A bit of technical advice appearing in the Sunday New York Times likely has elicited snickers from members of the Apple and Linux community and moans of displeasure from Windows users and just about everyone at Microsoft. That bit of advice, found in an article titled "Tips for Protecting the Home Computer," is to stop running Windows as well as Internet Explorer.
"Using a non-Windows-based PC may be one defense against these programs, known as malware; in addition, anti-malware programs and antivirus utilities for the PC are available from several vendors," the article says.
Of course, Windows' and IE's respective histories of insecurity are really no secret to anyone in IT -- or even anyone who knows what the acronym IT stands for; security holes have been reported time and time and time again over the year. Thus in some ways, the NYT's article is laughably dated.
Still, given how widely read The New York Times is, the article must come as a bit of a blow to Big Red, as it suggests that the perception that Windows and IE aren't safe might be becoming more mainstream. But more important, it may suggest that more casual PC users are coming to realize that real alternatives may exist to meet their needs.
Interestingly, though, the article doesn't make any mention of alternative OSes, though it does refer to increasingly popular non-IE browsers like Firefox and Opera.
The article doesn't come at a good time for Microsoft: Vista, after all, is due to be released to consumers shortly and Microsoft has invested a lot of resources in attempting to bolster the forthcoming OS's security -- not to mention a lot of PR time and effort trying to let people know about the company's efforts. Meanwhile, the NYT article makes no mention of Vista's security enhancements (though it does allude to better defenses in IE 7).
To Microsoft's credit, at least some IT folks out there have taken notice of the work the company has done to secure Vista. Case in point: InfoWorld's very own Security Adviser Roger Grimes wrote last month that "Vista will never be as secure as OpenBSD, but I believe it will be secure enough to ensure that Microsoft becomes known as a vendor of choice for a secure operating system. And that's a far cry from where it was five years ago."
On the other hand, there already have been reports out about security holes in Vista.
What do you think? Is the Times offering some sound advice here for mainstream end-users or simply serving up some FUD?
Posted by Ted Samson on January 7, 2007 11:41 PM
