RE: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft

• Previous message: Marcus J. Ranum: "Re: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft"
• Maybe in reply to: MHawkins_at_TULLIB.COM: "RE: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft"
• Next in thread: Marcus J. Ranum: "RE: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

To: mjr@ranum.com, breno@gamebox.net
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:03:29 -0500

For the purpose of ending this tit for tat - I offer two possible replies.

Option 1

So why criticize just the semantics I used?

The term "monoculture" is useful for the wider doofusculture.

And for the securilluminati-culture, which I take you must be a member,
well, it is far beneath them to use such a primitive term.

I see your point.

Ofcourse, I said a whole lot more than just my analogy. What happened to any
of your opinions about those other comments? I guess I have to read your
tome but you don't care one hoot about my opinions apart from declaring
analogies invalid due to their not proof of anything. Something I already
know thanks.

I use one analogy and the rest of my opinion is ignored.

Funny, that seems to be what happened to the last bunch of people who tried
using the word monoculture.

Mike H

Option 2

I hate arguing over semantics.

Thanks anyway.

Mike H

Can we move on now?

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus J. Ranum [mailto:mjr@ranum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:45 PM
To: Hawkins, Michael; breno@gamebox.net
Cc: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM -
sorry - Microsoft

MHawkins@TULLIB.COM wrote:
>What do you call a monolithic representation of a predominantly identical
>membership within a group?

Depends on the group, doesn't it? If it's beans, I might say it's a
"monoculture."
If it's computer desktops I might call it "dominant desktop." If it's socks,
I
might say "they're all from the same brand." The point is that terminology
can enlighten and terminology can deceive - intentionally or otherwise. I
think we can talk about the technological implications of Microsoft's
dominance in desktop computing without using analogies that distract us
from the actual discussion.

More succinctly, what about, "Microsoft's dominance in desktop computing"
was unclear? I think my choice of words is not bad, there, and leads us to
other questions such as:
        "Are there security ramifications to ...?"
        "Are there system management ramifications to ...?"
there's no need to bring pseudo-scientific biological analogies into the
discussion.

Now at this point in the discussion it would be expected for me to begin
rattling off specific arguments about the flaws in the "monoculture"
analogy. I'm not going to do that because then we're back to arguing
about an analogy! :) The whole point is that we already have a rich
enough vocabulary in computer security that we don't need to make up
loaded analogies. The paper I gave the URL for earlier has some specific
comments in which I attempt to demonstrate how the analogy is
invalid - so I'll avoid them here.

mjr.
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

• Previous message: Marcus J. Ranum: "Re: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft"
• Maybe in reply to: MHawkins_at_TULLIB.COM: "RE: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft"
• Next in thread: Marcus J. Ranum: "RE: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]