Author
|
Topic: Microsoft Windows Officially Broken
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 04 October 2005 07:30 PM
Interesting article below around the next version of the Microsoft Windows operating system to be called "Vista".Apparently the development team had to stop mid-stream and start all over again pretty much from scratch. quote: Accordingly, according to the Journal, Microsoft then went down the Linux path of first developing a solid kernel for what's now called Vista. It is now adding the features it wants, one by one. Gates was eager for his programmers to add a fundamental change to Windows called WinFS that would let PC users search and organise information better. WinFS was so troublesome that engineers began talking about whether they could make the "pig fly". Images of pigs with wings started appearing in presentations and offices.
Not sure entirely what to make of this article. Could be M$' effort at spin to show that M$ Vista "truly is" different. Smart House article fixed link [ 06 October 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 06 October 2005 07:25 PM
quote: Judging by the four different "Installing Linux" threads, they should have their e-mail apps installed by then.
Magoo...screw off! The posts in the threads were/are in the spirit of folks trying to lend each other a hand with using a new O/S. Why not spend your energies trying to help folks out with stuff for a change instead of making "smart-alec" one liners. And BTW if you actually "read" the threads you'd find that not one individual complained about not being able to use their open source e-mail programme. Why don't you go off and scan for e-mail worms in M$ Outlook Express?
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 06 October 2005 07:47 PM
quote: Out of curiosity radio, do you have any guess on a timeframe when the likes of firefox,linux and company will start to seriously threaten microcrud? There a 300 billion plus company.
Right now according to the folks who survey these things, about 70% of web servers are running open source Apache server which mainly runs on Unix/Linux. I think around 20% run M$ IIS and the remainder run something else. Firefox has gone from nothing to a 5-10% share in a very short time...significant considering that M$ pretty much "owned" web browsing after the "browser wars" with Netscape...and that Firefox has no advertising budget to speak of. Its all been pretty much "word of mouth", newspaper, magazine and web articles. I've seen some numbers speculating that Linux could grab 5% of desktop computing within the next three years. That would put it ahead of the Mac. Its hard to measure, because I understand most of the surveys are based on "paid" copies of Linux from some of the more commercial distros like Red Hat, Novell Suse, Linspire etc. Its harder to measure all the folks who are using various "freebee" versions. If you look at some of the other threads, M$ is having a coniption fit over the state of Massachusetts adopting the "open document format" for government business...which M$ refuses to support...even though they could if they wanted to. Since the CBC lockout, I've found myself having to listen to private radio for local news...and I'm noticing all of the near saturation M$ Office radio ads. I think M$ is really scared that with the release of Open Office 2.0 in the works that alot of folks will decide that OO.o is "good enough" for whatever it is that they're doing...and for most users, it is. I think there is a real "window of opportunity" for open source between now and the release of Window$ Vista...and the subsequent release of Office 12 (where M$ will finally support the .pdf format). Most folks are going to need to do major hardware upgrades just to run M$' next O/S. Many folks will decide its simply not worth spending the money. quote: Gates' big problem is that everything he does hsas to be unique to Microsoft. Thus, WinFS. With all the file systems available, he has to use one that nobody else has. That explains the proprietary problem in a nutshell.
Speaking of which, M$ just lost a bid to "patent" the "FAT" file system used by Window$. ZDNet story [ 06 October 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 06 October 2005 11:14 PM
quote: What if I make them about "Windoze"? Would that be OK?
The thread over there is called "babblers helping babblers" so I don't care what you decide to help folks with. There have been plenty of threads over the years where folks have jumped in and helped folks out with their Window$ problems. You know...firewalling, anti-spyware, anti-virus ware, disk fragmentation and all those other wonderful things you have to protect yourself against on Window$ boxes.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
firecaptain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9305
|
posted 19 October 2005 04:44 PM
Apparently all the past and current Micrsoft operating systems including Windows XP were fundamentally flawed in the sense they were never designed to take into account the appearance of all the malware, viruses, worms, trojan horses and all the bad people trying to exploit the operating systems in order to cause all kinds of problems, such as taking control of computers, denials of service, theft of personal info etc. The patching of Windows XP are ultimatlely useless since they are only bandaids on a fundamentaly poorly designed operating system. Not to defend Windoes XP, the fact is Linux is fundamentally flawed when it comes to security. It is only because hackers have been primarily only targeting Windows that Linux appears to be more secure. Part of the reason for Linux's stability is the fact it is much leaner and not full of patches that have bloated Windows to a point of instabilty and slower execution of third party programs. All operating systems including the earliest were never designed with security in mind. with the emergence of rootkit attacks, not only are ALL systems at risk more then ever but an infected system does NOT even know it is infected. So for example if your computer has been compromised with a rootkit attack your computer could be under the control of a hacker and any firewall or virus program would NOT be able to even detect let alone remove the worm or virus from your machine. With a rootkit attack, the nefarious code is completely invisible to ALL current technology with the exception of a couple programs just now becoming available.
From: southwestern Ontario | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 19 October 2005 05:03 PM
quote: not only are ALL systems at risk more then ever but an infected system does NOT even know it is infected.
Well, it's not quite that bad. There are tools that write the baseline configuration out to a separately stored media and then have a read only boot system to compare it to the existing system. It's a hassle, but if you are serious about it it's doable. Security in computer systems has a long history. There have been systems designed to be secure from the ground up. They cost more than almost anyone is willing to pay (and I'm talking multi million dollar mainframe systems here). It's not an easy problem. OpenBSD has made code cleanliness and security (very closely related issues) a priority and have done a very good job on it.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|