| On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 01:22:35 GMT, "Richard Steinfeld"
| <
[email protected]> typed furiously:
|
| >
| >|
| >| Is DRM only compulsory in XP? Or other Windows OS's?
| >|
| >| Rob
| >|
| >| P.S. Time to switch to Linux!
| >
| >I believe that it is compulsory in Windows Media Player after
a
| >certain version or if you've updated it. Thus, I'm stuck with
it
| >in Windows Me because I upgraded WMP. Someone posted a method
| >they've used to successfully emasculate WMP, which I'm
intending
| >to do.
| >
| >I bought XP months ago and haven't installed it yet. I'm
hoping
| >that it was issued before WMP 9. If so, I'll simply not allow
it
| >to upgrade the Windows Media Player.
| >
| >Spybot S&D now reports that there are three unique machine
| >identifiers residing in my registry. When I delete them, they
| >come right back. And to think of all the outrage there was
over
| >Intels's putting a scannable unique ID into their processors.
Now
| >MS feels firmly justified to plant the same thing into our
OSs.
| >
| >About Linux: that's mighty attractive. I was really impressed
| >with Unix after taking a class. To me, it was DOS with the
| >shackles removed. However, for me, Linux would be a really big
| >jump that might entail a change of work! Yet, it is
attractive.
| >My DP-systems expert friend has pointed out that the internet
is
| >a security minefield, especially when one uses Microsoft
tools;
| >at least MS runs a "closed shop" (well almost), able to keep a
| >lot of the malevolent out. He mentioned that, on the other
hand,
| >Linux, being an open system, is wide open for hackers to work
a
| >far greater amount of damage.
| >
| >Wow. This is really sobering.
| >
| >Richard
|
| I'll take issue with this. M$ being a closed shop and a
monopoly means
| that:
| 1. It becomes a target for hackers.
| 2. It is inherently insecure because the browser (IE) is
entwined with
| the OS which opens loopholes not otherwise available.
| 3. M$ response times are slow and, usually, cumbersome.
| 4. M$ does little to keep out the malevolent. In fact it seems
to
| encourage them by releasing such buggy and untested software.
|
| 1. Linux is not in a monopoly situation. It does not become
such a
| tempting target.
| 2. Linux does not integrate the kernel with any browser. This
reduces
| the opportunities for loopholes and back doors considerably. A
recent
| attempt to put a back door into Linux was thwarted before it
was
| released due to the diligence and fail safes involved in the
| development cycle.
| 3. Response times are immediate. Most found instabilities
and/or
| vulnerabilities are patched within 24 hours of their becoming
known.
| 4. Because Linux is Open Source it becomes more secure not
less. There
| are thousands of programmers from all over the world working on
Linux.
| Any security holes are generally caught before they are
incorporated
| into released software.
|
| M$ put up a website claiming to compare Windows with Linux. It
claimed
| that Windows 2000 patched to 2003 had four security holes while
Red
| Hat Linux version 6.1 had sixteen. IIRC. Of course they don't
mention
| that the version of RH they are talking about was released
1998. To
| compare they should really compare NT4 or Win98SE with RH. I
can make
| a guess at which OS had the greatest number of security holes
at that
| time.
|
| My opinion is that your friend is wrong. I consider that he is
being
| biased because of ignorance about how the Open Source community
works
| and because his training doesn't allow him to compare the two
| adequately.
|
Thanks, David.
You have certainly presented a good, solid, well-rounded
argument. In fact, much of what you've said lurks in the back of
my mind when I discuss such matters with my friend. I take
comfort and I have trust in the international community that's
entrusted their hopes and beliefs in Linux and other
open-systems. It's exciting!
My friend's background is heavy duty: he's been essentially the
guy in charge of all data handling for a large municipality:
maps, emergency, police, payroll, personnel, benefits: on and on.
Another friend who worked for friend #1 said that he was in awe
that the guy can draw a diagram around the wall showing all the
pieces of the city's data operations and how they interconnect.
I'm not really "name-dropping:" I'll come back to this below.
I have done a few data-related projects for a large telephone
company myself. What I noticed is that, for example, in the phone
company case, software modules and entire systems are debugged
and tested very thoroughly before going into service. A lot of
ramp-up time is allocated for this development: I was impressed
with this. What I saw was that in any angle in which the public
is involved (phone service, billing, repair service, etc.) the
approach is suitably cautious and deliberate: funding tends to be
ample. The stuff tends to work. This is in sharp contrast to the
other systems used in the company: office systems, networking:
that stuff is insane. You never know if you'll be able to get
your document to the networked printer 6 feet away. It took me 6
hours of work to submit my electronic timesheet. The only time my
home computers have been crippled by viruses is when I brought
them home from the phone company.I haven't mentioned customer
service: customer service systems are horrible: that is, horrible
for a customer to endure: arrogant and user-hostile.
Unfortunately, those systems are designed that way: they are
working perfectly! What never ceases to amaze me is that our
telephones work at all!
Because the phone company (I mean AT&T, the RBOCs, etc.) was a
pioneer in computerization, there are a number of legacy
("obsolete") systems in use. They are perhaps klutzy, but they've
been reliable. Integration of these different systems with each
other and with Microsoft office systems is mind-boggling. Changes
in the vital systems are made slowly and with deliberation. The
office systems use the latest and greatest, and it is those that
I had to struggle with on a daily basis: the loss of time was
significant.
My personal bias is that monopolies are toxic to our lives and to
our democracy. Open systems can be used in many businesses: this
makes me happy. Unix made me happy. Linux makes me happy. It's
David vs. Goliath like never before.
What I'm saying is that I see both sides. My friend is being
cautious: he's learned to build on what he knows and trusts. The
systems are damn complicated. After retiring, he's doing similar
work for a transit authority where not too long ago, the payroll
system went down during a major data migration to a new system:
people really sweated; camped out in the office, worked round the
clock until stuff got done: the bus drivers got paid on time!.
Ironically, I've sent him some freeware that he's using at home
and likes very much. I see the need for caution with the truly
humungous systems that I've been discussing here. What I'm saying
is that I understand the point that he's made. I suspect that all
the fixup work that MS has been doing lately is not just a "show
trial," but that for commercial reasons, MS if fixing their image
by fixing their products. Well, not as well as they could. But my
heart is with Linux!
I'm so disgusted with Microsoft's arrogance and buggy products
that I'm exploring Open Office despite owning a legal copy of MS
Office. I am truly weary from the time and effort that I must
constantly expend to protect my MS system from malfeasance, and I
include MS itself among the malfeasors! My work has required me
to be compatible with MS. If this changes, I'll definitely
consider switching. Thanks again.
Richard
