Panthro: I wish that our Amiga's still had cutting edge CUSTOM chips but thats not realistic....
Of course it is. They can use what PCs use. Why do you think game consoles are using the same graphics processors as PCs? Don't you think that chips like the R350, which have their own RAM and programming languages (like vertex and pixel shaders), can be considered "custom" chips? What about chipsets with hard drive controllers that run on their own busses instead of clogging the PCI bus? What about the Audigy soundcard with full hardware acceleration? Is something only custom becuase it is made in-house, even if, architectually, it is similar to the GPUs made by companies that
specialize in making co-processors?
There's also something to be said for following standards. A true "custom" chipset wouldn't run with a PCI or PCI-X bus. That limits your upgrade options. If it uses PCI, what makes it different from what the PCs use? If there's one thing the PC war should have tought us, is that open hardware is not always architectually supirior, but gives the most options. Overlooking form factor, the only architectual difference between a PC and a Mac is the firmware and CPU.
Seer: What I ment is that because Windows is a Multi User OS it has security holes in it. Either by design flaw or by oversight.
Nobody says you HAVE to use it as a multiuser system. Are you saying that all OSes that have user accounts are insecure? Are you saying that all systems should be single-client systems? If applications have to handle security on their own, will it make a difference if the OS is single or multiuser?
Programs mostly get the same permission a user has
That's not a problem with user accounts, that's a problem with how the system uses them, and what files are put in which accounts.
Offcourse it pokes around system folders, it needs system resources.. Not even M$ is stupid enough not to write the same code over and over and over again, so all it's programs use code storred in other programs/dll's.
I suppose if you're used the the Windows way of doing things, which is to dump everything into the System32 folder, or put everything in a single, huge registry, that makes a lot of sense. Then again, the Amiga does the same things with the C folder, the S folder, the Libs folder... just dump all your files wherever you want, because the system doesn't care! Maybe if programs kept their custom DLLs and config files local to their own containing folders, things wouldn't be so messed up. Funny how people complain about DLL hell, but they have no beef with Linux dependency issues or Amiga library conflicts. Every system has this problem, and nobody seems interested in working on something better. User accounts only solve part of the problem. Using them exclusively to ensure a secure system is madness.
For example, there should be more layers of security than just a root account and user account. Sure, if you get a virus, your system is (theoretically) safe, but you can kiss all your personal files goodbye. That's why I really don't think Linux will be able to celebrate its advantages over Windows for very long. Run a browser that allows the execution of code (like ActiveX), and you'll be swarmed with problems. Developers need to think about that when trying to bring Linux to the desktop market, because in the desktop market, people don't know how plugins and stuff works. The browser can modify any file in your own user account. I was under the impression that the system files weren't as important as your work files, because at least the system can be restored.
All it takes is for a company to release a browser "better" than Mozilla or Konqueror, and it will be mass hysteria. Don't think for a second that Mozilla can't be bettered by someone. Mozilla and FireFox have plenty of problems nobody talks about, that drive people of all sorts up the wall.
Sure, OE isn't a system resource but apperently is used as such
Well, then they shouldn't do that! Install a 3rd-party e-mail program, like every other OS. Nobody says you HAVE to use Microsoft's APIs. You should just be glad you can get rid of OE in the first place.
That leaves file security, but most normal home users don't really care about that stuff.
Nobody cares... until something goes wrong. I should tell you some stories about fixing other people's computers. Many of them think I'm some kind of genius just because I can kill their pop-ups, and they are very surprised when I tell them how spamware and spyware works -- and what little the OS does to protect them.
Nobody thought OS security was a big deal decades ago because servers were purpose-built machines and every application was hand-picked by a sysadmin, and the only people who used them were employees in the same building. Hacking attempts were unthinkable -- on mainframes! In fact, I've heard plenty of stories about mainframes that didn't have any security whatsoever just because it was thought to be such a rare thing for someone to dial into a server with a 300 baud modem. A friend of my sister did that once, only to find out that this multi-million dollar company had no authorization system on their mainframe. He didn't get in legal troule, but he got chewed out by the sysadmin in realtime. That was almost funny. :-)
If any of these tools has a security bug it can be used to exploit the entire system because they use the same resources. Yes, it may be a big design flaw in Windows, but I'm not so sure if Linux doesn't have similar issues.
UNIX, in general, has been widely criticized for it's lack of security. I never realized how simple the UNIX security sytem is until I started reading books about it. Nobody really bothers to be better than UNIX, only competitive. There's no point to making a new OS architecture unless you intend to fix a given set of problems with an older design. Why anyone would want to waste time making a client-only machine like OS4 is beyond me. You could probably replace millions of lines of UNIX code just by making a few simple design decisions in your new OS. I thought that was what AmigaOS was about -- doing really complex stuff with a lean, efficient machine.
AmigaOS is to small to be noticed or hacked.
Security through obscurity is an ancient argument. I suppose if you're like me, you fully believe that OS4 will never get enough sales, so security will never be an issue. No wonder the Amiga never evolves and Windows still rules the earth. The more I learn about interface design, the more I realize that Microsoft is a monopoly because many of their competitors are just plain incompetent. Seriously.
OS3 also has no native network support, no native web browser, no native e-mail, no native chat... you don't have to worry about security if you don't do anything that involves tranmitting information to and from unknown systems. What if you want to let familiy members use your computer? Do you want them to poke around your bookmarks, or do you expect each application to handle security on its own, and do so inconsistently? Sounds like a lot of work for the developers because the OS guys didn't spend some time working on a proper quarantine system. Just like Windows.
Do you want AmigaOS to be better than Windows and UNIX, or not? Praising a client-only architecture is not going to help.
