L
Leythos
Didn't you just troll the poster that you replied to?
Didn't you just troll the poster that you replied to?
N
NoStop
hahaha ... "as far as you know" ... that's a good one.
Typical MickeyMouse shill - BLAME THE USER (victim).
Can you imagine today's web without javascript?
This is a MickeyMouse "innovation" and shouldn't be allowed on the Web.
These same users will undoubtedly be flocking to Vista as it will offer
dancing bunnies and not much else.
The Windoze XP installation routine does this by default. Why did
MickeyMouse do this? Probably doesn't make that much difference as Windoze
isn't a true multiuser operating system to start with.
Abated?
http://www.thehostingnews.com/article2057.html
"Malware, Worms and Viruses, Increase 240% in 2005
News
Glendale, California - (The Hosting News) - February 22, 2006 - Internet
security and virus alert company, PandaLabs, is reporting a 240% increase
in the number of new malware specimens detected in 2005. In all, over
46,000 new threats, including viruses, worms, Trojans, bots and other types
of malware, were detected in 2005, compared to 13,000 threats detected in
2004. "
"Therefore, by the end of this year, the number of new variants detected
could exceed 100,000, which is more than the computer threats detected in
the previous 20 years."
ALL directed at Windoze boxes, btw. Because they're so easy to target!
Rootkits are the up and coming means of attack. Here's a rather interesting
article:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=215403&liFlavourID=1
"Huge increase in Windows-targeted stealth malware
by Tash Shifrin
Tuesday 18 April 2006
Security experts have warned of a 700% rise in reports of rootkits ? malware
that actively conceals its existence using stealth technology ? over the
past year.
The most dramatic rise has been in rootkits targeted at Windows systems,
security firm McAfee said in a white paper, with the number of
Windows-based malware stealth components shooting up by 2,300% between 2001
and 2005.
Over the same period, the number of Linux-based rootkits has fallen to a
?negligible number?.
McAfee said the open source environment, online collaboration sites and
blogs were ?largely to blame for the increased proliferation and complexity
of rootkit components?.
It added that malware authors found the Windows platform ?an attractive
target? because of its huge installed base and the technical challenges it
posed.
Rootkits are also becoming more far more sophisticated, the white paper
said. Stealth technologies have moved from Trojans to other forms of
malware and potentially unwanted programs (PUPs).
The complexity of rootkits had increasing by 400% between 2000 and 2005, but
then shot up by 900% over the past year. "
Your wishful thinking. Linux certainly won't replace Windoze soon, but there
certainly is a growing user-base of new Linux users who have left Windoze
behind because they are sick and tired of the constant insecurities posed
by the toy operating system. Suse is now ready for the desktop without
question and has the support of a major player. IBM has invested $1 billion
into Linux. Believe it or not, Linux is no longer what it was just a few
years ago. Today it is an ALTERNATIVE to the Windoze desktop.
Personally I have my doubts because with 50 million lines of source code,
the vaste majority coming from earlier versions of Windoze, it doesn't look
to be anything more than XP with new eye-candy. But, the proof of the
pudding will be in the eating. Let's revisit this particular discussion say
6 months after Vista is released and see how successful MickeyMouse will
be.
Linux users tend to know better and some distros go out of their way to
discourage ordinary users from running as root. Eye-candy on its own does
not lead to more insecurity if the underlying operating system itself is
constructed to keep the operating system separate and apart from the user
space. The POSIX model does this. The Windoze model does not.
Your blind faith in Vista is a bit funny to contemplate, but expected from a
MickeyMouse shill I guess. As I said above, let's revisit this topic down
the road when Vista has had a chance to expose itself to the Net for a
while.
--
WGA is the best thing that has happened for Linux in a while.
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613
Is this a modern day equivalent of a Nazi youth rally?:
http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg
A 3D Linux Desktop (video) ...
View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://shots.osdir.com/
R
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Leythos said:
No. I didn't. If it had been trolling, I don't expect I would've thanked
him for his post and the link, but instead would have used his reply to
me in some other way than he intended.
"Trolling" seems to have taken on a new meaning in the time I was MIA
from usenet. Now, much like spam, it seems to mean "anything someone
posts that someone else doesn't like." I've been posting for 17 years,
and these are definitely not the good old days.
I'm not constitutionally capable of writing anything I don't believe to
be the truth, so I make a lousy troll. What you're seeing
elsewhere--because I assume that's the basis for your question--is a
lifelong knack for playing the straight man, and--in that one collection
of threads in acv--an absolute outrage at ridiculous predictions about
my future behavior--none of which were accurate.
But if the above is your working definition, then I guess I was
trolling. And because I post a lot of things that some people don't
like, I guess I'll have to resign myself to the accusation. I just think
it's demeaning to all the real trolls, many of whom I admire greatly for
their excellence at the craft.
rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
If you ever need some proof that time can heal your wounds,
just step inside my heart and walk around these rooms;
where the shadows used to be.... Mary Chapin Carpenter
G
Ground Cover
Inline:
It's true. For all I know, all you know, every system beyond the most simple
in your place and mine is "rooted".
Well, to a great extent the user has to share the blame. Maybe not the user
specifically, in some aspect. I jsut cleaned up a computer for a customer.
She had be completely trojaned / compromised / and spywared. She was also
running Windows XP Pro 2002 (RTM) without a single patch ever applied.
Microsoft made the patches available - but they were not applied. You
canbring a horse to water, but you can't .....
JavaScript was developed by Brendan Eich while he was a Netscape:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
This is why I included the history. There's a historical reason for this.
Microsoft started out supplying the OS for the little PC. The PC XT wasn't
considered a "mainframe"; it most usually did only word processing.
Microsoft did a reasonably good job with DOS - WP worked just fine on the
thing.
The malware authors are having to work more furiously for less. In fact, the
actual number of discovered vulnerabilities has gone way done. PC Mag has
report that more serious vulnerabilities have been discovered for Linux this
past year than for Windows.
But is the actual impact going up .. or down. I suspect it is going down.
And once Vista starts weighs in ..
Probably all variations on a theme.
Not really, not anymore. Windows Server 2003 is handling some pretty huge
computer operations.
But not a viable one. As per already premised in this sub-thread, Linux just
doesn't have the vendor support.
Well, Internet Explorer 7+ is already showing greater resistance and it's
still in beta.
But if Linux were more popular this would not be the case. Linux as a home /
small business / gamer platform, isn't having to deal as much with the user
who wants to see the dancing bunnies .. simply because it is not popular. If
it were, it would. Then what? The dancing bunnies would be dancing. Social
engineering emails would instruct hapless victims in how to log in as root
and run /bin/dancing_bunnies and so on. And they would. Why? They want to
see the dancing bunnies.
You will be disappointed. Why? Windows Vista will be harder to compromise.
IE7+ runs with user not admin privileges etc. etc, and so on .. My guess is
that overall, fewer people will be less affected less often and the impact
of malware will be reduced. Never-the-less, if a user insists on seeing the
dancing bunnies there will be some systems compromised regardless - but this
would happen with any popular OS.
<chop>
It's true. For all I know, all you know, every system beyond the most simple
in your place and mine is "rooted".
Well, to a great extent the user has to share the blame. Maybe not the user
specifically, in some aspect. I jsut cleaned up a computer for a customer.
She had be completely trojaned / compromised / and spywared. She was also
running Windows XP Pro 2002 (RTM) without a single patch ever applied.
Microsoft made the patches available - but they were not applied. You
canbring a horse to water, but you can't .....
JavaScript was developed by Brendan Eich while he was a Netscape:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
This is why I included the history. There's a historical reason for this.
Microsoft started out supplying the OS for the little PC. The PC XT wasn't
considered a "mainframe"; it most usually did only word processing.
Microsoft did a reasonably good job with DOS - WP worked just fine on the
thing.
The malware authors are having to work more furiously for less. In fact, the
actual number of discovered vulnerabilities has gone way done. PC Mag has
report that more serious vulnerabilities have been discovered for Linux this
past year than for Windows.
But is the actual impact going up .. or down. I suspect it is going down.
And once Vista starts weighs in ..
Probably all variations on a theme.
Not really, not anymore. Windows Server 2003 is handling some pretty huge
computer operations.
But not a viable one. As per already premised in this sub-thread, Linux just
doesn't have the vendor support.
Well, Internet Explorer 7+ is already showing greater resistance and it's
still in beta.
But if Linux were more popular this would not be the case. Linux as a home /
small business / gamer platform, isn't having to deal as much with the user
who wants to see the dancing bunnies .. simply because it is not popular. If
it were, it would. Then what? The dancing bunnies would be dancing. Social
engineering emails would instruct hapless victims in how to log in as root
and run /bin/dancing_bunnies and so on. And they would. Why? They want to
see the dancing bunnies.
You will be disappointed. Why? Windows Vista will be harder to compromise.
IE7+ runs with user not admin privileges etc. etc, and so on .. My guess is
that overall, fewer people will be less affected less often and the impact
of malware will be reduced. Never-the-less, if a user insists on seeing the
dancing bunnies there will be some systems compromised regardless - but this
would happen with any popular OS.
<chop>
L
Leythos
There was no accusation, only a question to see what you thought. Had I
wanted to "accuse" you of being a troll I would have done so directly.
Having been on Usenet since 84, I've seen the changes too, and the
addition of file attachments was the biggest BAD thing that's happened
to Usenet, along with HTML enabled Usenet clients
R
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Leythos said:There was no accusation, only a question to see what you thought. Had
I wanted to "accuse" you of being a troll I would have done so
directly.
Having been on Usenet since 84, I've seen the changes too, and the
addition of file attachments was the biggest BAD thing that's happened
to Usenet, along with HTML enabled Usenet clients
<troll> Well, we know where to squarely lay the blame for that, now
don't we?
<laughing> Sorry. Couldn't resist.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
If you ever need some proof that time can heal your wounds,
just step inside my heart and walk around these rooms;
where the shadows used to be.... Mary Chapin Carpenter
N
NoStop
Oh puhleeze ... I use chkrootkit ( http://www.chkrootkit.org/ ). What do you
use to check your Windoze boxes for rootkits?
MickeyMouse has been notorious for taking its sweet time in making patches
available. In fact, the longest time from discovery to patch of any major
software producer other than Sun. On top of that, some of its security
patches have caused MAJOR problems for many computers that updated, making
users leery about jumping in to pick up a patch until they've gotten
feedback from other users. MickeyMouse's use of a critical update to plant
WGA on users systems adds to the concern.
I was talking about ActiveX as being a MickeyMouse "innovation". Can you
follow a thread?
Well you suspect wrong.
"Stats from at least three different security vendors make clear the trend,
perhaps even bode well for their businesses: Malware is growing.
Although virus rates themselves may be falling, Trojans are picking up the
slack at an alarming rate, the vendors said.
Another common trend: The growth of malware is almost exclusively targeted
at Windows operating system-based PC's, prompting one security vendor to
advise users to switch to Apple Macs.
They all found similar staggering stats on the amount of malware out there."
http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3618381
From same article:
"The introduction of new security measures, including some planned for
Vista, may slow down the rate at which machines are impacted by malware,
O'Brien said. But its unlikely the trend will go away. "Vista will be a
hurdle but not an obstacle."
And the trend as pointed out is GROWING not declining.
So you know or are you once again surmising? You seem to do alot of that.
I don't know how you judge "huge". What I'd call "huge" would be something
like Google. Now that's huge!!! Funny, but it runs on Linux.
So looking at "huge computer operations" take a look at the following:
*** "GNU/Linux dominates in supercomputing: it is used in 78% of the world?s
500 fastest supercomputers use GNU/Linux, most of the world?s ten fastest
supercomputers... including the world?s most powerful supercomputer (as of
March and November 2005). By March 2005 Forbes noted that 60% of the
world?s fastest supercomputers use GNU/Linux, using data from Top500 to
determine which computers are the world?s fastest. Of those top 500, the
best available information shows that 301 run GNU/Linux, 189 on Unix, 2 on
FreeBSD (another OSS/FS Unix variant), and one on Microsoft?s Windows. A
few machines? operating systems are unknown, but even so, Forbes says
?Linux clearly is by far the top choice for high-performance computing.?"
*** "Joe Greenseid reported on LWN that this dominance is even more obvious
is the top ten supercomputers as of March 2005; GNU/Linux systems account
for 8 out of the top 10. Six of these ten were made by IBM, including five
Blue Gene systems and one PPC Cluster. Third place is held by an SGI Altix
running GNU/Linux. Thunder, an Intel Itanium2 Tiger4 ?white box? system,
holds seventh place and runs GNU/Linux."
*** "More recent data from November 2005 shows this as an increasing trend.
Jay Lyman?s November 15, 2005 article Linux continues supercomputer
domination notes that on the November 2005 Top500 list, 78% of the world?s
fastest machines (391/500) rely on Linux, far more than anything else.
Seven of the top 10 systems are running GNU/Linux (the other three run AIX,
UNICOS, and Super-UX), and as with the March 2005 survey, the fastest
supercomputer in the world runs on GNU/Linux. In contrast, ?Microsoft
Windows didn?t even turn up on the list.? Erich Strohmaier, co-founder and
editor of the Top500 list, said that the OSS/FS ?Linux is the dominating OS
in the supercomputing community and will keep this role... If anything, it
will only enlarge its prevalence.? In fact, he believes that ?no other
operating system is likely to be used as much as [GNU/]Linux in the
foreseeable Top500 future.? "
http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
Greater resistance than what? If you're comparing it to IE 6 then you
certainly aren't setting the bar very high, are you?
How silly. Do you have any idea how open source software is developed and
distributed? Do you think Linux users just come across a piece of software
somewhere and get convinced to install it, like Windoze users always do?
Linux distros have packaging systems and the packages are SIGNED. Sure a
Linux user can go to a place like sourceforge and pickup the source code
and compile an application himself and run it. But code sitting in a
repository like sourceforge is totally vetted.
It's becoming more and more obviously that you really don't understand open
source at all. You're coming at it with a preconceived Windoze-mindset.
Things in the open source world are not like what you're obviously familiar
with and used to, or else you wouldn't be making such silly statements. Go
out grasshopper and learn, then we can carry on an intelligent discussion.
I said we'll see. I said I have my doubts. You are so certain. I'm not,
because I've seen the history of stuff from MickeyMouse.
But can the malware picked up by IE7 be prevented from writing bits to the
Windoze registry? Have they plugged the ability of any software program run
on Windoze to write what it wants to wherever it wants within the registry?
Will Vista do this? Will all software have to be rewritten to run on Vista
now that it is unable to write to the registry whenever it wants to?
Your "guess". Just what do you base this on? Because MickeyMouse says its
so? Didn't they say XP was the most secure o/s they ever produced and it
proved to be just the opposite?
Not so. See above.
--
WGA is the best thing that has happened for Linux in a while.
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613
Is this a modern day equivalent of a Nazi youth rally?:
http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg
A 3D Linux Desktop (video) ...
View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://shots.osdir.com/
G
Ground Cover
Higher numbers of malwares written doesn't mean higher infection rates .. it
probably means the old versions do not work well anymore and they are
scrambling to find things that do. XP SP2 has reduced the impact of malware.
There might be more malware written, but the writers are having a tougher
time. So sure, a lot of it is written, maybe more than ever, but the writers
have a harder time of it.
Why, on earth, would one need a root kit checker for Linux ?? Oh, let me
guess - Linux can be rooted. Now if Linux were popular there'd be emails
galore with Linux compatible binaries - "dancing_bunnies" - and there's be
scores of people running those binaries and scores of Linux boxes getting
rooted. As it is, Redhat has to issue hundreds of megabytes of updates to
the gigabytes it typically installs to a computer.
You're living in a dreamworld Neo, Linux is just the blinders Torvalds has
pulled over your eyes .. time to take the red pill:
http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2006/Jun/0137.html
"Rutkowska stressed that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any
bug of the underlying operating system. "I have implemented a working
prototype for Vista x64, but I see no reasons why it should not be
possible to port it to other operating systems, like Linux or BSD
which can be run on x64 platform"
probably means the old versions do not work well anymore and they are
scrambling to find things that do. XP SP2 has reduced the impact of malware.
There might be more malware written, but the writers are having a tougher
time. So sure, a lot of it is written, maybe more than ever, but the writers
have a harder time of it.
Why, on earth, would one need a root kit checker for Linux ?? Oh, let me
guess - Linux can be rooted. Now if Linux were popular there'd be emails
galore with Linux compatible binaries - "dancing_bunnies" - and there's be
scores of people running those binaries and scores of Linux boxes getting
rooted. As it is, Redhat has to issue hundreds of megabytes of updates to
the gigabytes it typically installs to a computer.
You're living in a dreamworld Neo, Linux is just the blinders Torvalds has
pulled over your eyes .. time to take the red pill:
http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2006/Jun/0137.html
"Rutkowska stressed that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any
bug of the underlying operating system. "I have implemented a working
prototype for Vista x64, but I see no reasons why it should not be
possible to port it to other operating systems, like Linux or BSD
which can be run on x64 platform"
G
Gray
NoStop take a look at some real specs.
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
Oh maybe you need that RED pill first.
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
Oh maybe you need that RED pill first.
C
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:41:13 -0400, "Ground Cover"
There's security, and that is based on safety. Security goes about
not letting Fred do what only Pete is supposed to do, and that was
indeed not a concern with stand-alone Personal Computer.
Not really, no - unless you're referring to a handful of insiders,
perhaps - and I suspect, not even that. After the XT came the 286,
and only with the 386 that followed that, did Windows start to gain
momentum. It was around this time that Internet started to catch on,
as opposed to BBSs that pervaded earlier.
Wrong. The av industry started and flourished in the days of DOS,
when viruses spread via infected disks and executable programs.
Folks used diskettes all the time, in those days; it was how files,
software etc. were distributed. If you wanted a shareware program,
you'd take a diskette to someone with a modem who would look for it on
various BBSs, download it, and copy it onto your diskette. If you
liked it, you might upload it to other BBSs.
That's where the innocence was; in accepting host-to-user-to-host as a
safe way to distribute shareware and free software. Often the code
files on a BBS would be infected, and would infect whoever downloaded
and used them. Everyone was aware of this; most BBSs would warn you
of the risk, disclaim responsability, and advise you to scan downloads
with an antivirus utility before use.
There was a solid concern for safety - users knew about viruses and
av, they knew that .exe, .com and .bat files were potentially
dangerous, and the OS wasn't dumb enough to run any other files as
code. IOW, the safety was from a clear data vs. code distinction.
I disagree. Folks weren't so stupid as to automatically run macros in
"documents", let BBSs automatically drop and run code on visitors' PCs
the way web sites today, or auto-run scripts in email "message text".
That stupidity came later, and we are still paying for it.
Total bollocks. Firstly, it was launched from DOS but did not "run on
DOS" unless you chose to start up in Safe Mode. Secondly, there was
more stability and design impact from the need to run programs written
for Win3.yuk than DOS; whereas DOS sessions were pre-emptively
multitasked like Win32 apps, Win16 apps competitively (sorry,
"co-operatively") multitasked just as they did in the Mac.
The 64k heap issue also arose from Win3.yuk compatibility needs,
rather than anything to do with DOS.
DOS wasn't the enemy...
Win2000 is NT 5.0, and NT predated Win95. NT was originally supposed
to be the new 32-bit Windows for everybody, but it became clear that
it was not going to run faster, and would need far more RAM just to be
able to run at the same speed.
So it was repositioned as a hi-end stability wonder, for big expensive
servers and workstations.
Win95 followed this debacle, while NT continued as a niche product,
through 3.1 to 3.5 to 4.0 and Service Packs. As a niche business
product, it soon became network-centric and orientated towards
professional network administration.
This is where your "security" (as opposed to "safety") came from - the
need to administer different users with different levels of trust and
expertise. But there was a downside to that, too.
Actually, the early web wasn't such a dangerous place - and not only
because ppl weren't nasty (viruses were already common, and generally
far more destructive than today) but because plain HTML behaved like a
true data type, i.e. it was safe to "view" without "running code".
The industry started to push scripting and cookies into HTML so that
web sites could better exploit their visitors - use the visitor's
storage as an ash tray (cookies) and push the processing load (and
with it, risk of program errors) as well (scripts, Java).
Netscape and IE were competing, and trying to attract web developers
with power that was unique to their particular browser. With
Netscape, it was "buy the server software that is most likely to match
the de facto browser standard that we give away free". With MS, it
was "we'll give you even more ways to program users' PCs, and we will
gain market share by giving our browser away free with Windows".
You can track the "virus storms" to design safety failures...
- macro viruses to MS Office auto-running scripts
- script malware to unfamiliar and hidden file name extensions
- Melissa etc. to Outlook's scriptability from Word, etc.
- Kak and similar to auto-running scripts in email "message text"
- Lovesan and Sasser etc. to NT's focus as "network client"
Win9x was designed as a stand-alone OS, whereas NT became a "network
client". Until this "network client" was widely deployed through
stand-alone consumerland via XP, we didn't see pure network worms that
spread globally within minutes via clickless attack.
The user needs to regain the knowledge that was common in the DOS
days; that data files can be safely viewed, and that other files are
code and thus dangerous to run.
They lack this ability because Microsoft hides that information (file
name extensions off by default, now multiple code extensions to worry
about, and the dumb-ass "open" concept).
Not only that, but contexts that should be as safe as "viewing data"
are no longer safe, because by design, MS breaks the code/data barrier
(autorunning macros and scripts, CDs autorun when inserted, etc.).
It gets worse; even when MS does show you what a file is supposed to
be, it will let the file lie successfully. The most dangerous files
types (.exe) are free to set whatever icon they like, and thus (as
file name extensions are hidden by default) they can pretend to be
data files and appear to be low risk. In many contexts, if a hi-risk
file type is named as if it is a lo-risk type, Windows considers this
to be an "honest mistake" and runs it in the hi-risk way.
So, is this the "security" you were referring to? Or is this the
point at which we became stupidly trusting and insecure?
PC = Personal Computer. If you own your own computer and are not
beholden to any boss or network admin, then YES, you have the right to
run as root - in fact, you are the only one to have that right.
What modern PCs do, is leave the system so wide open that anything can
walk right in and act with the same rights as the user - that is why
today's users have to cower in the "lowered rights" basement, while
all sorts of user-hostile code stomps around as "system" (think DRM).
Why should consumers have to pretend to be certified sysadmins
managing multiple office workers, just because that was how NT was
designed before being dropped on consumers as-is?
Ah, Vista's another story...
Vista may fix old mistakes but make new ones. There's still the
stupid "I'll do it for you!" and "you don't have to know anything!"
nonsense that got us into trouble in the first place - underfootware
services that grope files you had no intention to run, expanded
directory metadata that gets complex enough to exploit, and a shell
that encourages users to be clueless about where files are.
By definition, every user has the right to modify thier data. So as
long as the design is stupid enough to allow all software to run with
the user's rights, any software can destroy the user's data.
That is why I consider lowered user rights as being near useless when
it comes to protecting the user's interests. They may be helpful in
reducing vendor support costs, but that's another set of needs.
Oh boy - the error count is offscale here. For starters, DOS isn't a
"language" (nor is it particularly powerful), and Windows hasn't been
DOS-based since the original Win95.
In fact, DOS itself started out as a CPM workalike, before it switched
to copy UNIX functionality instead. That's why we have UNIX-like
directories and redirection, yet CPM-like drive letter and path vs.
parameter delimiter syntax.
However, DOS wasn't multitasking, multi-user, or as connectivity-savvy
as UNIX. That would only be attempted once Intel came up with a
protected mode that worked properly, after the 286 fiasco.
....DOS was already dominant, because the PC was already dominant.
The PC was dominant because it was open hardware (IBM tried to take
the ball back with PS/2, and got kicked out of the game instead).
DOS was dominant because IBM adopted it, and Bill G et al were
successful because IBM didn't lock DOS to the PC, so that Microsoft
could sell it for any IBM-compatible PC.
Now let's look at the decisions your superior platforms were making at
this time, and subsequently. Apple kept their sphincter screwed
tight, just like an '80s "home computer" dinosaur company, so that you
had to buy Apple's computers to run Apple's OS. UNIX was split over
numerous incompatible platforms, so that binary-level run-anywhere was
but a dream, and hardware was costly and skills requirements high.
So yes, at both hardware and OS levels, Apple and UNIX (and Sun etc.)
offered superior solutions at the outset, but were too piggy to get
the big picture. With smaller market share, the platforms were slower
to grow and improve, so that the PC overcame the handicap and won.
There's security, and that is based on safety. Security goes about
not letting Fred do what only Pete is supposed to do, and that was
indeed not a concern with stand-alone Personal Computer.
Not really, no - unless you're referring to a handful of insiders,
perhaps - and I suspect, not even that. After the XT came the 286,
and only with the 386 that followed that, did Windows start to gain
momentum. It was around this time that Internet started to catch on,
as opposed to BBSs that pervaded earlier.
Wrong. The av industry started and flourished in the days of DOS,
when viruses spread via infected disks and executable programs.
Folks used diskettes all the time, in those days; it was how files,
software etc. were distributed. If you wanted a shareware program,
you'd take a diskette to someone with a modem who would look for it on
various BBSs, download it, and copy it onto your diskette. If you
liked it, you might upload it to other BBSs.
That's where the innocence was; in accepting host-to-user-to-host as a
safe way to distribute shareware and free software. Often the code
files on a BBS would be infected, and would infect whoever downloaded
and used them. Everyone was aware of this; most BBSs would warn you
of the risk, disclaim responsability, and advise you to scan downloads
with an antivirus utility before use.
There was a solid concern for safety - users knew about viruses and
av, they knew that .exe, .com and .bat files were potentially
dangerous, and the OS wasn't dumb enough to run any other files as
code. IOW, the safety was from a clear data vs. code distinction.
I disagree. Folks weren't so stupid as to automatically run macros in
"documents", let BBSs automatically drop and run code on visitors' PCs
the way web sites today, or auto-run scripts in email "message text".
That stupidity came later, and we are still paying for it.
Total bollocks. Firstly, it was launched from DOS but did not "run on
DOS" unless you chose to start up in Safe Mode. Secondly, there was
more stability and design impact from the need to run programs written
for Win3.yuk than DOS; whereas DOS sessions were pre-emptively
multitasked like Win32 apps, Win16 apps competitively (sorry,
"co-operatively") multitasked just as they did in the Mac.
The 64k heap issue also arose from Win3.yuk compatibility needs,
rather than anything to do with DOS.
DOS wasn't the enemy...
Win2000 is NT 5.0, and NT predated Win95. NT was originally supposed
to be the new 32-bit Windows for everybody, but it became clear that
it was not going to run faster, and would need far more RAM just to be
able to run at the same speed.
So it was repositioned as a hi-end stability wonder, for big expensive
servers and workstations.
Win95 followed this debacle, while NT continued as a niche product,
through 3.1 to 3.5 to 4.0 and Service Packs. As a niche business
product, it soon became network-centric and orientated towards
professional network administration.
This is where your "security" (as opposed to "safety") came from - the
need to administer different users with different levels of trust and
expertise. But there was a downside to that, too.
Actually, the early web wasn't such a dangerous place - and not only
because ppl weren't nasty (viruses were already common, and generally
far more destructive than today) but because plain HTML behaved like a
true data type, i.e. it was safe to "view" without "running code".
The industry started to push scripting and cookies into HTML so that
web sites could better exploit their visitors - use the visitor's
storage as an ash tray (cookies) and push the processing load (and
with it, risk of program errors) as well (scripts, Java).
Netscape and IE were competing, and trying to attract web developers
with power that was unique to their particular browser. With
Netscape, it was "buy the server software that is most likely to match
the de facto browser standard that we give away free". With MS, it
was "we'll give you even more ways to program users' PCs, and we will
gain market share by giving our browser away free with Windows".
You can track the "virus storms" to design safety failures...
- macro viruses to MS Office auto-running scripts
- script malware to unfamiliar and hidden file name extensions
- Melissa etc. to Outlook's scriptability from Word, etc.
- Kak and similar to auto-running scripts in email "message text"
- Lovesan and Sasser etc. to NT's focus as "network client"
Win9x was designed as a stand-alone OS, whereas NT became a "network
client". Until this "network client" was widely deployed through
stand-alone consumerland via XP, we didn't see pure network worms that
spread globally within minutes via clickless attack.
The user needs to regain the knowledge that was common in the DOS
days; that data files can be safely viewed, and that other files are
code and thus dangerous to run.
They lack this ability because Microsoft hides that information (file
name extensions off by default, now multiple code extensions to worry
about, and the dumb-ass "open" concept).
Not only that, but contexts that should be as safe as "viewing data"
are no longer safe, because by design, MS breaks the code/data barrier
(autorunning macros and scripts, CDs autorun when inserted, etc.).
It gets worse; even when MS does show you what a file is supposed to
be, it will let the file lie successfully. The most dangerous files
types (.exe) are free to set whatever icon they like, and thus (as
file name extensions are hidden by default) they can pretend to be
data files and appear to be low risk. In many contexts, if a hi-risk
file type is named as if it is a lo-risk type, Windows considers this
to be an "honest mistake" and runs it in the hi-risk way.
So, is this the "security" you were referring to? Or is this the
point at which we became stupidly trusting and insecure?
PC = Personal Computer. If you own your own computer and are not
beholden to any boss or network admin, then YES, you have the right to
run as root - in fact, you are the only one to have that right.
What modern PCs do, is leave the system so wide open that anything can
walk right in and act with the same rights as the user - that is why
today's users have to cower in the "lowered rights" basement, while
all sorts of user-hostile code stomps around as "system" (think DRM).
Why should consumers have to pretend to be certified sysadmins
managing multiple office workers, just because that was how NT was
designed before being dropped on consumers as-is?
Ah, Vista's another story...
Vista may fix old mistakes but make new ones. There's still the
stupid "I'll do it for you!" and "you don't have to know anything!"
nonsense that got us into trouble in the first place - underfootware
services that grope files you had no intention to run, expanded
directory metadata that gets complex enough to exploit, and a shell
that encourages users to be clueless about where files are.
By definition, every user has the right to modify thier data. So as
long as the design is stupid enough to allow all software to run with
the user's rights, any software can destroy the user's data.
That is why I consider lowered user rights as being near useless when
it comes to protecting the user's interests. They may be helpful in
reducing vendor support costs, but that's another set of needs.
Oh boy - the error count is offscale here. For starters, DOS isn't a
"language" (nor is it particularly powerful), and Windows hasn't been
DOS-based since the original Win95.
In fact, DOS itself started out as a CPM workalike, before it switched
to copy UNIX functionality instead. That's why we have UNIX-like
directories and redirection, yet CPM-like drive letter and path vs.
parameter delimiter syntax.
However, DOS wasn't multitasking, multi-user, or as connectivity-savvy
as UNIX. That would only be attempted once Intel came up with a
protected mode that worked properly, after the 286 fiasco.
....DOS was already dominant, because the PC was already dominant.
The PC was dominant because it was open hardware (IBM tried to take
the ball back with PS/2, and got kicked out of the game instead).
DOS was dominant because IBM adopted it, and Bill G et al were
successful because IBM didn't lock DOS to the PC, so that Microsoft
could sell it for any IBM-compatible PC.
Now let's look at the decisions your superior platforms were making at
this time, and subsequently. Apple kept their sphincter screwed
tight, just like an '80s "home computer" dinosaur company, so that you
had to buy Apple's computers to run Apple's OS. UNIX was split over
numerous incompatible platforms, so that binary-level run-anywhere was
but a dream, and hardware was costly and skills requirements high.
So yes, at both hardware and OS levels, Apple and UNIX (and Sun etc.)
offered superior solutions at the outset, but were too piggy to get
the big picture. With smaller market share, the platforms were slower
to grow and improve, so that the PC overcame the handicap and won.
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)