Inflexible OS vs flexible OS.

Windows is flexible OS. You can do anything on it, but, you have to pay the price of virus and spyware. But, I see most home users are just want things to work, not worry about all the consequences of their actions, because they don't know a thing about computer.

How about make a OS with no flexibility? Everything has to be installed in single directory and such directly cannot be installed by other software. They can share the same parent folder, but parent folder cannot be a software root folder. If the folder is already registered, you have create another folder. There is no installer, only a package that will be processed by OS's unpacker. All installation requirements such as registry are defined in XML file. All software is has limited access to computer. Read to most of places. Write to only folders that are not registered as software root.

There is no overwrite on registry, unless the software is the registry owner. Here is the design.

• Table1 RegistryHistoryTable. Colums: ID*, RegKey, Software, RegKey_Software*,  Value, TimeStamp. Sort Order: RegKey, TimeStamp.
• Table2 RegistryResultTable. Colums: RegKey*, Software, Value, TimeStamp.
• Table3 RegistrySoftwareTable. Colums: ID*, Software, RegKey, RegKey_Software*
• Table4 SoftwareRootFolder. Colums: Software*, FolderPath*.
• * indicate value is unique.

Delete software using Table4. It will trigger Table3 to delete all related entries in Table1. Table2 will be updated depends on Table1. Table2 stores all Unique RegKey with highest TimeStamp from Table1. This is designed to recover registry value from software removal automatically.

The point is to give up flexibility. Users don't need to understand installtion, just unpack the file and everything follows. No software write access to registered folders prevent virus attacks from changing other software. Registry attacks can be recovered since Table1 keeps all values.

What do you think? A no worry OS for the mass? I don't think they need the flexibility because they don't know how to use computer properly anyway.

Update: I think this would be nice security measure for PowerUser accounts. A safer envirnment for the PowerUsers. Although I think Registry should be locked for PowerUser.

Existing programs won't work, that's the issue.

Isn't that effectively just like having a version of Windows that only supported ClickOnce applications, except a bit more complicated? Not necessarily a bad idea but the problem would more likely be finding people who'd rewrite all the basic applications than any inherit "flexibility" in the OS itself.

AndyC said:

Isn't that effectively just like having a version of Windows that only supported ClickOnce applications, except a bit more complicated? Not necessarily a bad idea but the problem would more likely be finding people who'd rewrite all the basic applications than any inherit "flexibility" in the OS itself.

I played with similar ideas for my own project, but in the end you are giving up backwards compatibility.

Now, it may be that the new system is so compelling that everyone would write apps for it, but...

Hrm, I may start bouncing some ideas about my project here

So basically an OS with a package manager?

Bass said:

So basically an OS with a package manager?

In my project, at least, the installation/removal process was deeply baked into the core features. As in, you can't install anything without going thru this set of APIs.

Windows (and *NIX, OS X, et al) can already do most of what you're suggesting. It is just how the computer looks if you start using a user account and profiles to store most of your application data.

Windows' flexibility isn't the primary reason why it has virus/spyware issues. That is largely down to turning off most of Window XPs security features in order to avoid upsetting users even a little tiny bit. If Windows XP had shipped with UAC, no concept of administrator accounts (i.e. you cannot login to a high priv account), and a little bit more effort spent on security reviews internally then we wouldn't be discussing this today.

The whole sandbox installation concept isn't a terrible one. I've played around with the concept of each registry entry having to have a file relationship of some kind. That way automated cleaning would be as easy as checking for these files. But that is largely a system bloat issue rather than a security one (although I appreciate you're suggesting changing APIs to make it some kind of security restraint).

That's not different then what like the iPhone OS does by default - the package manager (the "App Store") is the only way to get software onto the system. Other OS like Ubuntu gives you more flexibility, use of the package manager is optional, but this can be enforced with a fairly simple security policy that only allows the process "dpkg" to set execute flags on files. Thus use of the package manager becomes mandatory.

Not saying it's not a good idea, I'd love Windows to have a package manager. Just saying that it's been done before.

It is not just a package manager. The Table4 ensure no packaged can be unpacked in the same root folder, unless it is the same software. And those root folders in Table4 are all protected. No one has the write acess besides the application itself. And Table1 offers recoverable RegKey value. Imagine you remove a virus from table4, it will triggers all tables to delete the virus RegKey values. But since Table1 still holds the RegKey values done by other software, you recover RegKey value gracefully.

Package manager only unified installation process. But that doesn't change the fact that the software can modify other software. Mine prevents software modifying other software (this is important security measure at expanse of flexibility). The software can only "add" new RegKey value to other software, but never overwrite RegKey values. This means whateve regitry damange done by the virus can be easily recovered.

In other word: No File Modification under other software root folder. Registry is recoverable by nature. The package manager is mainly for Table4. Unified installation experience is nice, but, it is mainly to enforce proper entries to my Tables.

Keep in mind that I still offer certain amount of flexibility. The registry still offers public modifications for other software. And software still have write access to non-protected folders, which are mainly document or share folders. Probably like iPhone OS, but a lot more flexible.

magicalclick said:

It is not just a package manager. The Table4 ensure no packaged can be unpacked in the same root folder, unless it is the same software. And those root folders in Table4 are all protected. No one has the write acess besides the application itself. And Table1 offers recoverable RegKey value. Imagine you remove a virus from table4, it will triggers all tables to delete the virus RegKey values. But since Table1 still holds the RegKey values done by other software, you recover RegKey value gracefully.

Package manager only unified installation process. But that doesn't change the fact that the software can modify other software. Mine prevents software modifying other software (this is important security measure at expanse of flexibility). The software can only "add" new RegKey value to other software, but never overwrite RegKey values. This means whateve regitry damange done by the virus can be easily recovered.

In other word: No File Modification under other software root folder. Registry is recoverable by nature. The package manager is mainly for Table4. Unified installation experience is nice, but, it is mainly to enforce proper entries to my Tables.

Keep in mind that I still offer certain amount of flexibility. The registry still offers public modifications for other software. And software still have write access to non-protected folders, which are mainly document or share folders. Probably like iPhone OS, but a lot more flexible.

Ok, let's start questioning assumptions then

1. why do you need a registry?

2. why do a program need to write outside the "user data" area?

1) Well, it is how Windows always works LOL. I just don't want to totally break it. And it does provide certain charm, like you can "add" new registry value to IE for default URL not found page. It still opens up modifications to IE. But, mine has reg value recovery by design.

2) This is to provide some flexibility. Like you can save a document file anywhere you like (except under appication folders). And if you are so crazy, you can put some application data outside of application folder. Thus, you have a public application data open for virus attacks.

Why do I still offer some flexibilities? I just get the feeling I may need it. I still want the OS to be useful for most of cases and still have enough flexibilies for possibilities.

magicalclick said:

1) Well, it is how Windows always works LOL. I just don't want to totally break it. And it does provide certain charm, like you can "add" new registry value to IE for default URL not found page. It still opens up modifications to IE. But, mine has reg value recovery by design.

2) This is to provide some flexibility. Like you can save a document file anywhere you like (except under appication folders). And if you are so crazy, you can put some application data outside of application folder. Thus, you have a public application data open for virus attacks.

Why do I still offer some flexibilities? I just get the feeling I may need it. I still want the OS to be useful for most of cases and still have enough flexibilies for possibilities.

 

I understand, but if you were to tackling this issue from a more strategic point of view (where backwards compatibility is not a factor), there are things you could do that would make the platform more controllable.

For example, you don't really need the registry to add a default URL Not Found page. It's a browser setting, that should live in the "application settings" area. No other apps should/need to have access to it.

Because I like IE Pro for example, LOL. I just want to open some doors for application tweaking.

If we're fixing tomorrows security issues today then let's add a way for the OS (and applications) to know what is a user initiated action Vs. a software initiated action (e.g. Did a mouse click run Button1() or did another application add a message to the queue?).

If you're fixing fundamentally broken designs in Windows than that has to appear on the list.

ManipUni said:

If we're fixing tomorrows security issues today then let's add a way for the OS (and applications) to know what is a user initiated action Vs. a software initiated action (e.g. Did a mouse click run Button1() or did another application add a message to the queue?).

If you're fixing fundamentally broken designs in Windows than that has to appear on the list.

I was not talking about Windows, it's my own little pet project

Isn't what your talking about basicly a virtual OS in that is operates within its own protected environment and not another OS.

rodneyMc said:

Isn't what your talking about basicly a virtual OS in that is operates within its own protected environment and not another OS.

Not really, because virtual OS is not good for games, and gamming is #1.

BTW, I am going to update my original post. I think this is actually cool if this is enforced under PowerUser account.