World's Safest OS - New comment on Stirring the Microsoft Comment Pot on a Rainy Wee....
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Stirring the Microsoft Comment Pot on a Rainy Wee...":
Apple just angered QuickTime/web developers by completely removing QuickTime's ability to trigger scripts on pages.
I've read debates on Mac programmer threads wherein the same complaint is voiced multiple times: this breaks the core functionality of many web assets that must now be re-coded, thanks to Apple.
But the prevailing sentiment is that Apple did absolutely the right thing; it inconveniences programmers but it's an overdue security measure.
What if Microsoft took a page out of the same book and released an OS build (or even just a browser) that omitted all vb, ActiveX and .net functionality.
Yes, a lot of stuff would have to be rewritten. (A lot of stuff!) But then the OS/browser stack would be ACTUALLY SECURE. Wouldn't it be worth it?
I know I'm probably overlooking something technical here, and I'm ready to be scolded by programmers who can't wait to tell me how unfeasible this is.
But isn't there something to be said for the core idea? I mean, in the 90s microsoft permanently welded the browser functionality into the foundations of the OS in order to "prove" that forcing one browser over another was somehow necessary and unavoidable. My understanding is that this is why a popup ad can get into my registry and my .dll library and lay "lice eggs" that are extremely difficult to find and remove and which present a moving target to any filtering system.
My PC stays clean until I open Internet Explorer; then it's only a matter of time before I'm infected. Is ActiveX so indispensable that it's worth all this?
If I'm completely wrong about this, I would greatly appreciate it if somebody would explain why.