From: "Robert Comer" 

> I write a lotto.exe program in VC++ 6.0 and it runs fine, but if I write
> it
> in the .NET version then I need the .NET extensions which by simply
> installing them makes me less secure and requires a 10mb patch then a
> 1.5mb
> patch.

You're making an assumption that the .NET runtime makes you less secure
when that's not the case.  Just because it needs patches doesn't mean
anything once you get all the patches.  The runtime itself isn't going to
compromise your machine unless you run a badly written .NET app on top of
it.

VB6 also has a runtime, and its runtime has security and stability issues
as well, but they've stopped releasing fixes to the public now (you have to
do paid support to get the fix), so if a security vulnerability shows up
... (Not to mention DLL hell, which VB6 apps are famous for)

> This must be a definition of "more secure" I'm unfamiliar with.

You're not looking at the programming and security benefits it has, you're
only seeing the patches.

- Bob Comer


"Geo"  wrote in message
news:4289588f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:42893cbd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> Actually there's some new facilities in .NET to make things more secure.
> (by
>> a good margin.)  Now to get programmers to actually use them...
>
> I write a lotto.exe program in VC++ 6.0 and it runs fine, but if I write
> it
> in the .NET version then I need the .NET extensions which by simply
> installing them makes me less secure and requires a 10mb patch then a
> 1.5mb
> patch.
>
> This must be a definition of "more secure" I'm unfamiliar with.
>
> Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5