Microsoft is doing their best. Is it good enough?

[Duncan MacGregor]

I don't think we should  be so hard on Microsoft. Their software is the best 
that they can do. It is a reflection of their organization, their approach to 
software, and their business priorities.

They have built a company that can create software using very large teams, and
overarching issues like security must span those teams makes for ugly 
management problems.
They have a business model that markets software like an appliance based on 
ease of use, rather than safety. To be sucessful, they must sell their 
appliances as-is, and keep inner workings secret. This has been their 
priority, along with rapid growth.

To survive they must grow. This involves commoditizing hardware, getting their 
products shipped on all brand-new machines, connecting all the products 
together, and pushing customers into purchasing their products over and over 
again. If old products are insecure, then the new ones might be better...

After the fact, it is probably impossible to make the software secure, even if 
they wanted to. (Band-aids on broken limbs.) There are profound and expensive 
architectural issues in designing a secure system. "Ease of use" can survive 
on a weak structure, and after all, how does a lack of security affect their 
bottom line? 

Upward compatibility is an negative issue. 

Their software management model, their marketing model, and their business 
model avoid trading "ease of use" for security.  They are trapped.

Microsoft is doing their best.

The issue is not whether their products are good enough for them, but whether 
they are good enough for us. 


--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml