Slashdot Mirror

They should separate them. Like Linux, Linux is just the kernel. With Windows the kernel is the explorer.exe process, more or less, and you can actually load a different shell instead.

Uh no. Explorer is basically equivalent to nautilus+gnome-panel. It's a graphic and file manager and program launcher, and it provides a notification area. Windows has a kernel like any normal operating system. Explorer can die and be restarted without affecting the kernel at all.

a security flaw in IE is not a security flaw in Windows. Just like a Heartbleed wasn't a security flaw in Linux. They need, and should be in, separate categories.

It doesn't matter by how much they separate them, because these statistics cover publicly known vulnerabilities. Microsoft could potentially know about hundreds or even thousands (or merely dozens) of bugs with security implications and be simply fixing them on their own time and not bothering to notify anyone. However, that Microsoft hasn't notified anyone of security flaws of which they are internally aware does not preclude others (or malicious actors inside of Microsoft) from exploiting those flaws.

Of course, we can only speculate about how many flaws they might have, so to do so is to spread FUD... much like claiming that OSS is threatened by security flaws in some OSS software any more than non-OSS is threatened by security flaws. With OSS, you can see that known flaws are being fixed. With closed-source software, you just have to pray.

A quick search gives me:

There are many levels of POSIX compliance ranging from POSIX.0 to POSIX.12. These levels represent an evolving set of proposals, not all of which have been ratified as standards.

The POSIX subsystem in Windows NT is POSIX.1 compliant. POSIX.1 compliance requires a bare minimum of services, which are provided by Windows NT. When a POSIX application runs on Windows NT, the POSIX subsystem is loaded and it translates the C language API calls— for POSIX.1 support— Win32 API calls, which are then serviced by the Win32 subsystem.

http://scilnet.fortlewis.edu/tech/NT-Server/architecture.htm

Though I'm not sure of the validity of that today considering it's last modification date was: Tuesday, March 24, 1998

But it maybe points to the level at which he wants to build from? (really, I'm just pulling stuff from thin air on this because I never really got around to reading up on Posix compliance. I just kind of knew Windows had minimal support already.)

You should check out this reference: (Apologies, you need access to the ACM Library to read the article) http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=299161. Robert Glass discusses this exact issue. The article offers some references to research done using alternative approaches to inspections.

Non-paywall link: http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/ADAMS_E/CLASSES/CS370SWENGRII/WebWinter04/NOTES/Glassinspectionarticle.pdf

It worked only to the letter of the standard

If it worked to the letter of the standard and you find it unusable, what does it say about the standard?

it worked purely to the letter of passing the compliance test part of the test suite for POSIX.1 compliance only (and that was purely text based programs)...

That was all they needed in order to claim POSIX compliance to get it through the door for government contracts. A pure tick in the box compliance

the vast majority of real world POSIX programs required higher compliance but with windows, it wasn't there, all graphical output had to be completely rewritten to use the windows API so any existing program that produced graphical output would require extensive rework to work on the so-called POSIX compliant windows NT.

There are many levels of POSIX compliance ranging from POSIX.0 to POSIX.12. These levels represent an evolving set of proposals, not all of which have been ratified as standards.
The POSIX subsystem in Windows NT is POSIX.1 compliant. POSIX.1 compliance requires a bare minimum of services, which are provided by Windows NT. When a POSIX application runs on Windows NT, the POSIX subsystem is loaded and it translates the C language API calls-- for POSIX.1 support-- Win32 API calls, which are then serviced by the Win32 subsystem.
Because of the limited nature of POSIX.1, the POSIX subsystem on Windows NT does not provide any support for networking or system security. Many people feel that the inclusion of the POSIX subsytem was really a marketing ploy to increase NT's market penetration.

You are completely wrong.

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indowsnt/4/workstation/reskit/en-us/poscomp.mspx

http://scilnet.fortlewis.edu/tech/NT-Server/archit ecture.htm#Subsystems

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/W indows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resour ces/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc _fil_wqcq.asp

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;101270

Exhibit A: Michael Stipe admiring his flag, which seems to be perfectly suspended by an unknown force.

Not quite. Plowshare was killed by public opinon, and a lack of overriding need. If the US really needed to build a great canal tomrow, you bet this would be on the table. Of course, the irrational opposition would be there too.

People die digging canals but they don't have to. Weigh it up.

Oh my God, a stray alpha particle! Get a rope! There are acceptable levels of exposure. It's a shame that the rules are guided by people who are ignorant of