[LINK] Re: Windows XP versus Vista

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

Hi Rick and all,

Thanks Rick, a fascinating read, from a genuine ICT professional.

Re problems with Microsoft products, one might speculate that giving the
world's libraries, schools and school-children free copies of WinXP might
well reduce the number of OEM problem machines?   

And, especially so, if: a) Microsoft bring out a free and legal final XP
version for third-world schools to update the OEM. Who'd want to hack it,
except for net-throughput?

And b) Most third world school-computers are stand-alone-with-modem tools.
Reportedly, the Phils (pop:80M) has around 10 million net users, with half
a million or so broadband accounts, and around 2 million computers. 

With a free new Remote-Area version of XP, mostly as a school learning
tool, though also sometimes for slow modem net-access, one guesses badies
would seek alternate net access. Especialy since that one computer with
the modem is usually tied down quite well. Eg careful sys-admin allocation
and firewalls, AVG/Sophos etc, and quite tight physical security. Teachers 
are not irresponsible. <http://philippineinternetreview.blogspot.com/> etc.

And, I completely agree, Rick, many many problems regarding third world
computer equity can be solved with open source operating systems and apps.

But how many nix flavours have drivers for ten year old no-name dot matrix
printers? Or the Principal's 1992 Chinese WeFly ink-jet, or even maybe the
Phils/Tiawanese soundcards? There's not a lot of use for computers with
few I-O capabilities. I guess they could teach graphics, but not with a
stylus, just the mouse. And print-preview will have to do, and lets hope
the school's 28.8kbps modem came with nix drivers, and we can find them. 

For Phils schools, even with illegal copies of Windows and Word etc, *nix
isn't an option really. Not until their associated hardware expires. So,in
the interim, I say give them XP. It's 20 Million poor kids in poor schools
we are talking about, with in-frequent and slow net access. They aren't 
going to be a threat to our net, or your systems. And, free XP for a few 
years, till hardware updates of peripherals allow them the luxury of *nix? 

Anyway, enough from me about 3rd world schools. Free XP, for the drivers, 
till many peripherals are replaced, then, full steam ahead 3rd world nix! 


Rick writes:
 
> > Come on Microsoft, give XP to the world. You've finished with it, you
> > don't want it, you're going virtual  ...
> 
> I've got one word to say to you, Stephen: Zombies. Well, several words:
> bot wars (on Windows), bot armies, DDos attacks, SPAM and PRON 
distribution,
> identity theft, sophisticated phishing. These are all possible courtesy
> of one single IT company: Microsoft. The current dismal security 
situation
> on the Net is mainly due to the "ease of use" promoted by Microsoft.
> 
> WinXP is a very bad move if WinXP is no longer supported with security
> updates. New exploits are found in Windows all the time. And this
> will not end tomorrow.
> 
> The only safe Windows box is disconnected from the Internet.
> 
> In safely configured server installations, Linux/Unix lives out there
> on the periphery (sometimes even being the periphery), and Windows 
servers
> are located way inside the secure zones, completely isolated and 
firewalled
> from the Internet. As many services as possible are proxied before
> being sent on to Windows. You know the drill: email cascades through
> Linux-run services before being handed over to Exchange. Apache on
> Linux reverse proxies traffic or redirects to internal IIS services.
> Etc. etc.
> 
> On the client side, you have a snowflake's chance in hell of directly
> connecting a WinXP box to the Internet, get the security updates 
downloaded
> and installed and reboot before your box is compromised. This has been
> discussed time and time again on the list. It takes advanced technical
> skill to get a Winders box setup and on the Net without it being 
compromised
> in minutes.
> 
> Giving WinXP to millions of unskilled users will only make the current 
problems
> on the Internet worse. Add third world conditions to the mix, and you've
> got an ever-escalating threat. In Australia we have access to and can 
afford
> the myriad extra resources required to secure client-side Windows, even 
if most
> consumers don't bother the use them. In the third world, these resources 
are
> scarce, cost money and I doubt will be used at all.
> 
> Getting back to zombies (i.e. the compromised box sitting in your 
loungeroom),
> we all know they can be used for distributing SPAM and PRON. But they 
can also
> be used to tunnel and hide traffic usage patterns (think of a Tor-style 
bot net).
> This presents a rather serious security threat. It makes the task of 
tracking
> terrorist communications that much harder, if not impossible. It stymies
> law enforcement tracking down and stamping out kiddie pron. In general, 
zombies
> present a new security threat that has not even begin to be dealt with.
> 
> > Virtualization
> > Microsoft Pushes Virtualization
> > Wendy Tanaka, 01.22.08, 12:01 AM ET
> > <http://www.forbes.com/technology/enterprisetech/2008/01/20/microsoft-
> > vmware-calista-tech-cx_wt_0121microsoft.html>
> >
> > "Watch out, VMware. We're coming after your space!" is the underlying
> > message of Microsoft's new strategy for virtualization--software 
services
> > that help businesses reduce costs and improve business processes.
> >
> > Microsoft on Monday planned to announce what it calls a companywide
> > strategy to accelerate broad adoption of virtualization by its 
customers.
> >
> > As part of its new approach, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant
> > unveiled a suite of services aimed at reducing the number of servers
> > businesses need to use, separating applications from operating systems,
> > reducing costs, and--thanks to trimmed energy use--lowering carbon
> > emissions.
> 
> This *might* be welcomed on the server side. With current offerings, a
> medium-size Windows-based enterprise must deploy one box for SQL 
database,
> another for email services, yet another for file sharing and printing,
> ... you get the picture. Windows has serious scaleability issues that
> are addressed by installing more and more hardware.
> 
> Compare this to Linux. On the one box, all these services are installed
> and deployed, and the box usually sits there at 50% idle.
> 
> I know I am generalising, but this is a common pattern when comparing
> a Windows server installation to a Linux one.
> 
> But get this: if Windows right now requires one to distribute various 
daemons
> (services) on different physical boxes due to scaleability issues, that
> problem does not vanish when one moves to virtualisation. Smoke and 
mirrors
> and *extra grunt*  will make it appear that there is a gain, but at the 
cost
> of replacing, say, ten individual boxes with one with ten times the 
grunt,
> hardware, memory and expense. There may be some savings through a 
refactoring
> effect in the shared hardware. I don't know if this has been quantified.
> 
> Of course, once again, Microsoft is not an innovator in the area of 
virtualisation.
> As mentioned in the article, they'll be acquiring, embracing and 
extinguishing
> to accomplish their goal. Don't believe the hype. This is yet again Not 
A Good Thing.
> It is yet another attempt by Microsoft to clear-fell another sector of 
the
> IT market.
> 
> cheers
> rickw
>


Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server