Paul Thurrott says Linux is most INSECURE


Recommended Posts

+virtorio
BECAUSE....it is opensource. any hacker can get the source code and hack it. this thread it stupid. dont we all know about that ?

584872371[/snapback]

I am no open source fan, but that statement is hugely incorrect. You seem to have little understanding in the area.

But I shouldn't expect any more from someone with a display picture, signature and member name like that

Link to post
Share on other sites
neowin_hipster
blah, the person who wrote that article was payed off by Bill Gates rofl.gif

Actually, that's true. That's essentially how he makes a living. They feed him propaganda and betas and he writes reviews. Always extremely positive and never skeptical.

Some of you people need a crash course in operating systems design because some of you are getting confused. To put it plainly, windows is fine for a multi-user desktop but its definently not on par with most unix distros in terms of multi-user/multi-tasking capabilities because it wasn't designed that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vincent

I dont know much bout LINUX but i can say this: Your OS is only as secure as you make it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
slapnuts_ox

is anyone really that surprised that paul would have an article on his website about this? he is one of the biggest MS fanyboys ever.

FACT: you can make statastics up for any situation and to prove any point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
El_Cu_Guy
he is one of the biggest MS fanyboys ever.

Fanboy? Maybe.

Microsoft ######? Most definitely.

unfortunately he built up a reputation of market analyst by saying how good was M$ and how clever ITs were for choosing M$. So he pleased lots of dorks: they love to be told they are not dorks.

Unfortuantely I don't have time to post all the interesting comments about him. One I did find interesting, though overly-long, was how he flip-flops depending on what rag his pieces appear.

Edited by El_Cu_Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudy

Windows and Linux are both pretty insecure, bsd is the best for webservers

Link to post
Share on other sites
tuckeratlarge

first of let me say this thread is great. Most people have something reasonable and of quality and relevance to say. Not the usual flamage that is the sad and sorry norm on Neowin.

My question is regarding root/administrator log-ins. In a purely security vien, is it better to create a user account for yourself without admin privilages for the day to day usage of your PC - even if you are basically the only one who uses your PC. And only going "admin" for installs and tweakage. Or won't it matter?

// Same question applies to Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
first of let me say this thread is great. Most people have something reasonable and of quality and relevance to say. Not the usual flamage that is the sad and sorry norm on Neowin.
Thanks. I try to keep the threads in the Linux section pretty clean of the crap. :yes:
My question is regarding root/administrator log-ins. In a purely security vien, is it better to create a user account for yourself without admin privilages for the day to day usage of your PC - even if you are basically the only one who uses your PC. And only going "admin" for installs and tweakage. Or won't it matter?

A normal user account is much better!

However, I feel that in Linux it is much easier to be a normal user and pop open a shell and su to root and do quick admin tasks via the command line. This limits the damage because only a small task is root.

In Windows, I believe you have to log in as administrator to do your administrating. All tasks are now running with admin priveleges, and there is a greater potential from problems affecting your whole box (or network!).

Link to post
Share on other sites
El_Cu_Guy

^^^ This of course is a relatively good explanation for one reason why problems to do not propagate or escalate easily (or at all) when dealing with unices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.

Hi All,

I have to admit that this thread is pretty "clean" considering the flame wars I usually see at Neowin.

Now, I have to side with MarkJensen here....... not that I am more than a slightly experienced NooB. I have run lots of flavors of Linux, as well as lots of flavors of Windows. While both have their security issues, I breath much easier with Linux. And, now with the distros becoming easier and easier to use, I can't see why people won't give them a try (understanding that there is a small to moderate learning curve in configuring and using them).

From a price stance, Linux has MS by a landslide. My latest distro (SuSE Pro) cost me $99 USD. There were 5 CDs / 2 DVDs and I split the cost with two buddies so it cost me $33. I simply burned the CDs for them. Not illegal, no piracy, perfectly ok! These disks contained more programs than you could shake a stick at:

SuSE 9.1 Pro with multiple desktops (5 to be exact)

3 E-Mail Clients (Evolution, K-Mail, Mozilla Mail)

3 Web Browsers (Firefox 1.0, Mozilla, Konquerer)

8 CD Burning Programs

12 Audio / Music listening programs

Open Office (exactly like MS Office..... uses the same programs and files)

K-Office (another office app)

4 TV-Out applications

Gimp (a Photoshop clone... excellent)

4 Image Editing Programs

2 Video Editing apps

K MyMoney (exactly like Money)

2 News Readers (Thunderbird and Node)

3 Video Viewers

DigiCam and WebCam apps

Ham Radio app ( haven't delved into this)

Palm Pilot software (to sync and use your Palm Pilot)

6 Drawing Programs

Mathematical manipulation apps

3 File Management apps

4 Terminal apps (like the black DOS screen)

Wireless card apps

Lots of server software

Many utilities (weather app, wireless app, hardware configurations tools) for the system tray

How much do you think it would cost to buy all of that for your Windows machine?

And as far as security goes...... well, we've seen both sides of this arguement. I guess it is up to the computer owner to make sure that his / her system is secure. I get regular updates to my Linux software on a daily basis (mostly automatic updates, not bug fixes).

And remember that Paul Thorott is an employee (directly or not) of Microsoft. Consider the source when you read his column.

Barney

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gergith

i know you can run programs as different users/privilages within windows xp as well, just not sure about how it works entirely

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cloud Geek

well I agree linux in my opinion sucks

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
And remember that Paul Thorott is an employee (directly or not) of Microsoft. Consider the source when you read his column.

584880556[/snapback]

Regardless of the source's history of writing sensationalist articles for a fee (and attention), Paul Thurrott has some valid points. Every security problem must be treaded seriously.

However, I believe that the OSS community does a better job of it than Microsoft does, and the way that *nix sets up users and handles administrating the computer are superior, as I need not run the whole box as root/administrator to do administrative work. A simple shell will suffice quite nicely, and does not start up other services or apps as root. Clean, efficient, and secure. (Y)

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
well I agree linux in my opinion sucks

584880603[/snapback]

Care to elaborate on that opinion of yours?

Comments like that ("M$ SUXXORS!!!111" and so forth) are considered trolling, and will be removed. Reasonable and level-headed discussion of facts and opinions are encouraged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.
well I agree linux in my opinion sucks

584880603[/snapback]

Stoking the flames........ :no:

Barney

Link to post
Share on other sites
Djmutik1013
Ahw my bad...lolz...So what does a Operatong System have to have to be consider a truly multi-user system :huh: ?

584872363[/snapback]

A truly multi-user system is one that a computer to used by more then one person at a time. Now this means that each person is using a different login to one computer

Link to post
Share on other sites
3nd3r

I use gentoo on my desktops. Security problems? NEVER! I keep my system up to date by updating the newest code daily, it takes 5 minutes to become superuser, emerge sync; emerge -uD world.

any fixes are done and if it isnt in portage i can manually patch it as there are tons of tutorials on patching now days.

I have seen major holes in windows go unpatched for months!

I only use xp on my laptop becuase i play MU and wine cant play the gameguarded games yet. That is the only reasn I have windows on any box.

just my 30 cents

-3nd3r

Link to post
Share on other sites
tuckeratlarge
Care to elaborate on that opinion of yours?

Comments like that ("M$ SUXXORS!!!111" and so forth) are considered trolling, and will be removed.  Reasonable and level-headed discussion of facts and opinions are encouraged.

584880642[/snapback]

Im with you brother.

and finally I have found out what trolling is... go me

I refer to my earlier post -

first of let me say this thread is great. Most people have something reasonable and of quality and relevance to say. Not the usual flamage that is the sad and sorry norm on Neowin.

584880642[/snapback]

perhaps I spoke too soon, and my last sentence has foundation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
za3zoo3

if the linux insecure why most hosting service based on BSD ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
fjv
It isn't a question, to me anyway, on if Linux is more secure then Windows.  Both are only secure if the user is secure minded enough to secure them, most users aren't in either OS.  The real question is: what is more at risk, a hetrogenous network, or a homogenous network.  The homogenous network is, as it has been proven again and again.

584870803[/snapback]

agreed

fjv.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sandman45654
To put it plainly, windows is fine for a multi-user desktop but its definently not on par with most unix distros in terms of multi-user/multi-tasking capabilities because it wasn't designed that way.

584875710[/snapback]

This definitely used to be true, but it may no longer be the case. Have a look at this article (Competing with Unix, Linux section). I am not vouching for the articles validity but if it is accurate its something to think about.

In Windows, I believe you have to log in as administrator to do your administrating.  All tasks are now running with admin priveleges, and there is a greater potential from problems affecting your whole box (or network!).

584879656[/snapback]

Completely untrue. Windows acts much the same way as Linux does when it requires root privileges.

post-39412-1099861252.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
kyro

on second thought i feel like asking paul... whts he going to say next? windows is v secure and virus free?

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
This definitely used to be true, but it may no longer be the case. Have a look at this article (Competing with Unix, Linux section). I am not vouching for the articles validity but if it is accurate its something to think about.
Sounds like that is an improvement! However, it seems that they may have only incorporated this in the Win2003 Server OS.

On a re-read of the link, it mentions nothing about being multi-user. As far as I know, you cannot have multiple users logged into a box (real user logins, not networked access to a database or web server) and working independently at the same time.

Completely untrue. Windows acts much the same way as Linux does when it requires root privileges.

584881578[/snapback]

Nice new feature. It is about time that Microsoft finally is getting around to setting up their OS in a reasonable matter when it comes to security. However, why does MS seem to continually cripple these important features and not include them in their lower-end versions (the above Win2k3 Server feature is not available in the XP Home version, which is their current release for home users). They also seem to prefer (for obvious financial reasons) that people purchase an upgrage to newer releases, rather than fix the older versions (98, Me, NT, Win2k?).

Their actions don't always make sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudy
if the linux insecure why most hosting service based on BSD ??

584880935[/snapback]

linux and bsd are two completly different kernels not related

Link to post
Share on other sites
vincent
well I agree linux in my opinion sucks

584880603[/snapback]

Comments like this make me wanna live on mars and get away from humans

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.