canopic jug writes:
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]
Nobody needs the recent ransomware attacks to make that argument - in fact it is distracting from the core problem. It is common sense, that software from an American company can not be trusted with personal data or infrastructure.
That's because there's Linux ransomware too: https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/web-host-agrees-to-pay-1m-after-its-hit-by-linux-targeting-ransomware/ [arstechnica.com]
Yeah they didn't apply updates, but neither did most of the affected Windows users.
Once you have the same amount of noob users there's no big difference in security in practice. The Mac bunch are starting to get an increase in malware. Will take them a while to be as huge targets, but ransomware authors might start thinking that Mac users are more willing to pay for stuff... Currently whether it's Windows, Mac or Linux; once you run the wrong thing or your browser/doc viewer gets pwned, your docs, photos and other data can be accessed by the payload/malware which could be ransomware.
There's stuff like AppArmor for Linux but is it enabled by default and restrictive enough to protect against ransomware?
Windows might even become more secure for normal users than competing OSes if they succeed in this: https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/29/15892658/microsoft-windows-10-controlled-folders-feature [theverge.com]
...FOR SEVEN YEARS.
If you're going to offer software as a service, the very least you should be doing is- keep the software updated- sandbox the apps- install and configure SELinux/AppArmor
Those Korean schlubs are complete nitwits.It didn't matter at all what brand they were using.It was only a matter of time before they got pwned.
This points to the reason that a professional license is required in order to be allowed to do a lot of jobs in a lot of places.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
To consider either crApple, or M$ an 'American' corporation is naïve at best. Large corporations are extra-national, taking advantage of whatever nationality makes them the most money or saves them the biggest dollars. Just as any OSS project is supported by a very international group of volunteers.