The blog comment feature may not be such a good idea after all. I read a comment to one of my blog entries posted by a JeramyG. This person called me a foolish teenager (I’m no teenager) because of my ‘unsupported’ comments made about Microsoft.
I have read some of JeramyG’s post and I have no intention of posting such formally written, and wordy entries to a blog page. To do so would be ridiculous in my view.
If anyone comes across my blog and find that I have an opinion they can be sure that I am a pretty good thinker and that anything I say in a post I can back up with more detailed or thorough arguments, by citing sources and other methods of supporting an argument (although I have no proof reader so mistakes can happen).
I choose not to write my blog like a formal paper. I choose to supply as many details or support for a statement, or argument, as I desire. Sometime I will be more detailed and sometime (most of the time) I will not.
This blog is for me, not anyone else. I do not feel that a blog must meet anyone’s standards but those I choose to use.
I returned JeramyG’s rudeness in kind with a reply to the comment post JeramyG made. It was not nice but necessary.
As for Microsoft I have plenty of experience with their operating systems (specifically Windows 2000 Prof.). I can tell you that with anti-virus, software firewall programs and other security methods being used Microsoft has still been penetrated. By penetrated I mean some unauthorized person had access to my machine while I was online.
Maybe I should give my update about how secure their operating system is after every security update they issue. So far Microsoft’s track record has not been good.
Then Microsoft issued a press release stating that some of their proprietary code had been illegally released on the internet and that this may make it (Windows 2000 and NT specifically) more vulnerable to exploits by hackers.
This may be true but if the code is well written it wouldn’t have any security holes that could be exploited and if it did Microsoft should have patched them.
Linux code is freely available and subject to exploits by hackers, but the code is made to be as secure as possible and when possible security holes are found the distributors of the respective flavors patch them.
That press release sounded more like Microsoft was trying to head off possible lawsuits. They want to be able to claim that some of their code was stolen and released online making them not liable, but that logic just does not work. It does not necessarily follow that because your secret code is no longer secret and is available on the internet that it is less secure….. unless it is poorly written.
There are reports that there are about seven more identified security holes in many Windows operating systems that patches have still not been issued for. Now how secure should the average user feel when using Windows?