OSNews

No in a sense Apple hasn't advanced as much. OS X is a unix variant with a propietary interface, Safari is khtml, Pages uses libconv, H.264 was not an Apple invention nor was AAC format. The amount of LGPL, MIT, BSD licensing in OS X is astounding. For better or worse I would say about 99% of components of Windows were Microsoft created, Maybe not the concept but they created their own implementation, not just using the one created by someone else

Fair point, but all these technologies are ones where the basic "idea" has been around quite a while. There are a surprising number of technologies in OS X, in particular in 10.4, that are pretty new ideas, and developed almost solely by Apple.

The problem with these things is more the time it will take for them to catch on. In particular, I would highlight:

Core Image - a simplified, unified method for graphics programs to get work done, either by the processor or graphics card, whichever is fastest.

Core Video - an extension of this to provide these sort of capabilities to video

Quartz Composer - a nice easy, graphical way for "describing" 3D environments. Great for developers wishing to incorporate simple 3D or 2D items in their apps

I also think Quartz Extreme Plus Mega (or whatever the latest version is called, I can't remember) is pretty neat. The idea of shifting all the rendering of the interface into the GPU.

And I'm sure there's others, but not off the top of my head.

In fact, just the way applications work in OS X is about the best way of handling programs I've seen. The idea that a program is literally just that; As far as the user is concerned, a single file. Just double-click it to run. Move it around the file system if you want! Of course in reality this program "file" is really a special kind of folder with all of the necessary resources tucked inside of it.

@ Anonymous (IP: 67.170.178.---)

Windows is not based on DOS as you claim.

Windows 3.x, Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME is based on DOS. However, Windows on NT is a different issue and has been since the first NT-release (versioned NT 3.1 since Windows 3.1 (for DOS) was the most recent DOS-based release).

NT and DOS is two different OS'es. And NT has quite a few good ideas incorporated (and some not-so-good ideas. And some good ideas are poorly implemented).

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

It doesn't matter if you are talking the Windows "New Technology" (NT) stream or the older Windows products based on DOS - for backwards compatibility reasons they both lack a true security structure.

FAT16 and FAT32 filesystems do not provide for files to be tagged with "permissions". For example - files do not have an "execute" bit - which means that the only way Windows knows if a file is executable or not is via its filename extension. This is so easy to get by it isn't funny.

It is still possible to install XP on a FAT32 filesystem - which means that the core of XP by design will still run without files being properly identiified by owner or by executable/not executable status. Windows XP can guess if a file is a valid part of the system or not - but it is exceptionally easy to fool - by design.

Windows design has inherent "lack of security" built right in. This derives from backwards compatibility with the single-user DOS-based versions of Windows and the desire that the NT-based versions should be able to run (binary) executables designed for the earlier DOS-based versions.

Windows security is borked - by design. Irredeemably broken from the outset.

If Windows Vista attempts to retain even the slightest bit of binary backwards compatibility, then it too will be broken from the outset.

If Windows Vista does not retain backwards compatibility for binary executables, than any Windows user wishing to upgrade to Vista will have to purchase again each and every proprietary application on their systems.

99.9 of the systems ship with XP are NTFS.

Another user who doesn't use windows
and posts on OSNews. What a suprise!

it does not matter if 99.9% of XP systems have NTFS.... which I doubt anyway... backward compatability etc etc

however

100% of XP machines come with FAT32 access software included. it is this he was talking about, not what filesystem the partitions are formatted in

You might have NTFS on your hard disks... but XP needs FAT32 access if you are going to use your MP£ player or your digital camera with it.

[quote]
You might have NTFS on your hard disks... but XP needs FAT32 access if you are going to use your MP£ player or your digital camera with it.
[/quote]

So, not like I have seen any security issues with my digital camera.

How is that NTFS writing compatibility coming for linux?

>>99.9 of the systems ship with XP are NTFS.<<

It doesn't matter if most systems use NTFS - the point is the design is such that it is able to be installed on FAT32. FAT32 does have a proper set of filesystem permissions bits.

Since XP can be installed on FAT32 (regardles of how many or how few systems actually are installed on FAT32 or NTFS) - the point is it CAN be installed and run on a FAT32 filesystem. Therefore, execute permissions are not required.

>>Another user who doesn't use windows<<

Actually, I do use both Windows and Linux every day. Except I'm not a user - I am a Systems Engineer. I design computer systems for a living.

Correction: FAT32 does ***NOT*** have a proper set of filesystem permissions bits.

>>"Windows security is borked - by design. Irredeemably broken from the outset."

I think you don't know ANYTHING about the Windows design. You haven't seen the source code. Even if you saw it you wouldn't be able to understand it - mainly because it's so huge.
This "unsecure by design" phrase is just a hype. The only thing you learnt is FUD.<<

I don't need to see the source code. All I need to know is a few facts:

(1) Win 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98 & Windows ME are essentially single-user systems.

(2) Binary executables originally targetted for Win 3.1, Windows 95, 98 or ME can very often still run on Windows NT, 2000 or XP systems.

(3) Windows NT or XP can be installed on FAT32 filesystems (not that they often are, just that they can be).

Yeah, but that really doesn't matter does it? A regular user couldn't care less of the rendering engine in the operating system is a derivative from an open source project or not.

Is advancing being measured in lines of written code? I say no. Apple has legally used open source libraries for not having to reinvent the wheel. That is OK, and it's a big part of what open source is all about. I think it's great that a company like Apple is willing to use open standards as a base for their business (os wise).

I would even go as far as saying that Apple has advanced the most, based on their willingness to not write every single line of code theirselves, but rather make use of the existing opportunities from open source projects. Microsoft (and any software corporation for that matter) can learn from this.

Many people would believe that adoption of open standards and less reinventing of the wheel is a better approach. IF this is the case then Apple has indeed come much further than Microsoft.

"The MS platform has changed dramatically as well, however, and it is much greater than just the operating system these days. Apple, on the other hand, hasn't advanced nearly as much"
When you take things in context their meaning changes. Microsoft does in fact ship a lot more stuff outside of the OS than Apple does:
A full (emphasis on full) developmen suite including a newish language sort of thing (.net, whatever you call it).
A full Office suite.
Anti-spyware software (probably their own fault that they need it though).
xBox
Videogames
Hardware (crappy as it is)
And a host of other small software that I haven't mentioned like a "note taking app."

Apple really hasn't advanced as far in a business sense. They may be ahead in OS technology, but that's not what he meant by advancement.

i agree that apple hasn't broadened their offerings since 95 as much as microsoft, but they have done a bit..

in 95 they had desktop and portable lines, the newton, and i dont think the emate yet, filemaker i think. and their os. probably a couple dead technologys like opendoc and something else.

since then, aside from the ipod..

a _full_ media suite, iLife.
both server and client OS, hardware to run them (xserve, xRAID) and software (xSAN, webobjects etc)
a suite of profesional media apps motion, FCP, dvdsp etc

now, im not saying they've diversified themselves across the board as much as microsoft, but they've certainly ben expanding exactly _what_ they do for customers.

Their mice are good for about six months before the left button stops working properly.

So, you had a problem with one mouse, that you probably didn't even send back (they would have given you a new one for free), and you claim that all MS hardware is bad?

but it was from Rob Enderle, did you expect something even remotely accurate ?
he should get a PR job for George Bush or Tony Blair next.

I couldn't agree more. I have no use for Enderle's articles, but if you really have to link to them (anyone is entitled to a mistake every now and then ...) at least mark them clearly ("Enderle's drivel" tag?) so that I'm not going to increase the number of hits to his page.

This was a dirty trick, as most of us wouldn't have
bothered clicking on the article link if we'd known it
was just another Rob Enderle troll-fest...hmmm..or
perhaps that's the /reason/ you DIDN'T provide the
name...hmm...

Well regardless its a dirty pool and I don't want to swim
there, so please don't pull this stunt again or I'll be forced
to rely on Slashdot and other websites for my news...

--bornagainpenguin

the point is Enderle gets paid for it.... probably more than the MS astroturfers here get paid.

MS astroturfers here? What are you talking about?

he was talking about you for one. I have seen your posts here before. you defend ms no matter what. cpuguy is one too

You think MS pays me because I defend them a lot? Wow. Does Linus pay you? Please, what a joke.

Why don't you look at any threads with IE. IE is crap and I always put it down. I have put Microsoft down in other discussions as well. Just because you don't like that I'm not a microsoft hater, doesn't mean I'm an "astroturfer" (whatever that is) or that they pay me.

Right now I make money writing a program for linux, and nothing from Windows. What motive do I have for defending windows? None.

I do apologise. I got you mixed up with someone else.
I have gone over your previous posts and you are not a pro-ms shill. Sorry again

it hasn't yet, no one in their right mind would claim the vista betas have raised the bar above linux or os x, and really, thats all we have to go by until it ships next year (probably).

if you look at some of the things in beta, beagle comes to mind first, hell, all thenew interface plans.. we might as well include thosei n comparisons.

can't really with os x as no plans for leopard have been described, just that it will ship aorund the same time as vista..

personally, i imagine i will run them all on the same piece of hardware, and _thats_ going to be great

how can Visata have raised the bar when it has not yet seen the light of day ?

Does anyone here remember the Windows Cairo betas... (pre-release betas for Win95) ?

They were nothing like the release version. Microsoft cut a lot of goodies out for the final release, because they wanted to keep backwards-compatability.

The same thing is happening on a daily basis with Vista. the release version will be nothing like the betas. Which is a real pity.

I have a beta running on one of my machines, and although it is very slow. I hope that is purely debugging code that will be removed and optimised for the final. I like it.

BUT

It is still not as good as my Linux system. Linux is so far ahead of Vista on my desktops, it should be scary for Microsoft.

All the stuff Microsoft says will be in the Vista release already exist in Linux.. Over a full year ahead of Vistas public release.....

How much more ahead will Linux be next year ?

The slowness is probably just drivers. I found it to run very snappily on my system, but nVidia has already put out some beta versions of their Vista drivers.

With the development model now in place for Vista, if a feature has made it this far in Vista, it will be in the final.

While OSS may have something for the compositing engine, they don't have the back-end API's and such to build really great apps (very quickly, I might add) that take advantage of it. OSS may have something to go up against Vista search, but what about WinFS?

Vista also just plain has a lot of architectural changes to it to be more modular, taking many things out of the kernel, new APIs to replace the mess of Win32, etc... Vista is just flat out developed on a much better process, and as such, even the betas have far less problems than Microsoft expected (instead of 10s of thousands of bugs, it's more thousands, in beta 1). They will be releasing new (supposedly public) beta releases every month. The Windows coders have to submit to "quality gates" that checks the code much more rigerously than before... etc...

The biggest reason that it has taken so long is because Alchin sat down with Gates and said "look, we've gotta change how we develop Windows, it's taking too long, it's an utter mess". And with that, they threw out all Longhorn code, and started from scratch with 2k3 Sp1 (instead of XPSP2).
Vista, to Microsoft, is basically a new, clean Windows core to code against, rather than the mess of a system they'd had before.

>>OSS may have something to go up against Vista search, but what about WinFS? <<

Reiser4.

Reiser4 = Vista-NTFS, not WinFS

>>Reiser4 = Vista-NTFS, not WinFS<<

Pfft. Try this for an equation:

Reiser4 + plugins >> Winfs.

And? You only prove my point.

I don't know. For me, televised sports in and of themselves are retard fodder. How could some schmidlap blathering on during the whole thing lessen it anymore than it already is?

you forgot to mention that IE7 looks terribly sexy too

Well, that's extremely subjective.

I for one like to have my address bar, buttons bar, and menu bar all on one line, this is not possible with the current IE7 build.

Some of you really need to grow the hell up.

You didn't like that I made a legitimate complaint about IE7 and so you mod down my post.... Go play your video games until you can become an actual adult.

>>One thing that is really cool about IE7 is it runs in it's own sandbox. Even if it has the worst hole in it to date, it can not be used to gain access to any other part of the OS, there by, technically, negating any possible security problem with it. This is not something Firefox has, or is even planned for.<<

If you run Firefox under Linux, then it is just like all userland programs and it does run in a "sandbox" provided by the OS itself.

In Linux, users run as users, not as root. All userland programs (such as Fireofx) have no access to any other part of the OS.

If Windows is only just getting this feature, and then only for IE7, then it is over a decade behind. Easily.

Firefox still has access to the users home directory, which could contain a lot of stuff the user would rather not have messed up.

IE7 I believe restricts its read/write access to stuff in it's application data folder, and not even the documents and settings folder altogether.

>>IE7 I believe restricts its read/write access to stuff in it's application data folder, and not even the documents and settings folder altogether.<<

Does this mean you can't download anything?

Or if you can, it can only be in "it's application data folder" - which would be a system folder?

Or if it isn't a system folder but a user folder - then how is that any different, othe than making the saved file harder to find again under Windows and IE7?

If this going to be like the "security fix" in Outlook where they just disallowed any links to files? Why on earth don't Microsoft just fix the real problem - which is simply to not let internet-based applications execute anything?

How does not allowing links, or only allowing files to be saved in an obscure directory possibly fix anything?

Windows must be far more broken than I ever imagined.

They're not going to let anything execute with IE7 either.

As far as read/write access, instead of disabling it in certain cases, it's disabling it EXCEPT for certain cases (like downloading a file).

Check out the Channel9 video, they explain it quite well there.

Firefox still has access to the users home directory, which could contain a lot of stuff the user would rather not have messed up.


it might have access to your home directory... but it has no activeX to actually RUN anything in there

uh ... buffer overflow would apply to Vista's attempt to do a sandbox as well. Linux has been doing sandboxing for many years, whereas this is Window's first go at it apparently.

Try again yourself.

The point I was making is it doesn't need ActiveX to run anything. A bad buffer overflow bug will allow remote arbitrary code execution.

It's not the same at all.

Firefox in Linux can still access all your user data. IE7 can not do this.

You are talking about simple user permissions... something that, actually Windows does better... to bad that app developers are lazy and require Admin to use their apps.

Whether or not IE7 can do that depends on the implementation. If it contains exploitable holes the sandbox idea won't work (and then it will have system wide access.. that's even worse - and there is no 100% tight sandbox model so far - just like there is no 100% secure browser).

Let's see what happens when it's actually deployed world wide.

Firefox on GNU/Linux does not necessarily have access to user data, btw.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

The thing is, it is sandboxed compltely into it's own environment. IE7 can not touch anything but the history folder and the temp inet files. anything that is executed from within IE7 (including a security hole) can not be used to take advantage of any part of the system except these 2 folders.

Well, since you didn't post anything other than "ROFL" I guess you don't really know then, do you.

You are talking about simple user permissions... something that, actually Windows does better...

Uh, 2002 called, they want their FUD back. ACLs has been completely implemented in the 2.6 series of Linux kernels. This offers the same type of permission granularity as Windows NT, and then some.

That's not quite true: you still can't make a file executable in Linux simply by putting the right file extension...

One thing that is really cool about IE7 is it runs in it's own sandbox. Even if it has the worst hole in it to date, it can not be used to gain access to any other part of the OS,

like EVERY single linux program ?
windows should have had that since day one.

This is not something Firefox has, or is even planned for.

Not needed as Firefox is not integrated into the operating system and firefox does not run activeX

Not to mention that the only pluses that Firefox has over IE are the tabs and the standards support.

plus it does not run activex
plus it is not integrated into the system
ie7 tabs are nice, but years too late (opera)
and standards are ther for a reason.

I noticed your posts here before, Microsoft must pay you as much as they pay Rob Enderle, either that or you are completely retarded spouting off blind support for no cash in return !

We know, everyone except you has read the article. Read on down to where he tries to say that if Apple and Linux would work together they could beat Microsoft.
He doesn't bother to mention how they are to "work together."
Just, read the article. It's bereft of facts and flow. Each sentence seems crufted into the next and it all fits (sic) together to form something. But not something that makes much sense at all.

It's just ... badly written. It's like he's starting with a great thesis: "Hey Apple, remember Win95, don't let it happen again." But it doesn't bother to show a real comparison to 1995 and 2006.

And I thought that before I checked who the author was!

I saw his point - he's a MSFT fanboy. And his whole article just reeks of it. Apple users get along just fine with OS-X + AppleWorks and Linux users get along fine with *nix + OpenOffice. So Vista + Office 12 is NOT some kind of magic one-two punch like he claims it is. BS article, nothing more, nothing less.

Well, just from some of the quotes already posted here, I guess he is saying how MS, Vista, IE is wonderful. I don't know about you, but I'm reading a lot of "[MS-something] is better than [non-MS equivalent]" in that article. Without an explanation of what it does better, to boot.


Of course he's also saying "Oh, I knew years ago everything that would happen later, but did anybody listen? Oh, no, they didn't, and look at what happened to them! Ha, ha." which makes him look kind of silly anyway.

I agree with you.

I also think that is easy to miss the point in the article, because if next year Microsoft offers the same technological advances that Mac OSX and Linux, is very difficult to compete against Microsoft, in terms of the market size.

Basically, If joe user, have the same technology for Microsoft, why he bothers to use Linux or MacOSX?

Even if I think that is easy to miss the point in the article, the article is bad written and is very Microsoft (and USA) biased, because it doesn't mention several things:

1. That can be very difficult to upgrade to Vista from current Hardware (mostly in third-world countries)
2. Several governments try to use open source platforms.
3. The upgrade will be very expensive (in comparison to Linux) in third-world countries
4. The anti-piracy measures will affect the market share in countries where piracy is elevated.
5. Who will use the reduce version of windows (that can run max 4 programs at the same time) when it can use linux, instead.

The case of Apple is different. The next version of MacOSX must be prepared to compete against Windows Media Center Edition. So, Apple must innovate. But is very different right now.

Steve Jobs is leading Apple right now.

Exactly how many people in Afghanastan have you seen with a computer?

While the US is the single largest consumer for all things including computers, if you think third-world (including the one whose name you can't even spell) are not important, you are sadly mistaken and rather clueless... one of the few things that MS does have to its credit has been making computers affordable for a lot more people than Apple's roadmap ever seemed to. If they decide not to follow through on that, it might actually allow something like Linux to be the next OS for the masses. Also, if third-world countries were so unimportant, one wonders why all the big companies (including MS, Yahoo and Google) are trying so hard to make inroads into Asia.

Wow, you completely missed the point of my statement, not only that but you put in a personal attack.... good job!

Chill out.

that sounded a little racist....
even though it must have been an imaginary country, as I have not seen Afghanastan on any map.

if you were trying to say there is no computers is asia countries, you are well wrong. There is more computers in asia than there is in the US. and country by country they are all moving to linux. Governments and private users from these countries ;

China
India
Pakistan
Malaysia
Phillipines
Japan

Have all decided to have a FREE system, where they can be sure there is no-one from the US spying on them from their own computers.

Think about it yourself too... how come the only system to suffer from spyware is the one YOU are using ?

Have all decided to have a FREE system, where they can be sure there is no-one from the US spying on them from their own computers.

Right, that's probably why piracy of Windows and Office is *huge* in Asia.

Piracy of MS stuff is indeed very high in Asia. but that is the guy in the street. I was talking about governments too. It is the governments that is driving the adoption in those countries.

" Right, that's probably why piracy of Windows and Office is *huge* in Asia."
No, it's high because US Citizens and Europeans travel on vacation to these countries. And while they're there, why not buy some cheap software (be it games, OSes etc.) and movies. It's the samewith fake clothes and many more different items.

Spyware is a problem on ANY system.... To think that a system is not threatened by spyware is to be extremely ignorant.

Spyware doesn't spread on your system like a virus. It is a legitmately installed application (either via some other app that you installed or some dialog box you just clicked OK to). There is NO way to counter-act this without completely restricting users from install an application (which is only viable in a corporate environment).

Also, I never even mentioned Asia. Its funny, there are 3 replies to my comment, each of you intepreted it completely differently, and each of you completely lost the meaning.

Spyware does not exists on *nix platforms. It's pretty much unique to windows.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

"But, spyware is literally a legitmately installed application, and as such it does not spread around like a virus."

I think the point they are making is that under Windows it is quite easy to install a system wide application without knowing or consenting. Under Linux/Unix, you will be asked for root password if you are doing anything with any system files.

However, you can have executables in your home folder as a user, and they can run in restricted ways without asking permissions. iscribe for Linux is one example I've come across. This probably does put anything in the home folder potentially at risk.

>>Spyware is a problem on ANY system.... To think that a system is not threatened by spyware is to be extremely ignorant.

Spyware doesn't spread on your system like a virus. It is a legitmately installed application (either via some other app that you installed or some dialog box you just clicked OK to). There is NO way to counter-act this without completely restricting users from install an application (which is only viable in a corporate environment). <<

I have a system at home that I am easily able to keep 100% free of spyware. Guaranteed.

It is a Debian Linux system. I hold the root password (as it is my system). I follow a simple policy - I install all applications only from Debian repositories using only the apt package manager. There are over 17,000 packages to choose from.

You see, those repositories are open source. That means that people who actually use the packages and who can understand source code have seen the code in those packages - and they then use them themselves. Therefore, unless those people like inflicting malware on theselves, everyone who also uses the same packages is guaranteed there is no malware in them.

So no, your basic premise is wrong. Spyware is not a problem at all on some systems.

I'm not going to get in this whole debate with you , YET AGAIN.

The same can be said for Windows and OSS apps.

Hell, I keep my Windows spyware free by not clicking yes to ActiveX installers (unless I know exactly what it is), or installing some stupid shareware game off of a shady website, or from porn sites, etc...

Just because you can get apps from a Debian repository does not mean the Linux system as a whole is not susceptible to spyware. It's just a way to stay away from it, just like my way of staying away from spyware for Windows.

Can you name a couple of spyware programs that affect Linux? I'm trying to find some but I can't seem to find any? I mean spyware that actually exists, not the hypothetical ones you constantly allude to.

Name me one piece of spyware I can get on my Kubuntu system?

>>The same can be said for Windows and OSS apps.

Hell, I keep my Windows spyware free by not clicking yes to ActiveX installers (unless I know exactly what it is), or installing some stupid shareware game off of a shady website, or from porn sites, etc...

Just because you can get apps from a Debian repository does not mean the Linux system as a whole is not susceptible to spyware. It's just a way to stay away from it, just like my way of staying away from spyware for Windows.<<

Except that in your system there is no way to tell if a closed-source binary executable contains spyware or not. Therefore your system (even with the very best of your attentions) is susceptible to spyware or adware contained within an offering from a supposedly reputable source.

Take for example a PDF viewer. Acrobat reader 7 from Adobe contains adware - either on a Windows system or on a Linux system. This is a closed source application.

Kpdf from the Debian repositories contains no such adware. This is an open source application which does the same thing.

You do not need to restrict what a user installs on his system if thousands of eyes have already checked over the source code.

Now your reply.... I will not call you "extremely ignorant" even though the reply seems to come from someone who has no concept of the way open source works.

I will give an example, so bear with me.....

I design some software, emm, it is a calculator.
Now I write some spyware that opens all your docs and scans for cc details, then uploads onto a server I have access to.
I release the closed source app and loads of people download and install it.
NICE

Now on a system so "open" and I mean that as in "swiss cheese open"" as Windows, then, all your details belong to us.

Now on a "securer", (note I did not say "secure" as nothing really is), system like Linux, if you download a closed source app, and install it, then the app will run. But will it be able to scan inside all your docs ?
Will it have the priviliges to open a port and connect to the internet ? Maybe....

But

If I had released the software as open source, then I would have to make the source code available, so anyone could spot that I have included spyware, and put out warning for people who cannot read code.


HOWEVER......... some people are muppets and should not be allowed near computers. You know the sort, the ones who always click Next or OK blindly. The ones who always get caught by the flashy graphics on website pop-ups. The ones who think it really is Kelly Brooke nude. The ones who think they need that website to send them smilies.

>Even if I think that is easy to miss the point in the article, the article is bad written and is very Microsoft (and USA) biased, because it doesn't mention several things:

>1. That can be very difficult to upgrade to Vista from current Hardware (mostly in third-world countries)

Starter Editions, altought they suck are planned for those countries. Todays top models(which cost more than 2000€) can run Vista in very good performance and we still have 1 year to go before releasing Vista. Plus Microsoft has time to optimized code more aggressivly. It's very likely that basic models(which cost less than 1000€) will run Vista in 2006.

>2. Several governments try to use open source platforms.

Goverments will try to do that but mostly it's been publicity stuff. There hasn't been any major succees in migrating to open source platforms. Microsoft will probaply lose some of it's public sector incomes but they will still be strong in private side.

>3. The upgrade will be very expensive (in comparison to Linux) in third-world countries

Same as first part. Usually computers are upgraded to better ones every 4-5 years. It's likely that most of migrations to Vista will be done in 2-3 years after releasing it, that means in 2008-2009. Some companies have started to move to XP just couple of years ago.

>4. The anti-piracy measures will affect the market share in countries where piracy is elevated.

This isn't fact and it's impossible to say if anti-piracy measures will move users to other platforms, mainly free open source ones. Often consumers buy computer with pre-installed Windows, so it's no problem. Also Microsoft has talked about lowering price of Vista.

>5. Who will use the reduce version of windows (that can run max 4 programs at the same time) when it can use linux, instead.

Actually not many since reduced version is only available in few countries. Averega Joe doesn't use that many programs same time, usually they use web browers and IM-software (readers of OSnews aren't Average Joes ). Most people will choose Windows because they are familiar using it and it's easy to use.

I like the way you think about computing it is very analytical. Vista is aimed at the developed countries when most of the world will not have access to new hardward even if it is "cheaper" than the past. I don't want to talk about a feature comparison, but I the appropriate subject of comparison is markets and general trends in computing. Here are some important points the author missed.

1) As mentioned above the developing market is much bigger and probably growing faster than the U.S. or Europe combined, which is where Vista will be heavily martketed.

2) This is not 1995 when the when the desktop was the center of the computing universe. The Internet is the center of the computing universe and webservices not software on the desktop is what is most important. Appple receives most of it's profits not from OS X, but from the iPOD and itunes sales. Google is the current King of the internet centric universe. Microsoft has recently announce a reorganization because of the Google threat. Computing is moving out from the desktop into the broader consumer electrics market and Apple is leading the way.

3) Microsoft's biggest competition maybe itself. Many people do not upgrade, because to most people if the computer works why should I upgrade. When it's time to upgrade maybe there will be a cheaper easy to use Linux computer that does everything they need for less than half the price, but most people don't care that it is Linux just that it is easy to use. Most people are not enamored with technology as the author or most of the readers in this forum. It's not what is under the hood it is how it works.


As in economics past performance (Win95) is no indication of future (Vista) performance. The world has changed this is a not 1995 it maybe 2006 when Vista ships. Anybody ever hear of "Internet time"?

Yes, the search feature is in Vista. The FS (and the shell) handles the meta data, so you can literally edit it directly from the shell (including ID3 tags).

Again and again, people modding down posts for no reason... except to what, cover up the truth?

Whoever did that is absolutely pathetic.

please... no one cares about Microsoft Gadgets. It's just a little detail, just like Dashboard. Silly useless details, made famous just to hide the fact that there's nothing new under the sun. I found it crazy when people were all making their pants wet about "Oh WOW!! Tiger has desktop Widgets!". But still, in 2005, their Terminal program can't deal with accented characters in filenames...

I use both GNU/Linux and Tiger, and to be honnest, they both suck. Windows XP is worthless even more. So, I put great hope in Vista. If it's really as good as it seems to be, I may well be a switcher when it's out...

Uhm. -sigh-

What is it that would make you switch to Vista? I'm not saying that the only thing great about Tiger is Widgets. Lol.

The whole design of Mac OS X is just amazing, one would have never thought a UNIX desktop could do what Mac OS X does. Apple also have a release up their sleave ;-)

Nothin abut Vista excites me. And yes I have used them all. I work for a Linux consulting company, but I would never run Linux as a desktop OS. KDE/Gnome are still far away from what I want in a Desktop. E17 might be cool. Seriously Vista not impressive. Sure to the computer user who has never seen OS X or seen a sidebar Vista will look "cool". Heh. you get my point.

>o Windows Sound code re-written from the ground up to support the latest audio technologies.

Wow. Thank god I'll finally be able to listen to my music on my computer thanks to Vista. Oh wait, with all the DRM I probably won't.

>o Windows Video code re-written from the ground up to support the latest video technologies for 2D and 3D.

Another wow. I can't wait to rush out and buy the latest tunnel-vision disembodied-floating-gun-wandering-around-a-dark-hallway games once Vista is released. In the mean time I'll just have to continue making music on my Mac.

>o Windows Networking code all re-written for the ground up for security, the latest technology and even faster TCP/IP download support (they have registered a 40X (yes not percent, but times in increase) strait from the devs themselves, not PR.

My cable provider is what caps my download speeds, not the TCP/IP stack. It'll be 40x faster? Faster than what? I heard the new Crest has 40% more cavity fighting action too.

>o With a 64-bit version of Windows Vista for the desktop who the hell wants to use Linux for desktop stuff.

Don't forget to ask Santa to bring you that 64-bit version of Vista when it hits the shelves in 2007. Meanwhile I'm typing this on a machine with a 64-bit processor and using a 64-bit OS right now, it's called an iMac running OS X Tiger. (And those 64 bits aren't making me type any faster, BTW.)

>o With a 64-bit version of Windows Vista Server with IIS 7.0 which will kill apache, beyond a cheap bastard who will want to run linux?

When somebody has two options, with equal capabilities, except one costs several hundreds of dollars and is less secure, and they choose the cheaper/free and more secure of the two, I call that person smart. You call that person a "cheap bastard".

> With a 64-bit version of Windows Vista for the desktop who the hell wants to use Linux for desktop stuff.

What planet are you on? On this planet we call earth, Linux has been 64-bit for ages.

Linux runs on anythig from wristwatches, mobile phones and PDAs through to hefty servers, Beowulf clusters and supercomputers.

http://hardware.newsforge.com/hardware/05/09/16/1555231.shtml

Wnat a 64-bit desktop Linux?

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=suse

Have a look at the table, where it says "Processor Architecture". It says: "i586, ppc, x86_64". In fact it has had a 64-bit version available since April 2003.

I do note however, Windows Vista is probably only about four years behind the times here.

In most areas, Vista is even more behind the times than that.

Still no ppc version of Vista though, I notice.

LOL@proforma

You're really funny, you know :p

I won't bother answering your funny comments. I'll just keep quadrobooting my system (Win2K3 Server, LFS, BeOS w. Haiku-elements and "good" ol' DOS - perhaps to be replaced with OS/2.. or perhaps penta-booting?).

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Well, I guess the same place Apple ripped it off from...
Konfabulator...no, wait...DesktopX...don't you think it is the case of the pot calling the kettle black...

Try Sherlock, smart guy. DesktopX? haha!

actually they are working on providing a unix-like type server, less gui more command line possibilities...

Very well said ^5

Very well said, you did forget to mention Apple's Firewire.

I really don't see Vista being more than another WindowsME, a goddy GUI revamp. Linux/BSD are kicking ass in the server/embedded/development environments, as well as getting ready to unleash onto the desktop. Apple is taking over the consumer media handheld, desktop and laptop marketplace as well.

Linux could have. Apple offered about 6 years ago. They didn't offer properly, but they offered.

I really have to differ with you there.

While Microsoft is at a very crucial stage in it's business life, it is far from the post-Microsoft era.

Now, unless Microsoft executes correctly and fixes some mistakes that they've made in the past, it will (reletively) soon be the post-MS era. But that is not now, and is still a bit of a ways off, if it does indeed happen.

Explorer the file manager is a masterpiece. It's the holy grail of file managers... It's probably the only one that even makes a dent in what a real shell lets you do to manage your files (let alone manipulate your files).
I don't know why people hate Finder. Few of them who hate it ever seem to be able t0 say why.

Uh, you realize that the article is pro-Vista, anti-OSX, right? Because you being critical of the article seems antithetic to your subsequent defense of Vista...

(You don't actually have to read the article, just seeing that it's from Rob Enderle is enough!)

I'm just sayin'...

I'm anti-article and anti-OS-X-trolls-who-have-posted-in-this-thread.

The author of the article is an idiot and so are the people proclaiming Vista is a copy of OS X.

I vote for NO more Enderle articles too

That happened after 2000. That's a completely different time for Apple. Enderle is right that Apple almost went bankrupt after Win95.

Exactly what employees are leaving the company in 'droves'.

Also, the ONLY thing taken out for the Vista release is WinFS. But they still do have the Spotlight-like features.

They also dropped monad.

No, Monad is not dropped. But, simply, the apps need to be able to take advantage of Monad, and as such, Microsoft's own apps need to be recoded, which will take time... but Monad will still ship with Vista if not, then slightly after as an add-on.

Because it's better than bash

Beta2 was released not too long ago.

Who says I'm excited over it? I don't really care, except that it's one less thing for other people to complain about.

I just happen to be a Monad beta tester.

He said "the mac people who post here", not "Apple". Who is the "moron" now?

Similar idea, different reasons, different implementations.

DesktopX was the first in the modern OS era to do it. Konfabulator followed up and simplified it. Apple almost copied Konf completely. All the widgets look the same, and even how you can view them is ripped from Konf. Face it, your almighty Apple actually did copy someone else for once, with the implementation and final look and behaviour of the product.

Hi to all those who know nothing please read this: http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator

If you actually read through the entire link that you posted you would learn a few thinks...for instance, something that Apple implements which has "visual resemblance" with something else "couldn’t be a coincidence. Of course it wasn’t coincidence — but that doesn’t mean it was a “rip-off”."

If this is true we should throw out all "MS copies Mac" comments here...because all they are talking about is visual resemblance.

Read your own links before you post. If MS is copying Apple, Apple is copying others. If Apple is not copying others, MS is not copying Apple.

Nothng ground-breaking? How about WinFS (which goes so far beyond Spotlight and the like).

How about, finally, the ability to run remote apps w/o having to go to the TS desktop first, and running the entire Remote Desktop client software.

This is just 2 things.

As for slow adoption, who cares? I for one will run it, as it is a nice upgrade to XP, even beta 1 has some pretty slick stuff that XP can not do (The shells handling of meta data is my favorite thing).

If there is nothing ground-breaking, and it's a yawn, why do you even bother to not only click on the article, but also comment on it?

Really, have you even used it?

There is no more DRM in it than there is today. And today, it is completely optional to put DRM into stuff (of course, if something is DRMed, then there is nothing you can do about it).

Also, you really shouldn't have to worry about the DRM unless you are doing illegal things with it (for the most part, there are a few cases where it can be a problem, and that just requires an adjustment for how the DRM works).

Just one thing. Apple offering X86 hardware could really be a major blow to Microsoft, as now it's not so scary to go out and speend a few thousand dollars on a system that can't run Windows apps... or, what if you don't like it, you are stuck with MacOS.

Now (or when they are released), with X86 Apple hardware, someone could have Windows isntalled onto that hardware, and as such would be more willing to buy the Apple hardware.... I for one am considering this, though, I do not like the idea of buying a pre-built system.

It is a point that would be worth taking seriously if:
- He gave any reason beyond "Vista is so much better than anything else..."
- He took into account other possibilities, like (off the top of my head) people not upgrading to Vista because they're quite comfortable with XP (or even 2000) and Vista requires hardware upgrades.
- He clearly explained how Vista will/would change the market.

(And that's without mentioning his stupid attitude of thinking he knows everything.)


But as none of those requirements are met... Sorry, this is just some guy blabling.

no... what he was saying is this....

He said........"Piracy of MS stuff is indeed very high in Asia. but that is the guy in the street. I was talking about governments too. It is the governments that is driving the adoption in those countries. "

I take it from this reply of yours....."People do not want that FREE stuff. They are willing to steal MS stuff instead.
- Government wants that FREE stuff.
- Government forces it on their people.
- You are proud of it.

Wow! If U.S.S.R. was alive today, comrade Stalin will be running Linux on his desktop.
"

I take it that you have NEVER had a job ? The governments of those countries are switching to Linux, so it follows that the employee will want to use the same stuff at home as they do in work. That was one of the reasons Microsoft got to be so dominant in the first place.
How does your mind work when you took that reply from his post ? Do you automatically think everyone is a thief or is it just you...

Also..

The last I've seen suffering was FreeBSD with rootkit planted on it.
Speaking about spying on governments...:)


hmmm... for a start...

rootkit <> spyware

do you even know the difference ?
no ?

go away then and go download a pirate version of "fuck away off from my trailer "

what kind of vendor is that wants to put 7 OS versions of it's brand new. And Please are we living in a new era or what. Who will buy a stupid Vista which can run only 4 programs without even TCP/IP on it. Come on ppl and pro M$ fans who the f**k will pay for that crap 40usd ??? tell me ????
I have all i need with linux and BSD. And if the stupid hardware vendors are not pro M$ locked windows will be dead very very soon !!!
See Mac OS X, KDE, Gnome .... see all the Asians that are moving to Linux/Unix ... see all the Europe moving to Linux/Unix ..... well it smells like dead cow in here sorry :-)).

So why even post in here? You must be upset about some thing as if you never cared about windows, you wouldn't be reading this.

The real deal is that linux is dead for anything other than a fad. Linux is making Microsoft's Windows a much superior product in almost every way over linux. With the Desktop and Server and all the linux programs are going open source on windows as well so why the f*** do we need a fad OS?

Sure some countries are liberal and they don't want a US dominated company to put out an OS and those companies really want to control you themselves.

China OS, in which China controls and spies on you
with their own OS. It's perfect! You could never type an email again without china knowing what you are doing.

That's why this free as in speech is f**ked up when it comes to countries having their own OS.

The free as in beer is also a bunch of BS, as most people need to have huge training sessions before they can do just about anything interesting.

Linux is way overrated.

The real deal is that linux is dead for anything other than a fad.

Do you even know what the word "fad" means? Do you know anything about the history of Linux? Something that has been around for over ten years and has only grown in that time does not qualify as a fad.

China OS, in which China controls and spies on you
with their own OS. It's perfect! You could never type an email again without china knowing what you are doing.

What does that have to do with operating systems? Oh yeah, nothing.

That's why this free as in speech is f**ked up when it comes to countries having their own OS.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and cleary do not understand what freedom in software means.

The free as in beer is also a bunch of BS, as most people need to have huge training sessions before they can do just about anything interesting.

That's funny because I was never forced to pay for Linux and I never took training courses for it either. Now I run Linux desktops and Linux servers. I even backup fubared Windows drives with Linux because half the time Windows won't even recognize the drive in another machine.

Linux is way overrated.

Says you and you've proven your opinion means squat.

Depends on what kind of file it is. Rename an *.exe to *.bin and it won't run. Rename it to *.exe and it will run again.

Take a small app, call it britneynude.bin - claim it is a movie, and tell the person to change the .bin part to .exe ... and it will run. And there you go... virus...

Unfortunately, many people are dumb enough to do that

And windows is dumb enough to be based on filetypes ( *.exe,*.bat,*.cmd etc.)... and with the integration of IE in the OS, bad things are bound to happen.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

The file may not run (because if it's not an app it can't be executed) but it will be considered as an executable by the OS, i.e. it will have "execute" permissions. That's the whole point.

In a sane setup, any downloaded file on a *nix system will have the executable attribute turned off, so you can't just run arbitrary code automatically. If you don't understand these very basic security implications, then you have no business discussing computer security at all.

>>a file won't be executable if you rename it to .exe......... yeah, there will be an error message but the file won't act as an executable program... omg<<

Obviously you fail to understand.

If one renames a file (any file) under with a .exe extension, Windows will happily try to execute it in a certain way. If one renames it with a .com extension, Windows will happily try to load & execute it in another way. Similarly for .bat, .cmd and a surprising number of other extensions.

This is in itself not the core of the problem, except that:
(1) it is possible to rename and then to attempt to run a file without end-user approval, and
(2) the file manager and other applications (particularly Outlook) can be made to hide the display of the filename extension.

Bad. Very bad. Broken by design.

>>Files can be executable in UNIX and Linux simply by adding the appropriate file type. That's the problem, and it's still present in Linux kernel 2.6 (and, no doubt, in 3.0).<<

Give it up. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Yes files can be made executable in Linux via a chmod command adding the execute bit to the files attributes. This operation can however only be performed interactively by the superuser.

>>Where is this running code? Nope, didn't start automatically. <<

But this is the point. If I (as a malicious external hacker) name a file with a ".dll" or ".vbx" or similar extension, and place it in the correct part of the Windows filesystem, then it will run automatically on next boot. Alternatively I can name it .exe, place it anywhere I like, and add a new entry in the Windows registry to make Windows execute it on next boot. Or perhaps I can create a scheduled job to run it in a few minutes time.

>>Also, as others pointed, an extra step of changing file attribute to executable on *nix is not that hard for people to follow.<<

It is not hard, but you do have to know the root password of the local machine, and you do have to explicitly issue that command (either from the command line or via a GUI filemanager or package manager). Execute permissions are not granted in any other way.

Whenever people start talking *nix security vs. Windows security, the *nix people ALWAYS use different operating environments for the two.

If the user is a home user, does it not makes sense that they will have the super user password?

Now if we are talking about a managed environment, then the exact same things can be said about Windows, even more so. In Windows, you can customize what exaclty users can do/see/whatever for either a user type, or a per user basis, or even by which computer is logged in. In *nix, you can only control certain things, and only by user type.
But this is not the point I'm trying to make.

Just keep in mind, when you are arguing, that a home user DOES indeed have the super user password, and is probably running as the super user unless they are actually savvy... in which case, none of this particular discussion really matters, as a computer savvy person will not have such problems on either system.

>>Whenever people start talking *nix security vs. Windows security, the *nix people ALWAYS use different operating environments for the two.

If the user is a home user, does it not makes sense that they will have the super user password?

Now if we are talking about a managed environment, then the exact same things can be said about Windows, even more so. In Windows, you can customize what exaclty users can do/see/whatever for either a user type, or a per user basis, or even by which computer is logged in. In *nix, you can only control certain things, and only by user type.
But this is not the point I'm trying to make.

Just keep in mind, when you are arguing, that a home user DOES indeed have the super user password, and is probably running as the super user unless they are actually savvy... in which case, none of this particular discussion really matters, as a computer savvy person will not have such problems on either system.<<

You STILL don't get it. Is it just a thing with Windows people, that they don't get security.

Try to think of it from an "external" point of view. External to the "target" system. Some hacker on the net.

As a hacker on the net, I can find a Windows system, get a file on to that system, and in one of several ways (including adding things to the registry) get that file to execute, all without any permissions at all on that system. It is possible to gain complete control over the system. There are literally millions of "owned" Windows systems out there already.

The only way to get someting similar to happen on a Linux system is to persuade a real person who knows the root password for the system to deliberately give the file permissions to run, and then to run it.

There is a universe of difference between these requirements.

That is why there are not millions of owned Linux systems out there.

Ok, you are talking Win9x stuff here. This simply can not be done in NT.

Also, one could make the argument that there are not millions of owned Linux systems out there because there aren't millions of linux systems out there to be owned.

Boxes usually get pwned because of bad administration. People's boxes at home get owned because IE is so hole-y.
It's not to say that firefox is the full solution. But I'm convinced that if you run firefox on Windows and browse a lot of less-than-moral sites you'll get a lot less crap installed than with IE.
Of course, there's just no good solution to people who will volunteer to run any code they see. But making them non-admins by default is a good step along toward that. People think twice when they need to put in a "super user password" because it sounds ominous.

>>Ok, you are talking Win9x stuff here. This simply can not be done in NT. <<

Yes it can.

ActiveX (for example) can write to the registry.

But you have to manually install ActiveX controls.

That's completely wrong. I can control, to a per-device r/w level what each user can do via groups. You can control what programs they can run that way, etc etc.

There are two faults in this post.

(a) Even if a home user knows the super user psswd, *nix install do not default to setting the default user as the super user. i.e. unless the user is savvy, they are NOT running as super user by default. At least that's how all my default (non-savvy) installs of linux have been.
(b) Many programs in Windows do not work unless the user has admin level access. I have no idea why this happens because I am not savvy but there are programs like Spysweeper that do not work on a limited user account in Windows NT.

One of the oldest rethorical trick in the book is to rewrite someone's post, putting an opposite spin on every argument. It's not that clever, but if done well it can be effective.

The problem, of course, is when the spin is based on faulty information. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know about it, but then again you posted anonymously, so I can only conclude that you are voluntarily spreading disinformation.

Files can be executable in UNIX and Linux simply by adding the appropriate file type.

Uh, no, it can't. A non-installed file (such as an e-mail virus) can only be made executable if the user consciously sets the executable bit to "on"...something which should never be necessary in normal use, especially not while surfing the Internet or receiving e-mail. This simple step provides a lot of protection, because it prevents most users from mistakenly running malicious code.

In a sane Windows setup I started Opera on Windows, selected link to executable file from the Web page, downloaded file and selected 'save file on disk.'
Where is this running code? Nope, didn't start automatically.

Nice try, but you make two wrong assumptions:

a) that most people have Opera. Most don't. The default Windows install certainly doesn't, and most users keep the default setup.

b) the biggest problem for this type of intrusion is with Outlook Express. You receive an attachment, and it looks like a jpg or other safe file. But that's because extensions are hidden (the default setting in recent Windows install) and the file is really one of the half-dozen "executable" file types, such as .exe, .bat, .vbs, etc.

Internet Explorer has other serious problems that are not linked to file extensions, however one could argue that the habit of downloading files from the internet and installing them by double-clicking on them, which is the software installation method associated with Windows, is a disaster waiting to happen.

Also, as others pointed, an extra step of changing file attribute to executable on *nix is not that hard for people to follow.

Perhaps, but it's enough to dramatically reduce virus infection. Every extra step and security measure help.

Files should not be executable only through their file extension. Period. To even try to argue the contrary is to prove that you're either clueless about computer security, or a paid MS shill, or both.

By the way, there's a "Reply" feature on this web site. Use it.

Just because it can run them does not mean that it is subject to any security problems from them.

I know you certainly wouldn't say the same thing about apps that run under WINE in Linux, now would you?

>>Just because it can run them does not mean that it is subject to any security problems from them.<<

Not security problems from them, but rather security risks or weak points that they encompass. Other than that proviso - sorry but yes it does mean that Vista is automatically subject to security problems.

Follow the reasoning: they are binaries. They are on a CD from circa 1996 or so. I own that copy of that application, I have paid for it. I upgrade to Windows Vista, and I want to re-install my application from 1996.

That application uses .dll files. In order to be able to install & run those binary applications on Vista the installer must be able to put .dll files into the system directory. If the installer program can do this, then so can other things.

The user expectation on Windows is that the user can install applications - without any additional passwords. Certainly an installer from circa 1996 won't ask for a password. If it is still the case in Windows Vista that a user can install applications, then it will still be possible to put executable binaries in the Windows Vista system directory (ie the installer for my 1996 binary application will still work) without any special priveledges to do so.

Ergo, backwards compatibility with a Windows binary application executable (and associated installer) from circa 1996 necessarily means that Windows Vista security is irredeemably broken. By design. From the outset.

Two choices - either: give up the backwards binary compatibility, or have a secure Windows system. One or the other. Not both.

First, just because it is possible to be able to do this (and I'm not saying htat Vista will do this w/o asking for a password) does not mean a thing.

What difference is it that an executable is in the Windows directory or anywhere else on the harddrive? NONE.

Also, Windows (since 2000) handles old DLLs by, basically, sandboxing them into their own environment and not replacing system DLLs that are supposed to be there (part of the battle on DLL hell).

Also, Windows has system file protection. With this, even IF a program manages to replace a Windows file (the only real reason to put something in the Windows directory, short of merely hiding the file from people searching for it), SFP will either 1) replace the file automatically, or 2) replace the file after running sfc /scannow... all depending on how critical the file is.

Now as far as Vista asking for passwords. If you are running as a standard user and an installer tries to do something that requires admin privlages (such as placing a file into the Windows directory), then Vista will come up and ask you for the admin password. The burden to do this is not on the installer app (if it were, THAT would be stupid), it is on Windows.

>>First, just because it is possible to be able to do this (and I'm not saying htat Vista will do this w/o asking for a password) does not mean a thing.

What difference is it that an executable is in the Windows directory or anywhere else on the harddrive? NONE. <<

It is not only that it installs in the Windows System area, but that it installs at all without asking for a password.

Windows often loses track of exactly "who" is attempting what action. Therefore there are many leaks where external actors have rights on a Windows system without being verified.

What is the effect?

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/44050/index.html

"My Assessment

I do not consider Windows ready for the desktop. I found it difficult to use, buggy and lacking in security. I also found technical support lacking.

While Windows captured a significant portion of the desktop market, the product is clearly not a good fit for consumers who do not understand the risks associated with logging on to the Internet. The costs of providing aftermarket products can run higher than the price paid for the hardware.

Service providers such as Netscape ISP and SBC/Yahoo have to maintain costly call centers to provide service to users. From an engineering point of view, the same service providers appear to have difficulties interfacing with the Windows operating system.

My advice to PC enthusiasts would be to try Linux."

>>Also, Windows has system file protection. With this, even IF a program manages to replace a Windows file (the only real reason to put something in the Windows directory, short of merely hiding the file from people searching for it), SFP will either 1) replace the file automatically, or 2) replace the file after running sfc /scannow... all depending on how critical the file is.<<

Why not just make it so that the system directory is not writeable other than via the administrator account?

The answer is simple - backwards compatibility. This would break backwards compatibility. Therefore, Windows has this vulnerability, which needs to somehow be protected against. All malware needs to do here is to spoof the sfc /scannow command ... pretend to be a valid system .dll.

>>Now as far as Vista asking for passwords. If you are running as a standard user and an installer tries to do something that requires admin privlages (such as placing a file into the Windows directory), then Vista will come up and ask you for the admin password. The burden to do this is not on the installer app (if it were, THAT would be stupid), it is on Windows.<<

Err, no. Windows cannot tell if a given executable is a software installer or not. It can guess - installers often have names such as setup.exe or install.exe - but it cannot really tell. Someone could easily write an installer and call it newcoolstuff.exe or trojan.exe.

On Linux, installable packages are either special archives or archives of source code. In the first case a package manager program (such as dpkg, apt-get, aptitude or synaptic) must be run. In the scond case, "./configure&&make&&make install" must be run. In either case - one must be root to run these commands in order to install the packages.

Once again, the conclusion is - in order to maintain compatibility with older binary applications (typically those installed with a "setup.exe" method rather than with a .msi installer) - Windows often cannot actually tell when an attempt to install something is being made. Therefore it cannot universally know when to require (or ask for) a password to verify permission. Therefore, things are installable "externally to the system" by parties without first being asked for permission. Things are installable on Windows systems without the user or owner actually being aware it happened.

Windows security is borked from the outset.

Are you even listening?

A standard user can NOT write to the Windows directory... PERIOD!

You HAVE to have admin privileges to be able to do such a thing. This has NOTHING to do with backwards compatability. The fact is, since writing to the Windows directory requires admin rights, it WILL come up and ask for a password (or just tell you no).

I suggest you actually use an NT system before spouting off such drivel.

Total and utter BS. I'm a regular user on my work computer, which runs Windows 2000 (a "NT system", as you put it). I do not have Admin priviledges, as I've verified more than once by being refused installation of a program.

I just went into the WINNT directory and created a text file. It created the file and did not ask for any password whatsoever.

I suggest you actually use an NT system before spouting off such drivel.

>>Just because it can run them does not mean that it is subject to any security problems from them. <<

Since you obviously totally fail to understand security issues for a networked computer, maybe this piece can explain it better for you:

http://linuxtoday.com/security/2005092601926OPDTMS

"If he wanted to compare anything he had to compare Vista to Leopard, which is going to be released around about the same time as Vista."

I agree. And they should compare OS X 10.1 Puma to XP because they were released in the same timeframe... lol