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 416336
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Thu 1st Apr 2010 04:06 UTC 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

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Thu 1st Apr 2010 15:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

*I* understand it perfectly fine, and I agree with you. My point was that the shareholders might not. It doesn't depend on Microsoft's, nor mine, nor your ability to see something sensible. It is whether the shareholders would, and most investors want returns *now* not in five years. Most of the shareholders, like Microsoft themselves, only see the short view.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by nt_jerkface on Thu 1st Apr 2010 18:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Why is it so difficult for you or anyone else to see something so clearly obvious?


Because you aren't providing any specifics as to what should be removed and how it would improve user separation. The big problem in XP with account separation was the shared registry and they already fixed that in Vista/7 with the virtual registry.

Reply Parent Score: 2