Vote--> which is safer: Windows with all updates OR naked Linux?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: Avira version 10
Next: un anti-virus
From: Moshe on 25 Mar 2010 18:11 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:41:56 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote: > Who eat healthy foods, salads, and fish, meditate, do yoga, and engage > in creative activities, like theater, music, dance, and art. People > who are advocates of change, who want to make a difference by > enhancing the lives of others. Yea, and guess who sold out and was responsible for the Wall Street meltdown of the 80's , 90's and 00's ? Yep. The same tree huggers that were running around half naked at Woodstock. You are trying to re-write history Rex and as usual you are getting it wrong. > Real men also think that a 7 course dinner is a pizza and a six pack > of beer, preferably tall ones. Are those the type of real men you prefer to blow, Rex?
From: Mike Easter on 25 Mar 2010 18:33 Rex Ballard wrote: > This is the very best part of the whole article Roy, Who would I need > to contact to get permission to publish them on my web site? > > Rex Ballard > http://www.open4uccess.org > ITYM http://open4success.org/ -- Mike Easter
From: GreyCloud on 25 Mar 2010 21:59 RayLopez99 wrote: > Some misguided dude made this statement: > > ***************** > >> whether Linux would be inherently more secure >> than Windows and whether--this is the point--it would require AV/ >> Firewall protection. I say yes, if and when (never) it ever got 90% >> market share like Windows. > > No, it would not need AV. No OS should need AV if written properly > > > ***************** > > So the issue is this: please vote on what system would (in your mind, > since data is really hard to come by) be safer in terms of malware > breaches--a MSFT Windows system that has all the latest patches > (updates/ sig files, firewall, etc), meaning it has a third party > antivirus program running, and a software firewall, or, NATIVE (naked) > Linux, meaning a Linux machine connected to the net (OK to have a > hardware firewall via the router or NAT box), but without any AV > program running on the Linux machine? > > Apples and oranges? I think not. > > You see, the Linux cultists believe that Linux is so inherently secure > that it does not need a third party firewall or AV program, see above > ("No, it would not need AV. No OS should need AV if written > properly"). But I say that Windows, with the requisite security, > would be SAFER than Linux. As evidence of this, in the last six > months the official Linux kernel org has issued two updates to the > Linux kernel to patch potential security breaches. > > The fact that there are few Linux viruses, I maintain, is only due to > the less than 1% market share of Linux. > > I vote for Windows--and de facto so has 90%+ of the computing public. > > RL > > Check out this humourous link on Linux distros: > > http://ibidem.homeip.net/fun/linux/ > Looks like Linux is living in your head, rent free.
From: spike1 on 25 Mar 2010 22:08 And verily, didst Rex Ballard <rex.ballard(a)gmail.com> hastily babble thusly: > On Mar 25, 8:22�am, Agent_C <agent-c-hates-s...(a)nyc.rr.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:32:41 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99 > >> <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >Apples and oranges? �I think not. > >> Linux is for Hippies and Communists. > > Who eat healthy foods Sod that. >, salads, And that. Yuck. > and fish, OK. I am a big fan of fish 'n' chips... But then, who isn't. meditate, do yoga, and engage > in creative activities, like theater, music, dance, and art. Nope, a little, definitely not and a little... -- | |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack| | spike1(a)freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you| | |can't move, with no hope of rescue. | | Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been | | in |good to you so far... | | Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
From: FromTheRafters on 25 Mar 2010 22:28
"Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message news:MPG.261578f172ef4a9d98a212(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > In article <8e0f56dc-79cb-4de0-a222- > fde64270179c(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, raylopez88(a)gmail.com > says... >> So the issue is this: please vote on what system would (in your >> mind, >> since data is really hard to come by) be safer in terms of malware >> breaches >> > > Having a LOT of real-world experience in this, from an OS platfor, as > currently exists, in the hands of a HOME user that is not technical, > Most Linux installations are more security than most Windows > installations. I find that incredibly easy to believe. 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. From the beginning, Linux software developers were security aware. The Man pages are a hodgepodge of articles written by various developers, but they contain much much more information than the help files of Windows. Keeping users, root, and swap on separate partitions seems like just good compartmentalization practice - and just about *everything* can appear as an object in the directory structure (not a security thing, but a nice feature IMO). ....all this while Win9x could be downed by prepending @autoexec to a certain text file on C:\ and issuing a con\con. |