🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Sep 2003 06:12:50 GMT, "Walter Harley"
<walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.19d58c8293528ff598a6c3@enews.newsguy.com...
>> [...] as long as the world runs on M$
>> trash, we're going to have these problems.
>
>We'll have these problems for longer than that.  Indeed, we'll have these
>problems for as long as email does more than convey plain text and the
>Internet supports sending of nonsecure messages.  May I remind folks that
>MSFT didn't invent the bug, and that the first worms were not on Windows?
>Virus writers target whatever platform is dominant and powerful enough to
>propagate the virus.  *All* nontrivial platforms have bugs that can be
>exploited given enough interest.
>


Except that Windows is crap through and through.

Any decent operating system separates I and D-spaces, and Windows
doesn't. So buffer overrun exploits are easy. Buffer overruns are a
chronic defect in Windows, and apparently always will be.

Microsoft's QC is abysmal; they actually make money selling crappy
operating systems and applications that encourage everybody to keep
upgrading.

Microsoft seems to have the attitude that, when in doubt, execute it.
In Redmond nobody seems able to tell the difference between data and
code. So you can have viruses in Word documents, spreadsheets,
unopened email and, of course, any executable. Hell, I ran RSTS/E in
1980 on a PDP-11 and hosted my company plus four competing high
schools full of creative brats; they tried mightily, but it was
impossible to crash, even programming in assembly, and it ran for
months between power failures. This because it had a clean, simple
kernal that simply did not allow user applications to exceed defined
priviliges; Windows has no such control.

Windows defaults to least-secure settings when installed. Why?

Apple/UNIX/Linux/VMS/Solaris security lapses are measured in bugs per
year, and often clock in at zero. Windows bugs run several per week.

John