Being industry insider, too, let me comment shortly Mr. Dan Guinan:
(this is my final posting to this thread, I promise :-)
>not what "OPEN" means. Open Systems are not systems that are easier to >hack, they are systems that have exchangable architecture
Yet another definition of "open system". And we have seen *many* of them during the years, mostly created by "creative" salesmen who usually don't understand technology. For the curious, let me refresh the original meaning of term "open system". IBM used it first time in the late 70's and "open" meant a system which was machine platform independent. Knowing NT can be run on several processor architectures, shouldn't we credit it for its openness?
>to them. This results in technologies like OLE (ActiveX), Win32, Custom >extensions to SQL and HTTP
I agree that MS has pushed lot of "proprietary" standards. But what have been the alternative? You are moarning after the "standards" but are the any? Name me a finished, company-independent HTTP-SQL standard? Okay. I don't want to start "flame" wars here, but put hand on your heart: Remember the life before ODBC standard? It was Microsoft who recognized the insanity of multiple db-APIs and started to push ODBC. Though MS invented ODBC, you can't say it's closed because MS has been very open to deliver all the docs and sdk's.
What comes to security, it think you try to use classic FUD tactics here (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). Yes, NT probably can be hacked like any system, but I don't agreed that it is more easier to hack than Unix. At least track record talks against Unix. There are lots of pointers to known Unix security holes available in the Internet, I picked just one which documents the patches:
cis.ohio-state.edu
While waiting the next Unix wormholm to pop up to publicity, can you point me corresponding NT resources? |
