Slashdot Mirror
BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security
securitas writes "In the second of two parts, the BBC's Stephen Cole of the technology show Click Online interviews Bill Gates about Windows, viruses, security, spam, 'trustworthy computing', Longhorn and being anti-competitive. Sample quote: 'Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are. That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.' Streaming media in Real format is also available. [Video: Broadband | Narrowband]
You can read the first half about the 'digital lifestyle' in Part 1: Bill Gates plots a Windows future. Here is the Slashdot discussion of the first part of the interview."
The link to part II of the interview was posted as the first +5 Comment.
1. Submit links from high score comments
2. ???
3. Instant Karma!
Just shows that slashdot editors don't read their site at all... (and don't bother to check stories with links to their sites either)
Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world and AFAIK has a larger market capitalisation than Microsoft. Bill Gates is the world's richest man, but his personal fortune is unlikely to be enough to buy Walmart.
Alas, the BBC really does show "lawn-bowling match among seniors" as top-flight sports coverage, because they can no longer afford the rights to anything decent.
No he isn't, Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea is. Gates's fortune took a hit with the slide of the value of the US dollar.
In comparison, right from the outset, open source desktop platforms and applications have relied almost wholly on closing the infectable vectors, the exploited vulnerabilities used by malware, as quickly as possible.
Read the following Usenet thread from 2000 that covers the argument in detail. David Harley and Robert Moir are two Anitvirus industry leaders. It also includes the prediction that Microsoft would eventually get into the antivirus industry.
If you have a spare hour, listen to Dr Dobbs' technetcast:
P: The alternative, of course, is to have seperate HTML rendering components for every application that wishes to render HTML.
Dunno why this scored three -- the grandparent is right, and the parent is wrong. So the (only?!) alternative is to have separate html rendering components for every application that wished to render html, is it? Why so? I think we should be told!
All that's needed is for the html rendering to run is userspace, rather than kernel space. That is actually what khtml does, which yes, is integrated tightly with the KDE graphical shell, but not with the kernel.
Fixing a bug in IE can mean fixing a bug in kernel code -- and that bug in the kernel code might affect dozens of other applications. You don't have to build things that way. That was the grandparent's point.
Maybe off topic but may as well say: Click Online is a very Microsoft centric TV programme which is shown on BBC World internationally and on BBC News 24 in the UK. It tends to be very dumbed down and barely scratches the surface on a lot of subjects. I remember one show where they were discussing distributed computing, and had a cluster of Windows 9x boxes (!) all of which duly blue-screened. Ahh, memories. If only the BBC actually did a serious tech show :(
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
GP >>> How many insecurities has Internet Explorer had since it was launched with XP? I lost count.
P >> So, you don't actually know, then? How can you criticise them meaningfully if you don't know? Saying "I can't remember, but I'm sure it's had lots!" is just spreading FUD.
No, now you are spreading FUD. Not knowing the exact number is different from not knowing at all. I don't know how many grains of sand there are on yonder beach, but I am VERY sure there are lots. Similarly, I haven't counted the exploits, but I do know I have seen quite a few. "Losing count" is certainly not the same as "not having the foggiest clue".
The thing is, when microsost says 'trusted computing' they want you to think that this means you trusting mucrosoft.
It means nothing of the sort, it means industry trusting microsoft to deliver DRM crippled content, this way Microsoft can tie up everyones computer by sayiung 'you can trust us' so that nothing can run or be stored without industry (the 'rights' holders) giving their OK, this will remove the risk of virus and malware attacks because they just won't be able to run.
Interestingly, Microsoft hasn't actually done anythg special to secure it's OS, it's just endorsed pretty much any DRM scheme indistry cares to propose -they aim to secure a 'trusted' status simply by telling enough of the people who matter (CEOs and Governments) that they can't possibly trust anything open that doesn't come from Microsoft.
It's like I always say, Microsoft is all about redefinition. If something comes along that Microsoft think is a threat ('Innivation', 'open', 'trusted') they just decide what THEY want the word to mean and then feed that to anyone who'll listen.
Some criteria:
1) When app installs, all file and registry changes are contained in app directories and reg keys, unless such changes constitute system upgrades (MDAC, etc.) Start menu, etc. excluded.
2) App is fully usable under "user" level account (no write-backs to protected dirs, or HKLM registry).
3) App is fully usable under "fast user switching"
4) App cleanly fully uninstalls.
Actually, the full list is much longer, but the point is that MS gives brownie points to the dev. firms that can make apps run under "user" permissions. My guess is the game firms don't care about that level of certification, but for corporate-level apps, it makes all the difference. If you pass all of those tests, you can generally be assured of running under Citrix, Terminal Server, REALLY "locked down" desktops, etc.
Actually, as an ISV, if you want to put the shiny "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on your application, you have to pass a few Microsoft-administered tests.
.ini text files? If MS wanted maintainability then why didn't they specify a standard way of handling them in WinNT and Win95 (file locations, syntax, etc) as a condition of meeting the "logo requirements"?
Some criteria: [...]
I've admittedly not looked very hard for the "designed for XP" logo, but that might explain why getting 3rd party software which truly meets that designation is still nearly like finding hen's teeth.
1) Isn't as large a problem as it used to be, but a good amount of software (especially "free as in beer" stuff you get on the 'net that is crappily written) still peppers C:/WINDOWS/SYSTEM32 with DLLs
2) I don't know a single, solitary person who has never had to run with elevated privliges for at least one application that is still currently distributed and advertised to work with XP (although the official logo probably isn't displayed). One of the worst offenders besides games is DVDs.
3) Half the stuff out there that runs as a service/resides in the system tray falls apart with fast-user switching.
4) That one makes me laugh...uninstalls are cleaner but registry residue is still a problem. The whole concept of a monolithic, binary file is absolutely stupid. Honestly, what was wrong with
Mr. Gates can talk all he wants about the wonderful plans he has for software, but it seems not even he can overcome the incredible resistive inertial forces that have built up around the Microsoft platform. XP has been out for YEARS and all the above-mentioned problems are STILL common. Longhorn could be completely rewritten from the ground up with a completely solid architecture (which would be great!) but the problems won't go away--not for a long time. I figure that even if the foundation for Longhorn were as solid as it is for BSD, Linux and OS X the world could be contending with legacy flaws and quirks until about 2010 (just a wild guess---not gonna eat my words 5 years from now).
IE is integrated into the kernel
Sorry, you're going to have to supply some proof of that.
iexplore.exe is just a shell that calls the kernel to render pages.
Almost right - iexplore.exe is just a shell that calls mshtml.dll to render pages.
It's official. Most of you are morons.