Posted on 09/18/2006 9:27:01 PM PDT by Panerai
LONDON--Bob Gleichauf, the chief technology officer in Cisco Systems' security technology group, has raised concerns that integrating Vista into a complex IT infrastructure could present problems.
"Parts of Vista scare me," Gleichauf said at the Gartner Security Summit here on Monday. "Anything with that level of systems complexity will have new threats, as well as bringing new solutions. It's always a struggle in security, trying to build for what you don't know."
Gleichauf told CNET News.com's sister site ZDNet UK that Cisco views the Microsoft operating system update, set for broad release in January, as a bearer of possible solutions to security problems, but also as a potential trigger of security issues.
"Vista will solve a lot of problems. But for every action, there's a reaction and unforeseen side-effects and mutations. Networks can become more brittle unintentionally," Gleichauf said.
The Cisco executive's remarks come as Microsoft and the European Commission move deeper into a tug-of-war over security features in Vista. The company wants regulators to set clear guidelines as to what it can include in the operating system, but the Commission will say only that Microsoft must abide by its competition rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com ...
Because of things like this ("SPAM filtering is part of the OS") Windows should be considered an Operating Environment, because it goes way beyond the traditional bounds of an operating system. The OS should be a layer on top of which one could build a GUI. That is how X works, running on top of the Linux kernel.
It is a valid measurement of a common situation in the Windows world. If you don't have those, you probably have A/V, adware sensing, etc., which also either slows the network or puts more of a burden on your machine, making the WWW appear slow.
Otherwise, you're probably right, but it does all add up.
I'm a little curious why you would benchmark an eight year old version of Windows and present it without comment, as relevant.
So if you have an old computer, Linux is better. I can buy that, for what it's worth. But I could pick up newer and faster hardware, week end and week out, at garage sales for five bucks a pop.
A motherboard with an AMD64/3000 can be had for about $120.
I'm a little curious as to why I would go to a garage sale, shell out extra cash for unknown hardware with no warranty, and install a crappier OS on it...
...when I could recycle known hardware with a better, free OS.
Stop being such a purist....
You Mac f r e a k .
< |:)~
I suppose that's one word for it.
I'm not going to slam anyone's hobby. I just happen to have Windows versions of some very expensive programs -- worth far more than the hardware -- and I don't have any incentive to fiddle around.
I spent 10 years as a UNIX programmer and have no more interest in it, unless a program comes along that I need.
Gotcha, have about $20K of software on my work laptop. I don't care as long as stuff works.
thats what ya call FUD my boy. :)
I believe that the original point is that the applications in question (Windows spyware phoning home. Botnet trojan participating in a DDOS.) embed themselves into Windows systems and defy attempts to terminate them.
My first thought exactly. This could have a very large backlash if MS isn't very careful.
But, how does one stop The Juggernaut?
No one needs to "stop" them. They are an unfortunate reality whose foibles will affect millions of businesses and individuals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.