The Paul Thurrott virus
A couple months back I was reading through the comments of a juicy article on Paul Thurrott's website, either Supersite for Windows or his Internet Nexus. It may have been his review of OS X Tiger -- I didn't bookmark it and for the life of me I can't find this article again, but it was followed by a generalized Mac vs. Windows commentary war.
In the battle that ensued, one of the pro-Mac comments was something like: "two words: zero viruses*" or "no viruses on a Mac, 'nuff said" or some variation on that theme. Paul himself rebutted the comment with something to the effect of**:
In other words, since so few people use them, virus programmers don't waste their time writing viruses for the Mac. I was floored when I read this. What a whopper! First, the fact alone that he makes no acknowledgment about the zero-virus computing environment on a Mac or the impact this has on the world and its computer users, to me says very little about Paul's (supposedly) unbiased ability to appraise information technology... of any kind. Second, by saying this, Paul makes an assumption that only a Microsoft zealot could make; the assumption of course inherent in his words is that Apple would do nothing about the surmounting threat of these WMD (viruses) on the Mac platform, that they would respond reactively to the problem instead of proactively, and that the inevitable result would be just as many viruses (100,000+) on the Mac as on a Windows PC.
This tells me that Paul Thurrot is very shortsighted. He underestimates and shows little regard to the company that has always led the way in the personal computer industry and has supplied just about every innovation that the company he seems to love so poorly and continuously attempts to reproduce (but markets so well). In essence, Paul assumes Apple would fall prey to the same problems that plague Windows because he cannot take view of technology from any place except the vantage point of a Microsoft mentality. What else can be expected? His entire world is Microsoft and the sub-minimum-level-of quality products they produce.
Paul's response also brought up some other feelings in me...
Because of his grand reputation as the source for most anything "Microsoft" and "Windows IT", many people respect what he has to say. And with the kind of following Paul Thurrott has, his comments have a way of assuaging the pain some+ Windows users feel about continuing to use (and perhaps considering to leave behind) a product that is less secure++. In my opinion his words come dangerously close to saying flat out: "continue to invest in Windows even though it's inferior", simply "because more people are using it".
As a consequence of this dogma, his readership is massaged into thinking they should trust that "Big Brother" (Microsoft in general, but Anti-virus/Anti-spyware/Security vendors as well) will develop new defences to keep us 'safe' from all of the viruses, scumware and other shit Windows allows through its pores.
I don't know how or why anyone working in IT would downplay or at the very least would not highlight the significance of a virus & pest-free environment. Not long ago when I was an IT Manager I hated the constant cleanup that was necessary on Windows PCs, no matter how much they were locked down~.
Hmmmm, any doctors out there thinking this sounds a lot like the pharmaceutical industry? Intelligent people know if the medical establishment aka industry was actually about medicine and, of all things health, it would never have grown into the multi-trillion dollar industry that it is; hospitals wouldn't be growing so fat, and more doctors might start to use their brains again. It's obvious that the medical industry as it exists today is very much not about health, and we are getting sicker and sicker because of it.
Likewise, with our computers. Is my computer experience as a Windows user better because I have to spend an extra $75/year on resource-sucking Security Suite bundles? Do any of us want to? No, but your computer wouldn't last five minutes without one if you use Windows. This is not unlike the current state of the conventional medical establishment; in our Microsoft Windows world the emphasis (and obsession) is on the anti-viral, the anti-pest, and not the computer's "innate" ability to prevent these infections. Likewise in conventional medicine, the emphasis is on drugs and not using natural methods or one's natural ability to heal and cure disease. You see the ads on TV all the time for the flu-vaccine, blood-sugar and cholesterol lowering drugs, anti-virals, athritis meds, and the list goes on (they don't bother with antibiotics anymore -- no money in those). The exact same theme goes for computers too:
...when the emphasis could be on using a healthier computer, one that was designed first, or rather, one that was actually designed; one that uses an operating system steeped in time-honoured traditions (37 years and counting), and one with an interface that gives you the human centre stage.
Sadly this hasn't been the case for about fifteen or so years in the computer industry (much longer in conventional medicine), but things are starting to change in both arenas now. It's very interesting that Computers and Medicine, two industries that seemingly have nothing to do with each other on their own, actually have a lot in common, share similar histories, and are changing in the same way. Guess what else? The only ones vital (and still laughing) about all of this are the big security software vendors, like Computer Associates, Macaffee, and Symantec -- the two latter of which dominate the home PC market. In my opinion they're loving life, sitting back and thinking: "Wow, our customers really are fucking stupid, I mean all they have to do is use a better computer and they don't."
Think about it like this. Every time a virus author or spyware maker puts out a new threat that exploits the crumbling foundation of Microsoft Windows, they mock its poor, poor construction. I think if these "programmers" were to tell you the truth, they would probably just say: "Stop using Windows you dummy, that's all you have to do!" Of course, they would never do this because then they'd have nothing to do! The Internet is a veritable playground of exploitable Microsoft Windows computers, and for a cracker this is autoeroticism of the highest order... though any nine-year-olds of this breed would probably just say "it's the funnest, most bestest playground ever":
I'm not a cracker or a virus programmer, but I know enough that the most successful people of this 'trade' would not get hired by security companies (like CA, Macafee, Symantec, etc.) or Police forces, etc if they didn't try to constantly break your Windows computer. That being said I'm quite certain there are other breeds of crackers in it purely for the mischief factor, and with no desire to get hired by anyone.
* Todd Woodward, Symantec Security Response Researcher, asserts the same.
** I wish I could find this page again to quote the commenter & Paul exactly, but I'm not far off the mark here.
+ the more conscious Windows users, that is
++ and less intelligent, and counter-productive... I could go on you know.
~ I've seen 3 GHz P4 computers reduced to the performance one expects of a 386. Why? Because Windows is poo.
~~ Microsoft of course... what were you thinking?
In the battle that ensued, one of the pro-Mac comments was something like: "two words: zero viruses*" or "no viruses on a Mac, 'nuff said" or some variation on that theme. Paul himself rebutted the comment with something to the effect of**:
" 'There would be more viruses [made] for the Mac if there was more money in them' [since everyone uses Windows] "
In other words, since so few people use them, virus programmers don't waste their time writing viruses for the Mac. I was floored when I read this. What a whopper! First, the fact alone that he makes no acknowledgment about the zero-virus computing environment on a Mac or the impact this has on the world and its computer users, to me says very little about Paul's (supposedly) unbiased ability to appraise information technology... of any kind. Second, by saying this, Paul makes an assumption that only a Microsoft zealot could make; the assumption of course inherent in his words is that Apple would do nothing about the surmounting threat of these WMD (viruses) on the Mac platform, that they would respond reactively to the problem instead of proactively, and that the inevitable result would be just as many viruses (100,000+) on the Mac as on a Windows PC.
This tells me that Paul Thurrot is very shortsighted. He underestimates and shows little regard to the company that has always led the way in the personal computer industry and has supplied just about every innovation that the company he seems to love so poorly and continuously attempts to reproduce (but markets so well). In essence, Paul assumes Apple would fall prey to the same problems that plague Windows because he cannot take view of technology from any place except the vantage point of a Microsoft mentality. What else can be expected? His entire world is Microsoft and the sub-minimum-level-of quality products they produce.
Paul's response also brought up some other feelings in me...
Because of his grand reputation as the source for most anything "Microsoft" and "Windows IT", many people respect what he has to say. And with the kind of following Paul Thurrott has, his comments have a way of assuaging the pain some+ Windows users feel about continuing to use (and perhaps considering to leave behind) a product that is less secure++. In my opinion his words come dangerously close to saying flat out: "continue to invest in Windows even though it's inferior", simply "because more people are using it".
As a consequence of this dogma, his readership is massaged into thinking they should trust that "Big Brother" (Microsoft in general, but Anti-virus/Anti-spyware/Security vendors as well) will develop new defences to keep us 'safe' from all of the viruses, scumware and other shit Windows allows through its pores.
I don't know how or why anyone working in IT would downplay or at the very least would not highlight the significance of a virus & pest-free environment. Not long ago when I was an IT Manager I hated the constant cleanup that was necessary on Windows PCs, no matter how much they were locked down~.
Hey Paul, if all your Windows IT Professional buddies decided to jump from a cliff in the name of the almighty~~ , wou...
...never mind.
Hmmmm, any doctors out there thinking this sounds a lot like the pharmaceutical industry? Intelligent people know if the medical establishment aka industry was actually about medicine and, of all things health, it would never have grown into the multi-trillion dollar industry that it is; hospitals wouldn't be growing so fat, and more doctors might start to use their brains again. It's obvious that the medical industry as it exists today is very much not about health, and we are getting sicker and sicker because of it.
Likewise, with our computers. Is my computer experience as a Windows user better because I have to spend an extra $75/year on resource-sucking Security Suite bundles? Do any of us want to? No, but your computer wouldn't last five minutes without one if you use Windows. This is not unlike the current state of the conventional medical establishment; in our Microsoft Windows world the emphasis (and obsession) is on the anti-viral, the anti-pest, and not the computer's "innate" ability to prevent these infections. Likewise in conventional medicine, the emphasis is on drugs and not using natural methods or one's natural ability to heal and cure disease. You see the ads on TV all the time for the flu-vaccine, blood-sugar and cholesterol lowering drugs, anti-virals, athritis meds, and the list goes on (they don't bother with antibiotics anymore -- no money in those). The exact same theme goes for computers too:
Windows has no natural ability to heal itself so it needs to rely on "drugs" (i.e. other anti-infection products) just to keep it working...
...when the emphasis could be on using a healthier computer, one that was designed first, or rather, one that was actually designed; one that uses an operating system steeped in time-honoured traditions (37 years and counting), and one with an interface that gives you the human centre stage.
Sadly this hasn't been the case for about fifteen or so years in the computer industry (much longer in conventional medicine), but things are starting to change in both arenas now. It's very interesting that Computers and Medicine, two industries that seemingly have nothing to do with each other on their own, actually have a lot in common, share similar histories, and are changing in the same way. Guess what else? The only ones vital (and still laughing) about all of this are the big security software vendors, like Computer Associates, Macaffee, and Symantec -- the two latter of which dominate the home PC market. In my opinion they're loving life, sitting back and thinking: "Wow, our customers really are fucking stupid, I mean all they have to do is use a better computer and they don't."
Think about it like this. Every time a virus author or spyware maker puts out a new threat that exploits the crumbling foundation of Microsoft Windows, they mock its poor, poor construction. I think if these "programmers" were to tell you the truth, they would probably just say: "Stop using Windows you dummy, that's all you have to do!" Of course, they would never do this because then they'd have nothing to do! The Internet is a veritable playground of exploitable Microsoft Windows computers, and for a cracker this is autoeroticism of the highest order... though any nine-year-olds of this breed would probably just say "it's the funnest, most bestest playground ever":
"Grandma, come look, I just got into the City Hall's Windows 2003 Server... and it was soooooooo easy!"
"Oh, isn't that lovely dear... don't forget to eat the peanut-butter celery sticks I brought you"
I'm not a cracker or a virus programmer, but I know enough that the most successful people of this 'trade' would not get hired by security companies (like CA, Macafee, Symantec, etc.) or Police forces, etc if they didn't try to constantly break your Windows computer. That being said I'm quite certain there are other breeds of crackers in it purely for the mischief factor, and with no desire to get hired by anyone.
* Todd Woodward, Symantec Security Response Researcher, asserts the same.
** I wish I could find this page again to quote the commenter & Paul exactly, but I'm not far off the mark here.
+ the more conscious Windows users, that is
++ and less intelligent, and counter-productive... I could go on you know.
~ I've seen 3 GHz P4 computers reduced to the performance one expects of a 386. Why? Because Windows is poo.
~~ Microsoft of course... what were you thinking?
posted by IM at 4:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home