[Off Topic] Re: Linux security

[Daniel Carrera]

Michael Richter wrote:
> Well, the first thing is that because of laziness, most Windows boxes 
> have the users set up as adminitrators.

This is not laziness, it's the Windows default. Setting up users as 
administrators by default is an example of why Windows is insecure. It 
is tempting, but wrong, to blame the user when insecure software breaks. 
  I should be able to buy a computer, plug it in, and have a working 
system that won't be 0nwed right away. We wouldn't accept that level of 
unreliability on anything else, from cars to toasters.

> There is only user ignorance and administration laziness to blame for a 
> Windows box that's not locked down.

The blame is squarely on Microsoft's shoulders. The user has a 
reasonable expectation of acquiring a product with a minimum level of 
security. Why shouldn't they? In every other industry there are laws 
that require a product to work when it's sold.

> Are you logging in as an administrator for day-to-day tasks?

No. But that doesn't at all affect my argument about Microsoft.

> What was that about "sane defaults" and "graceful error recovery" that 
> someone else was blathering on about again?

sane defaults = don't put the freakin user on root by default
graceful recovery = "sorry, only root can do that"
graceful recovery = daily incremental backups

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/   ...and starting today, all passwords must
    \/_/    contain letters, numbers, doodles, sign
    /       language and squirrel noises.