OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Prompted by Bill in Utah's comments in the Firefox thread, I figure I'd start up this one.
My comments from that thread were:
The difference between *nix and Windows can be summed up in a single sentence:
The experience of Unix is the ability to compute securely, whilst the ability to compute securely has never been part of the Windows experience.
Unix, and the family of *nix variants were designed from the ground up to provide a secure operating platform. Usability for that platform has been steadily improving, but due to how the platform is designed, it will never be as "friendly" as Windows.
Windows was designed from the ground-up to provide a friendly user experience. Security wasn't even a consideration in the beginning. As the computing world advanced, Windows has had security "patched upon it", but it was never part of the fundamental framework. A quick glance back at Windows 98 is a very clear indicator of that. Don't know the password? Click Cancel to login anyways! LOL! With the adoption of the NT kernel into the mainstream OS products and the 9x kernel phased out with the switch to Windows XP (Windows 2000 was not targeted at consumers, though had originally intended to be), moderate security over previous windows products was attained. But you are still dealing with an operating designed around the "experience".
And this explains the user-base, market share, and why the application of these products differ so greatly.
________________________________
I have used both operating systems; both *nix and Windows since the early 90's. Prior to that it was all DOS. My foray into the land of *nix began with FreeBSD. It then quickly spread into HP-UX, DEC Alpha Unix, IRIX, Slackware, Redhat, OpenBSD, NetBSD.... and the list goes on and on. Anyone remember Mandrake? Lindows?
The *nix systems I had the luxury of using during the 90's were all setup for a specific purpose. They were web terminals, input terminals, VAX dummies, graphic workstations, file servers, web servers, libraries...etc. Whatever their configuration, it was always secure. It was always a configuration that entertained ONLY that dedicated purpose. And trying to get the system to perform anything outside that purpose was far from a user-friendly experience and required levels of security clearance not granted to the those operating at the "user" level.
The Windows systems were attractive. The GUI was ground-breaking. The usability was excellent; the interface ridiculously intuitive. The security? Non-existent. But at the time that was not their purpose.... Nor was it a purpose that really needed to be served.
That changed.
With the Internet taking a leap from government and learning institutions to the home.... That changed. And then Microsoft was playing catch-up. Making an OS who's primary focus was NEVER security.... secure. That has been their most difficult task. And trying to coax users, who are comfortable and EXPECT to be able to run everything with root privileges.... to change? Near impossible.
The irony of course is that the system that was the secure foundation of the Internet... has remained just that. Whilst the product that made the Internet what it is today; that allowed it to explode into a generic household item has traditionally been anything but secure. A secure computing Intranet turned into something who's majority of users are anything but secure
Perhaps not truly ironic.... But very close.
In the choice between security and the experience, the latter has always won out in the "user" market. The former has almost always won out in the "server" market. And until the idea that security is more important that the "experience" hits home with the users, we won't see any real change in how this goes. I'm not saying that Windows cannot be a secure computing platform; it can. But the way the system is USED; the method in which it is run by the people around the world needs to change to embrace the ideologies that have been the framework of how *nix systems have operated from the beginning.
My comments from that thread were:
The difference between *nix and Windows can be summed up in a single sentence:
The experience of Unix is the ability to compute securely, whilst the ability to compute securely has never been part of the Windows experience.
Unix, and the family of *nix variants were designed from the ground up to provide a secure operating platform. Usability for that platform has been steadily improving, but due to how the platform is designed, it will never be as "friendly" as Windows.
Windows was designed from the ground-up to provide a friendly user experience. Security wasn't even a consideration in the beginning. As the computing world advanced, Windows has had security "patched upon it", but it was never part of the fundamental framework. A quick glance back at Windows 98 is a very clear indicator of that. Don't know the password? Click Cancel to login anyways! LOL! With the adoption of the NT kernel into the mainstream OS products and the 9x kernel phased out with the switch to Windows XP (Windows 2000 was not targeted at consumers, though had originally intended to be), moderate security over previous windows products was attained. But you are still dealing with an operating designed around the "experience".
And this explains the user-base, market share, and why the application of these products differ so greatly.
________________________________
I have used both operating systems; both *nix and Windows since the early 90's. Prior to that it was all DOS. My foray into the land of *nix began with FreeBSD. It then quickly spread into HP-UX, DEC Alpha Unix, IRIX, Slackware, Redhat, OpenBSD, NetBSD.... and the list goes on and on. Anyone remember Mandrake? Lindows?
The *nix systems I had the luxury of using during the 90's were all setup for a specific purpose. They were web terminals, input terminals, VAX dummies, graphic workstations, file servers, web servers, libraries...etc. Whatever their configuration, it was always secure. It was always a configuration that entertained ONLY that dedicated purpose. And trying to get the system to perform anything outside that purpose was far from a user-friendly experience and required levels of security clearance not granted to the those operating at the "user" level.
The Windows systems were attractive. The GUI was ground-breaking. The usability was excellent; the interface ridiculously intuitive. The security? Non-existent. But at the time that was not their purpose.... Nor was it a purpose that really needed to be served.
That changed.
With the Internet taking a leap from government and learning institutions to the home.... That changed. And then Microsoft was playing catch-up. Making an OS who's primary focus was NEVER security.... secure. That has been their most difficult task. And trying to coax users, who are comfortable and EXPECT to be able to run everything with root privileges.... to change? Near impossible.
The irony of course is that the system that was the secure foundation of the Internet... has remained just that. Whilst the product that made the Internet what it is today; that allowed it to explode into a generic household item has traditionally been anything but secure. A secure computing Intranet turned into something who's majority of users are anything but secure
Perhaps not truly ironic.... But very close.
In the choice between security and the experience, the latter has always won out in the "user" market. The former has almost always won out in the "server" market. And until the idea that security is more important that the "experience" hits home with the users, we won't see any real change in how this goes. I'm not saying that Windows cannot be a secure computing platform; it can. But the way the system is USED; the method in which it is run by the people around the world needs to change to embrace the ideologies that have been the framework of how *nix systems have operated from the beginning.
