From: tguez@jade.tufts.edu (Name)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: Windows == OS
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:46:10 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA


   N > Unix's system calls are not the same as window's API functions.  On
   N > unix you can use ONLY the system calls to do certain things.  For
   N > instance try accessing process PCBs (processes control blocks)
   N > directly in machine code without using any of UNIX system function
   N > calls- your appllication will be terminated before you release the
   N > return key (this is because unix takes advantage of the OPERATING
   N > SYSTEM BIT or PRIVILEGE BIT).  Now you can freely do this on DOS, and
   N > in ms-windows.  You can very easily play with the PCB of windows
   N > engine itself.  This is because DOS does not take care of this (I am
   N > sure that on 286 and up has this bit).  This means that DOS still
   N > has a higher role than just a "device-driver for windows."  Hence,
   N > windows does not releave DOS of it's most fundamental operating system
   N > duties, and therefore, windows IS NOT an OP.
   N > 
   N > The protected mode windows is so famous for is either not the same
   N > thing as I described in the previous paragraph or windows is not doing
   N > the job properly because it's not windows job but DOS's job.  Just
   N > yesterday I downloaded winvn, I executed from file-manager, and QEMM
   N > wrote on window's screen like it did not exist, and it complained that
   N > the CPU informed QEMM that the application *** executed a bad
   N > instruction and it gave me the option to reboot the system.  Now if
   N > DOS would of taken care these things like on unix, the application
   N > would of terminated and UNIX would of cleaned up after it (more or
   N > less) without rebooting.  Yet, it was not windows that complained, it
   N > was QEMM which is DOS's baby.  There is another example of where DOS
   N > still serves as an operating system were windows does not take serious
   N > duties.
>   You are ONLY describing the lack of security in the OS Windows. The main re>   ason 
>   for that is, that all apps and the system are running on the same CPU 
>   protection ring.
Correct, I am ONLY describing the lack of security in Windows
(please don't put OS, it creates a bitter taste in my mouth, you'll
understand why in a while, it is premature to explain why now), AND I
have continued to explain the argument, but you missed it even after
I explained it.  Let me ask you, what is the essense of the argument
you commented?  Actually, answer what does this lack of API security
in windows, in particular, mean? 

Windows is not viewing the underline machine as bare hardware, it is
aware of the existence of an underline machine+an operating system
that runs it (DOS).  Hence, calls to the underline machine and to the
operating system that runs it are possible.  Look at the
diagram of OS/2 again:

  +------------+     +------------+     +------------+
  |            |     |            |     |            |
  | Application|     | Application|     | Application|
  |            |     |            |     |            |
  +------------+     +------------+     +------------+
+======================================================+
| +----------------------------------+..............+  |
| | application programming interface| API extension|  |
| +----------------------------------+..............+  |
|                                                      |
| +-----------+ +-----------+            +-----------+ |
| | subsystem | | subsystem |            | subsystem | |
| +-----------+ +-----------+............+-----------+ |
| +--------------------------------------------------+ |
| |                                                  | |
| |                                                  | |
| |       system kernel                              | |
| |                           memory management      | |
| |                           task dispatching       | |
| |                           device management      | |
| +--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +--------+    +--------+   +--------+     +--------+ |
| | device |    | device |   | device |     | device | |
| | driver |    | driver |   | driver |     | driver | |
| +--------+    +--------+   +--------+     +--------+ |
+======================================================+

Do you see where the API extensions sit?  The applications running on
this operating system view everything underneath them as the machine
(a smarter machine).  The API functions of windows sit here (in an
analogy to OS/2):

  +------------+     +------------+     +------------+
  |            |     |            |     |            |
  | Application|     | Application|     | Application+--+
  |            |     |            |     | API functions |
  +------------+     +------------+     +------------+--+
+======================================================+
| +----------------------------------+..............+  |
| | application programming interface| API extension|  |
| +----------------------------------+..............+  |
|                                                      |
| +-----------+ +-----------+            +-----------+ |
| | subsystem | | subsystem |            | subsystem | |
| +-----------+ +-----------+............+-----------+ |
| +--------------------------------------------------+ |
| |                                                  | |
| |                                                  | |
| |       system kernel                              | |
| |                           memory management      | |
| |                           task dispatching       | |
| |                           device management      | |
| +--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +--------+    +--------+   +--------+     +--------+ |
| | device |    | device |   | device |     | device | |
| | driver |    | driver |   | driver |     | driver | |
| +--------+    +--------+   +--------+     +--------+ |
+======================================================+

These API functions are are application APIs (sort to speak).
However, to implement these APIs windows had to "implants" some things
into DOS, which contributed to your conceptual confusion (and which
makes windows something that is also prematured to discuss now, but
not an operating system).

>   BUT AN OS HAS NOT TO BE SECURE TO BE AN OS.
This is the result of you misunderstanding my arguments; mistaking
subtle argument to ignorant onces.

>   But of course, if security is the point of view Unix or OS/2 is the better >   OS.

>   Martin


Tomer