While the automobile-to-computer comparison suited the spin of your argument, further examination proves that it is fallacious. There is an entire industry built around repairing automobiles that people didn't properly service. The threat of costly repairs or even of having to buy a new car was no incentive to those people who chose to maintain their ignorance. Their vehicles, through lack of maintenance, became unsafe. A danger to themselves and others. What was the solution to this problem? Did everyone suddenly have to become mechanics to be allowed to operate a vehicle? Nope. Mandatory yearly physical inspections along with ticketing for out-of-compliance vehicles was instituted AND the manufacturers of automobiles were subject to strict regulations regarding the safety of their products. Industry and consumer watchdog groups evaluated the relative safety of vehicles and made these reviews available to the general public. Recall procedures were put into place to deal with those problems not caught during the production process. All of these processes cost the producers of automobiles a great deal of money, and this cost was passed onto consumers who now had the tools and incentive to make informed decisions about which car was inherently safer than another. "Economic darwinism" is taking care of the rest. That's why we have cars that can go 100k miles now with virtually no preventive maintenance. It's also why operating systems like Linux, which tend to be more reactive to security and stability concerns, are making such inroads into traditionally MS shops.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/236/25987#25987