0

VIsta was built from SCRATCH you say? You mean from ZERO code to VISTA you say?

No... you are are wrong. Where is your proof? Vista is essentially NT 5.2

Maybe NT was stable as one point but since Vista got all these retarded 'security enhancements' has only made the OS unfriendly and just a little secure.

You hate people that bash M$ for security reasons? Ummm.... have you ever had to tell your Grandma or Mom that she needed to REINSTALL her Windows OS because the Spyware and MalWare took over her machine? Yes, I have bought so called 'Maleware removal tools' like Adware remover and some others and have even used 3rd party ones made by programmers and giving away malware/spyware fixes for free to the public... They still could not rid my Grandmas computer of all the virises!

And even if I was able to get all of them in just a few short days the spyware would return. I.E. has massive security holes via ActiveX and others...

That is why I complain about security.. also..

Did you know that 60% of all SPAM in the world comes from infested user machines ( Yes, windows is #1 so that makes Windows the User Machine sending the SPAM )... once a trojan is infected the Windows User machine ( like XP, NT, 2000, Vista whatever ) SPAM is being mailed.

Ever wonder why they can not seem to stop spam? goto www.spamhaus.org and read all about spam news.

An OS should secure our computers not allow spyware which makes you buy MORE software to remove software. Stop 60% of all spam. In an eccommerce world how safe are your credit cards when you buy from online?

You wonder WHY in the world are people so mean to M$ about security??? Just stop and think about it... I would rather have a crappy OS then have a decent one that is spying on me and contributing to spam and making my grandma spent more and more just to make her machine WORK .. simply work is all she asks.

Security is #1 and is not at M$.. they are all about it NOW.. but ... too late.

If you look at the reports, there was a point where the vista team decided to start over from scratch because it was not going to work. So yes it was built from scratch but based on NT technology.
I have never had to reinstalled windows on any on my machines because of viruses or spyware. people that are not careful click on ever link and download every smiley face get viruses and thus windows must be reinstall. i always try to teach people to ignore those stupid things.

You say IE has massive security holes? so does firefox and safari and opera, and every browser. The only reason firefox was "secure" was because very few people used it, but now it's a target for hackers as well as IE is.

Can you just please stop bashing MS? there are so many viruses for windows only because it's the main os. if linux was the main OS, then it too would have thousands of viruses and spyware, if mac os x was the main os, the same thing would happen.

0

well what's better for the world, for bill to pay taxes, which would be nothing compared to what he's giving to charity, or for him to actually help people in the world?

and you say you're not anti-vista, yet you hate ms, and windows and would never run vista?

i agree aero is nothing compared to beryl, but i found it hard to concentrate and actually work with a computer that had so much eye candy.

1

However, we can not dismiss microsoft for what it has gave to computers. If anything Microsoft has taught us this... Do not allot a single company so much power else single CEO's chairmen and Executives that do not code anything get insanely rich.

If it were only the coders who made money, there wouldn't be anyone to run the business.

It is easy for us to now 'Give Microsoft a break' when we all see how short it comes with compared to Open Source.

From of very skewed perspective, perhaps it comes up short. Many of Microsoft's products are of good quality. And several open-source projects have very annoying bugs as well.

Vista does not compare to Ubuntu and BERYL. Open Office is free.

So don't compare them. Personally, I find Aero much nicer to use. And Open Office hardly compares to MS Office.

Did you know that the minda / Bill Gates Charity foundation was formed to spend charities money in order to avoid the I.R.S. ? I do not feel sorry for all the BMW driving a-holes in Redmond that do not contribute a line of code yet take golfing trips and enjoy all their money and freedom while M$ outsources programmer jobs from India, Germany, Russia and China and Japan and... on and on...

Did you know that most people who have any money and any sense whatsoever use similar loopholes? Not that Bill would have to bat an eyebrow to pay taxes... I doubt he's moving down a tax bracket, and he's not keeping the money either way. Even then, he'd lose money giving it away than paying a portion of it for taxes. Oh, and the whole Bellevue-Redmond area is full of people driving BMWs, Mercedes, Porsches, etc...

Did you know most the Windows code was not written by Born Americans but rather other countries... Yet it is the White Executives walking away with all the money... sure a programmer gets paid $30-$100 / hr but that is after drilling their brains for weeks on end sometimes 80+ hour weeks while the Exec's get to play golf.

Is there a problem with using overseas talent to write code? Not like the US has a monopoly on smart people. And the programmers must be satisfied with their pay else they'd go elsewhere for work. As for the pay amount, you're right. The $75k+ starting salary isn't enough for the programmers (at least, that's what college grads with 0 experience get)...

In the open source free world it dont work what way... you EARN your reputation by contributing actual WORK. Linus deserves his BMW and his house but he is in no way as rich as Bill Gates... yet Bill Gates quit coding Decades ago but he will be making Billions of Dollars even after he is DEAD!

That was a choice Linus made. It was different from the one Bill made.

That is why I hate Windows...

You hate a product because people are making money off of it, huh? I guess you hate any other company that sells products while the execs are doing whatever... the car companies, the banks, the medical field, oil companies, etc...

Now lets begin on why Windows is an unstable OS on a technical level...

And then you didn't say anything. So I'll fill it in: mainly because of 3rd party code. Not Microsoft's code.

Even if Windows was a completely secure OS, we'd still have problems with exploits in other programs, or just ignorant users (phishing attacks, anyone?).

Votes + Comments
you put him in his place
0

Well there will always be someone who can hack into anything anybody makes.
Just like bank vaults, where there's a will, there's a way.

0

Yes but look at the numbers there

c) 20-25% of web servers run UNIX - thats the same as IIS does
d) 5 - 10% of desktop pcs run OSX

that would mean that M$ would have 75 - 95% domination occording to your report.

Also, Microsoft tends to do business by 'assimulation' as in they try to change the rules to fix their own needs. Like trying to create their OWN http protocol that ONLY works on Windows systems.

That is where the danger lies... If M$ would play more fair and not try to monopolize everything ( yes because they CAN does not mean that SHOULD... but they do anyways.. )

That is why they do not deserve to continue to do so and why Open Source has come to the rescue. Money can buy you just about anything including even the government as well as large small coperations and of course individuals.

M$ users there money to buy out people and business. Take a look at current Microsoft business practice. They are now threathening to sue based on Patents that other companies are using that M$ says they created... if those companies do not PAY UP a protection fee than M$ sues... if they DO pay up they are not sued. This is COHERSION tactics...

Anyways... whatever.

0

with Linux, everyone can contribute... when a security vulnerability is found...it can easily be patched...it is open source...if windows has a prob with its OS (cough *vista*) they are stuck with it...Linux can easily be changed or patched. so antiviruses arnt common cos they just are not nessesary...the OS itself is a good enough anti-virus/firewall/etc.

0

>if windows has a prob with its OS (cough *vista*) they are stuck with it...Linux can easily be
>changed or patched.
Completely wrong. Windows has security updates, just like most modern operating systems nowadays (both closed- and open-source).

>the OS itself is a good enough anti-virus/firewall/etc
Um, no. Any sufficiently-advanced operating system will be prone to viruses, Trojans, and other nasties. While Linux doesn't seem to be too bad in this respect, it could be attributed to the fact that it has a very small portion of the operating system market (and thus, virus writers wouldn't be targeting Linux). Finally, Linux does need a firewall to protect itself from hackers, like most operating systems. You seem to think that simply because the operating system is open source it's invulnerable to attack.

0

vista and linux are the same in terms of security. The only reason vista has a higjer incidence is because users are TOTAL RETARDS as they run as administrators, not limited accounts. UAC goes some way to fixing this. If everyone on linux operated as root then it would be just as virus prone

Linux has kernel packet filtering and 90% of distributions come with an iptables firewall

0

They're not neceseraly stuck with it. MS has thousands of people who work on just windows. And they all try to come up with solutions. Vista is a great operating system, and people should stop complaining about it. However, I prefer linux over windows for most day to day tasks. And linux security is not as big and a vulnerability with windows, because more people use it. The only reason linux doesn't need an antivirus is because not enough people use it(consumers), so there's not need to attack it.

0

>this pop up requires NO PASSWORD to be entered!!!

only if you are an administrator. you gotta use vista before you start ripping on it. i've been running vista on a laptop and have had no problems what so ever. and mac os x has the same security feature, if you do something that requires administrative priviliges it'll ask you for the password, same with linux, when installing something or changing a setting it'll prompt you for a password.

I've had the displeasure of using Vista and getting those infuriating pop-ups. And those pop-ups make absolutely no sense whatever. The pop-up requires no password if one is already an administrator. This means that Vista already knows whether or not one is an administrator. So why does it badger the user?

Only rarely does GNU/Linux ask for a password if the user does not have adequate privileges. Nearly always it will report an error message saying the user does not have the necessary privileges and then abort. And creating security-hostile GUIs that prompt the user for root password is almost the same as merrily skipping down the primrose path. After all, what's the visual difference between a legitimate package requesting privileges and malware doing the same? If I try to install software without adequate privileges, the install should FAIL. Period. If I really want to install it, I should be required to explicitly run a shell and explicitly acquire the necessary privileges. THEN I can execute the install. To do so otherwise will merely bring GNU/Linux right to the current state of security in Windows: little-to-none.

0

... Did you know that 60% of all SPAM in the world comes from infested user machines ( Yes, windows is #1 so that makes Windows the User Machine sending the SPAM )... once a trojan is infected the Windows User machine ( like XP, NT, 2000, Vista whatever ) SPAM is being mailed. ...

I think '60%' may be a bit of an overstatement.

I have *some* experience managing email and spam. In the past couple years, 80-90% of all email arriving at my few domains comes from IP addresses of *known spammers*; it doesn't come from hijacked PCs. 3-10% is legitimate email. The rest is found to be spam or fails other anti-spam measures. The sites I manage typically receive 600-1200 legitimate emails each month. The total incoming volume at each site has ranged from 10,000 to 35,000 each month. It spiked up last summer and tapered off to previous levels last fall. Apparently the FBI has done some good work in this regard: IC3.gov message. If y'all'd like, I can post the summary info.

And, to return to the thread's topic, GNU/Linux really *do* need anti-virus software. Because there are a great many Windows PCs that get their email from Linux servers, linux email system operators need a rock-solid anti-virus system. Clam is good, but it isn't quite good enough; it's slow and far too CPU-intensive. And I know of at least one http-downloadable virus/trojan that Clam doesn't/didn't see; that's one too many.

0

any thoughts on solairs??

just thought I would open the debate to unix!! ps i love vista think its a good o/s for everyday users and i love linux/unix too but you need to have a lot more knowledge then most everyday users have to make it work the way u want to.

0

i think unix has linux binary compatibility libaries (at least freebsd does, dont know about real unix (tm) ) , which would make it just as succeptible

0

i use solaris well at work anyway find it very stable but not sure how vulnerable it is.

oh and has anyone seen about these new firewire attacks that leave any system with any os vunerable to attack

0

i think unix has linux binary compatibility libaries (at least freebsd does, dont know about real unix (tm) ) , which would make it just as succeptible

Yes, Solaris has the lxrun utility.

0

Most of the posts here are FUD.

Linux does have virii, the first was in 1995.

However because you do not have admin rights by default on linux (with the exception of one distribution) they have minimal effect - they cannot infect the system; possibly the local user might get stung but that's all they can do, they can't propogate, they can't access the system.

Its nothing to do with numbers of users, market share open vs closed source, its down to basic errors in Microsoft products.

Linux was largely developed over internet, Microsoft under-estimated the demand & effect of networking.

I do have antivirus installed, mainly so I don't pass Windows malware onto Windows users.

see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

"Opinion To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it, writes SecurityFocus columnist Scott Granneman."

0

exactly as i said

vista and linux are the same in terms of security. The only reason vista has a higjer incidence is because users are TOTAL RETARDS as they run as administrators, not limited accounts. UAC goes some way to fixing this. If everyone on linux operated as root then it would be just as virus prone

0

exactly as i said

So you did.

If at any time I inferred that you did not please accept my sincerest apologies.

My apology for going OT in this thread with my apology.

0

Virus writers don't know where to start in *nix distros. Thats why they intend not to make such virus(es) like in windows OS's. Thats the best of being a *nix user.:D

0

a reason for linux no viruses and antivirus is the lack of bugs if compared with windows as an example and also the number of users is smaller if this number gets more i think we will find more holes and there might found viruses and antiviruses for it

0

<bangs head on desk>

NO it is because Windows is intrinsically less secure.

Belatedly, in Vista, they do not allow jeust anybody to install applications, either from the keyboard, or from an email attachment for example.

But then the dickheads go and make it easy to turn off.

0

I hate backseat moderating, but "dickheads" isn't a family friendly word.

And, no. Windows isn't less secure, people just don't know how to properly use the security. You won't get virii if you stay off of malicious websites, and don't sign up for stupid newsletters.

Again, if you stay as a limited account, and not as root, you'll be fine. On Windows -- stay limited, not as Administrator. I firmly believe that Windows should just abandon "UAC" and just require a password for every admin-run program.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.