All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
How to make your Windows machine more stable and secure
Calum:
--- Quote from: muzzy ---"put it back or you cant use other stuff" applies to every system regarding dependencies. You can't really remove libc either. If it's statically linked, it's not removed. It's still there, and used.
--- End quote ---
i'm not really sure what you propose as a better model here.
are you suggesting that all functions be reimplemented from scratch for every program and process that wants to use them? and that libraries should only be usable by the specific application they are associated with? this sounds quite similar to having a "Program Files" directory with each program in its own directory with its own dlls but surely this has the potential (in the existing windows model anyway) for confusion between similarly named (but functionally different) libraries, and also, i can imagine it to be about as resource hungry as static linking, no?
it's clear i've misunderstood what you're proposing, please clarify.
skyman8081:
There is one(virus/spyware scanner), it's called chkrootkit, and it shoould be in every linux users cron.
remember, spyware needs only to run under a users account to collect and send data. A clever one would come as an rpm download and ask to install a needed library. the user say yes, and it installs a daemon that greps the net-logs for urls and sends it back. Granted, it would be harder, and less users to grab info from, but still possible.
Calum:
look *i'm* not saying linux doesn't need a virus checker (although for a number of reasons it is a lot less important than on a windows machine) however i am saying that i have a much easier time imagining a lot of linux users saying they don't need a virus checker, than that they don't need a firewall.
everybody needs a firewall, how could anybody not know this and be in charge of an internet connection?
muzzy:
Firewalls aren't needed for systems that don't provide services, or servers which aren't interested in filtering some ip ranges. Firewalls are needed for networks, when someone might connect something nasty there which you aren't responsible of. I ran unfirewalled windows 2000 for years without issues. When the DCOM exploits came out, I had already turned it off ages ago. I was slightly pissed about the RPC port still being open, microsoft wouldn't let me close it :(
Also, regarding linkage and stuff, I'm not proposing anything, that's your own interpretation. It seems you are against rewriting functionality from a scratch. If so, why are you against the internet functionality libraries that IE depends on?
Calum:
i'm not against rewriting functionality from scratch at all, i'm just thinking that if tons of programs need to implement the samething then some will do it worse than others, why not rely on the open source model and give everybody the benefit of the "best" way to do something? also, it represents a lot of time wasted and wheels reinvented if everybody holds their cards to their chest.
but for the purposes of getting rid of crufty old software with deeply embedded bugs for example, i'm all for rewriting for functionality's sake.
all i said btw was "i'm not sure what you're proposing", this is hardly me interpreting something, all i am saying is, you complain about something here (which i think is a minor point, but which you and other may not), but don't give any alternative, and i am kind of asking you what options you might put forward.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version