I really get tired of all these uninformed people that keep on saying how bad a choice Mach was for Apple and that they should have used a Linux or BSD kernel instead
First off, OSX is based on the Carnegie Mellon University Version 3.0 of the Mach Kernel, but the Kernel in and of itself does not have a natural interface, so Apple used (and licensed) BSD as an interface layer. So you completely discredit any respect of knowledge with the above line, OSX is based on BSD. Yes OSX has the CMU Mach 3.0 kernel but it is wrapped with BSD.
Yes NT has Mach underpinnings in its design, but it is NOT a monolithic kernel, it is a microkernel that takes advantage of the mach concepts but without restricting the kernel to monolithic operations and the locks that you see with the OSX kernel. It was designed with the best of both worlds' ideals at the time and has evolved over the past 10 years.
Kernel concepts have evolved over the years and kernel theories have also evolved, yet Apple is using and chose to use an idea that was outdated 10 years ago. They are using a concept that the NT Cutler team (very knowledgeable about Mach - look them up) discarded when they ripped the mach kernel apart and put together the NT kernel all the way back in 1991-1992. (I suggest you do a bit more reading on the NT kernel and why they didn't leave it monolithic.)
I get tired of people like you that blast posts but yet bloviate over crap they truly don't understand. You sometimes have no idea who you are 'trying' to talk down to.
You're right, I come across a little strong and can easily have my point lost in my writing.
Just a side note, I wasn't blaming the problems with OSX on its kernel, I was just saying Apple made a bad decision on their kernel and it does affect the system, even at a minimal level.
Apple has the developers and minds to have redeveloped the kernel like the NT team did and even chose a different path like the Linux group has done.
I have no doubt that they will address this in the future, but with 10 years of development they should have already had time to do it. (But we all know the history of the Apple OS software and the politics that kept it from fruition for so long).
Thanks for the posts, I did enjoy the debate. I don't expect anyone to roll over after one of my posts, even 'I' learn a lot from the minds of the others posting here. (Ego 'I' Tongue in Cheek of course.:) )
Take care and thanks for keeping me on my toes. The Net Avenger
If you want to claim your network is secure using microsoft products, hell if you want to claim it's secure using anything, be my guest, have a nice life.
Finally we agree... Complete security is not something that will ever be possible with ANY OS. Dogging Linux, Windows, or Macs become pretty irrelevant, they all have vulnerabilities, even if they are not yet known.
No I don't put complete faith Microsoft's Security implementation any more than I would a Linux or other UNIX box.
There are so many factors to security, even a strong OS that was built with security at its core like NT and Unix can be a pawn of a hacker.
Thanks for the debate and take care, The Net Avenger
I beg to differ, remote assistance IS turned on by default on a fresh XP install, and while that only allows the home user to "request assistance" how hard is it to code an app that will use the os's hoooks and send itself a request?
Beg all you want...
Remote assistance is NOT ALWAYS running, the client has to be initiated by the user at the console and then be VERIFIED to give the user access to the system. It is not left running. Period.
Even if you could script a virus to TURN on the Remote Assistance Client and get into the Remote assistance screen, all you could do is see the screen.
Remote assistance and Remote Desktop use TWO different implementations and are not the same thing at ALL.
Remote assistance uses the applicaiton sharing modules that were originally a part of netmeeting and Remote Desktop uses Terminal Services technology.
Next time do some homework before you decide to give another pronouncement of your superior understanding.
As for hacking the XP password, give me a break.
Getting past kerbos and the password encryption in XP is not something that is as easy as you make it sound.
If you want to get into a non-secure OS like Win98, then you have a chance. But unless you have physical access to a Win2K/XP machine, you better have some processing power and a few years to devote to getting the password.
From experience, in emergency support cases for corporations, cracking into a UNIX box is far easier than a NT box, and you must have physical access to the NT/XP box.
Once again you know very little about this subject, so lets just move on. Ok?
#1) The terminal services in Windows2000 was in the server only, it was not in any of the desktop OS versions of Windows 2000. Additionally it was nearly as optimized as the version that is in the WindowsXP line. The performance of remote desktop and terminal services (in Windows 2003 server) is drastically more advanced that what shipped in Windows 2000. In addition, the terminal services that were in WIndows 2000 server didn't support many of the features that a product like this would need, such as Remote Sound, High and True Color Display, etc.
#2) XP Home Version also does not have the remote desktop capabilities built into it. So technically it just can't do it.
(However I don't agree with Microsoft's release of the Home version as I also disagree with it having feature cuts from the Pro version and complained constantly during the beta, to the point where many of the Pro features were put back in the Home version - Basically the Home Version needs to go and I suspect that there won't be a Home version much longer as XP is evolved into Longhorn.)
#3) Microsoft is updating WindowsXP Pro to allow users to have a 'Smart Display' and also let another user use the same PC as the same time. In other words, they are removing the 1 user limit that the smart display users have complained about. This is in beta testing and should be availabe with SP2 of XP.
Also look for performance enhancements in the upcoming update that are targeted at the Remote desktop client that will benefit 'Smart Display' PCs. For exmaple, video playback should be possible remotely, which will be quite a trick if they can pull it off considering the overhead of screen draws, let alone video streaming.
let me point out that those "features" you're sporting are also turned on by default leaving you wide open to your "friends" messing with your system from the safety and convienence of their home.
Yeah, if you give them your password...
Security is only as good as the physical access to the equipment, the idiots holding the passwords, and the need to access the 'top secret data'.
I love how everyone thinks the data on the PC is so top secret that someone would actually take the time to hack into it. Sorry, but I have no desire to see your donkey porn collection.
BTW Remote Desktop is not turned on by default, and the other two need administrator privledges to access.
Unfortunately I've not seen much beyond Windows 2000 regularly. XP is still a bit of a mystery to me.
My troll loving friend... Oh boy, do I even have to respond to your post. You have no idea what are talking about if you haven't used NT in 10 years and have no idea about Windows 2000 let alone WindowsXP. Geesh.
And the common installer the previous poster was talking about was introduced with Windows2000 and is deployed with applications and is also used on previous versions of Windows. Geesh again.
I was not talking about INSTALLERS on the MAC, I wish you could comprehend better so that I wouldn't have to repeat this. Argh.
I was talking about Apple's software development vision that is just now starting to understand a user running more than a couple of programs at once and not having to sit and watch a program install.
Do most Windows users watch the install or minimize it? I have no idea, but I do know it is something that can easily be done.
Os for the Mac file manager's need to be more threaded, for proof of my claim I suggest you check the last updates to OSX and the touted additions of better threading in the file manager. (You can find this in Apple's own press releases, as well as users complaining in the newsgroups all over the net. Find them yourself if you can figure out the little search button on your browser.)
As I was trying to say in my original post...
OSX and the technologies that it brings to the Mac World are bringing new concepts to Apple and the developers that they haven't normally dealt with on a Mac in the past. This brings them power, but power they don't know how to turn back into the user interface experience, yet.
For example even the idea of not having the system bog down while playing an MP3, and doing several other tasks at the same time is something that is normal for a Windows user but exciting and new for Mac users. Even on the fastest Mac OS System9 loved to skip the sound and make the system almost unresponsive no matter how fast the processor was doing these same tasks. (Hence why Apple wanted and needed a preemptive OS for so long.)
(It is just too bad it took Apple 10 years longer than anticipated for their preemptive multi-threaded capable OS)
Go look up the Mach kernel implementation in OSX. You will find the articles that detail its limitations. You will also find articles on how the NT team was faced with the same challenges and used a different method that is a variant of the Mach kernel. Linux also does NOT have the OSX Mach kernel limitations. Look it up, it has been in the press everywhere if you read at all.
If this is confused, then even the the press Apple has released about their kernel is wrong and you should email them since you know more than them about it about them. Geesh.
And as for the NTFS file locking problems you are seeing, these are APPLICATION driven locks.
NTFS will wait to update a file unless an APPLICATION has specifically locked the file to NOT BE MESSED with. I suggest you look at the software that is causing the hardlock and not blame NTFS. There are a few good reasons for applications to be able to hardlock a file, like if Mary in office b is trying to overwrite the work of jane in office c.
NTFS has had hardlinks since its original design, so the whole argument about NT's file locking is just nuts.
(If you really know this little about NTFS you should just stop responding to this link now - Or should I give you the kiddie tour of NTFS - it also has mount points, is a journaled file system, and supports files and partitions up to 16 exabytes in size as well.) Geesh.
Some of you kiddies just kill me... Two years at IT tech and a job in the IT department of Wal-Mart and you become the all knowing OS design theorists. Argh!
What makes you think UNIX is excluded from this capability? As a lowly user, I built and installed KDE on my Solaris workstation. How? It's called the home directory. Duh! Other possibilities abound to allow users to install their own software, limited by only your imagination
Ok, lets start with removing the DUH, and then remove the condescension from your post assuming I know very little about the 'overall picture' of UNIX and OS architecture. I have been involved in OS engineering for far too long to get a lecture from an apparent UNIX zealot with little knowledge of both OSes.
Now with that said, you seem to miss many points and don't seem to understand what I was conveying.
#1. Whoever 'owns' the Windows machine also is the 'ADMINISTRATOR' however, they can BE AN ADMINISTRATOR without actually using the administrator account. This was my point. They do not need to re-login as ROOT to ADMINISTER any part of the OS, and the Administrator account itself is left in case it is needed for maintenance or emergencies. Now I am talking about this scenario in a single desktop configuration. As in a Domain or even local network, the concept of the Administrator account has other functions, even though a whole domain or network can STILL BE ADMINISTERED by a user with administrator privileges without logging in as ROOT.
#2. My point about 'power users' installing software is something that can be set and controlled so that the software can also be available to ALL users on the machine. Not just in the home directory for the user that installed it. I have seen too many senerios where there have been 10 different Mozilla installations for 10 different users. This is just ridiculous.
Besides, having the granule control of security that the NT model has is really nice when you want to give someone like Grandma the ability to install software and yet not make her an administrator to accidentally mess up system settings. Additionally it is also nice that she can install her new solitaire game and NOT NEED TO LOGIN as an administrator and yet Grandpa's account can then also use the solitaire game. In real world desktop scenarios like this, Grandma and Grandpa really shouldn't have to install the software twice in each of their 'home' directories and they also don't need whoever helped setup the computer to come out and login as an administrator and install the software to make it available to both of them.
Administration and the diversity of the token/object security model is far more thought out in Windows NT than the security model in UNIX, and this is ONE of the reasons Cutler and the other OS designers of NT choose not to mimic the UNIX security system in NT and go a new route using new the upcoming OS architecture security theories of the time.
How do I know this, I was as an OS architecture engineer at the time and was involved with this process.:)
As I have said before, there are reasons that some of the top UNIX and OS gurus, such as Cutler, choose to divert from UNIX concepts and build NT from scratch using the latest OS engineering technologies instead.
Keeping UNIX variants on par with what NT was doing 10 years ago is still a process of catch up, and yet the UNIX 'ideology' is far older. And its age of older 'ideologies' is not a plus in the technology world, instead they have to be molded and kludged to make them mimic what is natural in newer OS architectures like NT.
#1) Stability, Win2k And XP simply don't crash unless there is a hardware problem or a really bad driver for some crap hardware. I have 200mhz Laptop that has been run Win2K Beta 1 since 1997 (yes 1997) and the only time it has EVER crashed when I a tech accidentally popped the hard drive out.
#2) Remote administration. Windows has a better implementation that you realize. Just because it doesn't have the 'network GUI' XWindows, doesn't mean that the NT OS was not designed for multi-user and remote access. Just to name a couple of the 'lacking remote admin features': Remote Desktop, Remote Registry, Remote Computer Management, Automated Active Directory, Automated Network Install of OS and Applicaitons, Domain Policies, and even Telnet.
The main user gets admin privledges, but the Administrator account is left alone unless it is needed.
I also like the security of XP, so that power users can install software without having to be an administrator. (Which is also flexible to be turned on or off.)
The whole security root security architecture of the unix world is really screwed, especially when used on a desktop.
(I'm still waiting for the Unix variant that finds a nifty way to avoid the root headaches and gives us something approaching the object and token based security of Windows(NT)XP.)
Yes the installations are getting better, but you still have to overcome the hundreds of thousands of applications the user will want to run that are Windows based.
The Linux world needs better development enviroments that don't confuse the users with the libraries available, etc, etc.
Kylix is a product that could help to make this happen, just like Visual Basic brought simple programming to Windows.
Yeah, threading is still something 'new' for Apple to grasp and implement. OSX does some nice things, but simple stuff that should have been threaded in 1.0 doesn't even seem to be on their radar.
Just like Safari, it does some nice things and has great speed compared to other Mac Browsers but it doesn't even have the basic threading abilities that IE had back in 1998. Apple should be more on the ball and this should have been a part of the original design specifications and not something they will add.
Just like the basic file manager operations in 1.0 of OSX, multi-threading was barely there, and what little has been added has been stuck in like it was an afterthought and instead of something that just should have been in the design. They should have at least paided attention to Microsoft as Windows(NT)'s file managmenet has beening this for a long time.
It also just kills me that Apple installation software will fill the screen, like the user wants to set and watch it install. In the Windows world, this is unheard of. Even if the installation screen is maximized, we can just hit minimize and go on with our work while it installs.
Every time I have to install QuickTime for a user, it makes me shake my head, since the QuickTime screen not only fills the screen with no option to minimize, but it even does this during the entire download process. Sure I can flick the Windows Key and go back to work, but what were they thinking? Every time I install QuickTime I think, Apple, you just are not getting the whole multi-application pre-emptive thing and what it means for your users.
Apple, "Keep thinking of what your new pre-emptive core allows your software and your users to do. They shouldn't have to wait for ANYTHING if they don't want to."
Unfortunately this thinking will take some catching up, Microsoft has had a pre-emptive OS since 1993, threading and other issues for simultaneous application usage for users is far more mature in all of the NT products especially XP.
(And please don't flame me with how Unix has been preemptive since such and such. I know the history of Unix and I also know that difference between the NT kernel and what kernels are available in the Unix world.
And we would just waste ten messages debating why I disagree with Apple's OSX mach kernel decision. Which is why OSX on a whole is subject to less responsiveness than Linux or WindowsXP(NT).)
Sorry, but your message is the Sun spin that they push at the anti-Microsoft crowd.
I suggest you read the court documents instead of just purporting to have done so. No matter how many times you repeat it here, Microsoft was NOT given the option to just remove their windows extensions and continue making a JAVA VM.
You are more than just a bit paranoid to believe that Microsoft's adoption of JAVA was to kill it or make it a Windows only environment.
Microsoft fully embraced JAVA and by providing the ability to make windows calls from inside JAVA code, they were encouraging developers to move their 'existing' windows code to JAVA. Sun wasn't smart enough to realize this and screwed themselves by also being paranoid.
Trust me, I was involved with what Microsoft was doing with JAVA at the time and why they were doing it. It was not the 'evil' vision you or Sun have created, sadly it was the opposite. Microsoft was one of the strongest proponents of JAVA and even helped to get JavaScript into the standards of HTML and the web.
If they were truly as 'evil' about JAVA as you would believe then IE would not have supported JAVA or JavaScript long before it was common, and this was when Microsoft already had control of the browser market and IE was by default defining what was being developed for Web content.
One of my joint companies makes two products that compete directly with Microsoft products, and yet Microsoft provides our developers with full support, just as if we weren't direct competitors. Microsoft is not nearly as malicious as Sun would like for you to believe.
As for pocket books, I hope Sun and your open source world bring you wealth. I was worth several million even at age 25 by owning a software company that competed with Microsoft. That company even has software running on the international space station in place of another Microsoft solution. Why? Nasa found our product better and they even could have used Microsoft's for free.
I made my money the old fashioned way, by making better products, not by suing my competitors or telling everyone how evil all my competitors are.
Even Sun knows Java sucks, read the internal documents released on why the server developers inside Sun don't even want to be tied to JAVA because of its lack of speed, instability and security holes.
With that said, I no longer have the time to convince you of your ignorance. You are proud of it and determined to keep it.
"Or, they could submit a patch to fix the hole -- which is something you couldn't do for Windows."
Actually a quick email and some of the top developers in the world would be doing it for me. Microsoft takes security holes pretty seriously. Had this experience already, and also saw the process in the Win2003 server beta.
I would rather trust my patch to the people that wrote the code and are some of the best in the technology industry.
"Unless you quote your sources, it's hard to take that claim seriously."
Try doing a web search, it isn't that hard.
Or, you could help figure out the bug, close the flaw, and improve the software. You are barred from doing using closed-source software, like Windows. You are utterly at their mercy to get the flaw fixed. You're powerless.
Not true, Windows is far more extensible than you understand. One company I work with specifically creates software that does just this. If they find functionality flaws, or problems with application compatibility, they create their own software. IT IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSISARY to modify the source to fix a problem or offer a better solution.
Shoot even look at software like StyleXP, you will notice that they dynamically patch the theme core of XP to allow native skinning. They don't have to change the source do this.
A good developer is not powerless to Microsoft. Part of making Windows the mainstream OS it is today is the assistance, guidance and customibility they offer their developers. You don't see millions of software programs for Windows just because it has always been the most popular OS, in fact it was the millions of applications that were so easily written on Windows that made it most popular OS. Were you even around in the early 90s to see this happen? Tools like Visual Basic and the Microsoft Developer Program were so essential in making Windows a success.
Take OS/2 for example, just to get the SDK for it you had to cough up $1500. The Windows SDK always has been and still is free.
Sure Open Source has some advantages, but 10 years ago, Microsoft was the company that was going out of its way to make developing easier for people and they were the 'anti-establishment' of the time, just like Linux is today. I wish everyone here remembered those days. Remembered the high Novell prices, Remembered the groups fighting over the technologies to the point where they never were even implemented. Anyone remember OpenDoc for example.
Microsoft was the first company to provide extensive support to developers with so many ways to interact with, modify and create software for a common standard platform.
They are better at helping developers than people realize. Check out MSDN, the site will even help people write HTML pages, and Microsoft doesn't own HTML. but there is tons of free help there anyway.
Duh, and where did I say anything different. Are you a total moron?
The only thing you are incorrect about is through the suit, Microsoft also had their rights to develop ANY VM revoked by Sun. So even if Microsoft wanted to roll over and do what Sun wanted by removing the 'windows extensions' that they felt violated the VM agreement with Microsoft, Microsoft STILL WAS PROHIBITED from creating, updating, modifying or making any form of Java VM.
Maybe you should do so research before you get on your high horse, cause you are going to get knocked off.
As taunting me to do research? My friend, I have read the court fillings and judgements and 'been involved' in this process. I am not a 19 year girlfriendless Linux zealot spreading rumors and crap.
Go support Sun, they have been so good to open source developers. (BTW Keep your check book handy, Sun likes big ones.)
"Not true. MS could have updated their JVM as many times as they wanted to. The only obstacles were that MS did not break the sun JAVA standard. MS is unable to to adhere to any standards so they chose not to upgrade."
This is pure BS, you know nothing about the court documents.
If Microsoft's RIGHT to distribute or work on their own Java VM was revoked by Sun. Even if Microsoft rolled over and said we will make Java as buggy as you want it to be on the other operating systems, Sun STILL would not have allowed them to make their own VM.
Again, why does everyone here think Sun is so wonderful.
1) They have screwed us over a technology that 7 years ago could have been great if they would have opened it up, or at least let it have a standards body and not be exclusively controlled by Sun.
2) Sun charges tons of money for their technology. Check their licensing fees, they make Microsoft look like a bargain vendor.
3) They have given the consumers and developers what? A closed system that is buggy at best, sucks at cross platform, and was put to shame when Microsoft was able to rewite their original code so that it was 10-20 times faster. (And this has nothing to do with the 'Windows extensions' Microsoft added 'for' JAVA developers trying to 'move' from a Windows only development world to pure Java.
Instead of seeing the extensions as a way to move developers to cross platform JAVA, Sun and everyone else seems to think it was tie Java developers to Windows. They totally missed the point and have no idea why Microsoft did what they did.
Go support Sun, just take good lube with ya, they like their high server fees and giving developers nothing.
Technically XP is still more secure than any variant of UNIX. XP is just 'exploited' for vulnerabilities because it comes from Microsoft and kiddies like to find the holes.
Open Source Linux is so easy to find a hole and attack that it isn't even funny. If someone smarter than the person that wrote the code can read it, then they can find a hole.
It is just people outside of the anti-Microsoft religion have better things to do than punch holes in Linux.
PS. According to studies (independant) there have been more holes and pathes for Linux than Windows 2000 and Windows XP combined.
Maybe it is time the people that aren't in the anti-Microsoft religion start reading your 'previous' open source code and show you how many holes your 'secure' OS has.
I know of a casual observer that knows of several himself, and he doesn't care enough about the open source crap to write something to exploit these holes.
Get real. If I can read your code, I can find every flaw to exploit. Period.
The bug is from the fact that SUN has PROHIBITED Microsoft from updating their JAVA VM since 1999.
If Microsoft was allowed to updated their VM, then stuff like this would not be happening.
Sun screwed themselves, this is not a Microsoft problem. Sun targeted Microsoft, other Java VM developers have been able to add 'extensions' to Java just like Microsoft did, Sun went after Microsoft because it was MICROSOFT.
Sun has gotten what they deserve. Trying to keep a technology propriety by strangling it to death.
JAVA is like a rock, it moves really slow and always sinks to the bottom.
I thought this board supported the open source movement, JAVA is far from this. C# was opened to the standards body for other vendors to create C#. JAVS had yet to do this, and never will.
Only a joke if you have no idea what you are talking about.
WM9 is still leaps ahead of MP3 variants. There is also still nothing that compares in video quaility.
And no I am not talking about just 64kbps rates either. How about WM9 128kbps variable bit rate? MP3 can't touch it. How about WM9 lossless? Do you think MP3 can compare to that? A 'lossless' compression for audio? Give me a break...
By your response I can only assume you are a AOL kiddie comparing WM7 technology or have no idea what WM9 encoding technologies are about.
Take time to look at what the other guys are doing before you pronounce how crappy their stuff is.
There is a reason why the motion picture industry is going with WM9 technologies. Like Dolby 7.1 Surround.
#2) Creating content for it is FREE - Microsoft provides the encoder technology for converting files as well as realtime encoding. (Something Real does not)
#3) You can serve it from any Windows Server without additional charges, it is a free part of Windows Server since NT4. (In other words no MPEG4 or RealAudio royalties) A option you currently dont't have even in the Linux world.
#4) It is a free part of Windows XP.
#%) And now it looks like it will be a free part of Linux..
Um.. They are really trying ot screw you, giving you a free technology. Them bastards.
"reasons to avoid wma, audio quality being one of them"
Are you high?
Audiophiles everywhere champion WMA as the best compression technology for Sound Quality. It is smaller and fully reproduces the original sound image better than any other technology currently available.
Check out the sound demonstrations all over the web that clip the original sound and the compressed version and then play what gets left out. You can easily hear that WMA misses very little of the sound Quality, where RealAudio misses a lot, and MP3 shows its age and misses a great amount of the sound quality.
The same with the video, compared to MPEG4 or Realaudio, WM9 video technology is 25% leaner and better looking at the same time.
Remember that Microsoft has put big bucks into R&D on the video and sound compression technologies. Don't under estimate what that kind of money can create for the consumer.
You can hate it for some reason, but at least pick a real one.
Slashdot Mirror
I really get tired of all these uninformed people that keep on saying how bad a choice Mach was for Apple and that they should have used a Linux or BSD kernel instead
First off, OSX is based on the Carnegie Mellon University Version 3.0 of the Mach Kernel, but the Kernel in and of itself does not have a natural interface, so Apple used (and licensed) BSD as an interface layer. So you completely discredit any respect of knowledge with the above line, OSX is based on BSD. Yes OSX has the CMU Mach 3.0 kernel but it is wrapped with BSD.
Yes NT has Mach underpinnings in its design, but it is NOT a monolithic kernel, it is a microkernel that takes advantage of the mach concepts but without restricting the kernel to monolithic operations and the locks that you see with the OSX kernel. It was designed with the best of both worlds' ideals at the time and has evolved over the past 10 years.
Kernel concepts have evolved over the years and kernel theories have also evolved, yet Apple is using and chose to use an idea that was outdated 10 years ago. They are using a concept that the NT Cutler team (very knowledgeable about Mach - look them up) discarded when they ripped the mach kernel apart and put together the NT kernel all the way back in 1991-1992. (I suggest you do a bit more reading on the NT kernel and why they didn't leave it monolithic.)
I get tired of people like you that blast posts but yet bloviate over crap they truly don't understand. You sometimes have no idea who you are 'trying' to talk down to.
You're right, I come across a little strong and can easily have my point lost in my writing.
:) )
Just a side note, I wasn't blaming the problems with OSX on its kernel, I was just saying Apple made a bad decision on their kernel and it does affect the system, even at a minimal level.
Apple has the developers and minds to have redeveloped the kernel like the NT team did and even chose a different path like the Linux group has done.
I have no doubt that they will address this in the future, but with 10 years of development they should have already had time to do it. (But we all know the history of the Apple OS software and the politics that kept it from fruition for so long).
Thanks for the posts, I did enjoy the debate. I don't expect anyone to roll over after one of my posts, even 'I' learn a lot from the minds of the others posting here. (Ego 'I' Tongue in Cheek of course.
Take care and thanks for keeping me on my toes.
The Net Avenger
If you want to claim your network is secure using microsoft products, hell if you want to claim it's secure using anything, be my guest, have a nice life.
Finally we agree... Complete security is not something that will ever be possible with ANY OS. Dogging Linux, Windows, or Macs become pretty irrelevant, they all have vulnerabilities, even if they are not yet known.
No I don't put complete faith Microsoft's Security implementation any more than I would a Linux or other UNIX box.
There are so many factors to security, even a strong OS that was built with security at its core like NT and Unix can be a pawn of a hacker.
Thanks for the debate and take care,
The Net Avenger
BTW Remote Desktop is not turned on by default,
I beg to differ, remote assistance IS turned on by default on a fresh XP install, and while that only allows the home user to "request assistance" how hard is it to code an app that will use the os's hoooks and send itself a request?
Beg all you want...
Remote assistance is NOT ALWAYS running, the client has to be initiated by the user at the console and then be VERIFIED to give the user access to the system. It is not left running. Period.
Even if you could script a virus to TURN on the Remote Assistance Client and get into the Remote assistance screen, all you could do is see the screen.
Remote assistance and Remote Desktop use TWO different implementations and are not the same thing at ALL.
Remote assistance uses the applicaiton sharing modules that were originally a part of netmeeting and Remote Desktop uses Terminal Services technology.
Next time do some homework before you decide to give another pronouncement of your superior understanding.
As for hacking the XP password, give me a break.
Getting past kerbos and the password encryption in XP is not something that is as easy as you make it sound.
If you want to get into a non-secure OS like Win98, then you have a chance. But unless you have physical access to a Win2K/XP machine, you better have some processing power and a few years to devote to getting the password.
From experience, in emergency support cases for corporations, cracking into a UNIX box is far easier than a NT box, and you must have physical access to the NT/XP box.
Once again you know very little about this subject, so lets just move on. Ok?
Ok,
#1) The terminal services in Windows2000 was in the server only, it was not in any of the desktop OS versions of Windows 2000. Additionally it was nearly as optimized as the version that is in the WindowsXP line. The performance of remote desktop and terminal services (in Windows 2003 server) is drastically more advanced that what shipped in Windows 2000. In addition, the terminal services that were in WIndows 2000 server didn't support many of the features that a product like this would need, such as Remote Sound, High and True Color Display, etc.
#2) XP Home Version also does not have the remote desktop capabilities built into it. So technically it just can't do it.
(However I don't agree with Microsoft's release of the Home version as I also disagree with it having feature cuts from the Pro version and complained constantly during the beta, to the point where many of the Pro features were put back in the Home version - Basically the Home Version needs to go and I suspect that there won't be a Home version much longer as XP is evolved into Longhorn.)
#3) Microsoft is updating WindowsXP Pro to allow users to have a 'Smart Display' and also let another user use the same PC as the same time. In other words, they are removing the 1 user limit that the smart display users have complained about. This is in beta testing and should be availabe with SP2 of XP.
Also look for performance enhancements in the upcoming update that are targeted at the Remote desktop client that will benefit 'Smart Display' PCs. For exmaple, video playback should be possible remotely, which will be quite a trick if they can pull it off considering the overhead of screen draws, let alone video streaming.
Yep, read that Apple is continuing to address this and not leave users with the flawed Mach in the original OSX.
let me point out that those "features" you're sporting are also turned on by default leaving you wide open to your "friends" messing with your system from the safety and convienence of their home.
Yeah, if you give them your password...
Security is only as good as the physical access to the equipment, the idiots holding the passwords, and the need to access the 'top secret data'.
I love how everyone thinks the data on the PC is so top secret that someone would actually take the time to hack into it. Sorry, but I have no desire to see your donkey porn collection.
BTW Remote Desktop is not turned on by default, and the other two need administrator privledges to access.
Geesh.
Unfortunately I've not seen much beyond Windows 2000 regularly. XP is still a bit of a mystery to me.
My troll loving friend... Oh boy, do I even have to respond to your post. You have no idea what are talking about if you haven't used NT in 10 years and have no idea about Windows 2000 let alone WindowsXP. Geesh.
And the common installer the previous poster was talking about was introduced with Windows2000 and is deployed with applications and is also used on previous versions of Windows. Geesh again.
I was not talking about INSTALLERS on the MAC, I wish you could comprehend better so that I wouldn't have to repeat this. Argh.
I was talking about Apple's software development vision that is just now starting to understand a user running more than a couple of programs at once and not having to sit and watch a program install.
Do most Windows users watch the install or minimize it? I have no idea, but I do know it is something that can easily be done.
Os for the Mac file manager's need to be more threaded, for proof of my claim I suggest you check the last updates to OSX and the touted additions of better threading in the file manager. (You can find this in Apple's own press releases, as well as users complaining in the newsgroups all over the net. Find them yourself if you can figure out the little search button on your browser.)
As I was trying to say in my original post...
OSX and the technologies that it brings to the Mac World are bringing new concepts to Apple and the developers that they haven't normally dealt with on a Mac in the past. This brings them power, but power they don't know how to turn back into the user interface experience, yet.
For example even the idea of not having the system bog down while playing an MP3, and doing several other tasks at the same time is something that is normal for a Windows user but exciting and new for Mac users. Even on the fastest Mac OS System9 loved to skip the sound and make the system almost unresponsive no matter how fast the processor was doing these same tasks. (Hence why Apple wanted and needed a preemptive OS for so long.)
(It is just too bad it took Apple 10 years longer than anticipated for their preemptive multi-threaded capable OS)
Go look up the Mach kernel implementation in OSX. You will find the articles that detail its limitations. You will also find articles on how the NT team was faced with the same challenges and used a different method that is a variant of the Mach kernel. Linux also does NOT have the OSX Mach kernel limitations. Look it up, it has been in the press everywhere if you read at all.
If this is confused, then even the the press Apple has released about their kernel is wrong and you should email them since you know more than them about it about them. Geesh.
And as for the NTFS file locking problems you are seeing, these are APPLICATION driven locks.
NTFS will wait to update a file unless an APPLICATION has specifically locked the file to NOT BE MESSED with. I suggest you look at the software that is causing the hardlock and not blame NTFS. There are a few good reasons for applications to be able to hardlock a file, like if Mary in office b is trying to overwrite the work of jane in office c.
NTFS has had hardlinks since its original design, so the whole argument about NT's file locking is just nuts.
(If you really know this little about NTFS you should just stop responding to this link now - Or should I give you the kiddie tour of NTFS - it also has mount points, is a journaled file system, and supports files and partitions up to 16 exabytes in size as well.) Geesh.
Some of you kiddies just kill me... Two years at IT tech and a job in the IT department of Wal-Mart and you become the all knowing OS design theorists. Argh!
What makes you think UNIX is excluded from this capability? As a lowly user, I built and installed KDE on my Solaris workstation. How? It's called the home directory. Duh! Other possibilities abound to allow users to install their own software, limited by only your imagination
:)
Ok, lets start with removing the DUH, and then remove the condescension from your post assuming I know very little about the 'overall picture' of UNIX and OS architecture. I have been involved in OS engineering for far too long to get a lecture from an apparent UNIX zealot with little knowledge of both OSes.
Now with that said, you seem to miss many points and don't seem to understand what I was conveying.
#1. Whoever 'owns' the Windows machine also is the 'ADMINISTRATOR' however, they can BE AN ADMINISTRATOR without actually using the administrator account. This was my point. They do not need to re-login as ROOT to ADMINISTER any part of the OS, and the Administrator account itself is left in case it is needed for maintenance or emergencies. Now I am talking about this scenario in a single desktop configuration. As in a Domain or even local network, the concept of the Administrator account has other functions, even though a whole domain or network can STILL BE ADMINISTERED by a user with administrator privileges without logging in as ROOT.
#2. My point about 'power users' installing software is something that can be set and controlled so that the software can also be available to ALL users on the machine. Not just in the home directory for the user that installed it. I have seen too many senerios where there have been 10 different Mozilla installations for 10 different users. This is just ridiculous.
Besides, having the granule control of security that the NT model has is really nice when you want to give someone like Grandma the ability to install software and yet not make her an administrator to accidentally mess up system settings. Additionally it is also nice that she can install her new solitaire game and NOT NEED TO LOGIN as an administrator and yet Grandpa's account can then also use the solitaire game. In real world desktop scenarios like this, Grandma and Grandpa really shouldn't have to install the software twice in each of their 'home' directories and they also don't need whoever helped setup the computer to come out and login as an administrator and install the software to make it available to both of them.
Administration and the diversity of the token/object security model is far more thought out in Windows NT than the security model in UNIX, and this is ONE of the reasons Cutler and the other OS designers of NT choose not to mimic the UNIX security system in NT and go a new route using new the upcoming OS architecture security theories of the time.
How do I know this, I was as an OS architecture engineer at the time and was involved with this process.
As I have said before, there are reasons that some of the top UNIX and OS gurus, such as Cutler, choose to divert from UNIX concepts and build NT from scratch using the latest OS engineering technologies instead.
Keeping UNIX variants on par with what NT was doing 10 years ago is still a process of catch up, and yet the UNIX 'ideology' is far older. And its age of older 'ideologies' is not a plus in the technology world, instead they have to be molded and kludged to make them mimic what is natural in newer OS architectures like NT.
Two issues with your statement...
#1) Stability, Win2k And XP simply don't crash unless there is a hardware problem or a really bad driver for some crap hardware. I have 200mhz Laptop that has been run Win2K Beta 1 since 1997 (yes 1997) and the only time it has EVER crashed when I a tech accidentally popped the hard drive out.
#2) Remote administration. Windows has a better implementation that you realize. Just because it doesn't have the 'network GUI' XWindows, doesn't mean that the NT OS was not designed for multi-user and remote access. Just to name a couple of the 'lacking remote admin features': Remote Desktop, Remote Registry, Remote Computer Management, Automated Active Directory, Automated Network Install of OS and Applicaitons, Domain Policies, and even Telnet.
Days?!? Dude, and I'm not exagrating, I have to reboot my XP machine every few hours most days
Dude if that is the case you have serious Hardware problem.
Been running XP since Beta 1, and the ONLY crashes our tech team have seen is hardware related.
And I'm not talking about one computer, think 100s that are tested and used hard.
Maybe we should to a pool to see who sues first.
I'll go first and bet on Apple, as the unix core is in their league and more of a competitor.
Microsoft is more app to sue for trademarks than if the computer can have a trash can on the desktop.
I like how it is done in WindowsXP.
The main user gets admin privledges, but the Administrator account is left alone unless it is needed.
I also like the security of XP, so that power users can install software without having to be an administrator. (Which is also flexible to be turned on or off.)
The whole security root security architecture of the unix world is really screwed, especially when used on a desktop.
(I'm still waiting for the Unix variant that finds a nifty way to avoid the root headaches and gives us something approaching the object and token based security of Windows(NT)XP.)
Yes the installations are getting better, but you still have to overcome the hundreds of thousands of applications the user will want to run that are Windows based.
The Linux world needs better development enviroments that don't confuse the users with the libraries available, etc, etc.
Kylix is a product that could help to make this happen, just like Visual Basic brought simple programming to Windows.
Yeah, threading is still something 'new' for Apple to grasp and implement. OSX does some nice things, but simple stuff that should have been threaded in 1.0 doesn't even seem to be on their radar.
Just like Safari, it does some nice things and has great speed compared to other Mac Browsers but it doesn't even have the basic threading abilities that IE had back in 1998. Apple should be more on the ball and this should have been a part of the original design specifications and not something they will add.
Just like the basic file manager operations in 1.0 of OSX, multi-threading was barely there, and what little has been added has been stuck in like it was an afterthought and instead of something that just should have been in the design. They should have at least paided attention to Microsoft as Windows(NT)'s file managmenet has beening this for a long time.
It also just kills me that Apple installation software will fill the screen, like the user wants to set and watch it install. In the Windows world, this is unheard of. Even if the installation screen is maximized, we can just hit minimize and go on with our work while it installs.
Every time I have to install QuickTime for a user, it makes me shake my head, since the QuickTime screen not only fills the screen with no option to minimize, but it even does this during the entire download process. Sure I can flick the Windows Key and go back to work, but what were they thinking? Every time I install QuickTime I think, Apple, you just are not getting the whole multi-application pre-emptive thing and what it means for your users.
Apple, "Keep thinking of what your new pre-emptive core allows your software and your users to do. They shouldn't have to wait for ANYTHING if they don't want to."
Unfortunately this thinking will take some catching up, Microsoft has had a pre-emptive OS since 1993, threading and other issues for simultaneous application usage for users is far more mature in all of the NT products especially XP.
(And please don't flame me with how Unix has been preemptive since such and such. I know the history of Unix and I also know that difference between the NT kernel and what kernels are available in the Unix world.
And we would just waste ten messages debating why I disagree with Apple's OSX mach kernel decision. Which is why OSX on a whole is subject to less responsiveness than Linux or WindowsXP(NT).)
Sorry, but your message is the Sun spin that they push at the anti-Microsoft crowd.
I suggest you read the court documents instead of just purporting to have done so. No matter how many times you repeat it here, Microsoft was NOT given the option to just remove their windows extensions and continue making a JAVA VM.
You are more than just a bit paranoid to believe that Microsoft's adoption of JAVA was to kill it or make it a Windows only environment.
Microsoft fully embraced JAVA and by providing the ability to make windows calls from inside JAVA code, they were encouraging developers to move their 'existing' windows code to JAVA. Sun wasn't smart enough to realize this and screwed themselves by also being paranoid.
Trust me, I was involved with what Microsoft was doing with JAVA at the time and why they were doing it. It was not the 'evil' vision you or Sun have created, sadly it was the opposite. Microsoft was one of the strongest proponents of JAVA and even helped to get JavaScript into the standards of HTML and the web.
If they were truly as 'evil' about JAVA as you would believe then IE would not have supported JAVA or JavaScript long before it was common, and this was when Microsoft already had control of the browser market and IE was by default defining what was being developed for Web content.
One of my joint companies makes two products that compete directly with Microsoft products, and yet Microsoft provides our developers with full support, just as if we weren't direct competitors. Microsoft is not nearly as malicious as Sun would like for you to believe.
As for pocket books, I hope Sun and your open source world bring you wealth. I was worth several million even at age 25 by owning a software company that competed with Microsoft. That company even has software running on the international space station in place of another Microsoft solution. Why? Nasa found our product better and they even could have used Microsoft's for free.
I made my money the old fashioned way, by making better products, not by suing my competitors or telling everyone how evil all my competitors are.
Even Sun knows Java sucks, read the internal documents released on why the server developers inside Sun don't even want to be tied to JAVA because of its lack of speed, instability and security holes.
With that said, I no longer have the time to convince you of your ignorance. You are proud of it and determined to keep it.
Good day and don't get a SUNburn.
"Or, they could submit a patch to fix the hole -- which is something you couldn't do for Windows."
Actually a quick email and some of the top developers in the world would be doing it for me. Microsoft takes security holes pretty seriously. Had this experience already, and also saw the process in the Win2003 server beta.
I would rather trust my patch to the people that wrote the code and are some of the best in the technology industry.
"Unless you quote your sources, it's hard to take that claim seriously."
Try doing a web search, it isn't that hard.
Or, you could help figure out the bug, close the flaw, and improve the software. You are barred from doing using closed-source software, like Windows. You are utterly at their mercy to get the flaw fixed. You're powerless.
Not true, Windows is far more extensible than you understand. One company I work with specifically creates software that does just this. If they find functionality flaws, or problems with application compatibility, they create their own software. IT IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSISARY to modify the source to fix a problem or offer a better solution.
Shoot even look at software like StyleXP, you will notice that they dynamically patch the theme core of XP to allow native skinning. They don't have to change the source do this.
A good developer is not powerless to Microsoft. Part of making Windows the mainstream OS it is today is the assistance, guidance and customibility they offer their developers. You don't see millions of software programs for Windows just because it has always been the most popular OS, in fact it was the millions of applications that were so easily written on Windows that made it most popular OS. Were you even around in the early 90s to see this happen? Tools like Visual Basic and the Microsoft Developer Program were so essential in making Windows a success.
Take OS/2 for example, just to get the SDK for it you had to cough up $1500. The Windows SDK always has been and still is free.
Sure Open Source has some advantages, but 10 years ago, Microsoft was the company that was going out of its way to make developing easier for people and they were the 'anti-establishment' of the time, just like Linux is today. I wish everyone here remembered those days. Remembered the high Novell prices, Remembered the groups fighting over the technologies to the point where they never were even implemented. Anyone remember OpenDoc for example.
Microsoft was the first company to provide extensive support to developers with so many ways to interact with, modify and create software for a common standard platform.
They are better at helping developers than people realize. Check out MSDN, the site will even help people write HTML pages, and Microsoft doesn't own HTML. but there is tons of free help there anyway.
Duh, and where did I say anything different. Are you a total moron?
The only thing you are incorrect about is through the suit, Microsoft also had their rights to develop ANY VM revoked by Sun. So even if Microsoft wanted to roll over and do what Sun wanted by removing the 'windows extensions' that they felt violated the VM agreement with Microsoft, Microsoft STILL WAS PROHIBITED from creating, updating, modifying or making any form of Java VM.
Maybe you should do so research before you get on your high horse, cause you are going to get knocked off.
As taunting me to do research? My friend, I have read the court fillings and judgements and 'been involved' in this process. I am not a 19 year girlfriendless Linux zealot spreading rumors and crap.
Go support Sun, they have been so good to open source developers. (BTW Keep your check book handy, Sun likes big ones.)
"Not true. MS could have updated their JVM as many times as they wanted to. The only obstacles were that MS did not break the sun JAVA standard. MS is unable to to adhere to any standards so they chose not to upgrade."
This is pure BS, you know nothing about the court documents.
If Microsoft's RIGHT to distribute or work on their own Java VM was revoked by Sun. Even if Microsoft rolled over and said we will make Java as buggy as you want it to be on the other operating systems, Sun STILL would not have allowed them to make their own VM.
Again, why does everyone here think Sun is so wonderful.
1) They have screwed us over a technology that 7 years ago could have been great if they would have opened it up, or at least let it have a standards body and not be exclusively controlled by Sun.
2) Sun charges tons of money for their technology. Check their licensing fees, they make Microsoft look like a bargain vendor.
3) They have given the consumers and developers what? A closed system that is buggy at best, sucks at cross platform, and was put to shame when Microsoft was able to rewite their original code so that it was 10-20 times faster. (And this has nothing to do with the 'Windows extensions' Microsoft added 'for' JAVA developers trying to 'move' from a Windows only development world to pure Java.
Instead of seeing the extensions as a way to move developers to cross platform JAVA, Sun and everyone else seems to think it was tie Java developers to Windows. They totally missed the point and have no idea why Microsoft did what they did.
Go support Sun, just take good lube with ya, they like their high server fees and giving developers nothing.
Geesh...
Technically XP is still more secure than any variant of UNIX. XP is just 'exploited' for vulnerabilities because it comes from Microsoft and kiddies like to find the holes.
Open Source Linux is so easy to find a hole and attack that it isn't even funny. If someone smarter than the person that wrote the code can read it, then they can find a hole.
It is just people outside of the anti-Microsoft religion have better things to do than punch holes in Linux.
PS. According to studies (independant) there have been more holes and pathes for Linux than Windows 2000 and Windows XP combined.
Maybe it is time the people that aren't in the anti-Microsoft religion start reading your 'previous' open source code and show you how many holes your 'secure' OS has.
I know of a casual observer that knows of several himself, and he doesn't care enough about the open source crap to write something to exploit these holes.
Get real. If I can read your code, I can find every flaw to exploit. Period.
The bug is from the fact that SUN has PROHIBITED Microsoft from updating their JAVA VM since 1999.
If Microsoft was allowed to updated their VM, then stuff like this would not be happening.
Sun screwed themselves, this is not a Microsoft problem. Sun targeted Microsoft, other Java VM developers have been able to add 'extensions' to Java just like Microsoft did, Sun went after Microsoft because it was MICROSOFT.
Sun has gotten what they deserve. Trying to keep a technology propriety by strangling it to death.
JAVA is like a rock, it moves really slow and always sinks to the bottom.
I thought this board supported the open source movement, JAVA is far from this. C# was opened to the standards body for other vendors to create C#. JAVS had yet to do this, and never will.
Only a joke if you have no idea what you are talking about.
WM9 is still leaps ahead of MP3 variants. There is also still nothing that compares in video quaility.
And no I am not talking about just 64kbps rates either. How about WM9 128kbps variable bit rate? MP3 can't touch it. How about WM9 lossless? Do you think MP3 can compare to that? A 'lossless' compression for audio? Give me a break...
By your response I can only assume you are a AOL kiddie comparing WM7 technology or have no idea what WM9 encoding technologies are about.
Take time to look at what the other guys are doing before you pronounce how crappy their stuff is.
There is a reason why the motion picture industry is going with WM9 technologies. Like Dolby 7.1 Surround.
MP3 won't even do 5.1, geesh.
Ok WMV is a closed technology, but...
#1) It is the best quality out there right now
#2) Creating content for it is FREE - Microsoft provides the encoder technology for converting files as well as realtime encoding. (Something Real does not)
#3) You can serve it from any Windows Server without additional charges, it is a free part of Windows Server since NT4. (In other words no MPEG4 or RealAudio royalties) A option you currently dont't have even in the Linux world.
#4) It is a free part of Windows XP.
#%) And now it looks like it will be a free part of Linux..
Um.. They are really trying ot screw you, giving you a free technology. Them bastards.
Geesh...
"reasons to avoid wma, audio quality being one of them"
Are you high?
Audiophiles everywhere champion WMA as the best compression technology for Sound Quality. It is smaller and fully reproduces the original sound image better than any other technology currently available.
Check out the sound demonstrations all over the web that clip the original sound and the compressed version and then play what gets left out. You can easily hear that WMA misses very little of the sound Quality, where RealAudio misses a lot, and MP3 shows its age and misses a great amount of the sound quality.
The same with the video, compared to MPEG4 or Realaudio, WM9 video technology is 25% leaner and better looking at the same time.
Remember that Microsoft has put big bucks into R&D on the video and sound compression technologies. Don't under estimate what that kind of money can create for the consumer.
You can hate it for some reason, but at least pick a real one.