Microsoft is to arrogant to do that.
I’d love to try
The main goal of the ReactOS project is to provide an operating system which is binary compatible with Windows.
ReactOS 0.3.15 is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.
And so it shall always be, apparently.
I believe they are. Linux is slowly taking over things.
That's a double-edged sword. Make it easy to run Windows apps, and you make it easier for windows malware to auto-execute as well. Part of the reason you can safely waltz right through a malware-laden environment in linux without an AV is because its program execution environment rejects windows .exe files in the first place. No execution, no infection, no security holes.
The developers should make those Windows apps for Linux, natively.
Auto execute to what? I've had plenty of viruses for windows on my Ubuntu.. since you can run .exe files through Wine..
However whenever it tries to spread it would require root, which is at my discretion
"Linux systems are by no means infallible, but one of their key advantages lies in the way account privileges are assigned. In Windows, users are generally given administrator access by default, which means they pretty much have access to everything on the system, even its most crucial parts. So, then, do viruses. It's like giving terrorists high-level government positions.
With Linux, on the other hand, users do not usually have such "root" privileges; rather, they're typically given lower-level accounts. What that means is that even if a Linux system is compromised, the virus won't have the root access it would need to do damage systemwide; more likely, just the user's local files and programs would be affected. That can make the difference between a minor annoyance and a major catastrophe in any business setting."
" "Linus' Law"--named for Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux--holds that, "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." What that means is that the larger the group of developers and testers working on a set of code, the more likely any flaws will be caught and fixed quickly. This, in other words, is essentially the polar opposite of the "security through obscurity" argument.
With Windows, it's a limited set of paid developers who are trying to find problems in the code. They adhere to their own set timetables, and they don't generally tell anyone about the problems until they've already created a solution, leaving the door open to exploits until that happens. Not a very comforting thought for the businesses that depend on that technology.
In the Linux world, on the other hand, countless users can see the code at any time, making it more likely that someone will find a flaw sooner rather than later. Not only that, but users can even fix problems themselves. Microsoft may tout its large team of paid developers, but it's unlikely that team can compare with a global base of Linux user-developers around the globe. Security can only benefit through all those extra "eyeballs."
Through personal experience and learning from others, many others, even if you allowed .exe files with a virus it wouldn't be nearly the same as Windows.
I could be wrong and there's always a chance for everything, with the security architecture of Linux it would be way harder to do any significant damage.
Yes, I am aware that even if it does execute, the lack of root privileges would seriously curtail any local infection. However, how's the security on network resources? I'm thinking that while the linux system may be "safe", any properly coded malware .exe's that are "linux-aware" (for lack of a better term) that are currently running could possibly be able to perform simple file copies over the network to any windows boxes there may be, resulting in a spread of infection regardless of whether there were root access involved. I guess this would mean the malware would be opportunistic.
Granted, this is probably theoretical, but I'm merely taking the position that even having the malware code active in memory could be considered a security breach.
Theoretically yes it could, but I think if applied in a working Linux machine it would prove harmless or at most rather irritating.
Like the article said there's plenty of viruses for Linux, and a fairly large amount of rootkits.. but with all the eyes on the security of Linux nothing significant happens.
In all honesty I had found out I had windows viruses (through my "paranoid" need to have a flawlessly secure system) I had found out the only reason why Linux users get antivirus at all is to keep from spreading it to friends or strangers who run windows. Its in memory but because of the security architecture, its not causing damage.
As for networking and viruses, I have read that Linux based network servers have less attacks compared to Windows. Its just that Linux in itself has better security.
It occurs to me this doesn't necessarily have to be related to viral spreading or damage. All you'd need is enough code to throw up a full screen image or two and BAM! The user is annoyed by an (admittedly harmless) full-screen ad. Have a webpage loaded with script that downloads and runs the .exe and your win-compatible linux system has popups that normal non-win compatible linux won't see.
Pehaps the best thing to do, then, would be to have this "compatibility" with running windows binaries to be optional in the first place. Kinda like how by default distros don't come with WINE, you have to choose to install it.
Granted, you were originally talking about porting over the (better?) win compatiblity from ReactOS's source code, not WINE; but I'd say if you do, have it lay dormant unless you absolutely want to enable it.
But of course. Most of the time I never need windows applications except for when I need to use splashtop anyway. Skype is a Little more stable on windows too. But yes it should all be optional.
Even on Windows I don't ever get viruses, and I normally get antivirus on my Linux machine to be courteous to Windows users. But if there was any exploits somebody would catch it, and fast, considering it would be open source.
I was 1st exposed to Windows at v3. I worked at IBM supporting OS/2 (from v.2.1 through WARP Connect and WARP Server) and with OS/2, it had "hooks" in the code that would allow you to install it over Windows 3. OS/2 was originally a MS-IBM joint project and IBM had access to their source code for x number of years.
XP is probably my favorite, although I'm running both 7 and 8 at home on multiple machines.
95 and 98 were ok at the time. ME was a clunky POS and after having tried to install it I wondered who at MS lost their job (or should have) over letting it ship.
Yeah Me wasn't very good.. xp I think was the best as well. How are you taking to Windows 8?
Win 2000Pro is the best OS M$ has made so far...not that it was actually *good*...
My work computer is XP, I hate that version. I had Windows ME, worst one ever. Then I had Windows Vista Professional, and finally Windows 7. I think I liked Windows 7 the best. Now, I barely use a PC.
Windows since 3.0. OS/2 Warp at work in the early '90s. I missed out on ME (Phew!) and had some fun supporting NT3.5 and 4 through various service packs. Currently running 7 and 8 (dual booting with Linux - windows doesn't get much of a look-in these days)
I've only still got Windows as I could get free copies through Uni (I've graduated now (2:1 in Computer security & Forensics) and I'm looking for gainful employment.
Windows ME is bit okay. However, windows XP- 7 are nicer than windows me. But, windows 8 is totally new compare to the previous version. There are apps in windows 8 that is ugly like skype. There is no notification in your screen that will appear if you have message in skype unless you click the tile icon itself. Then, 8.1 preview have almost same applications as windows 8. The only difference is the start button and few apps like scan, calculator, health & fitness, food and drink which can't find in windows 8.
2 Legacy offline computers with XP. Offline, they don't need security and updates.
Laptop running 7Pro. Have virtual XP since Adobe screwed up 2 CS2 apps. Acrobat and Illustrator. I have Illustrator. Virtual XP runs Illustrator 8 which is the version I liked anyway.
The computer used for banking and shopping runs Ubuntu 12.04.
7 isn't too bad once you get rid of the crap. I liked 2K. Last Windows you could buy.
Since then, you rented.
I personally love Windows 8. I dont use the MetroUI but once you get to you're desktop it feels the same as Windows 7. I like the look and feel of it too it was definetely a design upgrade IMO. I just wish they didn't get rid of the start button! And as for Windows 8.1...I'll probably install it just because its a very small and free upgrade.
And I've never ran Linux but I was planning on doing it, just haven't gotten around to it.
If you like customizing and learning then I highly recommend Linux. Very light weight and very customizable. Feel free to go on my profile, and search my threads.
I have a Linux one, it should have everything in regards of info that you would need.
LOL love it!
Separate names with a comma.