Windows Security, Linux, other good stuff

edited October 2004 in Software
http://weblogs.asp.net/larryosterman/ar ... 41593.aspx

Larry Osterman rocks. He definitely knows what he's talking.

There are lots of interesting tidbits about Longhorn in the comments. Longhorn is looking like it's going to be might secure. I like that.
«1

Comments

  • wow! he seems to be writing some good stuff.

    Bookmarked...


    anyway...I actually like Longhorn. I think it has much potential. When I get a bigger HD, I am going to install it as a second or third OS. It should be interesting.

    The only problem with it in VMware is that it ran slow as hell, but so did XP, and 2000, when on the same machine not vmed they ran very fast.
  • Longhorn is designed for the computers of 2006. It'll be running in Tier 3 mode on your system, and won't be much different than XP + some enhancements.

    Those who'll be able to run in Tier 1 are going to drool.
  • Tomchu wrote:
    Longhorn is designed for the computers of 2006. It'll be running in Tier 3 mode on your system, and won't be much different than XP + some enhancements.

    Those who'll be able to run in Tier 1 are going to drool.

    I still like some of the changes.


    I wonder how it would run a 500 Mhz notebook? j/k ;)
  • James Babb wrote:
    Tomchu wrote:
    Longhorn is designed for the computers of 2006. It'll be running in Tier 3 mode on your system, and won't be much different than XP + some enhancements.

    Those who'll be able to run in Tier 1 are going to drool.

    I still like some of the changes.


    I wonder how it would run a 500 Mhz notebook? j/k ;)

    Like Mandrake 10 on a 100 MHz Pentium with 32 MB of RAM. :)
  • LMAO


    Okay...I am not longer breaking the rules because I typed something else.
  • WoW, what a ridiculuous and completely contentless circumvention.

    -Q
  • Q wrote:
    WoW, what a ridiculuous and completely contentless circumvention.

    -Q

    huh? But the rules state I can not make a post if it is only a smilie, so thus if I add random words or something to it, it is no longer breaking the rules. I am the master (not really) at finding loop holes.
  • You know perfectly well why that rule was put there. To keep people from posting 1 word crap posts that contribute nothing to the discussion or community. Even with your "loop-hole" that's still a worthless and uncontributory post.

    -Q
  • Q wrote:
    You know perfectly well why that rule was put there. To keep people from posting 1 word crap posts that contribute nothing to the discussion or community. Even with your "loop-hole" that's still a worthless and uncontributory post.

    Going by that definition, your post complaining about him breaking the rule also is breaking the rule. You weren't contributing to the discussion or community by posting it.
  • Time to make the Patriot Act, I mean WinBoards Act, so we can revise the rules and take away basic freedoms while were at it!
  • Q's an admin, so it don't really count lol
  • BOD wrote:
    Q's an admin, so it don't really count lol

    The rules should apply to the admins just as much as regulars.
  • Were in the middle of revising the rules... the "No sex/slander/alcohol" one was removed today
  • Were in the middle of revising the rules... the "No sex/slander/alcohol" one was removed today

    Excellent!

    So the other day, I was fucking this bitch while swigging down a bottle of gin, and I got so piss-drunk that I threw up all over the cunt. She wasn't happy, so I told her to shut her face, and continued to pump her ass some more.

    :-D

    LOL

    I'm just kidding, people. Calm down.
  • Tomchu wrote:
    Were in the middle of revising the rules... the "No sex/slander/alcohol" one was removed today

    Excellent!

    So the other day, I was fucking this bitch while swigging down a bottle of gin, and I got so piss-drunk that I threw up all over the cunt. She wasn't happy, so I told her to shut her face, and continued to pump her ass some more.

    :-D

    LOL

    I'm just kidding, people. Calm down.

    LOL thats great to hear (y)

    The rule was removed because NOONE followed it, even the admins didnt.
  • Tomchu wrote:
    Were in the middle of revising the rules... the "No sex/slander/alcohol" one was removed today

    Excellent!

    So the other day, I was fucking this bitch while swigging down a bottle of gin, and I got so piss-drunk that I threw up all over the cunt. She wasn't happy, so I told her to shut her face, and continued to pump her ass some more.

    :-D

    LOL

    I'm just kidding, people. Calm down.
    nice post. i fell out of my chair after reading that.
  • I sincerely hope that at long last M$ are going to make something that can work good, and have excellent security.
    Then, if it's true, I am going to look more closer at the development of it.
    If it's true, LH will be my fav OS then!!!
  • Since 2000 MS has been rather dead. They've witnesed other things rise around them. I am hoping that LH will be one of the more higher quality OS's that MS has released (and not like windows ME...).

    Yeah, running LH on a virtual machine at first can make it seem too slow. But find a good tweaking guide for it. I tweaked and patched LH and it ran rather well inside a small VM. (2.8Ghz, 256MB ram, 4 gig HD). Although it detected a sound card, but didn't know what it was. Besides... I don't play sounds from a virtual machine so it wasn't a problem.

    P.S. Tom, that was a rather clever story....
  • I'll agree that 2000 was a definate high water mark for MS. It'll always be remembered by me. XP definately has some improvements, but there's other new stuff that I really find worthless. I'll just feel more @ home in 2000...

    -Q
  • LOL!

    MS has hardly been "dead" the release of Windows 2000 ..

    - XP (HUGE improvements in the subsystems of the OS)
    - Server 2003 (huge improvements in performance + stability)
    - SP2
    - Longhorn (which has been in development for years, probably since the release of 2000)
    - Office XP
    - Office 2003
    - tons of other software MS has released

    Yeah, dead ... :-|
  • "dead", being subjective here. I interpreted it as a change is direction of OS focus (Well, something like that, I don't know how to really phrase it).

    -Q
  • Q wrote:
    "dead", being subjective here. I interpreted it as a change is direction of OS focus (Well, something like that, I don't know how to really phrase it).

    -Q

    So tell me how MS's direction of OS focus has changed?
  • I don't know, only the newer OSes seem to have a different feel.

    Yea I know, not very presice, but I can't put everything into words. Only that XP just has a subtly different look and feel to it, and I somehow perfer 2000 to it.

    I know, it's "(Insert your adjective here)", but I'm not telling you to agrre with it, it's just what I can state in written words, in a attempt to answer your question.

    -Q
  • Their OS focus has, and most likely always will be, "A Windows for work" and "A Windows for home".

    Look and feel can be adjusted, and hardly describes MS's OS direction.
  • Alright, so "look and feel" were misappropriated. More subtle feelings that I still can't distill (Best word that came to mind). I admit it's a poor showing, but I'm not really here to convince anyone of anything so I'm settling for what whould normally be substandard rhetoric.

    -Q
  • Fair enough.
  • Tomchu wrote:
    LOL!

    MS has hardly been "dead" the release of Windows 2000 ..

    - XP (HUGE improvements in the subsystems of the OS)
    - Server 2003 (huge improvements in performance + stability)
    - SP2
    - Longhorn (which has been in development for years, probably since the release of 2000)
    - Office XP
    - Office 2003
    - tons of other software MS has released

    Yeah, dead ... :-|

    I guess soon they will release SP5 to Win2K, that will include new crap from XP SP2... and will be better...
  • First, to get 2000 to do alot of the things that XP does, they would need to re-write the kernel for better CPU support as far as I know. But since everyones getting new computers all the time, noone NEEDS an older OS anymore, so Microsoft will most likely not release another service pack for Windows 2000. Their service pack roadmap doesnt show there being one either.


    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecy ... packs.mspx
  • i think they were planning to release one but i think they've given up on it, besides even my PII 233 can run 2003 :P
Sign In or Register to comment.