"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:fM-dnXxCvqwUHlnbnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com...
> On 2007-08-16, Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>> In other words you haven`t bothered securing your box.....
>
> Either you can't read worth a damn or you simply choose to ignore what
> I very plainly stated. Typical.
Your original post said:
> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I
> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on
> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This
> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've
> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for
> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole
> box is compromised and must be wiped clean.
I fail to see how I`ve misread that when I claim that you didn`t secure your
box properly. Can you please explain why disabling Java and javascript is
sufficient to secure any computer that is connected to the internet.
On 2007-08-16, Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
> I fail to see how I`ve misread that when I claim that you didn`t secure your
> box properly. Can you please explain why disabling Java and javascript is
> sufficient to secure any computer that is connected to the internet.
What do you think I meant by this passage which you still fail to
acknowledge?:
"third time it's happened to me, and I spend a lot of time and effort
attempting to make my Windows system secure."
In <46BEAB79.7452964B@size-nospamme7464-fitter.com>, on 08/12/07
at 07:40 AM, johannes <johs@size-nospamme7464-fitter.com> said:
>Why do Linux users want everybody to use Linux? Windows users are not so
>militant. Or is it some kind of snobbery because Linux or Unix is more
>system oriented? I have Windows XP which works well; I don't care what
>others are using. My ISP runs apache on Linux.
Windows users may not be militant about getting people to use Windows, but
Microsoft certainly was with their alleged practices.
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21
BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <wbqdnZAgH4r7-FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
says...
> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I
> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on
> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This
> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've
> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for
> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole
> box is compromised and must be wiped clean.
>
That says more about your incompetency than anything. If it were that
bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>
> This is the critical problem with Windows. It's just not secure.
Seems to be secure enough for the NSA.
> There's no way I'd do financial or commercial transactions on a
> Windows computer. I've been using Windows since 3.1 and it just keeps
> getting worse. I have to fight to retain control of my own computer,
> as Microsoft and all the the software providers see it as THEIR
> computer and have no qualms whatsoever about embedding phone-home and
> control functions and a bunch of other crap they want, despite what
> I, the computer owner, wants. This is just intolerable.
>
Utter bullshit.
--
Conor
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein
In article <fM-dnXxCvqwUHlnbnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
says...
> On 2007-08-16, Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
> > In other words you haven`t bothered securing your box.....
>
> Either you can't read worth a damn or you simply choose to ignore what
> I very plainly stated. Typical.
>
It was full of bullshit and not worth a toss.
--
Conor
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein
In article <XNmdneL_KZweL1nbnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
says...
> On 2007-08-16, Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
> > I fail to see how I`ve misread that when I claim that you didn`t secure your
> > box properly. Can you please explain why disabling Java and javascript is
> > sufficient to secure any computer that is connected to the internet.
>
> What do you think I meant by this passage which you still fail to
> acknowledge?:
>
> "third time it's happened to me, and I spend a lot of time and effort
> attempting to make my Windows system secure."
>
What you meant? That you're fucking useless with computers and
shouldn't be let near one with a barge pole. But not to worry, I've
made a mint sorting out the mess that "experts" like you make.
It's strange how the Windows installs I do on my customers machines
never get compromised or need re-installing even after a few years use
and the fact my market is people who aren't exactly IT literate and who
for many, the computer I provide is their first.
--
Conor
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein
On 2007-08-16, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
> That says more about your incompetency than anything. If it were that
> bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
I love the way you totally suspend reality to make your bogus points.
It is happening to everybody, you dolt! If it wasn't, companies like
Symantec wouldn't be making millions off M$'s security flaws.
> Seems to be secure enough for the NSA.
How the Hell do you know? The NSA doesn't divulge that sort of info.
> Utter bullshit.
Yes, that's what you espouse. You provide no evidence, you just
blather on and on, offering no basis in fact.
John Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory
Normal Human Being + anonymity + audience = dickwad (= Conor)
On 2007-08-16, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
> made a mint sorting out the mess that "experts" like you make.
Sure you have.
> It's strange how the Windows installs I do on my customers machines
> never get compromised or need re-installing even after a few years use
> and the fact my market is people who aren't exactly IT literate and who
> for many, the computer I provide is their first.
Sounds like my mom's computer. A Sony Vaio w/ XP and still works. Of
course it's got a half dozen trojans and viruses, is crawling with
Sony installed ad/spy/malware, and she hasn't turned it on in two
years. Hasn't had a single problem with it.
In <MPG.212ee3a1a343efd498a5b5@news.individual.net> ,
Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you meant? That you're fucking useless with computers and
> shouldn't be let near one with a barge pole. But not to worry, I've
> made a mint sorting out the mess that "experts" like you make.
>
> It's strange how the Windows installs I do on my customers machines
> never get compromised or need re-installing even after a few years use
> and the fact my market is people who aren't exactly IT literate and who
> for many, the computer I provide is their first.
IME the least computer literate people are less likely to mess things up
or get infected because they're not adventurous enough to try to change
anything or download "cool stuff". Anyone stupid enough to mistake you
as a computer expert and pay you a mint wouldn't know the difference
between the Internet and their reflection in a blank screen.
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:XNmdneL_KZweL1nbnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> On 2007-08-16, Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>> I fail to see how I`ve misread that when I claim that you didn`t secure
>> your
>> box properly. Can you please explain why disabling Java and javascript
>> is
>> sufficient to secure any computer that is connected to the internet.
>
> What do you think I meant by this passage which you still fail to
> acknowledge?:
>
> "third time it's happened to me, and I spend a lot of time and effort
> attempting to make my Windows system secure."
So despite having the same problem twice in the past, you`ve spent time and
effort attempting to make your system secure - you failed horribly though
didn`t you. If you`d bothered learning how to secure a box, there would be
no need to attempt it, you would have managed it.
> Could I have stated it any plainer?
No, that`s a clear statement that you don`t know how to secure a box.
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.212ee3a1a343efd498a5b5@news.individual.ne t...
> In article <XNmdneL_KZweL1nbnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
> says...
>> On 2007-08-16, Simon Finnigan <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>> > I fail to see how I`ve misread that when I claim that you didn`t secure
>> > your
>> > box properly. Can you please explain why disabling Java and javascript
>> > is
>> > sufficient to secure any computer that is connected to the internet.
>>
>> What do you think I meant by this passage which you still fail to
>> acknowledge?:
>>
>> "third time it's happened to me, and I spend a lot of time and effort
>> attempting to make my Windows system secure."
>>
> What you meant? That you're fucking useless with computers and
> shouldn't be let near one with a barge pole. But not to worry, I've
> made a mint sorting out the mess that "experts" like you make.
>
> It's strange how the Windows installs I do on my customers machines
> never get compromised or need re-installing even after a few years use
> and the fact my market is people who aren't exactly IT literate and who
> for many, the computer I provide is their first.
Yet. Gentoo seem to have had to upll lots of servers offline after they
where owned. It just goes to show that no matter how hard you stamp your
feet about Linux style OS`s being secure, they seem to have plenty of
security issues. :-)
In article <G--dndiS_6JyRlnbnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob felt
he had to say
> On 2007-08-16, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That says more about your incompetency than anything. If it were that
> > bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>
> I love the way you totally suspend reality to make your bogus points.
> It is happening to everybody, you dolt! If it wasn't, companies like
> Symantec wouldn't be making millions off M$'s security flaws.
>
IF you think Linux is immune, you're a fucking moron. Just look at this
weeks Cannonical story.
> > Seems to be secure enough for the NSA.
>
> How the Hell do you know? The NSA doesn't divulge that sort of info.
>
It's been reported in the past.
In article news:<MPG.212e3e3a5b0746d598a592@news.individual.n et>, Conor
wrote:
> Windows costs nothing when you buy a PC.
This is uk.comp.homebuilt (at least, that's where I'm reading it) ... many
people here buy PCs in bits and typically pay £80 for XP Pro OEM (I'm
assuming nobody would be daft enough to install XPH or Vasti). In that
situation you can save £80 by installing linux instead -- IFF linux will
do all you need.
> Dell charge a £50 premium over a Windows box to put Ubuntu on.
One can apparently buy a Windows box from Dell, refuse the Windows licence,
and get a refund. There's a thread about this in uk.comp.linux at the
moment.
> When your computer goes tits up, you're more likely to find someone you
> know who can fix Windows than Linux.
True ... but here in uch may we not be expected to have /some/ clue?
> When you buy hardware, you're pretty much guaranteed it'll "just work"
> when you use Windows whereas in Linux, it's a bit of a lottery ...
That is much less true now than it was ... you can mitigate the effect by
buying hardware that lags behind the bleeding edge -- that's also likely to
save you money.
> ... especially when the Linux distro authors tell you a network card is
> fully supported in the current version of a ditro, even going as far to
> recommend it, only for you to find out that it was in an older version
> but not the current.
That doesn't help, certainly. I've never run into that problem myself but I
have heard of it.
In article news:<5inp1bF3q9c70U1@mid.individual.net>, Simon Finnigan wrote:
> It just goes to show that no matter how hard you stamp your
> feet about Linux style OS`s being secure, they seem to have plenty of
> security issues.
To quote from that article:
Turns out the systems, which were sponsored by Canonical and hosted
by the community, were running an old version of Ubuntu. Tsk, tsk.
The problem seems to be that the sites hosted by Canonical for Gentoo were
affected by the same exploit that led Ubuntu to take some of their site
down recently. This isn't really a linux problem -- any system can have
bugs in it -- it's just an example of sloppy management of a hosting
operation. You should no more run a site with an obsolete version of Ubuntu
(or any other distro) than an unpatched IIS.
Daniel James wrote:
>
> In article news:<MPG.212e3e3a5b0746d598a592@news.individual.n et>, Conor
> wrote:
> > Windows costs nothing when you buy a PC.
>
> This is uk.comp.homebuilt (at least, that's where I'm reading it) ... many
> people here buy PCs in bits and typically pay £80 for XP Pro OEM (I'm
> assuming nobody would be daft enough to install XPH or Vasti). In that
> situation you can save £80 by installing linux instead -- IFF linux will
> do all you need.
It's that little word "instead" that gets up my nose. What if I have
applications that runs on Windows? What if I develop software for Windows
using Windows compilers and tools? I could of course use an emulator, and
Linux zealots love that idea. But why should I? Why this extra layer of
slow down and complication when it's completely unnecessary?
This is not a criticism of Linux per se. Im going to use Ubuntu in another
context. But not as a Window replacement.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:56:18 +0100
johannes <johs@size873733fitter.com> wrote:
> It's that little word "instead" that gets up my nose. What if I have
> applications that runs on Windows? What if I develop software for Windows
> using Windows compilers and tools? I could of course use an emulator, and
> Linux zealots love that idea. But why should I? Why this extra layer of
> slow down and complication when it's completely unnecessary?
>
> This is not a criticism of Linux per se. Im going to use Ubuntu in another
> context. But not as a Window replacement.
Horses for courses. I dual boot, I also use virtual machines, I have a
Win2K machine that I use under Linux and another one that I use under
Vista on my laptop.
There's dual boot capability, virtual machines, emulators, take your
pick. You're not limited to one OS.
--
Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts -
for support rather than illumination.
In article news:<46C716A2.607DC53B@size873733fitter.com>, Johannes wrote:
[I wrote:]
> > In that situation you can save £80 by installing linux instead -- IFF
> > linux will do all you need.
>
> It's that little word "instead" that gets up my nose. What if I have
> applications that runs on Windows? What if I develop software for Windows
> using Windows compilers and tools?
Don't let it get up your nose!
I did write "IFF linux will do all you need" (IFF is short for "if and only
if"). I certainly agree that there will be people who need to use Windows for
some purposes, and those people are going to have to have Windows anyway, so
using linux won't save them anything. I'm in that position myself.
However, for those users that /don't/ have any specific requirement for
Windows linux is a potential saving. Anyone whose PC use is limited to
browsing, EMail and a little wordprocessing doesn't need to use Windows at
all to have a perfectly satisfactory PC experience. It's their choice,
though.
I do have one PC that I don't need to run anything Windowsey on, and that PC
runs only linux. The laptop I'm using today (not at home) runs only Win2k
(which is inconvenient when I want to develop software for linux using linux
compilers and tools ... but Cygwin isn't bad), my other machines have
swappable hard drives and can run either.
I really must get a Mac ...
> I could of course use an emulator, and Linux zealots love that idea. But
> why should I? Why this extra layer of slow down and complication when
> it's completely unnecessary?
Quite. Don't do it if you don't want to. I have a couple of Windows apps that
I occasionally use under linux using Wine ... it's not as satisfactory as
using Windows, but if I'm in the middle of something that requires linux
it'll usually do. The slow-down isn't significant, BTW, for most things (even
on relatively old, slow hardware) but the time spent setting it all up can
be.
I really must try out Windows in a VM under linux, and see whether that runs
all the things I need -- of course, I'd still need to buy a Windows licence
for that, so there'd be no financial saving.
> This is not a criticism of Linux per se. Im going to use Ubuntu in another
> context. But not as a Window replacement.
I hope that works well for you. My experience is that linux can be a very
pleasant alternative to Windows for normal desktop work, too ... but (as you
say) there are some apps written for Windows and only for Windows that work
best on Windows, and for them I recommend ... Windows!
Daniel James wrote:
>
> In article news:<46C716A2.607DC53B@size873733fitter.com>, Johannes wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> > > In that situation you can save £80 by installing linux instead -- IFF
> > > linux will do all you need.
> >
> > It's that little word "instead" that gets up my nose. What if I have
> > applications that runs on Windows? What if I develop software for Windows
> > using Windows compilers and tools?
>
> Don't let it get up your nose!
>
> I did write "IFF linux will do all you need" (IFF is short for "if and only
> if"). I certainly agree that there will be people who need to use Windows for
> some purposes, and those people are going to have to have Windows anyway, so
> using linux won't save them anything. I'm in that position myself.
>
> However, for those users that /don't/ have any specific requirement for
> Windows linux is a potential saving. Anyone whose PC use is limited to
> browsing, EMail and a little wordprocessing doesn't need to use Windows at
> all to have a perfectly satisfactory PC experience. It's their choice,
> though.
>
> I do have one PC that I don't need to run anything Windowsey on, and that PC
> runs only linux. The laptop I'm using today (not at home) runs only Win2k
> (which is inconvenient when I want to develop software for linux using linux
> compilers and tools ... but Cygwin isn't bad), my other machines have
> swappable hard drives and can run either.
>
> I really must get a Mac ...
>
> > I could of course use an emulator, and Linux zealots love that idea. But
> > why should I? Why this extra layer of slow down and complication when
> > it's completely unnecessary?
>
> Quite. Don't do it if you don't want to. I have a couple of Windows apps that
> I occasionally use under linux using Wine ... it's not as satisfactory as
> using Windows, but if I'm in the middle of something that requires linux
> it'll usually do. The slow-down isn't significant, BTW, for most things (even
> on relatively old, slow hardware) but the time spent setting it all up can
> be.
>
> I really must try out Windows in a VM under linux, and see whether that runs
> all the things I need -- of course, I'd still need to buy a Windows licence
> for that, so there'd be no financial saving.
>
> > This is not a criticism of Linux per se. Im going to use Ubuntu in another
> > context. But not as a Window replacement.
>
> I hope that works well for you. My experience is that linux can be a very
> pleasant alternative to Windows for normal desktop work, too ... but (as you
> say) there are some apps written for Windows and only for Windows that work
> best on Windows, and for them I recommend ... Windows!
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
>
It is interesting that Linux makes inroads into more scientific establishments
and super-computing. Access to OS source code is a big bonus when testing
performance and reliability of numerical algorithms. The European Weather Centre
(ECMWF) in Reading, UK use Linux for their work stations. Linux has definitely
arrived as a mature system, but it is horses for courses.
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:16:32 +0100
Daniel James <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote:
> I really must try out Windows in a VM under linux, and see whether that runs
> all the things I need -- of course, I'd still need to buy a Windows licence
> for that, so there'd be no financial saving.
I'm running Innotek VirtualBox under Linux here and Win2K runs fine in
it, Win2K3 OTOH slows right down. I haven't tried it in VMWare though.
--
Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts -
for support rather than illumination.
I demand that Trevor Best may or may not have written...
> I'm running Innotek VirtualBox under Linux here and Win2K runs fine in
> it, Win2K3 OTOH slows right down. I haven't tried it in VMWare though.
Are you sure? 2K3 = 2300...
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| Kill all extremists!
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:46:41 +0100
Darren Salt <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote:
> I demand that Trevor Best may or may not have written...
>
> > I'm running Innotek VirtualBox under Linux here and Win2K runs fine in
> > it, Win2K3 OTOH slows right down. I haven't tried it in VMWare though.
>
> Are you sure? 2K3 = 2300...
>
My most humble apologies, I promise I won't do it again. I will go for
an hour's worth of self flagellation now and then bathe in salt water
afterwards.
--
Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts -
for support rather than illumination.
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46C475DC.8E423656@yahoo.com...
> notbob wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> Just thought I'd make a plug for this product, as I'm not the only
>> one I know who has lost data from downloaded malware on a Windows
>> system. Happened to a friend while installing Vista. Like I said,
>
> Vista is a pig. For some specifics, read the following URLs.
>
> --
> <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
> <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
> <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
> cbfalconer at maineline dot net
>
Snipping a chunk (sans context - see the article) from that first one:
... he's wrong. The protected media pipelines in Windows Vista, don't
apply for any content on the market today, which includes HD DVD and
Blu-ray discs on sale at the moment.
The point that Peter Gutmann and others have been making is that mechanisms exist
within Vista to block DRMd content, and that these mechanisms rely, in part, on
Vista's ability to refuse to run unsigned drivers (and so to refuse to run
drivers that don't contain the requisite DRM code). If content available today
plays without problems I suspect that's because the content available today
doesn't contain any DRM measures.
Peter Gutmann is a very smart guy -- I know his work on cryptography because I
work in that field -- and it would be quite extraordinary if he were mistaken on
something like this.
>In article <nuk8c3t9q1g39iuha5993k8rmm1jvdls8o@4ax.com>, chrisv says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>> >Windows costs nothing when you buy a PC. Dell charge a £50 premium over
>> >a Windows box to put Ubuntu on.
>>
>> Thanks to Micro$oft back-door dirty-dealing "incentives"...
>>
>Hardly. Windows costs Dell to put on. Ubuntu is free.
>
>What the £50 premium is for is to pay for the support as Linux support
>is more expensive.
>In article <wbqdnZAgH4r7-FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
>says...
>
>> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I
>> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on
>> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This
>> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've
>> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for
>> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole
>> box is compromised and must be wiped clean.
>>
>That says more about your incompetency than anything.
Idiot. What percentage of the population, currently connected to the
Internet, would you say are "competent" in regards to computers?
Starting to see the problem with Windows' insecurity, cretin?
>If it were that
>bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the
Internet, cretin.
>> I love the way you totally suspend reality to make your bogus points.
>> It is happening to everybody, you dolt! If it wasn't, companies like
>> Symantec wouldn't be making millions off M$'s security flaws.
>>
>IF you think Linux is immune, you're a fucking moron
Fucking moron. Can you build a more stupid and obvious straw-man? Of
course it's not "immune", but it's WAY better.
chrisv wrote:
>
> Conor wrote:
>
> >> I love the way you totally suspend reality to make your bogus points.
> >> It is happening to everybody, you dolt! If it wasn't, companies like
> >> Symantec wouldn't be making millions off M$'s security flaws.
> >>
> >IF you think Linux is immune, you're a fucking moron
>
> Fucking moron. Can you build a more stupid and obvious straw-man? Of
> course it's not "immune", but it's WAY better.
Grow up kid. Just agree or disagree with posters, that's civilised OK.
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3e0jc3tk6u73mbkacao6a28qa61558ut7b@4ax.com...
> Conor wrote:
>
>>In article <wbqdnZAgH4r7-FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
>>says...
>>
>>> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I
>>> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on
>>> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This
>>> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've
>>> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for
>>> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole
>>> box is compromised and must be wiped clean.
>>>
>>That says more about your incompetency than anything.
>
> Idiot. What percentage of the population, currently connected to the
> Internet, would you say are "competent" in regards to computers?
>
> Starting to see the problem with Windows' insecurity, cretin?
>
>>If it were that
>>bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>
> It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the
> Internet, cretin.
What a well reasoned, credible arguement. I`m so glad you chose not to back
up your statements with any mere facts or statistics, because you obviously
don`t need them :-)
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:05:49 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
<SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3e0jc3tk6u73mbkacao6a28qa61558ut7b@4ax.com.. .
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>>>In article <wbqdnZAgH4r7-FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
>>>says...
>>>
>>>> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I
>>>> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on
>>>> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This
>>>> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've
>>>> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for
>>>> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole
>>>> box is compromised and must be wiped clean.
>>>>
>>>That says more about your incompetency than anything.
>>
>> Idiot. What percentage of the population, currently connected to the
>> Internet, would you say are "competent" in regards to computers?
>>
>> Starting to see the problem with Windows' insecurity, cretin?
>>
>>>If it were that
>>>bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>>
>> It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the
>> Internet, cretin.
>
>What a well reasoned, credible arguement. I`m so glad you chose not to back
>up your statements with any mere facts or statistics, because you obviously
>don`t need them :-)
While I have no idea if it has happened to the "majority" of
home windows machines, statistically speaking, I can tell
you that windows vulerabilities have cause infestation on
the majority of other people's systems that I have seen.
However, we're talking about Windows vs Linux, and failing
to distinguish the actual vulnerability in these "drive-by"
infections which is not windows itself per se but rather the
integrated browser which a windows user is not forced to
use.
Nevertheless, even ignoring that at any given moment there
are always holes exploitable on windows, and a few
inevitably there for Linux as well, there is one remaining
factor relating to security: While nothing is 100% secure,
the prudent security level depends on the risk.
The risk of being infected on a windows system is much
higher because windows is targeted. We could argue that
it's targeted because a hacker wants to do as much damage or
take control of as many bots as possible or a similar
argument that it only makes sense to focus on the masses
since the majority of home PCs run windows, but regardless
of the reason it is _really_ less secure as a result, and
Windows PCs will remain less secure even if the inbuilt
security measures become overwhelmingly better than on any
other OS.
Re: Repair Windows XP 
Linear Mode
