License Computer Users

[Seeker of Truth]

License Computer Users
By John C. Dvorak
August 18, 2003

Over this past weekend yet another virus/Trojan/worm/whatnot attack culminated in a lot of panic. Apparently, far too many systems were infected with this latest disease, and the Net was once again choking on the aftereffects. Probably the blackout in New York and much of the Northeast saved us because it simply took machines offline.

This new attack, which infects Microsoft Windows NT, 2000, and XP machines that have not been recently updated, goes by Lovesan and Blaster, among other names. One message it produced was "I Love You San." Has anyone even wondered who the heck San is? Track her or him down and get to the bottom of this latest scourge.

Here's my solution to this problem: a license to use computers. It's time we realize that national security is at risk, as is the future of the Internet and modern business. These attacks are never going to end, that's now obvious. Many are direct strikes against the infrastructure, such as the DNS attacks of late. Others are assaults on specific systems, such as the near ruination of the IRC network DALnet. Once in a while, a direct attack against specific Web sites takes place. Professional network administrators, who can control things to a certain extent, deal with all these sorts of attacks. When the White House site was about to be attacked, the administrators changed the IP addresses. Over this past weekend, Microsoft modified its Windows Update address just enough to foil the expected bot attack.

The problem of the future is going to be the virtual destruction of the Net and small businesses by end users, who are clueless to an extreme. These people should have their computers confiscated unless they can pass a minor proficiency test. What does it take to be a little careful without being ridiculously careful? Most users are totally out of it. For example, I know one person who will not open a JPEG, ever. This is pointless. Others see spoofed e-mail from a "friend" who writes in pidgin English and includes a weird attachment—which they click on immediately. "Did you got my last note. I send again. Please read." Oh, okay!

The creepy worm viruses such as Lovesan don't scare me. The Klez type of attack—triggered by the dopey e-mail attachment—will be the problem.

The experts—in the industry overall and at Microsoft, specifically—are addressing none of this. Outlook sucks at protecting users, and Microsoft has done nothing. The company has also chosen to give users the wrong defaults, so file extensions are hidden unless you track down the settings to make them visible. Why? So Windows systems can appear more like Macs? Or what? I can do a whole column on dumb defaults.

More (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1224374,00.asp)

[nosferatuscoffin]

Ah, good old Dvorak, always one of my favorite reads when it comes to the PC industry. I have been reading him for over 15 years, and he is generally on target with his analysis.

As a Network Admin by trade, I cannot help but agree with him on the licensing of PC's, in theory. The main reason you have viruses, worms, trojans etc., spread is because most end users are clueless when it comes to the basics of running their PC's, much less how to protect them from said infections and break-ins.

In the old days, (from the 80's up until the late-mid 90's) a lot fewer people had PC's and far fewer were online as compared to today, where you have tens of millions of people going online and millions more to come. With that comes more machines that can be infected and more opportunities for malicious coders to use them as a gateway to spread their code all around the 'Net.

And then of course, are the Symantecs, McAfee's et al., that push and bundle their crappy software onto new machines. Their AV programs are inferior, miss a LOT of virsues etc., and in some cases (e.g. Norton firewall) cause more problems than they fix. But the clueless end user 1) thinks he is protected because he has an AV on his machine and 2) because of that, does not update, thereby defeating the purpose of having the AV on the machine to begin with. That is an invitation to disaster.

The only problem I have with licensing PC's, is that you are turning the right of use and ownership of something that has become a crucial part of our nation's economy and infrastructure. the PC, over to a government entity. You start down that slippery slope and you can say bye bye to the freedom for the Internet and eventually, as governments always do, you will have the rich with their machines, subsidizing the lower income sectors, with the middle class stuck in the middle,. so to speak.

[DoctorDoom]

ABSOLUTELY! License the users. The computers aren't the problem. It's the defective hardware between the keyboard and the chair that results in 99% of the grief.

First giant step required: get rid of the gawddam "user-friendly" software. The overwhelming majority of security holes result from millions of lines of code added so that assholes who can't get their VCRs to stop flashing 12:00 can use computers knowing nothing more than where the power switch is and which mouse button to click.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of any given version of Windows is dedicated to trapping errors caused by computer-illiterate morons. As the old saying goes, "Anything can be made foolproof, but nothing can be made idiot-proof."

Get rid of all that error-trapping code, and have EVERY operator error switch to a screen that says in huge letters, "Next time do it RIGHT, dipshit!" followed by a complete shutdown WITHOUT saves. A few of those and even the most brain-deficient will get the hint that proper operation will save some hassle.

Aside from the Net-related problems, how many machines out there have NEVER been given a scandisk or defragging? How many machines have megabytes of orphan code because the asshat owners don't uninstall programs properly, but just delete folders?

How many machines have programs fighting for control because the OEMs don't give a shit about anything but seeing that THEIR program runs on a given OS? How many owners are pissing and moaning about Windows crashes when they have a hundred farking programs running in the background on a box with 64 megs of RAM?

How mant people whine about Microsoft not testing every possible hardware combination with every possible software combination?

License the frigging users and stop making the boxes useable by appliance owners. These are complex machines, and no one should be allowed near one with having demonstrated some competence in using it.

Linux users brag about how stable their OS is. If Linux had to be as "user-friendly" as Windows, and ready to run by some asswipe who just bought a Wal*Mart package puter, I submit that it would be as prone to problems as Windows. You can't dumb down an OS for the lowest common denominator and keep it stable.

Bring back the command line interface and the overwhelming majority of computer problems would vanish.

SHIT! I need a Tylenol.