|
|
|
 |
|
November 1, 2002
|
|
"With all the half measures and false promises in today's [technology] industry, securing computers amounts to locking the door of a straw house." ~Jerry Dowless
|
|
Step Back
I think Don MacVittie missed the point in his column about backward compatibility ("Don't Look Back," Oct. 10, 2002). The point is not that Microsoft has to consider six OSs to make its software compatible because users won't abandon Win95 and Win98. The point is that Microsoft has six OSs to consider because a user cannot stay compatible. Why didn't Win95 automatically become Win98, and why is Win98 so different from Win98SE? Shouldn't the end user be given the chance to stay current without spending a fortune on OS upgrades? I have PCs in my company that do not support WinXP but are not fully depreciated. That means we purchased them within the past five years. I will not upgrade hardware just to upgrade software to stay current. If Microsoft and hardware vendors paid attention to that, the number of backward compatibility issues would be fewer.
Sure, the end user has some responsibility to stay current. But when Microsoft dominates the market and sends out patches, hot fixes and service packs that make backward compatibility impossible, how can the end user be blamed?
Ken Lynch, EIT
GIS Analyst
Keller Engineers
klynch@keller.nb.net
 |
Security Gaps
Several products are available for consumers to secure their systems, however, few products can effectively be used alone to secure millions of computer systems (see "Gone in 6.0 Seconds," Sept. 30, 2002). This is especially true with regard to media-only encryption solutions. Using media encryption may lull people into a false sense of security and make their systems vulnerable to attacks from attached active and passive devices. Additionally, they are susceptible to network attacks. The proliferation of built-in wireless products for mobile devices puts your data at serious risk. Also, off-the-shelf OSs are not configured to protect your data; they are designed to allow easy access. Consequently, your data is not being protected while you are using the system because media encryption is effective only when the system is "at rest" or powered off.
I never cease to be amazed by the naivete of computer users with regard to security. And there's no shortage of IT "professionals" who are clueless about security best practices. With all the half measures and false promises in the industry today, securing computer systems amounts to locking the door of a straw house.
Jerry Dowless
CTO
Dowless & Associates
E-mail address withheld on request
|
Patch Work
I agree 100 percent that patch managers are needed tools ("PatchLink Helps Keep Windows Closed," Sept. 2, 2002). We don't patch as frequently as we should because of insufficient resources. In the past, I've looked at UpdateExpert and Shavlik's solution and was inclined to go with UpdateExpert. After further evaluation, though, I discovered that Up-
dateExpert doesn't support Windows 9x. Unfortunately, your article fails to provide this information for all products under review.
I appreciate the article's information regarding agent-based versus non-agent-based patch managers. This was new to me, and now I'm inclined to go with PatchLink Update because of its architecture and support for non-Microsoft applications and custom patches/packages.
Saul Rodriguez
Business System Consultant
Baxter Healthcare Corp.
saul_rodriguez@baxter.com
I found "PatchLink Helps Keep Windows Closed" extremely informative. I've been in this business since 1979, and over the years the "product testing" in other magazines has been reduced to "opinions" that often take no stance or mention no problems with the products tested, which makes them nothing more than sales pitches for advertising vendors.
I will keep reading Network Computing for facts and real, conclusive testing results while I let the rest of my "opinion"-related subscriptions expire. Keep up the good work in testing; you're the last magazine out there with an impartial eye and the guts to print your recommendations.
Kurt Nikolas
Senior Network Engineer
Canada Life USA
kurt_nikolas@canadalifeus.com
|
Mac Fan
I can understand why Windows people who don't use Macs flame the OS X operating system. It's easy to relegate it to the world of education, art and audio. But really, folks, OS X is efficient and quick, and it works with anything you install on it. It doesn't lock up! I've worked with Windows 9x, XP, NT and 2000--and not one of them has ever functioned as well as either Unix or Mac's Unix-based OS 10.2. Windows XP gets closer, but I can install a Mac G4 in one-tenth the time it takes to configure XP--and it's still more stable.
Not trying the Mac G4 with OS 10.2 is like discounting science fiction but never reading Dune, proclaiming you're an atheist but never reading the Bible, agreeing with the media but never checking out the story, trusting the government because it promises it's telling the truth, stumbling with Photoshop on a PC instead of singing with it on a Mac, and claiming to be a systems engineer but never trying other OSs.
Rocky Karlage
Network Analyst/Consulting Engineer
Schulman Associates IRB
rkarlage@sairb.com
|
Tell us how you really feel. Write to us at editor@nwc.com. Include your name, title, company name, e-mail address and phone number. All correspondence becomes the property of Network Computing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
