Slashdot Mirror
Running Windows With No Services
mattOzan writes "So how many of the almost 4 dozen default-enabled services does Windows XP really need in order to preserve basic functioning, like web surfing and running applications?
Zero, as it turns out.
Mark Russinovich at Sysinternals demonstrates that if certain steps are followed, Windows XP will still run with only two active processes: System and Csrss.exe. No Smss.exe, Winlogon.exe, Services.exe, Lsass.exe...
And, contrary to the expectations of various lead engineers at Microsoft, even Internet Explorer will still work under such conditions."
Obviously the final result, a dubiously functional installation is not really groundbreaking for end-users, but there's much to be said for turning off the many services that ship enabled as default with Windows XP to gain both the performance and security benefits. Knowing whats running, what it's doing, and whether its really neccessary is a good step towards maintaining a system which has a low attack profile and is reasonably secure.
Business Voyeur
In The Olden Days, you could install a Linux disto without 10,000 daemons running... ah, those were the days... Linux was noticably faster than Windows out of the box! ;)
Agile Artisans
Really? Does it? Isn't this just an old joke with not much fact to back it up anymore?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
That may be, but that means if you don't need ANY in order to run windows in this imperfect state, you probably only need a couple to run it in a perfectly passable state.
the majority of people reading this will not wonder even Internet Explorer will still work under such conditions but if Firefox will still work under such conditions
do.what.promptcmds
It just goes to show you how twisted and obscure Windows is. Even Microsoft's own people don't know how their operating system works. How can they expect to keep it reliable and virus free if they don't even understand what processes need to be running?
Well I doubt Russonivich has anything to worry about, he's one of the people that wrote the "Windows Internals" book from the Microsoft press.
Now that aside Windows integration is considered a GOOD thing by most normal users. That's one of the frustrating thing about Linux/UNIX form their perspective. There's a million options, and they have no idea what they need or want. What's more, if they make the wrong choice something might not work, since it depends on something else.
That's why Windows, and OS-X ship with so much integrated. They are targeted at users that want to be told how it is. They don't want a choice of 10 window managers, they want to have one that just comes up by default.
Now if you like the BSD way of doing thigns, that's cool, but don't assume that it applies to everyone.
Building from source is another great example. Linux people tend to see this as the best feature of Linux, that you custom compile things, and you don't have to worry about binary compatiblity. Newbies tend to see this is one of the worst features. Compiling is highly intimidating, as they don't understand what's going on. What''s worse, if something happens, they can't fix it, they don't know how to edit make files, or update headers, etc.
The Windows method is more targeted at the masses, have an enriched OS that isn't just defined as it's kernel, but it's APIs, GUI, media layer, and basic apps. Linux is a minimal approach that defines only the kernel, leaving everything else up to the option of the user.
Both are valid, and don't assume yours is the superior way.
...get a Windows/Linux/BSD/OS X debate. I mean, really...
My Windows machine at work is currently at 221 hours of uptime.
I was just about to reply to this to say how either you must be lying, or else your system must be horribly insecure because you don't reboot it for the monthly critical updates. Then I noticed you wrote 221 hours and not 221 days.
Usually uptime is measured in days!
I'll probably be modded down for this...
What would be the point? By the time you developed all the commandline tools needed to make a CLI in Windows particularly useful (or installed Cygwin, or whatever it is called), you'd just have "unix." And not a very good one at that.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Probably. But maybe he's running a system with a microkernel, which doesn't need to be rebooted to patch a root exploit.
Hell, maybe he installed a minimal version of Linux a year ago, and is using kernel modules for all the advanced functionality. There probably aren't any root exploits in that (what root exploits are there in the kernel, and not the apps, anyway?)
Which sounds quite nice for killing off spyware nasties/etc on the system...
Run "su username" or "exec su username", and the problem is solved :).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.