Thursday, June 17, 2004
Security, Compatability, and Stability
Ted makes some good points today about compatability when upgrading the OS. I remember when Windows 2000 shipped and hearing a Windows Program Manager say, "We had to sacrifice some compatability to make the system more stable." So, what's more important, stability, security, or compatability? I think the answer depends on who you ask.
I'm all for having the system more stable because that means fewer crashes. I'm also for having a system that's more secure. Ted wonders what Microsoft means by security, because he asks to be secure in his feeling that applications will continue to work. But I think what Microsoft is after is making the system more secure from worms, viruses, denial of service, and other such attacks. In this case, I vote for security.
Where does that leave compatabilty? Is it more important than the others? IMO, in most cases, it's third in the list. This will usually mean upgrading, rewriting, or replacing existing software. You may say this is a bad thing for you. That FoxBase DOS application that you had written for you in 1993 may do everything that you need, but could a new application do things better for you? Sure, I can design a house with a t-square, a pencil, and a few other tools, but would my job be easier and done better with a CAD package? When built, the house probably wouldn't be any better from one design to the other, but the design process itself would have improved.
Next time you're faced with a decision that will force you to upgrade software that "works just fine and does everything you need", take a look around at the options. You may just find that a little, temporary pain to upgrade, rewrite, or replace is far outweighed by the benefits gained.
I'm all for having the system more stable because that means fewer crashes. I'm also for having a system that's more secure. Ted wonders what Microsoft means by security, because he asks to be secure in his feeling that applications will continue to work. But I think what Microsoft is after is making the system more secure from worms, viruses, denial of service, and other such attacks. In this case, I vote for security.
Where does that leave compatabilty? Is it more important than the others? IMO, in most cases, it's third in the list. This will usually mean upgrading, rewriting, or replacing existing software. You may say this is a bad thing for you. That FoxBase DOS application that you had written for you in 1993 may do everything that you need, but could a new application do things better for you? Sure, I can design a house with a t-square, a pencil, and a few other tools, but would my job be easier and done better with a CAD package? When built, the house probably wouldn't be any better from one design to the other, but the design process itself would have improved.
Next time you're faced with a decision that will force you to upgrade software that "works just fine and does everything you need", take a look around at the options. You may just find that a little, temporary pain to upgrade, rewrite, or replace is far outweighed by the benefits gained.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]