Text 5587, 222 rader
Skriven 2005-07-02 10:49:26 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5577 av John Beckett (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: An Army of Soulless 1's and 0's
===========================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C57EF3.B7B5B9E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Let's give another example. The thousand of zombies you keep =
referring to is virtually indistinguishable from the thousands of = zombies
running seti@home. Users are supposed to have this choice and = many want this
choice.
I don't think Windows tries to control users and don't know why you =
suggest it does. It doesn't set boundaries and you wouldn't want it to. =
It has been so very successful because it allows IHVs, ISVs, and users =
to do so much more than just what is in the box. You don't perceive a =
distinction because there is no control, beyond of course admin = restrictions
and security like ACLs.
Rich
"John Beckett" <FirstnameSurname@compuserve.com.omit> wrote in message =
news:42c67856.29107514@216.144.1.254...
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:<42c636b8@w3.nls.net>:
> The problem with users exercising bad judgement is that you won't =
find
> a simple fix to software because the software isn't broken. You =
also have
> a problem because you want to stop users from doing something they
> believe they want to do and which is virtually indistinguishable =
from the
> user downloading something like opera or acrobat reader.
Yes - these are good points. I have some vague misgivings with the
reasoning, but I agree that the above is a valid point of view.
One misgiving: If what you say is true, how come there is no BIG =
warning
on the Windows CD? Is Windows a friendly world or not? Is a naive user
looked after or not? I would argue that everything in Windows and its
associated applications like Office is designed to make the user feel
happy and in-control. There just is NOT sufficient distinction between
what Windows CAN control. and what it cannot.
Another misgiving: If what you say is true, how come Microsoft =
released
code that it should have known would result in thousands of infected
zombie computers?
I guess I'm just irritated that all the Security Initiatives from
Microsoft are great stuff, but they just coincidentally happen to
more-or-less force users to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. I know they =
can't
really bolt all the new stuff onto NT4 etc, but it leaves a sour taste
that the completely-faultless wonder-programmers from Microsoft make
solutions that will be effective only when everyone upgrades.
Another misgiving: I think it is somewhat rewriting history to make =
out
that the security issues of the last couple of years have been an
unavoidable consequence of risk-taking users. The fact is that =
Microsoft
did set out to attach the Internet to Windows. Internet Explorer =
became an
essential component of the operating system. I haven't got around to
figuring out exactly what is going on, but it appears that IE (or its
zones?) is somehow involved even when I access a share on my local =
subnet.
Also, ActiveX components were intended to Enhance my Experience.
Well it turns out that the clever folks who came up with all this =
stuff
overlooked a few facts of life that are pretty obvious in retrospect,
mainly that the Internet is NOT like my friendly computer.
On behalf of the clueless users, I will accept 20% of the blame for =
the
spambots, and 20% can be assigned to unavoidable bugs, but the other =
60%
is due to stupid design decisions in Windows (-or- the 60% blame is =
due to
connecting Windows to the Internet when it was not ready to be so
connected).
> I do want to follow up on another of your claims when you refer to=20
> "similar to the hundred other warnings that occur in a day".
Well, I might have been exaggerating. Sometimes it feels like a =
hundred.
John
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C57EF3.B7B5B9E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Let's give another =
example. The=20
thousand of zombies you keep referring to is virtually indistinguishable =
from=20
the thousands of zombies running <A =
href=3D"mailto:seti@home">seti@home</A>. =20
Users are supposed to have this choice and many want this =
choice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I don't think Windows =
tries to control=20
users and don't know why you suggest it does. It doesn't set =
boundaries=20
and you wouldn't want it to. It has been so very successful = because
it=20
allows IHVs, ISVs, and users to do so much more than just what is in the =
box. You don't perceive a distinction because there is no control, =
beyond=20
of course admin restrictions and security like ACLs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"John Beckett" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:FirstnameSurname@compuserve.com.omit">FirstnameSurname@com=
puserve.com.omit</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42c67856.29107514@216.144.1.254">news:42c67856.29107514@216.=
144.1.254</A>...</DIV>"Rich"=20
<@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:<42c636b8@w3.nls.net">news:<42c636b8@w3.nls.net</A>>:<=
BR>>=20
The problem with users exercising bad judgement is that you won't =
find<BR>>=20
a simple fix to software because the software isn't broken. You =
also=20
have<BR>> a problem because you want to stop users from doing =
something=20
they<BR>> believe they want to do and which is virtually =
indistinguishable=20
from the<BR>> user downloading something like opera or acrobat=20
reader.<BR><BR>Yes - these are good points. I have some vague =
misgivings with=20
the<BR>reasoning, but I agree that the above is a valid point of=20
view.<BR><BR>One misgiving: If what you say is true, how come there is =
no BIG=20
warning<BR>on the Windows CD? Is Windows a friendly world or not? Is a =
naive=20
user<BR>looked after or not? I would argue that everything in Windows =
and=20
its<BR>associated applications like Office is designed to make the =
user=20
feel<BR>happy and in-control. There just is NOT sufficient distinction =
between<BR>what Windows CAN control. and what it =
cannot.<BR><BR>Another=20
misgiving: If what you say is true, how come Microsoft =
released<BR>code that=20
it should have known would result in thousands of infected<BR>zombie=20
computers?<BR><BR>I guess I'm just irritated that all the Security =
Initiatives=20
from<BR>Microsoft are great stuff, but they just coincidentally happen =
to<BR>more-or-less force users to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. I know =
they=20
can't<BR>really bolt all the new stuff onto NT4 etc, but it leaves a =
sour=20
taste<BR>that the completely-faultless wonder-programmers from =
Microsoft=20
make<BR>solutions that will be effective only when everyone=20
upgrades.<BR><BR>Another misgiving: I think it is somewhat rewriting =
history=20
to make out<BR>that the security issues of the last couple of years =
have been=20
an<BR>unavoidable consequence of risk-taking users. The fact is that=20
Microsoft<BR>did set out to attach the Internet to Windows. Internet =
Explorer=20
became an<BR>essential component of the operating system. I haven't =
got around=20
to<BR>figuring out exactly what is going on, but it appears that IE =
(or=20
its<BR>zones?) is somehow involved even when I access a share on my =
local=20
subnet.<BR>Also, ActiveX components were intended to Enhance my=20
Experience.<BR><BR>Well it turns out that the clever folks who came up =
with=20
all this stuff<BR>overlooked a few facts of life that are pretty =
obvious in=20
retrospect,<BR>mainly that the Internet is NOT like my friendly=20
computer.<BR><BR>On behalf of the clueless users, I will accept 20% of =
the=20
blame for the<BR>spambots, and 20% can be assigned to unavoidable =
bugs, but=20
the other 60%<BR>is due to stupid design decisions in Windows (-or- =
the 60%=20
blame is due to<BR>connecting Windows to the Internet when it was not =
ready to=20
be so<BR>connected).<BR><BR>> I do want to follow up on another of =
your=20
claims when you refer to <BR>> "similar to the hundred other =
warnings that=20
occur in a day".<BR><BR>Well, I might have been exaggerating. =
Sometimes it=20
feels like a hundred.<BR><BR>John<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C57EF3.B7B5B9E0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|