“With [the Win95] release, Apple was tested – and they failed miserably. Not only did I warn Apple to take 95 more seriously, I also accurately forecast the massive decline that would happen to them if they didn’t do just that. The MS platform has changed dramatically and it is much greater than just the operating system these days. Apple, on the other hand, hasn’t advanced nearly as much but they are predominantly consumer-based today and less vulnerable to this comparative weakness as a result. Just like the last time, they will largely leverage hardware this time, and, as before, they will be up against companies with resources that eclipse their own.“
*YAWN*
*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*
Apple hasn’t advanced as much as Microsoft has since Win 95. Please what a joke piece of journalism.
No in a sense Apple hasn’t advanced as much. OS X is a unix variant with a propietary interface, Safari is khtml, Pages uses libconv, H.264 was not an Apple invention nor was AAC format. The amount of LGPL, MIT, BSD licensing in OS X is astounding. For better or worse I would say about 99% of components of Windows were Microsoft created, Maybe not the concept but they created their own implementation, not just using the one created by someone else
Fair point, but all these technologies are ones where the basic “idea” has been around quite a while. There are a surprising number of technologies in OS X, in particular in 10.4, that are pretty new ideas, and developed almost solely by Apple.
The problem with these things is more the time it will take for them to catch on. In particular, I would highlight:
Core Image – a simplified, unified method for graphics programs to get work done, either by the processor or graphics card, whichever is fastest.
Core Video – an extension of this to provide these sort of capabilities to video
Quartz Composer – a nice easy, graphical way for “describing” 3D environments. Great for developers wishing to incorporate simple 3D or 2D items in their apps
I also think Quartz Extreme Plus Mega (or whatever the latest version is called, I can’t remember) is pretty neat. The idea of shifting all the rendering of the interface into the GPU.
And I’m sure there’s others, but not off the top of my head.
In fact, just the way applications work in OS X is about the best way of handling programs I’ve seen. The idea that a program is literally just that; As far as the user is concerned, a single file. Just double-click it to run. Move it around the file system if you want! Of course in reality this program “file” is really a special kind of folder with all of the necessary resources tucked inside of it.
Windows is a proprietary GUI running on top of an antiquated Disk Operating System, which, while much improved even over DOS 3.3 still has massive stability and security issues that make it dangerous-to-impractical to use and cause it to require very high-level hardwre to perform basic OS or add-on program functions. It is composed of thousands of random-to-incoherent DLLs, many of which were just scavenged in part or completely from companies that MS bought up and which are the heart and soul of why it works so badly.
To their credit MS has worked out a lot of the conflicts inherent in the original implementations of this cluster[-****] of DLLs. Also, they did invent DHCP and SMB but not the GUI, their HTML ventures both in Word and IE are highly standards and accuracy challenged. They did invent lots of file formats and protocols and then changed them so that other peoples products and services that used those formats and protocols wouldn’t work any more. Is that a positive achievement?
Re-using standard components, protocols and formats to perform new or more genralized tasks is the hallmark of Unix and softwre engineering in general. Creating a huge bloated quagmire that keeps you from working effectively and ALSO helps keep you anchored to it so that you keep from moving to something that works better is a skill-set that I don’t value very highly. Making creative and functional use of existing tools, formats and standards seems like a worthy use of time and resources to me by comparison.
Disclaimer: I am a Linux-nut, not a Mac zealot. But I like the Mac, especially post OS 8.5.
@ Anonymous (IP: 67.170.178.—)
Windows is not based on DOS as you claim.
Windows 3.x, Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME is based on DOS. However, Windows on NT is a different issue and has been since the first NT-release (versioned NT 3.1 since Windows 3.1 (for DOS) was the most recent DOS-based release).
NT and DOS is two different OS’es. And NT has quite a few good ideas incorporated (and some not-so-good ideas. And some good ideas are poorly implemented).
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
It doesn’t matter if you are talking the Windows “New Technology” (NT) stream or the older Windows products based on DOS – for backwards compatibility reasons they both lack a true security structure.
FAT16 and FAT32 filesystems do not provide for files to be tagged with “permissions”. For example – files do not have an “execute” bit – which means that the only way Windows knows if a file is executable or not is via its filename extension. This is so easy to get by it isn’t funny.
It is still possible to install XP on a FAT32 filesystem – which means that the core of XP by design will still run without files being properly identiified by owner or by executable/not executable status. Windows XP can guess if a file is a valid part of the system or not – but it is exceptionally easy to fool – by design.
Windows design has inherent “lack of security” built right in. This derives from backwards compatibility with the single-user DOS-based versions of Windows and the desire that the NT-based versions should be able to run (binary) executables designed for the earlier DOS-based versions.
Windows security is borked – by design. Irredeemably broken from the outset.
If Windows Vista attempts to retain even the slightest bit of binary backwards compatibility, then it too will be broken from the outset.
If Windows Vista does not retain backwards compatibility for binary executables, than any Windows user wishing to upgrade to Vista will have to purchase again each and every proprietary application on their systems.
99.9 of the systems ship with XP are NTFS.
Another user who doesn’t use windows
and posts on OSNews. What a suprise!
it does not matter if 99.9% of XP systems have NTFS…. which I doubt anyway… backward compatability etc etc
however
100% of XP machines come with FAT32 access software included. it is this he was talking about, not what filesystem the partitions are formatted in
You might have NTFS on your hard disks… but XP needs FAT32 access if you are going to use your MP£ player or your digital camera with it.
[quote]
You might have NTFS on your hard disks… but XP needs FAT32 access if you are going to use your MP£ player or your digital camera with it.
[/quote]
So, not like I have seen any security issues with my digital camera.
How is that NTFS writing compatibility coming for linux?
So, not like I have seen any security issues with my digital camera.
Did you even bother to read what the other poster wrote?
Files can be executable in Windows simply by adding the appropriate file extension. That’s the problem, and it’s still present in WinXP (and, no doubt, in Vista).
How is that NTFS writing compatibility coming for linux?
Using Captive, it works flawlessly. The actual kernel module isn’t fully ready yet, but it’s getting there. How are JFS, Ext3 and Reiser4 kernel support coming along for Windows?
>>So, not like I have seen any security issues with my digital camera.<<
Beside the point. The point is that Windows will happily try to execute a file (even one stored on your digital camera memory) if it just happens to have been renamed with one of a certain set of extensions.
>>How is that NTFS writing compatibility coming for linux?<<
Linux reads NTFS fine. It is possible to get NTFS writing, but it is not yet recommended on “production” systems.
How is any sort of compatibility with ext2, ext3, Reiserfs, Reiser4, JFS or XFS coming for Windows?
oh and guess what, your preciouys linux does the same!
idiot
your problems is in front of your monitor. Don;t blame that *nix can;t do this and that just because you can;t do it.
You can’t make a file executable in Linux just by putting the right file extension. That particular security problem is 100% Windows.
>>99.9 of the systems ship with XP are NTFS.<<
It doesn’t matter if most systems use NTFS – the point is the design is such that it is able to be installed on FAT32. FAT32 does have a proper set of filesystem permissions bits.
Since XP can be installed on FAT32 (regardles of how many or how few systems actually are installed on FAT32 or NTFS) – the point is it CAN be installed and run on a FAT32 filesystem. Therefore, execute permissions are not required.
>>Another user who doesn’t use windows<<
Actually, I do use both Windows and Linux every day. Except I’m not a user – I am a Systems Engineer. I design computer systems for a living.
Correction: FAT32 does ***NOT*** have a proper set of filesystem permissions bits.
“Windows security is borked – by design. Irredeemably broken from the outset.”
I think you don’t know ANYTHING about the Windows design. You haven’t seen the source code. Even if you saw it you wouldn’t be able to understand it – mainly because it’s so huge.
This “unsecure by design” phrase is just a hype. The only thing you learnt is FUD.
>>”Windows security is borked – by design. Irredeemably broken from the outset.”
I think you don’t know ANYTHING about the Windows design. You haven’t seen the source code. Even if you saw it you wouldn’t be able to understand it – mainly because it’s so huge.
This “unsecure by design” phrase is just a hype. The only thing you learnt is FUD.<<
I don’t need to see the source code. All I need to know is a few facts:
(1) Win 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98 & Windows ME are essentially single-user systems.
(2) Binary executables originally targetted for Win 3.1, Windows 95, 98 or ME can very often still run on Windows NT, 2000 or XP systems.
(3) Windows NT or XP can be installed on FAT32 filesystems (not that they often are, just that they can be).
Yeah, but that really doesn’t matter does it? A regular user couldn’t care less of the rendering engine in the operating system is a derivative from an open source project or not.
Is advancing being measured in lines of written code? I say no. Apple has legally used open source libraries for not having to reinvent the wheel. That is OK, and it’s a big part of what open source is all about. I think it’s great that a company like Apple is willing to use open standards as a base for their business (os wise).
I would even go as far as saying that Apple has advanced the most, based on their willingness to not write every single line of code theirselves, but rather make use of the existing opportunities from open source projects. Microsoft (and any software corporation for that matter) can learn from this.
Many people would believe that adoption of open standards and less reinventing of the wheel is a better approach. IF this is the case then Apple has indeed come much further than Microsoft.
“The MS platform has changed dramatically as well, however, and it is much greater than just the operating system these days. Apple, on the other hand, hasn’t advanced nearly as much”
When you take things in context their meaning changes. Microsoft does in fact ship a lot more stuff outside of the OS than Apple does:
A full (emphasis on full) developmen suite including a newish language sort of thing (.net, whatever you call it).
A full Office suite.
Anti-spyware software (probably their own fault that they need it though).
xBox
Videogames
Hardware (crappy as it is)
And a host of other small software that I haven’t mentioned like a “note taking app.”
Apple really hasn’t advanced as far in a business sense. They may be ahead in OS technology, but that’s not what he meant by advancement.
i agree that apple hasn’t broadened their offerings since 95 as much as microsoft, but they have done a bit..
in 95 they had desktop and portable lines, the newton, and i dont think the emate yet, filemaker i think. and their os. probably a couple dead technologys like opendoc and something else.
since then, aside from the ipod..
a _full_ media suite, iLife.
both server and client OS, hardware to run them (xserve, xRAID) and software (xSAN, webobjects etc)
a suite of profesional media apps motion, FCP, dvdsp etc
now, im not saying they’ve diversified themselves across the board as much as microsoft, but they’ve certainly ben expanding exactly _what_ they do for customers.
ms hardware is quite good. can you state at least one thing that bothers you about an piece of ms hardware or it that just typical apple prejudice?
Their mice are good for about six months before the left button stops working properly.
So, you had a problem with one mouse, that you probably didn’t even send back (they would have given you a new one for free), and you claim that all MS hardware is bad?
but it was from Rob Enderle, did you expect something even remotely accurate ?
he should get a PR job for George Bush or Tony Blair next.
Win95 is better is better than any Mac offering or communist linux offering. Microsoft are 10 years ahead of the game.
which used to praise MS without giving any technical info.
Stop linking to this kind of article, please.
Yeah. Real men use mice with balls and Plan 9 OS.
Do not bother to read. This is just “look, my features matrix is bigger than yours”.
Please remember to mention when you link to articles who they are written by. If I had any idea this was written by Rob Enderle I could have saved myself the effort of clicking to something I would never read in the first place.
I couldn’t agree more. I have no use for Enderle’s articles, but if you really have to link to them (anyone is entitled to a mistake every now and then …) at least mark them clearly (“Enderle’s drivel” tag?) so that I’m not going to increase the number of hits to his page.
This was a dirty trick, as most of us wouldn’t have
bothered clicking on the article link if we’d known it
was just another Rob Enderle troll-fest…hmmm..or
perhaps that’s the /reason/ you DIDN’T provide the
name…hmm…
Well regardless its a dirty pool and I don’t want to swim
there, so please don’t pull this stunt again or I’ll be forced
to rely on Slashdot and other websites for my news…
–bornagainpenguin
Well when I saw that Rob Enderle wrote this I knew that it would be very pro MS in every respect. He has never had an objective bone in his body.
>Well when I saw that Rob Enderle wrote this I knew >that it would be very pro MS in every respect. He >has never had an objective bone in his body.
Well, I have not seen any people on here who hate Microsoft or are linux whores to be objective either.
So your point is?
the point is Enderle gets paid for it…. probably more than the MS astroturfers here get paid.
MS astroturfers here? What are you talking about?
he was talking about you for one. I have seen your posts here before. you defend ms no matter what. cpuguy is one too
You think MS pays me because I defend them a lot? Wow. Does Linus pay you? Please, what a joke.
Why don’t you look at any threads with IE. IE is crap and I always put it down. I have put Microsoft down in other discussions as well. Just because you don’t like that I’m not a microsoft hater, doesn’t mean I’m an “astroturfer” (whatever that is) or that they pay me.
Right now I make money writing a program for linux, and nothing from Windows. What motive do I have for defending windows? None.
I do apologise. I got you mixed up with someone else.
I have gone over your previous posts and you are not a pro-ms shill. Sorry again
Vista has raised the bar once again, and now Linux and OSX have something to strive for.
it hasn’t yet, no one in their right mind would claim the vista betas have raised the bar above linux or os x, and really, thats all we have to go by until it ships next year (probably).
if you look at some of the things in beta, beagle comes to mind first, hell, all thenew interface plans.. we might as well include thosei n comparisons.
can’t really with os x as no plans for leopard have been described, just that it will ship aorund the same time as vista..
personally, i imagine i will run them all on the same piece of hardware, and _thats_ going to be great
how can Visata have raised the bar when it has not yet seen the light of day ?
Does anyone here remember the Windows Cairo betas… (pre-release betas for Win95) ?
They were nothing like the release version. Microsoft cut a lot of goodies out for the final release, because they wanted to keep backwards-compatability.
The same thing is happening on a daily basis with Vista. the release version will be nothing like the betas. Which is a real pity.
I have a beta running on one of my machines, and although it is very slow. I hope that is purely debugging code that will be removed and optimised for the final. I like it.
BUT
It is still not as good as my Linux system. Linux is so far ahead of Vista on my desktops, it should be scary for Microsoft.
All the stuff Microsoft says will be in the Vista release already exist in Linux.. Over a full year ahead of Vistas public release…..
How much more ahead will Linux be next year ?
The slowness is probably just drivers. I found it to run very snappily on my system, but nVidia has already put out some beta versions of their Vista drivers.
With the development model now in place for Vista, if a feature has made it this far in Vista, it will be in the final.
While OSS may have something for the compositing engine, they don’t have the back-end API’s and such to build really great apps (very quickly, I might add) that take advantage of it. OSS may have something to go up against Vista search, but what about WinFS?
Vista also just plain has a lot of architectural changes to it to be more modular, taking many things out of the kernel, new APIs to replace the mess of Win32, etc… Vista is just flat out developed on a much better process, and as such, even the betas have far less problems than Microsoft expected (instead of 10s of thousands of bugs, it’s more thousands, in beta 1). They will be releasing new (supposedly public) beta releases every month. The Windows coders have to submit to “quality gates” that checks the code much more rigerously than before… etc…
The biggest reason that it has taken so long is because Alchin sat down with Gates and said “look, we’ve gotta change how we develop Windows, it’s taking too long, it’s an utter mess”. And with that, they threw out all Longhorn code, and started from scratch with 2k3 Sp1 (instead of XPSP2).
Vista, to Microsoft, is basically a new, clean Windows core to code against, rather than the mess of a system they’d had before.
>>OSS may have something to go up against Vista search, but what about WinFS? <<
Reiser4.
Reiser4 = Vista-NTFS, not WinFS
>>Reiser4 = Vista-NTFS, not WinFS<<
Pfft. Try this for an equation:
Reiser4 + plugins >> Winfs.
And? You only prove my point.
I think Enderle currently holds the high score on this statistic:
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/
Kinda sets things in perspective
This guy sounds like a sports caster:
“However, Linux isn’t yet viable on the desktop and this is a blended attack suggesting that, over time, Microsoft should prevail unless Linux, through the combined efforts of all if its supporters, can address this desktop shortcoming.”
Johnson coming up on the right, he shoots, he scores!
Oh boy Kent, the only chance for the Lakers is if they can work as a team.
Oh that’s not likely Ron, you see, the Lakers have Shaq (do they?) and he doesn’t play like he’s on a team!
Ya know, you’re right Kent, but what about this new guy; Linux?
Oh, he’s nothing compared to Apple Ron; he doesn’t have teh l33t desktop skillz.
Yea, that’s right Kent. Oh folks, now for a commercial break. And I’m sure Kent and I will be dead when the commercials are over, so stay tuned!
(I hate sports casters, they destroy televised sports).
I don’t know. For me, televised sports in and of themselves are retard fodder. How could some schmidlap blathering on during the whole thing lessen it anymore than it already is?
Many times this articles are biases, but at least they try to backe it up with some technical information. This guy did not even tried that I felt like I was reading advertisment for Vistas. Really what a waste of time!!!
I actually use windows and linux and like both of them for different things and this guy is just ridiculus he makes it sound like Vistas is the best, most innovative os ever.
Longhorn is easily the least-exciting Windows release for me since the 3.x days. Its development has dragged on forever and the items in its featureset often seem superfluous novelties. While there are some interesting changes in the technology of the platform, I’m filled with “I don’t care” when thinking about the impending release. I look upon purchasing it or using it for any period of time with the same indifference I felt as Doom 3 developed; while technically interesting in some places, it affords little that I want to do more than look at a while and move on with my life. Of the people I work with, I cannot honestly name a single person that really cares about the release except to hope that it doesn’t afflict any torment on them as it’s gradually phased in.
While I don’t think that limited anecdote is particularly useful in any broader context, when reading Enderle’s article I’m left thinking “If this is the Windows release to top all Windows releases for this man, might I suggest he find something interesting to do with his workdays?”
“IE improvements are broad and easily eclipse those by Firefox and Netscape, but remember this is still beta code so these competitors do have time to respond.”
I stop reading after reading that.
Well, IE in general is coming up to par on this missing features that Firefox, Opera, etc… have. They are bringing up their standards support to par and fixing the nasty bugs in the rendering engine.
One thing that is really cool about IE7 is it runs in it’s own sandbox. Even if it has the worst hole in it to date, it can not be used to gain access to any other part of the OS, there by, technically, negating any possible security problem with it. This is not something Firefox has, or is even planned for.
While I wouldn’t say IE7 eclipses other browser (it doesn’t do that by any means), it is a very nice improvement, and has some stuff that isn’t even planned for any other browser.
Not to mention that the only pluses that Firefox has over IE are the tabs and the standards support.
you forgot to mention that IE7 looks terribly sexy too
Well, that’s extremely subjective.
I for one like to have my address bar, buttons bar, and menu bar all on one line, this is not possible with the current IE7 build.
Some of you really need to grow the hell up.
You didn’t like that I made a legitimate complaint about IE7 and so you mod down my post…. Go play your video games until you can become an actual adult.
>>One thing that is really cool about IE7 is it runs in it’s own sandbox. Even if it has the worst hole in it to date, it can not be used to gain access to any other part of the OS, there by, technically, negating any possible security problem with it. This is not something Firefox has, or is even planned for.<<
If you run Firefox under Linux, then it is just like all userland programs and it does run in a “sandbox” provided by the OS itself.
In Linux, users run as users, not as root. All userland programs (such as Fireofx) have no access to any other part of the OS.
If Windows is only just getting this feature, and then only for IE7, then it is over a decade behind. Easily.
Firefox still has access to the users home directory, which could contain a lot of stuff the user would rather not have messed up.
IE7 I believe restricts its read/write access to stuff in it’s application data folder, and not even the documents and settings folder altogether.
>>IE7 I believe restricts its read/write access to stuff in it’s application data folder, and not even the documents and settings folder altogether.<<
Does this mean you can’t download anything?
Or if you can, it can only be in “it’s application data folder” – which would be a system folder?
Or if it isn’t a system folder but a user folder – then how is that any different, othe than making the saved file harder to find again under Windows and IE7?
If this going to be like the “security fix” in Outlook where they just disallowed any links to files? Why on earth don’t Microsoft just fix the real problem – which is simply to not let internet-based applications execute anything?
How does not allowing links, or only allowing files to be saved in an obscure directory possibly fix anything?
Windows must be far more broken than I ever imagined.
They’re not going to let anything execute with IE7 either.
As far as read/write access, instead of disabling it in certain cases, it’s disabling it EXCEPT for certain cases (like downloading a file).
Check out the Channel9 video, they explain it quite well there.
Firefox still has access to the users home directory, which could contain a lot of stuff the user would rather not have messed up.
it might have access to your home directory… but it has no activeX to actually RUN anything in there
Uh… buffer overflow is all it needs. Try again.
uh … buffer overflow would apply to Vista’s attempt to do a sandbox as well. Linux has been doing sandboxing for many years, whereas this is Window’s first go at it apparently.
Try again yourself.
The point I was making is it doesn’t need ActiveX to run anything. A bad buffer overflow bug will allow remote arbitrary code execution.
It’s not the same at all.
Firefox in Linux can still access all your user data. IE7 can not do this.
You are talking about simple user permissions… something that, actually Windows does better… to bad that app developers are lazy and require Admin to use their apps.
Whether or not IE7 can do that depends on the implementation. If it contains exploitable holes the sandbox idea won’t work (and then it will have system wide access.. that’s even worse – and there is no 100% tight sandbox model so far – just like there is no 100% secure browser).
Let’s see what happens when it’s actually deployed world wide.
Firefox on GNU/Linux does not necessarily have access to user data, btw.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
The thing is, it is sandboxed compltely into it’s own environment. IE7 can not touch anything but the history folder and the temp inet files. anything that is executed from within IE7 (including a security hole) can not be used to take advantage of any part of the system except these 2 folders.
>>something that, actually Windows does better<<
ROFL.
You have GOT to be kidding.
Well, since you didn’t post anything other than “ROFL” I guess you don’t really know then, do you.
You are talking about simple user permissions… something that, actually Windows does better…
Uh, 2002 called, they want their FUD back. ACLs has been completely implemented in the 2.6 series of Linux kernels. This offers the same type of permission granularity as Windows NT, and then some.
That’s not quite true: you still can’t make a file executable in Linux simply by putting the right file extension…
One thing that is really cool about IE7 is it runs in it’s own sandbox. Even if it has the worst hole in it to date, it can not be used to gain access to any other part of the OS,
like EVERY single linux program ?
windows should have had that since day one.
This is not something Firefox has, or is even planned for.
Not needed as Firefox is not integrated into the operating system and firefox does not run activeX
Not to mention that the only pluses that Firefox has over IE are the tabs and the standards support.
plus it does not run activex
plus it is not integrated into the system
ie7 tabs are nice, but years too late (opera)
and standards are ther for a reason.
I noticed your posts here before, Microsoft must pay you as much as they pay Rob Enderle, either that or you are completely retarded spouting off blind support for no cash in return !
Actually FireFox can use activeX.
I have one (1) activeX module installed in FireFox. This is an activeX module from MS, installed in order to use MSN Chat in FireFox (needed due to an online game, Iøm participating in).
But the way activeX is used by FireFox is a lot different that the IE way, due to the closenitted integration of IE in windows. Windows security will be better, when (or if) IE is disintegrated from the system.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
As usual, on any topic involving Apple.
He is making a business forecast. He is not talking about how wonderful anything is, whether he or anyone else likes it.
He is saying, W95 nearly sunk Apple, because they were geared up to compete with 3.1, and did not correctly appraise the threat.
He is saying, this is a greater threat.
He is not saying, the product is better, the company is nicer. He’s saying, its a threat to revenues and profits, given the market as it it. He’s saying, its a threat that demands actions of a kind Apple is probably not going to take. He qualifies that, by saying that it may not be a threat to the whole company, just to the PC product line.
If Cupertino thinks as sloppily as the Mac people who post here, he is most likely right.
We know, everyone except you has read the article. Read on down to where he tries to say that if Apple and Linux would work together they could beat Microsoft.
He doesn’t bother to mention how they are to “work together.”
Just, read the article. It’s bereft of facts and flow. Each sentence seems crufted into the next and it all fits (sic) together to form something. But not something that makes much sense at all.
It’s just … badly written. It’s like he’s starting with a great thesis: “Hey Apple, remember Win95, don’t let it happen again.” But it doesn’t bother to show a real comparison to 1995 and 2006.
And I thought that before I checked who the author was!
I saw his point – he’s a MSFT fanboy. And his whole article just reeks of it. Apple users get along just fine with OS-X + AppleWorks and Linux users get along fine with *nix + OpenOffice. So Vista + Office 12 is NOT some kind of magic one-two punch like he claims it is. BS article, nothing more, nothing less.
Well, just from some of the quotes already posted here, I guess he is saying how MS, Vista, IE is wonderful. I don’t know about you, but I’m reading a lot of “[MS-something] is better than [non-MS equivalent]” in that article. Without an explanation of what it does better, to boot.
Of course he’s also saying “Oh, I knew years ago everything that would happen later, but did anybody listen? Oh, no, they didn’t, and look at what happened to them! Ha, ha.” which makes him look kind of silly anyway.
I agree with you.
I also think that is easy to miss the point in the article, because if next year Microsoft offers the same technological advances that Mac OSX and Linux, is very difficult to compete against Microsoft, in terms of the market size.
Basically, If joe user, have the same technology for Microsoft, why he bothers to use Linux or MacOSX?
Even if I think that is easy to miss the point in the article, the article is bad written and is very Microsoft (and USA) biased, because it doesn’t mention several things:
1. That can be very difficult to upgrade to Vista from current Hardware (mostly in third-world countries)
2. Several governments try to use open source platforms.
3. The upgrade will be very expensive (in comparison to Linux) in third-world countries
4. The anti-piracy measures will affect the market share in countries where piracy is elevated.
5. Who will use the reduce version of windows (that can run max 4 programs at the same time) when it can use linux, instead.
The case of Apple is different. The next version of MacOSX must be prepared to compete against Windows Media Center Edition. So, Apple must innovate. But is very different right now.
Steve Jobs is leading Apple right now.
Exactly how many people in Afghanastan have you seen with a computer?
While the US is the single largest consumer for all things including computers, if you think third-world (including the one whose name you can’t even spell) are not important, you are sadly mistaken and rather clueless… one of the few things that MS does have to its credit has been making computers affordable for a lot more people than Apple’s roadmap ever seemed to. If they decide not to follow through on that, it might actually allow something like Linux to be the next OS for the masses. Also, if third-world countries were so unimportant, one wonders why all the big companies (including MS, Yahoo and Google) are trying so hard to make inroads into Asia.
Wow, you completely missed the point of my statement, not only that but you put in a personal attack…. good job!
Chill out.
Ever hear of Osama bin Laden? He did some significant work using Windows on his laptop. Think what he can accomplish with with Vista…
Third world doesn’t mean sub-human nor unintelligent, it just means not highly technologically or economically developed. They would also appear to have a long way to go to match your level of smugness socially, but not religiously.
that sounded a little racist….
even though it must have been an imaginary country, as I have not seen Afghanastan on any map.
if you were trying to say there is no computers is asia countries, you are well wrong. There is more computers in asia than there is in the US. and country by country they are all moving to linux. Governments and private users from these countries ;
China
India
Pakistan
Malaysia
Phillipines
Japan
Have all decided to have a FREE system, where they can be sure there is no-one from the US spying on them from their own computers.
Think about it yourself too… how come the only system to suffer from spyware is the one YOU are using ?
Have all decided to have a FREE system, where they can be sure there is no-one from the US spying on them from their own computers.
Right, that’s probably why piracy of Windows and Office is *huge* in Asia.
Piracy of MS stuff is indeed very high in Asia. but that is the guy in the street. I was talking about governments too. It is the governments that is driving the adoption in those countries.
” Right, that’s probably why piracy of Windows and Office is *huge* in Asia.”
No, it’s high because US Citizens and Europeans travel on vacation to these countries. And while they’re there, why not buy some cheap software (be it games, OSes etc.) and movies. It’s the samewith fake clothes and many more different items.
Spyware is a problem on ANY system…. To think that a system is not threatened by spyware is to be extremely ignorant.
Spyware doesn’t spread on your system like a virus. It is a legitmately installed application (either via some other app that you installed or some dialog box you just clicked OK to). There is NO way to counter-act this without completely restricting users from install an application (which is only viable in a corporate environment).
Also, I never even mentioned Asia. Its funny, there are 3 replies to my comment, each of you intepreted it completely differently, and each of you completely lost the meaning.
Spyware does not exists on *nix platforms. It’s pretty much unique to windows.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
So you fall into the incredibly ignorant crowd…. whatever you want to believe.
But, spyware is literally a legitmately installed application, and as such it does not spread around like a virus. So restrictions on user permissions can not stop it from spreading, only the user itself can (by not installing it).
This is something that can be, and is, done on any and EVERY operating system. Whether you choose to live in denial over or not is your own problem.
“But, spyware is literally a legitmately installed application, and as such it does not spread around like a virus.”
I think the point they are making is that under Windows it is quite easy to install a system wide application without knowing or consenting. Under Linux/Unix, you will be asked for root password if you are doing anything with any system files.
However, you can have executables in your home folder as a user, and they can run in restricted ways without asking permissions. iscribe for Linux is one example I’ve come across. This probably does put anything in the home folder potentially at risk.
This is exactly true for Windows as well… The problem isn’t with Windows itself, it’s with developers coding for Admin only rather than taking advantage of the fact that Windows does support user levels. This is why so many people run as Administrator, it is just impossible to use the computer the entire day without getting some application that won’t run in a non-admin account.
Of course, one problem with Windows in this area is the run-as feature does not always work with every application. But this has changed in Vista.
>>The problem isn’t with Windows itself, it’s with developers coding for Admin only rather than taking advantage of the fact that Windows does support user levels.<<
Windows does support user levels but does not mandate them.
Windows Vista is designed to still run legacy applications via the Win32 ABI from Windows 95 days.
Windows 95 was a single user OS that was not networked. Windows 95 design therefore has absolutely zero concept of security. None. Nada. Zilch. Squat.
… and Windows Vista will still run legacy binary applications built for Windows 95.
Think about that for a minute.
Because Vista inherits the ability to still run binaries from circa Windows 95, it inherits exactly the same level of security. None. Nada. Zilch. Squat.
By design, Windows security is absolutely broken.
The only way to fix it is to completely abandon binary compatiibility with applications that ran on previous versions of Windows.
Since Windows users pay a good many $$$ to buy binary executable versions of their software, you can imagine how popular it would be if Windows Vista could not run them.
Those are the choices. Retain binary compatibility (back to Windows 95 win32 ABI), or have a secure OS.
You can’t have both.
I think you should 1) read the other post that I responded to this same exact comment and 2) actually think about what you are saying.
>>Spyware is a problem on ANY system…. To think that a system is not threatened by spyware is to be extremely ignorant.
Spyware doesn’t spread on your system like a virus. It is a legitmately installed application (either via some other app that you installed or some dialog box you just clicked OK to). There is NO way to counter-act this without completely restricting users from install an application (which is only viable in a corporate environment). <<
I have a system at home that I am easily able to keep 100% free of spyware. Guaranteed.
It is a Debian Linux system. I hold the root password (as it is my system). I follow a simple policy – I install all applications only from Debian repositories using only the apt package manager. There are over 17,000 packages to choose from.
You see, those repositories are open source. That means that people who actually use the packages and who can understand source code have seen the code in those packages – and they then use them themselves. Therefore, unless those people like inflicting malware on theselves, everyone who also uses the same packages is guaranteed there is no malware in them.
So no, your basic premise is wrong. Spyware is not a problem at all on some systems.
I’m not going to get in this whole debate with you , YET AGAIN.
The same can be said for Windows and OSS apps.
Hell, I keep my Windows spyware free by not clicking yes to ActiveX installers (unless I know exactly what it is), or installing some stupid shareware game off of a shady website, or from porn sites, etc…
Just because you can get apps from a Debian repository does not mean the Linux system as a whole is not susceptible to spyware. It’s just a way to stay away from it, just like my way of staying away from spyware for Windows.
Can you name a couple of spyware programs that affect Linux? I’m trying to find some but I can’t seem to find any? I mean spyware that actually exists, not the hypothetical ones you constantly allude to.
Name me one piece of spyware I can get on my Kubuntu system?
It’s already been answered in another post….
Even regauardless if it wasn’t, or if there wasn’t any to be found. The point is it IS possible. There is NOTHING that can be done about it except user education.
I don’t care about possible, I care about what actually exists. Imagine if we were to worry about all the possible problems with Windows!!
Malware is a theoretical issue with Linux, but a very concrete, real-world problem with Windows, on that costs billions of dollars every year (estimated 160G$ in 2004). That’s the the truth, and no amount of spin on your part will change this.
>>Malware is a theoretical issue with Linux, but a very concrete, real-world problem with Windows, on that costs billions of dollars every year (estimated 160G$ in 2004). That’s the the truth, and no amount of spin on your part will change this.<<
Very “theoretical” with Linux.
With Linux there happens to be a very simple policy that people can follow that guarantees no malware, yet still provides a smorgasboard list of over 17,000 Linux applications to choose from for installation – and as a bonus, all at zero cost.
Would you sign up for an account already.
Oh yeah, and stop spouting the same exact garbage over and over and over.
It’s not theoretical. The malware is there.
Just because there isn’t as much of it doesn’t make ANY difference at all. The reason for that is 1) Windows is MUUUUUCH more ubiquitous, and 2) Linux users, in general, at least have some clue as to what’s Ok to open on and what’s not.
I’m not spinning anything. The fact that you keep arguing that Linux is invulnerable to sypware says something about who’s doing the spinning.
It’s not theoretical. The malware is there.
I asked you to name popular spyware for Linux, and you still haven’t. If it’s “there” it shouldn’t be hard to name it, right?
As for Malware in general, let’s see. How many Linux viruses have been spotted in the wild? Under 50 I believe. How many Windows viruses? Over 100,000 I believe. That’s 2,000 times the number of viruses
Windows has a market share about 40 times that of Linux (I’m being generous here, if we count servers – which are affected by Malware – it would be a lot less than that). That still means that, even when market share proportions are factored in, there is still fifty times more malware for Windows than Linux.
That 160 billion dollar damages is real. That’s the real effect of Windows malware.
That’s the difference between real life and theoretical possibilities.
I’m not spinning anything. The fact that you keep arguing that Linux is invulnerable to sypware says something about who’s doing the spinning.
Strawman argument, you lose. I’m not saying Linux is invulnerable to spyware, I’m saying that spyware (and, by extension, malware) isn’t a problem on Linux. It’s not just a question of market share (as I’ve mathematically demonstrated), it’s not just a question of user awareness (unless you’re claiming that Windows users are idiots, which isn’t true), it’s also a question of basic design and economic realities.
The *nix roots of Linux provides the secure legacy of a fully-networked multi-user system. The Open-Source nature of Linux means that spyware are ineffective, because they can be spotted and removed by vigilant hackers (note, this applies to the BSDs as well). The fact that Microsoft is catching up to free *nix in security while the free *nix OSes are catching up with Windows in terms of application availability (they have already catched up in matters of ease of use) is a sign that all these OSes are maturing.
It’s just that some of these OSes belong to everyone, while the other one belongs to an abusive monopoly who wants to keep its profit margins high by locking its users in its proprietary formats and standards. To me the choice is clear. That you have chosen to keep your chains is your own problem.
Acrobat has spyware in it.
Also, on Symantec’s website alone, I found 3084 pieces of malware. These are just the ones that contain the word “Linux” in the name.
Linux’s marketshare is 2.8% (roughly) on the desktop. Microsoft has a 90%-95% desktop penetration.
On the server, Linux has a 28.3% marketshare. Windows has about the same.
So, your numbers are quite a bit off there.
>>Acrobat has spyware in it.<<
Adware, not spyware (AFAIK).
However, not only do you get that fundamental distinction incorrect, but you miss the point.
There may be attempts to write malware in closed-source applications for Linux platforms – but they don’t actually have any penetration. The reason is simple – there is probably a better open source alternative available in the Linux repositories.
It is not Linux (per se) that gives the guarantee of no malware – it is using only open source that gives that guarantee.
It is possible to have a Linux system (OS plus applications) that is entirely open source – and therefore guaranteed to have no malware.
It is not possible to do that on a Mac platform – most of the platform itself is closed.
As for a Windows system – not only is the platform closed, the platform itself is malware. Guaranteed.
Regarding: >>Also, on Symantec’s website alone, I found 3084 pieces of malware. These are just the ones that contain the word “Linux” in the name. <<
Have a read:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2005-09-06-020-26-NW-SV-…
“Symantec had modified their database to make it more difficult to distinguish between Linux and Windows viruses. I wonder why? I found about 480 putative Linux viruses, IIRC, and began drilling down through their database to locate the characteristics page, which gave the number of infected PCs and the severity of the infection. As it turned out, except for the original 6, of the 100 viruses I drilled down on NONE were actually Linux viruses. They were Windows viruses with the word “Linux” in their name!! And, many were supposedly “cross platform” jpeg viruses, although I’ve never heard of any Linux user, nor have I, experienced such a virus evenw with hundreds of graphic images in my download library.”
ROFLMAO. !!!!
Windows malware with the word “Linux” in the name. Very droll.
Exactly who are you trying to kid?
For the Symantec site, someone already demonstrated how you were wrong.
As far as my numbers being off, do you realize that I underestimated them, and that them being higher actually supports my argument?
Arguing with you is no fun, you’re just too good at shooting yourself down.
You underestimated for Windows.
Or over-estimated (extremely, I might add) for Linux.
Linux and Windows have about the same server marketshare (thus, would not change the numbers at all)
Windows has way more than 40x the number of Linux desktops.
One more thing…
Not that I really, care, just proving a point.
If you did not care, you would not so vigorously champion a lost cause, and you would not post so often.
As for proving a point – actually you missed the point entirely.
It is not Linux that guarantees no malware – it is using only open source exclusively that guarantees no malware. I think you may find that there is not one single open source application amongst Symantecs listings of malware – even if they do have “linux” in the name, that does not make them open source.
Next time, try and address the actual point, rather than something else entirely. One day, when someone pounds you repeatedly with a cluestick, you may actually prove something, rather than just think you did.
>>The same can be said for Windows and OSS apps.
Hell, I keep my Windows spyware free by not clicking yes to ActiveX installers (unless I know exactly what it is), or installing some stupid shareware game off of a shady website, or from porn sites, etc…
Just because you can get apps from a Debian repository does not mean the Linux system as a whole is not susceptible to spyware. It’s just a way to stay away from it, just like my way of staying away from spyware for Windows.<<
Except that in your system there is no way to tell if a closed-source binary executable contains spyware or not. Therefore your system (even with the very best of your attentions) is susceptible to spyware or adware contained within an offering from a supposedly reputable source.
Take for example a PDF viewer. Acrobat reader 7 from Adobe contains adware – either on a Windows system or on a Linux system. This is a closed source application.
Kpdf from the Debian repositories contains no such adware. This is an open source application which does the same thing.
I, too, hate Acrobat, and use a 3rd party PDF reader that runs much more quickly.
You do not need to restrict what a user installs on his system if thousands of eyes have already checked over the source code.
Now your reply…. I will not call you “extremely ignorant” even though the reply seems to come from someone who has no concept of the way open source works.
I will give an example, so bear with me…..
I design some software, emm, it is a calculator.
Now I write some spyware that opens all your docs and scans for cc details, then uploads onto a server I have access to.
I release the closed source app and loads of people download and install it.
NICE
Now on a system so “open” and I mean that as in “swiss cheese open”” as Windows, then, all your details belong to us.
Now on a “securer”, (note I did not say “secure” as nothing really is), system like Linux, if you download a closed source app, and install it, then the app will run. But will it be able to scan inside all your docs ?
Will it have the priviliges to open a port and connect to the internet ? Maybe….
But
If I had released the software as open source, then I would have to make the source code available, so anyone could spot that I have included spyware, and put out warning for people who cannot read code.
HOWEVER……… some people are muppets and should not be allowed near computers. You know the sort, the ones who always click Next or OK blindly. The ones who always get caught by the flashy graphics on website pop-ups. The ones who think it really is Kelly Brooke nude. The ones who think they need that website to send them smilies.
>Even if I think that is easy to miss the point in the article, the article is bad written and is very Microsoft (and USA) biased, because it doesn’t mention several things:
>1. That can be very difficult to upgrade to Vista from current Hardware (mostly in third-world countries)
Starter Editions, altought they suck are planned for those countries. Todays top models(which cost more than 2000€) can run Vista in very good performance and we still have 1 year to go before releasing Vista. Plus Microsoft has time to optimized code more aggressivly. It’s very likely that basic models(which cost less than 1000€) will run Vista in 2006.
>2. Several governments try to use open source platforms.
Goverments will try to do that but mostly it’s been publicity stuff. There hasn’t been any major succees in migrating to open source platforms. Microsoft will probaply lose some of it’s public sector incomes but they will still be strong in private side.
>3. The upgrade will be very expensive (in comparison to Linux) in third-world countries
Same as first part. Usually computers are upgraded to better ones every 4-5 years. It’s likely that most of migrations to Vista will be done in 2-3 years after releasing it, that means in 2008-2009. Some companies have started to move to XP just couple of years ago.
>4. The anti-piracy measures will affect the market share in countries where piracy is elevated.
This isn’t fact and it’s impossible to say if anti-piracy measures will move users to other platforms, mainly free open source ones. Often consumers buy computer with pre-installed Windows, so it’s no problem. Also Microsoft has talked about lowering price of Vista.
>5. Who will use the reduce version of windows (that can run max 4 programs at the same time) when it can use linux, instead.
Actually not many since reduced version is only available in few countries. Averega Joe doesn’t use that many programs same time, usually they use web browers and IM-software (readers of OSnews aren’t Average Joes
). Most people will choose Windows because they are familiar using it and it’s easy to use.
1) You keep forgetting, that in the 3rd world they’re either running cracked versions of windows or they’re running a different OS, especially GNU/Linux.
2) I call BS on this one. In France and Germany and Denmark as well open source is widely used. In Munich they’re running GNU/Linux now, as in several parts of France.
Your information might be correct about USA, but USA is not the center of the world, you know.
3) Too early to say anything about hardware migration. This is different from one region to another. In Denmark it can easily take more than a decade to replace desktop pc’s. Vista is not likely to be deployed over 2 or 3 years. It’s way to expensive for the companies. It might be different in USA, but what do we care?
4) Too early to say anything in regard to anti-piracy measures and their effect. Usually it just means that the installed windows version cannot be updated through windows update (which most users don’t even know exists).
5) The cut-down version is not important. No reason to discuss it.
Conclussion:
Vista doesn’t really bring anything new to the world. It will get a major user base through OEM installations, no doubt, but considering the existence of XP and Win2K3 and Win2K it will most likely be a lot smaller than you think. Time will show what happens. Linux on the desktop is mature; the question is: Will it be used?
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
I like the way you think about computing it is very analytical. Vista is aimed at the developed countries when most of the world will not have access to new hardward even if it is “cheaper” than the past. I don’t want to talk about a feature comparison, but I the appropriate subject of comparison is markets and general trends in computing. Here are some important points the author missed.
1) As mentioned above the developing market is much bigger and probably growing faster than the U.S. or Europe combined, which is where Vista will be heavily martketed.
2) This is not 1995 when the when the desktop was the center of the computing universe. The Internet is the center of the computing universe and webservices not software on the desktop is what is most important. Appple receives most of it’s profits not from OS X, but from the iPOD and itunes sales. Google is the current King of the internet centric universe. Microsoft has recently announce a reorganization because of the Google threat. Computing is moving out from the desktop into the broader consumer electrics market and Apple is leading the way.
3) Microsoft’s biggest competition maybe itself. Many people do not upgrade, because to most people if the computer works why should I upgrade. When it’s time to upgrade maybe there will be a cheaper easy to use Linux computer that does everything they need for less than half the price, but most people don’t care that it is Linux just that it is easy to use. Most people are not enamored with technology as the author or most of the readers in this forum. It’s not what is under the hood it is how it works.
As in economics past performance (Win95) is no indication of future (Vista) performance. The world has changed this is a not 1995 it maybe 2006 when Vista ships. Anybody ever hear of “Internet time”?
This guy is crazy…..Microsoft has to win over more or less satified WIN XP users before Vista takes anybody on.
AND, Apple’s with intel will likely run both…..a designer computer at a designer price….oh and a host of well designed, integrated applications too, PLUS a stable platform for Vista to run on if desired. Dell, etc will be hard pressed to compete with that niche package.
>>This guy is crazy…..Microsoft has to win over more or less satified WIN XP users before Vista takes anybody on.
Definitely true. What are these great features that are going to make me move from XP to Vista? A search feature…uh wait…it that even in Vista. Google search seems to work just fine for me.
I think Apple has some serious steam lately, and Google is really the one to watch.
Dano.
Yes, the search feature is in Vista. The FS (and the shell) handles the meta data, so you can literally edit it directly from the shell (including ID3 tags).
Again and again, people modding down posts for no reason… except to what, cover up the truth?
Whoever did that is absolutely pathetic.
The sad thing is, everything that will ship in Vista 2006 is already in my Mac OS Tiger that I’m typing from 😉
What poor journalism. Very biased and a pathetic article. And to the guy who claims MS is orignal with it’s technologies – where do you think Ms got the idea of Windows from? What about “Microsoft Gadgets”? Lol, get a clue please.
please… no one cares about Microsoft Gadgets. It’s just a little detail, just like Dashboard. Silly useless details, made famous just to hide the fact that there’s nothing new under the sun. I found it crazy when people were all making their pants wet about “Oh WOW!! Tiger has desktop Widgets!”. But still, in 2005, their Terminal program can’t deal with accented characters in filenames…
I use both GNU/Linux and Tiger, and to be honnest, they both suck. Windows XP is worthless even more. So, I put great hope in Vista. If it’s really as good as it seems to be, I may well be a switcher when it’s out…
Uhm. -sigh-
What is it that would make you switch to Vista? I’m not saying that the only thing great about Tiger is Widgets. Lol.
The whole design of Mac OS X is just amazing, one would have never thought a UNIX desktop could do what Mac OS X does. Apple also have a release up their sleave 😉
Nothin abut Vista excites me. And yes I have used them all. I work for a Linux consulting company, but I would never run Linux as a desktop OS. KDE/Gnome are still far away from what I want in a Desktop. E17 might be cool. Seriously Vista not impressive. Sure to the computer user who has never seen OS X or seen a sidebar Vista will look “cool”. Heh. you get my point.
Its almost 2006, who the f*** cares about Terminal Programs?
This isn’t 1986! Geeez guys I am not a Mac user at all, but some of this same low down moronic crap is what people use against windows.
Vista is a whole lot more than just a mac look a like clone. The TCPIP networking stack is awesome, it’s going to be mega fast than anything out right now.
Wait until Vista is out before you mental midgets bash it. I mean damn people, beta 2 will have a lot more going on and while some of you morons will say xxx has this feature already, some of you kids don’t understand that most of these features that you say that about, are more advanced in scope than the feature in your fav OS.
Anti-Microsoft people are not just beyond reason, but logic as well.
Microsoft Windows 95 did hurt Mac in a huge way, I remember back then what things were like and the Mac was hurt big time.
It wasn’t until recently that the mac market started coming back with MaC OS X and now that is going to be challenged as they move yet again and this time its going to be INtel, which means that the Mac is no longer special and that they have to deal with native support for Vista.
o Windows Sound code re-written from the ground up to support the latest audio technologies.
o Windows Video code re-written from the ground up to support the latest video technologies for 2D and 3D.
o Windows Networking code all re-written for the ground up for security, the latest technology and even faster TCP/IP download support (they have registered a 40X (yes not percent, but times in increase) strait from the devs themselves, not PR.
With a 64-bit version of Windows Vista for the desktop who the hell wants to use Linux for desktop stuff.
With a 64-bit version of Windows Vista Server with IIS 7.0 which will kill apache, beyond a cheap bastard who will want to run linux?
If you kids want to see some of this cool stuff you will be able to see it around Beta 2 and channel 9 as well. Now, of course putting some sense into your head isn’t going to be easy.
>o Windows Sound code re-written from the ground up to support the latest audio technologies.
Wow. Thank god I’ll finally be able to listen to my music on my computer thanks to Vista. Oh wait, with all the DRM I probably won’t.
>o Windows Video code re-written from the ground up to support the latest video technologies for 2D and 3D.
Another wow. I can’t wait to rush out and buy the latest tunnel-vision disembodied-floating-gun-wandering-around-a-dark-hallway games once Vista is released. In the mean time I’ll just have to continue making music on my Mac.
>o Windows Networking code all re-written for the ground up for security, the latest technology and even faster TCP/IP download support (they have registered a 40X (yes not percent, but times in increase) strait from the devs themselves, not PR.
My cable provider is what caps my download speeds, not the TCP/IP stack. It’ll be 40x faster? Faster than what? I heard the new Crest has 40% more cavity fighting action too.
>o With a 64-bit version of Windows Vista for the desktop who the hell wants to use Linux for desktop stuff.
Don’t forget to ask Santa to bring you that 64-bit version of Vista when it hits the shelves in 2007. Meanwhile I’m typing this on a machine with a 64-bit processor and using a 64-bit OS right now, it’s called an iMac running OS X Tiger. (And those 64 bits aren’t making me type any faster, BTW.)
>o With a 64-bit version of Windows Vista Server with IIS 7.0 which will kill apache, beyond a cheap bastard who will want to run linux?
When somebody has two options, with equal capabilities, except one costs several hundreds of dollars and is less secure, and they choose the cheaper/free and more secure of the two, I call that person smart. You call that person a “cheap bastard”.
> With a 64-bit version of Windows Vista for the desktop who the hell wants to use Linux for desktop stuff.
What planet are you on? On this planet we call earth, Linux has been 64-bit for ages.
Linux runs on anythig from wristwatches, mobile phones and PDAs through to hefty servers, Beowulf clusters and supercomputers.
http://hardware.newsforge.com/hardware/05/09/16/1555231.shtml
Wnat a 64-bit desktop Linux?
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=suse
Have a look at the table, where it says “Processor Architecture”. It says: “i586, ppc, x86_64”. In fact it has had a 64-bit version available since April 2003.
I do note however, Windows Vista is probably only about four years behind the times here.
In most areas, Vista is even more behind the times than that.
Still no ppc version of Vista though, I notice.
LOL@proforma
You’re really funny, you know :p
I won’t bother answering your funny comments. I’ll just keep quadrobooting my system (Win2K3 Server, LFS, BeOS w. Haiku-elements and “good” ol’ DOS – perhaps to be replaced with OS/2.. or perhaps penta-booting?).
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
“What about “Microsoft Gadgets”?”
Well, I guess the same place Apple ripped it off from…
Konfabulator…no, wait…DesktopX…don’t you think it is the case of the pot calling the kettle black…
Well, I guess the same place Apple ripped it off from…
Konfabulator…no, wait…DesktopX…don’t you think it is the case of the pot calling the kettle black…
Try Sherlock, smart guy. DesktopX? haha!
While Vista is unlikely to displace massive amounts of in-place Linux platforms it should reduce Linux growth measurably
The linux growth is very significant in the server rooms.How is Vista going to reduce that growth?All we have noticed sofar is a very Desktop centered features marketing hoax that dealt mostly with the looks of the new? GUI.I doubt the IT-pros are waiting for resource hogging GUI’s that’s for sure.
Once the server market is largely taken-over by Linux the drivers have to be developed and come towards the desktop eventually.And when that has happened the Linux desktop aproach can really make a difference and will most likely experience a big growth.
actually they are working on providing a unix-like type server, less gui more command line possibilities…
This author suffers from delusions; Delusions are even much worse than hallucinations.
This author must have been drunk when writting his article, telling us how much the reviews can be misleading these days. I wont comment more cause this guy needs prompt medical attention.
My God… this article is a piece of junk! This guy as serious issues with Apple and the OpenSource software… Vista is as exciting as Windows Millennium!
“IE improvements are broad and easily eclipse those by Firefox and Netscape, but remember this is still beta code so these competitors do have time to respond.”
Awesome, Microsoft is only getting stronger! Getting stronger! … <borg chip implanted in my head>.
Seriously I only see improvement from Microsoft with Vista, their XP service packs and their beta products. No doubt Apple and the Linux camp scared them and forced all those Phd.’s up in the Microsoft Research labs to finish up their concepts and bring them into frutation with the production teams. Good luck Microsoft, I mean it from my heart.
I hope Microsoft realized its place as the mass market leader. Good luck, I look forward to a public Beta of Windows Vista.
The only similarity this time is MS coming out with a new OS that tries to emulate what Apple already has.
But this time Apple has:
– Steve Jobs
– A stronger brand and a much healthier company
– The iPod & iTMS (the digital music market)
– The iMac, Mac mini & the iBook (strong consumer Macs)
And when Vista becomes a reality by the end of 2006 Apple will have:
– Mac on Intel (capable of running windows natively)
– Leopard (an OS that will certainly be even farther ahead of Vista)
– Some kind of “Media PC Handheld” done right that will shift the computing focus from the PC to the handheld (I know, rumors, rumors)
MS is headed by Steve Ballmer today, not Bill Gates. MS is in the middle of a major restructuring, a sign that something was not right.
MS is being threatned by Google and Open Source/Linux in its major camps.
The fact that Apple today leverages its products and innovation on top of open source (OS X on BSD, Safari on KHTML, iChat on Jabber, etc) and standards (PDF, OpenGL, AAC, H.264, USB, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc) makes them stronger today than back in 95 to face a threat from MS.
MS is a major player in Mac OS X with its office product. MS would rather see Macs with Mac OS X thrive than PCs with Linux.
This does not mean there is no threat nor that it will be easy to deal with, but I am sure Steve already has his master plan on how he will deal with it. As he has done so far since he returned to Apple.
I just don’t see these events to be so similar, sorry.
Very well said ^5
Very well said, you did forget to mention Apple’s Firewire.
I really don’t see Vista being more than another WindowsME, a goddy GUI revamp. Linux/BSD are kicking ass in the server/embedded/development environments, as well as getting ready to unleash onto the desktop. Apple is taking over the consumer media handheld, desktop and laptop marketplace as well.
Maybe Enderle was surfing the iTunes music store and got inspired.
I think he misses the point when mentioning Linux as compared to Vista, and the Desktop. For starters, there is no ” Linux”, while Apple and Microsoft are distinct entities. I am sure that any particular feature in an OSS set can be duplicated and even improved upon by a company with Microsoft’s resources, but again, that’s not the point either ( he mentions how IE7 beats FireFox ). OSS is a platform and a system, and it has nothing to do with any so-called features that either Apple or Microsoft may cook up. “Linux” could not ” join up” with Apple, because that very concept does not make sense. Linux vendors either compete with Microsoft on the corporate front, like RH and Novell, or they don’t compete at all and could care less about what Apple and Microsoft are doing ( read, your favorite neighborhood distro ). It is not and never has been, about the desktop. Most good Linux distros do not even charge for the desktop, anyways.
The only thing he said that makes sense, is that Apple will have tremendous problems is their ipod / media strategy does not work out. The only problem that the OSS world really faces, in the US at least, is patent use to stop development of new technologies-that is a very serious threat.
Linux could have. Apple offered about 6 years ago. They didn’t offer properly, but they offered.
The artical is poorly written, and it starts out with a decent point. but saying Vista will crush Linux and OSX is pretty well, hogwash.
the desktop is desided in the Corprate and Goverment worlds, and both of those worlds are way behind the times in hardware, and “upgrading a few thousand” desktop to be able to handled vista will not happen at least over nite, XP will be the standard until it runs out of its extended support timeframe. after that its anyones game.
with MA choosing Opendocument as a format standard, who knows what the future will hold. and current Jobs has apple fireing on all pistons!!!
-Nex6
-nex6.blogspot.com
… if this is all the guy could come up with, including a priceless insight: “That said, Microsoft has certainly stumbled in the past and could still stumble here. While there is no indication of that happening, other than the obvious delay of this product, now just as there are opportunities for success, also embedded in this effort are massive opportunities for failure.”
So Microsoft may succeed but then again, you know, folks, they may not. And whichever way it turns out, your ole buddy Bob will be here to say I told you so.
The difference between 1995 and 2006 is that this time absolutely everyone from a CEO in Manhattan to a bus boy in Manila can see Microsoft coming. We know how Microsoft work and what they are always up to: lock-in, with a steep price rise. Vista may be a success for all I know, but we are well and truly entering the post-Microsoft era now. All those many million of users around the world just aren’t going to swallow the same crock a second time around, or at least not for one second longer than they have to.
I really have to differ with you there.
While Microsoft is at a very crucial stage in it’s business life, it is far from the post-Microsoft era.
Now, unless Microsoft executes correctly and fixes some mistakes that they’ve made in the past, it will (reletively) soon be the post-MS era. But that is not now, and is still a bit of a ways off, if it does indeed happen.
don’t direct hits to this windbag.
I find DOWNLOAD Windows Vista pre-Beta 2 page here:
http://windows.czweb.org/show_article.php?id_article=99
31536000 (or more) seconds and counting…
You know what’s really nice?
For many years a lot of windows users didn’t even know about the Mac, they believed Microsoft created everything.
But with the advances of the internet and broadband, people got a good look at Mac OS X, and now they will get Vista, a clone.
They will all know now that what we Mac users have been saying for years, Windows is a poor rip off of the Mac OS, and they will believe us.
Are you kidding me? Let’s ask the real question… Is OSX Tiger ready for the desktop? Well, it’s not. Only one barely decent video player (VLC), No correct audio player (don’t drink the iTunes Koolaid guys…) — And hell, the bundled web browser doesn’t even follow FTP links correctly, it delegates them to the OH SO network ready Finder…
Oh yeah, the Finder… It sucks so bad it makes XP’s own explorer look like a masterpiece!
No decent P2P software (acquisition is a great app, but people don’t care about gnutella), retarded unicode aware terminal which chokes on accented chars in filenames, overpriced-underpowered hardware, laggy graphics (not talking about heavy 3D games here, just about website scrolling and window resizing)… and on, and on, and on…
No really, saying that Windows is a poor rip-off of OSX is really beyond my understanding. As a Tiger user, I fail to understand my fellow mac friends, who seem to forget what ordinary people use their computers for.
Explorer the file manager is a masterpiece. It’s the holy grail of file managers… It’s probably the only one that even makes a dent in what a real shell lets you do to manage your files (let alone manipulate your files).
I don’t know why people hate Finder. Few of them who hate it ever seem to be able t0 say why.
Win 3.13 for the 68k ran bettern tha Win95 for the PPC because it did not reflect the video beam interrupt down to V68 mode. However Apple’s 64 bit extensions for Desqview did not work properly so they lost some market share.
ripping off the mac… hmm and where does most of modern day mac software come from…??? and it aint apple…
macs are where microsoft want to be….
locked up (and wont let any 3rd party in)…
The article is stupid, that’s for sure. Some points in there, but poorly written and what not.
<sarcasm>
Vista is nothing but an OS X clone !!!!
</sarcasm>
Cause yeah, Aero looks just like Aqua. Please trolls, just shut up about it being a rip-off, copy, whatever, it’s not no matter how many times you repeat it. Sad part is, you’re getting some other people to believe your FUD.
Uh, you realize that the article is pro-Vista, anti-OSX, right? Because you being critical of the article seems antithetic to your subsequent defense of Vista…
(You don’t actually have to read the article, just seeing that it’s from Rob Enderle is enough!)
I’m just sayin’…
I’m anti-article and anti-OS-X-trolls-who-have-posted-in-this-thread.
The author of the article is an idiot and so are the people proclaiming Vista is a copy of OS X.
Please give the author of the article when you link to it. Had I known it was Rob Enderle, I wouldn’t have bothered with it.
It begins to step on my nervers when I hear such shameless and idiotic plug for a product. Brace yourselves for next year’s Vista PR campaign… I think I’ll take a vacation…
Please, no more articles from this prick… let’s take a vote!!!!
I vote for NO more Enderle articles too
I think no more articles should be posted from this guy, and as well, no more from Steven J Vaughn-Nichols. They are both unbearably biased tools with terrible writing skills.
OSX is awesome, Vista is awesome. End of that story.
Enderle warned Apple? Warned them about what? That they would make huge profits and be seen as the most innovative computer company in the world. What a joke this guy is. Hes a clown who is wrong way more often than he is right. That he has a career at all is amazing. Time to get a clue Enderle. Noone cares about Vista. There are zero features of any interest to anyone unless transperencies is a killer app for you. Everything decent else has been removed because Microsoft couldnt get it together. Even there own employess are saying that and leaving the company in droves.
That happened after 2000. That’s a completely different time for Apple. Enderle is right that Apple almost went bankrupt after Win95.
Exactly what employees are leaving the company in ‘droves’.
Also, the ONLY thing taken out for the Vista release is WinFS. But they still do have the Spotlight-like features.
They also dropped monad.
No, Monad is not dropped. But, simply, the apps need to be able to take advantage of Monad, and as such, Microsoft’s own apps need to be recoded, which will take time… but Monad will still ship with Vista if not, then slightly after as an add-on.
>>No, Monad is not dropped. But, simply, the apps need to be able to take advantage of Monad, and as such, Microsoft’s own apps need to be recoded, which will take time… but Monad will still ship with Vista if not, then slightly after as an add-on.<<
Yes, maybe it might eventually be shipped, but does it run bash scripts? Can I use remotely it via ssh?
Is Microsoft still playing catch-up, or what?
How come all you Microsofties are getting so excited by 10-year-late catchup features – that BTW won’t be shipped yet anyway?
Because it’s better than bash
Beta2 was released not too long ago.
Who says I’m excited over it? I don’t really care, except that it’s one less thing for other people to complain about.
I just happen to be a Monad beta tester.
“You are all missing his point”
He doesn’t have a point unless its that Microsoft is coming out with something new and therefore Apple is doomed. Enderle says that al the time and he has always been wrong.
“If Cupertino thinks as sloppily as the Mac people who post here, he is most likely right.”
Yeah Apple is know for “thinking sloppily” whatever that means. Moron.
He said “the mac people who post here”, not “Apple”. Who is the “moron” now?
“What about “Microsoft Gadgets”?”
“Well, I guess the same place Apple ripped it off from…
Konfabulator…no, wait…DesktopX…don’t you think it is the case of the pot calling the kettle black…”
Ever heard of desk accessories? Didn’t think so. Dumbass.
Similar idea, different reasons, different implementations.
DesktopX was the first in the modern OS era to do it. Konfabulator followed up and simplified it. Apple almost copied Konf completely. All the widgets look the same, and even how you can view them is ripped from Konf. Face it, your almighty Apple actually did copy someone else for once, with the implementation and final look and behaviour of the product.
Hi to all those who know nothing please read this: http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator
If you actually read through the entire link that you posted you would learn a few thinks…for instance, something that Apple implements which has “visual resemblance” with something else “couldn’t be a coincidence. Of course it wasn’t coincidence — but that doesn’t mean it was a “rip-off”.”
If this is true we should throw out all “MS copies Mac” comments here…because all they are talking about is visual resemblance.
Read your own links before you post. If MS is copying Apple, Apple is copying others. If Apple is not copying others, MS is not copying Apple.
Windows Vista? Yawn… Windows 95 release was more exciting than that. From user perspective there is absolutely no reason to upgrade unless you really want to exercise your hardware, Vista will have even slower adoption rates than XP. As a server platform, there is nothing groundbreaking either. It looks like Windows will continue suffering against Linux on server end and hopefully on the desktop pretty soon as well. Nothing to see here, move along people…
Nothng ground-breaking? How about WinFS (which goes so far beyond Spotlight and the like).
How about, finally, the ability to run remote apps w/o having to go to the TS desktop first, and running the entire Remote Desktop client software.
This is just 2 things.
As for slow adoption, who cares? I for one will run it, as it is a nice upgrade to XP, even beta 1 has some pretty slick stuff that XP can not do (The shells handling of meta data is my favorite thing).
If there is nothing ground-breaking, and it’s a yawn, why do you even bother to not only click on the article, but also comment on it?
I don’t know, but I find the quote…
“historically staid companies like Gateway, HP, Acer, and even Dell are much more aggressive on design today, often surpassing Apple”
extremely laughable.
Although I do believe many of these companies have improve their designs, they by far haven’t even come close. Just in the quality of materials alone, the difference is big.
Just as a little example of why this doesn’t seem right, my last employer provided me with a pretty nice, brand new Dell laptop when I started there. And by the end of the year I was there, the laptop’s gray color had partially faded. This clearly shows that Dell uses cheap materials, which is then reflected in their price. I suppose this goes well with most companies, as they couldn’t care less if employees like their main tool for work. But as a consumer, I personally prefer better brands, and a good example of this is Apple. Apple might be a little bit more expensive, but it’s all quality materials, which few other companies can or care to match.
yet another ms shill, spewing more advertising disguised as “editorial” – nothing new here.
Perhaps this article is a plot device for some sci-fi show (e.g. Dr Who) that takes place 10 years ago?
1995 was when Apple had their weakest ever products – System 7.5, Performa, and the Copland disaster.
Vista has over OSX is that they rammed DRM into every aspect of the system, and with that I mean with every aspect. The whole media layer was designed for hollywood not the end users…
And I do not see that as an advantage….
Really, have you even used it?
There is no more DRM in it than there is today. And today, it is completely optional to put DRM into stuff (of course, if something is DRMed, then there is nothing you can do about it).
Also, you really shouldn’t have to worry about the DRM unless you are doing illegal things with it (for the most part, there are a few cases where it can be a problem, and that just requires an adjustment for how the DRM works).
Its not about:
— Whether we like MS
— Whether we like Apple
— Whether we like OSX
— Whether we like the author
— Whether we think the author is an MS shill
— Whether we like the XP user interface…..
Its about the market, and whether Vista will change the market in which Apple is playing. His argument is that it will. Partly it will because what anyone with 95% of desktops, and almost all of the corporate market, does is bound to have a great effect. Partly he claims that there will be features in Vista that will have a big market impact. Maybe people will be idiots to be impacted, but his claim is, idiots or not, they will be.
He goes on to claim that Apple is not well placed to deal with this impact, partly because of Cupertino culture, partly because of their size and the different nature of their relations and MS’s relations with developers. He cites a previous case where this turned out to be true, and this was at a time when Apple had far greater market share than it does now.
Now, you can say that ME was a bust, and it was. But neither 95, 98, 2000 or XP were busts, and all changed the desktop market environment substantially. This could too. Suppose security ceases to be an issue with Vista. It could happen. Don’t you think that would change things?
It is a point about the market worth taking seriously. And there is one thing he doesn’t say which adds to the force of the point. Apple is not a threat to MS, because their chosen strategy of tying the OS to their own hardware limits market share to very low levels. But MS is a threat to Apple, even when it is not targetting Apple. What MS does can change the whole market environment in which Apple’s PC product line lives. When the elephant turns over, mice may get crushed, when the farmer goes by with his tractor, whole ecosystems on which small creatures live may vanish. Even when they are not being targetted. That is what he is saying, and its a serious point, whether you like him personally or not.
You can’t think straight about this unless you realise that products and markets are two different things. As Sony found out, when VHS hit, and as Apple found out, when W95 hit.
Just one thing. Apple offering X86 hardware could really be a major blow to Microsoft, as now it’s not so scary to go out and speend a few thousand dollars on a system that can’t run Windows apps… or, what if you don’t like it, you are stuck with MacOS.
Now (or when they are released), with X86 Apple hardware, someone could have Windows isntalled onto that hardware, and as such would be more willing to buy the Apple hardware…. I for one am considering this, though, I do not like the idea of buying a pre-built system.
It is a point that would be worth taking seriously if:
– He gave any reason beyond “Vista is so much better than anything else…”
– He took into account other possibilities, like (off the top of my head) people not upgrading to Vista because they’re quite comfortable with XP (or even 2000) and Vista requires hardware upgrades.
– He clearly explained how Vista will/would change the market.
(And that’s without mentioning his stupid attitude of thinking he knows everything.)
But as none of those requirements are met… Sorry, this is just some guy blabling.
I’m really tired of mac zealots. They think Apple invented the universe and everything.
I will write an article about innovations and submit on OSNews.com. There are a lot of misleading comments and i can’t understand why it’s good to prove that Apple is the only innovator.
Apple copied context menus, alt-tab, notification icons, etc. I will continue on that page and you’ll suck.
If I had known it was a Rob Enderle article I would have never have even clicked on the link to the article.
The guy has all the respectability of Lair McLiar the well know liar from Liarland. I can’t start of describing his level of bias without invoking Godwin’s Law.
What’s next a Maureen O’Gara article?
>Piracy of MS stuff is indeed very high in Asia. but that is the guy in the street. I was talking about governments too. It is the governments that is driving the adoption in those countries.
So, what you are saying:
– People do not want that FREE stuff. They are willing to steal MS stuff instead.
– Government wants that FREE stuff.
– Government forces it on their people.
– You are proud of it.
Wow! If U.S.S.R. was alive today, comrade Stalin will be running Linux on his desktop.
OSS: good for paranoid governments.
Freedom OS: take that OS and give back your freedom.
>how come the only system to suffer from spyware is the one YOU are using ?
The last I’ve seen suffering was FreeBSD with rootkit planted on it.
Speaking about spying on governments…:)
no… what he was saying is this….
He said……..”Piracy of MS stuff is indeed very high in Asia. but that is the guy in the street. I was talking about governments too. It is the governments that is driving the adoption in those countries. ”
I take it from this reply of yours…..”People do not want that FREE stuff. They are willing to steal MS stuff instead.
– Government wants that FREE stuff.
– Government forces it on their people.
– You are proud of it.
Wow! If U.S.S.R. was alive today, comrade Stalin will be running Linux on his desktop.
”
I take it that you have NEVER had a job ? The governments of those countries are switching to Linux, so it follows that the employee will want to use the same stuff at home as they do in work. That was one of the reasons Microsoft got to be so dominant in the first place.
How does your mind work when you took that reply from his post ? Do you automatically think everyone is a thief or is it just you…
Also..
The last I’ve seen suffering was FreeBSD with rootkit planted on it.
Speaking about spying on governments…:)
hmmm… for a start…
rootkit <> spyware
do you even know the difference ?
no ?
go away then and go download a pirate version of “fuck away off from my trailer “
what kind of vendor is that wants to put 7 OS versions of it’s brand new. And Please are we living in a new era or what. Who will buy a stupid Vista which can run only 4 programs without even TCP/IP on it. Come on ppl and pro M$ fans who the f**k will pay for that crap 40usd ??? tell me ????
I have all i need with linux and BSD. And if the stupid hardware vendors are not pro M$ locked windows will be dead very very soon !!!
See Mac OS X, KDE, Gnome …. see all the Asians that are moving to Linux/Unix … see all the Europe moving to Linux/Unix ….. well it smells like dead cow in here sorry :-)).
Every empire has a begining and end :-))). We saw the begining …. 😀
what kind of vendor is that wants to put 7 OS versions of it’s brand new. And Please are we living in a new era or what. Who will buy a stupid Vista which can run only 4 programs without even TCP/IP on it. Come on ppl and pro M$ fans who the f**k will pay for that crap 40usd ??? tell me ????
I have all i need with linux and BSD. And if the stupid hardware vendors are not pro M$ locked windows will be dead very very soon !!!
See Mac OS X, KDE, Gnome …. see all the Asians that are moving to Linux/Unix … see all the Europe moving to Linux/Unix ….. well it smells like dead cow in here sorry :-)).
So why even post in here? You must be upset about some thing as if you never cared about windows, you wouldn’t be reading this.
The real deal is that linux is dead for anything other than a fad. Linux is making Microsoft’s Windows a much superior product in almost every way over linux. With the Desktop and Server and all the linux programs are going open source on windows as well so why the f*** do we need a fad OS?
Sure some countries are liberal and they don’t want a US dominated company to put out an OS and those companies really want to control you themselves.
China OS, in which China controls and spies on you
with their own OS. It’s perfect! You could never type an email again without china knowing what you are doing.
That’s why this free as in speech is f**ked up when it comes to countries having their own OS.
The free as in beer is also a bunch of BS, as most people need to have huge training sessions before they can do just about anything interesting.
Linux is way overrated.
The real deal is that linux is dead for anything other than a fad.
Do you even know what the word “fad” means? Do you know anything about the history of Linux? Something that has been around for over ten years and has only grown in that time does not qualify as a fad.
China OS, in which China controls and spies on you
with their own OS. It’s perfect! You could never type an email again without china knowing what you are doing.
What does that have to do with operating systems? Oh yeah, nothing.
That’s why this free as in speech is f**ked up when it comes to countries having their own OS.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and cleary do not understand what freedom in software means.
The free as in beer is also a bunch of BS, as most people need to have huge training sessions before they can do just about anything interesting.
That’s funny because I was never forced to pay for Linux and I never took training courses for it either. Now I run Linux desktops and Linux servers. I even backup fubared Windows drives with Linux because half the time Windows won’t even recognize the drive in another machine.
Linux is way overrated.
Says you and you’ve proven your opinion means squat.
>Freedom OS: take that OS and give back your freedom.
yeah, I agree. Most of these people should be living underground in Montana so they keep their free rights, free governments, free software, free food, free riffle and shells.
Power to the people! Screw companies like Microsoft that want to make money! Screw people that work hard for a living!
Live and eat free and die free!!!!
F*cking god aweful hippies. It’s like they moved from Berkley, CA. to Montana.
proforma, sorry man but your windows crap is overrated we all know what it can do :-))).
Just for your stupidity and all of you windows fan boys/girls like i said every empire has a beginning and un end :-)))). We all saw that M$ can;t make OS, we all saw that they screwed once and they are doing it again. Here is the proof :
Xenix was Microsoft’s version of UNIX intended for use on microprocessors, but they called it Xenix because it could not license the “UNIX” name.
You must be very mad at me … but please dot trow the keyboard and hit the monitor just because i;m speaking the truth.
So they can;t make OSs maybe it;s time for them to go sell hotdogs 🙂
So Enderle is out of his hole again, preaching Microsoft
to the world.
I can’t comment this particular article, since I did not read it. I do not read Enderle, since he writes the same stuff over and over again.
DG
>The governments of those countries are switching to Linux, so it follows that the employee will want to use the same stuff at home as they do in work.
No, it does not. At my work, I use or exposed to servers running Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and Windows. At home I can choose what I want and I run the OS of my choice- the same on all my home computers because I want it that way.
When my employer starts telling me what to use at home, I will tell it to f*** off. When my government starts telling me what to use at home, I’ll say that this is not the government I want.
I see no logical link between what government wants to run in their offices and what people will run in their homes, unless government forces people to run what it wants them to.
>I take it that you have NEVER had a job?
You take it wrong.
>Do you automatically think everyone is a thief or is it just you…
Insulting people is not the best way to make them support or understand your position.
I can afford to pay for software and I can afford to choose software and hardware I like.
> rootkit != spyware. do you even know the difference ? no ?
A guy is saying that some governments are choosing OSS because of a fear of US spying on them. My take is that if I want to spy on them, I would plant rootkit. Can be done on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD.
If you claim that planted rootkit can not be used as a tool to spy on a user, you should start reading http://www.linuxsecurity.com more often.
“Files can be executable in Windows simply by adding the appropriate file extension. That’s the problem, and it’s still present in WinXP (and, no doubt, in Vista). ”
a file won’t be executable if you rename it to .exe……… yeah, there will be an error message but the file won’t act as an executable program… omg
Depends on what kind of file it is. Rename an *.exe to *.bin and it won’t run. Rename it to *.exe and it will run again.
Take a small app, call it britneynude.bin – claim it is a movie, and tell the person to change the .bin part to .exe … and it will run. And there you go… virus…
Unfortunately, many people are dumb enough to do that
And windows is dumb enough to be based on filetypes ( *.exe,*.bat,*.cmd etc.)… and with the integration of IE in the OS, bad things are bound to happen.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
The file may not run (because if it’s not an app it can’t be executed) but it will be considered as an executable by the OS, i.e. it will have “execute” permissions. That’s the whole point.
In a sane setup, any downloaded file on a *nix system will have the executable attribute turned off, so you can’t just run arbitrary code automatically. If you don’t understand these very basic security implications, then you have no business discussing computer security at all.
>>a file won’t be executable if you rename it to .exe……… yeah, there will be an error message but the file won’t act as an executable program… omg<<
Obviously you fail to understand.
If one renames a file (any file) under with a .exe extension, Windows will happily try to execute it in a certain way. If one renames it with a .com extension, Windows will happily try to load & execute it in another way. Similarly for .bat, .cmd and a surprising number of other extensions.
This is in itself not the core of the problem, except that:
(1) it is possible to rename and then to attempt to run a file without end-user approval, and
(2) the file manager and other applications (particularly Outlook) can be made to hide the display of the filename extension.
Bad. Very bad. Broken by design.
have you heard about 5.1 SP2 and DEP?
>Files can be executable in Windows simply by adding the appropriate file extension. That’s the problem, and it’s still present in WinXP (and, no doubt, in Vista).
Files can be executable in UNIX and Linux simply by adding the appropriate file type. That’s the problem, and it’s still present in Linux kernel 2.6 (and, no doubt, in 3.0).
>In a sane setup, any downloaded file on a *nix system will have the executable attribute turned off, so you can’t just run arbitrary code automatically.
In a sane Windows setup I started Opera on Windows, selected link to executable file from the Web page, downloaded file and selected ‘save file on disk.’
Where is this running code? Nope, didn’t start automatically.
I can double click on that file in the folder where I saved it, and it will start if it is executable file with proper extension.
If you think that double clicking on .exe file or selecting ‘Open and run’ equal to running code automatically, you have no business discussing OS security design at all.
Also, as others pointed, an extra step of changing file attribute to executable on *nix is not that hard for people to follow.
>>Files can be executable in UNIX and Linux simply by adding the appropriate file type. That’s the problem, and it’s still present in Linux kernel 2.6 (and, no doubt, in 3.0).<<
Give it up. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
Yes files can be made executable in Linux via a chmod command adding the execute bit to the files attributes. This operation can however only be performed interactively by the superuser.
>>Where is this running code? Nope, didn’t start automatically. <<
But this is the point. If I (as a malicious external hacker) name a file with a “.dll” or “.vbx” or similar extension, and place it in the correct part of the Windows filesystem, then it will run automatically on next boot. Alternatively I can name it .exe, place it anywhere I like, and add a new entry in the Windows registry to make Windows execute it on next boot. Or perhaps I can create a scheduled job to run it in a few minutes time.
>>Also, as others pointed, an extra step of changing file attribute to executable on *nix is not that hard for people to follow.<<
It is not hard, but you do have to know the root password of the local machine, and you do have to explicitly issue that command (either from the command line or via a GUI filemanager or package manager). Execute permissions are not granted in any other way.
Whenever people start talking *nix security vs. Windows security, the *nix people ALWAYS use different operating environments for the two.
If the user is a home user, does it not makes sense that they will have the super user password?
Now if we are talking about a managed environment, then the exact same things can be said about Windows, even more so. In Windows, you can customize what exaclty users can do/see/whatever for either a user type, or a per user basis, or even by which computer is logged in. In *nix, you can only control certain things, and only by user type.
But this is not the point I’m trying to make.
Just keep in mind, when you are arguing, that a home user DOES indeed have the super user password, and is probably running as the super user unless they are actually savvy… in which case, none of this particular discussion really matters, as a computer savvy person will not have such problems on either system.
>>Whenever people start talking *nix security vs. Windows security, the *nix people ALWAYS use different operating environments for the two.
If the user is a home user, does it not makes sense that they will have the super user password?
Now if we are talking about a managed environment, then the exact same things can be said about Windows, even more so. In Windows, you can customize what exaclty users can do/see/whatever for either a user type, or a per user basis, or even by which computer is logged in. In *nix, you can only control certain things, and only by user type.
But this is not the point I’m trying to make.
Just keep in mind, when you are arguing, that a home user DOES indeed have the super user password, and is probably running as the super user unless they are actually savvy… in which case, none of this particular discussion really matters, as a computer savvy person will not have such problems on either system.<<
You STILL don’t get it. Is it just a thing with Windows people, that they don’t get security.
Try to think of it from an “external” point of view. External to the “target” system. Some hacker on the net.
As a hacker on the net, I can find a Windows system, get a file on to that system, and in one of several ways (including adding things to the registry) get that file to execute, all without any permissions at all on that system. It is possible to gain complete control over the system. There are literally millions of “owned” Windows systems out there already.
The only way to get someting similar to happen on a Linux system is to persuade a real person who knows the root password for the system to deliberately give the file permissions to run, and then to run it.
There is a universe of difference between these requirements.
That is why there are not millions of owned Linux systems out there.
Ok, you are talking Win9x stuff here. This simply can not be done in NT.
Also, one could make the argument that there are not millions of owned Linux systems out there because there aren’t millions of linux systems out there to be owned.
Boxes usually get pwned because of bad administration. People’s boxes at home get owned because IE is so hole-y.
It’s not to say that firefox is the full solution. But I’m convinced that if you run firefox on Windows and browse a lot of less-than-moral sites you’ll get a lot less crap installed than with IE.
Of course, there’s just no good solution to people who will volunteer to run any code they see. But making them non-admins by default is a good step along toward that. People think twice when they need to put in a “super user password” because it sounds ominous.
>>Ok, you are talking Win9x stuff here. This simply can not be done in NT. <<
Yes it can.
ActiveX (for example) can write to the registry.
But you have to manually install ActiveX controls.
That’s completely wrong. I can control, to a per-device r/w level what each user can do via groups. You can control what programs they can run that way, etc etc.
There are two faults in this post.
(a) Even if a home user knows the super user psswd, *nix install do not default to setting the default user as the super user. i.e. unless the user is savvy, they are NOT running as super user by default. At least that’s how all my default (non-savvy) installs of linux have been.
(b) Many programs in Windows do not work unless the user has admin level access. I have no idea why this happens because I am not savvy but there are programs like Spysweeper that do not work on a limited user account in Windows NT.
One of the oldest rethorical trick in the book is to rewrite someone’s post, putting an opposite spin on every argument. It’s not that clever, but if done well it can be effective.
The problem, of course, is when the spin is based on faulty information. I’d give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know about it, but then again you posted anonymously, so I can only conclude that you are voluntarily spreading disinformation.
Files can be executable in UNIX and Linux simply by adding the appropriate file type.
Uh, no, it can’t. A non-installed file (such as an e-mail virus) can only be made executable if the user consciously sets the executable bit to “on”…something which should never be necessary in normal use, especially not while surfing the Internet or receiving e-mail. This simple step provides a lot of protection, because it prevents most users from mistakenly running malicious code.
In a sane Windows setup I started Opera on Windows, selected link to executable file from the Web page, downloaded file and selected ‘save file on disk.’
Where is this running code? Nope, didn’t start automatically.
Nice try, but you make two wrong assumptions:
a) that most people have Opera. Most don’t. The default Windows install certainly doesn’t, and most users keep the default setup.
b) the biggest problem for this type of intrusion is with Outlook Express. You receive an attachment, and it looks like a jpg or other safe file. But that’s because extensions are hidden (the default setting in recent Windows install) and the file is really one of the half-dozen “executable” file types, such as .exe, .bat, .vbs, etc.
Internet Explorer has other serious problems that are not linked to file extensions, however one could argue that the habit of downloading files from the internet and installing them by double-clicking on them, which is the software installation method associated with Windows, is a disaster waiting to happen.
Also, as others pointed, an extra step of changing file attribute to executable on *nix is not that hard for people to follow.
Perhaps, but it’s enough to dramatically reduce virus infection. Every extra step and security measure help.
Files should not be executable only through their file extension. Period. To even try to argue the contrary is to prove that you’re either clueless about computer security, or a paid MS shill, or both.
By the way, there’s a “Reply” feature on this web site. Use it.
You need to read into what group policy is in windows, for system administration.
I love his extreme myopic view on PDA-like functionality. What a feature–being able to get to something without having to wake up your laptop. My iBook wakes up instantly when I lift the lid. Although is was claimed to work fast since 10.0 (and compared to my HP nc6000 running XP it is) it really has been instant since 10.2. Either way, his analysis is stunningly bad.
Please OSNews, don’t link to this kind of total rubish!
What does Windows 95 have to do with Windows Vista (besides the obvious) I mean Windows 95 is nothing compared to Windows Vista. But anyway I am excited about Windows Vista, how about everyone else?
>>What does Windows 95 have to do with Windows Vista<<
Windows Vista is backwards compatible with binary executables designed for Windows 95. Windows 95 was designed as a single user system isolated from the inetrnet.
Since Windows Vista is designed for backwards compatibility with executables from a non-networked single user system (Windows 95), Windows Vista necessarily inherits all of the security limitations of the earlier system.
Just because it can run them does not mean that it is subject to any security problems from them.
I know you certainly wouldn’t say the same thing about apps that run under WINE in Linux, now would you?
>>Just because it can run them does not mean that it is subject to any security problems from them.<<
Not security problems from them, but rather security risks or weak points that they encompass. Other than that proviso – sorry but yes it does mean that Vista is automatically subject to security problems.
Follow the reasoning: they are binaries. They are on a CD from circa 1996 or so. I own that copy of that application, I have paid for it. I upgrade to Windows Vista, and I want to re-install my application from 1996.
That application uses .dll files. In order to be able to install & run those binary applications on Vista the installer must be able to put .dll files into the system directory. If the installer program can do this, then so can other things.
The user expectation on Windows is that the user can install applications – without any additional passwords. Certainly an installer from circa 1996 won’t ask for a password. If it is still the case in Windows Vista that a user can install applications, then it will still be possible to put executable binaries in the Windows Vista system directory (ie the installer for my 1996 binary application will still work) without any special priveledges to do so.
Ergo, backwards compatibility with a Windows binary application executable (and associated installer) from circa 1996 necessarily means that Windows Vista security is irredeemably broken. By design. From the outset.
Two choices – either: give up the backwards binary compatibility, or have a secure Windows system. One or the other. Not both.
First, just because it is possible to be able to do this (and I’m not saying htat Vista will do this w/o asking for a password) does not mean a thing.
What difference is it that an executable is in the Windows directory or anywhere else on the harddrive? NONE.
Also, Windows (since 2000) handles old DLLs by, basically, sandboxing them into their own environment and not replacing system DLLs that are supposed to be there (part of the battle on DLL hell).
Also, Windows has system file protection. With this, even IF a program manages to replace a Windows file (the only real reason to put something in the Windows directory, short of merely hiding the file from people searching for it), SFP will either 1) replace the file automatically, or 2) replace the file after running sfc /scannow… all depending on how critical the file is.
Now as far as Vista asking for passwords. If you are running as a standard user and an installer tries to do something that requires admin privlages (such as placing a file into the Windows directory), then Vista will come up and ask you for the admin password. The burden to do this is not on the installer app (if it were, THAT would be stupid), it is on Windows.
>>First, just because it is possible to be able to do this (and I’m not saying htat Vista will do this w/o asking for a password) does not mean a thing.
What difference is it that an executable is in the Windows directory or anywhere else on the harddrive? NONE. <<
It is not only that it installs in the Windows System area, but that it installs at all without asking for a password.
Windows often loses track of exactly “who” is attempting what action. Therefore there are many leaks where external actors have rights on a Windows system without being verified.
What is the effect?
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/44050/index.html
“My Assessment
I do not consider Windows ready for the desktop. I found it difficult to use, buggy and lacking in security. I also found technical support lacking.
While Windows captured a significant portion of the desktop market, the product is clearly not a good fit for consumers who do not understand the risks associated with logging on to the Internet. The costs of providing aftermarket products can run higher than the price paid for the hardware.
Service providers such as Netscape ISP and SBC/Yahoo have to maintain costly call centers to provide service to users. From an engineering point of view, the same service providers appear to have difficulties interfacing with the Windows operating system.
My advice to PC enthusiasts would be to try Linux.”
>>Also, Windows has system file protection. With this, even IF a program manages to replace a Windows file (the only real reason to put something in the Windows directory, short of merely hiding the file from people searching for it), SFP will either 1) replace the file automatically, or 2) replace the file after running sfc /scannow… all depending on how critical the file is.<<
Why not just make it so that the system directory is not writeable other than via the administrator account?
The answer is simple – backwards compatibility. This would break backwards compatibility. Therefore, Windows has this vulnerability, which needs to somehow be protected against. All malware needs to do here is to spoof the sfc /scannow command … pretend to be a valid system .dll.
>>Now as far as Vista asking for passwords. If you are running as a standard user and an installer tries to do something that requires admin privlages (such as placing a file into the Windows directory), then Vista will come up and ask you for the admin password. The burden to do this is not on the installer app (if it were, THAT would be stupid), it is on Windows.<<
Err, no. Windows cannot tell if a given executable is a software installer or not. It can guess – installers often have names such as setup.exe or install.exe – but it cannot really tell. Someone could easily write an installer and call it newcoolstuff.exe or trojan.exe.
On Linux, installable packages are either special archives or archives of source code. In the first case a package manager program (such as dpkg, apt-get, aptitude or synaptic) must be run. In the scond case, “./configure&&make&&make install” must be run. In either case – one must be root to run these commands in order to install the packages.
Once again, the conclusion is – in order to maintain compatibility with older binary applications (typically those installed with a “setup.exe” method rather than with a .msi installer) – Windows often cannot actually tell when an attempt to install something is being made. Therefore it cannot universally know when to require (or ask for) a password to verify permission. Therefore, things are installable “externally to the system” by parties without first being asked for permission. Things are installable on Windows systems without the user or owner actually being aware it happened.
Windows security is borked from the outset.
Are you even listening?
A standard user can NOT write to the Windows directory… PERIOD!
You HAVE to have admin privileges to be able to do such a thing. This has NOTHING to do with backwards compatability. The fact is, since writing to the Windows directory requires admin rights, it WILL come up and ask for a password (or just tell you no).
I suggest you actually use an NT system before spouting off such drivel.
Total and utter BS. I’m a regular user on my work computer, which runs Windows 2000 (a “NT system”, as you put it). I do not have Admin priviledges, as I’ve verified more than once by being refused installation of a program.
I just went into the WINNT directory and created a text file. It created the file and did not ask for any password whatsoever.
I suggest you actually use an NT system before spouting off such drivel.
You are either now an admin, or have been giving write access to the Windows directory.
If you look at the directory permissions, you will see that standard users only have read/execute permissions for that directory.
So, if you are just a standard user, there is NO possible way that you were able to write a file to it. Thus, you are not set up as just a standard user.
>>Just because it can run them does not mean that it is subject to any security problems from them. <<
Since you obviously totally fail to understand security issues for a networked computer, maybe this piece can explain it better for you:
http://linuxtoday.com/security/2005092601926OPDTMS
Apple’s dead in the water. They can’t compete with the host of hosts that is Windows Vista.
Anyone want to buy a very well-used dual 1 Gig G4 PowerMac?
Standard Hard disk
Standard Graphics board
1.5 Gig RAM
iLife ’04
Some other stuff
Time to chuck the Apple out the Window…
Did it occur to anyone that this guy was comparing Vista to Tiger? Tiger’s already running.
If he wanted to compare anything he had to compare Vista to Leopard, which is going to be released around about the same time as Vista.
But I guess he doesn’t know about all the features Leopard is going to provide.
Doesn’t take away that he has a point about some aspects, like the back end. It’s not because he’s prejudiced that he’s wrong on all counts.
Of course, if you read the massive spec of the machine that you’ll need to run all these cool tricks that Vista can play, maybe not everybody will be lunging forward to get their mits on a copy of the thing.
“Buy our system [and a new computer to run it]”. It’s going to be mighty interesting to see how many people will have to turn off a lot of the song and dance just to get the show on the road. Older machine can just chuck it.
The death of apple has been foretold many a time, but I think there have been other times where the likelihood was much higher than now. Apple may not have made much progress since Windows 95 *cough*bullshit*cough* but they must be doing something right.
Something else which -may- be significant for Microsoft is that they’ve seen some very good people walking out of late. That’s indicating some underlying frustration [ok, a lot of underlying frustration]. It would not be a good thing for Microsoft to lose some of their key developers at this stage. Suppose, just suppose, someone on the test team found something really ugly, I mean: really ugly, 2 months before they have to go FCS, and it means they have to redesign a core feature. It would so not be good to let the deadline slip into 2007. Bill Gates would spring leaks if that happened.
And the furniture would fly once again in the CEO’s office. It’s been doing that before lately, it seems.
Oh, and about that Glass interface thing… I don’t think there’s any added value to that other than eye candy. The difference with eye candy is that Apple uses it sparingly, and then only for a second. If you have a number of windows open, all with the glass thing… that’s not going to look all that great I think. I may be wrong.
“If he wanted to compare anything he had to compare Vista to Leopard, which is going to be released around about the same time as Vista.”
I agree. And they should compare OS X 10.1 Puma to XP because they were released in the same timeframe… lol
I just wanted to say that all you non-unix people make ****ing sick!
Please much more mud and fud for Mac OS X (and Apple for that matter)
Just enough to make the shares take a large dip so I can buy some extra … ;o)
Bought them 6 months ago, now 30% higher !
Don’t tell me Apple is dying or any other useless FUD
(how many times has UNIX, NOVELL or Apple died yet ?)
It is kind of obvious to everyone that Microsoft just wasted several years of development time.
They are even admitting this now.
Yet even though VISTA is just a new GUI bolted onto Windows 2003, it will still conquer the world.
The saddest thing is – this is probably true.
A better name for Vista might have been VHS.
In 2006, buying a Mac will not be a liability because it will allow you to run Leopard, Vista and Linux (distro of your choice) on the same machine. The best OS will win then. So to claim that Apple is dying is kind of moronic when the real competition has not yet started!
I wish someone would write a firefox extension that
warns you against a “Rob Enderle articles”.
relic
Obligatory link to Enderle’s laptop: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1523503,00.asp
“One impressive piece of execution is that when you fire the machine up it plays a WAV file of a Ferrari race car revving its engine. That alone is worth the relatively low $1,899 price of admission. (I found it priced as low as $1,725 at PCVideoOnline.) Even when I’m in a meeting, I don’t turn the sound off because of the unbridled envy that seems to show up in the eyes of my, granted mostly male, co-attendees. So far no one has complained.”
How can you not take seriously everything that Rob Enderle, Principal Analyst of the Enderle Group says?
>>A standard user can NOT write to the Windows directory… PERIOD!
You HAVE to have admin privileges to be able to do such a thing. This has NOTHING to do with backwards compatability. The fact is, since writing to the Windows directory requires admin rights, it WILL come up and ask for a password (or just tell you no). <<
I have personally installed about a dozen Windows XP Pro systems – only 95 and 98 before that.
On each install of XP, unless I change it, by default the first user has administrator priveledges. If one does not give administrator priveledges to other users, they cannot install anything. There is no readily apparent way to just run a setup/install program as administrator, and many programs require administrator priveleges just to run – particularly legacy programs. As far as most users are concerned, either the setup/install is broken or they complain about insufficient rights – it is too difficult to explain (let alone get users to use) “Run As”.
Finally, many install programs, if they have insufficent rights, will install .dlls in their own local directory – and it is still possible via the registry to get windows to run stuff from anywhere (particularly run on next boot – virtually all installs require that).
Windows security is borked, by design, because of backwards compatibility. This plain fact will continue to apply to Vista.
Are YOU listening, or do you still have your head in the sand?
It should be pointed out that part of the Vista marketingspeak is that it will be possible for regular users to install apps that “require” root access. In such cases, the apps will be installed locally for the user, and will run in a little sandbox that allows them to think they installed themselves into the actual c:/windows directory, when they are really in the c:/users/luser1/fakec/windows directory (no clue about the actual directories or methods involved)
It will be like installing a program in Wine, where each user has his own copy of the “windows filesystem.” This will actually be a great leap forward, and I can make my parents lusers instead of admins without having to explain run-as. It will also maintain backwards compatibility (*IF* it works).
IF it works, this is pretty awesome, and those blathering about backwards compatibility limiting security can shut your pie-holes.
/debian user who hates uninformed ranting
>>IF it works, this is pretty awesome, and those blathering about backwards compatibility limiting security can shut your pie-holes. <<
It won’t work.
(1) lusers will be unable and unwilling to install legacy applications for themselves, (2) installing a fresh sandboxed copy of a legacy binary application for every luser will not only take a lot of disk but (3) it is sure to violate legacy binary applications license agreements (which are bound to say one copy per machine), and (4) any ability to install a legacy binary application for system-wide use will be outside the sandbox and therefore bring with it attendant security vulnerabilities.
Awesome? How? Linux has been able to do this trick (install to a users home directory in a sandbox fashion) for over a decade.