OSNews

OK, let's all jump in the wagon and make a secure Linux distro, as everybody complains about Windows Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Microsoft freak/guy/addict/fan/whatever, but why See-man-tech/Make-a-fee/Nor-tons/... are so willing to stick with an operating system that does not need them anymore ? Why not securing something else ? If Windows don't wanna be secured/patched/... and users installation gets bloated, I think it would cause quite some harm to Microsoft and people will soon switch faster than expected to another operating system (MacOS X for the most).

What I want to tell is that it's Microsoft's choice to release something secure or not, it's not third-parties' task to do this part of the job. If Microsoft don't wants to open this to other people, I think it's their right, and they'll suffer from it.

I also think there is not 'alternative' to Windows in term of usability, integration, support, ... When you buy your copy of Windows, of course everything isn't as polished as it could be (otherwise XP would have been released in 1985), but you still have a 10000-man task product in the hands. MacOS X is done with less ? Ubuntu is done with less ? So why people are still sticking to Microsoft ? I thought it's currently a case being trialed in EU...

Of course, Windows is such a big mess of code that flaws would ever exists. Which code isn't after all ? It's not by allowing third-party vendor that are as crappy or even more to replace Microsoft's components that you will secure things more. It's forcing Microsoft to stick and respect the standart and pass some unit testing to ensure these are respected. In this case we could ensure the code will behave in such a way that seems secured.

Kochise

Edited 2006-09-28 12:27

>> OK, let's all jump in the wagon and make a secure Linux distro, as everybody complains about Windows <<

There are already dozens of quite secure Linux and *BSD distros, why jump?

>> ... why See-man-tech/Make-a-fee/Nor-tons/... are so willing to stick with an operating system that does not need them anymore ? Why not securing something else ? <<

As no Linux/*BSD distro has, nor will ever have (GPL/BSD licenses guarantee that), anything near of a monopoly, they can, will, and are perfectly allowed to all provide their own security, for example AppArmor, SELinux, etc.
So there's only few cents, if any, to be made in the Linux business for corporations like Symantec.

An operating system should be secure by default - disable security if you want. Not the opposite. Ever bought a car and then went to WalMart for a few safety belts? The security market taken up by the Symantecs of this world was created by MS, and is an anomaly. The judicial oddities that now occur due to MS's monopoly should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.

Why not securing something else ?

There's Norton Internet Security for MacOSX.Although it's pretty straightforward to setup a nice firewall from cli.

But i suspect to see increasingly more ISV's spreading their interests by porting their applications to other platforms.This way any potential customer could notice there's more behind the horizon and their favorite app is working too one way or another.And i mean not only security apps and suites but allso office,graphics,multimedia applications.I think Mandriva for example has done the right thing to make their new release a lot more attractive for early adopters and maybe switchers by including cedega,LinDVD,etc.

Linux has to be better marketed.And in order to do that it needs showstoppers,preferrably facts.Instead of seeking direct confrontation with MS and throwing mudd.

OK, let's all jump in the wagon and make a secure Linux distro, as everybody complains about Windows

No need to. For now, Linux has exactly zero virus in the wild, so no need for Symantec or any other antivirus companies.
Worms and rootkits use vulnerabilities, and these are fixed already by each Linux distro vendor.
So the wagon is gone since a long time, you're just years late.

why See-man-tech/Make-a-fee/Nor-tons/... are so willing to stick with an operating system that does not need them anymore ? Why not securing something else ?

Because Windows is the only OS that is so bad that it needs these kind of software.

If Windows don't wanna be secured/patched/... and users installation gets bloated, I think it would cause quite some harm to Microsoft and people will soon switch faster than expected to another operating system (MacOS X for the most)

BS. You forget one big thing : MS is a monopoly and abuse it.

What I want to tell is that it's Microsoft's choice to release something secure or not, it's not third-parties' task to do this part of the job. If Microsoft don't wants to open this to other people, I think it's their right, and they'll suffer from it.

Agreed. Now, what I don't agree with, is how come to this day, you never complained about these third parties doing the job of MS.

So why people are still sticking to Microsoft ? I thought it's currently a case being trialed in EU...

Same answer as above : monopoly and abuse of monopoly. And no, EU is not trialing that at all. EU fined MS because of that, and still investigating other violations.

Of course, Windows is such a big mess of code that flaws would ever exists. Which code isn't after all ?

The problem of Windows is not that. The problem is that Windows has the worst track record of all OS about flaws, despite the company making it having the most money to put on it.