The bolded type is more an exercise in punning than a real headline. But where it does tie in is that sometimes a writer decides to play with language, or make a point, that cannot be supported by the story itself. And so we can see this in action in a technology story out of Europe.
It seems that the city government of Munich has decided to dump Microsoft and switch its PCs to running the Linux operating system and OpenOffice applications. The rationale supposedly was to increase security and save money, and given the problems Microsoft has faced regarding the former and its prices regarding the latter, there would seem little doubt that the city might be making a fiscally smart move. According to the article, Microsoft was willing to pony up heavy discounts to fight the competition, but Munich was really concerned about security. "We are raising computer security by avoiding a monoculture," said the interior minister according to the BBC.
But once again, here is an organization making a decision that seems to ignore that famous universal principle, the law of unintended consequences. I would argue that avoiding a monoculture - by which I understand a single type of product and vendor - only increases security risks. The other option is to have multiple operating systems, which means that someone who wants to break in has a wider choice of potential vulnerabilities. According to virtually every security person I've spoken with, and they are many, simplicity is a key to security. The more complex your organization, the more doors that could have been left unlocked: more security problems that are found, more patches to implement.
Perhaps this is more a case of (perhaps) unconscious anti-Americanism. In the story itself, the author writes, "The German government is streets ahead of every other EU administration in understanding the Microsoft threat to the world's IT infrastructure." And what is the threat? Who can tell, because that is never really addressed, just assumed. I hate to think this, but the Observer writer and editors seem in this case to have allowed a piece that uses what is a noteable technology story, after all, to prove what appears to be a pre-determined conclusion.
11:35:12 AM 
|
|
