Longhorn=too Busy+too Messy+too Ugly

Originally posted by contrasutra@May 3 2004, 12:15 AM

I don't see how I'm lying about statistics. OK, "Most Secure OS" is subjective, but OpenBSD has only had one remote hole in over 8 years! that's amazing no matter how you look at it.

And NetBSD IS the most portable OS out there. Name an OS that runs on more platforms. You can't, simple.

Sure, there's been coding errors in NetBSD. But there's never been any "cheap hacks", they would simply never be accepted into the trees.

But either way, this argument is about Windows, and Windows fails on security and portability (and prettyness). Really, there is very little if anything Windows is BETTER at.

Because what you fail to mention is that Windows' market share fluctuates by about 200-300% of that of NetBSD and OpenBSD, year-on-year (yes, this may well be hyperbole or litotes, but I'm too tired and not quite anal enough to care).

Statistics dictate that, with such a vastly inflated user-base, in comparison, Windows has a much greater probability of two things: (1) attack and (2) bugs being found.

Combine those two with the lion's share of the operating system market, and you get people claiming how insecure Windows is.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Windows is as portable as NetBSD or as secure as OpenBSD - I'm just saying that, with the sheer size of Windows' market share, it's undoubtedly going to have much more probability of bugs being found and exploited - it's elementary statistics.

Oh, and there are a few things that Windows is better at - Windows doesn't suffer from feature-bloat half as much as OSS; Windows has much better usability initiative - most of the usability work that's done in OSS is done as a result of what's done in proprietary software; and Windows has by far the best marketing.

And don't start about how OSS doesn't have marketing because it's free. There's always marketing people involved, somewhere. And in OSS, it's with "services". Microsoft sells services too, but they're a software house first, and a service provider second.

Anywho, that's my last post on this issue because it's late and I'm tired.

#154982

I know Windows have a much larger user base, but then again (and correct me if I'm wrong), isn't NetBSD and OpenBSD used on a lot of servers? That does leave them open to enough attacks to warrant their few holes as a sign of respectable coding practices and security concernn.

#154991

Was making Mac OS X 64 bit compatible as simple as re-compiling(re-assembling, re-interpreting... or whatever)?

#155034

Originally posted by ihartmacz@May 3 2004, 02:53 AM

Was making Mac OS X 64 bit compatible as simple as re-compiling(re-assembling, re-interpreting... or whatever)?

No, because Mac OSX isn't true 64 bit yet.

The version of Mac OSX that runs on the G5 is basically 32 bit Panther with a couple of optimisations.

#155240

actually, any panther runs on a G5, The g5 processor is 32 bit compatible ;)

True, im just waiting for the 64 bit OSX to be released, then the full power of my already mind blowing fast pc will be unleashed

#155241

Wow this is very interesting stuff I am learning alot

Please go on.

-Jimmy S

#155247