The weakest security link? You

TalkBack 9 of 44:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

?

"You constantly harp on the MS monopoly as the source of all computing evil".

Not really ... If Microsoft wrote software that wasn't inherently insecure and susceptible to security exploits written by teenagers, it wouldn't matter that they have a monopoly (so much). It is their shoddy software that is the problem, the monopoly merely ensures a lot of people suffer from it.

"Then you state that all of the problems with MS have caused a huge rush of users to implement Linux and Apple"

No, I never stated this. I said that users of Linux, Unix and Apple don't have the weekly virus attacks, worms and trojans that Windows users will never, ever be free of.

EULA - well, I don't know, perhaps the EULA for my Mandrake Linux does say the same things as the MS one. The difference is, I never get virus, worms, defective software, trojans and asorted other hacker created problems. And I get Linux free. You have to PAY for your "We are responsible for nothing" EULA with cash.

"Let's implement Linux among those stupid users and see what happens in the world of viruses".

Yes lets. Oh! Just a minute! We already have. Linux is out there in the world of virus writers and those writers have so far FAILED to produce anything. Gosh! Why is that? It's because Linux is more secure. It's because a virus pretty much DEPENDS on Windows design flaws to exist. Those flaws don't exist in Linux. You cannot add an executable attachment to an email and have Linux run it without user consent, it is impossible due to design of Linux. Windows design on the other hand was a specification for malware that does just trhat, because WIndows allows it. A Linux usewr is isolated completely from all other users and the root user on the host machine, so even if they deliberately downloaded a virus and ran it, it would only affect that user's partition on the machine. Agagin, Windows quite simply cannot enforce this feature because it is designed as a single user machine. You cannot make these state invariants go away by repeating the flawed, redmond mantra that "Windows is hacked because its popular". Windows is hacked because its easily hacked. Linux is not hacked because it was designed to be secure. End of story. Your proposed legion of "stupid Linux users" can't alter those facts either. When Linux is running on a machine, the tasks carried out are the ones requested by the user, unlike a Windows box, which is probably being controlled from some remote location even as redmond are interrorgating it and updating it and deleting stuff you're not alloowed tohave etc etc. You choose an inferior product and then try to malign the superior alternatives for what reason, exactly?

Posted by: whisperycat   Posted on: 07/22/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now