Nosce te ipsum

Richard Clarke on Microsoft security

Don't expect Richard Clarke to rely on Microsoft Corp.'s anti-virus or anti-spyware programs to protect his own computer. "Given their record in the security area, I don't know why anybody would buy from them," the former White House cybersecurity and counterterrorism adviser said yesterday, when asked for his thoughts on Microsoft's forthcoming line of security software.

Richard Clarke, former White House cybersecurity and counterterrorism adviser, harshly critized Microsoft's security track record. 'Given their record in the security area, I don't know why anybody would buy from them.' He also called for some regulation of security for ISPs in addition to better industry self-regulation, such as disclosing QA practices and becoming more accountable for secure code. I wonder if anyone will finally start listening to him?"

Slashdot discussion

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it just two weeks ago that our own beloved Department of Homeland Security has chosen to tackle their own internal information technology needs by investing heavily in Microsoft software. Ironically, when I visit their site and do a quick search for Microsoft, the first 20 results that come back are all articles about the latest exploits, worms and viruses infecting Windows this week. So not only do they use Windows, they have a complete database searchable by anyone showing how to to exploit the very system that they themselves use. God Bless America!

Podcasting: It's all over the dial

I can't believe it but Dawn and Drew are in USA Today this week. I've been listening to D&D since around their 3rd or 4th show and it's utterly amazing to see them live and in color in a national magazine talking about Podcsating. Way to go guys - keep it up!

I remember the first time I ever saw the logo for the new Unix based Mac OS X - (10.1 at the time) which was semi-transparent blue / aqua X that looked quite gel like which I thought looks completely different from anything I'd seen in the operating system world, something new, something different. It's been fun to watch (and use) Mac OS X as it's evolved since that time with each version introducing new and compelling features that make using my Mac day to day all the more enjoyable.

Apple's next generation of OS X, named Tiger (stupid name IMO) is set to debut during the Summer of 2005 (which in Apple lingo means the very possible day of summer this year) but the countdown for Apple's World Wide Developers Conference has just begun with more details about Tiger sure to be forthcoming. I would absolutely love to attend WWDC - perhaps next year.

In the meantime, Apple unveiled a revamped new logo for the new operating system (compared to the earlier version that made it's debut at last years WWWDC). The new looks continues the evolution of the Mac OS X logo featured in the Panther release but the new version is of the X sans serif.

I was curious to see what it looked like sitting next to the packaging of the current Microsoft XP operating system retail package (in all fairness to Microsoft, the XP box is several years old at this point but it's also the most current product offering that they have as Longhorn is still God only knows how far out). In seeing these two products side by side it became obvious that beauty can sometimes be more than skin deep and boxes containing these two operating systems really do tell you a great deal about what you can expect to find inside. Just looking at the design and color scheme, Windows XP looks like it was designed (as cliche as this sounds by now) by Fisher Price with it's overly bright colors like what you would do if you were trying to appeal to young children. In fact, the operating system itself looks nearly identical to this upon installing - the bright green (or blue) interface with huge interface elements taking up large amounts of screen real estate. The Mac OS X by contrast looks quite sleek and understated. Upon first boot into Panther (and Tiger as well) - you are first taken by it's elegance and unobtrusiveness. With the exception of the dock, the Mac interface really isn't all that obvious at all (by contrast on first boot - Windows XP is popping up dialog boxes in the lower right hand corner informing the user of such important things as 'You have unused icons on your desktop!' among other things.

There is a website that I've watched for some time (although it appears as though they are having trouble staying alive) called X vs XP.com which has a fairly unbiased side by side comparison of the two operating systems telling the good along with the bad. Give it a look. Why should we even be bothered with the nuances of things like computer operating systems? In my humble opinion, since those of us who have to deal with computers as a large part of our everyday job, having an easy to use, trouble free operating system is really crucial to your work. When I worked primarily in the Windows world, I constantly felt as though I was fighting with my computer to get it to let me do what I need to do vs working with the computer as it helps me get my work done (in part by just staying out of the way).

`The first time I ever opened Microsoft Word on the Mac, I was struck by the interface which was literally the blank document in front of me - and that's all! The toolbars were hidden (until you moused over that area), there was no interface 'chrome' surrounding the edges of the application (something that many people say makes them feel boxed in) - but instead, all I saw was this clean, white document - waiting for me to get to work. My focus was on my writing, not on which button do I click. It was an odd experience (at first) but these days, when I have to use MS Word on a PC, it feels so tight and restrictive that I literally don't feel the same way using it as I do on it's Mac counterpart.

The Blogs Must Be Crazy

Or maybe the MSM is just suffering from freedom envy.

A few choice bits from a spot on article:

The bloggers have that freedom. They have the still pent-up energy of a liberated citizenry, too. The MSM doesn't. It has lost its old monopoly on information. It is angry.

Blogging changes how business is done in American journalism. The Main Stream Media isn't over. It just can no longer pose as if it is The Guardian of Established Truth. The MSM is just another player now. A big one, but a player.

The blogosphere isn't some mindless eruption of wild opinion. That isn't their power. This is their power:

• 1. They use the tools of journalists (computer, keyboard, a spirit of inquiry, a willingness to ask the question)
• 2. Bloggers, unlike reporters at elite newspapers and magazines, are independent operators
• 3. Bloggers have an institutional advantage in terms of technology and form. They can post immediately.
• 4. Bloggers are also selling the smartest take on a story. They're selling an original insight, a new area of inquiry. Mickey Kaus of Kausfiles has his bright take, Andrew Sullivan had his, InstaPundit has his. They're all selling their shrewdness, experience, depth. This too is a public service.

• 5. And they're doing it free. That is, the Times costs me a dollar and so does the Journal, but Kausfiles doesn't cost a dime. This too is a public service.

• 6. It is not true that there are no controls. It is not true that the blogosphere is the Wild West. What governs members of the blogosphere is what governs to some degree members of the MSM, and that is the desire for status and respect. In the blogosphere you lose both if you put forward as fact information that is incorrect, specious or cooked.

• 7. I don't know if the blogosphere is rougher in the ferocity of its personal attacks than, say, Drew Pierson. Or the rough boys and girls of the great American editorial pages of the 1930s and '40s. Bloggers are certainly not as rough as the splenetic pamphleteers of the 18th and 19th centuries, who amused themselves accusing Thomas Jefferson of sexual perfidy and Andrew Jackson of having married a whore.

This really doesn't do the piece justice, you really must read it for yourself.