Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: Duneatreides on 4 March 2005, 06:28
-
Does Linux (any distro) need antivirus software? How about anti spyware, adware, malware ? I have been thinking about switching to Linux, and I am interested in SuSE 9.2 Pro. What are some opinions of SuSE?
-
beos has none of the above.
Mr X
-
Does Linux (any distro) need antivirus software? How about anti spyware, adware, malware ? I have been thinking about switching to Linux, and I am interested in SuSE 9.2 Pro. What are some opinions of SuSE?
This is quite a tricky question. No, at the current time, Linux is not in HUGE need of anti-malware programs. It has not enjoyed the publicity of Windows - and, as such, is compromised much less frequently. On the other hand, it can never hurt to be prepared for the eventuality that somebody DOES exploit a root hole before it gets patched (which is also why it pays to stay up-to-date).
Linux has a few key programs available to help with this. You can use cron (included with most distros) to schedule a chkrootkit (http://www.chkrootkit.org/download/) job on your system, and it may pay-off to scan higher-profile systems with BitDefender Linux (http://www.bitdefender.com/bd/site/downloads.php?menu_id=21#) for virii once every week or sooner.
In reply to the last question, SuSE is a decent distribution, but hardly the absolute best. That honour lies either with one of the BSDs or Debian, but nobody has decided for sure yet. As far as I'm concerned, each user has to pick the distro that's right for them. I have found satisfaction running Slack 10 with a Fluxbox frontend, others have found Fedora Core 3 - some of the RedHat users having elected to stay with the stable RedHat 9 - a straightforward system, and still others have switched to BSD, Be, and other alternative OSes. The choice is yours.
Oh, and X, the lack of malware detection for an OS does not - and should not - indicate the lack of presence of malware for that system. Just so you're awake when the next Sasser blasts Linux, Be, and Amiga too. ;)
-
I am new to linux and could you explain how it is that linux does not get infected with spyware? out of habit being a windows user I am naturally paranoid while surfing the web even on linux windows can pick up several pieces of spyware just from one web surfing session and some are very hard to remove if not impossible this even happens when using a firefox browser so why does this not happen with linux????Is this the difference in the file system or with the firewall????
-
For a program to become executable on Linux, YOU have to make it that way. Windows however uses fileextensions like .exe .scr .com and others.
If your worried about cookies and junk you can set up a squid proxy with adzapper.
-
basically, under windows, the users have authorisation to run programs by default, that have access to system files. also add to this the effect of things like outlook hiding file extensions and executing attachments by default, and someone can send you a file called something like britneystits.jpg.exe and not only will it look like a picture file to you in outlook, but outlook will notice that it is an exe and will run it without even asking you. so because you have access to all the system fiif this exe wants to mess them up, yhave given it permission to simply by reading your email.
suffice it to say that none of this happens with a linux system, because outlook isn't available for it, but more importantly because a user only has access to their own $HOME (this is called "My Documents" in mswindows) so if they try and run an executable file, firstly they know they are doing it, and secondly they can't change any system files, because linux's filesystems fully support permissioning (unlike windows's filesystems)
the main problem i see with this model is that you need to change to the superuser to install stuff, like rpm files or installable binaries for things like realplayer and java virtual machine. of course the superuser (i think called "Administrator" in mswindows) does have access to those system files, and this of course *could* create problems if the packages were malicious. This sort of thing has been more or less quashed by things like GPG signatures, verifying the source of the file, and also various switches for package managers like rpm, installpkg and so on, which allow you to see what changes will be made before you install. This is one benefit of having a specified package format, where a package to be installed is run by a seperate program, unlike under windows, where the package itself is runnable, and is not visibly installed by an installer program, and so there are no commands which can be used to determine whether the install will mess up your PC or not.
answer your question?
-
Thank You for clearing that up for me.Yes it is true windows does run everything as administrator by default.I have now switched 3 of my machines over to linux because I am tired of having to worry about this.I even got my daughter interested in using linux.I am running suse linux right now.Is there any distro that is better than than another for security?
-
suffice it to say that none of this happens with a linux system, because outlook isn't available for it, but more importantly because a user only has access to their own $HOME (this is called "My Documents" in mswindows) so if they try and run an executable file, firstly they know they are doing it, and secondly they can't change any system files, because linux's filesystems fully support permissioning (unlike windows's filesystems)
FUD FUD FUD! NTFS supports ACLs, it's just the default windows configuration that's to blame. It can be configured to be pretty good, but most users aren't aware of this. Also, many apps expect the permissions to be fucked up, and won't work if they aren't...
I recall there was also a case with some mail app on linux that would run executable by merely doubleclicking the attachment. I definitely remember there was a big fuzz about it once. Luckily people knew what a bad idea it was since outlook had demonstrated it earlier.
This is one benefit of having a specified package format, where a package to be installed is run by a seperate program, unlike under windows, where the package itself is runnable, and is not visibly installed by an installer program, and so there are no commands which can be used to determine whether the install will mess up your PC or not.
Ever heard of MSI? It's the microsoft's installer system, and it comes with a happy happy package system. Many developers just don't use it, although they damn well should. If microsoft allowed for third party distributions of windows, I'm sure someone would set up a system similar to apt for downloading and verifying of windows packages.
What comes to messing the PC, most users don't have the ability to determine what's safe and what's not, and frankly most of them aren't interested in learning the necessary skills for that. Apps can still screw user's own stuff, even if the rest of the system stays protected. Don't you guys do anything with your computers or why aren't your own files the most valuable part of your personal systems?
-
I agree, if Windows fucks up I can just reinstall it and get my files back, as long as my works not gone I don't realy care so what I have to spend a couple of hours installing software, big wow!
-
Ahem, as I said, SELinux, every daemon running public on any of my systems are not running as root, I dont use sendmail I use postfix and QMAIL, all your retarded arguements are redundant, we fucking get it dude. You Can Make Windows Secure.
So why do you come to an Anti Microsoft forum to talk Pro Microsoft? There is no logic in that, you keep repeating yourself, with redundant things.
Linux is nothing, its just a fucking kernel, and how people choose to set that up: there are also different ways you can set Linux up, that is just as, and often a lot more secure then a Windows set up. We get it mate, we can set operating systems up differently. I still choose to use Linux and hate Microsoft because of all the unexplainable troubles it has caused me. I hate proprietary software in general.
-
Oh and earth to fag0ts, here is an GPL Virus Scanner.
http://www.clamav.net/
-
This is a closed source anti-virus scanner for Linux.
AntiVir (http://www.free-av.com/)
-
By the way what's the chance of you loosing your work because a virus fucks the OS up whether it be Windows or Linux?
As I said earlier, fuck the OS it's my work I want to save. My time is more important than the OS or the computer I work on - it can't be bought back.
-
So why do you come to an Anti Microsoft forum to talk Pro Microsoft? There is no logic in that, you keep repeating yourself, with redundant things.
Well, since you probably reduce everything what I say to "Pro Microsoft", it might seem repetitive. By same logic I could reduce everything you guys say to "Anti Microsoft", and it'd seem quite repetitive as well :)
Linux is nothing, its just a fucking kernel
Yet, people compare it to a complete Windows installation. If Linux kernel were to be compared to Windows NT Native kernel (i.e. the thing below the win32 executive subsystem), you'd notice windows kernel isn't that bad at all.
there are also different ways you can set Linux up, that is just as, and often a lot more secure then a Windows set up.
Unfortunately true. A lot of windows users don't know enough about the system to set it up properly, and since the config is braindead by default, the system will suck unless the user knows what to do.
I hate proprietary software in general.
A lot of time I hate proprietary software, too. I tried to ask Khaled to implement a feature in mirc I wanted and which really wouldn't been such a big thing (ability to remove icons from switchbar buttons). Well, he didn't want to, and didn't give me permission to do it myself. Why the heck not? I'm not supposed to do such changes to software I have paid for? According to EU intellectual property laws, however, fixing bugs yourself is ok. So, I just decide everything I don't like is a bug, and patch away. Can't wait to get sued someday for doing it.
-
Yes well, muzzy.net is powered by the following... (well the host it redirects to)
Starting nmap 3.70 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2005-03-17 17:59 EST
Insufficient responses for TCP sequencing (0), OS detection may be less accurate
Interesting ports on sbz-2.cs.helsinki.fi (128.214.9.64):
(The 1656 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered)
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp open ftp
80/tcp open http
443/tcp open https
8080/tcp closed http-proxy
Device type: general purpose|media device|broadband router
Running: Linux 2.4.X, Pace embedded, Panasonic embedded
OS details: Linux 2.4.6 - 2.4.21, Linux 2.4.19 - 2.4.20, Linux 2.4.21 (x86), Pace digital cable TV receiver, Panasonic IP Technology Broadband Networking Gateway, KX-HGW200
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 365.283 seconds
-
Yes well, muzzy.net is powered by the following... (well the host it redirects to)
Yay. You just portscanned http://www.cs.helsinki.fi, where I currently keep my homepages. The university probably doesn't like it, and if you were living in Finland you could get spanked for portscanning. There's been a case in highest court of law already in which portscanning was determined to be illegal, because it is used to find services that the user won't have right to use, and the act of scanning shows an intent to use them.
Either way, whatever OS my webspace provider uses shows their preferences, not mine. Though, I have to admit I do prefer having my website on a *nix platform despite all the issues it implicates. I just can't quite trust IIS, and I kind of like having a shell, too.
-
Yes well, I am in Australia.
In Australia, lazyness is something we celebrate every day. Feel free to email my internet service provider, and I garentee that nothing will ever be done. Nothing will be done on a legal scale because the amount of legislation in Australia regarding the Internet is rather slim. This countrys government is more backwards then you would ever beleive.
And its funny that you state right there that you prefer a Unix platform, despite the bullshit you spout everywhere.
-
And its funny that you state right there that you prefer a Unix platform, despite the bullshit you spout everywhere.
Right tool for the right job. Same applies for everything, there are no golden hammers that work for every problem. For a dedicated web server for multiple users, I definitely wouldn't use windows. And if I had to, I definitely wouldn't use IIS. The issue with apache on windows is that the damn thing is developed on *nix platforms and mainly tested in them, so there are mysterious performance issues with it on win32. Sometimes apache+php+mysql solutions are just hundreds of times slower (really, i'm not kidding) on Windows 2000 than they are on pretty much any *nix system. I believe some of the problems are due to malloc implementation in the C runtime that ships with w2k, as it aligns things in funny way. On XP and Windows 2003 it should be better but I haven't done any benchmarking. Perhaps Windows2003+apache would work great for a webserver, but not having tested it I won't take sides.
For my personal desktop systems, I've found that windows is the best choice for usability, stability, flexibility, security, etc.
I don't have just a single preference for tools to use, I have different preferences for different tasks. I believe it's important to recognize strenghts and weaknesses of each system, and use the one that best fits a task at hand.
-
there's one thing that annoys me onnnn this board, and that's when people get slammed purelly because they don'''t agree with the general outlook of the majority.
muzzy here has not said anything unreaasonable here, and people are jussssst criticising out of habit, because they know that s/he is "pro-windows", where's the point? i think it's a great idea to have an intelligent discussion about these things, rather than have eeverybody think the same thing and just come here to mutually backslap!
i do happen to disagree with a lot of the things s/he has said about specific issues, but this is no reason for a blanket criticism, in my opinion.
-
I don't have just a single preference for tools to use, I have different preferences for different tasks. I believe it's important to recognize strenghts and weaknesses of each system, and use the one that best fits a task at hand.
"If you repeat the same lie enough eventually people will believe it" - Adolf Hitler.
I think I know why you spout bullshit about Linux as a desktop system. You keep repeating yourself with a purpose, you keep making these same claims about Linux security, Windows security, with a purpose.
FUD FUD FUD! NTFS supports ACLs, it's just the default windows configuration that's to blame. It can be configured to be pretty good, but most users aren't aware of this. Also, many apps expect the permissions to be fucked up, and won't work if they aren't...
Unfortunately true. A lot of windows users don't know enough about the system to set it up properly, and since the config is braindead by default, the system will suck unless the user knows what to do.
What comes to messing the PC, most users don't have the ability to determine what's safe and what's not, and frankly most of them aren't interested in learning the necessary skills for that. Apps can still screw user's own stuff, even if the rest of the system stays protected. Don't you guys do anything with your computers or why aren't your own files the most valuable part of your personal systems?
Well, I have to admit I was being a little provocative there, but didn't find a better way to introduce myself to these forums. I'm a Windows user, and happy to run windows. I consider linux to be simple system, for the simple users. IMO, if you feel you're bound in windows and only able to express yourself in linux, it's probably because you can't use Windows
My two windows systems are both completely stable and secure. Haven't had any real problems with them, ever. I suspect windows is just too complex OS for you guys, so linux and such systems might be a better choice for your needs.
Tech-savvy or not, I've found that most windows haters simply do not understand how windows works. I won't defend Microsoft as a company, although I think the US government is partially to blame for the inability to cut MS into pieces. A lot of problems with Microsoft come from the fact that they're so damn big and so damn rich, that they can do pretty much anything they want to.
I've found windows to be fairly stable, quite secure, and many parts are well designed. Unfortunately, microsoft values backwards compatibility more than security, so there are some total braindead things around left from single user win16 times. I wish they'd go away, however the problem only relates to win32 apis and the concerned executive subsystem. If some day we can throw that away and move completely to .NET, a lot of the problems will just simply disappear.
What comes to security design, there's very little of that anywhere. The overall design is the old *nix design, of filesystem defining the access right, with suid bits set for applications that need greater access. Capabilities came at some point but I'm not aware of them still being used. Regarding the suid, it'd be more secure to have one central database of what's suid and what's not, so nobody's going to create a suidroot shell under some obscure directory and hide it there. And don't you tell me that there are security solutions to detect these, when you were pointing out the existance of security industry being implication of insecure design in Windows
* Note: Compareing default Linux to his optimised Windows.
There have been some funny kernel patches for linux around for quite a while now, but I hadn't seen any real distro use any of it. I hadn't heard that FC3 ships with it by default, and that definitely makes things interesting. With such patches, you can actually have a linux system that I'll admit is more secure than Windows. However, for now, I'll wait to see these things actually get more widely used.
* Note: Compareing default Linux to his optimised Windows.
So, wouldn't the best approach to solving the problem be user education? Software lock-in can be expensive, and businesses understand money. However, GNU is an evil empire when it comes to lock-in as well. Everyone's writing their "sh" scripts with bash syntax nowadays, m4 is backwards incompatible, gcc has language extensions that are widely used, etc. How are these not lock-in issues?
Linux can be more suitable to you, and as I said it's probably better for a lot more people because it's simpler than Windows. Windows is more complex, and way tougher to learn. Despite Windows being marketed for clueless folk, the Windows itself hasn't been designed for newbies. It's a serious OS for serious people, and currently (imo) the biggest problems are the amount of work it takes to properly configure one. If the default installation wasn't so braindead, a lot of you guys would appreciate the whole system more.
* Here he goes on about default Windows being the problem, after only ever finding hordes of problems in Default Linux and comparing them to his Optimised Windows. This is manipulation of information and journalism almost to the level of scum that is Fox News. Or similar to the propaganda spread by the Nazi's to spread idealogy.
Response:
* Note also that he has tendancy to blame companies, organisations, users, people, administrators, everything but Microsoft. Hitler liked to blame everything on Jews, Communists, and Homosexuals, etc, rather then the flaws in the strategys of germany in World War I.
* He has a tendancy to constantly belittle intelligence and constantly makes claims to express indirectly that he is superior. That educated Windows users are superior, much like the claims Hitler made that his perceived "Aryan Race" is superior.
With this analysis, I have concluded that Muzzy is the offical Windows Hitler.
Seig Heil!
-
I have no further arguement with Muzzy, he is right and, Seig Heil (https://kintarolabs.sytes.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=330#330).
-
I agree with Calum, I think muzzy has raised some perfectly valid points and kintaro should just shut up. This debate has confirmed by suspicions that most people here can't see things from anyone else's point of view. When someone puts across a good argument for something someone else disagrees with but can't come up with an intelligent response they just get told to fuck off.
I think this is very stupid.
-
i do not agree that kintaro should shut up though, i think he raises a lot of good points too, and i am very interested in his comparisons with muzzy's informational delivery and that of hitler.
nobody seems to notice that he wasn't saying muzzy was a terrorist or a racist or anything (as hitler was), he was simply comparing the propaganda styles, which i think is valid. i was very very surprised to see that kintaro's thread about this was binned, and i think the binning was inappropriate. comparing somebody to hitler does not break any of the forum rules, unless it is made clear that this is being done as a form of personal attack, and i think it was made clear that this was not the case, and then verified by muzzy saying s/he takes it as a compliment, even!
however yes, i do agree that people shouting others down hinders creative and interesting discussion. that has brought this site down into the muck before and is the reason we have so many moderators now, because when the forums start filling up with mindless drek, nobody with any real opinions can be bothered to visit here.
-
Well, there's this "hitler rule" which pretty much everyone has adopted because they're not interested in discussing hitler. However, this doesn't really belong to this thread now does it? I'm not sure if a new thread about it would be proper or not, because it tends to be more worthwhile to discuss things and not people.
To get back on topic, I'll reply to something a few posts ago, before the topic drifted:
By the way what's the chance of you loosing your work because a virus fucks the OS up whether it be Windows or Linux?
Most viruses nowadays don't try to trash anyone's work, however the potential to do this would be pretty much equal in both systems. At the moment, linux is safer because there aren't enough linux users to make linux system worth targeting. From point of view of a worm, Metcalfe's law holds true, and thus OS that has ten times more users is hundred times more viable for the worm to distribute itself on it. For spyware and other typical malware, the treshold of worthwhileness comes easier, and once linux begins to gain stronger hold on the desktop you'll be sure to see linux viruses about.
The popularity of firefox will definitely have people developing web exploits that target it, and most likely same attacks will work against linux as well. If you don't update your software constantly, you're going to be screwed. Ofcourse, windows users more so because they don't have any centralized common software update service, unlike some linux distributions.
In conclusion, I'm saying that the current "immunity" to malware that linux has to offer will be quickly disappearing, and the only way to stay safe is to stay current. You know, the same thing tends to work in Windows too. I'll be curious to know if not updating linux will be considered an user error by you guys while not updating windows wont ;)
-
that is partially true, but firefox under linux is inherently less vulnerable than IE in windows i would say for several reasons.
one is the thing about firefox being totally seperate from the system (unlike the great concept of "integrating" IE into windows), also i think that since linux and firefox are open source holes are likely to get fixed before an exploit gets released that targets them, i have noticed microsoft tend to take a very long time to bring out patches a lot of the time, and in the meantime, nobody else can bring out a patch for windows, because it's closed source.
-
IE isn't especially "integrated" into the system any more than, say, zlib is integrated into linux. Remember the zlib vulnerabilities? Dozens after dozens of user applications turned out to be vulnerable due to it. In a statically compiled system, it required the full recompile. In dynamically linked, just replace the library. The actual IE browser client is indeed just a wrapper for a bunch of system stuff. WinINet core implements the actual connectivity, HTTP requests and other stuff, while MSHTML takes care of rendering.
The only "integration" here is that the IE web browser (which doesn't implement the internet functionality nor html rendering) also implements shell document views. However, the windows graphical shell (explorer.exe) is totally independent of this all, it just doesn't happen to care what it hosts in it. It is because of this flexiblity that people mistake the browser to be integrated into the system. If you think the WinINet network connectivity code sucks, the interface is published and well documented. You can go ahead and reimplement it, then install your version of the library on the system and everything will work. You can even reimplement the MSHTML library and have the IE browser use gecko rendering engine. I recall this has been done for an earlier version of mozilla long ago already.
Regarding patching, Microsoft cannot afford patches that don't work. All the applications have to work after patching, so testing has to be done even for simple and small patches. The linux patches, I've understood, are not tested that much. For an example, look at the ip packet fragmentation bugs earlier, i.e. the teardrop and nestea and such attacks. Several bugs were found in the same module, even same lines of code, over and over again. Right, they were always patched quickly, but after each of the first patches there were still vulnerabilities remaining, soon to be found. Then again, Microsoft managed to do same thing a few times as well. Just pointing out that bugs in open source don't differ that much from bugs in closed source.
-
I agree with Calum, I think muzzy has raised some perfectly valid points and kintaro should just shut up. This debate has confirmed by suspicions that most people here can't see things from anyone else's point of view. When someone puts across a good argument for something someone else disagrees with but can't come up with an intelligent response they just get told to fuck off.
I think this is very stupid.
s/muzzy/Muzzy
s/kintaro/Kintaro
This debate has confirmed by: This debate has been confirmed by...
Moreso, the debate has not been confirmed, these suspicions confirm bias in members, that is all. This is the most illogical claim I have seen on the whole board.
Write. Comprehend. Post.
---
Nonetheless, my complaint is that Muzzy always compares his enhanced configuration of Windows with features of some default installs of various Linux distributions.
-
s/muzzy/Muzzy
s/kintaro/Kintaro
This debate has confirmed by: This debate has been confirmed by...
That was a grammatical error, I meant my - I often feel that people are often flamed here for disagreeing with the majority. Some people here aren't very objective - they can't understand anyone else's opinions, and they have problems understanding both sides on an argeuement.
Moreso, the debate has not been confirmed, these suspicions confirm bias in members, that is all. This is the most illogical claim I have seen on the whole board.
Write. Comprehend. Post.
Not illogical, you just misunderstood my post which was my fault because the grammar was shitty - I'm sorry.
Nonetheless, my complaint is that Muzzy always compares his enhanced configuration of Windows with features of some default installs of various Linux distributions.
I can see you point and I agree with you, and I can see Muzzy's point too. I see what you mean he has repeated this arguement a lot but lots of anti-microsoft arguements are repeated just as much.
Linux can be unstable and insecure if you use a shitty distro and it's setup shitly too. Open source dosn't always mean better, even though it does have it's advantages.
By the way I still think Windows sucks and I'd rather use Linux, but I can't be arsed to have this dicussion again.
-
Grisoft (http://www.grisoft.com) have released their very famous AVG anti-virus software to the Linux Community :)
It isn't open source, but it is another big name on our side.
-
Nonetheless, my complaint is that Muzzy always compares his enhanced configuration of Windows with features of some default installs of various Linux distributions.
Well, there's no point comparing default windows installations to default linux installations. You can preconfigure your distro any damn way you like, so that'd be same as comparing unconfigured windows with preconfigured linux. Now that wouldn't be fair either.
Now, if only microsoft made it legit to distribute custom windows installation CDs, the world would be so much a better place. XP still needs to be activated, so what's the problem? Support nightmare? I don't think geeks would mind if it was allowed but unsupported by the helpdesk. Market dominance issues in unrelated fields? You speculate, monopoly abuse has been repeatedly confirmed.
Also, I'm comparing the windows system as-it-is, just configured. I think I've mentioned when kernel hacks/drivers are needed, so it's just fair to compare to the usual linux kernel tree as well. If you're going to setup a linuxbox with all the funky patches including grsec plus hand tuned setup, you can get a really nasty linux box indeed. Now, how many mainstream distros ship like this? None, because of compatibility issues. Some security features just aren't compatible with the applications, and people don't like this, even if they could have superior security.
If you go hacking kernels, you can make different system do a whole lot of interesting things. I maintain my view that windows system without third party kernel patches can be configured to be superior to a mainstream linux distribution without third party kernel patches.
-
A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.
While this is fun and can be seen true for w9x, it has never held true for the NT series. NT architecture can support multiple hardware platforms, and there have been versions for alpha, etc. These were discontinued, apparently due to business reasons. The design isn't based on DOS in any way. I suppose the 2bit company that can't stand 1bit competition could still be seen true, but that quote has gotten all its juice milked from it long time ago now.
-
XP still needs to be activated, so what's the problem?
really? than what do cracks do
Mr X
-
really? than what do cracks do
Pirated copies are already widely available, and it's trivial to get the installation media for windows XP. The issue of bypassing activation is independent from availability of installation media. Allowing third party distribution of untrusted custom install medias wouldn't affect the piracy issue in any way.
Also, microsoft doesn't care if you pirate the software. The activation is primarily there to prevent resellers from installing pirated copies of windows. These are the real problem to microsoft, because selling pirate copies allows for more profits, and thus makes competition tough for legit stores. Legit stores aren't going to be happy if they have to pay for something their competitors aren't paying for, and left uncontroller, could lead to stores beginning shipping with free (as in beer) operating systems.
-
oddly enough, if you read through the last couple of muzzy's posts, it's a pretty scathing and damning report of microsoft all in all, from their attitude to competition, through the importance they give to their users, to their marketing tactics. the only bit that i can take issue with is this:
Well, there's no point comparing default windows installations to default linux installations. You can preconfigure your distro any damn way you like, so that'd be same as comparing unconfigured windows with preconfigured linux. Now that wouldn't be fair either.
which kind of reads like that mathematical proof showing that 1+1=1 in a sort of circular logical way.
-
A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.
While this is fun and can be seen true for w9x, it has never held true for the NT series. NT architecture can support multiple hardware platforms, and there have been versions for alpha, etc. These were discontinued, apparently due to business reasons. The design isn't based on DOS in any way. I suppose the 2bit company that can't stand 1bit competition could still be seen true, but that quote has gotten all its juice milked from it long time ago now.
I didn't quote this in a post, so why are you replying to it.
It is my sig.
It will stay my sig.
Deal with it.
-
suffice it to say that none of this happens with a linux system, because outlook isn't available for it, but more importantly because a user only has access to their own $HOME (this is called "My Documents" in mswindows) so if they try and run an executable file, firstly they know they are doing it, and secondly they can't change any system files, because linux's filesystems fully support permissioning (unlike windows's filesystems)
FUD FUD FUD! NTFS supports ACLs, it's just the default windows configuration that's to blame. It can be configured to be pretty good, but most users aren't aware of this. Also, many apps expect the permissions to be fucked up, and won't work if they aren't...
I recall there was also a case with some mail app on linux that would run executable by merely doubleclicking the attachment. I definitely remember there was a big fuzz about it once. Luckily people knew what a bad idea it was since outlook had demonstrated it earlier.
This is one benefit of having a specified package format, where a package to be installed is run by a seperate program, unlike under windows, where the package itself is runnable, and is not visibly installed by an installer program, and so there are no commands which can be used to determine whether the install will mess up your PC or not.
Ever heard of MSI? It's the microsoft's installer system, and it comes with a happy happy package system. Many developers just don't use it, although they damn well should. If microsoft allowed for third party distributions of windows, I'm sure someone would set up a system similar to apt for downloading and verifying of windows packages.
What comes to messing the PC, most users don't have the ability to determine what's safe and what's not, and frankly most of them aren't interested in learning the necessary skills for that. Apps can still screw user's own stuff, even if the rest of the system stays protected. Don't you guys do anything with your computers or why aren't your own files the most valuable part of your personal systems?
muzzy, you crack me up. I read your posts when I need a laugh, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about :D
-
muzzy, you crack me up. I read your posts when I need a laugh, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about :D
If you want to correct something I've said please do so. That "you have no idea" attitude kind of implies you aren't interested in discussing the subject, yet have a need to ridicule them. You know, I'd like it if you told me why I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. And please, keep the discussion at least somewhat objective.