To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ok, so 'in development' means that you can skip the security ? Interesting thought. If programmers already have trouble in remembering passwords and enabling them, how would the rest of the product be ?
I even know alpha quality code that works better and is more safe than production code of MS.
Security is something that should be written from ground up, not as an aftermarket item that may be purchased separately.
The sad thing is, Microsoft claimed they 'learned' from their mistake with XP.
In XP, security was an afterthought (not just with MS - in 2001 no one gave a damn about security really).
They <em>did</em> do right with Vista... But I mean, you would expect the server OS to be even <em>more</em> secure, wouldn't you?
Yet, it isn't... Sad.
What if you are testing the installation for security and where it is at with it??? I would think that security would play a role in any evaluation of a server product...
If its not there now I would feel little off knowing that it can be added at a whim... To me that says that it can be removed as easily.







Member since:
2005-07-06
i don't see why setting an admin password is important for installations that will last for a week, installations that will never be used in a production enviromnent.
come on, longhorn server is still in development, the programmers have better things to do than to remember passwords. enabling passwords and complexity rules is trivial as soon as longhorn server leaves the alpha stage and becomes beta.