Originally posted by
Dumpster Diver
The dark side of Dumpy sez: Microsoft Bill build MSDOS in such a swiss-cheese way so that the Deep State could use it to mess up folks.
Um, no, not quite. 
For one, MS-DOS wasn't written by Bill Gates, nor by anyone else at Microsoft for that matter. What would become known as MS-DOS later was actually initially called 86DOS, and it was written by Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer. However, 86DOS was itself an illegal 16-bit rewrite of the 8-bit CP/M operating system written by Gary Kildall of Digital Research. Given the questionable legal status of 86DOS, Paterson had very little use for it, so he referred to it as "QDOS", which stood for "quick & dirty operating system".
When IBM was looking for an operating system for their original IBM Personal Computer in the very early 1980s, they initially wanted to go with Gary Kildall's CP/M, but they could not come to an agreement with the Kildalls on the licensing — IBM wanted full control, but the Kildalls wanted a royalties-based license deal. So IBM turned to Willie Gates and Microsoft instead, but Gates told IBM that Microsoft was not developing any operating systems.
However, Gates had heard of Paterson's 86DOS, and so he contacted Paterson, bought 86DOS from him for USD $63'000, offered Paterson a job at Microsoft, and then contacted IBM to tell them that he had an operating system for them. 86DOS was subsequently rebranded to MS-DOS, with the name PC-DOS being an IBM-specific version for IBM-branded computers, given that the IBM PC had a ROM BIOS with a built-in BASIC interpreter, which the so-called IBM clones did not have.
As for why MS-DOS was not a secure system, that all had to do with the nature of the underlying processor architecture. DOS was written for the Intel 8086 and 8088 processors. These processors were intended for single-user, single-tasking machines only, and they had no provisions for memory protection, privilege separation and process management whatsoever.
In other words, if one was to implement any kind of multitasking on an 8086 or 8088, then all of that would have had to be implemented in software, and one would have to rely on each process playing nice and not interfering with the memory addresses assigned to other processes, given that each process had full direct access to the entire memory address range and to all of the underlying hardware. Process privilege separation was only introduced — at least, for the Intel x86 platform — in the Intel 80286, and proper memory protection via page tables was only introduced in the Intel 80386.
Microsoft Windows on the other hand is another story. It started off as a graphical user interface on top of DOS, initially even without the ability to have the application windows overlap. Later on, it also begot a DOS memory extender for machines with a more powerful processor than the 8086 — i.e. the Intel 80286 and above — as well as a cooperative multitasking system for processes running in the protected mode of the 80286 and above. Still, even though the 80286 had privilege separation when running in protected mode, Windows ran everything in the highest privilege ring of the processor, and therefore even protected mode processes could still interfere with each other's memory and/or crash the machine.
Windows remained DOS-based up until and including Windows Millennium Edition, but during the lifetime of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, Microsoft also introduced a new family to the Windows platform, being Windows NT. This version of Windows no longer ran on top of DOS, but instead used the NT kernel, a 32-bit (and now also 64-bit) kernel based upon (and essentially illegally copied from) the VMS operating system developed by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC).
Note: The kernel is that part of an operating system which runs in the highest privilege ring of the processor and which directly interacts with the underlying hardware.
Given that DOS was developed for the Intel 8086/8088, it did not have any privilege separation, and therefore DOS was actually more of a program loader than an actual operating system. Its job was to load an executable file into memory off of a rudimentary filesystem on a floppy disk — hard disk support was only added in DOS 3.0 — and to then pass full control of the machine to said executable file.
Windows NT also used some of the code that Microsoft had developed together with IBM for IBM's OS/2 operating system, and it evolved alongside of the DOS-based Windows versions as a separate, more business-oriented system. Then, during the beta stage development of NT 5.0, Bill Gates decided to change the name of the system to Windows 2000, and after Windows 2000, which was still marketed alongside the DOS-based Window Millennium Edition, DOS was completely abandoned and the Windows platform was entirely migrated to the NT kernel.
The problem with Microsoft Windows however is that it had never been designed as an actual operating system. It started off as a graphical user interface on top of a single-user operating system. Therefore, adapting the Windows platform to a VMS-based kernel was a complete mismatch — kind of like attaching a jet engine to an aircraft wing by way of rubber bands.
Security and networking were bolted on as afterthoughts, and the security subsystem in Windows can easily be fully bypassed if you know how to do it. It's like needing an electronic key and a password to unlock the front door, while at the same time there's another door right next to it that doesn't have any locks and is always left wide open. And then we're not even getting into the poor code quality, nor into the fact that Microsoft is actively working together with various alphabet soup agencies — including but not limited to the NSA, DARPA, the CIA and the DHS — nor into the fact that all NT-based versions of Windows come with at least one backdoor for remote access built-in, and that all Windows versions as of Windows XP onward also actively spy on you.
Originally posted by
Dumpster Diver
Steve Jobs then rebuilt Unix (which is much tougher to break into as it has security built into it from its foundation) into MAC OS and was killed off by same Deep State gremlins for his efforts.
Um, no, Jobs didn't rebuild UNIX. He took FreeBSD — which is a direct descendent of the formerly proprietary BSD Unix, and which, like GNU/Linux, is Free & Open Source Software — and he added a few proprietary extensions to it, including its graphical user interface. UNIX systems normally use the X Window System as the engine underneath their graphical user interfaces, but Jobs wanted something proprietary. If anything, Apple's proprietary HFS Plus filesystem in macOS is actually pretty bad in comparison to the filesystems used in other UNIX systems — for one, it is case-retentive but not case-sensitive.
By the way, Jobs was not killed off. He had already long been struggling with cancer, and it was a battle that he ultimately lost. And what's painfully ironic is that Jobs was given a statue and an official holiday in the state of California, while Dennis Ritchie, the man who had created the original Unix together with Ken Thompson, Douglas McIlroy, Brian Kernighan and Joe Ossanna over at AT&T Bell Labs, and who died within days of Steve Jobs, was never even mentioned in the mainstream news.
your skill level along with knowledge of the industry is to our benefit Aragorn!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks