Vote--> which is safer: Windows with all updates OR naked Linux?
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection? <------- plonk there goes another troll.
Next: Proposed new build
From: Lusotec on 27 Mar 2010 06:28 FromTheRafters wrote: > Some distros even had the console mode in a distinct color so that a > user wouldn't forget he or she was logged as root. For example, on Mandriva, when logging in to a X session as root the background defaults to bright red. It makes it hard to even look at the screen. :) Regards.
From: bbgruff on 27 Mar 2010 14:11 On Friday 26 March 2010 17:47 ToolPackinMama wrote: > Well, I play a couple of games, and getting my games to run in Linux > would be a nightmare for me. > > Gaming is 90% of what I do with my computer. I'm sorry that you guys outside of linux.advocacy are being pestered by posts which should really be confined there, but while I have your attention, may I ask "WHY"? Gaming is one "anti-linux" area that is frequently cited. Would you mind just going into WHY you use a P.C. for 90% of the time to play games? It's always seemed to me that the "latest and greatest, fastest" games are what drives the purchase of high-end P.C.s, and I don't understand why this is so. Would it not be more logical/cheaper to buy a games console for games, and a (much!) cheaper P.C. for "serious work"? I.O.W. why do you (seemingly) feel that a P.C. is better for games than a dedicated console?
From: FromTheRafters on 27 Mar 2010 19:21 "Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message news:hokigr$88u$03$1(a)news.t-online.com... > FromTheRafters wrote: [...] >>> This proves exactly *what* of "FromTheRafters" >>> idiotic claims? In fact, it is a quite damning >>> assessment of windows "capabilities" to get >>> infected, even when the best "protection" is used >> >> The statements weren't platform specific. Most of the tests were >> probably on Unix systems > > Hilarious Windows wasn't even mentioned, although Unix was (among others). >>> Come on, "FromTheRafters", tell us in detail how malware... >> >> *Now* you say malware. Losing focus again? I'm in the *virus* group >> and >> talking about *viruses*. > > Malware encompasses viruses, too When you say *viruses*, you should be talking about viruses. Saying that they require an insecure environment in order to exist is misinformation. > ANd your complete failure to answer *any* question with anything more > than > idiotic bullshit noted It should also be noted that I provided information (and an authoritative link), and you did nothing but disagree and call me names. >>> ...enters a linux system, how it starts executing > > Your abject failure to answer any of that is noted I did, I told you that they start executing when their host program is invoked. Much like a trojan executes when you invoke *it*. >>> and how it attaches >>> itself to some vector to stay on the system *and* keep executing >> >> Attaches itself to some vector?? >> >> Sheesh! > > Right. How do you propose the malware (virus, worm, whatever) survives > the > next boot? Ahhh - a multiple choice question. I choose to address the *virus*, since that is the one kind of malware that proves your view wrong. A virus can be at rest. Most other malware wants to remain active (and wants its start method to survive a reboot) so it can steal your computing power and use it for the perpetrators own tasks. A virus can exist quite happily without being resident all of the time. It runs when it runs. > It *has* to attach itself to some vector (A file, install itself in > the > filesystem, whatever) to be present then Yes. It may modify a program (or the environment) so that a program (or programs) *hosts* the virus. The program (now considered a virus itself, as it is "infected" now) can be stored as a file on the filesystem. >> Here's another thought. Don't be as concerned about spreading a virus >> as >> you are about executing a virus. If you don't execute one, your >> chances >> of spreading it are extremely low - so avoiding them kills two birds >> with one stone. > > Translation: You know *nothing* at all about the subject > > All you are able to do is spouting some inane nonsense Well, I guess we're done here...I can only hope somebody *else* has learned something from my posts.
From: bbgruff on 27 Mar 2010 19:29 On Friday 26 March 2010 08:06 ToolPackinMama wrote: > On 3/26/2010 3:37 AM, RonB wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:27:42 -0400, ToolPackinMama wrote: >> >>> Yes, worked beautifully. I didn't have to install anything to get >>> online. I did DL the available updates, soon after. >> >> Wubi is a great way to try and learn Linux. I don't know if it's the best >> way to use Linux long-term or not as, I think, there's a bit of a >> drop-off in performance. You may want to make some free space on your >> hard drive and just do a normal Ubuntu install somewhere down the line. > > Oh sure, and I probably will, now! I was just marveling about how easy > it is to actually get started, if somebody is brand new to it. Great if it (Wubi) gives you some confidence :-) As I was saying to another poster here though, if you want to use Linux seriously but still need Windows for some apps, I reckon now that far the best way to go is a clean Linux install, then VirtualBox or VMware, and in that create a Virtual Windows machine. Depends if you have a "full retail" of Windows of course, and I suspect not good for fast games, but that apart you get a good solid secure OS as your main OS, used for all browsing, e-mail etc., and Windows is there for Windows apps, and need never be used on the Internet.
From: Little Charlie on 27 Mar 2010 19:34
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:21:59 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message >news:hokigr$88u$03$1(a)news.t-online.com... >> FromTheRafters wrote: > >[...] > >>>> This proves exactly *what* of "FromTheRafters" >>>> idiotic claims? In fact, it is a quite damning >>>> assessment of windows "capabilities" to get >>>> infected, even when the best "protection" is used >>> >>> The statements weren't platform specific. Most of the tests were >>> probably on Unix systems >> >> Hilarious > >Windows wasn't even mentioned, although Unix was (among others). > >>>> Come on, "FromTheRafters", tell us in detail how malware... >>> >>> *Now* you say malware. Losing focus again? I'm in the *virus* group >>> and >>> talking about *viruses*. >> >> Malware encompasses viruses, too > >When you say *viruses*, you should be talking about viruses. Saying that >they require an insecure environment in order to exist is >misinformation. > >> ANd your complete failure to answer *any* question with anything more >> than >> idiotic bullshit noted > >It should also be noted that I provided information (and an >authoritative link), and you did nothing but disagree and call me names. > >>>> ...enters a linux system, how it starts executing >> >> Your abject failure to answer any of that is noted > >I did, I told you that they start executing when their host program is >invoked. Much like a trojan executes when you invoke *it*. > >>>> and how it attaches >>>> itself to some vector to stay on the system *and* keep executing >>> >>> Attaches itself to some vector?? >>> >>> Sheesh! >> >> Right. How do you propose the malware (virus, worm, whatever) survives >> the >> next boot? > >Ahhh - a multiple choice question. > >I choose to address the *virus*, since that is the one kind of malware >that proves your view wrong. > >A virus can be at rest. Most other malware wants to remain active (and >wants its start method to survive a reboot) so it can steal your >computing power and use it for the perpetrators own tasks. A virus can >exist quite happily without being resident all of the time. It runs when >it runs. > >> It *has* to attach itself to some vector (A file, install itself in >> the >> filesystem, whatever) to be present then > >Yes. It may modify a program (or the environment) so that a program (or >programs) *hosts* the virus. The program (now considered a virus itself, >as it is "infected" now) can be stored as a file on the filesystem. > >>> Here's another thought. Don't be as concerned about spreading a virus >>> as >>> you are about executing a virus. If you don't execute one, your >>> chances >>> of spreading it are extremely low - so avoiding them kills two birds >>> with one stone. >> >> Translation: You know *nothing* at all about the subject >> >> All you are able to do is spouting some inane nonsense > >Well, I guess we're done here...I can only hope somebody *else* has >learned something from my posts. > Oh YES indeed!! I had been reluctant to switch to Ubuntu BUT now since I realize all my 'naked' friends have already switched then YIPPEEE!!! I'm throwing the last few bits of clothing out the window as I am booting Ubuntu 10 Beta 1 CD right now!! Free at free at last Thank you to Ubuntu..I am FREE at last !! Seriously I took a good and fair look at Ubuntu back at v8 or 9 and the tuffy for me was a printer driver for a very common and current Lexmark all-in-one..x2500 IIRC . I don't need those pitfalls and those that did reply nonchalantly told me just find the source code and compile it yourself...yeah I could learn to do that but f--k what a hassle..so I burned Ubuntu 10 the other day and might see if the driver situation has improved... Little Charlie's Blues Pages http://www.soundclick.com/LittleCharlie |