__/ [ Kelsey Bjarnason ] on Wednesday 14 March 2007 06:18 \__
> [snips]
>
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:28:57 +0000, Mike wrote:
>
>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> The restrictions on virtualization were discussed here a couple of
>>>> months ago, but now the more people are waking up to the EULA
>>>> restrictions.
>>>>
>>>> MS claims it is "necessary for security reasons" and that only the
>>>> "most technically savvy users, or people in companies with tech
>>>> support, probably could handle Vista in virtualization programs,
>>>> while home users should be steered away."
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_virtual_vista_2
>
>>
>> So the software is protective. You'd rather it would let anyone in?
>
> Except it's not, really.
>
> Virtualization doesn't really make anything more - or less - secure. If
> the host OS is secure, you're not going to hack it. If the client OS is
> secure, you're not going to hack that, either.
>
> You can, of course, use unsafe OSen or unsafe options at either level, but
> simply involving virtualization doesn't make things less secure.
It will become less secure when/if Ballmer foolishly shoves virtualisation
into an already-monolithic kernel, just in order to push away rivals.
A Software Maker Goes Up Against Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| When quizzed on Microsoft's plans, Mr. Ballmer replied, "Our view is
| that virtualization is something that should be built into the
| operating system."
`----
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/technology/24soft.html?ex=1172898000&en=bbca645a927ef7f8&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS
http://tinyurl.com/35jkur
Remember what happened with they combined Web browser (page rendering) and
file manahement in order to elbow Netscape?
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | FreeBSD - sidling with a little devil
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 411028k used, 103452k free, 35764k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|