Re: [seul-edu] Draft Review

["Stephen C. Daukas" <stephen@daukas.com>]

At 09:02 PM 5/2/2002, Matt wrote:
>Leon Brooks wrote:
>>On Thursday 02 May 2002 20:07, Matt Drew wrote:
>>>thoughts:
>>>2nd paragraph:  Viruses are a mostly Windows problem, but security
>>>issues are not.
>>
>>Disagree. Windows has far more than its fair share of non-virus security 
>>issues. The 9X series is insecure by design, and as much as compatibility 
>>with that (e.g. the Registry) is factored into the NT series (2000, XP), 
>>by so much does it also become inherently less secure.
>
>The above is completely and totally true -- however, the statement being 
>made is (from the current draft):
>
>"Like viruses and security issues, that issue is exclusive to Microsoft 
>and its products."
>
>That is misleading at best.  Viruses you can make a case for.  Security 
>problems you can't.  While Microsoft does have the lion's share of 
>security problems, they are not alone in that arena.  "Exclusive" implies 
>that security is a Microsoft-only problem, and I don't think you'll find 
>anyone who will agree with that.
>
>OTOH I just read the release again and it does flow well.  Your call.

Accuracy is far more important than flow.  The statement quoted is just 
plain inaccurate and comes across as overstated to make a point (a.k.a. 
having an axe to grind).  By extension, one begins to wonder how accurate 
the entire release is...

>>>It damages SEUL's/schoolforge's credibility with
>>>knowledgeable users and admins.
>>
>>Disagree, but if you want to water it down, please propose something 
>>softer that *doesn't* omit the point.
>
>Sure:
>
>"Like viruses and security problems, that issue is mostly exclusive to 
>Microsoft and its products."
>
>Same effect, slightly watered just enough to be honest and still have the 
>desired impact.

How about:

"like the majority of viruses and other security vulnerabilities, the 
issue(s) of [restate for clarity if necessary] plagues Microsoft products 
at a much higher rate than GNU/Linux distributions [insert industry numbers 
here]"

Or something like that.  Keep in mind that while viruses et al. may plague 
Microsoft, the point you are trying to make is not about Microsoft's 
security policy for itself, but that their products are inherently weak in 
this area, and unless you have first hand knowledge about how Microsoft 
uses their products internally, you can't go there.

Where possible, quote third-party numbers/stats.  This has the effect of 
moving you from pure opinion to a considered position based on industry/3rd 
party information.  You don't want to be seen as having a axe to grind!  If 
the release comes across as as accurate, informative, useful and 
authoritative, then the world will be our oyster.

[snip]

>>>"This legal restriction applies only to Microsoft software,"
>>
>>Not quite true, although it is very much along the lines of what I am 
>>trying to put across. It also applies to, for examples, AutoDesk's 
>>AutoCAD and Sophos' Sweep.
>
>good point, but the page in question deals specifically with OS licensing.
>
>>>Brooks says.  "Open Source Software such as the Linux operating system
>>>can legally be run on donated hardware if all the previous software is
>>>simply erased.  There are no licenses, no restrictions on use, and there
>>>no hassle with Open Source Software."

Anyone verify the legal aspects of this yet?