All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
How to make your Windows machine more stable and secure
muzzy:
Calum, if there's still something unclear IE's integratedness, go ahead. I've stated my views already, which are to say that the "integratedness" is not a security issue, and IE isn't necessary for system operation although Windows itself doesn't want you to uninstall it. You're free to download a third party tool such as nlite to remove anything you want to.
jtpenrod:
It sucks that so many people hate technically superior system due to marketing practices and other issues. I suspected earlier that people oppose Microsoft for ideological reasons and now I'm sure this is most likely true even in the cases where people claim otherwise.
What is "best" always relates to some specific use and specific requirements. Windows isn't "the best operating system" for this reason alone, such a concept as "universally best" just doesn't exist.
From one post to another, you contradict yourself. What constitutes "technically superior"? You have already admitted that the whole Win 9x series is not "technically superior", nor do you seem to think all that highly of Win XP either. The comment in red is the correct one. There are no "ideal" solutions out there, never were, never will be.
In many ways, Linux is the "technically superior" platform. If I were setting up a server farm, Win-d'ohs would be my absolute last choice. When it comes to setting up a system for a routine, run-of-the-mill user who's largely atechnological, and not interested in learning, then, perhaps, XP would be the best choice. As for myself, it is not an option. I'm too enamoured of the configurability of the *NIX's. My desktop of choice is Enlightenment. Now, should I decide to get KDE, GNOME, IceWM, etc. it's NBD to install one or more, plus a desktop switcher, and I can still keep Enlightenment. Change the desktop in XP, and it's quite a job of hacking, nor do you have the option of easily switching desktops and themes. XP just is not as configurable.
Furthermore, Linux is a better platform for learning programming. The RAD development kits that come with Win * are certainly convenient and you can move apps out the door quickly with them. However, these dumbed-down development environments lead to lazy, dumbed-down developers. A pretty GUI can easily hide a multitude of bad code. We've all seen the result: apps that crash at the drop of an electron, the wide-open buffers, apps that don't perform as advertised. "Professional" programmers who don't seem to be able to understand what a pointer is and what it does.
I suspected earlier that people oppose Microsoft for ideological reasons and now I'm sure this is most likely true even in the cases where people claim otherwise.
You are never going to separate "ideological" concerns. It was Microsoft themselves who made it an issue. WPA, the onerous EULAs, the attempt to 'jack Java, the on-going attempt to 'jack the very protocols that drive the 'Net: all these are political and ideological. Microsoft could put an end to it any time they wanted to: use W3C compliant HTML in IE so that there would be no more web sites (and I've seen a few) that won't render on alternative browsers, cancel the NDAs that they require manufacturers of hardware to sign for full access to the Windows API, so that the protocols of said hardware could be published and Open Source drivers could be written for such things as WinModems, WinPrinters (Note: I personally visited the corporate headquarters of Lexmark to ask about the protocols for the Lexmark WinPrinter. They refused, even though I told them that I would code a Linux driver and give the code to them, citing an NDA.) audio and video cards so that full functionality could be guaranteed when used with non-Win * platforms.
Don't like it? Then take it up with Sir William of Redmond; you're barking up the wrong tree here. :p
muzzy:
Indeed, I'm still talking about Windows NT, not the 9x. The reason I dislike XP is unrelated to the core kernel, but the cheese that some jerks have managed to push on top of it.
What comes to window managers, some applications would just totally die if you were to change the default windowproc or the default widgets. I happen to like the windows look, and the desktop itself is configurable enough. You can change your shell without screwing the whole system, and you can have per-user shells. That's well enough for me. The shell can then perform any skinning hacks it wants to. Just because there isn't some cute "Shell Changing Wizard" doesn't mean it's less configurable. I suppose you're ok with editing configfiles by hand in linux? Well, you can edit the registry by hand in windows.
Regarding the programming, stupid developers exist using all platforms. The development platforms aren't really always "dumbed down", a lot of things are just abstracted. The problem is that the abstractions tend to always leak in a way or another, so the developer would better know how the stuff works underneath the abstraction. The higher level language you take, the less programmers have to care about lowlevel issues, and the less they will care about them. The solution is not to teach developers about lowlevel issues, but to move to even higher level languages. Buffer overflows only happen in languages where it's possible to do in the first place. Applications not working as advertised tends to be due to lack of testing, i.e. the whole development process is to blame, not merely the programmer. This isn't fault of windows, this is fault of inexperienced developer. Are you saying it's a bad thing to enable these people to write software? By the same logic Photoshop sucks too, because it enables 10 year old kids to smack lens flares on top of otherwise fine pictures. The fact that incompetent people can still do something that does its job is only a proof that the development tools are damned powerful.
Regarding the issue with drivers, this is a lot bigger thing. NDA is just an excuse in some cases, the real thing is that keeping the drivers closed gives a competitive advantage. With complex devices, you can usually determine a lot of stuff about the hardware based on the driver and the hardware interface alone. Opening that information would be same as revealing trade secrets to your competitors. It's just a bad idea, so people won't be doing it unless everyone is forced to do it. The issue is especially touchy with the winmodems and winprinters, because a lot of the functionality gets implemented in software. If this software was free (as in speech), it would enable competitors to merely copy the hardware and use the same software for their own hardware. This would save a significant amounts of money, and companies are responsible for making profit. They can't just give away stuff that will save a lot of money for their competitors and cuts their own share.
Calum:
--- Quote from: muzzy ---Calum, if there's still something unclear IE's integratedness, go ahead. I've stated my views already, which are to say that the "integratedness" is not a security issue, and IE isn't necessary for system operation although Windows itself doesn't want you to uninstall it. You're free to download a third party tool such as nlite to remove anything you want to.
--- End quote ---
no, no, i was just commenting (in an admin type way) that the thread topic is quite wide, so i am a bit bemused by the flying accusations of off-topicness going on, that's all.
Kintaro:
Personally its quite damn easy to secure up IE a little, however I find the interface so damn annoying, I dig Tabs, yaar.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version