From: Adamsc@io-online.com (Adamsc)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 18:24:54 +0800
To: "Bill Stewart" <snajdr@pvt.net>
Subject: Re: WINDOWS NT ????
Message-ID: <19961005065910250.AAA222@GIGANTE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 04 Oct 1996 05:41:42 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:

>> is Windows NT secured system ?

>Windows NT 3.51 is a real operating system.  It is not as secure
>as I would like, but it is much better than Windows 3.1, which was
>totally insecure.  It has some good security techniques,
>but I don't know how secure the networking is, and networking
>is the big technical insecurity on most machines today.  
>(Well, bad administration is the biggest insecurity on almost all 
>machines for almost all time.  And physical security is also big.)

>Windows 4.x moves the graphics/windowing system into Ring 0,
>where the "secure" parts of the kernel are.  Bad.
>This means graphics bugs can make the kernel insecure or crash.
I must say I like the way OS/2's Workplace Shell can crash entirely (doesn't
happen here anymore; did with some really crappy video drivers for an old
Trident 8900) and you can watch while it restarts it (takes about 10 seconds
and didn't bother open apps).   NT's shell seems to be a *little* harder to
screw up, but when it does it goes bigtime.

>I don't trust it, especially because Windows 3.1 crashes all the time
>for me, and stupid bugs make Windows 3.1 behave badly for me.
>So if they put the window system in the kernel, I don't trust it.

You lose speed but gain security and stability - the continual operating
sytem tradeoff.

#  Chris Adams <adamsc@io-online.com>   | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp
#  <cadams@acucobol.com>		 | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY"
"That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them."
   --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)