[Gllug] just preaching to the converted !

[Chris Hunter]

paul wrote:

> I still dont think
> that UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES, windows 2000
> Advanced server is that bad - but these days who
> can use it as we don't have ideal circumstances.

Win 2000 addressed most of the problems with NT4, but still didn't work 
properly.  The list of unresolved bugs, errors and weird unreliabilities 
  would fill a large book!

> By my own observations
> I am beginning to conclude that windows has been the
> victim of its own success but if Linux became as big
> as microsoft OS's have been - would it too suffer as bad?

No.  The underlying structure of Linux (and all the other Unix - based 
OSs) makes it an ideal OS for a hostile networked environment.  It was 
originally designed as a multi-user, secure OS, unlike any of the MS 
offerings, where these facilities were just tagged on later.  The 
"security" structure of any version of Windows (including "Vista" or 
whatever it's called this week) is such that it is not possible to make 
it (in any way) secure.  Abusing any Windows box is trivial!

The MS method of "development" is just to build on "their" previous OS, 
rather than do a ground-up design.  This is why there is still stolen 
TCP/IP code in the Windows kernel (I'm not sure if anyone at MS actually 
knows how it /should/ work!).

Chris

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug