Comments on: OS makers: Security is job No. 1

New generation of software focuses as much on security as on glitzy features, as consumers get frustrated by viruses and fraud threats.

[System Tyrant]

I'm not sure...

why it has taken this long for any OS maker to focus more on security. In my opinion security became the number one issue when people started connecting computers together.

Either way better late than never. I still think though that by default an OS shouldn't install anything other than what it requires to run the OS. Users (or their guru's) can then select before or after installation the extra features they want.

[pcLoadLetter]

One one OS maker has no put security at the top of the list

Everyone else has been doing a good job all these years, and are getting better and better.

The other OS maker, has never put much priority on security, and time will tell if their next OS is not the same security mess that all the previous ones have been.

[Andrew J Glina]

True

Apple does need to do a lot of work, but they are trying.

[Andrew J Glina]

Marketing

I love how Apple portray the using of Open Source as a choice, as opposed to the not being able to write their own kernel. If Apple felt that Open Source was the solution to security and stability then all of MacOS X would be Open Source.

[Andrew J Glina]

Why?

Do stupid things, and you can get in trouble. It is no diferent on any OS. There are just more people out there who are targeting Windows to gain from stupid people. Perhaps there are more stupid people using Windows, but it does not mean that it is Microsofts fault.

[Andrew J Glina]

Ooops

That was supposed to be a reply to "Pcloadletter". Coffee!

[Earl Benser]

Security is a prime responsibility....

... for any OS developer. But at the same time, OS development
is a process driven by risk assessment. You can never do it
perfectly, so you come as close as you can where you need to.
But defining where that need exists has been a najor failure,
partly because of questionable programming techniques, and
partly because the OS developers didn't recognize where they
were leaving security holes.

Windows has been plagued by the MS decisions to make the
Windows OS a marketing tool first and an OS second. Logically,
there s no compelling reason to 'bundle' all sorts of second level
functions into an OS - except to block competitors. That MS
mistake meant that the focus in the development was on
bundling, and many of the subfunctions needed to implement
bundling are also the security holes.

MS can fix the problem by writing a true OS, properly structured,
and properly supported by all the independant apps needed to
achieve MS's view of functionality. That's not going to be
Longhorn/Shorthorn/Airhorn or whatever else comes out as the
next generation Windows, This one is three years and a mindset
change away in good weather. And there also may be a need to
abandon the curretn PC motherboard and processor designs as
being too overloaded for the basic capability. After all, a Pentium
4 is little more than an Intel 8088 on steroids. And no one yet
has taken any responsibility for PC motherboard design control.

You can knock Apple all you want, but Apple knew when to
terminate legacy motherboard, processor, and OS designs and
to move on to more performance

In the meantime, MS can blow all the smoke they want about
their concern for security. And they can issue band-aid after
band-aid to 'ugrade' security. But more holes will constantly
appear. It's the price paid for the MS corporate goals.

[Andrew J Glina]

Troll

That essay is just plain silly. But two points stand out;

1. P4 is a 8088 on steroids.

If you said that a PIII was a 386 on steriods I might agree. But the P4 has very little in common with a 8088. You could also say that a PowerPC was a 801 minicomputer on steroids.


2. MS should make a true OS.....bla bla... Apple

If you said Linux or BeOS I would say you have a point, but Apple have not written a structured OS, although they might written a structured GUI.


Either find some real arguments or cause trouble elsewhere please.