[PLUG] Dealing with security

Steven A. Adams stevea at nwtechops.com
Tue Feb 4 20:45:02 UTC 2003


On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 20:15, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
 
> I don't think the question was "What is the solution to Microsoft's
> security problems?", but rather, "What is the solution to showing people
> that Linux-based and other Unix-like systems are less susceptible to virii
> and usually more secure?"
> 
> Maybe I misread, but I don't think the problem of Microsoft's security
> methods are all that relevant to most of us (except insofar as protocols
> get broken and become unusable due to something Microsoft botched either
> on purpose or by blunder).
> 
I don't think that you misread the question at all. I interpreted the
thread to be a discussion on what is the solution to putting pressure on
MS to correct some of the problems that their plague their OSes. Was
that the wrong impression?

I really don't believe that the Engineers at MS intentionally produce
code that breaks. Not sure if you remember or not but every MS OS from
Win95 and to current had a hard-coded release date that was set by MS
Marketing (we all know that this normally happens with a dart board and
not through feasibility study). Perhaps this little snip from RFC1925
would help them in the future.

  (2)  No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority,
       you can't increase the speed of light.

       (2a) (corollary). No matter how hard you try, you can't make a
            baby in much less than 9 months. Trying to speed this up
            *might* make it slower, but it won't make it happen any
            quicker.






More information about the PLUG mailing list