Safety in computing
Posted 13 February 2010 - 03:02 AM
Was recently reading an article from CNET on the "safety" of the Windows vs Mac platforms, and it came to mind, are we any "safer" now than what we were in the late 90s or early 90s when a lot of us got MBR viruses?
It occurred to me that on the same premise that many of us consider a mac to be safer due to its smaller user base compared to the more recent NT based OSs, would it be safer to say also that our old OSs of choice based on DOS may be "safer" now that they don't have such a broad user base as they used to, this of course assuming you're not using IE, I know it is probably a ridiculous question, but there are still a lot of corporate environments running what a lot of us would consider ancient OSs and ancient methods of DB and storage.
I'd like yalls opinions
Posted 13 February 2010 - 11:19 AM
as for Apple, I will admit I cant discuss Apple rationally due to my deep seething hatred of their fanboy crowd. Most of my Apple discussions just end up making me want to beat the crap out of Justin Long and arent very constructive.
Back to XP though. if you compare XP RTM with an up-to-date copy of XP SP3 youll see tons of differences in security and functionality.
.NET, USB2.0, Bluetooth, IPv6, WiFi WPA 1/2, Security Center Functionality and WGA were all updated or added to the OS during its lifecycle as well as countless security patches were/are distributed for the OS so its a very different OS now than when it RTMed but at its heart it hasnt moved forward. I hate car analogies but XP is looking more and more like a riced up clown car its owner is trying to get taken seriously at a carshow.
I still run Windows server 2003 on my servers and even though it is technically a different kernel it still annoys me in a lot of the same ways XP does and I cant wait to get them on 2008 R2 but i just havent had the time.
Even though I loathe working on it, I have accepted that in my "corporate enviroment" I will probably have to tolerate XP in some capacity for at least another 3-5 years. Ive stopped deploying new machines with XP shortly after the release of Windows 7(Due to Vistas bad rap I had offered staff members the choice of running XP instead just to reduce the whining) but now I have begun the slow transition to moving everyone onto Windows 7 and slowly as my XP machines die out and are replaced I wont have to deal with it anymore.
Posted 13 February 2010 - 01:36 PM
Posted 14 February 2010 - 03:31 AM
Apple has a tendency to tell PC that it has "no viruses, spyware or tons fo headaches" which is the general non IT public perception of a Mac platform, although we know that not to be entirely true.
It seems that in the way that the hardware surpassed many of our needs when it comes to software, it seems that the software has lost its ability to surpass hardware limitations, today Windows 7 takes up a good 8GB of space after installed, and a Ubuntu Install takes a lot of space also, I know we may have a lot of storage today don't get me wrong, it just seems maybe if we had more hardware limitations our software could actually work better for us by trying to surpass those limitations, the same way software developers work on mobile platforms that have very little space does that make sense to you?
Posted 14 February 2010 - 01:04 PM
Safe against who or what?
For how long?
Both the new and the old operating systems have their strengths and weaknesses. When it's all said and done, security is a tradeoff. Convenience and security are opposing concepts. Windows default-permit design is also in direct opposition to security. No matter what version you use, whether it's 98 or Windows 7, you have to find that point in between that's right for you. All of them can be attacked. Likewise, all of them can be made safe to use.
Posted 22 February 2010 - 11:03 PM
Yes, tight and well performant code should be a goal of every developer, but not at the expense of readability and supportability. I for one am glad that lots of computers nowadays have multiple (real) CPU cores and lots of memory - hopefully it will bring about programs that make good use of those resources.
Posted 22 April 2010 - 01:00 PM
Every OS can be a virus Petri box as it can be unattackable depending on the configuration.
What's worse about security is the last fashions of the all-internet stuffs which often require dangerous relaxations of safety measures and added software which can be exploited.
Like Firwall exceptions, autoupdates, sharing access etc.
Digital video has been completely overtaken by the YouTube format. This alone is a safety breach because it forces you to enable activeX.
If poeple could live without activeX (and be able to watch movies without it), the world of PC would be much safer already.