Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fewer Permissions Are Key To Longhorn Security
- Thread starter wrldwzrd89
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't worry everyone! It's MS... they're sure to goof it up. Now if MS decided to use Unix... then there might actually be a problem for Linux and OS X in their adoption rates.
Not really; Apple decided that Unix was a good enough system that they'd go ahead and just use it for the core of the MacOS, permissions and all. That has very little to do with MS deciding that their own permission model is so broken they've got to go and copy Unix to get it working.Kyle? said:
Personally, I'll call this a good thing if they can pull it off, since the Windows permissions scheme has always been confusing at best, and tragically easy to abuse at worst. It'll also save me having to remember the differences between platforms when working on Windows servers. On the other hand, I'm far from confident that MS won't screw up the transition and cause more problems than they fix.
Makosuke said:
Actually, Apple's entire os was so bad that they had to go borrow an base os and an entire gui api (cocoa is based on next). And I do love my powerbook. Apple makes great products, my only point here is that you shouldn't automatically deride ms whenever there is any news about them, especially since apple has done similar things.
This is true; however, NeXT originated from Apple (similar to a spin-off, but it was a forced affair). Therefore, unless NeXT borrowed technology from others, Apple effectively borrowed from itself to get the technology for Mac OS X. I don't know a whole lot about NeXT or any of their products, so I'm just making some educated guesses.Kyle? said:
wrldwzrd89 said:
NeXT did not originate from Apple at all. their only simularity is the founder, steve jobs. NeXT was formed when Jobs was forced out of Apple. he brought with him a few engineers, they then got sued and were not allowed using any technology they developed at apple or new were under development.
whereas if it was a spinoff it would be more like apple / filemaker
aethier said:
Just because apple didn't start next then it called still be thought of as a spin off, what is Apple other than its staff and the engineers at next may not have been able to use apple technology but they certainly would have used the expertise that they gained from working at apple. So why not call it a spin off?
Just my pedantic £0.02 ($0.05)
amnesiac1984 said:Just because apple didn't start next then it called still be thought of as a spin off, what is Apple other than its staff and the engineers at next may not have been able to use apple technology but they certainly would have used the expertise that they gained from working at apple. So why not call it a spin off?
Just my pedantic £0.02 ($0.05)
because a spin off implies that there is an exchange of stock and retention of intellectual property. When motorola spun off freescale, they retained partial ownership. Same when palm spun off into two companies. Some people going and starting another company is is just that. its definltey not a spin off in any way that actually means something. precision in language is important, and I can't see any way in which next could be called a spin off of apple. Its a specific term with a specific meaning.
If that's the case, so was BeOS (also founded by ex apple employees) and every company ever started by an ex apple employee. So if spin off means all that, it doesn't really mean anything, does it?
Mechcozmo said:....and in other news today, the first virus for the Longhorn Beta was released into the wild, pushing the release date back another two weeks to two years or so....
Was the virus released as a Beta, a Release Candidate, or an actual 1.0 product?
mkrishnan said:Was the virus released as a Beta, a Release Candidate, or an actual 1.0 product?
It was marked as "Certified Compatible for Longhorn Builds as of 4/11/2005" which means that, due to the date, authorities are looking in the United States.
Microsoft says the program in installed onto your computer without your knowledge and then changes all permissions to "Write Only, Global". A telling characteristic of this is a popup that reads, "HAHA! SUCK3R!".
Kyle? said:
Actually, up to date, I do miss some mac os 9 interfase and functions... over os x and windoze...
Mechcozmo said:
When you're getting pwnd by your operating system.... Well. Time for a 1337|\|355 upgrade.
Disclaimer:
Obviously I've simplified this quite a bit, and am not so sure I agree with the theory, but at least it's a way of viewing the 'he's cheating' issue that doesn't often get much attention.
I think that we are looking at this all wrong. I'm willing to admit that Apple copied the workings of other OSes. What they had didn't work and was getting to be a bloated and tack-together system. Rather than continue to spiral down the bowl, they started over completely. Yeah backward compatibility is knocked out pretty hard, but the new system is simply amazing and far above it's predecessor in many ways, particularly under the hood where it counts.
So what if Microsoft rips off other ideas? What is it that you like about Apple. The interface, smooth working atmosphere, whatever. If Microsoft could fully duplicate this in every way, why couldn't you, except as a matter of principle, use Microsoft's products? As long as Apple remains a generation ahead of Microsoft as it is now, it's not likely to fall in much danger of losing it's faithful market share. If Microsoft catches up, by whatever means, then you've got the same product essentially, just a different vendor. Honestly, it's a win-win situation for the customer.
Obviously I've simplified this quite a bit, and am not so sure I agree with the theory, but at least it's a way of viewing the 'he's cheating' issue that doesn't often get much attention.
I think that we are looking at this all wrong. I'm willing to admit that Apple copied the workings of other OSes. What they had didn't work and was getting to be a bloated and tack-together system. Rather than continue to spiral down the bowl, they started over completely. Yeah backward compatibility is knocked out pretty hard, but the new system is simply amazing and far above it's predecessor in many ways, particularly under the hood where it counts.
So what if Microsoft rips off other ideas? What is it that you like about Apple. The interface, smooth working atmosphere, whatever. If Microsoft could fully duplicate this in every way, why couldn't you, except as a matter of principle, use Microsoft's products? As long as Apple remains a generation ahead of Microsoft as it is now, it's not likely to fall in much danger of losing it's faithful market share. If Microsoft catches up, by whatever means, then you've got the same product essentially, just a different vendor. Honestly, it's a win-win situation for the customer.