__/ [ B Gruff ] on Monday 02 October 2006 14:08 \__
> Hardly unbiased, considering who is saying it - but there again, the MS
> view is hardly likely to be balanced:-
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5399534.stm
>
> "Microsoft seems to envision a world in which one giant company not only
> controls the systems that drive most computers around the world but also
> the security that protects those computers from viruses and other online
> threats," the advert said"
>
> "Only one approach protecting us all: when it fails, it fails for 97% of
> the world's desktops."
Too bad the article doesn't mention:
* The factor of cost. People are being charged for something that is sold as
a feature rather than a vital trait.
* The system is shipped in defective form. Moreover, there is incentive for
making it more defective. It encourages purchases by elevating risks that
punish everyone on the Web.
We may soon hear stories from poor countries where people just cannot
/afford/ to protect their computer (let aside the ability to afford
proprietary software that's not pirated). This has an impact on everyone. A
secure Internet is seen as a costly surplus, so let everyone suffer until
Microsoft has vacuumed a pile of gold.
|
|
