legalize at xmission.com
Sun Jan 29 15:22:40 CST 2006
In article <20060129170443.GG11318 at widomaker.com>,
Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com> writes:
> Thu, 26 Jan 2006 @ 20:13 -0600, Jonathan C. Patschke said:
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > >> - you are handing over the keys to your hardware's most privileged
> > >> mode, allowing whoever wrote that code to do whatever they might
> > >> happen to feel like with your system.
> > >
> > > Yes, but that's far less likely, and it doesn't happen through an API
> > > that was deliberately designed to allow it, and it is very unlikely to
> > > happen from a userland software install like it can in Windows.
> > Which API entry points, in particular, are you talking about?
> I don't know, I don't write Windows drivers.
So do you think its fair to criticize something from ignorance?
Most of the time when I see critics of Windows its always "well
someone else told me..." and they don't know any specifics. Its easy
to criticize something without being specific as that puts all the
burden on the other side, i.e. "prove to me you're not guilty!".
If you're going to make such accusations, the burden of proof is on
you to spell out exactly what the accusation means, IMO.
Far, far, far too often I have seen critics of Windows unable to
substantiate their claims. They spout such criticism to other people
who also hate Windows and never challenge the claims that are tossed
out there. Without the specifics on your accusation, its impossible
to tell if its unfounded or not.
If you have specific accusations, I can find out more about them from
the windows security experts. Chances are there is a simple way to
deal with them, such as not allowing people to use a Windows box as an
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
More information about the rescue