Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 8th Dec 2004 20:48 UTC, submitted by Nicholas
Editorial I just spent the last several days reading the lengthy essay "Ying and Yang of Security" which explores the origins of security on the personal computer and explains why the current models are outdated. It seems to argue that security systems designed to keep the system safe are relics of the days of mainframes when the system was more important than the user, but for a personal computer the user is more important than the system.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re: Groshong (IP: ---.dialup.mindspring.com)
by drsmithy on Thu 9th Dec 2004 04:09 UTC

It's a matter of opinion, but like some of our regulars here, he states it as fact. Another reminder that though it's a good piece, it's just one man's opinion. After jumping ship from Explorer 2.0, I'd have never used it again if hadn't come bundled with Windows.

That's pretty impressive - very few people were ever on the Explorer 2.0 ship to jump off ;) .

IE 1.x and 2.x sucked, I don't think anyone has ever tried to argue otherwise.
IE 3.x was generally considered on par with Navigator 3.x
IE 4.x was generally considered *far* better than Nav 4.x

Most people jumped from Navigator to IE during 1997, just after IE4 was released. Coincidentally, this was about the time Navigator started sucking a great deal and Netscape went off on their doomed attempt to rewrite Navigator from scratch (which begot Mozilla, which begot Firefox).

Let's face it, MS never needed to get into the browser market, they just have this incessant need to try and dominate all aspects of the IT industry

There's a fairly high probability that if Microsoft hadn't gotten into the browser market, Netscape would be in the same position Microsoft is today with a 90%+ market share and significant use of non-standard HTML. That was, after all, their business plan.