Weren't we all thinking this?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| phsolide Oct 10, 2010 1:04 PM EDT |
I know that the first time I saw the Scott Charney "quarantine the losers" article, it gave me pause for the same reasons that Davey Winder cites here. That is, a "public health" model will lead to officialdom deciding that Windows itself is the culprit, and needs to be eliminated. Since this is obviously contrary to MSFT's goals, I had to employ Advanced Kremlinology to Charney's weapons grade balonium. "Applying public health model" must mean (in reality) "Legal mandating of a Microsoft OS on everything, in the guise of 'certifying for internet safety'". I'm completely against this personally, as I believe that an expensive "certification" process is in this case, a way to legally raise the barrier to entry into the operating system market so high that no non-corporate system will ever make it. All innovation in corporate operating systems will cease, and MSFT will return to 110% market dominance. Without increasing our "security" one iota. Secondarily, I'm against "certification" of stuff in general. For instance, "flight certification" of a piece of hardware (nut & bolt, pressure vessel, CPU, seal, tubing, turbine) leads to absolute stagnation in hardware design. Look at the US aviation industry: stuck in the late 50s, when stuff started to get "flight certified". |
| JaseP Oct 11, 2010 12:05 PM EDT |
And you just know that the next part of the "public health certificate," to come down the pike would be that the OS on the machine ALSO doesn't violate anybody's (for the most part, B.S.) PATENTS either... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!