Re: controversial paper
From: Tom St Denis (tomstdenis_at_iahu.ca)
Date: 09/27/03
- Next message: Ernst Lippe: "Re: controversial paper"
- Previous message: Ben Mord: "Re: controversial paper"
- In reply to: Ben Mord: "Re: controversial paper"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: controversial paper"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:56:58 GMT
"Ben Mord" <benmord@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bl2fs0$7ions$1@ID-101018.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Tom St Denis" <tomstdenis@iahu.ca> wrote in message
> news:Ag3db.8652$3r1.8059@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> > "Ben Mord" <benmord@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:bl2evg$7gkfi$1@ID-101018.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > Interesting.
> > >
> > > This seems to be a controversial paper:
> > > http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf
> > >
> > > Published here:
> > > http://www.ccianet.org/index.php3
> >
> > It's another bitch and whine paper about windows co-authored by the
> > mouth-piece Bruce S.
> >
> > What a big surprise.
>
> Wow, one minute! You must be a fast reader! ;-)
I read the first couple pages then skimed it. To me the paper reads of a
smathering of /. postings...
Anyways too bad about Geer but I still think the paper is a waste of effort.
It doesn't actually come to the heart of the problem which is that people
are jumping at sales and not at training. I mean how many people walk
around with their 1 month diploma and consider themselves computer experts?
The problem they are talking about won't be fixed by swapping MSFT software
out for another vendor or vendors.
If people took a step back, really did training and understood the problems
out there then we wouldn't have the "language of the day" and "technology of
the week" stuff we are into now. As an aside [example] look at XML.
Everyone jumps on XML as the next best thing but it really doesn't provide
anything useful. It's just a friggin text file but it's the hallmark of
MSFTs latest commercials, etc, etc, etc.
Same can be said for languages like ruby, python, ASP and all this ".net"
and C# crap. Look at the core applications people really depend on such as
GNU userland tools, GNU CC, the Linux kernel, etc, all [or virtually all]
written in C because the designers were out to solve the problems not tote
the latest in programming technology. Now look at the dime-a-dozen
shareware applications for windows. All [poorly] written in VB.NET because
they want to make money not actually solve problems.
Anyways, the problem the paper failed to address is that training is
important. Fundamentally windows can be a secure OS if setup properly.
Personally I tend to prefer GNU/Linux but Windows works for me too.
Tom
- Next message: Ernst Lippe: "Re: controversial paper"
- Previous message: Ben Mord: "Re: controversial paper"
- In reply to: Ben Mord: "Re: controversial paper"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: controversial paper"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
