|
|
Login/Become a Member! | 47 Comments
|
| | Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Part IV: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
(Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Mar 03, 2005 - 06:14 AM
|
And those features are only as good as the person using them.
It does not change the fact that a new XP system going to the MS site for its first security upgrade is owned within 4 and 18 minutes these days.
|
Re: Part IV: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
(Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Mar 03, 2005 - 10:35 AM
|
I actually think that ACLs are a huge disadvantage to system security. They are great for user data, but horrid for system security. They make auditting near-impossible. Similarly, they make it difficult to look at all of the pathways that exploits can take.
And, in order to make as many operations easy on the user as possible, most user accounts are given certain amounts of admin privileges, which can be exploited. While I along with you disagree with the original poster as to the security framework of the kernel, I agree wholeheartedly with the original poster as to the security of the system as a whole. In addition, the inclusion of ACLs makes it near-unmanageable as well.
|
Re: Part IV: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
(Score: 1)
by NicholasDonovan on Mar 17, 2005 - 04:58 PM
|
Actually no. At this time, there are no versions of a Microsoft operating system that are multi-user. This applies even to Windows2003 Data Center Edition.
They emulate multi-usability via two means:
1) Profile support
2) faking it via Citrix
As a kernel developer and CEO of technology/services company you will find that even Microsoft developers admit that their operating systems are in fact single-user.
Hope this helps,
Nick
|
|
|