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**:

" '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?

Ideas

Apple's 'Ideas' or 'Concepts' department (I imagine they have such departments) should consist of creative brainstormers like me... not just programmers, computer scientists, electronics specialists & wizards or other supergeeks, but also less technical, imaginative thinkers and 'ideas' people like me. Maybe they do. I think I should be a part of such a group.

Regarding technology, the "future" is only cool when you make things that are way ahead of their time for people to use now. Apple makes some really amazing stuff but it seems to me they have to hold back a lot (and wait for the larger market to play catch up) because so many of its potential customers are obsequious Microsoft robots stuck in the dark ages; not becuase they want to be but because it's all they know and are capable of comprehending. Beleive me when I say I'm not speaking out of hate, I am not a hateful person. But I really feel in my heart that Microsoft, in general, is like a thought suppressant on humanity.

This is lost potential energy and that is very sad to me. It is like keeping a child prodigy from achieving his highest or renting a sportscar with a speed governer. Maybe this has to do with what Tim Berners-Lee said in 1999 about the NeXT Computer. I would love to talk shop with Steve Jobs one day. I think I will.


I'm poor. I'm rich with ideas... and I'm hungry*.

Some freebie ideas to follow...


^* and foolish, and available

RBC

I think it's pretty sad that the richest bank in Canada has a) the crappiest looking website, and b) the 'bare minimum' level of encryption for a financial institution offering online banking. Mind you, I don't really care for the tactics of most banks today, though I have found some better than others... choose the lesser evil I guess.

So, since I had the time, here are all of Canada's Banks in descending order of the encryption strengths used on their sites:


Banks with 256 bit encryption:
Canadian Western Bank
Laurentian Bank of Canada
TD Canada Trust
Teachers Credit Union

Banks with 168 bit encryption:
ING (sheesh, the dutch are always different... isn't that vieeeeerd?)

Banks with 128bit encryption:
BMO
CIBC
Citizens Bank of Canada
National Bank of Canada
Royal Bank (RBC)
Scotiabank


If you want a little perspective, even eBay & PayPal use 256 bit encryption. You may or may not find it interesting (I do) that these companies take security more seriously than the wealthiest bank in Canada. Most signing authorities offer 128 bit SSL certificates for about $100/year.

So let us thank the RBC for splurging on its several million customers when it comes to financial security on the Internet. You rock RBC!

google/microsoft

Out of curiosity I entered google.com/microsoft into my browser the other day, and what do you know... there's a page there!

There's nothing on this page to make one think it's Microsoft specific other than this image of the rolling green hills we all know and loathe... errr love:

And as you can see it is even more stripped-down than the standard Google search page; i.e. there are no links above the search field (web, images, groups, news, etc.). Also, using the search on the page doesn't do anything special, it just spits out the expected Google search and not the contents of Bill Gates' personal fileserver -- damn!

Anyway, I figured if Microsoft has the extreme privilige and honour of owning its own root google.com subfolder, I thought that others must surely share this privilige too... not so!

google.com/apple was the first one I tried (of course), which resulted in this very friendly Google 404 message:

So then I tried a few others, mostly big companies like Sun, Cisco, Intel, AMD, IBM. I even tried Yahoo. Okay, Yahoo is Google's main contender so it stands to reason... but what about the rest?

Hmmm... would any readers care to shed some darkness?

Google apps follow-up

In my previous post about Google's application offerings for the PC, I was discussing how these apps enable Windows users to make better use of their PC and how they are inspired by the built-in features on a Mac. To be fair, Spotlight is the only Mac feature I can think of that goes the other way (i.e. was inspired by Google first) since Google's Desktop Search was around before Spotlight which launched with OS X Tiger (10.4). The point is these apps Google provides are designed to give Windows users the opportunity to work smarter, or to be more specific, make Windows work more like a Mac.

In the sense of their enormous and constant growth, you could say Google is becoming the new 'Microsoft'. But whereas Microsoft has always been exploitative of Apple, Google pays homage to them (so far anyway). Pretty soon the phrase "Microsoft of Borg" won't apply, it will be "Google of Borg"! Poor Bill, first Netscape and now Google.

I think that makes Google awesome and I'm glad they provide these applications. Reproducing OS X's features to improve the experience for the rest of the world (using an inferior computer system) is case in point for how Google recognizes OS X as the superior computer system. This is quite the compliment to Apple I think, but they are used to it now. It didn't take long for history to repeat itself; I guess it never does in the computer industry.

Becuase of this, some people perceive Apple as being self-righteous and that turns them off. But hang on a second -- what if you were using technology that was better and smarter, and nearly everyone else you knew was using one that just plain wasn't? Wouldn't you try to change that if you could? Here is an analogy that I think will help illustrate what some people miss:

Two identical twin sisters each have toddlers the same age (genetic fitness for both moms is the same and medical history is unremarkable). One sister's toddler is very energetic, and already walking, talking, and toilet training. The other sister's toddler is 'healthy', but constantly irritable, still crawling, hasn't uttered a word, nowhere near ready for toilet training, and gets at least 4 ear infections/year. This mom purposely got pregnant when she learned she'd be receiving a government assistance cheque for much more money than she makes at Walmart.

The sister with the healthy toddler nursed for two years, eats very healthy - mostly organic foods, takes no medications and does Yoga three times a week. The sister with the 'slower' toddler raised her son on formula, eats like shit - mostly processed foods, takes clonazepam for anxiety, smokes, and never exercises.

Could other factors I didn't mention influence one's health? Absolutely... but does that mean you're supposed to sit back and do nothing, hoping little Billy will soon become healthy and start learning despite his excessively delayed development? Fuck no! If she cares to listen, you do you damndest to teach Mom #2 how to eat better and live a healthier lifestyle.

What if you then learned that everyone in the same town as Mom #2 lived and raised their children in a similar way? What if you did your best to teach them to live better and healthier (within their means) but they responded with:

"Fuck you treehugger, don't tell me how to live my life. You think you're so fucking great with your clear skin and your pretty hair. I'm happy with my life and so are my kids. Go back to your fucking Yoga class and stop bothering us".

Maybe you would give up in this case too. This playful example is not as extreme as you're probably thinking. It is easily extended to the Mac vs. Windows arena. The difference is this: in my 'real-life' example above we can all easily say Mom #1 does better for herself and her son. But when it comes to computers, we are far more delusional. We either take advice from computer-savvy family members who only have experience with Windows, or we listen to so-called authorities that tell us "there is no such thing as better, it only depends on what you need to use the computer for"...

... when in reality it distills down to this, and only this:

Do you want to use a smarter, more well-thought out computer system? Do you want to focus on your work and not on the things that prevent you from focusing on your work? Do you want to create a more pleasing work environment, use your computer more effectively and have fun at the same time?

Did you notice that none of the above questions have anything to do with "what you need to use the computer for". In my opinion that statement is really just a copout designed to lead people toward buying a PC. You see this situation in Dell TV ads & flyers or with the overly helpful* sales associate at the local Circuit City, Best Buy, Future Shop, etc.:

"Okay, I see... you want to type documents, check email, surf the Internet, and maybe watch a DVD? Oh, then a PC is definitely the best choice for you".

What a steaming pile of shit! The cheaper price tag on the PC is the clincher every time. But nobody tells these poor saps that over the next 3-4 years of owning their PC they'll be losing hours & days in lost productivity and therefore wasting more money, that the PC will only be zippy for a month or so as long you don't use the built-in web browser, that it won't break entirely as long as you have anti-virus, anti-spyware, a decent firewall and all the right drivers, that it will go out-of-date faster, that it will take up way more space in your den, weigh ~20 lbs, and waste excessive amounts of electricity. All this when they could spend a little more up front to buy a Mac and start using their computer right away, instead of being used (and abused, and tortured) by Windows.


The idea of these Mac-imitated apps Google makes for Windows is no different than the subculture of Windows users who make their PCs look and (attempt to) work like a Mac by skinning Windows to look like OS X. If you do an exact phrase search in Google (using quotes) for either of the following, you'll get (# of hits):

"make Windows look like a Mac" (313)
"make Windows look like OS X" (69)
"turn your PC into a Mac" (34,500!)

For anyone interested, one such program that will do this is FlyaKiteOSX.

Now do the opposite search and note the difference in hits:

"make Mac look like Windows" (5)
"make OS X look like Windows" (4)
"turn your Mac into a PC" (0)


It's not surprising that people want to do this, but it's odd in a way too. So why don't these people just use a Mac if they so badly want their Windows computer to look like one? Well... I think it mostly has to do with money and software. Money as in the purchase price of a Mac and software as in available titles for the Mac.

Three things I think will change these obstacles to Mac ownership are: the Mac mini, Boot Camp, and the expanding growth of Apple & third-party software titles for the Mac. The Mac mini definitely makes the "Macs are too expensive" rant less of an issue. In Boot Camp you've got Windows if you want it or really need it. And as for software, just go to the Apple Store and see for yourself. You can still use MS Office or you can 'go out on a limb' and try Pages and Keynote, Apple's new Word Processor and Presentation applications included in iWork '06.

Perhaps this little treatise will help these folks to start using the actual computer system they so fervently try to mimick by hacking Windows on their PC. Perhaps the world of lay Windows users will start to catch on as well.


Now, as I see it, the only thing Apple hasn't taken care of is a migration utility to make the complete transition (if desired) from a PC to a Mac. i.e. all document data, email & address books, Internet favourites, etc. Sure there are third-party tools and brief help is provided on the Apple website, but I think a lot more people out there would quickly dump their PC for a Mac if they knew they could migrate ten or more years of their "Windows" life on their own; without the need to pay an IT guy/gal to do it for them. If there was enough desire from tired Windows users I think Apple would do this (that is, if Microsoft's lawyers haven't stipulated that they can't).

I will highlight soon some easy methods to migrate to the Mac from a PC... and that's another post.


^* overly helpful to make a sale

Anti-malware

Anti-malware is a sort of umbrella term for software that disinfects your Windows computer in some way. All Windows computers have always required anti-virus software and for the past 3-4 years anti-spyware software has been necessary as well (unless you don't care to use your computer, but prefer to be used).

Everybody needs a firewall whether using Mac, Windows, Unix or Linux so we won't get into them except to mention Microsoft's extreme generosity for bundling one into XP SP2 in the summer of 2004. This provided the first built-in firewall for Windows XP and came about six years after it was crucial for Windows to have one. Considering the amount of Windows computers around the globe connected to the Internet, it's a good thing Microsoft has in mind the interests of its customers by making security of its flagship product a top priority*.

"Gee, my lowly P3/1GHz isn't cutting it lately, it used to run the same things I do now just fine. I must have to upgrade to a newer P4 3GHz processor, right?"

NO you stupid Microsoft robot! It's the sloppy, bloated, resource-bleeding code Microsoft keeps pumping out that makes your PC obsolete long before its time! **

Rant complete... for now. Now then, on my Windows computer (P3/1 GHz, 768MB RAM) I have what I consider to be the best Internet suite of 'disinfectants' available - Computer Associates; anti-virus, anti-spyware, a proper firewall and anti-spam software that injects into Outlook and OE. At one time, and with all of these counter measures in place, my Windows PC worked like a well-oiled medicine cabinet. As far as these measures go it is as sterile as it can get, but why is my 'poor old' PC behaving like a sloth? I haven't installed new hardware or software (apart from MS updates that is). I haven't removed or changed anything, and yet it still is not nearly as snappy and responsive as it used to be. So what gives?

Well, my theory is there is a new from of malware that hasn't been identified or classified yet -- let's call it 'shitware' for the sake of this discussion. Perhaps with all the 'anti' measures in place for Windows, someone is trying to tell us something... and if nobody is trying to tell us something then maybe we should just figure it out for ourselves. Virus... anti-virus program, spyware... anti-spyware program; what shall we call the next threat inevitably on the horizon for PCs?

I think the company that produces a system so unmistakably gifted at picking up infections and spreading filth should be honoured in the naming of such a new threat. Yes, like bacteriology and virology in the real world, I beleive the new shitware should carry the namesake of its susceptible host. Thus, this new form of malware could simply be called 'antiMicrosoftWindowsware' for which the leading security software manafacturers will no doubt have to create an Anti-antiMicrosoftWindowsware program.


On a Windows PC there is such a focus on keeping it free from infection, it just isn't right. It is like telling someone they must get used to those 1-2 days of hell when they are sick at home with the flu, over-medicated, unable to get any work done, miserable, and delirious... telling them to get used to that feeling all year round. Many don't think of it like that but that's what's happening right in front of you during your Windows "experience" a lot of the time. On a daily basis over 90% of us⁺ (that use computers) interact with a technology that is unintuitive, counter-productive and much, much, much more susceptible to infection (and therefore malfunction and failure) than any current Mac, Unix or Linux computer.

To take a snapshot of our collective intellect at this moment in time would show a sad and bleak existence to future generations. This is what I mean by comfortable masochism; we have gotten to like and don't see any need to leave this overly dependent relationship we have with Microsoft Windows. It is a co-dependency really, because we have gotten so used to the shit that we actually beleive we like it, so we stick by it. This is a mix of Stockholm syndrome and brainwashing in my opinion.


I think future generations will look back at us and say "Wow, people were actually pretty stupid for a while there - that better was available and they didn't bother with it for so long because of the initial difference in cost alone".

Eventually we will manage to get out of this funk. Good always conquers bad. It has to... otherwise we will wipe ourselves out and become manna for the cockroaches.


* Sarcasm

** Using half the CPU speed & memory resources sold with PCs today, almost any popular Desktop Linux will run circles around Windows XP in terms of general performance (i.e. Ubuntu, Mandriva)... and their free!

⁺ Us = we = humanity