Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Jan 2011 22:09 UTC
Windows And this is part two of the story: Microsoft has just confirmed the next version of Windows NT (referring to it as NT for clarity's sake) will be available for ARM - or more specifically, SoCs from NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and Texas Instruments. Also announced today at CES is Microsoft Office for ARM. Both Windows NT and Microsoft Office were shown running on ARM during a press conference for the fact at CES in Las Vegas.
Permalink for comment 456192
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: BC
by lucas_maximus on Thu 6th Jan 2011 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: BC"
Member since:

The problem is that almost all malware is also distributed as closed-source binary executables only, and that (being closed source) there is no way that anyone other than the creators of any given piece of such software can tell the difference. No amount of user education will change the fact that no-one (other than the authors of the software) can tell if a given closed-source binary executable does or does not contain new malware.

And that is why you get the software from the original author, and guess what ... if you educate someone to always get the software from the original author ... mmmmm.

Furthermore if someone is so uneducated as to how to to avoid threats how will it being open source help ??? A malware author can just offer an "alternative download source" and stick a key logger in there for example ... having the source won't help because the uneducated simply won't know any different.

Also you obviously haven't heard of a checksum then? They use this on Unix/Linux Binary packages as well and also can be used on any file to validate it's integrity.

For example I remember Windows XP service pack 1 having a checksum key on in the installer properties ... if this didn't match what Microsoft had you had a duff/dodgy download.

BTW ... my agenda is merely to point out facts such as these to everybody, so they can make good decisions for themselves regarding which software they choose to run on their hardware. I make absolutely no apology for this agenda.

The thing is you "facts" aren't facts. They are opinions from someone that IMO doesn't really have any practical experience of developing or deploying software.

Unless you work directly in the software industry as a developer or a manager for a development team you simply don't understand the landscape and the issues that developers face.

Also you are biased in thinking that open sourcing everything is a cure to all software problems. This IMO couldn't be further from the truth.

What exactly is your agenda in trying to disparage mine?

Because I think you are biased and do not presents the facts fairly.

Reply Parent Score: 2