On Saturday, February 12, 2011 05:27 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 02/11/11 8:39 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> They have*everything* to do. Look, I*said* this is OT, but since you
>>> insist, the overwhelmingly*bad* design decision was to put the GUI into
>>> ring 0, instead of the way Windows 3, and X on*Nix, and *everybody*
>>> else did, resulting in a GUI error bringing down the*entire* system.
>>
>> the "GUI" is a fairly nebulous term. The graphics display driver
>> is indeed at ring zero for performance (in fact in early versions of NT,
>> it ran in ring 1 or 2, but the performance hit of the ring transitions
>> to access IO ports on early graphics cards was overwhelming so in NT4 it
>> was moved to ring0). However, the GDI, User (window manager), desktop,
>> and about everything else are in ring3 user space.
>
> I'll assume that you've actually worked with the code; I haven't. However,
> I also trust it about as far as I can through a sumo wrestler, since I
> *know* as a fact that M$ frequently had apps make direct calls, *not* to
> the system, but directly to the hardware because the code ran so slowly.
> For example, the classic proof was when Apple went from Moto chips to
> PowerPC, and it broke Word, where they were doing just that (and I've
> heard that from friends who are Macaholics).
>
Oh stop digging deeper. You get app crashes and even lock ups too on
UNIX/Linux. There is only one thing that we can all agree on. All
Microsoft ware are high security risks and should be run inside a
software fortress so to speak.
Everything else is pretty much the same nowadays.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
