Computer Weekly readers have their say.
When will people see the Mac OS X light?
I read with interest two items from Computer Weekly, 6 December:
one was all about use of Linux and the issues surrounding the lack
of desktop applications, and the other concerned search
engines.
It struck me that neither author had even bothered to consider
Mac OS X. Here we have probably the best operating system for miles
around. It contains a superb search engine, Spotlight, built right
into its Unix core and it really works. Because of the way it is
built into the architecture it even works with searches made
directly from applications.
Which brings us nicely to all those desktop applications that
run under Mac OS X. Microsoft Office, the main components of which
were all written for the Mac anyway, is the obvious starter for
ten.
Apple's Safari browser is one of the best out there and of
course there are many others, Firefox, Netscape, Internet Explorer,
Opera, to name but a few. There are thousands of apps available,
not to mention all those that come free and generally cost a
fortune on other platforms. If you want to move away from Windows,
Unix on Mac is the only cost effective way to travel.
A great, secure operating system running on excellent kit, that
does not cost as much as people think, with low cost of ownership
and answers to both your correspondents' queries. When will the IT
world see the light? Maybe when the new Intel-powered Macs are
launched next year?
Brian Megitt
Why a PC without a switch is plain crackers
Cliff Saran writes that "in spite of advances in... Windows XP
and Linux, PCs are inherently unstable" (Computer Weekly, 13
December). While that may still be true of Windows, it has not been
true of PCs since the 80286, and (bugs excepted) has never been
true of Linux.
The 80386 introduced memory management to that chip family, and
ever since it has been possible to keep the operating system and
programs separate and secure from each other. The problem is that
the graphical user interface (including the apps running on it) is
often seen by the operating system as a single monolithic program.
This is made worse, as far as Windows is concerned, in that the GUI
is also part of the operating system, running with operating system
privileges. On Linux, very often the apps are command-line apps
accessed via a front end so they are segregated by the operating
system, and if the entire GUI crashes, provided you can access the
computer by some other means (such as telnet) it is still running
fine and can be shut down cleanly. It's not Linux's fault that if
the video card firmware has crashed the only possible fix is a
power-down.
Buffer overflows are not where one application interferes with
another - they are where an application is tricked into overwriting
its own code in memory, such that when it finishes what it was
doing and goes to do something else, that something else is the
malicious code it has just downloaded. And even that can be blocked
by old technology, the "execute protect" switch on AMD chips, for
example, that was copied from systems tens of years old. The
problem is, switching it on breaks an awful lot of modern programs
that were not written properly.
As for remote management - I am already horrified by the fact
that modern PCs do not have power switches, and can be switched on
remotely. Just wait until the bad guys discover how to switch on
all those home machines on broadband, and take them over while
their owners are asleep. All this new technology is just making the
crackers' lives easier, and if home users are clueless about
security now, I'll bet they will be even more clueless about this
new stuff.
Anthony Youngman
Trust is critical for successful
outsourcing
Christian Annesley's article on outsourcing (Computer Weekly, 29
November), struck an interesting note. The idea of trust in
outsourcing relationships is not new, but it also applies to the
individual peer to peer relationships in the deal.
Research from Morgan Chambers about five years ago established a
similar viewpoint, where trust was only one of several intangibles
critical to success in the relationship.
However, trust is a relative concept based on setting, meeting
and exceeding expectations. The key to it is setting out a clear
understanding adopted by both parties. In this context SLAs are
invaluable as a framework of acceptable performance.
Trust is not only critical to maintaining the relationship, it
is the foundation for the relationship long before the deal is
agreed and signed. It provides the motivation to take and manage
risks. Trust reflects on both parties equally. Both win or both
lose.
Where most contracts break down is not in failing SLAs, but in
failing to honour the trust in the relationship. SLAs are only the
embodiment of what has been agreed in principle. SLAs usually fail
to deliver when there are too many abstract measures. SLAs that are
based on business outcomes show a stronger commitment on the part
of the services provider.
And to make the relationship sustainable, the network of trust
has to be extended beyond the parties who signed the deal. A sound
outsourcing relationship will have multiple peer to peer
relationships designed to engender trust at all levels between the
client and the service provider.
Should one of the principals be removed from the relationship,
this ensures continuity of trust in the contract.
Stewart Buller, Phoenix IT Services
Recognising the real values of the OFR
Following Gordon Brown's decision to abandon the Operating and
Financial Review as a legal requirement for companies, it is
important to recognise the real value that OFR principles bring to
improving business success, as well as stakeholder confidence.
Nigel Sleigh-Johnson, head of financial reporting with The
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, has
already highlighted that he has not detected a huge amount of
opposition from businesses, and our research supports this. Only
30% of UK CFOs surveyed saw OFR as truly onerous. In fact, 62% said
that the OFR would provide value, and hence greater insight into a
company's performance for stakeholders.
This cry for an improvement in performance management is being
driven by business leaders, rather than regulators.
Forward thinking businesses will ignore the fact that the OFR is
no longer a legal requirement, and instead focus on best practice
and follow its guidelines regardless.
James Fisher, Cartesis