zlacker

>>jfreax+(OP)
I remember reading a discussion a couple of years back where somebody wondered why Microsoft did not go a similar route for Windows. The original context was backwards compatibility with applications written for older releases of Windows.

But given the general security situation on Windows, it would be really nice to have, for example, the browser strongly isolated from the rest of the system.

The idea of using virtualization to enforce stronger isolation between different parts of the system seem like a good one, and it does not appear to be that non-obvious (of course, in hindsight so many things do).

>>krylon+wj
Pardon me, but I see a double negative in your last sentence. For clarification are you saying that "it does appear to be non-obvious" or as you wrote, "it does not appear to be non-obvious" (as in, it appears to be obvious)?

>>kristo+Il
"not non-obvious" isn't quite the same as "obvious." English prose can't be parsed by pure logic alone.

I think in the context of the entire sentence it's clear that the choice of words is correct as written.

>>ams611+rv
Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry for my convoluted phrasing. ;-) In German, my native language, double negatives cancel each other out.

I mean that in retrospect the idea is obvious, as in, "why did I not think of that".

Of course, in computers and technology there are many, many ideas that appear obvious in retrospect but were still hard to arrive at.