"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ysNLe.15663$Yx1.6942@tornado.tampabay.rr.com. ..
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> > "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:X_rLe.13758$dJ5.5078@tornado.tampabay.rr.com. ..

<snip>

> >> ...I am also sick of the spyware trap...just not fun anymore.
> >
> > (Cough) Spyware is written for the platform that most people are using.
> > Which happens to be Windows.
>
> You are partially right and wrong. I have many friends that, well, partake
> in "security testing and coding adventures". They are opportunists and as
> such will code for whatever is the easiest to hack/crack. They do not care
> what the os is...

Spyware != hack/crack attempts

> The problem with windows is that they constructed a lot of their
technology
> with the focus to enforce their business strategy. Rather than staying
pure
> to using the best technology. For example Window's registry is a POS. It
> was designed to force companies into being a "business partner" of
> Microsoft. They intentionally made it cryptic. By doing that they also
> caused many problems for the OS....

(Cough) Speaking as one who used Windows 2 in anger (that many lock ups and
freezes would get *anyone* angry, believe me ;o), th plethora of PIF and INI
files was a right PITA. The registry concept is quite a bit older than
Win95. Can't remember where it first came from (PARC wouldn't surprise me).

<snip>

> > According to the analysts, it's split 50-50 between
security-by-obscurity
> > and security-by-peer-review (which, judging by my experience, is
something
> > more talked about than performed). Mind you, these are probably the same
> > analysts that predicted a dominant Linux desktop, and missed the fact
that
> > it's likely to be the dominant mainframe OS in a decade or so ;o)
> >
>
> Not true. Many of Linux/BSD is coded to the standards which are designed
by
> many, many qualified individuals around the World. These are very, very
> talented individuals. Furthermore, since the code is written using the
> standards, and you can view it for yourself, it is security that way it
> should be.

Actually, read what I wrote. An analyst isn't anything to do with
programming - I'm talking people like Gartner, IDC, et al.

Neither Linux or BSD have adopted any *coding* standards that I am aware
of - just standards for things like protocols. Which everyone has to use in
order to interoperate (with greater or lesser degree of compliance).

> I had a chance to view Microsoft code in College. My school was working
with
> Microsoft on a project and I was a team member. It was the worse code I
> have ever viewed...can you say the same?

Say what? That I've been to college (yes), that I've worked on a shared
product with MS (no, but my company have), that I've been a member or a team
(yes), or that I've seen MS source code (yes, at a previous company)?

It most certainly wasn't the worst code that I've seen; that dubious
privilege goes to one Ravi Patel, late of CAP Gemini Sogeti. The man had a
goddamn' GOTO fetish.. my personal record was ripping-out three pages of
FORTRAN and replacing it with five lines of code.

> Probably not as they hide their
> code then sell you crap like "Get the Facts". I am really surprised at how
> well Microsoft zombiefies a lot of people....I would love to study the
> psychology behind it some day. That company can convice an Eskimo that he
> should buy a 1/2 ton of ice cubes every month. I guess most people really
> are quite stupid....

Quite possibly.. like those who believe *nix to be in any way.. new.

H1K