>>> Wrong perspective. Development was actually from CP/M's "access control?
>>> just lock the f*** room door" concept to there.
>>
>> Yes. And it has taken them a spectacularly long time to figure out that
>> this model is ineffective today.
>
> Not really. It has been around in NT since when? Ever since the first
> version, I guess.

It still puzzles me that NT was designed as "business only". It's a 
pity, really. It was quite a good OS...

That being the case, Windows Vista is still the first OS aimed at the 
casual user base which actually has half-decent security.

>> The company's goals seem to be to promote a /sense/ of security rather
>> than actually /being/ secure.
>
> Typical end users want to just "buy" their security (or, better yet, get
> it for free), and not invest any of their own time into it. So Microsoft
> serves this market segment with the best security you can buy for money
> alone: The mere illusion of it.

Yes, perhaps that's the real problem here...

(I would say "so why don't they make a business version with *real* 
security?" And then I realise that most PHBs /also/ think that 
"security" is a product that you can just buy.)

Post a reply to this message