As the Bing assault hots up, what about Operation Chrome OS?

[v9designbuild]

Originally Posted by minstrel

A significant proportion of attacks on or infestations of Windows computers occurs through vulnerabilities for which patches had been available for months but where the fix was simply not applied. Should you blame the OS for that?

This is old news, published in 2007 and, although many won't agree, it does go some way in reassuring myself that I'm not barking mad or dreaming. It's not that I have anything in particular against Windows, it's just that I believe in open source and that as technology advances over the next few years we will see more web-based computing. It's not an attack on the Windows OS per se.

The (full) article The future of Windows should be open source, bears out something of what I have attempted to argue:

"...Windows is slowly but surely becoming a dying breed. It may take a good ten or twenty years, but it will happen. Trust me on this one. But perhaps the most compelling reason why Windows should go open source is because of the Internet. Simply put, the industry is moving towards the Internet and local desktop programs, while still popular because of slow connection speeds, have their days numbered...More than Windows becoming obsolete, the desktop is becoming obsolete. As technology progresses and our toys become more advanced, instant access is key [that is what Chrome OS hopes to achieve]...With a future web-based OS or even an open source OS that people have modified, I may be able to have a slew of products capable of running my entire home OS...But alas, we are left with an operating system that will never go open source and a business model that has worked in the past, so surely, it should work in the future, right? It's sad to say, but unless Microsoft wakes up and realizes the current trend in the industry, Windows and Office as we know it, may meet an early demise."

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by v9designbuild

You said not to believe Wired and to stop reading it, presumably because the author didn't share your views. The source has been clearly stated, so people can make up their own minds.

In fact, I had just a bit more time this morning that recently and I did check the Wired article you referenced. However, the article does NOT say that there is a problem with driver compatibility in Windows XP. Rather it says pretty much the opposite - that netbooks have issues with OS-X or Linux:

Five Things Google’s Chrome OS Will Do for Your Netbook | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

Compatibility
Google says that “[Users] don’t want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates.” One of the big problems with using anything but Windows XP on a netbook has been drivers. Try installing OS X on one if you don’t believe us, or any version of Linux not specifically designed for your model. If Google can come up with an OS that can be downloaded, dropped onto any machine and then “just works,” we might just have the ultimate portable OS.

Originally Posted by v9designbuild

That's pure pedantry, Minstrel, and please don't be so disparaging. We were discussing using the web for holding files. You said you didn't trust this and use three ISPs. Are you saying you use three ISPs to allow you to simultaneously connect to the internet? Odd.

Don't be ridiculous. I have 3 ISPs - high speed cable (default) with dial-up as backup in the event there's a problem with cable in my home office, and a 3rd for my business office. And my websites are hosted on a server in Florida, nothing to do with any of the three ISPs.

Originally Posted by v9designbuild

No, they're not. All of my packages are downloadable in Word/PDF. I don't want them as web pages. There is no difference between reading a web page and a Word doc with the same information.

I think my clients and many other people would take issue with your opinion. I very much doubt that they would like documents containing personal information stored on the web.

Originally Posted by v9designbuild

How can Linux attain "penetration" in the PC market when it's controlled by Microsoft?

In the face of bad or insecure technology, and given a choice of superior and more secure technology, people will in due course migrate to thr better technology. In one of your SiteProNews posts, you refer to me as a Microsoft "fanboy" (paraphrasing you here, not necessarily quoting you). I use what works best for a task. As one example, I continue to use Intuit Quicken for personal financial management, not Microsoft Money, despite that fact that my last two computer systems have come with Microsoft Money pre-loaded and free. Why is that? Because in my opinion Quicken is a superior product. So if Linux is really that much better, why has it remained an OS for hobbyists?

To claim that the reason is because Microsoft controls the market is circular nonsense. The world of internet technology is one of constant change, filled with examples of once dominant services or technology that have now disappeared or been reduced to 3rd or 4th place players in that market (e.g., Alta Vista, Yahoo). Arrive with a better product or service than currently exists and 99% of the time (unless you're Sony Betamax) you will prevail in due course.

Originally Posted by v9designbuild

I am suggesting that The Economist journalists on the Technology desk (even excluding the cartoonist) are very much more versed in issues involving Google/Microsoft's profitability than the likes of you or I. All newspapers have to use their "analytical powers" to write about the subject.

You obviously have more faith in the press than I do. I have seen too many examples of misinformation in topics where I have expertise to trust what I read in even the best newspapers or popular magazines. I take my information on sciene and technology from original soruces, not from journalists.

Originally Posted by v9designbuild

That is way off, Mistrel. Way off. How can you possibly say that The Economist and the New York Times provide "provide second-hand information" and "misinterpret and misquote" technology issues and therefore should not be used as source references? The journalists at The Economist are making predictions about economic issues every week and have been doing so since 1843. And that includes companies like Microsoft and Google.

See above.

Originally Posted by v9designbuild

Why, for the second time, have you put the word articles in quotes. Isn't that a tad disrespectful? Please provide the urls of "articles" you have published so as to even up the balance. But point taken.

Isn't quoting me without referencing the source a tad disrespectful? It's not what I consider to be ethical journalism, if such a thing still exists today.

[minstrel]

For a related article on Google's "security", see Gmail flaw shows value of strong passwords

[minstrel]

Why Is Everyone Picking On Google? — Datamation.com

A story broke this month that Twitter had been hacked, and documents stolen. Then it turned out that in fact Google had been hacked -- a Twitter employee's Google Apps account was compromised, which was the source of the leaked documents. That event prompted wide-ranging questions about the security of the "cloud" in general, and Google Apps in particular.

[whiskymac]

I agree with all the above, so if you need any help with the techy stuff Im yer man.!!!
By the way whats an operating system then !
Dont sober up its scary oot there, mind you it a bit scary where i am too- wherever that is.
whiskymac :-)

Interesting reading all the same