| 1 |
On 01/04/2014 05:21 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05/01/2014 02:42, walt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/04/2014 03:44 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> FAT was designed for MS-DOS where you put a floppy in the drive and you |
| 6 |
>>> had full access to everything on it. There was no need to implement |
| 7 |
>>> security. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I think the operative phrase is "there was no need" back when Gates and |
| 10 |
>> Allen trained the world to accept failure as good enough. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I don't think so. This was back in the early 80s remember and PCs were a |
| 18 |
> new novelty. The thing to compare them to was paper records and we all |
| 19 |
> know bits of paper have no inherent security attributes. If you want to |
| 20 |
> secure them, keep them in a space with a lock. To secure a PC and it's |
| 21 |
> floppies, store them in a space with a lock. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> And then there's the hardware, those things ran on 8086 chips. Not bad |
| 24 |
> for the time, but not exactly heavy on cpu grunt. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> You can't seriously be pushing the line that MS promotes failure. gates |
| 27 |
> and Allen had the balls to get a working pc to market that put one on |
| 28 |
> every office desk and made computing ubiquitous. Sure, if they didn't do |
| 29 |
> it someone else would have, but they are the guys that did when no-one |
| 30 |
> else had managed. Think Amstrad, Sinclair, early Commodore. Even the |
| 31 |
> Beeb, awesome as it was, tanked completely. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> It's all very easy for us to sit back today and play monday morning |
| 34 |
> fullback but in those days hardly anyone had a clue about security or |
| 35 |
> how to do it. The guys who did know were the mainframe and mini guys, |
| 36 |
> and that model didn't translate to what the PC was meant for. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Hey, I like to bash MS as much as the next guy (IE6 is a crime that |
| 39 |
> shall never be forgiven) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
LOL! |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> but I do think we should bash MS for things |
| 44 |
> they deserve, not so much for things they don't. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Okay, okay, you're absolutely right about the early-early days. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I'm thinking about the era when GM's CEO complained that if GM made |
| 49 |
cars the way Bill made software (I paraphrase) then tow-truck drivers |
| 50 |
would be millionaires. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
For several years the IT people where I work have been making hundreds |
| 53 |
of lives a living hell because failure is greeted every day with a shrug |
| 54 |
and a hostile apology, |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I *do* blame M$ for setting the bar that low, though not in the early |
| 57 |
days, I agree. |
Archives