[Info-vax] 2009 VMS Bootcamp notice

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Jan 23, 1:14 am, billg... at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <glatl6$4e... at tempo.update.uu.se>,
>         Johnny Billquist <b... at softjar.se> writes:
>
>
>
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> In article <TqLL22IXg... at spock.koehler.athome.net>,
> >>        koeh... at spock.koehler.athome.net writes:
> >>> In article <f_udnQFNAIAMN_HUnZ2dnUVZ_vzin... at giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber... at comcast.net> writes:
> >>>> So learn Unix.  It's not VMS, and never will be, but Unix people will be
> >>>> in demand long after VMS is laid to rest!
> >>>   UNIX people will be in demand after VMS people only because VMS will
> >>>   just keep quietly running along with no attention.
>
> >> God, when will this myth finally end.  I have a Unix box here that has seen
> >> no attention since it was installed in July of 2004 other than continuing to
> >> add new user accounts every semester.
>
> > Really? That should be a very insecure system in that case.
> > I don't know of a single version of Unix (not even OpenBSD) which
> > haven't had atleast some CERT alerts serious enough to require upgrades
> > and serious checkups.
>
> > Not that I'm claiming any superiority of VMS, but the unbiased Unix
> > praise sometimes can go a bit too far.
>
> I have never claimed Unix is invulnerable.  That is the ballywick of
> the VMS fanatics.  But, I do get tired of hearing how VMS is the
> only secure OS in the world when I have dozens of machines running
> Unix and (horror of horrors) Windows and while we get attacked
> constantly they don't succeed.  It is possible to run a secure
> operation with OSes other than VMS and it is long past time for
> people here to accept that.
>
> Of course, they won't so everyone else will just laugh up their
> sleeves and let them continue in their delusion.
>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> billg... at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>  

What is possible in an ideal world is not always the same as what is
commonly seen in the real world. It is common for Windows systems to
be exploited, surely you couldn't disagree with that. Partly that is
because Windows boxes are defective by design (especially a Windows
system fresh from a Windows CD, as you have already acknowledged).
Partly that is because of the level of competence and experience and
motivation of the typical Windows-centric IT department (or home
user). Your experience seems to be very different from that of many
people in the Windows world, be they home users, corporates, or
whatever.

If the users/managers in general can't be educated to use the tool
safely, and years of experience definitely shows us that is the case,
maybe it's time to choose a safer more appropriate tool? Of course in
the Windows case, a whole ecosystem exists whose finances and careers
are dependent on continued inappropriate use of the "defective by
design" tool, which makes widespread change quite tricky, because the
technical discussion disappears in a sea of self-preservation: "the
tool may be initially unsafe, but just add blade guards X and Y and Z,
just upgrade it every three years, just (re)train the users, just pay
us the maintenance, and it will get the job done just fine..."