quirks of Linux usability were annoying, but they were far outweighed by what we began to see as a concerted effort on Microsoft's part to control all aspects of our computing experience, while leaving security as afterthought.

To us, the fact that Qt and gtk+ don't look and feel the same didn't mean a darn thing. It was far more important that we could have absolute control over what was installed on the system, making it far easier to lock down.

Those of us who switched a while ago have watched - from the outside as it were - Microsoft gradually try to integrate everything but the kitchen sink into Windows, and make it all non-removable. This drove us crazy. Why make a non-removable browser? we asked. Or a media player you can't take off of your server? Why do I have to install IIS on a server that's going to be used for internal print services only? Why can't I remove Internet Explorer, and replace it with my choice of HTML rendering engine?

We asked these questions, and we never got reasonable answers for them. It looked more and more like Microsoft was simply abusing its monopoly position.

Meanwhile, in the world of Linux, no such "integration" took place. You can install and use any one of a number of applications and configurations, but you aren't forced to install any particular applications. Or even, for that matter, a GUI. This means that the vast majority of patches don't apply to most users. You'll never need to patch BIND on a desktop-oriented installation, or Mozilla on a server.

So from our perspective, Microsoft is a company that's trying to chip away at software choice for the user. They also seem to work as hard as possible to ensure that other operating systems do not interoperate well with Microsoft. Since they control the dominant desktop OS, that offends us on a gut level.

I tend to agree with the tone of your post. For too many of us, that dislike translates into some rather bitter sniping at the people who actually like Microsoft's offerings. You should now know why we dislike Microsoft. I hope this also sheds light on why we sometimes take that out on people who like Microsoft.

Posted by: Damon K   Posted on: 11/11/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Dell Helps Medical University of South Carolina Bring the Intelligent Classroom to Life Dell Established in 1824, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) is one of ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now