Re: Of mice and men
- From: "Richard" <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 May 2005 12:48:21 -0700
>> The reason that it is relatively small is that Windows software
cannot
>> be recompiled by the user.
> A great deal of it can be - but the point is moot, anyway.
I was unclear. 'Windows software' == software that _is_ Windows. Not
software that runs on top of Windows.
> Both OSes are designed to meet similar security criteria,
Certainly _current_ versions of Windows have similar security criteria,
but Unix had those in the original designs because it was based on
multi-user needs and interactive use.
Windows started as a graphics library on top of DOS without even
networking being a consideration. NT was a new design but MS had the
multiuser features removed because it wanted to sell each user a
complete system. These were added back as a layer on top by Citrix and
for TSE. Even today Windows is compromised by the needs of 'legacy'
(ie Windows 98/ME and even DOS) requirements.
> This argument also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the
> NT loader, which need not load a module at the same address each
time.
But within a module (for the same release) all the variables and code
will be in exactly the same position each time relative to the start.
.
- References:
- Of mice and men
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: Donald Tees
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: jce
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: Richard
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: jce
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: Richard
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: Michael Wojcik
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: Richard
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: Michael Wojcik
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: Richard
- Re: Of mice and men
- From: Michael Wojcik
- Of mice and men
- Prev by Date: Re: Should COBOL be lockedUP for good?...
- Next by Date: Cobol history question -- lawsuit against standards committee
- Previous by thread: Re: Of mice and men
- Next by thread: Re: Of mice and men
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|