Text 5624, 69 rader
Skriven 2005-07-02 22:46:06 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 5573 av John Beckett (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: An Army of Soulless 1's and 0's
===========================================
From: Ellen K. <72322.1016@compuserve.com>

I have to say that I agree that a valid method of criticism is to suggest a
better alternative.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 05:28:18 GMT, John Beckett
<FirstnameSurname@compuserve.com.omit> wrote in message
<42c6214b.6824833@216.144.1.254>:

>"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:<42c56aaa$1@w3.nls.net>:
>> Actually you should spout off on exactly how the GUI should be
>> different.
>
>I concede your point about how Windows is fairly safe when someone
>exercises reasonable judgement. It is true that the most successful
>infections have been due to unbelievably naive actions from users when
>confronted with an unexpected email.
>
>But I'm keeping quiet about how I would fix Windows because it would be
>too easy for you to deflect my criticism of Microsoft by pointing out
>shortcomings in any scheme that I proposed after half an hours thought.
>
>Whether or not I could fix Windows is not relevant to what I see as the
>central issue: The army of infected computers is proof that Microsoft
>should have used a different strategy to conquer the Internet.
>
>Let's say that I have NO worthwhile security suggestions. Does that excuse
>Microsoft from releasing software that (IMHO) overly-pampers users in the
>GUI, then abandons them when they actually face danger? The word "abandon"
>is a little too harsh because current Windows does warn users. My point is
>that the warning is just too similar to the hundred other warnings that
>occur in a day. Also, naive users really have no idea that the warm, soft,
>friendly Windows could actually install malware-from-hell. Microsoft
>should know that.
>
>Sometimes the security of Windows is compared with that of Linux. To me,
>the comparison is fairly pointless. IMHO Windows is much easier to
>administer and secure than Linux, and the cause is rather obvious: Windows
>development is much better resourced; Windows testing is much more
>thorough (paid for with large revenues); and Windows design is much more
>focused where the platform and environment are tightly controlled by a
>central design team.
>
>>    You are also lying when you say that it is "exactly the same GUI
>> presentation" used for the two examples.
>
>I will overlook the irrelevant and absurd "you are lying" tactic. I
>suppose that your excitement comes from your observation that in fact
>Windows DOES provide a clear warning to users about dangerous attachments,
>and you therefore can't see what my "exactly the same" claim is about.
>
>Let's focus on the bottom line: There ARE thousands of infected computers.
>What is the explanation? Surely Microsoft wouldn't say "We had no idea
>that an offer of Love/Lust would cause our users to ignore our warnings".
>Windows presents an animated puppy when users want to search files. The
>same users who need a puppy are then asked to understand the enigmatic
>"some files can damage your computer" warning. I can imagine the thought
>processes of the user: "If you're going to connect me to the Internet, I
>*am* going to get stuff. This must be like those 'don't put frozen bread
>in the toaster' warnings."
>
>I'm not asking that Microsoft accept guilt for the sins of the world. But
>Microsoft supporters should occasionally acknowledge that there have been
>some flaws in Windows development.
>
>John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)