Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Re: Prudent default security
From: "Michael Smith" <mike () sane com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:30:02 -0400
I'm expecting that bulk admin tools for windows systems will mature greatly over the next year or so. Hopefully MS will continue to work on the path they have set rather than reinventing the wheel and making all current system and network administration policies and tools obsolete.Remember - MS is a *corporation*. They have *no* reason to change path, unless by doing so they improve *their* bottom line. If they can crush a competitor and spur sales with a "new improved" product that changes course, they will. People keep acting like MS has some moral or ethical obligation to their customers. They don't. That's why they engage in behavior that outsiders find revolting - because said behavior is good for the bottom line. And the only way to change it is to make the behavior bad for the bottom line (either in lost sales when a shop goes Linux, or damages in a lawsuit, whatever...)
I agree whole heartedly, MS has no moral or ethical obligation to their customers (and shouldn't, other than to try to fix flaws in software they have sold). I was only pointing out that the upgrade path that has evolved through their OSes has made it difficult to maintain or improve administration tools (as a SysAdmin). The tools I developed in the early 90s to help me administer a WFWG/DOS network differed from the ones I used in 95-00 to administer a Win9x network differed from the ones I use now to admin a W2k/XP network... while most of the tools I've used to admin the unix side of those networks are very similar if not the same. I have absolutely NO problem with MS being engaged in the bottom line. I am one of the few here (maybe the only one) who doesn't have a major problem with @stake letting Dan Geer go... The bottom line is that if he was hurting their business by slamming one of their clients, even if he was correct (which he was), they *should* have let him go. People seem to forget that companies exist to make money. If I had an employee who was working against MY best interests, you can bet he wouldn't last very long. I think that companies have an obligation to act ethically, but I also believe that employees have the same obligations.... they should 'ride for the brand' as it were. ~mike _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: Re: Prudent default security Michael Smith (Oct 01)
- Re: Re: Prudent default security Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 02)
- RE: Re: Prudent default security Michael Smith (Oct 01)
- Re: Re: Prudent default security Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 02)