On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 14 of 36:
Next »
« Previous
Not justify - explain
I can't justify it, but I can try to explain it the way I see it. Windows has been built up over many years, from its humble beginnings as a stand-alone system (a DOS shell, actually) that was never meant to be networked. All of the features that have been added over the years have served to clearly illuminate the weaknesses in the platform, weaknesses that would not exist if Windows were not networked. The networking support was intended for corporate networking -- not necessarily open to the outside world. Home-user networking is something that I honestly believe Microsoft never anticipated. Microsoft has not re-written Windows because it wants to maintain the level of backward compatibility that it always has had -- heck, I can even still run some DOS-based programs.

Unfortunately, it has reached a point that it is no longer feasible to attempt to pile modifications, extensions, and patches onto Windows. That's why Microsoft is working on Longhorn -- it will be (in my opinion) a complete re-write of Windows, not an upgrade, that will address all of the weaknesses. It will also "break" a lot of older applications. Microsoft and other may deny it, but mark my words -- there will be a lot of older applications that won't work properly on Longhorn, and there will be a lot of "tweaks" needed to acommodate the vastly changed level of security. Security will be on a par with *nix, although Microsoft's many detractors will deny that's even possible. Look at .NET; although many people (who haven't worked with it) decry its insecurity (simply because it's Microsoft), it is actually as secure (if not more so) than Java. It's interesting that the same people who claim competition is needed in the OS industry also proclaim that Java is the be-all and end-all of development, and it doesn't really need any competitor (.NET, for example).

It may take time, but Microsoft does learn. I think Microsoft has finally realized that it is going to have to make a break with the past, or risk losing everything. All of its actions since the anti-trust trial are merely "holding actions", intended to keep things going until the next generations of OS appears. Microsoft can't simply ignore security problems in its existing products, which explains the frequent patches (it's also interesting that people criticize Microsoft for failing to address security problems, then criticize Microsoft for releasing patches too frequently). But Microsoft is putting most of its efforts into Longhorn. It's simply not worth the time and resources to attempt to "fix" everything that is wrong with the existing Windows versions, security breaches notwithstanding.

Anyway, that's my explanation. I have no particular insight into Microsoft, nor do I know anyone who works there (where's all this "shill" money people keep claiming I receive?). I base my opinions on observation, and the assumption that the people at Microsoft may be ruthless and slow to learn, but they really aren't stupid. Even Microsoft can see the writing on the wall.

Sorry for the long-windedness; I guess it's just easy to correspond with someone who doesn't feel the need to resort to name-calling or juvenile taunting to get his/her point across.

Carl Rapson
Posted by: rapson   Posted on: 03/10/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

sounds good  Valis Keogh | 03/10/04
and...  ryusen | 03/10/04
re: sounds good  Octol | 03/11/04
very bad idea  Willibee | 03/11/04
Anyone else think this is a really bad idea?  Chad_z | 03/10/04
agreed what happens when you trick it  acaluya | 03/10/04
just us and a few security experts (nt)  ryusen | 03/10/04
As long as  michael-t | 03/10/04
Chicken or egg  rapson | 03/10/04
Chicken or egg  SC-man | 03/10/04
Disturbing Reality  michael-t | 03/10/04
Disturbing Reality  SC-man | 03/11/04
Reality is defined  michael-t | 03/10/04
Not justify - explain  rapson | 03/10/04
practial effectiveness?  ryusen | 03/10/04
I do not like  michael-t | 03/10/04
Horrible idea  OhMyGosh | 03/10/04
Dangerous games because each force creates a contra-force.  Vily Clay | 03/10/04
Thirty years later and we are back at MAD  No_Ax_to_Grind | 03/10/04
bad anology  Rembrandt Pussyhorse | 03/10/04
I was being facetious.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 03/10/04
Welcome to my world  rapson | 03/10/04
MAD doesn't work anymore...  ryusen | 03/10/04
I have a better idea  worknman | 03/10/04
re: I have a better idea  Wolfie2K3 | 03/11/04
done that  Suicida| | 03/13/04
This should be incorperated into Longhorn!!  nite_w0lf | 03/10/04
About time  mkkokc | 03/11/04
Strike Back at Spammers  margsi2 | 03/11/04
re: Strike Back at Spammers  Wolfie2K3 | 03/11/04
Could the strike-back close the open ports?  Gustavo_z | 03/11/04
Not strong enough .. wrong approach  johns_z | 03/11/04
Great more cybercowboys yeehaw  Willibee | 03/11/04
Software Attcking Wrong Servers  bobpcomputer | 03/11/04
Similar idea has already been done...  ejhonda | 03/11/04
Snort already does this  Suicida| | 03/13/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here