A Rant On “Real Security” And Windows
The evidence shows that Microsoft’s marketing department has not done particularly well with Windows Vista. Almost every story you see about Vista is a negative one. Even I, as a Linux user, think that Vista is better than its reputation. But Microsoft’s marketing is not always a failure, it appears.
Recently, the story broke that Citibank blocks Linux users out of its website, even though the website works just fine in Linux. If you want my opinion on this sort of thing, you can look at this post. To summarize, I don’t think that these sorts of cases where Linux is “blocked” are malicious in any way. Instead, they are simply an attempt to save money by not doing quality assurance on another platform or just plain laziness. What bothers me about this particular case is not the act of blocking Linux users, but the way the customer support responded.
While responses varied, one manager said that the website only supported “secure operating systems,” meaning Windows. Another support person said that only Windows offered “real security.” I don’t even need to know what to say except that Microsoft’s marketing team should be having a party. If they have people convinced that Windows offers superior security to Mac or Linux, that is one of the best marketing jobs I have ever seen.
Let me put it this way: the number one reason I do not run Windows is that I don’t want to think about security all the time. Perhaps I am just paranoid, but I don’t think any modern operating system offers “real security,” let alone Windows. I challenge anyone to tell me why Windows has “real security.” I recognize that it is perfectly possible and do-able to keep Windows virus-free and that any day a virus could appear for Mac or Linux, but Windows does not offer “real security.”
Sorry if this was a “duh” post, but I had to do it.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Windows is planning to launch windows 7 as the new OS. Hopw for a better future :).
July 29th, 2008 at 4:19 am
It’s annoying when someone offers only a Windows and/or Mac application for a particular service, or only offers access to Windows/Mac machines. It’s not common, though. 98% of the things that I would ever care to do on a computer I can do with Linux.
Recently I wanted to use a VPN to connect to my university (so I could access subscription-based scientific journals). Of course, the university offers Windows and Mac clients, not Linux. So I installed vpnc and connected to the IP address listed on the web site. It asked for an IPSec ID, IPSec secret, then asked for my username and password. Of course, I don’t know what the IPSec ID and secret are. They are probably built into the VPN clients. The IT department wouldn’t give them to me. I *know* I could access the network if they did.
These are the kinds of walls we bump up against in Linux. 99% of the time when a product or service is not available in Linux, it’s not for lack of interest or ability on the part of the open source community. It’s due to artificial barriers that *others* erect.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:57 am
couldn’t agree more
and not to mention that security is a billion $ industry and ms and their partners are gaining a lot of money by not making windows too secure.
antivirus companies are also the main sponsors for virus creators, the more malware the better the business opportunities
instead of making windows more secure they will try every means to making malware available for mac and linux (lets see how that goes..)
the day ms thinks about the user and not their pockets is the day Hell freezes
July 29th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Mehul - Don’t count on it. At least not on the security side.