On 1/15/05 13:19, Bob W wrote: > Right, I see what you mean. Well, every operating system contains > hooks of various types, as well un- (or not publically-) documented > features, as well as bugs, and can be hijacked, usually quite easily. > This is not unique to Microsoft. It has always been an essential part > of operating (and other) system design.
The trouble with Windows is that its "hooks" offer the weakest security out of commonly compared OSs (Linux and Mac being the other two). Microsoft has publicized many security enhancing initiatives, but they've done little to actually follow through. It's lip service. Their products are still rife with documented and undocumented, intentional and unintentional flaws. > ... > Incidentally, I disagree with your definition of a bug. I would define > it as a discrepancy between the software and its specification, where > the specification matches the requirements. I agree somewhat: This is a very strict and narrow definition of a bug. After twelve years of creating commercial software for a living, I didn't run across this definition until I went to a Product Management seminar! IMHO, that definition is meaningless to end users and of very little practical use when building commercial software. Instead, it can be used as an opportunity for developers and QA teams to dodge responsibility for using their brains during design and testing. Tim
