Anybody use Linux? For old hardware, which distro?
in [Setup]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jun 2010 16:03 RayLopez99 wrote: > On Jun 3, 7:37 pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >> I think most would say that any linux will only work for 5 years at >> most, as will most other OS. Not that it will not run after 5 years( >> assuming the hardware still works) but that so many security issues will >> have cropped up that it is dangerous to use it. Of course many still run >> Windows 95. And many also are infected by viruses, trojans and other >> nasties, and are a danger on the web. But they run. > > Thanks. So you claim (and it may be true, though it seems to > contradict the Linux propaganda) even Linux runs security risks after > five years, unless you upgrade the kernel? Interesting.... > > RL No, boring really. since no one is going to leave a 7 year old system live on an unprotected and firewalled internet.
From: Darren Salt on 3 Jun 2010 16:28 I demand that David Brown may or may not have written... [snip] > The only time I have ever seen malware on any of the systems I am > responsible for - mostly windows desktops of various kinds, plus Linux > servers and the odd Linux desktop - was due to the weak point of any good > security system - users. Users are the only part of the system that > actually need regular updating. Unfortunately, installing the updates is tricky; come back the next day and there's a fair chance that they've automatically rolled back. And don't get me started on rebooting them... -- | Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Toon | using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | back! | + Burn less waste. Use less packaging. Waste less. USE FEWER RESOURCES. You don't have to be mad to read this, but it helps.
From: Keith Keller on 3 Jun 2010 17:02 On 2010-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Keith Keller wrote: >> >> ...such as keeping up with security updates. > > since the original question was about something not on the net, frankly > who cares? Since the OP is a troll, I feel justified in ignoring his completely contrived install scenario. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: Keith Keller on 3 Jun 2010 17:01 On 2010-06-03, David Brown <david.brown(a)hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote: > Keith Keller wrote: >> >> ...such as keeping up with security updates. > > Somebody has been living too long with Windows, and even then with the > myths perpetuated by "security" software vendors. You are reading *way* too much into my post. I did not say "install every single update that the vendor distributes". I mean more or less what you do: keep an eye on the updates that are issued, and install the ones you deem to be important. But if your distro no longer distributes security patches, you have to choose whether to give up on them altogether, patch the relevant software yourself, or upgrade/switch to a current distribution. Many people will choose the third option. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jun 2010 17:34
Keith Keller wrote: > On 2010-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Keith Keller wrote: >>> ...such as keeping up with security updates. >> since the original question was about something not on the net, frankly >> who cares? > > Since the OP is a troll, I feel justified in ignoring his completely > contrived install scenario. > Reasonable enough. Your sig is borked BTW vvvvvvvvvvv > --keith > > > |