Why not Windows Vista?

Windows and Office work fine—Why worry about it?

Windows Is The Wrong System For the Security-Unconscious

It's one thing to make a computer easy to use, but if you're going to do so, you must also make it secure. If you're not going to develop a secure OS, then at least give more thought to your emphasis on "Ease of Use".

A dear old Aunt recently sent one of those stupid chain e-mails - you know the ones, "forward to as many people as possible" - simply because she agreed with the sentiments it expressed. What she obviously never gave thought to was that she just might be passing along a trojan horse to the rest of the family. When I responded that she might be jeopardizing other people's computers, she got upset, responding that she only sent the e-mail because she agreed with it.

She uses Windows. Worse, she uses AOL. A virus on top of a virus. Great. Then she sends out an e-mail, probably with some thought, but not enough to avoid one of my sermons on the evils of spam. I'm convinced that forwarding spam is a violation of the 2nd Great Commandment. Faith aside, the issue made me realize that she does not really grasp the harm of forwarding spam. And she does not grasp that danger because she has not learned - at least not well enough - about computer security.

When I first ventured out on the Internet from CompuServe in 1996, I was required to view some information about netiquette, how to browse the web, etc. before I could begin to use the built-in browser to get beyond CompuServe's virtual fence. The truth is, anyone that wants to can still learn a little something from sites like this one. The problem is that, Microsoft, the dominant player in the business and consumer desktop markets, has been intent on making computers easier to use. I agree computers should be easy to use. But Microsoft's approach, at least until recently, has sacrificed security for comfort. At what cost?

Instead of informing technical novices that, yes, they really must take a little time to learn about netiquette, security, and maybe even how to organize files on a computer, Microsoft has given novice users an operating system that requires the utmost knowledge and care, with respect to security, without regard for the impact such conduct might have on the world. It's a lot like the time my parents left the keys in the car with my 3-year-old brother in the front seat. He took our Grandmother for a ride I haven't forgotten yet. At least the car bounced up on the curb before it went into the busy major street at the foot of the hill.

Microsoft has given technical 3-year-olds the keys to the car (a Yugo, at that), released the parking brake, and - with little, if any information on how to operate the car - told them to drive. The result is that many novices have no clue about looking both ways before crossing the street. They know nothing about needing to change the oil every so often, or to rotate the tires. That is, these people know precious little about maintenance and safety, both of which are crucial in a connected world.

The ramifications go beyond potential harm to the novice user in question. The real danger is that, without any real grasp of how to stay safe on the Internet, these people endanger everyone they come into contact with, regardless of whether they happen to be on the virtual highway at the same time. On top of that, consider the relational damage when family members and friends attempt to navigate the muddy waters of netiquette and/or lost data because one person thoughtlessly passed along some spam with a payload.

While Microsoft alone cannot be responsible for ensuring people understand computers and the Internet, Apple and the various GNU/Linux distributions take radically different approaches to the problem. Apple's Mac computers are easy to use, and are yet less vulnerable, not to attacks, but to successful attacks and viruses. The GNU/Linux community generally makes no bones about the fact that users need to know something about security. One of the most common admonitions from experienced GNU/Linux users to newbies is "never run as root unless you need to perform an administrative task".

Indeed, I assume OpenSUSE and other distributions that enable the root user continue to use a special wallpaper for the root desktop so users will be aware that they have administrative privileges. With Ubuntu and its derivatives, the root user is essentially ommitted in favor of using sudo. Thus the user only has administrative privileges long enough to perform a specific task. While the approach may involve a learning curve, it goes much further to prevent users from hurting themselves and/or others in the process.

Ultimately, each user has a responsibility to learn something about the computer they use, especially when it involves connecting with others via e-mail or through other means. Still, the company that asks, "where do you want to go today", has failed to keep us mindful of the others around us. That's why we have people who pass along spam because they agree with its sentiments (which is exactly why the spammer sends to begin with), instead of considering whether they might be sending a virtual diseased blanket.

Just because the current user does not appear to be infected, that does not mean they are not, or that they do not have a dormant trojan horse in their system. Nor is the current selection of anti-virus software for Windows capable of detecting all possible exploits. Is there any anti-virus software for any system that does? So, not thinking about these things, the people who think they are going where they want to go, driving eratically on the digital highway with no brakes, never thinking for a minute that they might be about to hurt themselves or someone else.

Free Software almost requires (demands?) community involvement, which, in turn, requires a community mindset - not a "me, myself and I" concept. People are more apt to either think of others up front, or quickly learn that not doing so can result in strained relationships with the very people whose help they may need. In fact, most other Free Software users I communicate with take steps to ensure the people they help learn to take security seriously.

Maybe I'm just feeling a little frustrated by the fact that someone I care about feels her sentiments should have priority over everyone else's security. But honestly, I almost never get spam from Free Software users, nor - as far as I know - any Apple users. It's the Windows users. And the worst part of it is that they are the least protected. I would even go so far as to suggest that, if you know someone who uses Windows, perhaps you should switch to GNU/Linux (or at least a Mac) just to reduce the risk of being infected by someone else's ignorance and/or thoughtlessness.

Please, do share your thoughts.

Clarification: I only recommend Mac to those that are simply unwilling to switch to GNU/Linux, and only because at least they'll be a little more secure. Mac has problems of its own, such as DRM, which make it a much less compelling option than GNU/Linux.

Update: My Father shared with me yesterday evening how a friend of his recently shucked out over $300 to repair his computer after finding a demonic picture and all of his applications opened up. The likely source? Who knows? But more than likely, it came from a chain e-mail, possibly even sent months ago. In light of that, and the recent e-mail discussions among our family, he will no longer open such e-mails. Now, if I can just convince him to ditch the very system that enables such dangers...