__/ [ p5000011@xxxxxxxxx ] on Friday 06 April 2007 05:49 \__
> On Apr 6, 5:13 am, flyer <f...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It can only be replaced.
>>
>> A common recurring theme over the years within technical papers and just
>> plain informed discussion, is that Windows is broken deep down inside
>> throughout every version, not just within the occasional lemon.
>
> There are so many inter-dependancies within Windows that it is
> unmanageable. Vista is proving this. Not only have a lot of
> vulnerabilities been found already but the patches are causing other
> problems. In fact this problem was noticed years ago. To think after 5
> years Microsoft release an OS that offers very little new
> functionality but is still riddled with vulnerabilities.
They only worked on it for 6 months, then 9 months of testing. 4 years got
thrown down the wastebasket. That in iteself is even /more/ telling.
Throwing away 4 years of work was the /better/ option.
>> Sometimes it is broken by design, and sometimes by sheer negligence
>> inspired by low standards.
>
> The only thing broken by design in Windows is to break
> interoperability of any 3rd party SW that competes with Microsoft
> products. Windows, as an OS is simply broken.
>
>> Of course patches, thick bandaids, and layers of whitewash appeared to
>> allieviate, at least temporarily, problems, yet the security holes and
>> stability issues continued unabated to this day -- literally unabated,
>> like the daily ocean tide.
>
> Because of the spaghetti 'design' of Windows it will always be
> insecure. How many Microsoft patches have not fixed the problem
> properly, added new vulnerabilities, broken 3rd part apps or all of
> these? Many
>
> [snip]
Had the O/S been built properly in the first place, no apps would have
'broken' (compatibility wise).
>> The obvious only salvation for MS is to produce an open source OS. It
>> will however have to be all new code, for to open Windows source to
>> public scrutiny would provide adequate evidence to feed nearly an
>> eternity of class action lawsuits.
>
> Microsoft should have done an Apple. Realise that their OS is shit and
> chosen to build a new OS based on one of the free OS's available to
> them. There is a reason why *nix (I include Linux here as it is
> designed on Unix) has not only survived for 30 years and more and is
> becoming more and more popular. It was well designed from a KISS point
> of view.
>
>> Will be interesting to watch MS squirm in their dirt.
>
> Windows is a dinosaur and we know what happened to them. *nix evolves.
> Weak forks die out. Strong forks survive. OSS development truly is
> evolution in SW. Many people work on it. The best ideas are adopted.
> Weak ones fade away. An example is when Linux needed a better VFS.
> Several models were independantly developed. The best was chosen.
> Closed source developers just don't have that luxury.
Yes, it's an analogy that I like to use. Just look at Beryl and Compiz, which
now merge the best of both worlds. There was a friendly battle and different
routes taken.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Download Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 134 total, 1 running, 128 sleeping, 0 stopped, 5 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
