Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Sep 2012 22:40 UTC, submitted by Anonymous Coward
Windows NeoSmart Technologies has released a new version of EasyBCD, the free bootloader editor for Windows which supports Windows 8, the latest GRUB2 distributions, EFI machines, and comes with all-new support for 13 different languages. If you have a Windows-based multiboot machine, you really need EasyBCD. It's a fantastic application.
Thread beginning with comment 536582
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Good link
by Neolander on Wed 26th Sep 2012 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good link"
Member since:

And there it is my turn to fully agree with you.

In my pessimistic opinion, no current OS should be considered to be truly secure. There only are those that attract cracker attention, and those that don't.

Mobile OSs do attempt to take some steps toward a proper security infrastructure (think Android's permission system), but implementation is often so piss-poor that users still have to blindly rely on some godlike sysadmin's opinion about what is secure and what isn't. Which is some truly awful denaturation of what the personal computing concept is supposed to stand for.

Edited 2012-09-26 20:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Good link
by moondevil on Thu 27th Sep 2012 06:34 in reply to "RE[4]: Good link"
moondevil Member since:

This is why I am following how Mac OS X sandbox model, or WinRT picks up in the mainstream OSs.

We already have capabilities in BSD, AppArmor and SELinux in GNU/Linux, but few take advantage of it.

It is also nice to see Minix3 picking up speed, and Hurd still progress, although very slowly.

All these sandboxing mechanisms can probably be used for nefarious purposes, by the mainstream OS vendors. On the other hand we really need to improve security beyond the basic user/group model most OS offer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Good link
by Neolander on Thu 27th Sep 2012 08:45 in reply to "RE[5]: Good link"
Neolander Member since:

The problem with all these approaches that try to add sandboxing functionality to existing OSs, is that sandboxing is only useful if users and developers are aware of its existence and ready to deal with it.

We have billions of Windows users out there who have been trained for decades to give root access to any "installer" program. How are Microsoft supposed to teach them that they should now be wary of such behaviour and expect a fine-grained description of what the program is up to ? Same thing for all these Mac users that know for sure that "If that Flash installer from wants to make changes to my computer and displays a window with a lock on it, I should sure give it my password !"

And then you have Fedora and iOS, which completely fail to understand what sandboxing is about and hide its existence away from users altogether...

Because of this legacy user problem, it seems to me that sandboxing can only be successfully implemented in new OSs or incompatible and rebranded forks of existing OSs. It is also just too bad that all too often, OS manufacturers also use it to force some locked-down "application store" down user's throat, making a bad name of an otherwise perfectly fine technology among expert users.

Reply Parent Score: 2