Why South Korea Is Shackled To Windows 252
baron writes with a blog post explaining in detail why 99.9% of S. Korea uses Windows. This amazing tale began in 1998 when Korea decided it couldn't wait for SSL to be standardized (which it was in 1999) and commissioned an ActiveX control for secure Web transactions. At first there was a secure Netscape plugin too, but we know how that story ended. Quoting: "This nation is a place where Apple Macintosh users cannot bank online, make any purchases online, or interact with any of the nation's e-government sites online. In fact, Linux users, Mozilla Firefox users, and Opera users are also banned from any of these types of transactions..." Now that Microsoft has made ActiveX more secure in Vista, every Web site in S. Korea is scrambling to get things working again and the government is advising citizens not to install Vista. At the end of all this work, they will still be a monoculture in thrall to Microsoft, with millions of users sitting behind some of the fattest pipes in the world.
How easy to give up Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
and how difficult to get it back
This is not just for Computing but the concept is more important than ever now, in Computing
The Anti-Massachusetts (Score:5, Insightful)
be on to something. (If you we're already thinking that.)
Like Geek heven.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Kind of bashing Windows I guess, but it makes me wonder if it's even possible to convert to more open standards at a reasonable price? Even with the "more secure" ActiveX controls, its still easier to modify those existing controls in VS than it is to rebuild the site under OSS.
Sigh. Owning a Monopoly must be nice.
That's what you get (Score:3, Insightful)
This is MS's fault how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm not getting how this is anybody's fault except S. Korea's. SEED is an open specification. There is no reason the Korean community can't develop a plug-in for other systems. All that is required is for the S. Korean CA to allow it. Again, that's S. Korea's fault.
The only fault of Microsoft's lies in an area that the author is grossly misinformed. He says "In IE 7 and in Vista, Microsoft has re-architected Active X controls in such a way to make them 'more safe' by requiring a user action for the control to run", and then links to a page about the Eolas patent resolution. Many places have had to recode websites and controls after this change. While it is Microsoft's fault for the implementation, the impact on S. Korea is entirely up to them.
Sorry, you made your bed.
Not WIndows Fault (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the problem is that incompetently created websites use delicate nonportable nonstandard proprietary software that is only interoperative with one single obsolete platform.
Don't blame Vista; blame people who aren't responsible, experienced, or forward-looking enough to see why complying with standards is so necessary.
Now let's see how people will fix their glaring mistake. Will they "fix" it by repeating it (i.e. rewriting ActiveX controls to be compatible with Vista, so that they can get paid to screw their customers again in 5 years when the next version of Windows comes out) or will they fix it by removing the irresponsible dependencies?
Re:wait? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said.
This tale still might have a silver lining, though. A single security vulnerability, properly exploited, could turn the entire economy of South Korea into a cautionary tale. For a decade afterward, at board meetings where purchasing or standardization decisions are being debated, people will randomly interject "But we could end up like South Korea!".
This is slashdot. Do we believe what we say about the perils of vendor lockin and closed-source? If so, then we should also believe that South Korea's predicament will eventually become a clear and obvious error.
Proprietary software (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like Geek heven.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The first thing I wondered when I read this was, "Did they learn their lesson?" They standardized their entire country on a closed system, and when the vendor of that closed system initiates an arbitrary change, they're pretty much screwed and forced to rebuild things. In my mind, the smart thing would be to bite the bullet, drop Active X, and switch to Firefox and have a true multi-platform solution. Hell, if they can't do everything they require in an extension, they can go as far as making their own fork, and they'll retain that option in the future.
Really, this should be a lesson for everyone.
It's that last part that freaks me out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just thinking about it makes me want to tell my firewall to shun all traffic from large swaths of the world...
Another question: Couldn't this be forced through liability? I.e. These companies need to switch to using the now much-more secure SSL to handle transactions, or find themselves liable when their customers identities are stolen through their weak quasi-encryption scheme. That's why US companies did it--they didn't want to get sued because a weak protocol was cracked.
other parallels (Score:4, Insightful)
The Government of Canada uses a public key infrastructure system, that only works in some browsers. Famously for the past census, only some people could access it.
Some important sites, such as banks and airlines, don't support other browsers or require plugins as well. It is getting better with the important cross platform critical mass of Firefox, but far from perfect.
Is it a public highway, or something designed only for Ford Explorers(tm)?
Re:How easy to give up Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Korean computers SUCKKKKK!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't seem bandwith-intensive to me, but of course Adblock+ and NoScript helps a lot. :P
Re:Starcraft in South Korea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:& I thought N Korea was a barbaric dictator (Score:2, Insightful)
Its purpose is to manage restrictions on what users can or cannot do with the content. In what way does it manage rights?
Re:TCO Study? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am guessing there are people who control hordes of zombie machines that would disagree.
Re:ActiveX (Score:3, Insightful)
ActiveX was originally designed with almost no thought to security - it relied on having pretty much unrestricted root access to your machine, and running arbitrary code directly on your operating system.
No sandboxing, no privilege-escalation warnings, nothing. And root access.
Now with Vista Microsoft have finally sorted out some of their most egregious security mistakes. Unfortunately, "unrestricted access for random binaries on any web page in the world" and "secure systems that a concussed ten-year-old couldn't crack" are pretty much mutually exclusive.
Short answer: It's pretty much impossible to "patch" ActiveX, because ActiveX was the problem.
To be fair, ActiveX has got better since it was introduced, but it's still fundamentally flawed, and with some extremely dangerous and/or stupid design assumptions.
Re:Starcraft in South Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct, TA had no melee units. One of the 3rd party units I remember was based off a Protoss Zealot (called the Zlot in-game), but it simulated melee attacks by having a projectile range of only the length of its arms.
TA did have some differentiation in sides, if only in that they favored different strategies with their units. Overall, the Arm units were faster, while the Core units were more heavily armed and armored. Still, as you say, some of this was lost with the units introduced later, the various sides becoming a more homogeneous.
On the subject of all things TA, you might check out the following...
TA Spring [clan-sy.com] is an open source RTS project that largely recreated TA in a better engine, along with deformable terrain and other goodies.
Supreme Commander [supremecommander.com] is Chris Taylor's new baby, a spiritual successor to TA with all kinds of new goodies, 3 different factions, to-scale nukes, and multi-monitor support!
Re:Who are you laughing at, Popeye? (Score:4, Insightful)