>> Granted, backwards compatibility didn't help them at all. But I'm pretty
>> sure there are better solutions than what they actually came up with.
>
> Remember that when you're talking about security, the result is to break
> things. Security in this sense means "preventing things from working as
> programmed." Hence, you can't increase security effectively without
> breaking backward compatibility. It's a careful balancing act you have
> to do.

...which completely explains how Vista and 7 managed to be more secure 
while not breaking everything in sight.

Oh, wait. No it doesn't.

It also doesn't explain why Windows couldn't have done this 10 years ago.

Post a reply to this message