So what its insecure?

Stop with the M$ symbols personally I think its lame.

They make a product with that is insecure? So what!? The majority of security conscience people use linux anyway right? Well as a gamer with a mild security conscience I can reasonably say, I think what MS did was a good thing. With there easy to use, tho buggy thay help mainstream PC games on the pc.

Anyone remember, that hacking challenge a while back where they said it was unhackable? Where they only had like 2 things running on the computer?

Well there you go, the more you got running the more likely it is insecure. With that in mind, think of all the things MS must cover..... from word processing, to server hosting, to game playing to internet surfing, the list goes on forever to very mild things.

With thousands of people working on it, it is reasonable to say someone screwed up. And if that many people did. Or code was written secure but it was used the wrong way and manipulated the wrong way.

Don't get me wrong, I think MS should be open source, but that goes agasint what U.S. is about if I even know that anymore, where you got the free choice to do whatever, including making your own business in a sense.

I am all for Linux, but as a gamer I can not fully convert, although I have once, I found myself trying to configure to many things forwhat was really easy for MS, now I loved it, I am and will use Linux again, but as of now MS has mainstreamed and monopolized the gaming market on PCs iw ill have to use their product.

So with all these things going for them you still expect them to make 100% or close to a secure product? After all they do make a small effort by releasing patchs.

<ok rant over>

Just one thing,

Quote:

---

Well there you go, the more you got running the more likely it is insecure. With that in mind, think of all the things MS must cover..... from word processing, to server hosting, to game playing to internet surfing, the list goes on forever to very mild things.

---

There are more than a 1000 packages installed on a typical Linux system. When you look at windows security, you typically only look at core windows components whereas with Linux you look at all installed packages.
Cheers,
cgkanchi

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by King of CaveMen
Stop with the M$ symbols personally I think its lame.

---

I've read your posts, and personally, i don't give a damn what YOU think is lame

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by King of CaveMen

So with all these things going for them you still expect them to make 100% or close to a secure product?

---

YES, or at least not make an operating system that can be hacked with a BOOT DISK!!! As for how many people made it, LINUX IS OPEN SOURCE!! MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO IT'S DEVELOPMENT!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by King of CaveMen
After all they do make a small effort by releasing patchs.

---

Yes they do, very small.. ever notice M$ only posts patches for problems that are obvious or that make the news? or so easy to find they should never have left the production line? Why is it that NONE of my friends have never paid for a M$ OS? because their piracy protection is a JOKE and so are you.

x acidreign x , to be fair, Linux can be hacked just as easily with a boot disk. IMHO, physical access isn't really a hack.
Cheers,
cgkanchi

i could care less about the linux/microsoft argument they're just 2 things that we have to deal with no matter what we say. im sorry you have a problem with a symbol. but that is your problem....deal with it

Contrary to the impressions i got of other linux users here, I dont think that linux is ever going to be or should be mainstream (as an average user's desktops OS, *nix is already mainstream as a server OS according to some reports).

Yes it would be nice, but hey, linux is not for the average user. And when various people try to make distributions of it that way, it just doesnt work (Lindows). Linux (*nix) is THE OS for power users, programmers, hackers, servers, etc.

I am not in any way saying that M$ does a good job at what they do, but god people, remember it's an OS for a completely different market. Just remember that.

no, linux is not for the average user, but it should be... it should have a massive driver database, it should have software and games out the wazoo, it should be a for the average n00b, because i would much rather the future of operating system features to be decided by you and me and not by friggin Micro$oft.

I don't think I want Linux for the average user. I'm sorry but the average user installs EVERYTHING. That is partially why Microsoft has issues. I don't want people that have no clue as to what TCP/IP is or don't understand what services are installing OSes and running them as servers, thinking they are secure just because it's a *nix box.

I'd rather have people have a clue. And that is the biggest insecurity out there. I can take -- even an NT box -- and lock it down and yet, make it useful. But I can only do that through knowledge I've learned, asked or been curious about. Many users don't understand why they need to even have a password, nevermind one that isn't the word "password".

This shouldn't be a pissing contest as to what is better. What this should be about is the importance of administrators and users being educated about the importance of security. I could have the best and most locked down box in the world but if I put a stupid password on it, someone will get in. If I install everything and attach myself to the Internet without a firewall using Red Hat 6.2 or Red Hat 8.0, someone will get in.

It is not about technology but about people. Technology is a tool; how we use it determines how secure we truly are.

Some food for thought.

well, msmittens, you are right, on second thought i don't want precious *nix marred by hapless users. but i do think whatever OS is for newbs should be open source. I don't want the industry standard to be forever controled by market shareholders and night-schooled 3day trainee VB6 programmers.

acidreign your right on most of your points.

I think the first OS should be open source too, start making people learn how to fix their problems.

But if we did that.. I'd be out of a job. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by x acidreign x
well, msmittens, you are right, on second thought i don't want precious *nix marred by hapless users. but i do think whatever OS is for newbs should be open source. I don't want the industry standard to be forever controled by market shareholders and night-schooled 3day trainee VB6 programmers.

---

I've worked with quit a few people that are employed by MS, and i have to say that out of all of the companies I have dealt with MS hires some of the best and brightest people. Also windows is not coded in VB. It is all mostly C with the newer beta code being developed in C#.

And don't you also understand that it is the common man that is keeping MS at the top? MS is not forcing anybody to buy their product, you can request that Dell or IBM put linux on your system, and are people doing it? No. Why not? because it isn't at the level of usability that Windows is. Most people could care less about how the OS works, they just want it to work, and the #1 OS in the marketplace will always be the OS that works without the user having to know how.

Each OS has it's place, each OS is good at doing it's own thing. There is no "best" OS out there.

And if you want to talk about security, I say unix security sucks in comparison to a MVS system running RacF.

thats the point i should have stressed...