+virtorio MVC Posted November 6, 2004 MVC Share Posted November 6, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neowin_hipster Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I dont know much bout LINUX but i can say this: Your OS is only as secure as you make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapnuts_ox Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Cu_Guy Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 (edited) 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 November 7, 2004 by El_Cu_Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Windows and Linux are both pretty insecure, bsd is the best for webservers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuckeratlarge Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted November 7, 2004 Veteran Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Cu_Guy Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 ^^^ 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney T. Administrators Posted November 7, 2004 Administrators Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergith Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Geek Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 well I agree linux in my opinion sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted November 7, 2004 Veteran Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted November 7, 2004 Veteran Share Posted November 7, 2004 well I agree linux in my opinion sucks584880603[/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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney T. Administrators Posted November 7, 2004 Administrators Share Posted November 7, 2004 well I agree linux in my opinion sucks 584880603[/snapback] Stoking the flames........ :no: Barney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djmutik1013 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nd3r Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuckeratlarge Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
za3zoo3 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 if the linux insecure why most hosting service based on BSD ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjv Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman45654 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyro Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 on second thought i feel like asking paul... whts he going to say next? windows is v secure and virus free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted November 7, 2004 Veteran Share Posted November 7, 2004 (edited) 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts