Bart Silverstrim writes: > From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was > bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD people were > immature children.
They do a much better job than the FreeBSD project does, no doubt about that. > Is this evidence to the contrary, that MS isn't the > pinnacle of perfection in dealing with every software issue? No, it's evidence that you never talk to developers when you call the support line. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOSS Thanks. Just today I was hoping for some new acronyms, it's been hours since I last encountered one. > Especially in projects driven by money and politics in a workplace, and > with looming deadlines. Yes, but also in projects with no profit motive at all. Many developers love to write code, but hate to design and test. So they bloat what they write just for their own enjoyment. > You can do the job to get it shoved out the door or do the job right. Doing it right often means doing it at a loss. > B) The "More popular thus more exploited" is a crap argument. The statistics seem to support it. > Windows was "designed" for single user non-network desktops. Not Windows NT and its successors. They were designed as network-aware multiuser desktops. They originally had a strong server emphasis, although that has gradually shifted back towards the more profitable desktop, to the detriment of server environments. > That "30 year old UNIX" was better designed for network sharing and > multiple users in scant resources. Yes. Unfortunately it's a poor desktop. > If apologists would get their heads out of their butts they'd see that > it isn't always "There's more Windows, thus easier to exploit!", it's > "Windows' design is inherently less secure, so it's easier to target!", > as well as a healthy dose of "the average Windows user is more clueless > than the average Linux user!" thrown in to boot. It's a bit of all of these, but mostly the number of installed seats and the fact that it's a desktop used by unsophisticated users. > Many of the features in the recent "The Road to Windows "Longhorn" > 2005" article on Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows seems oddly to > match many of the features already available on OS X... Many features of OS X seem oddly to match many of the features already available on Windows. > Hmm, wonder why...could it be because of the security imposed by > "UNIX" under OS X that makes that kind of model a decent tradeoff of > usability and security in the first place? I have to smile when I hear UNIX held up as an example of a secure system. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, I suppose. Current Windows systems have a much stronger security model than UNIX; it just isn't used, because users wouldn't be happy if they had to deal with it. > If it wasn't such a pain in the butt for Joe Sixpack to use, ideas in > EROS would help a helluva lot more on the desktop for security. > Security is an inconvenience. Users want mindless interactions. > Somewhere it meets in the middle in order to be usable. Yes. But this isn't a problem with the OS. -- Anthony _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
