Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:18:43 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Micke Josefsson" <mj@isy.liu.se> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>, <matthew@starbreaker.net> Subject: Re: As usual, I disagree. Message-ID: <023501c178ae$76162550$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <XFMail.20011129090253.mj@isy.liu.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Micke writes: > Any system that is going to be used today must > have a high security level. Careful ... you risk locking UNIX out of the picture if you insist on really high security. Anyway, desktops don't need security any more than a person's wallet needs security in his own home. And even if you provide it, people won't use it. > Any security flaw inside any computer is > going to be exploited sooner or later. > FreeBSD or Windows! Well, Windows NT wins for security, if that's what matters. Windows 9x is no better than FreeBSD (somewhat worse, actually). > Until their box crashes mysteriously. Crashes usually are not frequent enough to be an issue. > Granted, many users don't mind reinstalling > the lot ... I've encountered users who reinstall several times a month, and consider reinstallation a reasonable way to deal with problems. I can't imagine what they do that is useful with their machines, since useful work tends to be difficult to carry out when you rebuild the machine from scratch every two weeks. > ... but I cannot get past a feeling that there > must be something seriously wrong with that approach. Agreed. See above. > With windows, users can easily install any > (crappy) old software and make the system unstable > or worse. Only on Windows 9x. On NT/2000, you must log on as an administrator to install many types of software. > I realise that that the proliferation of the windows > desktop make computers easier to handle for many, > but at the cost of what? The cost is pretty low. It does tend to homogenize the user base and give dominant products an edge, and it requires more hardware, and there are a few other disadvantages--but overall, it's the best deal for the average user. Just look at AOL. > 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. And who is going to properly set it up? > 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? "Malfunctioning in some way or another" does not equate to a BSOD. A lot more time would be lost by average users in working with FreeBSD (or any other flavor of UNIX) than in working with Windows, for equivalent output. Of course, some users live just to play around and deal with malfunctions ... for those users, there is Linux. > Is a registry such a bad idea really? I don't know. It's a single point of vulnerability, and if it is opaque, you need special interfaces to deal with it (and if these fail, you're out of luck). I think it's a wash, myself. However, on FreeBSD, at least I can worry a bit less about damaging the entire system if I accidentally change one file. > /var/db/pkg is a good thing but a more general > approach could very well be beneficial to FreeBSD > as well? I'd be extremely cautious about moving in that direction. That's how Windows ended up where it is today. The problem with friendly, automated interfaces is when they don't work. And it takes a lot of effort to build an inteface such that it never fails to work. > 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. And never vice versa? > I always found that the WPS in OS/2 was the > more easy to use GUI. If you prefer FreeBSD, this is understandable. OS/2 looked way too much like MS-DOS for my tastes, even though it wasn't. > 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. For servers, that is certainly true. For desktops, I have serious doubts. > The world would be better off with open standards on > documents. That already exists, in the form of PDF (and PostScript). > I don't really see why Microsoft don't let the > specs out for the .DOC-format. Because the specs change from one release to the next. The .DOC format is a terribly poor way to exchange documents, and additionally it carries the danger of viruses. > Mee too. Or plain postscript. PS sometimes doesn't render as intended, depending on how you have your rendering software set up. PDF is a stripped descendant of PS that leaves little room for alternate interpretation, so a document prepared with PDF looks pretty much identical no matter where you display or print it. > Until virii strikes again, and again, and again, ... > They realize that they should have thought about it. But they continue to open attachments. 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?023501c178ae$76162550$0a00000a>