Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- From: "anton bassov" <soviet_bloke@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Oct 2006 02:19:54 -0700
David,
Freedom to innovate? Are you sure that's what you REALLY want?
Early versions of Windows were very open -- programs shared memory
spaces and had access to pretty much everything.
[...]
The question is: do
applications have a fundamental RIGHT to muck around in the OS
internals? If so, why? And "it lets me do more stuff" isn't an
answer, it's just restating the question.
I am afraid you are taking the discussion into completely different
field....
Certainly, applications haven't got *ANY* right to get involved with
the OS internals, and no one, including the OP, seems to argue about
that - after all, this is what protected OS is all about. However, we
are speaking about drivers, i.e. about *TRUSTED* system components. In
fact, they are nothing less than OS extension, and, hence, should be
treated as a part of the system - I don't see any reason why non-MSFT
system components should be treated differently from MSFT-provided ones
by the system.
Anton Bassov
David Jones wrote:
smerf wrote:
Microsoft is taking a page from President Bush here. In the name of safety,
they remove the freedom to innovate from 3rd parties and give themselves
more power than ever (while claiming that right for themselves in courts
around the world). Those that would trade liberty for safety deserve (and
will have) niether.
Huh? That is one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen. You're
comparing the right to privacy (Patriot Act) with the right to spy
on other people (removing hooking). If there is any comparison at
all, it would be as total opposites.
Freedom to innovate? Are you sure that's what you REALLY want?
Early versions of Windows were very open -- programs shared memory
spaces and had access to pretty much everything. This works as
long as all the software plays nice, but not all software plays
nice.
As time has gone on, Microsoft has steadily locked programs down.
Now you can't go mucking around in other program's memory space
unless you have explicit access. Services are prevented from
interacting with the user. And so on. And, you know what? It's
a lot more stable. My Windows 2000 machine works a lot better
than my Windows 98 machine, and Windows XP works better still.
Yeah, it can be annoying when my trick du jour no longer works,
but I'd gladly trade OS stability for it. The question is: do
applications have a fundamental RIGHT to muck around in the OS
internals? If so, why? And "it lets me do more stuff" isn't an
answer, it's just restating the question.
REALbasic + Linux is looking better and better.
Absolutely nothing is preventing you from following this path right now.
As if I'm not.....
Then why are you in -> win32.programmer.kernel <- ??? Trying to
stroke your ego for being "smart enough to switch"?
David
.
- References:
- How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- From: smerf
- Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- From: Don Burn
- Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- From: smerf
- Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- From: Tim Roberts
- Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- From: smerf
- Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- From: David Jones
- How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- Prev by Date: Re: Add custom file information class?
- Next by Date: Kernel address questions
- Previous by thread: Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- Next by thread: Re: How will PatchGuard change kernel programming?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
