View Single Post
Old 08-27-2008, 04:02 PM   #11
acidzebra
Liseuse Lover
acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.acidzebra ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
acidzebra's Avatar
 
Posts: 869
Karma: 1035404
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Netherlands
Device: PRS-505
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotbob View Post
Sure, that's because unix/linux has always enforced the security permissions and boundaries. Due to this unix programmers followed the rules and saved user data only to folders users had access to, etc.
So windows didn't have these permissions and boundaries from the get-go, yet when it all goes pear-shaped, it is the fault of the developers who built on top of that shoddy codebase? How does that work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotbob View Post
Right, it has nothing to do with security, which you claim XP and Vista has none
*reads back* nope, didn't claim that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotbob View Post
Belive me, as a Windows developer I am far from a fanboy... the opposite in fact.
So you are a windows developer who doesn't like windows but who jumps in every time you perceive a slight against Microsoft being made? I mean seriously, that was a totally innocuous joke at the beginning of the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotbob View Post
But, you have to remember you can't judge someone who wrote a book that was published by MS Press as not knowing how to write secure code.
Again, something I didn't say. Let's revisit my original quote:
Quote:
"I'm having a hard time reconciling "secure code" with "Microsoft"
I didn't say the guy who wrote it was crap, I didn't say Microsoft was crap, all I said was that given past experiences, I can see some irony here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotbob View Post
If MS took the Apple route and threw away backward compatiblity in order to be 100% secure people would be trash talking them more than they do for the baby steps they took in Vista. You are complalining that they did exactally what you are asking for! Imagine if they went all the way and only 2% of current windows apps ran?
They didn't do what I was asking for at all. In fact, I didn't ask for anything. UAC is a lame stopgap measure - typical bolt-on security and implemented in the worst possible way. I know they had very little choice and none of the choices were particularly appealing, but Microsoft must lie in the bed it made for itself.

Last edited by acidzebra; 08-27-2008 at 04:12 PM.
acidzebra is offline   Reply With Quote