5 ms·

I'm also interested in the answer to their question instead of these diversions.

by mejari 11y ago

loginusername 11y ago
And why are you interested? A comment in response to a NYT "article" (=PR piece) on Microsoft's approach to "security" where the comment points out that Windows is an extremely large program with layers upon layers of historical cruft and that it remains closed source. Additionally I suggested Windows is the easiest target for finding security flaws. It is a very large attack surface. Is this really controversial? For better or worse, I am responding to these comments no matter how nonsensical they are. The best comments have actually come from Microsoft employees, past or present.
- wvenable 11y ago
  Windows is actually very modular; even the kernel is designed in a micro-kernel style even though it all runs in ring 0. There are versions of Windows with no GUI. Every other comparable operating system is in the same order of magnitude in the size of the code. The attack surface for any large OS is going to be about the same.
  - loginusername 11y ago
    "There are versions of Windows with no GUI." Do they run in VGA textmode? I have used a program called "window" and today I use tmux but neither of those come from Microsoft. How do I obtain one of these versions of Microsoft Windows that runs in VGA textmode? "The attack surface for any large OS..." Well yes, because they are all large. But what if the OS is small? Let me guess, now you are going to tell me that all OS, e.g., kernel plus userland, are the same size?
    - wvenable 11y ago
      Of course, not all OS kernel plus userland are the same size. However, we aren't talking about "smaller" we are talking about "small". Small being something you can write and/or fully understand. If you wrote your kernel and userland or at least understand every part of it then, congratulations, you made your point. But if you don't, your OS/userland is smaller but it isn't small. And probably most developers could write an OS/userland by themselves given enough time but it would probably be a long time before it's practically useful or secure.
      - loginusername 11y ago
        Alright, I think we have reached agreement. Software that is "smaller" than Microsoft Windows. It exists. I prefer such "smaller" software and use it every day. For me, it is "practically useful". I regularly see others stating it is useful for them, too. Have no idea what "secure" means in the abstract, but maybe smaller software and the way it is used can be "more secure" (or less secure) than Windows. "Fully understand" is a very high watermark to reach with any system. But given the choice between a larger system that is opaque and one that is smaller and open source I believe I can (partially) understand the smaller one better.
        wvenable 11y ago
        My point is all software is large; even Linux combined with it's user-land is large. Larger than Windows was a while back. What you prefer is pretty immaterial to the discussion; you choice is perfectly valid even though I would personally find it wasteful.
        loginusername 11y ago
        I do not use Linux on a day to day basis as I said multiple times in these threads, nor do I consider the popular Linux distributions as a good example of small(er) software. They keep getting larger. Some have said the larger Linux distributions aim to be a "replacement" for Windows. I would tend to agree. I have little interest in Windows nor the "desktop" metaphor. But, at least with an open source kernel such as Linux (aside from the binary blobs), unlike closed source Microsoft Windows kernel, a user can reduce the size. One can also use an initrd with her own small(er) programs or a mutli-call binary instead of a GNU userland put together by a third party organization. I have never compiled my own reduced size Windows kernel or any other part of Windows given that it is a _closed source kernel_. The idea that I am even having to state seems ridiculous. Most everyone reading this forum knows this. This whole "discussion" is surreal. Funny that you use the word "wasteful". That is exactly how I view large(r) software. It wastes valuable resources that, on my systems, are in limited and often short supply. The reason I mentioned what I prefer was to disclose bias. Certainly everyone has one. The reason I mentioned what I use was only to provide example, to illustrate that such small(er) software exists. Again, the idea I even have to state this, to someone on this forum, seems surreal. There are alternatives to Windows and to Linux distributions, at least in my case. I know for fact I am not the only one using small(er) software, but I am not comfortable speaking for others. What software they choose to use is their business, not mine.

I'm also interested in the answer to their question instead of these diversions.

by mejari 11y ago

I'm also interested in the answer to their question instead of these diversions.

And why are you interested? A comment in response to a NYT "article" (=PR piece) on Microsoft's approach to "security" where the comment points out that Windows is an extremely large program with layers upon layers of historical cruft and that it remains closed source. Additionally I suggested Windows is the easiest target for finding security flaws. It is a very large attack surface. Is this really controversial? For better or worse, I am responding to these comments no matter how nonsensical they are. The best comments have actually come from Microsoft employees, past or present.

wvenable 11y ago
Windows is actually very modular; even the kernel is designed in a micro-kernel style even though it all runs in ring 0. There are versions of Windows with no GUI. Every other comparable operating system is in the same order of magnitude in the size of the code. The attack surface for any large OS is going to be about the same.
- loginusername 11y ago
  "There are versions of Windows with no GUI." Do they run in VGA textmode? I have used a program called "window" and today I use tmux but neither of those come from Microsoft. How do I obtain one of these versions of Microsoft Windows that runs in VGA textmode? "The attack surface for any large OS..." Well yes, because they are all large. But what if the OS is small? Let me guess, now you are going to tell me that all OS, e.g., kernel plus userland, are the same size?
  - wvenable 11y ago
    Of course, not all OS kernel plus userland are the same size. However, we aren't talking about "smaller" we are talking about "small". Small being something you can write and/or fully understand. If you wrote your kernel and userland or at least understand every part of it then, congratulations, you made your point. But if you don't, your OS/userland is smaller but it isn't small. And probably most developers could write an OS/userland by themselves given enough time but it would probably be a long time before it's practically useful or secure.
    - loginusername 11y ago
      Alright, I think we have reached agreement. Software that is "smaller" than Microsoft Windows. It exists. I prefer such "smaller" software and use it every day. For me, it is "practically useful". I regularly see others stating it is useful for them, too. Have no idea what "secure" means in the abstract, but maybe smaller software and the way it is used can be "more secure" (or less secure) than Windows. "Fully understand" is a very high watermark to reach with any system. But given the choice between a larger system that is opaque and one that is smaller and open source I believe I can (partially) understand the smaller one better.
      - wvenable 11y ago
        My point is all software is large; even Linux combined with it's user-land is large. Larger than Windows was a while back. What you prefer is pretty immaterial to the discussion; you choice is perfectly valid even though I would personally find it wasteful.
        loginusername 11y ago
        I do not use Linux on a day to day basis as I said multiple times in these threads, nor do I consider the popular Linux distributions as a good example of small(er) software. They keep getting larger. Some have said the larger Linux distributions aim to be a "replacement" for Windows. I would tend to agree. I have little interest in Windows nor the "desktop" metaphor. But, at least with an open source kernel such as Linux (aside from the binary blobs), unlike closed source Microsoft Windows kernel, a user can reduce the size. One can also use an initrd with her own small(er) programs or a mutli-call binary instead of a GNU userland put together by a third party organization. I have never compiled my own reduced size Windows kernel or any other part of Windows given that it is a _closed source kernel_. The idea that I am even having to state seems ridiculous. Most everyone reading this forum knows this. This whole "discussion" is surreal. Funny that you use the word "wasteful". That is exactly how I view large(r) software. It wastes valuable resources that, on my systems, are in limited and often short supply. The reason I mentioned what I prefer was to disclose bias. Certainly everyone has one. The reason I mentioned what I use was only to provide example, to illustrate that such small(er) software exists. Again, the idea I even have to state this, to someone on this forum, seems surreal. There are alternatives to Windows and to Linux distributions, at least in my case. I know for fact I am not the only one using small(er) software, but I am not comfortable speaking for others. What software they choose to use is their business, not mine.