Improve Internet Health with a Microsoft Tax?

I "mused " a bit over this one. Let's be sensible; no-one is going to tax Microsoft, let alone even think of it. Lobbyists and all of the vast majority, business and private, that are now experiencing good old vendor lock-in will see to that. The problem of Internet Health can be pointed immediately to the fact that over 90% of the malware is directed at infecting Windows computers. That in turn is because Windows is a "stand-alone" software package that is so full of security holes that it makes my grannie's flour sieve look like a brick wall. I understand there was malware available to infect Win7 before it even walked out the front door of Redmond.

Redmond will not move on properly fixing Windows security until it is forced to do so. Why should it ? It is not receiving the blame for the malware infections that plague computer users who employ Microsoft software; in fact consumers make every imaginable excuse for their malware infections, other than the fact that Microsoft's faulty, 1980's software design lies at the heart of the present situation. The general (and often computer illiterate) Windows consumer is also frequently of the mistaken belief that the malware problems he or she is experiencing with their Windows system are common to all computer systems. In one general sense this is true, but not in the way the Windows consumer is experiencing it. In addition, for Redmond to fix this problem is not just a matter of patching, it would mean throwing the complete software package of Windows out, and redesigning the whole thing from the bottom up. Not gonna happen - well, at least not without enormous pressure to do so.

Candidly, my best hope is that Redmond might, just might, decide to produce a Winlinux software package. I think you get the picture, it would be a Microsoft distro. Makes sense, but it would mean Microsoft having to "eat crow" over everything they have said and done to Linux, and on that alone, "Not gonna happen - at least not without enormous pressure to do so".

So what sort of pressure would do it ? The steady rise of Linux is one thing, but as yet it isn't enough. Journalists in general, are also at fault; they need to be more truthful in their reports. Instead of saying "computers are infected", bring on the two words "Microsoft Windows" in the article. At the moment, they use the bland word "computers" which means everybody. Consumers need to understand that Microsoft's faulty and outdated software engineering and the Windows packages are the basic problem.

It sounds awful, but the increasing malware levels just might help. If more and more Windows systems are infected, crippled and the expense rises, customer dissatisfaction increases. But it will need a huge malware infection that brings the Windows side of the internet virtually to a standstill before the blame is finally sheeted home to Microsoft and for the customers to at last realise that they are being sold an essentially defective product. The way things are going, I strongly suspect that "mass infection era" is not too far off. [Disclaimer: I am not, repeat not, a software programmer........]