Re: To the OP: Wintroll FUD about alleged insecurity refuted (was: Re: Linux why?)
- From: "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Dec 2006 07:02:08 -0800
Aragorn wrote:
Enter Windows NT. A microkernel which was largely stolen from VMS, onto
which a 32-bit Windows kernel was bolted. Security was also bolted on via
the NTFS filesystem and ACL's. But this security was *clearly* only bolted
on, because Windows could still be installed on a FAT32 partition, which
doesn't support ACL's.
I so wish I could find this, but I think it's been expunged from the
Net: at one time Bill Gates said something like "Windows NT is
effectively Unix" - he was referring to the Mach kernel parts of
course..
...
And Windows still isn't a mature operating system, and will never be. In
order to make such an operating system, Crimosoft would not only have to
totally rewrite Windows, but they'd also have to totally redesign it, and
so the endresult wouldn't be Windows anymore.
Well, they did rewrite/redesign.. and then poured a bunch of old crap
back in:
http://aplawrence.com/Security/windows_vista_hooks.html
Unlike in Windows - where you have to run as Administrator to be able to
work comfortably with the system - UNIX systems are designed so that all
normal work can be done - and must be done - as a regular, unprivileged
user. The system administrator account - also known as "the root account"
- is only to be used for system administration.
That's going to change with Vista.. not necessarily for the better:
http://aplawrence.com/Words2005/2005_06_15.html
--
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X Resources
http://aplawrence.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Linux, why?
- From: Edd
- Re: Linux, why?
- From: snm_uk
- Re: Linux, why?
- From: Aragorn
- Re: Linux, why?
- From: William Poaster
- Re: Linux, why?
- From: Edd
- Re: Linux, why?
- From: Sean
- To the OP: Wintroll FUD about alleged insecurity refuted (was: Re: Linux why?)
- From: Aragorn
- Linux, why?
- Prev by Date: Re: Preemption Model?
- Next by Date: Re: To the OP: Wintroll FUD about alleged insecurity refuted (was: Re: Linux why?)
- Previous by thread: Re: To the OP: Wintroll FUD about alleged insecurity refuted
- Next by thread: Re: To the OP: Wintroll FUD about alleged insecurity refuted (was: Re: Linux why?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|