Slashdot Mirror
Vista Security — Too Little Too Late
Thomas Greene of The Register has a fairly comprehensive review of Vista and IE7 user security measures. The verdict is: better but not adequate, and mostly an attempt to shift blame onto the user when things go wrong. From the review: "[Vista is] a slightly more secure version than XP SP2. There are good features, and there are good ideas, but they've been implemented badly. The old problems never go away: too many networking services enabled by default; too many owners running their boxes as admins and downloading every bit of malware they can get their hands on."
Yes, Cutler was the main designer of both. But that doesn't mean he actually managed to carry over the benefits of VMS. Had you actually ever used VMS, you'd know that it trumps the security of Windows NT hundreds of times over.
How ? Please give details.
They are virtually nothing alike. VMS does a great job of providing a secure multi-user operating system, while Windows NT does not (as is shown by the numerous exploits).
An incredibly poor "justification". VMS and Windows NT have user demographics worlds apart.
Your argument is akin to saying the fact that proportionally more black people are in gaol, is evidence that their skin colour turns them into criminals.
The main problem Cutler had with Windows NT was maintaining backwards compatibility with Windows 3.x and MS-DOS.
How so ? How does it negatively impact security, given it's implemented via user space code ?
Another problem was that Windows NT was initially designed to be a single-user operating system, thus the security system was designed with this in mind. Its multi-user capabilities were tacked on years later. Systems like VMS and UNIX, on the other hand, were built from the ground-up as multi-user systems, and thus took into consideration the security needs of such usage patterns.
Windows NT was designed from day one to be multiuser, according to every shred of documented evidence, including Cutler himself. What is the basis for your claim ?
(Incidentally, UNIX *was* initially a single-user system. The "multiuser" part was tacked on afterwards.)
(Be mindful of that irony, it's sharp.)
No, the guy just took his anti-MS kool-aid then lied through his teeth. That doesn't happen, period.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
This is not a mac zealot post...
With that in mind, go put a mac, windows machine, and a linux machine in front of your average computer user. Tell them to use the web, check some email, and install a new application. Dont tell them how.
Let them use the computer for several weeks and come back and see if you have a mess with spyware, viruses, etc..
And back to your point of computers being tools. Cars are tools too. I dont know how to change my brakes, swap out my engine, or reboot my cars internal computer and I shouldnt need to.
Everyone knowing a bit of programming is a pipe dream and is flawed anyway. I work in support, server support of several hundred solaris, linux, and windows servers. Some of these are developers servers. Some developers are worse than completely new computer users when it comes to messing a system up and they technically know how to program something.
Which in a roundabout way leads me back to my point on macs. You can use a mac without knowing the internals. You dont get all these stupid prompts and warnings like on windows, you dont need to know how to compile something or "make" a project. You dont need to clean your system regularly. Security is done in such a way that its effective but not obtrusive.
Its pretty obvious from your username and comment that your a hardcore unix user. Sit down with some new computers users and check out an Apple store and then see if you still think you need all that effort (teaching programming is not a trivial task) just for grandmda to check email.
as one of my Citrix instructors used to say: "it takes citrix or terminal server to make windows multiuser".
Just because your instructor doesn't understand what "multiuser" actually means, doesn't make him right.
You cannot otherwise work *at the same time* on the same machine.
Right. So you think running a telnet server on DOS makes it multiuser ?