Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 13th Dec 2005 07:53 UTC
Microsoft "Though most people don't know it, Microsoft has, not one, but two new operating systems that it is working on. The first, Vista, many people have heard of. Currently scheduled to ship just after the second coming of Christ, Vista has garnered most of the spotlight. However there is another OS lurking in the basement in Redmond and its name is Singularity (.pdf). So what does Singularity look like? A joke, at least at first glance. But taking a moment to analyze the situation I came up with some interesting observations which I will now share with you."
Thread beginning with comment 71850
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Opinion piece...
by DrillSgt on Tue 13th Dec 2005 08:18 UTC
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

"What they most definitely wouldn’t choose is Windows. An embedded system, just like a server, needs an OS to be stable and reliable, neither of which are areas that Windows is very good at."

Actually this is quite a funny statement. It is not the OS to blame for security, but the admins. Windows is just as stable if administered correctly. Stable does not have to do with rebooting after a patch, but whether it can handle the load placed against it. I am a sysadmin, and from my experience it is the lack of training for admins that makes ANY os insecure and unstable. I have not seen a "Blue Screen" since Windows 98SE. For servers I have not seen one just crash to crash since NT 4.0, unless it is administered poorly. For embedded, I have had to reset Palm OS devices more then Windows CE devices. Obviously the author lacks experience in what he is writing about.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Opinion piece...
by msundman on Tue 13th Dec 2005 17:05 in reply to "Opinion piece..."
msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

> It is not the OS to blame for security, but the admins.
> Windows is just as stable if administered correctly.

This is simply not true. In Windows most of the security is based on the infallability of programmers and code auditors. There are other OSes in which it's relatively easy to build very secure systems even if there are bugs in the software. And no, Singularity is not very good in this department either. Go check out what the EROS/CapROS/Coyotos people have and you'll see how security is done The Right Way(tm).


> [...] I am a sysadmin, and from my experience it is the lack
> of training for admins that makes ANY os insecure and unstable.

Just because a sysadmin can make any system insecure doesn't mean that some particular system can be made secure.

E.g., in Windows a program can do whatever the user running that program can do, and user privileges are very static by nature. Because of this, and because there will always be bugs in programs, Windows will never be very secure. And yes, most unices (OSX included) experience the same problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Opinion piece...
by mcrbids on Wed 14th Dec 2005 07:49 in reply to "RE: Opinion piece..."
mcrbids Member since:
2005-10-25

Go check out what the EROS/CapROS/Coyotos people have and you'll see how security is done The Right Way(tm).

Ok, show me a computer running Coyotos. My laptop runs Fedora Core Linux. It's working now, well, today. Can you get Coyotos to boot? Run a program?

If by "secure" you mean "not even the owner can get it to do anything", Coyotos is indeed something remarkable. Otherwise, it's a research project that never made it to anything even remotely viable.

Reply Parent Score: 1