Security threats Toolkit

Story: Microsoft OneCare gets a bashing

• 
• 

I have seen comments like these so many times it hurts my brain to think they are general opinion. And I am speaking to both sides on this.

"Microsoft should not charge to fix their software."
They're not. The fact is, the Windows Update service is *free*. What they are charging for is the same thing other companies like Norton and Symantec do: you being lazy. The fact is, you wouldn't run into problems with viruses and antispyware (except very rarely) if you took the appropriate amount of precaution against them. You can find similar software for free. Microsoft is charging to do the legwork for you.

"Microsoft shouldn't have the financial incentive to release faulty software."
Think about it: all commercial software suffers from this same conflict of interest eventually. How else are commercial software companies to make money except by giving you an incentive to come back to them? The large difference is whether Microsoft or other companies intentionally introduce flaws in their software which they charge you to fix. Despite my negative feelings toward Microsoft, I seriously doubt this is the case. The fact that there are flaws in software is a fact of life, whether or not that software is free.

"*NIX is much more secure, bug-free, blah blah blah, ..."
No. *NIX is just different, and with different characteristics. While it is harder to rootkit or otherwise incapacitate the average home *NIX desktop (no network servers of any kind) than a similarly-equipped Windows desktop, most users have at least one server, and it is also harder to actually secure a *NIX desktop because you have to actually know what you are doing (or know someone else who does). It's a matter of inherent properties in the respective designs of the softwares, not a difference in quality.

Now, on the other side of the debate...

"Who are you going to call if your *NIX gets rootkitted?"
This is truly an absurd rhetorical question. You call the people who sold you the support, of course, or you call an expert you know - this is, of course, if you are not capable of fixing the problem yourself. The vast majority of *NIX users are quite capable of fixing the problems they encounter by themselves, or are capable of learning how to do so. Or there is *commercial* or *free* software for *NIX that can usually perform the task given some mechanism of standardization. The users who cannot get a problem fixed in *NIX usually aren't trying or simply do not have an adequate resource network to be using *NIX. That's a fact of free software - if you use it, *you* take responsibility for it. If you're not willing to do that, then you must instead be willing to pay for your software or support.

"All free software is inherently insecure..."
And you think software of which you not only do not but *cannot* see the internals of is secure? It's a matter of philosophy here, nothing else. Open Source software is for the professional or user with a good resource network (or the willingness to learn). It is not for the average "know-nothing" user. If the average "know-nothing" user really wants to use *NIX, then he or she should also purchase the optional support for it from a respectable and reputable company. And no, it does *not* usually cost less for support in *NIX. That's a pipe dream. I don't use free software because it is free - I use it *because I can* and it is free.

"*NIX software is usually of low-quality, buggy, has bad support, etc., blah blah, blah, ..."
So is Windows software. Actually, they're rather comparable in quality, in my opinion. And as for support, we've already beaten that one into the ground, I think. One thing of important note, however - if you *do* find a bug or secutiy hole in actively-supported Open Source software, you can usually find the fix and apply it *much* (on the order of days if not weeks) faster than with its closed-source and commercial co

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread