All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Windows 2000 SP3

<< < (2/3) > >>

foobar:
Sinkael:
 
quote:
So it would give another reason to push for Linux on our desktops (boss hates it when I keep pushing for linux)...

--- End quote ---


That's the spirit! I push linux to virtually everybody   :cool:  

 
quote:
The biggest reply is always, how can something that shows every programmer in the world its flaws be secure when everyone knows how to break it.

--- End quote ---

I think that is quite stupid. How can you ever know wether a system is secure if it's closed source? Who ever said that? Don't they know that alot of viru writers write windoze viruses to show that is a load of crap?
It is, simply a fact, that NT boxes are easy to crack (at least, in comparison to something better, i haven't got the slightest cracker knowledge ...) and people do not see it as a challenge anymore.
And if you, as a programmer, are smart enough to break into an open source box (like linux, openbsd, et c) just by looking at its code I think you should do a better job by making your own system from that source.
There are a lot of cracker (in this case, 'cracker' means something like: 'very good') programmers out there, who can write excellent programs. Not only will they let you see it, they  
invite you to make something better if you can. Why? Because they have a heart for the job, and want everybody to profit from their work, and not just a billion-dollar company, who can, with its closed source, put anything into its OS from spyware to backdoors.

To say it short:
 - Who says M$ software is secure? You can't know.
 - The source for OS's like Linux are continuously opdated, bugs get fixed real quick in comparison to M$, and for security - wow, if you're a programmer, just take a look at Linux' source !

edit: Welcome to the Forums!

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: -=f00bar=- ]

flap:

quote:Originally posted by -=f00bar=-:
There are a lot of cracker (in this case, 'cracker' means something like: 'very good') programmers out there
--- End quote ---


I think you mean 'hacker'.

Actually blaming the poor security/stability etc. of MS software on the fact that it's not open source is absolving them of the blame for writing such shitty software in the first place. The primary reason why MS software is so insecure is not because the source isn't available but because it's just... shit. Proprietary unices don't have anything like the problems windows has.

lazygamer:
Any comments on Windows 2000 VS Windows 2000 professional?

I was considering switching to it from XPee. However, I really have no experience with properly navigating Warez sites. So I either use a P2P service to get it, or just learn to stick with XP. I haven't been able to get it yet, so maybe I'll just stick with trying to learn Linux. At least Linux you can just download easily and efficiently, you just need to find a link that can take advantage of your high speed internet.

foobar:
About the cracker-hacker part, i think you're right. But you can use 'hacker' solely for programming and stuff, but you can say 'cracker' to anything. Like:

I'm ill, but thank heavens i'm getting operated by a cracker medical team.

See?

About the propietary software, i think you're right also, but don't you think it is important for server software to be open source ... ?
Sure, as a cracker sysadmin, you want to know what's running under your hood !

flap:
I think that would be 'crack' medical team.

Oh yes it's very important for security critical software to be open source, but I'm just saying that the proprietary nature of ms software isn't the main reason why it's shit.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page