3 ms·
> And the number one thing that could have gotten better in the last 19 years but didn't: security. In 2000, people mostly still used Windows 9x. A single-user
by i80and 7y ago
> And the number one thing that could have gotten better in the last 19 years but didn't: security.
In 2000, people mostly still used Windows 9x. A single-user system with no sandboxing and no built-in firewall.
- tlb 7y agoHe's talking about research, so you have to look at the state of the art, not what the masses were still using. In 2000 I used FreeBSD, which was pretty good. It had jails [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_jail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_jail] by then, which a reasonable person might still prefer to modern Linux containers.
- feanaro 7y agoFreeBSD jails have certainly not be a static concept since 2000, so the term "FreeBSD jail" does not denote a single, unchanged thing.
- cperciva 7y agoWe had jails, but we didn't have virtualized network stacks, pluggable TCP congestion frameworks, or bhyve.
- kllrnohj 7y agoWindows 2000 also existed at that time, was widely used, and was basically straight out of the future. It had: NTFS 3.0 with file encryption support Logical disk management for dynamic disks & expansion of a logical partition over multiple physical disks. Without a reformat. Distributed file systems & hierarchical storage management. MMC with group policy control, active directory, centralized event viewer for OS & application events, and system service management Speaking of which, system services were a thing that actually existed and were managed (systemd fighting still continues, so Linux still hasn't "caught up" on this) Plug & Play ACPI support (technically windows 98 was the first to support this but it was so broken it was a joke - Linux lagged by a few years and didn't really support it until 2.6). User-mode print drivers Network QoS time service with SNTP support