On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 09:03, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> you've made some valid points, however they're not all entirely correct > (It's not entirely prudent to comment on something you're not using Yes, i deleted my rant as i'm not familiar with NT/XP. > and up with the state of play on.), windows NT,2K etc.. have a proper > user/group based security model and with NTFS it does give a > permissions structure that prevents a number of problems you've > discussed, alho' the unix permissions structure is by far a better Doesn't work very well then, does it ? > design (NT has no permissions inheritance from higher level > directories...) it won't stop a number of the virus attacks like boot > sector deleters and the like. % ls -l /dev/hda brw-rw---- 1 root disk 3, 0 Feb 15 16:20 /dev/hda so, unless they've added themselves to the 'disk' group, i'm afraid that any errant process CANNOT write to the boot sector of any disk. > Microsoft doesn't have a community like the linux one granted, it's more > like the real world, it's incredibly diverse unlike the linux > community and therein lies a lot of it's issues, it has to cater to so > many different people wanting to run everything from old dos apps to > 16bit windows apps to the latest 32bit stuff, more bloat more chances > of holes etc, but it's because the people demand that, if linux is to have you heard of dosemu ? Apart from the "Phar Lap err 35" bollocks, it is compatable with 16 bit DOS code. > compete it has to give the people what they want... this is one of the > reasons I'm anti linux on the desktop because if it wants to truly > compete it's going to have to do what windows does, unfortunately ms Why windoze ? Shouldn't it be aiming a little higher than that ? Anyway, what is it that windoze does, that linux doesn't ? > set the standard for what people expect on the desktop, I think the Yes, pity about that. Rex
