Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 8th Dec 2004 20:48 UTC, submitted by Nicholas
Editorial I just spent the last several days reading the lengthy essay "Ying and Yang of Security" which explores the origins of security on the personal computer and explains why the current models are outdated. It seems to argue that security systems designed to keep the system safe are relics of the days of mainframes when the system was more important than the user, but for a personal computer the user is more important than the system.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Rubbish Pretty Much
by David on Wed 8th Dec 2004 21:10 UTC

The problem for Microsoft is that they could make their systems a heck of a lot more secure and still not inconvenience the user. How does not having ActiveX designed in the way it is inconvenience a user? Java applets have never functioned the same way in a browser that ActiveX components have, and they are every bit as functional. People can use Thunderbird, Kontact/Kmail and Evolution and read mail in exctly the same way as those using Outlook, and yet the people who develop these non-Outlook e-mail clients think about security in a way that in no way inconveniences the user. These concepts are the results of some hard thinking done on the implications of programming and system design on security.

He then proceeds to make excuses for Microsoft in how they stupidly never thought ahead with what Windows was actually going to be used for and designed, and never comprehended how Windows would have to be built in a networked environment. Microsoft has never understood networks, and in the way they talk about security, sometimes purely, in terms of firewalling and patching they still don't get what is required. Unix and Linux based systems understand today's networked environment that they are in, and have been designed that way for years - period. This idiot also still doesn't seem to get that security doesn't necessarily mean inconveniencing users - you just don't make stupid bone-headed decisions when developing, and you think and plan ahead. He seems to think we should be impressed that Microsoft knocked something up on a whiteboard in five minutes and then spent billions hitting it with a hammer when they realised they had to fix large parts of it.

If this article was written on paper I wouldn't use it for bog roll, and this twit should think twice before producing so much of it.