SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Bryan Lunduke at Network World calls out what other mainstream media have been too timid, or bought out, to call out. He starts by pointing out that choosing Microsoft Windows for your organization should get you fired and that if you haven't already replaced Windows, across the board, you absolutely stink at your job.
There. Finally the topic is broached in mainstream media and a proper discussion can now start among decision makers who can arrange complete migrations to GNU/Linux, Chrome/Linux, one of the BSDs, or a combination of them.
As Microsoft security problems continue to escalate since even the pre-networked, MS-DOS days, managers and front-line grunts will find themselves increasingly culpable for selecting unviable software, such as Microsoft Windows. If they wish to pay big bucks for maintenance, there are plenty of companies around to participate in the money. Canonical, Red Hat, M:Tier are just a sampling.
[Ed. Note: I debated whether or not to run this story — in some respects it's just the Windows vs *nix argument all over again. Also, there are proprietary programs which are critical for certain industries which currently only run on Windows. On the other hand, gaining a mention like this in the more mainstream media, does that mean we are approaching an inflection point? Witness the increased displeasure with Windows 10's telemetry and the difficulty in completely blocking it. What programs do you use that are only available on Windows? What keeps you from moving to another OS? --martyb]
(Score: 1) by jonathan on Friday June 30 2017, @07:35PM (6 children)
I find Bryan is glossing over some of the points as being moot and I find he is totally wrong about it.
While Linux and others are often found to be more secure, nothing is full proof. If Linux ran 95% of the desktops of the world, many faults would be exploited. The fact that Linux is in the 2% range isn't very enticing to people wanting to get money. Linux to some degree has security through obscurity.
Also, if Linux ran on 95% of the worlds PC, who says all comporations would run up to date versions? I could imagine a situation where some IT with little time have a functional Fedora release that is 10 releases behind or CentOS or some other distro that is old and easily compromised. After all, many computers affected are still on Windows XP. Just because there is no cost to update to a newer version of Windows doesn't mean there is no expenses to upgrade. Techs need to be paid to do the work of not just installing but testing to make sure it's compatible and companies often aren't willing to to put in the money.
Switching over to Linux isn't always as easy as it may sound either. I work in a company that has many add-ins for Excel that are made inhouse. Those won't translate over to Libre office without serious work. Why would a company invest to migrate over when Windows and Office do the job already? They also have to make sure it works when sending to clients. Libre Office is fine for the basics but when dealing with complex spreedsheets. Not so sure.
Try also to imagine someone trying to troubleshoot a spreedshet sent to a client generated in LibreOffice and opening all wrong in Excel. If you know the features in Libre Office that were used, you may not know it's equivalent in Excel. Why would a company take that risk?
There is a saying that goes 'No one ever got fired for buying a Microsoft product'. Why would they when everyone else does? No Bryan. No one should get fired for purchasing Windows today. People should get fired to still being on old versions such as Windows XP in 2017. It's been unsupported for 3 years. No excuses if that thing is still connected to the network and doing mission critical work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @08:51PM (5 children)
If Linux ran 95% of the desktops of the world, many faults would be exploited
Would those folks have to wait until the second Tuesday of next month to get the patches?
...or wait for 3 months?
...or wait for 6 months?
...or until Doomsday--with nothing ever appearing?
If you're going to talk about security and support, do note that MICROS~1 always comes in dead last.
...then there are M$'s "critical" updates that are only critical to M$'s thoroughly corrupt business model.
...then there is M$'s latest all-or-nothing updates thing.
...then there's the lost time when Windoze seizes control of your system to apply those updates.
...and this on top of EULAware that wasn't designed with a security model in mind from the start.
You can have that shit.
I don't have that kind of patience/tolerance.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by jonathan on Friday June 30 2017, @09:44PM (4 children)
...or wait for 3 months?
...or wait for 6 months?
...or until Doomsday--with nothing ever appearing?
Try 11 years for a patch. [engadget.com]
I'm not saying that Windows is perfect but seriously, check your Linux fanboi views at the door dude. I do believe it's more secure but not so much that no one can exploit it.
You can have that shit.
I don't have that kind of patience/tolerance.
You had time to respond so I doubt that statement.
I also doubt you're in charge of a huge company's IT Mr "Anonymous Coward". You're not the focus of that article so who cares about you?
Also your a jerk.
(Score: 2) by https on Friday June 30 2017, @10:14PM (3 children)
Your "11 years" is imaginary. How long was it between the time it was known as a problem and the time a patch was available?
Hint: Because I update my systems regularly, I found out about it first from reading apt-listchanges, not from the news.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 1) by jonathan on Friday June 30 2017, @10:59PM (2 children)
It's not imaginary.
Neither is this one. [threatpost.com]
Or that one. [threatpost.com]
You know what is imaginary? Your zealot belief that Linux is perfect.
(Score: 2) by https on Saturday July 01 2017, @12:47AM (1 child)
You're ascribing a belief to me that (i) I don't have, and (ii), is nowhere in evidence. Who's the jerk here again?
Microsoft's response times are most easily measured in weeks. Linux, hours. This is a separate issue from how long a vulnerability has existed unnoticed (at least, unnoticed officially) in whatever OS interests you - and Windows, like Linux, has had a number of whoppers in that department.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 1) by jonathan on Saturday July 01 2017, @01:24AM
You're ascribing a belief to me that (i) I don't have,
And I and others care about your belief because...???
and (ii), is nowhere in evidence.
Then learn to read. I put the links in and I'll take what they say over some stranger responding in an insulting manner.
Who's the jerk here again?
You are. I didn't start this whole bashing BS. If you had an once of morals you'd apoligize. I'd then accept and we'd continue with a civil discussion if there was anything more to say.
That would be quite a concept actually.
Microsoft's response times are most easily measured in weeks. Linux, hours. This is a separate issue from how long a vulnerability has existed unnoticed (at least, unnoticed officially) in whatever OS interests you - and Windows, like Linux, has had a number of whoppers in that department.
That's exactly the point. They all have vulnerabilities and some went unnoticed for years. But that means unoticed by those who program the OS. Someone may have known and exploited without people's knowledge until it got reported. No way to tell.
If you had read the articles you'd note that Linus himself tried to fix one a few ears ago without success. That's not repaired in a matter of hours.