MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-09-04 |
| FROM | From: "Steve Milo"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: Advocacy vs. Zealotry vs. Who Cares?!?
|
One question.
Why are you uing windows?
Steve M
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:44:24 -0400, Billy wrote
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:16:39PM -0500, Steve Milo wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:10:55 -0400, Billy wrote
> > > This stuff happens all the time, and it's usually fixed quickly.
> > > But people just DON'T UPDATE what they believe to be their
> > > 'totally impenetrable' Linux machines, because they believe the
> > > machines are bulletproof. They aren't.
> >
> > I dont say that GNU/Linux machines are bulletproof GNU/Linux is just better
> > and the best alternative out there.
>
> > But the fundamental difference is that in a public environment you
> > could lock down a GNU/Linux box. You can try to lock down a microsoft
> > box but there are vulnerabilities discovered all the time.
>
> My point is that this the 'new vulns every week' property is true of
> Linux as well. To believe otherwise is to tell yourself a very
> dangerous lie. Don't just believe me... Look at the facts!
>
> Even if I were to accept that Linux and Microsoft OSes were different
> regarding securability (I don't), there certainly would't be anything
> FUNDAMENTAL about such a difference.
>
> > Those vulnerabilities are ingrainged in a windows box.
>
> I know FUD when I see it (on either side of the debate). Sir, this
> is FUD.
>
> > On the pcs I have maintain all the machines run anti-virus, anti-spam,
> > anti-adware.
>
> They also potentially run untrustworthy application code downloaded from
> suspicious websites like aim.aol.com (big adware pushers now,
> apparently) and kazaa.com. If you don't install dumb shit on your
> windows box, you don't need all that crum.. BTW, what's SPAM
> filtering have to do with this discussion? As for viruses, DON'T RUN
> ATTACHMENTS. If your problem is with the Outlook virus vector, ahem,
> mail client, I agree that it should be chucked. Get another client for
> Windows that isn't stupid. But your argument isn't against
> Outlook, it's been against Windows, and I don't get the relevence of
> the complaint about the need for anti-virus software.
>
> > But if just one machine is not updated the whole network
> > and all the microsoft machines are affected. It is simply
> > unmanageable, the fires always have to be put out.
>
> I don't see how this is MSFT's fault.
>
> > Thats just from my experiences, what about the admins, the programmers,
> > developers. Its insane. Its such a gawdawful design from the inside out. MS
> > is evil, there is a whole industry within an industry that is dedicated to
> > simply securing an ms network.
>
> Good!
>
> > GNU/Linux (Suse)? Night and day.
> > Forget about security for a moment and look at the utilities that come with
> > Suse 9.1. For about 80bucks you get software that can effectively be used as
> > a total IT enterprise server.
>
> Again, I get them for free.
>
> > You can put them on as many machines as you want 1-10000000 and then
> > some. Support is practically free, hire a competent staff and a wise
> > IT manager will have saved their company millions of dollars in
> > software and support. If someone doesnt want to learn how to setup a
> > GNU/Linux server (especially if that distro comes with a sleek GUI)
> > then that person should start looking for another job.
>
> Ok. I'm with you so far.
>
> > As far as security goes, like I said before there are hundreds of corporations
> > that use GNU/Linux. Many of them have a vested interest maintaining IT
> > security. One would think that by this time someone would have figured out a
> > way to embaress the people making claims about how secure GNU/Linux.
>
> > On an home user level, how often do regular uses update their windows
> > workstaions?
>
> A lot! Windows Update bothers XP users periodically.
>
> > More often than not most of the people doing the updating are IT
> > departments and hobbyists. The average user is too beffudled with their
> > crappy software to see past the smoke and mirrors.
>
> > > If someone really really needed to get into your machine (say, if the
> > > reward were equivalent to $100,000 instead of $1), it's ultimately
> > > not that hard to do!
> >
> > If someone wanted to break into a bank that would be possible if the rewards
> > were great enough and someone were crazy enough to do it. If someone wanted
> > to circumvent airport security it would be possible. All things are possible
> > given enough determination and reward. Analogies are meaningless.
>
> Is that why you only bet him $1? Why not $100? What are you afraid
> of? ____________________________ NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software
> Users Scene Fair Use - because it's either fair use or useless....
> NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
