A lot of it is due to the way that Windows was built. It wasn't built from the ground up as a multi-user operating system, unlike Unix and the Unix clones (e.g. Linux, current Mac, etc.). Thus, no security initially.
Windows was designed as a single user, stand-alone desktop operating system. At that, it worked fairly well. Microsoft also supplied local networking, but they weren't interested in the Internet as a whole. As far as BillG was concerned, it was a flash in the pan that wouldn't matter very much.
And then, come 1995, Bill's great U-turn. (I was in the audience at the Moskone Center when he made his keynote speech. It wasn't as much fun as the keynote on one of the other days, which was Douglas Adams, but never mind.) Suddenly, Microsoft were going to recognise the Internet. It was going to build applications that would recognise the Internet. Hell, it was going to provide applications that required the Internet. And it would provide the tools so that we, the humble programmers in his audience, could too.
Problem was, they didn't design a new OS for it - they tried to retrofit their existing one. They didn't want to spend the money examining every line of source code - that's not cost effective. (Accountants have conniptions when you say you're going to hire hundreds of programmers for months or even years and, oh, there won't be any income from that.) Instead, it was going to be a case of patch as and when required.
It's sad, but there's no apparent customer demand for security.
There's no effective way for customers who aren't *large* businesses to "demand" anything.
What's needed is for someone with money to get bitten hard by an MS secuity flaw or stupid coding mistake *and* to be willing to go after MS in court.
If they have the time & money to spend, they might be able to get that "we don't claim the software will do anything" language in the license agreement thrown out.
If that ever happens, you'll see MS (and most other companies) suddenly spending a *lot* of time & money on preventing errors. Because they'll be legally *liable* to the customers.
Accountants *will* let you (heck, they'll sometimes *order* you to) hire lots of people if the alternativer is paying huge damages.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 11:04 am (UTC)Windows was designed as a single user, stand-alone desktop operating system. At that, it worked fairly well. Microsoft also supplied local networking, but they weren't interested in the Internet as a whole. As far as BillG was concerned, it was a flash in the pan that wouldn't matter very much.
And then, come 1995, Bill's great U-turn. (I was in the audience at the Moskone Center when he made his keynote speech. It wasn't as much fun as the keynote on one of the other days, which was Douglas Adams, but never mind.) Suddenly, Microsoft were going to recognise the Internet. It was going to build applications that would recognise the Internet. Hell, it was going to provide applications that required the Internet. And it would provide the tools so that we, the humble programmers in his audience, could too.
Problem was, they didn't design a new OS for it - they tried to retrofit their existing one. They didn't want to spend the money examining every line of source code - that's not cost effective. (Accountants have conniptions when you say you're going to hire hundreds of programmers for months or even years and, oh, there won't be any income from that.) Instead, it was going to be a case of patch as and when required.
It's sad, but there's no apparent customer demand for security.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-16 10:41 pm (UTC)What's needed is for someone with money to get bitten hard by an MS secuity flaw or stupid coding mistake *and* to be willing to go after MS in court.
If they have the time & money to spend, they might be able to get that "we don't claim the software will do anything" language in the license agreement thrown out.
If that ever happens, you'll see MS (and most other companies) suddenly spending a *lot* of time & money on preventing errors. Because they'll be legally *liable* to the customers.
Accountants *will* let you (heck, they'll sometimes *order* you to) hire lots of people if the alternativer is paying huge damages.