I'm not arguing about the whole security issue.
But the Linux kernel vs Windows kernel I can be sure they're about the same complexity as the Win one. But comparing a kernel to the whole source of something? Don't you think that's a bit unfair?
This is a discussion on Windows virus? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I'm not arguing about the whole security issue. But the Linux kernel vs Windows kernel I can be sure they're ...
Well, my point is, the whole Windows codebase is security-critical, whereas in Linux, only the core is.
That makes Microsoft's job a lot harder, and their OS more insecure (more buggy) as a result.
True. Not saying Microsoft's job is easy .
I am not sure how Windows is organized, but I meant everything, including the UI frontends.
Of course, all parts of the system that has access to kernel level is essentially security critical. But seeing as the Linux kernel opens up the system to the user-mode graphics subsystem [at least it ALLOWS it to be opened up, if the user-mode graphics driver "does the right things"], it also opens up a big can of worms of security in graphics drivers, made harder by the fact that the major manufacturers drivers are not part of the open source.
Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
You seem to know a lot of vague stuff about Windows, but none of it really hits home. Yes, I think Linux is more secure than Windows because of it's smaller user base and different priorities concerning security vs user friendliness. But if you spend a little effort that I'd expect from someone using *nix systems, Windows can be pretty secure. A well administered Windows system is probably more secure than a Linux box setup by a normal user. Because the core that both are build on is fine.
Hmm. I stand corrected then. Learned something here.
I guess, as said above, the real problem comes from the fact that Windows practically requires running as admin, whereas it's conventional for UNIX users to use a non-root user.
Most just require you to install as admin. You can run under any authorized account.
Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.
On Vista the situation is improved by the VirtualStore thing (if I understood correctly, it transparently redirects writes to system folders to a user folder using copy-on-write). On XP many applications require running as admin because they write user data in the program's folder in "Program Files", which requires admin access.
Last edited by cyberfish; 07-18-2008 at 08:48 PM.
Now you've finally gone and done it. Saying Vista is better.On Vista the situation is improved by the VirtualStore thing ...