Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Oct 2006 19:29 UTC
Mac OS X Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak says that Apple did not need NeXT, the company that provided the foundation for Mac OS X; he argues that System 7 wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. Wozniak also says that Mac OS 9 was more secure than OS X is now: Mac OS X is built in Unix and is therefore more prone to attacks because people are familiar with the holes in Unix, explained Woznaik. "Some of the holes in Unix are well known. So keeping Firewalls on is more important. And we keep announcing, even our own security fixes, not as many as Microsoft but still we never really had those in the OS 9 days."
Thread beginning with comment 175385
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: dementing
by nimble on Wed 25th Oct 2006 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE: dementing"
nimble
Member since:
2005-07-06

Wirth only says that it memory protection "should" have been superceded by safe languages and correctly implemented compilers.

While creating a safe language is certainly possible (if you're prepared to pay the cost in flexibility and/or performance), ensuring a correct implementation that is safe not only from accidental bugs but also from malicious exploits is a huge problem.

Meanwhile, hardware memory protection may not be as fain-grained as compiler-based schemes, but it costs very little in performance and one can be fairly certain that it's correct.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: dementing
by grrr on Wed 25th Oct 2006 22:12 in reply to "RE[2]: dementing"
grrr Member since:
2005-09-03

I did understand what Wirth says and I do share your reservations but
i responded to
" i can't imagine how a os without memory protection can be "secure" "
and maybe Wirth can help a person imagining that?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: dementing
by Troels on Thu 26th Oct 2006 08:49 in reply to "RE[3]: dementing"
Troels Member since:
2005-07-11

But in this context we are really talking about a specific system, not that you, in theory, can make a secure system without protected memory. I don't think anyone would doubt that it is possible even without reading Wirths work, it just wouldn't make sense that using protected memory was the one true way.

Now about MacOS 9 being secure without it, hell, it wasn't even close to being stable, so i seriously doubt it would be, in any way, secure. I personally think the Macintosh would be dead if they hadn't switched OS. I just don't see how they could fix up an OS that in important ways were technologically behind even Windows 95. (of course it would be possible, but would be a slow and expensive process)

Another question would be, how many of the current MacOS X users would have used a system based on OS 9. I know i wouldn't have touched it with a 10' pole :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: dementing
by CaptainPinko on Thu 26th Oct 2006 02:22 in reply to "RE[2]: dementing"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

Well you see the latest 3rd episode (I think) of channel 9's coverage of the Singularity project http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/ . IIRC they had about 10% increase in perform. To put that in perspective that would your safer compiled language would run faster than your C code. Java could be beating it regularly (but not always of course, because under some situations Java just starts to suck shit).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: dementing
by renox on Thu 26th Oct 2006 12:59 in reply to "RE[2]: dementing"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

> hardware memory protection [cut] costs very little in performance

That's not what the guys from the Singularity project said: they had the same level of performance for system call with their unoptimised implementation as Linux or Windows.
The reason why they were able to do so is that they are not using the hardware memory protection.

Reply Parent Score: 1