Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 31st Mar 2010 14:41 UTC
Windows As geeks, we're well aware of the importance of running as a normal user instead of as root (UNIX/Linux/BSD) or administrator (Windows). However, while this should be common knowledge to anyone reading OSNews, it's often hard to illustrate just how important it is - until now, that is. A report by BeyondTrust looked at how many security bulletins issused by Microsoft are mitigated by simply... Not running as administrator.
Thread beginning with comment 416326
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 1st Apr 2010 02:22 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately this is a side effect of Microsoft's promise of 'backwards compatibility for ever'. What Microsoft need to do is rip out all the old backwards compatibility code that exist within Windows, enforce probably user separation and to hell to the loss of compatibility. What will be the result? you will see slower sales, you will see slower upgrades but eventually people will move to the new version - Microsoft will just have to have the patience to be willing to put up with slower sales. The problem is that I don't see it happening because Microsoft management want to make changes with zero sacrifice nor do they want to front their shareholders and explain to them the long term strategic reason they made a decision that will yield in short term sacrifices by way of lower growth or lower profits.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Thu 1st Apr 2010 04:06 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I'm not sure they'd legally be allowed to do this. Under US law, a publically traded company such as Microsoft's first and foremost obligation is to the shareholders. If they did such a thing, and I agree such a move is long overdue (should have been done with the first version of NT imho), the shareholders could actually stop them via litigation if they could prove that a move would not be proffitable within a reasonable amount of time. Given the nature of removing all backward compatibility from Windows, they could probably prove this rather convincingly to your average judge who often has the tech knowledge of an insect. Couple this with the fact that the majority of MS's shareholders likely have as much tech knowledge as your average judge, and Microsoft's hands would likely be tied even if every employee from Balmer on down wanted to make such a move. It's crazy and stupid, like most of our legal system, but there it is.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 1st Apr 2010 07:37 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not sure they'd legally be allowed to do this. Under US law, a publically traded company such as Microsoft's first and foremost obligation is to the shareholders. If they did such a thing, and I agree such a move is long overdue (should have been done with the first version of NT imho), the shareholders could actually stop them via litigation if they could prove that a move would not be proffitable within a reasonable amount of time. Given the nature of removing all backward compatibility from Windows, they could probably prove this rather convincingly to your average judge who often has the tech knowledge of an insect. Couple this with the fact that the majority of MS's shareholders likely have as much tech knowledge as your average judge, and Microsoft's hands would likely be tied even if every employee from Balmer on down wanted to make such a move. It's crazy and stupid, like most of our legal system, but there it is.


Yes and it would be an obligation to the shareholder, clean the code base, less developers required, cleaner and faster development schedule, and thus in the long term they would be able to produce products to market faster, of higher quality, lower cost because of less developers required and thus make more profits. Why is it so difficult for you or anyone else to see something so clearly obvious?

The problem is that Microsoft is only looking year to year instead of looking 5-10-15 years into the future. Where is their long term plan? continue to have backwards compatibility for ever - even when it results in the costs getting so high that the martins plummet to almost nothing? When competitiveness becomes non-existant because they're having to carry around crap that should have slowly been phased out.

Edited 2010-04-01 07:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

and destroy billions in wealth.

The account separation in NT works fine. Removing Win32 compatibility would cause more destruction than any security threat. The real problem is with companies that wait as long as possible to upgrade.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

and destroy billions in wealth.

The account separation in NT works fine. Removing Win32 compatibility would cause more destruction than any security threat. The real problem is with companies that wait as long as possible to upgrade.


Tell me where I stated that I wanted to remove win32 compatibility - that is, the removal of the win32 subsystem.

Edited 2010-04-01 07:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by strcpy on Thu 1st Apr 2010 07:46 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Unfortunately this is a side effect of Microsoft's promise of 'backwards compatibility for ever'. What Microsoft need to do is rip out all the old backwards compatibility code that exist within Windows, enforce probably user separation and to hell to the loss of compatibility.


I don't know. What I've personally learned from software engineering is that most things can (and should) be done in backwards compatible manner. At the other extreme you have Linux, where, well, the side effects of not giving a damn about any kind of compatibility are equally well known...

Reply Parent Score: 2