[Pc_Support] [OT] The problem with Windows (as only 0.1% of us understand) -- WAS: dual core and smp kernel???

[Bryan J. Smith]

[ This belongs on PC_Support ]

On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 12:05 -0400, Ray Brunkow wrote:
> yes security without a doubt is a major PITA with windows, but at least 
> win2k was a step in the right direction.

False!

99.9% of people think Windows 2000 "was a step in the right direction"
because they came from Windows 98.

And Those 0.1% of IT Professionals who had deployed Windows NT since 3.5
(or even 3.1) knew that 3.51, 4.0 and 2000 (5.0) were steps in the
_wrong_ direction.

> normal users can no longer install drivers.

False!

Compared to Windows 98 it might seem, but NT 5.0 (2000) and, even worse,
NT 5.1 (XP -- especially pre-SP2) "broke" the NT security model for
such.

There is a reason for the existence of the "Power User" security group.
And it's a major security issue.

> must be an administrator to do that, but sadly most windows users run
> as admins instead of normal user.
> that is more the fault of programmers then MS IMHO since win2k.

False!

It's Microsoft's damn fault, _absolutely_.

Microsoft's OS architects (largely from Digital) designed a decent,
single-user, but multi-privileged API in Win32.

And then Microsoft's _own_ application and tool division _ignored_ it.
Their own compilers and suites _totally_ignored_ it.

There was no more proof of this than the fact that Digital's own
compilers, suites and applications for NT were _far_better_ than
Microsoft's.  It also showed you who designed Win32 and NT (let alone
Win64 originally on Alpha, long story).

It was so bad that Gates finally gave the thumbs up to "Chicago," and a
new NT fork, 3.51 "Daytona," was born in late 1993 / early 1994.  NT as
an OS was _completely_undermined_ as a result.

Today, Microsoft created a good multi-user API in .NET.  And yet again,
their _own_ application division is _ignorning_ it, and the Visual
Studio suite itself is _not_ "pure" .NET, but Win32-aligned.

Hell, WinForms.NET isn't .NET, but Win32.  Ironically enough, it's
deIcaza and the GNOME guys that have a _better_ framework in GTK# that
is "pure" .NET.  Not surprising because GNOME developers actually have
to think multi-user and multi-privilege in UNIX _by_default_, whereas
Windows developers _rarely_ think that way.

NT 6.0 "Longhorn" is an _exact_repeat_ of NT 4.0 "Cairo."  "Cairo" was
the vaporware that was supposed to be "consumer NT."  NT 4.0 CarioFS was
supposed to solve the issues of NTFS, just like NT 6.0 WinFS was.  The
new NT 4.0 GDI subsystem was supposed to deal with user interface
inefficiencies, but made things worse -- just like NT 6.0 Avalon/WGF is
doing the same.

Gates said they would become "Cario technologies" and be released later.
Result:  Vapor

Gates now says "Longhorn technologies" would be released later as WinFX
technologies.  Result:  Vapor so far

The only thing .NET in NT 6.0 "Longhorn" has is Indigo, which is a
sandbox for _select_ Internet services.  What does that sound like?
Yeah, that's right, Java sandboxed Internet services.  What is .NET 100%
based on?  The Java 1.1 codebase.

> heck you can not even use a lot of software in windows unless you are
> an admin or know how to hack the registry and how many users even know
> what the registry is?

Again, it's because 99.9% of you were using Windows 95/98 that Windows
2000 has all those problems.

If you don't believe me, ask me how many times I've merely applied the
"Cario 1993-1997 playbook" and predicted "Longhorn 2003-2007" on
PC_Support over the last 3+ years!

I'm sorry 99.9% of you didn't get to see "Cario" become "Chicago's
bitch" much like "Longhorn .NET" has become "[polluted] Win32's bitch."
To me, it's just history repeating itself.

And why Windows will _never_ be as secure as UNIX.

-- Bryan

P.S.  Oh, no way, some Linux!  ;->

> i do not have the time or cash flow to PAY someone to muddle with my 
> hardware when i can learn.  i would much rather learn how so i do not 
> HAVE to pay.

That's why we have LEAP.  Ask, don't assume.  ;->

> i have extremely limited experience with SuSe, but what little i have 
> has been good.  they have some very nice cross platform network GUI 
> tools that i have not seen in other distros.  it is very bloated and 
> does require more RAM and vid power then  other distros i have used, but 
> if i can learn enough about yast then someday ill learn enough to do a 
> base install and yast install everything from there.  well so i hope.

"Bloated" is an over-applied and _incorrect_ term used by Debian and
Gentoo users in description of Fedora-based and SuSE-based distros.  I
can run a pretty lightweight Fedora-based system with XFCE that performs
_better_ than Gentoo, and on-par with Debian.  Not sure about SuSE.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith            Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org      http://thebs413.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign
nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset
because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own