MS is vulnerable

Microsoft software is inherently less safe than Linux/*BSD software.
This is because Microsoft has favored usability over security.
This is because the market has responded better to that tradeoff.
This is because your mom doesn't want to have to hire a technical
consultant to manage her IT infrastructure when all she wants to do is

get

email pictures of her grandkids.

Let me see, have I got this right?

Apple software is inherently less safe than Linux/*BSD software.

This is because Apple has favored usability over security.

This is because the market has responded better to that tradeoff.

This is because your mom doesn't want to have to hire a technical
consultant to manage her IT infrastructure when all she wants to do is get
email pictures of her grandkids.

Hmmm...

The last three statements make perfect sense but that first
one just doesn't seem right. Could it be that ease-of-use
has nothing whatsoever to do with security?

--Michael Dillon

Hello,

This MS v Unix debate is a very interesting discussion. However, I'd like
to take a moment to inject my observations. Thank you for your time.

1. Microsoft's business plan (pre anti-trust) was in many ways similar to
the Cuban socialist economic model. In Cuba, the means of production belong
to the state. In Microsoft, the means of production belong to Microsoft.
The economic power is not in the hands of the workers. Microsoft's users
were slaves to Microsoft. Cuba's working class are slaves to the state.

2. In our beautiful democratic capitalist model Microsoft's business plan
failed. The State injected themselves between Microsoft and the working
class when it became apparent that Microsoft tried to control the means of
production and enslave the user directly. Anti-trust is a nice insurance
policy. Understand it well and beat it into the head of the nearest commie.

3. The Microsoft anti-trust action (In both the US and EU) and subsequent
penalties help to preserve a basic and fundamental right; that is, the right
to choose our own destiny.

4. Right now, at this very moment, you can place a Linux CD in your CD-ROM
drive, reboot, and install Linux over the top of Windows.

5. The freedom of choice issue is substantial when we look at it in an IT
consulting or IT management context. Our job is to analyze the situation,
define the need, identify the resources, and propose a solution. The IT
consultant/manager must objectively present the costs and benefits to the
decision maker (customer, boss) and help them make the decision.

If you are a Windows zealot and bias your observation based on your
love/familiarity with Windows you will fail. If you are a Linux zealot and
bias your observation based on your love/familiarity with Linux you will
fail. Present the costs and benefits associated with each option
objectively and help your organization or client grow.

The whole windows/linux bashing mentality only creates more controversy
rather than exposing the facts. Windows is still considered a "sure thing"
by many/most organizations. In this economy, businesses are looking to
preserve the status quo or gain an advantage, not create more risk or
controversy. If you inject Linux into the situations that it is best suited
to handle you will be an asset to the community. If you create more
controversy you will be shunned by the community.

Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO
Broadband Laboratories

This MS v Unix debate is a very interesting discussion.

To some of you. To others of us, it is a long-dead horse.

However, I'd like to take a moment to inject my observations.

I'd like the NANOG list to be restricted to Network Operations issues, or at
the very least, Network Operations plus the politics and ranting thereof.

Matthew Kaufman
matthew@eeph.com