Glass panels: what OS?

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
C J Campbell wrote:

You could not even go back to the days when only
research facilities and the military had Internet access.

Considering the economic damages caused by each major worm run, that might
not be a Bad Thing. We'd lose a *lot*. But it might be better, in the
long run.


Better for whom? I submit that your protests are essentially the same as
those of the priests when Gutenberg started printing Bibles. Your high
priesthood is threatened now that the unanointed masses have access to
computers and networks. The reaction was violent when personal computers
were first introduced. The IT priesthood constantly warned of the dangers of
personal computing. Most big corporations and government agencies adopted
policies prohibiting employees from using anything but the company
mainframe. Never mind that the IT priests could not deliver what people
wanted: their own spreadsheets and word processors. Employees had to meet
off site in secret to get real work done on their personal computers.

After thirty plus years, nothing has changed. The ancient priesthood still
tries to hold onto its power, railing against the dangers of Microsoft and
Windows and, yes, personal computing. The days of the priests are numbered.
I think that is a Good Thing.

Still, there's a third alternative: safe computing.

Again, safe for whom? Apparently the high priests are concerned only for
their own safety, ie, jobs.


People don't mind using mechanics or A&Ps because we're told it's
necessary.

As a matter of fact, many people do mind.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:09:50 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
Still, there's a third alternative: safe computing.

Again, safe for whom? Apparently the high priests are concerned only for
their own safety, ie, jobs.


Actually, it's the "high priests" which are trying to hold the line
against safe computing because it's a very high, steep, and sliperly
slope. It's the general public and CTO-Q-public which seems to be pushing
the line for that.


Greg

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
Still, there's a third alternative: safe computing.

Again, safe for whom? Apparently the high priests are concerned only for
their own safety, ie, jobs.

Safe for the general Internet-using public. Is it too much to ask that
operating systems designed for personal use on personal computers aren't
set up by default to be running a huge bunch of exploitable server
processes?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

C J Campbell wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
C J Campbell wrote:

You could not even go back to the days when only
research facilities and the military had Internet access.

Considering the economic damages caused by each major worm run, that
might
not be a Bad Thing. We'd lose a *lot*. But it might be better, in the
long run.


Better for whom?

You'd have to ask the economists that produce these numbers.

I submit that your protests are essentially the same as
those of the priests when Gutenberg started printing Bibles. Your high
priesthood is threatened now that the unanointed masses have access to
computers and networks.

That's foolish. Once upon a time, I was a software engineer with a nice job
that paid reasonably well. Then, this tool I'd used for year exploded in
popularity. As a result, my income surged. Despite the "hard times" and
"burst of the bubble" neither I, nor my other "long time in technology"
friends, were adversely impacted.

In other words, the exploion of personal computing, esp. involving
networking (my particular area of interest has always been in network
computing) has been *wonderful* for me.

So by what am I threatened?

No, what I see is a picture larger than myself. I see people that have
years of work lost because they don't do proper backups. I see people that
have monies and "identities" stolen do to poor system security (ie. the
latest IE spoof, or just the sniffers installed at a Kinkos). I see
reports of millions+ in damages cited for each of these major worm runs.

All of these are, in theory, preventable. But this would require education.
This would require that people understand that these are not toasters, but
machines of enough complexity that ongoing care and maintenance is
necessary. Unfortunately, that education could work against some company
bottom lines, and so a lie is put out instead.

Is the cost worth the benefit? I cannot say. So I *don't* say. But I
certain don't opine that the introduction of the Internet to the masses is
an unmixed good. There has been a definite cost. Worse still, it is a
cost that need not have been paid.

If you're looking for a priesthood protecting its own, I think you're
looking in the wrong direction.

- Andrew