What's the story with the "end of XP"?

And this differs from linux and Mac exactly how?

That reminds me of old versions of NT that Microsoft were extremely keen to point out had been certified as C2 secure. Even the server version, however, was only certified if it wasn't on a network...

Oh, no. It looks like a washing machine or such, definitely not like a PC. You don't need to give it a TFT either.

Rene

... snip ...

What point? Seems invisible to me.

... snip ...

To start with, the source is available for Linux. MAC ??

It differs in several ways. First, neither Linux nor MacOS have the most dangerous internet applications - IE and OE. Secondly, they both have a security model where normal programs do not have system access - this applies to both user-started processes, and the various daemon processes. Third, they both have properly layered network systems - a single "iptables" command (the Mac has something similar) will block all incoming connections without exception. Thus you can firewall the system itself as quickly and reliably as by using a external firewall (in fact, a substantial proportion of firewall/routers run Linux - very few run windows). Forth, Linux services are, in general, more secure (for example, they have no system access), and externally accessible services are normally disabled unless you specifically enable them - there are no default services to attack on most Linux distributions. Fifth, malware (viruses, trojans, etc.) are very much rarer on Linux and Macs (though not unheard of) for a wide variety of reasons.

Having said all that, the same principles apply - it's just that with Linux and Macs, the principles are built into the system, and you have to try much harder to get malware onto your machine.

Wouldn't that MS be Mark Shuttleworth, the person who bankrolls Ubuntu?

(mind you, I've installed Debian on a lot of things, and the only driver problem I've ever had was "which CAN driver shall I use?")

Ahhh. The penalties of indiscriminate abbreviation.

That's great to hear.

I suspect that your porting activities are of more interest to the developers than the many questions to which "RTFM" or "RTFM more carefully" is a perfectly appropriate response ;). Or, indeed, the situations where someone wants to use a certain facility or service, but customised in a particularly haven't-thought-this-through-properly way...

Nice to meet another OBSD user/abuser here, BTW ;).

Steve

Someone posted in this (or the other recent XP related topic) the MS page dealing with that, if you really want to know, look it up. I am not that interested and used the word "PC" myself, not as part of a quotation.

But if you put _XP_ in a product which does not even need a display, it does not take any lawyers to finish you. You have done the job yourself all the way.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

Fully agree with that.

I have used Windows since the Windows NT 3.51 days without stability problems (blue screens etc.) with proper hardware and applications, however, if the computer needs to be connected to some kind of network (including maintenance laptops) the need for frequent security updates (and reboots) makes the system unusable for any 24x365 operations.

OTOH, in fully redundant 24x365 systems, these security updates and reboots are not a problem when executed according to the update plan.

In practice you have to consider using a redundant system at a much lower usability requirement when using Windows than any other operating system.

Paul

I have to agree with CBF (but I won't let it happen again.) to the vast majority MS is Microsoft. Using MS in a SW context is ALWAYS going to mean Microsoft. (And I am not an MS fan)

The availability of the source is completely irrelevant.

... snip ...

Ok. Back to the GNU vs paid-for compiler argument :-)

Here we go again :-)

Unless they are happy with the term toy OS, they better support WinXP embedded for the next 10 years. The embedded world thinks in other time spans than the business and office world. And no, a Vista embedded is no alternative solution. The devices were just about developped for XP embedded, there is zero chance to just swap XP embedded out and Vista embedded in. Even if the'd run on the same footprint, consider all the testing.

Rene

My point is, you install Ubuntu and go to a community to request help configuring a peice of hardware. They then rant on about how its microsofts fault because of the driver model blah blah blah.... Great, thanks for wasting my time. Also like going to a NG and asking a question about XP, then being told to use linux.

... snip ...

Nonsense. Try alt.os.linux.ubuntu.

To what? I agree if you are referring to the need to patch known holes, but when you consider all aspects of network security the availability of the source is far from irrelevant.

Guy Macon