But Peter, even with his strong opinions, is essentially correct. Microsoft have chosen by design to compromise the security of Windows deeply and irrevocably. Either MS did this through carelessness (which makes them distressingly incompetent and stupid), or they did it deliberately (which makes them unbelievably cynical). Remember, Peter gave a pithy summary of the problem here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/microsoft_mass_murder/
In essence, MS deliberately chose to entangle IE with Windows in a way which compromises security. They did it - apparently - to contrive a way of winning their antitrust court-case. They did it with a flagrant disregard of all that is considered to be best software engineering practice. They did it regardless of the long-term consequences for their users and the world as a whole. What is worse, they tried to justify what they had done with specious and ridiculous argument. (To see this: check out the sworn testimony of Bill Gates, speaking as Microsoft's Chairman and Chief Software Architect two years ago. Look especially at the paragraphs around para 115 which describe the structure of Windows, if structure it can be called. Look at Gates' justification for spurning essentials like modular structure and encapsulation. Read it in disbelief, and weep.)
Microsoft's ploy was successful. In the final rounds of the court-case, MS' opponents were no longer able to show that IE could be isolated from Windows, as they had done in earlier rounds. MS had done a sufficiently good job with the entanglement that you can no longer prise IE out of the thornbush.
Have there been consequences? You betcha. Look, for example, at the vulnerability described in MS KB 832894. "Any system that has Internet Explorer installed is at risk from this vulnerability". That's as in "installed" not as in "currently in use". You have the vulnerability whether or not you choose to use IE, and in recent versions of Windows you can't get rid of IE, so you get extra vulnerabilities for free.
As Peter (I think) said - it's a wonder MS haven't been hauled up on a charge of criminal negligence. Further: Since what has been done to Windows is so clearly contrary to best practice, how can any systems professional now advocate that a client use Windows without putting themselves at risk of being sued for giving negligent advice?
Still, who cares? We're all doomed. The UK government is planning to run its future warships on Windows. Osama bin Laden will think all his Christmases have come at once, if you catch my meaning.
Boom.
Gerald WW
On 14 Apr 2004, at 04:06, Simon wrote:
> Stuffit is easy to "correct" but where are the Safari options apart
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
-- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
