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 233450
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Logic, anyone?
by psychicist on Tue 24th Apr 2007 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Logic, anyone?"
psychicist
Member since:
2007-01-27

I think you'd do best to start investigating things such as noexec mount support, suauth authentication, SELinux/Grsecurity/Apparmor for Linux and Zones, Trusted Extensions and Process Access Rights for Solaris.

These come by default with modern Unix/Linux OSes and are sadly lacking even in the newest Windows version. They must not be a priority or too difficult to be made to fit the current NT system design.

Also it could very well be that NT might be safe at the kernel level. It is certainly not at the user level and that is what most complaints from Unix/Linux users are about.

They ask for a replacement for Win32 that is securely coded from scratch without any transfer of older code. If Microsoft manages to pull this off a lot of the complaints about Windows' security would be gone.

The fact that Apple has managed to do this and Microsoft hasn't puts the latter at a huge disadvantage that will take them a long time or forever to overcome.

NT based operating systems were supposed to be as good as or better than OpenVMS in stability, reliability and security just like Linux is compared to Unix. I really can't see how this could possibly be the case. Enlighten me if you know any better.

Edited 2007-04-24 13:22

Reply Parent Score: 1