Before I start, let me say that although I am MS certified, I am not defending them by any means. However, I do...
believe that we should always look at a problem from different perspectives, so here is a different one (let me also say that this is not an attack on your (searchWin2000's) or anyone else's point of view either).
Can we truly blame Microsoft for the attacks and vulnerabilities that have been highlighted by them? My feelings are yes and no. The best software and systems are only as good as the people managing them. This is not to say that MS should not be hiring the best around. This, of course, is on the assumption that the best will work for them.
There is also the point that to get that good, you need to spend a lot time playing, learning and generally staying ahead of the game. Once you land a position like that, how much time do you get to stay ahead of the game?
I think we should also try and keep in mind the administrative nightmare in trying to secure and manage an organization the size of MS (I certainly would not want to).
Because of their position in the market, they are required to maintain a high presence in the communications field -- specifically the Internet. Add to this the fact that they are Microsoft and that probably 80% of the world have a love-hate relationship with them, and it is not surprising that every hacker from intermediate to superstar has his crosshairs zeroed in on what we would expect to be the most secure server in the world (except maybe the DoD).
But is this a fair assumption? My opinion: Yes, because they have something to prove -- or at least should have, and no, (because) ultimately they are just a software company not the Pentagon. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out how many successful attacks versus (unsuccessful) attacks they have compared to someone like say Norton or Computer Associates (McAfee)?
I just feel we should try and keep things in perspective. Being in the limelight does more than just attract attention -- ask Lady Di, Britney Spears, Madonna or George Michael.
Ultimately I think that the world might be better off without a giant like Microsoft running the show with the aid of Intel. Fortunately one of those seems like it now has a decent fight on its hands, and I am voting for AMD.
Has anyone ever answered the question "what would the world be like if Apple had won way back in 1990?" All kind of irrelevant now; we need to look at it and say "would we be where we are today without a giant pushing us forward; would we be better off or worse?" Questions no one knows the answers to so we accept our lot on move on.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Darryl Hasieber does contract work mainly as a VB programmer. For now, he lives in Durban, South Africa.
RELATED NEWS ARTICLES:
Got issues with Microsoft-related products or policies? Need to vent? Sound off and send an e-mail to Ed Parry, News Editor.