🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <lpRl6.3966$S25.57007@typhoon.sonic.net>, 
spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us (John Navas) writes...
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
> 
> On the contrary -- just as I applaud and welcome safe tires, I would
> applaud and welcome safe computing.  Properly implemented, it would not
> be limiting -- that's a common misconception.


I more or less agree -- the problem of course is that from the
perspective of the marketing people, security issues mustn't be 
emphasized because of the fear that it will scare away potential
buyers.  I'm convinced this has a lot to do with Microsoft's 
attitude on security.

Much of the focus of Windows and IE revolves around coming
up with features which either make the PC more TV-like/
entertaining, or which optimize the ability for various
entities to market to users. (witness many of the horrible
IE/Outlook security problems which were directly descended
from "convenience" features, or features designed to entice
webmasters to write IE-specific HTML because they can do 
"cool things" on their pages, or features designed to entice
MIS people in companies to standardize on IE because of its
ability to be "automated" - and insecure as a side-effect.)

Therefore I'm not convinced (at least in Microsoft's case)
that they will ever adopt the right attitude in this respect
because to do so would be counterproductive from a marketing
standpoint. (unless and until consumers start clamoring for
it, which *could* happen sometime in the future.. maybe after
a few high-profile people get hacked :-)

All that being said, I still think that if you choose to
climb a rock, jump out of a plane, or scuba-dive, you should 
be aware of the risks involved and how to mitigate them.  To 
say it's "someone else's problem" is stretching the truth 
just a bit.


 
> In <RPDl6.2610$IV6.161273@news1.news.adelphia.net>, "Oberiss"
> <oberiss@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Yet if all computers were to be made specifically to protect a "typical home
> >user" from a security breach, therefore limiting the users' ability to
> >customize and configure and do whatever they want to thier own pc, you would
> >be the first to cry for your good ol' "defective design" computer back.
> 
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
> >news:zgBl6.3896$S25.55135@typhoon.sonic.net...
> 
> >> With all due respect, this is a matter of defective design, not cockpit
> >> error.  When someone gets seriously injured because Firestone tires
> >> separated, you blame Firestone, not the hapless driver that was
> >> unfortunate enough to buy and use them.  The problem here is that
> >> computers being sold to average people are inherently and inexcusably
> >> insecure.  Average people shouldn't have to be security experts to use
> >> computers on the Internet any more than they should have to be
> >> automotive experts to drive a car on the road.


-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization       [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium-------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces:  pjkunet64 @  ekahuna27 . com    *
*      Vision impaired?  Try taking off the blacklist-colored glasses.       *
* Simple answers are for simple minds.  Try a new way of looking at things.  *