3 ms·
> All of the good of the world is lost, nothing can be made secure, nothing is compatible with 90% of everything... it's all been shredded, and makes me very, v
by ctvo 5y ago
> All of the good of the world is lost, nothing can be made secure, nothing is compatible with 90% of everything... it's all been shredded, and makes me very, very sad.
Computing was less ubiquitous and less complex (in terms of systems, users, functionality). Things felt more secure because there were fewer actors trying to exploit them. There was more compatibility because there were fewer companies. If the space is filled with 10 companies making technology vs. 10000, you can see how it may be easier to coordinate.
The world is messy, and computing is messy. Throwing your hands up and walking away because software ate the world and is harder now (to reason about, to make secure, to maintain) is on you.
- mikewarot 5y ago>Things felt more secure because there were fewer actors trying to exploit them. It is true that there were fewer threats back then. It is also true that things were more secure. The hardware respected the write protect tab of your boot disk. The OS could easily be copied, and the copy verified, in a few minutes. The hardware was dumb, and didn't have anywhere to stuff trojan horses. We have modern hardware, but no modern operating systems to protect that hardware and make it secure. There are no modern systems as secure as an IBM XT with dual floppy disks and a CGA display running MS-DOS. (and it isn't because MS-DOS was amazing)