After listing 5 things Linux could learn from Microsoft last week, Linux’s very own version of Paul Thurrot now lists 5 things Microsoft can learn from Linux. “Yes, Microsoft may be at the top of the ladder now, but there are signs of decline everywhere. Companies can, and do, fall from the top rung all the time.”
There are a lot of Linux drum beaters out there, including trolls on message boards, bloggers, so-called journalists, etc.
But Steven J Vaughn Nichols consistently writes good Linux related opinion pieces. They’re good because SJVN remains honest, and practical, and always backs up what he says.
In other words, SJVN is not a shill, or a dumb fanboy. He write many critical pieces about Linux (constructive criticism is always a good thing). And he remains realistic about Microsoft, critical most of the time, complimentary some of the time, but always realistic about Microsoft’s position in the world of software.
This latest piece, with it’s companion piece about how Linux can learn from MS, is great.
I especially liked and agreed with the bit about the Linux/OSS meritocracy vs the office politics that plagues MS (and indeed, most big corporations). But then SJVN is honest enough to admit that open source is not really the best method for specialized vertical methods (TurboTax near impossible to do as open source), but that it’s great for more generalized stuff.
Keep up the good work, SJVN.
… Have you ever actually read any of his stuff? He’s a shill, and can never say a good thing about Microsoft without it being a backhanded compliment. Not only that, he is consistently wrong or misinformed.
“… Have you ever actually read any of his stuff? He’s a shill, and can never say a good thing about Microsoft without it being a backhanded compliment. Not only that, he is consistently wrong or misinformed.”
So are you an MS shill?
You must be, since you dislike SJVN so much.
Yes, he writes opinion pieces that are decidedly pro Linux – his column is called “Linux Watch” after all. And he is mostly critical of MS (very fair and well deserved criticisms, IMHO).
However, the companion piece to the one referenced here is called “Top 5 things Linux could learn from Microsoft”. In other words, he is saying MS does some things right, even though he does not like MS, and that Linux needs to learn from what MS does right. SJVN also is quick to point out Linux’s short comings, in an effort to get it improved.
Also, SJVN usually peppers his columns with tons of links to back up what he is saying. Does that always make him right? Of course not. But it definetly adds substance. That’s not what a shill does. A shill makes broad swooping inflammatory statements and does not back them up – kind of like you did with your post ;-).
Feel free to disagree with SJVN. I often do. But his columns are always well backed up, and he’s reasonable, and practical, and honest.
Let’s face it, the only reason you consider SJVN a shill is because you disagree with him.
Edited 2006-07-28 23:21
His Linux pieces are fine.
Most of his Microsoft pieces, however, are garbage. You must not have read many of them, otherwise you would realize what kind of tactics his articles resort to. Basically, FUD. You know there is a problem when a guy has a problem saying good things about a company and product without it being a backhanded compliment. No, not a problem with MS, but a problem with his supposed journalism.
However, these 2 pieces are actually pretty decent, I’m surprised. I hope he continues this more objective approach.
Maybe some past SJVN were more fuddish. But his criticisms of MS, IMO, have been very fair lately. Of particular note, I’ve seen him simply quote Microsoft employees, pro MS bloggers, and pro MS columnists, in order to criticise MS.
Let’s face it, with delay after delay of the release of Vista, including depricating promised features, and continued problems with anti-trust and IP violations, and a stock price that remains flat or sinking, and too much middle management (according to MS employees), there is plenty to be critical about MS, whether one is a pro-Linux columnist or not.
No doubt. That’s why my gripe was with him. There is so much to be critical of, but his approach of it was so immature and weak.
I’ll be honest, besides for these articles, I stopped reading him not too long ago, so it’s possible he’s improved.
//His Linux pieces are fine.
Most of his Microsoft pieces, however, are garbage. //
You only think SJVN’s Microsoft pieces are garbage because you are a Microsoft employee. A Microsoftie.
As a Microsoft user, I agree with most of SJVNs views on Microsoft.
Further, I happen to know for a fact that your frequent criticisms of Linux are garbage, and are easily found to be garbage just through trying it.
I can readily accuse you of “vested interest” when it comes to your positive views on Microsoft. You however cannot make that same accusation of SJVN in regard to Linux. Exactly how much does SJVN benefit when someone downloads a free copy of Linux to try, based on one of his articles?
Edited 2006-07-30 09:51
You only think SJVN’s Microsoft pieces are garbage because you are a Microsoft employee. A Microsoftie.
Sorry to break your heart kiddo, but I live across the country from Microsoft. But hey, if it makes you feel more justified to call me an MS employee, go right ahead.
As a Microsoft user, I agree with most of SJVNs views on Microsoft.
As a Microsoft user, I don’t. As a Microsoft user, I also happen to disagree with Paul Thurrott a lot. I’m usually somewhere in between the two.
Further, I happen to know for a fact that your frequent criticisms of Linux are garbage, and are easily found to be garbage just through trying it.
Oh yeah? What criticisms?
I can readily accuse you of “vested interest” when it comes to your positive views on Microsoft.
Uh, sure buddy.
You however cannot make that same accusation of SJVN in regard to Linux. Exactly how much does SJVN benefit when someone downloads a free copy of Linux to try, based on one of his articles?
Shill wasn’t the right word. I’m not sure why he would care if someone tries Linux, but he clearly does.
You don’t have the kernel source code?
NO
Then at least you should have the header files, right?
NO
DO you have GCC ?
NO
Simple as that
Most Linux users don’t need any of those things. I don’t if you’ve been following along, but Linux distributions have largely been based on binary package management for quite a while.
Depending on the distribution’s philosophy and ethics, users who must use binary kernel modules might have to have the kernel headers and gcc installed. This is so that the open source module stub can be built and linked to the binary driver in a routine called by the package manager. This is mearly to shift the legal liability from the distributor to the end user.
Other than that special case, the only parts of the GNU toolchain needed by most Linux users are glibc and binutils. Just so you know…
and fill the event log with “this thing is deprecated. blah, blah, blah on 1234 line in break_here.c”
and getting any of those is how difficult?
…ok, if it’s that hard for you to type http://www.kernel.org into your browser, or fire up your distributions package management of choice, be it apt, yum, yast, up2date, emerge, or whatever, and search for “kernel-source” or “gcc”, you simply have no business fiddling with it.
“…ok, if it’s that hard for you to type http://www.kernel.org into your browser, or fire up your distributions package management of choice, be it apt, yum, yast, up2date, emerge, or whatever, and search for “kernel-source” or “gcc”, you simply have no business fiddling with it.”
It is pretty simple to click by mouse, isn’t it ?
No duhh… And of course I am obligated to mention that any truly good distro has GCC and such as part of the base system.
Ubuntu ?
I agree with most of what he says to some extents.
However:
”
What is .NET, anyway? As my good buddy Mary Jo Foley said recently, .NET “became a meaningless term that even Redmond’s own couldn’t explain concisely.”
That was sorta stupid, I mean if he doesn’t know what it is then look it up. Really it’s not like .NET is some unknown word that Microsoft throws around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
That’s the other .NET. When Microsoft first started talking about .NET, they used it as a brand name for anything and everything new. To quote Microsoft: “.NET is the Microsoft Web services strategy…”
Using the name for a software development framework is reasonably clear and understandable. But they also used it for anything and everything that might be developed using that framework, which diluted the name and created massive confusion.
Look at the .NET home: http://www.microsoft.com/net/default.mspx
It’s all about business solutions using every possible Microsoft product. When you stretch .NET to cover everything Microsoft does, the word has no meaning.
Jeez that is bad, alright scratch that. Great article.
Linux is getting there.
http://www.amazon.com (Linspire Xandros)
* http://www.aslab.com/ (CentOS SuSE Redhat)
* http://www.thecybersource.com/ laptops (Ubuntu) new
* http://www.emperorlinux.com/ (popular)
* http://www.eracks.com/ (popular)
* http://www.fifthedimension.net/Merchant5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&S… (Frontier Linux)
* http://groovix.com/ (Ubuntu)
* http://www.ibexpc.com/ (popular)
* http://www.ikbenstil.nl/ (Ubuntu)
* http://www.koobox.com/ (Linspire)
http://www.kmart.com/ (Linspire)
* http://laclinux.com/ (popular)
* http://www.linspire.com/ (Linspire)
* http://www.linuxcertified.com/ (Ubuntu Fedora SuSE)
* http://www.linuxloft.com/ (Edbuntu Linspire Xandros) new
* http://www.linuxsyscorp.com/ (Xandros)
http://www.microcenter.com/ (Linspire)
* http://www.microtelpc.com/ (Linspire LinspireEspanol)
* http://openforeveryone.co.uk/ (Ubuntu)
http://www.pegasosppc.com/ desktop (Debian Ubuntu Gentoo Fedora openSUSE Crux) new
* http://www.pogolinux.com/ (Fedora Redhat SuSE)
http://www.reddog.com.au/ (Ubuntu)
http://www.sears.com/ (Linspire)
* http://www.seascape.us/ (Linspire Xandros)
* http://shoprcubed.com/ (Fedora Redhat SuSE)
* http://www.sub300.com/ (Linspire)
* http://www.swt.com/ (Debian Fedora Redhat SuSE)
* http://www.system76.com/ (Ubuntu)
http://www.systemax.com/divisions.htm (Linspire)
* http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/ desktops (Yellowdog) new
http://www.tigerdirect.com desktop (Linspire) new
http://www.walmart.com/ (Linspire Xandros)
* http://xtops.de/ (Debian SuSE)
* http://ztechshop.net/ (Vector)
* http://www.zinside.com/ (Ubuntu)
* These vendors give you a clue (on their homepage) that they sell Linux.
Can anyone saying SJVN is a shill give specific examples, with links (most of his columns are archived)?
If so, can you point out why you think he’s shilling/fudding?
Personally, I recognize that SJVN is very pro Linux and a unabashed critic of Microsoft.
But that does not make him a shill. Guess what – it’s not a crime to criticize Microsoft.
Like I said before, MS brings it all on itself – breaking the law, constant FUD and lies about it’s competition, constant insecure software (although they have improved), poor design (IE, Office integrated with kernel, the registry), and the list goes on.
And MS has done a lot of good things. It helped bring computing to the masses. And, even though Linux has gotten very very easy in a lot of areas, overall Windows is easier for common tasks and configurations. MS did a nice job with C#. SQL Server is good. VB is a geat RAD tool. MS’s marketing is savvy. And BG is the biggest philathropist known to mankind.
But, BUT, MS keeps breaking the law, stealing peoples IP, putting out buggy, insecure, bloated software, delaying major releases, and spreading FUD.
And someone that has the honesty to point those things out is not a shill.
poor design (IE, Office integrated with kernel, the registry), and the list goes on.
And babe, at what point did Microsoft integrate IE and Office into the kernel.
Please, bash Microsoft, but lets keep to reality rather than dancing into the realms of zealotry and made believe.
To a certain degree he is off target in sme respects; the problem with Microsoft is this; regarding .NET, why even call it .NET knowing full well that it’ll end up confusing the crap out of people in respects to their web services, operating system and application sever.
I would have called it the “Independent Windows Framework” and then explain that it had two purposes; to be expanded in future as the eventual replacement for the low level application programming interface that is win32, and provide functionality to allowing these said applications to be expanded upon at a later date when application services becoming more prevalent.
What this author needs to also take into account the fact that alot of the direction of Windows is actually dicated not just by Microsoft but by their partners, I am sure tomorrow, if they could, they would secure it in such a way that you would have rock solid security and stability BUT the cost of that would be the need for application vendors to correct their applications so that they work correctly in this more restrictive environment.
Microsoft hands are pretty much tied to the situation where by if they offer a massive improvement, and throw backwards compatibility away, we’ll have lazy third party vendors wanting Microsoft to provide work aroaunds, no matter how much of a security risk they are, rather than the said third party vendors investing some of their profits back into the products they sell.
Adobe at the *PRIME* example of when you allow creature comfort spending take priority over investing into products; Instead of spending money on getting Adobe applications ready for universal; which they’ve had well over a year to do; and many years before that to migrate to XCode, they’re now *finally* making a move, but with no promise that they’ll deliver a universal version.
But this is typical; software vendors, like I said, putting puffy creature comforts of management before the survival of the company as a whole – some one needs to kick these over stuffed management types out of that job, send down to walmart to work, and actually get them getting their hands dirty for once, and learn what it is like to actually work for a living rather than sitting around in the office poodle faking about non-achievements.
Well he had some interesting things to say, but to be honest some of the things he wants Microsoft to do are already happening.
The thing that I admire most about Microsoft is that they eventually change for the better.
Oh, and Linux isn’t as secure as people say it is. There are a lot of issues where security is concerned, but they get dealt with over a period of time. It is kind of like the mac thing. People who use linux also love linux and they would not dare write a virus for linux as it is their passion.
The stability can really be improved, this is a point where I think a lot of times linux has failed me personally (besides the zealots who talk lies and FUD).
The reality and hype of linux are two different things. Even when people are having a hard time getting anything to work they still say that linux is perfect.
[The stability can really be improved, this is a point where I think a lot of times linux has failed me personally (besides the zealots who talk lies and FUD).
The reality and hype of linux are two different things. Even when people are having a hard time getting anything to work they still say that linux is perfect.]
Agree – Linux fan boys like to give a list of reasons behind the fact, or “It should have been fixed by now”
That usually doesn’t change the perception.
There are a lot of issues where security is concerned, but they get dealt with over a period of time
Examples?
People who use linux also love linux and they would not dare write a virus for linux as it is their passion.
Anecdotal Evidence. Do you have anything to back this up?
Even when people are having a hard time getting anything to work they still say that linux is perfect.
Lol. Thats an enormous generalisation. The generalisation game is fun to play!
poor design (IE, Office integrated with kernel, the registry), and the list goes on.
And people still wonder why linux zealots are the laughing stock of this industry?
I’d be interested to see the rest of the list.
“poor design (IE, Office integrated with kernel, the registry), and the list goes on.
And people still wonder why linux zealots are the laughing stock of this industry?”
That’s not zealotry. MS themselves admit as much in their specs. They espouse “integration”, and greater efficiency – the reason that IE, Office, all the GUI components live in the same memory space as the kernel.
This is a well known fact. It’s one of the reasons that the Department of Homeland Security recommends not using IE – because it gives the outside world direct access to OS internals.
Dismiss facts as “Linux fanboy zealotry” if you will, but do try to learn how the stuff works.
You’ve added nothing to the conversation. I tried to point out honest plusses and minusses about Microsoft, just like SJVN does. And the only thing you can do is troll, calling names, and not offering any rational counter arguments. In fact, you’re the zealot.
Alright buddy. SHOW us where Microsoft says IE and Office are “integrated with kernel” any more than any other app.
During the US antitrust trial, unbundling IE from Windows was proposed as a remedy. Microsoft claimed that it couldn’t be done, as IE was integrated into the OS.
This concerned IE, not Office. And Microsoft did not claim that IE was part of the kernel, they said it was part of the OS.
The definition of operating system varies widely. At a minimum, it includes a kernel. Most people add libraries and applications needed to install, back up, and manage the OS. For example, the commands found in /sbin on unix-like systems are part of the OS, but not applications found in /usr/bin.
The broad definition is that an OS is everything that is included when you buy an OS. In other words, whatever marketing decides to sell as an OS. IE is certainly integrated into Windows in that sense, as you can’t get Windows without it, and you can’t uninstall it with standard tools.
I prefer Sun’s use of Operating Environment for this last meaning. Solaris is the operating environment, and SunOS is the operating system.
The IE security problems aren’t really due to the integration as much as the poor design of the integration. It makes sense to have a library that renders HTML. However, it should be possible to render local HTML files without exposing the system to network vulnerabilities, or ActiveX, or numerous other problems. This is not to say that other software isn’t inadequately modular, but Microsoft does have a history of piling everything into One Huge Program That Does Everything.
Yes, you are exactly right. OS, not kernel. You are also quite correct on the IE security problems.
Jeff don’t be ridiculous. IE or Office are not in kernel memory space.
For 32-bit windows without PAE (Physical address extension), The whole memory space is divided in 50/50 between user space and kernel. The lower 2GB is for user and upper 2GB is for kernel. Or 3GB user/1GB kernel with /3GB BOOT.INI switch.
IE and office applications are always loaded in user space. Can you prove otherwise? If not i can prove they are in user space. Simply hook up a kenel debugger, do a !process 0 0, get the IE process pointer and see its information. Any memory address you can translate use !pte or similar commands to see where it resides in virtual memory.
I don’t have the link to it, but remember when the European Union told MS to provide a version of Windows that did not have Internet Explorer installed? Microsoft’s response to the European Union was that it was technically impossible to remove Internet Explorer from the operating system because it was so totally integrated with the OS that removing it would cripple the OS. That’s one thing.
Here’s some more:
https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878
“Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) does not adequately validate the security context of a frame that has been redirected by a web server. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to evaluate script in different security domains. By causing script to be evaluated in the Local Machine Zone, the attacker could execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user running IE.
IE uses a cross-domain security model to maintain separation between browser frames from different sources. This model is designed to prevent code in one domain from accessing data in a different domain. The Local Machine Zone is “…an implicit zone for content that exists on the local computer. The content found on the user’s computer, except for content that Internet Explorer caches on the local system, is treated with a high level of trust.
By convincing a victim to view an HTML document (web page, HTML email), an attacker could execute script in a different security domain than the one containing the attacker’s document. By causing script to be run in the Local Machine Zone, the attacker could execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user running IE.
Use a different web browser
There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies related to the IE domain/zone security model, trust in and access to the local file system (Local Machine Zone), the Dynamic HTML (DHTML) document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features), the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user interface (GUI), and ActiveX. These technologies are implemented as operating system components that are used by IE and many other programs to provide web browser functionality. These components are integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.
It is possible to reduce exposure to these vulnerabilities by using a different web browser, especially when viewing untrusted HTML documents ”
http://windows.about.com/od/networking/p/internet_explor.htm
“Along with the ability to browse the Web, Internet Explorer 6 is tightly integrated with Windows XP and provides certain features related to the Windows operating system, such as Windows Update.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Internet_Explorer
“Microsoft asserted in court that IE was integrated with Windows 98,”
http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=439
“Internet Explorer is the Swiss Cheese of software—it’s full of holes. Holes in software are never good, but when the browser is so integrated with the OS as to be as one—you’ve got problems. Add to that the sheer ubiquity of the Microsoft browser, and it’s no wonder IE has become the hackers’ No. 1 playground.
We knew IE was integrated with Windows, but we didn’t have any idea how integrated it was. Even Microsoft doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on IE’s internals, judging from the weeks it took to deliver an actual fix for the recent Download.Ject Trojan.
Not to say an integrated browser is all bad. To a developer, an integrated browser is cool because it gives you a built-in HTML rendering engine. You can then write apps that use HTML, knowing that the OS can render that HTML for you. IE can begin to take over the regular Windows Explorer shell and, in fact, has become so tightly integrated with Windows Explorer that it’s a bit difficult to see where the shell ends and the browser begins.
The downside is a real downer. With a regular Web browser, a security vulnerability might let someone crash the browser. With an integrated Web browser they can crash the whole operating system. The tight ties to Windows means that the slightest IE security issue becomes an OS-wide panic. It’s not just IE, either: Windows Media Player, Outlook Express, and even DirectX, are all, in my opinion, overly integrated and give hackers too much access to core PC functions.”
From an MS blogger:
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive/2005/03/22/400689.aspx
“IE is part of the Windows Operating System so that parts of the OS and other applications can rely on the functionality and APIs being present.”
PaulThurrott, a very pro MS blogger:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/ie7_beta2.asp
“The Internet Explorer (IE) team at Microsoft has been eager to get me to switch back to IE ever since I began writing about my use and advocacy of Mozilla Firefox, a Web browser that is much safer and feature-packed than Microsoft’s current offering, IE 6.0. I haven’t been particularly keen on doing so. Firefox works so well, and is so safe, that I’ve seen no good reason to switch.
… One might debate whether Microsoft’s dominance was based more on Windows integration
…The reason I wouldn’t touch IE 6 with a ten foot pole is that it’s the most insecure component of Windows and the leading attack vector for malware.”
http://www.stopie.com/security/
“Internet Explorer is a very vulnerable browser. It allows many trojan-horses, worms, spyware and adware and other viruses through without the user doing anything wrong or knowing that anything has gone wrong.”
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch03s02.html#nt_contrast
“While NT will use an MMU, NT versions after 3.5 have the system GUI wired into the same address space as the privileged kernel for performance reasons. Recent versions even wire the webserver into kernel space in an attempt to match the speed of Unix-based webservers.
These holes in the boundaries have the synergistic effect of making actual security on NT systems effectively impossible.[35] If an intruder can get code run as any user at all (e.g., through the Outlook email-macro feature), that code can forge messages through the window system to any other running application. And any buffer overrun or crack in the GUI or webserver can be exploited to take control of the entire system.”
Edited 2006-07-29 19:59
Use a different web browser
Obviously. This is one of the primary tenants of Windows security – don’t use IE. Of course, you were probably posting to make a point in response to somebody else. In that case, more power to you
I don’t have the link to it, but remember when the European Union told MS to provide a version of Windows that did not have Internet Explorer installed? Microsoft’s response to the European Union was that it was technically impossible to remove Internet Explorer from the operating system because it was so totally integrated with the OS that removing it would cripple the OS. That’s one thing.
And then along came projects like 98Lite and NTLite that ripped IE4 right out of the OS, leaving a fully-functional OS. I used 98Lite for several years with Windows 98SE, even installing IE5 and 6 as applicatoins (without the OS integration).
Being “integrated in the OS” is nowhere near the same as being “part of the kernel”.
You’re blurb about IE security has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim that “IE is part of the Windows kernel”, and can summarily be ignore by everyone reading your post.
Throughout your entire post, you have confused “integrated into the OS” with “part of the kernel”.
Look at it this way: using your definition of things, KHTML (the HTML rendering engine in KDE) is part of the Linux kernel. It’s integrated into all parts of KDE, KDE is integraded into the KUbuntu OS. Linux is the kernel of KUbuntu, hence it must be part of the kernel. Which is absolute poppeycock. Same thing with IE. The HTML rendering engine is integrated into the OS … but it is not part of the OS kernel.
Repeat after us: integration into the OS is not the same as being part of the OS kernel.
And then along came projects like 98Lite and NTLite that ripped IE4 right out of the OS, leaving a fully-functional OS. I used 98Lite for several years with Windows 98SE, even installing IE5 and 6 as applicatoins (without the OS integration).
Well, not completely true.
Anything that used the IE rendering engine would not work. That’s what they meant when they said they can’t do it.
Nope, never had any problems in the years I used 98Lite.
However, that still does not prove your claim that “IE is part of the Windows kernel”.
Either you have proof that it is, or you need to admit you don’t know what you are talking about.
Huh? I’m not the one that made that claim, I agree with you.
I didn’t mean to say you DID have problems, but that there IS some functionality lost if you remove IE. Granted, some of that functionality may never affect some people.
Whoops, sorry, didn’t read the name completely. My bad. That wasn’t directed at you but at JeffS.
“Being “integrated in the OS” is nowhere near the same as being “part of the kernel”.”
You chose to ignore the last part of my post:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch03s02.html#nt_contrast
“While NT will use an MMU, NT versions after 3.5 have the system GUI wired into the same address space as the privileged kernel for performance reasons. Recent versions even wire the webserver into kernel space in an attempt to match the speed of Unix-based webservers.
IE is a GUI program, right?
Well, enough trying to reason with all Windows zealots.
Really, it’s not a crime to criticize MS. They, like any other company, have made some mistakes. Get over it, Windows zealots.
I’ve been trying to be reasonable about strengths and weeknesses about both Windows and Linux. I use both. And I like a lot of MS stuff, and a lot of F/OSS stuff. I like good technology, and open standards, and true competition.
But these Windows zealots are like Rush Limbaugh Dittoheads – don’t want to be challenged, or reasoned with, and make inflammatory remarks about anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch03s02.html#nt_contrast
“While NT will use an MMU, NT versions after 3.5 have the system GUI wired into the same address space as the privileged kernel for performance reasons. Recent versions even wire the webserver into kernel space in an attempt to match the speed of Unix-based webservers.
IE is a GUI program, right?
Yes, the graphics subsystem (AKA GDI I believe) was moved into kernel space in Windows NT 4 (and it’s only with Vista that most of the graphics subsystem are being moved out again).
However, just because the part of Windows that draws GUIs is part of kernel space, *DOES NOT* mean that all programs with GUIs are part of the kernel.
If Internet Explorer was part of the Windows kernel, do you think it would be easy to kill IE when it hangs? IE is a userspace program, run in its own separate memory space. It is bundled with Windows, and the HTML renderer is integrated into various bits of Windows (like the help system, the e-mail system, and so on), but: IT IS NOT PART OF THE WINDOWS KERNEL!!!
Repeat after me: integration within an OS *DOES NOT* equal being part of the OS kernel.
You seriously need to go back to the drawing board and library to learn the differences between kernel space and user space; kernel memory and user memory; kernel bits and user bits; kernel integration and OS integration.
Well, enough trying to reason with all Windows zealots.
Correcting your glaring errors, and trying to teach you the errors of your ways makes *ME* a Windows Zealot? Isn’t a zealot someone who, no matter how often you show them the error of their ways, refuses to believe the truth and continues on with their errant beliefs? Wouldn’t that apply more to you than to me?
You really sure you want to start the name-calling game?
“However, just because the part of Windows that draws GUIs is part of kernel space, *DOES NOT* mean that all programs with GUIs are part of the kernel.”
So, you are admitting that part of the GUI rendering is in kernel space?
No, it does not mean that programs with GUIs are necessarily part of the kernel.
It does, however, mean that by extension they are, and it gives malicious code, or a hacker, direct access to the OS internals.
This situation does not exist in any *nix platform. In *nix, the kernel 100% in it’s own space, the X server is in userland, and the DEs are built on top of X. Thus, if a GUI program has a bug, a security hole, or it simply crashes, it can’t crash the system, or comprimise the system, or give malicious code or a hacker access to the OS internals.
The *nix platform, in this regard, as a much more solid design than Windows, in terms of stability and security.
It can be argued that the Windows design (have GUI rendering in kernel space) makes GUI rendering more efficient – it does. But it is a negative trade off in terms of stability and security.
Now, IE, which has numberous other holes regarding OS integration, and being a GUI program, sharing it’s GUI bit with kernel space, is more of a security risk than other browsers, which mostly operate in their own sandbox. Firefox, for instance, uses Gecko not only for web page rendering, but for the GUI bits of the program. Thus, Firefox is running 100% in the userland sandbox. Opera uses QT, which is an independant, cross platform, C++ GUI tool kit, also running in userland. Plus, both browsers are not integrated into the OS.
Are Firefox and Opera totally secure? Of course not. No software is. Do I think Firefox and Opera are perfect? Of course not. I have various little beefs with both. No software is perfect. But, IMHO, Firefox and Opera are vasty superior to IE, in terms of security, features, look-n-feel, usability, speed, or any other objective or subjective measure.
Just face it, IE is very very insecure, period. IE 7 will be an improvement, but until MS moves GUI rendering out of kernel space, and until MS makes the browser not integrated with the OS, IE will always remain a greater security risk than other browsers.
I will give you a win in the argument that IE is not directly running in kernel space. But by extension, it’s GUI bits are. And with combining the fact that it is integrated into the OS, what I originally said still stands. The rest is arguing technical details.
And I will reiterate that people that criticize MS or MS products are not shills or zealots. These are people simply facing reality.
The downside is a real downer. With a regular Web browser, a security vulnerability might let someone crash the browser. With an integrated Web browser they can crash the whole operating system. The tight ties to Windows means that the slightest IE security issue becomes an OS-wide panic. It’s not just IE, either: Windows Media Player, Outlook Express, and even DirectX, are all, in my opinion, overly integrated and give hackers too much access to core PC functions.”
Uh, no. Internet Explorer is still a separate process from Explorer and has no more privileges than any other application. Same goes for WMP, Outlook and DirectX.
If you have a vulnerabilities in an app on Windows that lets you execute arbitrary code, you already pretty much can have full access to the system. The fact that IE is integrated into the OS (not the kernel) has absolutely no effect on that.
Well, I’m bored today, so …
Microsoft’s programs over the years have become a massive compilation of spaghetti code that defies anyone to have a good, clear view of what’s really going on.
So does this guy have access to the source code, or what? If not, how does he know what the code looks like? As I remember, when part of the Windows source code was leaked on the Internte, I remember reading somewhere that the code was pretty solid, except for hacks thrown in to make ancient programs work, like Access 1.0.
Linux, on the other hand, follows the old Unix model of using many simple, small programs, libraries, and APIs (application programming interfaces) to build more elaborate programs.
Yeah, and I’m not sure if I like this process or not. For example, when I install a DVD app on Windows, I don’t have to worry about whether I’ve got libdvd (or whatever the hell it is) that makes the whole thing work. Sure, I’ll probably end up paying for the privelege of not having to worry about such things, but that’s the same reason I paid somebody to install my car stereo – I’d just rather not f**k with it. Sure, there are Linux distros out there that remove some of these little irritantions, but most of the cost money and every one of them I’ve tried are just as bloated (if not more so) than Windows.
Speaking of philosophy, it wouldn’t kill Microsoft to adopt — really adopt, and not just release penny-ante code — open source.
Yeah, they should open source Windows and Office. That would be a smart business move, yes?
Now, then, what’s the model that the successful Linux companies use? Yes, that’s right: Red Hat and Novell/SUSE make their money by offering support and service.
Well, I’ve only called MS for support once, and that was back before I had Internet access and could start looking stuff up myself. When my friends and family need PC support, they don’t call MS (or anybody else), they call me. Do you think that’s going to change, especially if they have to start paying for support? That kind of model might work well in the business world where you might need 24/7 support for mission-critical apps, but I’m not sure Joe Sixpack is going to be willing to pay $30 to find out why he can’t get Windows Messenger to work.
Yes, Microsoft has a lot of top programmers, but isn’t it funny how those open-source programmers keep making better software faster?
Well, at least this guy isn’t biased. My computer is a mix of both open source (I’m typing this in Firefox) and proprietary software. Except for the idealogical aspect, I don’t think one model is inherently better than the other overall. I’ve seen open source apps that wipe the floor with their proprietary counterparts, and vice versa.
If you read such Microsoft insider blogs as Mini Microsoft and Packet Storm, you’ll find that many developers don’t like the company’s middle management one little bit.
Yes, that is true. But are there any large coporations out there where the employees actually love middle management? I live in Austin where there is an Apple support center, and I’ve heard a good amount of bitching coming from that camp as well. And no, I’m not saying that Microsoft is a well-oiled machine either. I’m sure it could use some major tuning-up.
[quote]I’ve always found it funny that people talk about open-source development as being some kind of Communist approach to software. It’s the exact opposite. Heck, open-source is beyond free-market capitalism, it’s programming Darwinism. Only the fit survive.[/quote]
The only problem is, you can’t release COTS (commercia/over-the-shelf) software under an open source ‘free love’ license and still make money, unless you’ve got something else to sell, such as support, hardware, etc. Some people will say that COTS just shouldn’t exist anymore, which I believe is where a lot of the ‘communist’ comments come in.
At the end of the day, program quality is far more important in open-source than it is in the office-politics dominated hell that Microsoft seems to have become
So program quality doesn’t matter to MS. Again, at least he’s not biased.
Want to make a new programming framework? Good, call it .NET and don’t call anything else .NET. Want to explore software as a service, fine, call it Windows Live and Office Live and then don’t spread the name out over everything else that you do.
This is probably the best part of the article. MS, it seems to me, does make some really braindead marketing decisions. Other than the framework, I’m still not exactly sure what .NET is.
Yes, I know that Vista has UAP (User Account Protection), LUA (Least-Privilege User Accounts) mandatory integrity control, and a lot of other shiny new security toys. I also know that those are just padding over the same, old, fundamental problems.
This isn’t just me spouting off. Symantec just pointed out the same problems.
Right, and of course, I’m sure Symantec doesn’t have any alterior motives here either. I mean, we’re talking about a company who specializes in selling people a bunch of crap they wouldn’t need if they had about 30 minutes of education on security.
Someday, somehow, there’s going to be a major Windows virus or rootkit assault that’s going to make all the other big virus attacks look like a summer shower compared to Katrina.
Sadly, he’s probably right. But people have been predicting a Windows-like attack on other platforms as well. I won’t even pretend to speculate which one will happen first, if at all.
Microsoft has done very, very well doing what it does. People tend to do things that work for them until they’re forced to realize that their old ways aren’t really good for them anymore.
Um, yeah. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I personally love to stop doing things that are working really well for me.
If Vista falls flat on its face, or everyone decides to stick with earlier versions of Office or switch to OpenOffice instead of moving to Office 2007, maybe they’ll start changing.
REALLY?? Do you really think so!?!? I just thought they’d sit around with a thumb up their ass.
//Yeah, and I’m not sure if I like this process or not. For example, when I install a DVD app on Windows, I don’t have to worry about whether I’ve got libdvd (or whatever the hell it is) that makes the whole thing work. Sure, I’ll probably end up paying for the privelege of not having to worry about such things, but that’s the same reason I paid somebody to install my car stereo – I’d just rather not f**k with it. Sure, there are Linux distros out there that remove some of these little irritantions, but most of the cost money and every one of them I’ve tried are just as bloated (if not more so) than Windows. //
This is pure, unadulterated FUD.
There are some Linux distributions indeed tha do not include the necessary library called “libdvdcss”, purely out of regard for the American DMCA law, under which this library is possibly questionable, even though what it does is simply allow one to play DVDs that one has legally purcheased.
This is the one dependency that will often not be automatically installed by package managers. In nearly every other case out of thousands of applications, the package manager will automatically identify and download and install all dependencies painlessly and automatically.
Even in the case of DVD players, if you download one and try to play a DVD, the player will pop up a dialog box and identify by name the one single library (“libdvdcss”) that is problematic to distribute because of the America-only silliness of the ridiculous DMCA America only law. Anyone else just downloads the required libdvdcss additional library and happily plays their legally-purchased DVDs.
I call FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD.
And America-only FUD at that.
Edited 2006-07-30 10:03
//Except for the idealogical aspect, I don’t think one model is inherently better than the other overall. I’ve seen open source apps that wipe the floor with their proprietary counterparts, and vice versa. //
The problem with this sentiment is that this is not where the advantage of open-source code lies.
The advantage is that all people can view the source. Anyone who knows how can compile the applications for themselves, and they can independently verify that the binaries being distributed match the source.
People worldwide can view the source and understand what it does. These same people then can be seen to use the code for themselves. They know exactly what is in it, and they use it as end users themselves.
Therefore, eveyone else, even those who know squat about how to read and decipher source code, nevertheless have an iron-clad assurance that the open-source code contains nothing that is not in the best interests of end users.
At the same time, looking at the behaviours of closed-source vendors, more and more we find that elements that are clearly NOT in the best interests of end users are appearing in the code. The latest brou-ha-ha about WGA is but one example of this. The endless attempts at lock-in to proprietary formats are another. The list is endless.
Open-source software is written in a meritocracy, it is written in plain and open view, and it necessarily therefore contains only code and functions that are in the best interests of the end user. That is the very “merit” part of the “meritocracy”.
Closed-source software is written to make money for the company that produces the software. It is written to take money off of end users. It demonstrably often contains elements that are not in the best inetrests of the end user … even though it is the end user who has to pay money for it.
Viruses, trojans and other malware, for example, can ONLY exist as closed-source executable binaries. They cannot exist in open-source auditable signed repositories.
Therefore, open-source applications wipe the floor with closed source applications in terms of the confidence that one can have as an end user that the software being used contains only functions that operate in ones own best interest.
Edited 2006-07-30 10:33
//Therefore, open-source applications wipe the floor with closed source applications in terms of the confidence that one can have as an end user that the software being used contains only functions that operate in ones own best interest. //
Some recent back-up articles in support of the contention that open-source is a significantly better proposition in terms of it being in the end-user’s best interest:
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/07/27/1439230&from=…
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/busine…
http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=does_microsoft_impose…
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2567
Edited 2006-07-30 10:54
So does this guy have access to the source code, or what? If not, how does he know what the code looks like?
By pure logic. You know, the thing that tells you that people that can’t manage the code have to deal with spaghetti code. Unless you mean people at MS can’t manage clearly layout, solid code. The fact that “you remember reading somewhere that someone who supposedly viewed the Windows code found it solid, except for hacks (duh !)” seems more relevant and meaningful to you. Yeah right …
Yeah, and I’m not sure if I like this process or not
We’re not asking you to like it, that is no concern to you at all in fact. That’s a concern for the distro maker.
For example, when I install a DVD app on Windows, I don’t have to worry about whether I’ve got libdvd (or whatever the hell it is) that makes the whole thing work
On Linux you don’t either. You also can just pay your commercial distro to have the right to read your DVD out of the box. Of course, your poor FUD was based on free distro taken on the Internet, a thing you just “forgot” to talk about, but you are eager to say it’s no problem to pay on Windows, but it seems to be a BIG problem to pay less for the same privilege on Linux. Your double standard is so obvious.
Well, I’ve only called MS for support once, and that was back before I had Internet access and could start looking stuff up myself
So what ? You think you’re the majority ? Let me teach you sth : even big companies take big support contracts, some won’t even buy your software without support !!
And no, that’s not even for mission critical apps.
And that’s where the money is. That you called MS support once is irrelevant.
When my friends and family need PC support, they don’t call MS (or anybody else), they call me. Do you think that’s going to change, especially if they have to start paying for support? … I’m not sure Joe Sixpack is going to be willing to pay $30 to find out why he can’t get Windows Messenger to work
You need a BIG reality check ! There are stores that make profit witgh repairing Windows PC problems only !
And YES, if they don’t have you, they WILL pay or abandon the PC. When I refused to support their Windows anymore, most of the people I helped switched to Linux I supported, some stopped using a PC, and one bought a new PC (and still managed to call me to install Windows on its SATA disk, but I didn’t help him).
The only problem is, you can’t release COTS (commercia/over-the-shelf) software under an open source ‘free love’ license and still make money, unless you’ve got something else to sell, such as support, hardware, etc
So where is the problem exactly ? You can’t sell COTS online music either. That doesn’t prevent profit.
Did you see the “COTS online music” part ? Does it look like nonsense ? That’s intentional, so that you see the stupidity of talking COTS when the main distribution of FOSS is online. Especially saying there is a problem because COTS pure FOSS can’t be released (which is not true, it’s just stupid to do that).
Right, and of course, I’m sure Symantec doesn’t have any alterior motives here either. I mean, we’re talking about a company who specializes in selling people a bunch of crap they wouldn’t need if they had about 30 minutes of education on security
This is very telling, you are a perfect examples of the people I think are the worst of the Windows shills crowd : those that blame problems on users, when the problem is clearly MS. People with a little common sense blame MS for its crap OS for the need of antivirus software, even MS recommends them, will provide one on Vista, and has a security center that manages them. But NO, the problem is the user that needs 30 minutes of education on security to you. Is that what you tell the people you help ? I doubt it. You should not have to lose your time managing the OS, it should manage itself. I would NEVER say sth like that, I never did, even when they used Windows, I always blamed Windows. And no, 30 minutes of education is not enough at all for users to even understand the basic concepts of security (what is a firewall, a virus, an antivirus, …).
Um, yeah. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I personally love to stop doing things that are working really well for me
We’re talking a business here, a business that need to make money. He was refering to the Innovator’s Dilemna actually.
Linux on the desktop is still 1% of the market and holding!
One of the biggest reasons is that sane people who read Linux shills like SJVN and those who support people like SJVN make us realize that Linux has been adopted by the insane to indulge in their anti-Microsoft conspiracy theories.
And, more often than not, hatred seesm to be the overriding emotion expressed by Linux fanatics.
I wouldn’t want one in my IS Department. Too loony.
//Linux shills like SJVN//
“Shiiling” is commonly though of as offering biased opinion for cash consideration.
Exactly how much cash does SJVN get, do you think, if someone like me decides to download and try a free copy of Linux through having read a positive review by SJVN?
How much exactly is even a decent percentage of nothing?
The phrase “Linux shill” is an oxymoron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
Edited 2006-07-30 09:47
I’m too old for name calling. I’m wasting too many points modding people down.
I like opinion pieces that complement each other, and its a worthy post just for that.
In this case I found that neither opinions solved what I think are holding back Microsoft or Linux.
I must be the only one who must find it strange that these should be compared at all.
Microsoft should learn from a *company* in a monopoly position that is struggling to release a new product.
Linux is virtual unknown having difficulty competing with a monopoly product.
I think it would be interesting to see an article entitled what Microsoft can learn from coca-cola, or what Linux can learn from virgin coke.