...that Greer's against monoculture but doesn't explore the effects of what would be needed to overcome that monoculture.
As outlined in the article (assuming anyone reads it), critics of Greer point out that simply adding a new OS into the mix (dare I say Linux?) wouldn't substantially help. You'd have a duoculture instead of a monoculture. How much more difficult would it be for hackers to create a devastating hack? It even extends beyond OS's. Apache has the majority market share for all web servers
When you consider that email and scripted web pages seem to be the most common source of virus entry, we probably don't need thousands of OS, but proabably a handful and a bunch or application choices. Basically what we have now but with a more even level of competition.
As a first step, I would suggest that everyone using MS operating systems stop using Outlook and IE.
As far as integration goes, I think HTML and HTTP, TCP/IP show how easy this can be if we can some up with standards for data formats an
As a first step, I would suggest that everyone using MS operating systems stop using Outlook and IE.
This alone would practically stop 95% of all Internet-based attacks aimed at Windows machines. Which again goes to show that it's not so much the OS that's at risk as it is the applications.
As far as integration goes, I think HTML and HTTP, TCP/IP show how easy this can be if we can some up with standards for data formats and transmission protocols.
I disagree. These protocols do very simple things and none of them are secure. Look at the current problems we're having with SMTP mail. It is an inherently insecure protocol that offers no integrated method to determine the authenticity of the sender, leaving the way open for massive reply-to-spoofing spam companies like we have today. TCP/IP doesn't handle security, either, and neither does HTTP (HTTPS excepted, of course). HTML is still far more limited than even a garden-variety word processor when it comes to displaying complexly-formatted documents. You're giving examples of simple components like nuts and bolts. I'm talking about the whole machine.
I agree with your comments about security with the standards I mentioned. The point I was trying to get across (not clearly), was that platform neutral standards are a GOOD THING. While the current internet standards have their flaws, I don't think we can deny that they are the biggest reason for the economic/cultural success of the internet and not any specific OS or application. Meaning the web browser is important, not IE or Mozilla, etc.
Platform neutral is always a good thing, but it has a tendency to move slower (sometimes much slower) than any one vendor/developer could. What happens then? Well, if companies A through Y are all clinging to the standard, but company Z comes out with a new "killer" feature, companies A through Y could be in serious jeopardy of being upstaged by company Z. And it's not like it doesn't happen, because Microsoft is the penultimate example of it. Look at how the Internet is now arranged around the needs of
Which again goes to show that it's not so much the OS that's at risk as it is the applications.
Most of the problems with IE have come since it became so tightly integrated into the OS. Outlook is pretty well hooked in there as well. But you're right: browser and mail client monoculture are a big part of the problem as well.
Well, Outlook can be integrated, but if you don't buy Office it can't be.
As for IE, at least MS did something smart by disabling IE in the default install of Win2k3. The result? Win2k3 has had far fewer bugs and exploits than any other MS OS at this time in its development life cycle. Go check the bug rate for NT 4.0 and Win2k and you'll see it. Microsoft is improving. Maybe not as fast as we'd all like, but they're certainly moving closer to where we'd like them to be. Now if only they'd revise thei
Maybe you can't buy happiness, but these days you can certainly charge it.
I suppose it's wrong to mention... (Score:5, Interesting)
As outlined in the article (assuming anyone reads it), critics of Greer point out that simply adding a new OS into the mix (dare I say Linux?) wouldn't substantially help. You'd have a duoculture instead of a monoculture. How much more difficult would it be for hackers to create a devastating hack? It even extends beyond OS's. Apache has the majority market share for all web servers
Re:I suppose it's wrong to mention... (Score:1)
When you consider that email and scripted web pages seem to be the most common source of virus entry, we probably don't need thousands of OS, but proabably a handful and a bunch or application choices. Basically what we have now but with a more even level of competition.
As a first step, I would suggest that everyone using MS operating systems stop using Outlook and IE.
As far as integration goes, I think HTML and HTTP, TCP/IP show how easy this can be if we can some up with standards for data formats an
Re:I suppose it's wrong to mention... (Score:2)
This alone would practically stop 95% of all Internet-based attacks aimed at Windows machines. Which again goes to show that it's not so much the OS that's at risk as it is the applications.
As far as integration goes, I think HTML and HTTP, TCP/IP show how easy this can be if we can some up with standards for data formats and transmission protocols.
I disagree. These protocols do very simple things and none of them are secure. Look at the current problems we're having with SMTP mail. It is an inherently insecure protocol that offers no integrated method to determine the authenticity of the sender, leaving the way open for massive reply-to-spoofing spam companies like we have today. TCP/IP doesn't handle security, either, and neither does HTTP (HTTPS excepted, of course). HTML is still far more limited than even a garden-variety word processor when it comes to displaying complexly-formatted documents. You're giving examples of simple components like nuts and bolts. I'm talking about the whole machine.
Re:I suppose it's wrong to mention... (Score:1)
Re:I suppose it's wrong to mention... (Score:2)
Re:I suppose it's wrong to mention... (Score:2)
Most of the problems with IE have come since it became so tightly integrated into the OS. Outlook is pretty well hooked in there as well. But you're right: browser and mail client monoculture are a big part of the problem as well.
Re:I suppose it's wrong to mention... (Score:2)
As for IE, at least MS did something smart by disabling IE in the default install of Win2k3. The result? Win2k3 has had far fewer bugs and exploits than any other MS OS at this time in its development life cycle. Go check the bug rate for NT 4.0 and Win2k and you'll see it. Microsoft is improving. Maybe not as fast as we'd all like, but they're certainly moving closer to where we'd like them to be. Now if only they'd revise thei