Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Tom Yager Confirms: Windows Inherently Insecure


"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ecmm12$rgd$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ivan Drago wrote:


Roy Schestowitz wrote:
< snip >

Processes and ownership are an important matter. Windows implements a
pseudo-multi-user model because it wasn't (at least initially) built for
more than a single user.

Bullshit. Win2k, XP and Vista all are from NT code base which is mutli user, multi processor, multi tasking and multi threaded from very first day.


Learn to read (at least very simple sentences). He (rightly) claims that windows does pseudo-multi-user only. And he is right. Come on, sucky, tell us how to run with 10 users (or 100 / 1000 / 10000) simultaniously on the very same windows-box. Be precise

I believe in the server versions of Windows, multi-user is "automatic" in the sense that you don't have to do anything special to get 10, 100, 1000 or 10000 users simultaniously on the very same windows-box. I don't recall if I was using the 2000 or 2003 edition, but I had to do some remote developing, and shared the same machine with 7 other developers. In the middle of Visual Studio 2003 coding, I'd get notifications that the administrator was changing some settings, and that I should log out, and log back in in 5 minutes, for example. I could also text-message the other developers (e.g. "I've just modified this directory, refresh it to see the changes").


The desktop versions of Windows are, as you say, pseudo-multi-user. So your statement is only true for a small subset of the Windows series of operating systems.

- Oliver


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index