Vote--> which is safer: Windows with all updates OR naked Linux?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: Avira version 10
Next: un anti-virus
From: ToolPackinMama on 26 Mar 2010 04:10 On 3/26/2010 3:43 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > FromTheRafters wrote: >> http://vx.netlux.org/lib/afc08.html >> >> Just read the intro - the rest is considerably beyond you. > > Well, you have understood obviously *nothing* of it LOL! I love this quote: << We don't want to leave the impression that only the weak and unprotected users of personal computers have been attacked in this fashion. In fact, there is no question that several large computer companies have been successfully attacked, and that viruses have been spread throughout their timesharing systems, even where the most stringent protection is provided. >>
From: Peter Köhlmann on 26 Mar 2010 05:01 ToolPackinMama wrote: > On 3/26/2010 3:43 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> FromTheRafters wrote: > >>> http://vx.netlux.org/lib/afc08.html >>> >>> Just read the intro - the rest is considerably beyond you. >> >> Well, you have understood obviously *nothing* of it > > LOL! I love this quote: > > << We don't want to leave the impression that only the weak and > unprotected users of personal computers have been attacked in this > fashion. In fact, there is no question that several large computer > companies have been successfully attacked, and that viruses have been > spread throughout their timesharing systems, even where the most > stringent protection is provided. >> 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 Come on, "FromTheRafters", tell us in detail how malware enters a linux system, how it starts executing and how it attaches itself to some vector to stay on the system *and* keep executing -- Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!
From: RayLopez99 on 26 Mar 2010 05:55 On Mar 25, 8:43 pm, Leythos <spam999f...(a)rrohio.com> wrote: > In article <8e0f56dc-79cb-4de0-a222- > fde642701...(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, raylope...(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 agree with you 100%. You sound credible and, aside from your barbs about me being a troll (which I am, but that doesn't mean I don't pose good questions, and this is one of them), like you don't have an ax to grind. But remember, the question is (to compare apples with apples): a regular Linux user on Linux "naked" vs. a power user in Windows with Windows fully protected. Why? Because for one thing, let's face it, Linux users are more knowledgeable about PCs than ordinary Windows users. They love PCs and are essentially PC hobbyists. So you have to compare apples to apples. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 26 Mar 2010 05:58 On Mar 25, 11:41 pm, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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, 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. > > Many of them are in their 70s and still doing all of these things. > They may not live to be 100, but they will probably enjoy almost all > of the time they are alive. > > > Real men use Windows! > > Real men also think that a 7 course dinner is a pizza and a six pack > of beer, preferably tall ones. They eat lots of saturated fat, > starch, and watch football and basketball so they can experience the > memories of the days when they played in Pop Warner, Little League, or > even high school, mostly just beating the daylights out of each other. > > Real men die of heart attacks by the time they are 55. LOL a good post Rex. See what happens when you keep them short? You are a fine writer. Sorry to hear about that heath problem from last year...what was it, a heart attack? No, seriously, hope you're fine. And you know what they say: those that can, do, those that can't, preach. Like COLA advocates. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 26 Mar 2010 06:22
Rex Ballard wrote: > On Mar 25, 6:32 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> 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 > > On this we agree, yet Windows, even Windows 7 still needs Ativirus and > this is still the fastest growing segment of the software industry in > terms of software written exclusively for Windows, both in terms of > revenue and unit volume. You agree Linux needs AV? It was not clear. > By "naked" - I would assume that you mean as pre-installed or as > installed by using the standard installation media DVD. > > If that's the case, the answer would be Linux. > > The standard installation includes the following security measures by > default: > > The installer is prompted for a root password, most also check the > password to make sure it's not too obvious. Windows does that. (WDT) > The installer is prompted to create a user account with a user > password. W. D. T. > The standard configuration includes a fire-wall that blocks all > incoming connections. WDT > The standard configuration only lets the ordinary user do basic things > like mount the CD/DVD drive. WDT {bunch of stuff that Windows does deleted} RL |