Strategy

Executive Profiles

Board of Directors

Company Background

Be Investor Relations

Be Branding

Contact Be

Jean-Louis Gassée Column

Spreading the Virus May 17, 2000 After the "Love" virus epidemic, the expression "viral marketing," popular last year, looks... so last year. Examples of viral marketing ranged from the Real Player to WinZip, from Adobe Acrobat to... Internet Explorer, the virus that killed Navigator. The idea was and still is to infect as many PCs as quickly as possible using the Net as the transport mechanism for both the product and the buzz about the product. Calling this "viral," even in the case of a certain HTML interpreter, is a little extreme. Such products, even if they occasionally maim their competition, are not supposed to damage my PC or the files stored on my hard disk -- notwithstanding the therapeutic benefits of periodically reformatting and rebuilding one's system. A true virus is designed to corrupt a system and to replicate itself across the Net. Pursuing the biological simile, observers pointed out another problem caused by Microsoft's monopoly: the lack of genetic diversity in the PC ecosystem. Because PCs and their software are too similar, one noxious automaton can do much more damage than would occur if we had several alternative life forms. This argument deserves closer examination. True, BeOS, MacOS, and Linux users were not infected by the Love virus. Had each system had 25% market share, a single virus could only infect 25% of the population. And, if you assume some degree of precaution or paranoia on the part of users, sys admins, or ISPs, the 25% infection rate would be even lower. We'll quickly dispose of the argument that users should know better than to open an attachment without questioning its provenance. Yes, but no. Computers are supposed to serve us, to make our lives easier and simpler. Computers juggle very complex tasks under the hood, so they should take care of virus-carrying attachments for us. But that's where sloppy technical habits come in. In the name of making things easier (for whom?), Microsoft engineers have made Windows too susceptible to manipulation behind the user's back. No alert asks the user's permission and nothing verifies the origin of a program that modifies a key part of the system such as the registry, or that sends e-mail not created by the user. It reminds us of a certain Chairman, in a video deposition, quibbling that the computer, not he, had sent an incriminating e-mail. We ingrates now realize he was just being prophetic. Seriously, the fixes in preparation for Outlook will address these weaknesses without impeding our ability to download and install software updates from the right sources. Going back to the eco-diversity argument, it might contain a hidden flaw. With the Web, all browsers from all OS's need to adhere to the same set of *ML definitions in order to faithfully render Web content. In other words, all platforms are supposed to interpret *ML tokens in the same way. The unanswered question is whether or not this required conformity is a path to large scale infections by malicious applets. This last word brings up Java and its greater immunity from attacks -- not absolute, just greater. But, can everything required for Web navigation be performed solely within the safer confines of a Java environment? We know the answer: there is no JavaOS. So, we're left with "mixed" solutions and unanswered questions. As Web-enabled devices -- a.k.a, appliances -- proliferate, we'll have to inoculate these life forms against malicious programs on both server and client sides of the connection without placing too many restrictions on the real freedom to innovate. The frightening thing about the Love virus is that it was partially botched. In a way, it was a welcome warning against more efficient plagues, including strains that could do harm on more than one platform. We acknowledge that no OS, ours included, is invulnerable, but it is the degree of vulnerability that matters.

Past Columns: March 7, 2001 Intemperance Makes the Suit Look Bad February 7, 2001 The Web Device of Choice at Home January 17, 2001 Transfer of Power December 6, 2000 One Step Closer November 15, 2000 Thoughts on Comdex 2000 November 1, 2000 Watching the Pendulum October 4, 2000 Plus çà change... September 6, 2000 Connected Appliances: A Field Report August 16, 2000 Sub-PC vs. Appliances July 12, 2000 The Victim Microsoft June 7, 2000 The Power of Words May 31, 2000 The First Be Shareholders Meeting May 24, 2000 Intellectual Property and Internet Appliances May 17, 2000 Spreading the Virus May 10, 2000 Numbers and Feedback May 3, 2000 Manufacturing Consent

About Be, Inc. | Be Products | World of Be | BeOS Support | Jobs | Developers | Press | Partners | Investors

Copyright © 2001 by Be, Inc. All rights reserved. (Legal Info)
Comments, questions, or confessions about our site? Please write the Webmaster!