View Single Post
Old 30 July 2015, 14:01   #89
Mrs Beanbag
Glastonbridge Software
Mrs Beanbag's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edinburgh/Scotland
Posts: 2,202
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
I'm against Windows, right, but i'm also against Linux, iOs, Android, and many others.
The hardware architecture is also important (i'm against x86, arm, and many others).
Right, i know, i'm against many things
of course! Well the PC hardware architecture is bad for many reasons, although it's also "good" because people often want customisability and upgrade options, and often people complain that Amiga is not easily upgradeable. There are always trade-offs. But there is far too much legacy baggage in the PC architecture, up to and including x86 processors. The existence of some sort of security capability though, is a definite good. People have recently managed to hack such things as cars and guns, which are certainly not x86 PCs and you'd expect them to be quite simple systems.

Ok, but my question was more : what's the danger for the end user, which would require security stuff in a home game console ? (apart a secure connection to pay things)
Well, to repeat myself, the modern trend in consoles is to have hard drives (so there is data to corrupt and/or steal), there is network access (so a machine can be hacked remotely) increasingly always-on (as the XBone is able to wake on voice command), there is personal data stored and send back and forth, software is purchased online and downloaded rather than installed from physical media. XBox Kinnect takes photographs of you while you play!

Protection for debug purposes is something different compared to forcing everyone to run in a locked system with no choice.
These kind of bugs exist in release versions of commercial software. You can't ensure there are absolutely no bugs in a large, team-developed project.

My own research is already done, thanks. And in none of your examples did i see anything worth keeping the programmer out of control of his own machine.
You do what you want on your own machine. You can write your own OS (like Terry A Davis with his TempleOS). The point is to stop some other programmer doing what they want with your machine - by accident or by design. You don't know what bugs or malintent, or just plain foolish assumptions, exists in someone else's software.

Does this mean that (according to you) a single, well documented spec would be a problem ?
Absolutely not! It's exactly what i suggest we should have.
Mrs Beanbag is offline  
Page generated in 0.03987 seconds with 10 queries