Re: FW: Careful. This is for information only.
Sebastiaan wrote:
> We did not ask for a broken OS either, and yet they made it. We did not
> ask for a securityless OS, yet they made it.
You're ignoring history. Windows 2000 is vastly more secure than MS-DOS,
which was no less secure than CP/M, and CP/M had no security because it
was a single-user, single-tasking OS that ran on 8080 processors with as
little as 4k of RAM. You couldn't have run Unix on that. The average
office/home computer user has _never_ had a secure OS. S/he didn't even
have a pre-emptively multitasking OS until Windows 95 (not counting
AmigaOS, which we can safely ignore due to lack of market penetration).
Unix was never an option because it was, until quite recently,
impossible for the average home or office user to install and maintain,
and didn't run the programs that home and office users wanted (MS Office,
or, earlier, Lotus 1-2-3 -- of the major PC apps, only WordPerfect was
available for Unix, and usually only in an outdated version).
The networking situation is different. TCP/IP is here, and it works, and
there is already a secure replacement in the wings (IPv6).
Craig
Reply to: