Re: VMS Cracked! [was: Linux is the favourite hacker target]

From: Dave Weatherall (djweath_at_attglobal.net)
Date: 09/28/03

  • Next message: Robert Deininger: "Re: VMS system on the web" 
    Date: 28 Sep 2003 11:41:37 GMT

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:28:58 UTC, keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith
    Parris) wrote:

    > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<3F7489E1.5487941D@istop.com>...
    > > But when they hired Cuttler and al to write NT, (and windows 95), they could
    > > have decided to start from a clean slate and stop adding security issues with
    > > each bell and whistle they wanted.
    >
    > Windows 95 was not Cutler's -- that's what NT had to be compatible
    > with.

    My memory tells me that issues about NT/Win95 compatability came about
    with NT4. NT 3.51 had the Win 3.1 desktop/GUI with the Graphics
    hardware separate from the kernel. NT4 has the Win95 GUI, the graphics
    support in the kernel and, at least in the early years, a similar
    number of protection violations and blue screens to Win 95. The
    cross-compatabilily (Win95/NT) without the BSODs was possible but it
    would have felt slower...

    Or are you refering to the lack of consistency in the APIs?
     
    > You can't have a clean slate and backward compatability at the same
    > time.

    I get the impression that there is general 'down' on backward
    compatibility at the minute. Is it vogue? It is _not_ a bad thing. It
    is one of VMS's major strengths. 

    -- 
Cheers - Dave.
  • Next message: Robert Deininger: "Re: VMS system on the web"