Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:46:22 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: As usual, I disagree. Message-ID: <036901c17949$335163b0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15366.58396.746782.116282@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike writes: > No, there are good reasons for allowing every > client application to find out about every event. Yes, but in an event-driven system, you must compel applications to look at events, and not merely wait for them to inquire. It is usually more efficient to notify them. > Doing it the Windows way leads to the huge, > resource-consuming GUI that MS has saddled the > world with. It also provides the flexibility and functionality that helped make that GUI the leader. You can't have it both ways. > Sounds like Windows NT isn't as good a desktop as X. It is functionally almost identical to the consumer versions, so it is generally a better desktop, for most users. > X clients can get all the available information > about any window open on any display they can talk > to. Covert channels, in other words. Not possible in NT. > Yes, this represents a security problem, but you're > the one who keeps saying that doesn't matter on the > desktop. Correct. That's why consumer versions of Windows allow it. NT is for users more concerned with security and stability, but its narrower appeal demonstrates that most users don't care about either of these. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?036901c17949$335163b0$0a00000a>