M. Friedman, that is not what "OPEN" means. Open Systems are not systems that are easier to hack, they are systems that have exchangable architectures (i.e. pop this out, put this in). Exchangable architectures require publicly agreed upon and published technical specifications from independant third parties (i.e. Corba, SQL, HTTP, X.509, etc..).
Microsoft does not like to agree with other organizations on specifications, and steadfastly refuses to let third parties dictate specifications to them. This results in technologies like OLE (ActiveX), Win32, Custom extensions to SQL and HTTP (Netscape is also guilty of this) and many other "CLOSED" systems. Closed systems are bad for the industry, because it means other companies cannot make compatible "alternative" products. You effectively get locked into a Microsoft solution, like it or not.
As far as security goes, it can be argued that NT is much easier to hack than UNIX (It depends on how the systems are set up). System security is actually a specialty of mine (I work on cryptographic and secure systems for the financial industry -- right now on S.E.T. for Visa International), so I do not say this without some experience in these matters.
Remember, our military uses UNIX systems, not NT, for their secure systems.
Dan Guinan |
