User talk:Peter Schmiedeskamp

Computer Security
Regarding
 * This statement may still be hyperbole and should be evaluated.
 * I recognize that on Wiki, that it is not good enough for someone to know that something is true, we need to be able to prove it, and sometimes it is difficult to prove a negative.
 * My career is with IBM computers ... I been working on OS/400 since 1997, which is about 10 years after it came out. It is extremely resistant to computer security breaches for several architectural reasons.
 * The software is almost exclusively compiled, as opposed to interpreted, in which you can't take a date file and execute it, like you can on other OS's.
 * While end users can upload and download data files, the way software gets onto the system is via a process normally blocked to ordinary users.
 * If you look at the national bug track type lists of computer security problems, IBM OS shows up there perhaps once every 10 years, while other OS's are showing up on like a monthly basis. This is because IBM computers are designed with security from the ground up, while other OS's tend to have security thinking as an add on after other needs.
 * This is like having a camping tent where decision is made to add a padlock or other security to something that was not originally designed for security.

AlMac|(talk) 14:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)