Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:02:53 +0100 (CET) From: Micke Josefsson <mj@isy.liu.se> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, matthew@starbreaker.net Subject: Re: As usual, I disagree. Message-ID: <XFMail.20011129090253.mj@isy.liu.se> In-Reply-To: <01b501c17891$a5f56b40$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29-Nov-2001 Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Matthew writes: > [snip] > > Windows is not intended to be a secure system. The security requirements of > desktop systems are very modest, since they should normally be behind > firewalls. > I beg to differ here. Any system that is going to be used today must have a high security level. Specially so, since a dominating system, such as windows, will have to deal, not only with games, but with more or less confidential data. Not all companies enjoy seeing their internal documents distributed freely via email. So, while perhaps not intended to be a secure system - it should be! Firewalls do a bit of the job but they cannot do everything needed to protect an internal net. The "local" security of the individual client machines also matter. There is no way to get around that. Any security flaw inside any computer is going to be exploited sooner or later. FreeBSD or Windows! >> Windows insists on abstracting everything from >> the user, so that the user is mostly insulated >> from the consequences of her actions. > > That's exactly what most Windows users prefer. Until their box crashes mysteriously. Granted, many users don't mind reinstalling the lot, but I cannot get past a feeling that there must be something seriously wrong with that approach. > >> If I need to get under the hood for any reason, >> even to indulge my curiosity, then I have to >> get past all the bondage and discipline built >> into Windows. > > Most users never want to get under the hood. True. That is why FreeBSD uses root versus any other user for administrative tasks. "Normal users" should not need to have any knowledgde of what is going on inside the computer - below KDE or whatever - they should only have to deal with the programs they need, to get their work done. Tinkering with the system is a root-issue. With windows, users can easily install any (crappy) old software and make the system unstable or worse. For a home/game-box this is OK by me, but for serious work I find this totally unacceptable. I realise that that the proliferation of the windows desktop make computers easier to handle for many, but at the cost of what? A properly setup FreeBSD box is also easy to use for the normal tasks: opening/sending emails, starting a word processor, enter data into spreadsheets etc. A recent swedish survey concluded that 2 work-hours every week per person on an average is lost due to computers malfunctioning in some way or another. Why is it that BSODs are so known? Because they appear too often! > [snip] > >> Installing or removing even the most trivial >> applications requires proprietary automated >> tools like InstallShield because of the >> Registry, a beast nasty enough to make Great >> Cthulhu look as cuddly as a kitten in a basket. > > Yes, but from a user standpoint, it is much more ergonomic than in UNIX. Is a registry such a bad idea really? /var/db/pkg is a good thing but a more general approach could very well be beneficial to FreeBSD as well? Of course when it breaks that is not good, but there should be strategies with backups and such. > >> Quite frankly, dealing with Windows on a home >> desktop, or even a work desktop, is more >> aggravation than most of us get paid for. > > You are projecting the attitudes of many IT professionals onto the user > community at large. But only a very tiny fraction of Windows users--and > desktop users in general--works in IT. But many of the users still suffer from the deficiencies built right into the system. On numerous occasions have I had to help out users with both minor and major tasks that were sooo easily done in FreeBSD and sooo difficult in windows. Most of them only emplyed some sed - and a little bit of awk on the command line. Perhaps my background has helped me there a bit, but doing these tasks in windows just seemed not likely. > > Most of the characteristics you see as drawbacks are seen as advantages by the > huge majority of non-IT users. > >> Frankly, it sounds like you're religiously >> devoted to Windows on the desktop. > > Not religiously devoted, just objective enough to recognize that Windows is > the best desktop solution at this time. I always found that the WPS in OS/2 was the more easy to use GUI. I find it much, much, much better than any X-ish windowmanager I have come across and much, much, much smoother than the Windows GUI. (Bordering to religion here...) > >> When I argue that FreeBSD is better for desktop >> use than Windows, I argue from roughly five >> years of self-taught experience. > > Why don't you argue that FreeBSD is better for server use? It is. Too. > At least then you > are not fighting a losing battle. Or must FreeBSD be used for _everything_ in > order to satisfy you? No. But it can (and IMHO, should) be used more than it is today. Some shops will definately benefit from Windows but many would do better or equal using FreeBSD. >[snip] >> To begin with, a significant portion of the >> 100K apps you mention are games. > > So? The purpose of a computer is to do what its user wants it to do. Lots of > users like to play games. Which is exactly where Windows fits in. For work however, FreeBSD is an alternative. (read that sentence the way I meant it....:) > >> Many of the others are either shareware or >> freeware ... > > Just like FreeBSD? > >> ... much of it as bug-ridden as a 30-year old >> hooker from Queens. > > Are you saying that freeware is likely to contain bugs? What does this imply > for FreeBSD, then? > >> I think it'd be fair to say that the average >> Windows user might use 100 out of the 100K >> Windows apps you mention. > > And in many cases, not a single one of those 100 applications exists in a UNIX > version. > >> Most of these apps have BSD (or GNU/Linux) >> counterparts that are free as in beer if not >> free as in speech. > > "Counterparts" aren't good enough. When you need to exchange Microsoft Word > files with someone, you need Microsoft Word, not just any generic word > processor. > >> Quite frankly, there's no reason for formatting >> a document using MS' proprietary *.DOC format >> when they look just as good in properly formatted >> HTML. Hear, hear! There is nothing that makes proprietary document formats automatically superior. The world would be better off with open standards on documents. I don't really see why Microsoft don't let the specs out for the .DOC-format. If the format is good and widely accepted they would still sell MS Word. > > I suggest that people send me documents in PDF. Mee too. Or plain postscript. > >> Now, if I went by market figures, I could conclude >> that the Backstreet Boys are a better band than >> Iron Maiden They most emphatically are not. Maiden rulez! >, and the Britney Spears is a better >> singer than Sarah Brightman. > > I'm not familiar with any of these persons or organizations, so I cannot > comment. > >> Now, why should people put up with the security >> holes and the general incompetence surr > > What? > > Anyway, most desktop users care nothing about security. Until virii strikes again, and again, and again, ... They realize that they should have thought about it. > [lots snipped] ---------------------------------- Michael Josefsson, MSEE mj@isy.liu.se This message was sent by XFMail running on FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE ---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20011129090253.mj>