Re: Bad security wins out?
- From: "Roger Abell [MVP]" <mvpNoSpam@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 22:40:29 -0700
"S. Pidgorny <MVP>" <slavickp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Arguable both ways. Good engineering either makes stuff better suited for
mass production. Take spacecraft industry as an example.
Yes, good point. Perhaps space industries are poor example, as the
"selectors", those buying, are a very narrow, demanding group.
So good engineering probably will reduce cost. That is just one of the
ways in which it helps to win over inferior products.
Yes, but to counter original premise, the good engineering must
also be quick engineering, else what looks like good engineering
but isn't, but is there early . . .
Part of the premise was that good engineering is not usually as
quick as vaporware with a pretty face.
IT has ts specifics. Unlike automobile, once created, software is
incredibly cheap to manufacture. So it's easy to mass-produce crappy
software. Yet good engineering helps sustaining the business.
What I don't ike about negative statements like "Bad security wins out" is
that you really cannot make any practical decision based on that.
But you can choose not to follow the crowd, be skeptical of the
overly popular - give it a chance but recogized that just because
it has today's popularity or market share does not mean it is the
better of the alternatives. Wasn't that the poster's point?
It take it as one of those Americanisms, the one where skin deep
is enough and makeup over the skin is ok too.
"Joe Richards [MVP]" <humorexpress@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Hmm not sure I agree with that. I would agree with
Well-engineered solutions work better, are more secure, and may be but
probably won't be cheaper.
The best engineered secure solutions in IT overall through the last 20+
years I have seen have not been cheaper by any stretch of the definition.
What seems to win out is cost, usability, flash/glitz, marketing, and
If the best engineered or most secure solutions won out we likely never
would have started working on PCs, we would all be on IBM and DEC
mainframes. Cutler left DEC from his job working on the DEC OSes/RTMs to
write the kernel for NT, it still is short of what was done back then
when he left from the standpoint of many core functionality areas such as
auditing, clustering, etc. Definitely it is heads and shoulders above the
previous Windows stuff though.
OS XYZ could come out tomorrow that smoked every other OS hands down for
security and being technologically superior. However unless the vendor
could market it properly and completely and transparently interoperate
with the current "winners" of the specified space as well as sell for the
same or substantially less they would lose before they even started.
Certainly it would take years to gain any real foothold to move forward
and a new contender just isn't going to have the reserves to do it. This
goes for any product moving into a market that has one or more dominant
Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
S. Pidgorny <MVP> wrote:
I reckon in IT technologically superior products (as long as they can be
mass-manufactured) stand better chance. Well-engineered solution works
better, is more secure, and is often cheaper.
I have never heard of Secustick; Kingston I used for a while, and it's
I'm tired of FUD.
- Prev by Date: Re: Moving Certificate Services
- Next by Date: Re: start menu
- Previous by thread: Re: Moving Certificate Services
- Next by thread: Re: start menu