Board index » delphi » Re: A fossil makes a statement

Re: A fossil makes a statement


2003-11-30 06:39:10 PM
delphi79
Quote
And what has this to do with .Net?
In case you missed, it what a reply to your thinking that MAPI
was the source of all evils, which you used as argument that .net
was better.
Also in case you missed, .net doesn't prevent access to sockets,
and just like existing scripts and subprocesses, .net proggies
can have the privileges of whatever started them. The obvious
conclusion is that .net won't prevent worm writers to use the same
old techniques.
Eric
 
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

"Jim Cooper" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>wrote
Quote
... In Australia and the UK, what were government monopolies
(electricity and water supply, phones, trains etc) got privatised and
people often now pay more (in real terms)
for poorer service. ...
Jim,
Did you mean to include phones? In Houston, TX, with the phone service
about half deregulated, I now pay US$20/month for local service and 39
cents + 3 cents/minute for long distance (even to the Canada and UK).
Fifty years ago, with the then regulated monopoly phone service, we paid
about $6/month for local service and several dollars a minute for LD.
Rgds, JohnH
Followup set to off-topic.
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Captain Jake writes:
Quote
In borland.public.delphi.non-technical, Jon Springs <>wrote in
message <3fc438de$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>...
>Besides, .NET is just Java repackaged to avoid the SUN licenses and
>the judgment against M$ for violating them.

Since it is newer, I would be surprised if it wasn't an improvement on
Java.
Oh, everything newer is an improvement then ?
Rene
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

On 29-Nov-03, Andreas Prucha said:
Quote
Does not make a difference. A company which highly dominates the
market is as bad as a monopoly created by the government.
Not if it attains and sustains its position by outperforming the
competition in terms of product value to the customer.
--
Bill
--------
"Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it
public property." -- Walter Williams
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Quote
In case you missed, it what a reply to your thinking that MAPI
was the source of all evils, which you used as argument that .net
was better.
MAPI was an example. I was just trying to say that there are many layers of
API in Win32 (as you are saying too), and that I thought there should be
more security on each layer.
Oliver Townshend
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

On 30-Nov-03, David Smith said:
Quote
Although I am not sure what the correct term is in english, maybe you
should find out why there are competitive laws in the first place.
I have, and if you will do some reading in economics, you will see that
many of them *create*, rather than solve problems.
--
Bill
--------
"Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it
public property." -- Walter Williams
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Quote
.net blurs even more the line between what is a program, an executable,
capable of actions, and what isn't. That just can not result in increased
security in practice.
It can if it provides administrators with more control.
Oliver Townshend
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

William Meyer writes:
Quote
On 29-Nov-03, Andreas Prucha said:

>Does not make a difference. A company which highly dominates the
>market is as bad as a monopoly created by the government.

Not if it attains and sustains its position by outperforming the
competition in terms of product value to the customer.
Although I am not sure what the correct term is in english, maybe you
should find out why there are competitive laws in the first place.
David
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Quote
Sadly you get that even without monopolies. In Australia and the UK,
what were government monopolies (electricity and water supply, phones,
trains etc) got privatised and people often now pay more (in real terms)
for poorer service. Usually much poorer service.
Telstra phone rental is now less (in real terms), as are call costs, and
service is far more rapid. How is this poorer? Maybe you can not remember
over a decade ago when Telstra was a monopoly. The only services still this
poor in NSW are still all owned by the Government, who concentrate on
ripping money out of the system rather than spending it on infrastructure.
Oliver Townshend
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Quote
It can if it provides administrators with more control.
The same level of control could have been added to "native code", it is not
a prerogative of p-code. Yet now is simpler for MS to design a "safe
machine" on top of an "unsafe" one, instead of redesigning the whole Windows
system, that would probably lead to compatibility issues, although they are
adding some controls mechanism to lower some kind of threats.
But don't tell us, please, that VMs are inherently secure while machine code
isnt't. It is the whole system design that make it more or less secure. And
a VM is a software system and may have exploits too.
--
Luigi D. Sandon
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Martin James writes:
Quote
There ought to be a 'Good Old Days' site for prehistoric prose like
this. 'dinosaurs.com' or something.
Try "alt.folklore.computers" on Usenet.
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Luigi D. Sandon writes:
Quote
Intel introduced hardware protection twenty years ago and only now MS
will increase "hardware protection" for user code with the next XP
service pack, but only using some processors, and Windows itself does
not take full advantage of the x86 "protected mode", because they
were afraid it could impact performance too much - Windows 2000 even
moved code from kernel mode to user mode to speed up performance, but
exposing it to attacks.
Windows was designed to run on multiple CPU families. That put a lot of
limitations on the CPU features that Windows could take advantage of.
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Quote
Windows was designed to run on multiple CPU families. That put a lot of
I partly agree, but what's the HAL for? And why they're adding it now? I do
not know enough Alpha and MIPS platform to know if features similar to those
of IA-32 are present, but I guess there should have been something.
--
Luigi D. Sandon
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

David Smith writes:
Quote

Although I am not sure what the correct term is in english, maybe you
should find out why there are competitive laws in the first place.
Antitrust laws exist for one essential reason - a woeful lack of
understanding of economic principles. The first antitrust laws (The Sherman
Act in the U.S.) were created to deal mainly with the railroad monopolies -
once again monopolies that came into being *only* because of government in
the first place.
Determining whether any action is "competitive" or "uncompetitive" under
antitrust is not based on the nature of the act involved, it is based on who
commits the act. An act that is perfectly legal and competitve today can be
claimed by government to be a crime tomorrow, and the "criminal" prosecuted
for it - all because he gained one point too many in market share, or simply
because government sees an opportunity to "get" someone.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can
stand by itself." - Thomas Jefferson
 

Re: A fossil makes a statement

Luigi D. Sandon <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
But don't tell us, please, that VMs are inherently secure while machine code
isnt't. It is the whole system design that make it more or less secure. And
a VM is a software system and may have exploits too.
Exactly, but I think it would be easier to secure a Virtual Machine than
machine code O/S. that is the whole design philosophy behind Java, after all,
and I think it has worked quite well.
Oliver Townshend