Viruses and Operating Systems. (October 07, 2003)

On the Guyana Linux User Group mailing list, there's been a brief discussion about operating systems and viruses - inspired by this article.

In Linux vs. Windows Viruses, Scott Granneman (SecurityFocus) makes some very important points - but there's another point that is neglected, and is where the social engineering aspect derives from.

This point is about Operating System growth. Like any piece of software, Operating Systems have a life cycle - a cycle which the social engineering of Free Software and Open Source software (FLOSS) development takes to a quantum level, but which proprietary software does not. Since FLOSS is social in the development, and all software engineering concerns are addressed at the same time (instead of sequentially) by anyone who wishes to participate, various things happen. Most important is that you get code that is peer reviewed by every single member of the project, which is not limited to any other company.

Take this point to the next level - where architecture also benefits from the social engineering perspective. And then take it to the next level, and you'll begin to realize that when the cost of a project does not control the engineering economising within the software - you see where Windows has issues. It's not that Microsoft is evil. It just has been a pioneer which has made mistakes; the fact that Microsoft hasn't learned from the mistakes is a product of business decisions inspired by a proprietary concept which, strangely, Microsoft created.

Every revolution carries the seeds of it's own destruction - a lesson even FLOSS advocates such as myself must carefully consider at all times.

What is so horrible about the engineering of Microsoft? Nothing really - but the engineering of Microsoft is definitely not optimal. In fact, it's less than optimal in an engineering sense because it has been optimized for - dollars. An example: Microsoft altering it's web browser isn't being done because of engineering. Some may think that it's being done because the court ruled it so, but that's fairly sophomoric reasoning.

The fact is that Microsoft is changing the browser because a business decision maker decided that the fine or patent fees would be too high; therefore adjustments are being made. Some may argue that the intent isn't as important as the end result. I say that the end can justify the means, but it can never justify the intent.

When the future is ruled by business decisions which adversely affect the product - where Leaky capacitors can plague motherboards because 'cheaper' materials are used - these are business decisions.

When Microsoft created DLL Hell, it was a business decision that, with proper engineering and software configuration management practices, would have been workable.

When Microsoft created scripting to DLL Hell to make work 'easier' for developers (and thus created positions for people who maybe should not be developers), this was a business decision to make their products more attractive.

And when some kid can sit down and in 15 minutes can write a script - a Microsoft based script - that can plague the internet for months, we put the naughty boy in jail... (Simplified for laypeople)

But we let the people whose business decisions allowed this to happen - by not using ethics in their engineering practices (much less their business practices)...

We get worms, we get viruses - not because young people get bored and write these scripts, but because young people get bored and *can* write these scripts. We'll always have intelligent and bored young people. You'd think that the public would figure that out - where did the term juvenile delinquent come from anyway?

Microsoft isn't the anti-Christ. Microsoft is just what it is - a business where the rules of software development are governed by idolization of stock prices. You get what you pay for, and you get what you earn I suppose.