Reply #35: OK, let's look at post #7:

[muriel_volestrangler]

You might want to start with understanding the concepts behind Von Neuman architecture

"operate on its instructions like data" is a key concept. Also realize that operating systems have different purposes.

Security is a trade off against usability and functionality. Windows 6 (Vista) was the but of jokes over it, but it was step in the right direction.

I doubt you fully understood what you posted, since your approach would not allow any software that was not the operating system to "execute". That would preclude things like Firefox, Zip, Photoshop, and even the BBS software behind DU. How about those of us who actually write software? You would be precluding new software from being created unless it went through the OS provider.

Maybe you want your hardware as locked up as an Iphone or Ipad under tight corporate control. Doesn't seem like a real good idea to most us. You might want to rethink your solution.

I said: "Those programs are the purpose of a computer - to allow it to be programmable, ie run different programs at different times, according to the wishes of the user. " This marries closely with #7's "your approach would not allow any software that was not the operating system to "execute". That would preclude things like Firefox, Zip, Photoshop, and even the BBS software behind DU". I said: "Stop user programs running and you're designing a non-programmable computer - not really a computer in the generally accepted sense at all, but a bit of consumer electronics tied to the manufacturer"; that is very similar to "Maybe you want your hardware as locked up as an Iphone or Ipad under tight corporate control." Yes, I think I agree with it.

There is no need for me to Google things on this subject; I helped write an operating system at one point. Your comparison of yourself to Einstein is laughable, since you still don't seem to grasp that the flexibility of a computer is the fundamental usefulness of it. You have to enable people to obtain new software for it. They don't know when they buy it that they'll want Google Earth on it, or family tree software, or games that haven't been written yet, or applications in categories that haven't been thought of yet. You suggest that an OS can come with all the programs that a user will ever need. First of all, that isn't the OS itself, as anyone "in the field for 16 years" would know; it's a bundle of applications given free with the OS, and it's nothing really to do with the security of the OS. Secondly, your approach would freeze the programs on a computer, and so the manufacturers would be forced to preload all applications, rather than giving users the choice of where they obtain their applications. You'd tie users down to one corporate provider of all software. You'd be encouraging monopolies on a massive scale.

It seems to me that your complaint is that specific operating systems, probably the Windows variants, are not secure enough for you. That would be a fair criticism; but your idea of "never let a user install programs on their computer" takes us back from the era of the personal computer back to the world of mainframes controlled by a specialised operator - except in your case the operator would be in a factory hundreds or thousands of miles away, and could only set up the computer before it is bought. It's a massive step backward.