Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 04:20:49 +0200 From: Roelof Osinga <roelof@nisser.com> To: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> Cc: Jay Nelson <jdn@acp.qiv.com>, cjc26@cornell.edu, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: (fwd) CNN - Crypto expert: Microsoft products leave door opentoNSA - September 3, 1999 (fwd) Message-ID: <37D47681.9F58E0E4@nisser.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909061712570.96788-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Annelise Anderson wrote: > > While Microsoft is denying a "back door" to NSA, that NSA would have > approached them (and Intel, on different matters of course) is well > within NSA's own view of their responsibilities or even obligations. NSA is as NSA does. > What's interesting about this is whether major organizations will > decide that it is too risky to run operating systems for which one > doesn't have sources. That offers great opportunity for Linux and > FreeBSD. Not really. Basically, once a corporation gets to be a certain size there is very little danger of it going bust. IBM, Compaq and Microsoft have that size. Since they're not likely to go belly up any time soon, there is little danger in going with their products. As long as they're around they can be made to improve their products and patch whatever hole there's in them. The same can not be said of all other products, hence there's a danger in going with those products. Business dislikes risks that aren't profitable. Since there's little profit to be made in going with an inherantly risky computing product, business will shy from those products. The more so since there's great cost involved, as in retraining of staff. A cost that far outweighs the savings. As to just how little cryptographic security means to businesses, just consider the fact that the rest of the world takes the 40-bit encryption of US-export products for granted. And has done so for years. That is truly amazing. Even countries part of the NATO pact aren't allowed to have 128 bit encryption and they accept this. Go figure. The same of course holds for a ratty product as Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. Whole branches of industry have standardized on them. Why? > X on these systems can be standardized and made almost as easy to run > for the user as 95/98/NT; Linux/FreeBSD on an AMD K-7 is probably a > reasonable option for which to consider. I'm afraid almost isn't good enough. Nor is the K-7 any consideration for those that couldn't give a damn (pardon my french, but it mirrors the real world, thus harsh, truth). What I've always found to be and still see as the great opportunity for Linux and the xBSD's is the SOHO and small to medium business market. Places where the bottom line comes first. Especially now with Sun's coupe there is the makings for an unbeatable offering. Free source doesn't mean squat to them, but basically gratis does. The more so when offset to MS's Small Business Server, with Office 2K for multiple clients each running a costly client OS. That's a lot of mulah you need to recuperate. Fortunately there are a lot of small businesses out there, as well as underbudgetted departments of large businesses. They can make a difference. Just remember, if you can, the days of the microcomputers. CP/M, MP/M, TurboDOS, Cromix, etc. The very first beginnings were due to small businesses. It was only after IBM got interested and produced the PC - alas not that 68K based lab machine - that big business got interested. Another nice thing about small businesses is that they don't really care about gizmo's and userfriendliness. Not when explained right, that is. Sure, userfriendliness is important, but not in the MS sense. No daft electronic paperclip is going to up sales, no matter how user friendly MS thinks it is. What a small business needs is low cost and high productivity. Still, a thing that is missing from both Linux and the xBSDs is the catering for the utter dimwit. I mean, ever tried installing OpenBSD, say? That is pure 70s and 80s. But even something as, comparatively, slick as FreeBSD still lacks in that department. We are talking about people that don't know about computers, don't care about computers and don't want to both know or care about computers. Something Microsoft understands all too well. Thus, you basically have a choice. Either you do sorta what Microsoft does or you say the heck with it. The former does have severe consequences, though it can be done. Just think going from 3.1 to 3.2 and facing a sendmail diff. No way that can be allowed to happen, since there'll be none among your target audience that can deal with it. Great for the consultants among us, but bad for marketing. Somehow I can't see all people caring enough all the time. Call me cynical <g>. The latter is what we got now. Personally I think that is just right. The price is great, the fun is great. And all the while the inkblot is spreading, albeit slowly. While it is spreading, capability in every regards is increasing. So Microsoft has the slicker product that is used more by the masses. So who cares. We're not the ones with the slogan: "A million lemmings can't be wrong!" ;). Roelof -- Home is where the (@) http://eboa.com/ is. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37D47681.9F58E0E4>