Kort Explores conundrums of the human condition

The news has once again been full of reports of computer viruses and intrusions that caused countless man-hours of lost productivity and millions of dollars in damage. Security experts recommend updating add-on virus protection software daily - or even hourly.

I've never wasted my time "updating" my add-on virus protection software - I don't even have any of the "name brand" add-on anti-virus products installed on my machines. I have received dozens of infected emails. I know they contained viruses because I opened a bunch of them just to see how they were assembled. My firewall's log files have also recorded a variety of attempts to break-in, steal information, and/or otherwise misuse my computers for nefarious purposes.

But none of my computers have been compromised, contaminated or corrupted because I've been practicing safe computing. Computer viruses exploit the flaws in badly designed software. The key to safe computing is realizing that you only need anti-virus protection if you're using inferior products that are susceptible to viruses.

The anti-virus industry reports finding hundreds of new "Windows" viruses every month. There aren't any "Linux" viruses. None at all. The inherent immunity of Linux systems, built with careful attention to quality by the world's best programmers, is infinitely superior to the inherently imperfect protection of even the best "after the fact, always one step behind" add-on anti-virus fixes for products whose primary design objective has always been to continue generating 85% profit margins for an abusive monopoly.

Not that safe computing has been easy.

It's taken me over two years to figure out how to build robust and reliable Linux workstations and servers that are usable in the real world. I originally started developing Linux systems in order to provide the users of my inspection software with a robust and reliable industrial strength alternative to the security risks, exorbitant costs, and legendary unreliability of the third rate proprietary products commonly bundled with mass marketed computers. However, my experience during this project indicates there are many users outside of the inspection industry who also match my target user profile.

My target user doesn't know anything about his computer - and doesn't want to know anything. He just wants to use his computer as a tool to accomplish the task at hand. Test users in my latest project were "Windows" users with little interest in the technical details of their current systems, let alone a burning desire to become intimately involved with the inner workings of a Linux system. Dealing with user names and passwords was pretty much the limit of their computer tech tolerance.

I networked Linux desktop machines with the test user's existing Windows computers so they could easily switch between the two. Once they'd worked with one of my Linux systems long enough to "unlearn" some of the twisted "windoze-think" that results from excessive exposure to Microsoft's "intentional incompatibility as marketing strategy", my test users consistently reported finding the Linux interface more intuitive and easier to use. They also consistently preferred the robust reliability and efficient performance of Linux systems.

My test users also appreciated not having their time and money wasted on/by intrusive and unwanted "features", having to purchase and install a seemingly endless series of "upgrades" to fix bugs in the original product, the extra costs and unnecessary distractions of having to guard against all of the security risks resulting from using slickly marketed but basically flawed products, and the outraged frustration of having their computers crash just when they'd created something they didn't want to lose.

My test users were particularly pleased with the way my remote system administration and tech support allowed them to focus on just using their computers without having to become computer technicians.