Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Tue 31st Mar 2009 06:30 UTC
Many have gotten antsy the past months about the Conficker worm, and all with good reason. Though the worm hasn't done much of anything (yet) except spread like the plague, it's infectious if one doesn't have his or her Windows operating system up-to-date with the most recent security updates. The worm is supposed to execute on April 1st, and the computer world is holding its breath to see if a disaster comparable to the hyped-up supposed Y2K doomsday will ensue or if it's just someone's idea of a sick April Fool's Day joke.
Thread beginning with comment 356007
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Yet another reason....
by koen.lefever on Tue 31st Mar 2009 11:39
in reply to "RE: Yet another reason...."
Member since:2007-07-05
RE[3]: Yet another reason....
by -oblio- on Tue 31st Mar 2009 13:28
in reply to "RE[2]: Yet another reason...."
Member since:2008-05-27
RE[2]: Yet another reason....
by Laurence on Tue 31st Mar 2009 16:15
in reply to "RE: Yet another reason...."
Member since:2007-03-26
If I can lose 1 million dollars through security breaches, but I have to spend 2 million to make cross-platform applications
Most applications can be built cross-platform without too much expense (particularly if you use cross-platform toolkits like QT or a byte-code language like Java).
and 1 extra million for maintaining a network of various platforms (as compared to a network made up of machines with the same platform),
Use open standards and it shouldn't take much more effort to have a multi-platform network.
I, myself, run a network comprised of Solaris, Linux, XP and Vista machines and each of them work perfectly on the network.
In fact, most networks should consist of a range of platforms as you wouldn't want a secure network server running the same OS and application suites as the users desktops. Even if it's just different platforms within Microsofts own product range.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-05-27
String majorPlatform = "XYZ";
String[] minorPlatforms = {"ABC", "DEF"};
if(costOfMultiplePlatformsMaintenance + costOfMultiplatformApplicationsDevelopment > costOfLossesThroughSecurityBreaches)
{
selectMajorPlatform(majorPlatform);
spreadMajorPlatform(majorPlatform);
startNetworkEffects(majorPlatform);
pushIntoNiches(minorPlatforms);
}
If I can lose 1 million dollars through security breaches, but I have to spend 2 million to make cross-platform applications and 1 extra million for maintaining a network of various platforms (as compared to a network made up of machines with the same platform), why would I ever chose the multi-platform option?