Linked by Neeraj Singh on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 19:02 UTC
Windows If you shout something loud enough and many people are saying it, does it become true? Some groups of people (include tech journalists and Linux advocates, such as Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols) have a psychological need to find Vista lacking. Mr. V-N has predicted that Vista will have all manner of problems, so his clear interest is to point out everything that is wrong with the OS. Who cares if he has to even make some stuff up?
Thread beginning with comment 233226
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Sabon on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 22:15 UTC
Member since:

Despite what PlantformAgnostic wants everyone to believe. Microsoft is truly at fault for not creating a secure foundation for Windows to be built on and going up from there. Instead Microsoft tries to fix it at the top and work it's way down and that just doesn't work.

You may not like the way that UNIX handles security but the things is, UNIX security works a lot better than Windows security. The main reason why UNIX doesn't sell millions of copies for desktop computers is mostly the elitism of UNIX core OS programmers and the CEOs that artificially keep the price high.

Despite what Microsoft fanboys want to admit. It is not through obscurity that UNIX, including Linux and Mac OS X, is far more secure than Windows is.

As PlantformAgnostic said, security isn't easy. But it is a cop out to not hold their feet to the fire to create something better. How many people work at Microsoft? Easily over 40,000 people. You would think someone there knew how to build a lot more secure kernel.

Would it break backwards compatibility? Yes. But that's what emulators are for. Apple had the Classic Box so it can be done. And Mac OS X is far more secure than OS 9 and before. Again. It can be done.

Where there is a will there is a way. It's just that someone near the top has to will it. If they won't or can't it won't be done. So far we can see there isn't much of a will.

Edited 2007-04-23 22:16

Reply Score: 5

RE: Security
by RandomGuy on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 22:43 in reply to "Security"
RandomGuy Member since:

Yeah, just about what I was going to say, plus:

"I hope to show that these bugs are rather complicated issues that are inevitable in any large software project. They have nothing in particular to do with Vista's design and everything to do with its sheer size." (from the article)

Putting all the backwards compatibility warts and other stuff in there is a design decision!
Maybe they've done their best to limit the ramifications of this decision but they still made it.

I do hope they soon come to the point where they question this decision because - as Vista's delayed release has shown - this way of development is no longer sustainable.

I mean, they really got the money to hire the best programmers out there if they're not already working for MS.
Imagine what they could achieve if they made a fresh start and stopped supporting ancient bugs just to keep the buggy apps running...

As other people have said before, the right time for this step will probably be when most applications use .NET.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Security
by PlatformAgnostic on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 22:44 in reply to "Security"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:

Where's the kernel insecurity? The security problems with the NT line of Windows has most often been in the defaults rather than in the mechanisms. Running everyone as admin is convenient from the usability point of view, but not great for security. When used, the Windows ACL mechanism and security design works quite well.

We're going through the painful time now of fixing that. But your overall characterization of me is fairly accurate. I really am not a high-security person and don't truly believe in protecting my computer from actions I willingly engage in. I avoid crappy programs that do things in my name that I do not wish done, and that's all the security I desire for myself. I understand that there needs to be a separation between administrator and luser in most other scenarios.

Could you explain why you're misspelling my nick? I find that to detract from your argument.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Security
by Sophotect on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 23:11 in reply to "RE: Security"
Sophotect Member since:

About usability and security...
Does it by now have an option to make File Streams / Alternate Data Streams visible in Explorer? Without having to resort to crude ways like enabling file auditing and viewing them in some log or opening the CLI? I mean, this is an essential feature, there since almost eons. Can i access this feature easily with the most visible tools? Can i?

Edited 2007-04-23 23:20

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Security
by Sabon on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 23:49 in reply to "RE: Security"
Sabon Member since:

I didn't purposely misspell your nick. My fault. I typed it once then copied it without realizing I had misspelled it.

Security problems are actually with both but more with the latter. Despite what they will tell you there is still a lot of security work to be done. They won't truly get really far though until they build a secure OS from the ground up.

Just like a parent that is supposed to set limits and protect their children. OS venders need to make sure to put in limits of what general users can do to themselves.

Too many people I support at work do not realize that what they do can cause someone to gain rights to their financial data on their computer. It's not that they are stupid but they assume that Microsoft would leave them vulnerable. I have to explain to them that MS does by making it too easy to say yes to hazardous websites, downloads, and attachments in e-mails.

To protect them we have several servers that constantly check all of these things, causing a slight delay in the user's access of all of them, and blocking things that are questionable. We even block zip files or any kind of file that can't be easily scanned. A message is put in their e-mail stating the attachment has been blocked and why. Same with websites.

We shouldn't have to go to this expense. The security should be built in the desktop OS to begin with.

Edited 2007-04-24 00:05

Reply Parent Score: 1