Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:22 UTC, submitted by irbis
Window Managers "Linux has proven amazingly flexible: after nearly 10 years of use, I'm still impressed by how the Linux operating system does exactly what I want on any type of hardware. Desktop customization is no exception; from the ultra-modern KDE and GNOME window managers to with the likes of Fluxbox and AfterStep, there's a Linux desktop to suit everyone."
Thread beginning with comment 285875
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: wm for a server?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wm for a server?"
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

Oh? I haven't seen any "growing number of OS X" exploits. Not successful ones, anyway.

There is no relation between the popularity of a piece of software and its security status. Even if it is targeted more, it does not mean it will be vulnerable. Some software products are more secure than others. Constant improvements and sane design are what makes it so.

You seem to be under the false impression that computer security has anything to do with the amount of attacks or how much of a target a computer or software is. That only goes to prove that you don't know much about security and shouldn't speak.

Popularity and attack amounts are completely irrelevant. They are just equivalents of brute force. If the target was well designed and has no vulnerabilities, it makes no difference if it is attacked 10 times or a billion times. It may suffer denial of service, but it will not be compromised.

Windows has fundamental design flaws, security wise. Any amount of fixes will just be patchwork. To make it worse, the fixes come slowly and innovation takes years and years to make its way to radically improved Windows versions.

Compare with Linux and UNIX which are based on much saner design choices and where fixes often come within 24 hours.

Which do you think is more secure?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 23:20 in reply to "RE[7]: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

There is no relation between the popularity of a piece of software and its security status.


Remember Firefox 1.0 (or even before 1.0) ?

I remember myself all sites free of floating ads and other rubbish. You do not needed any "adblocks" and "noscripts" three years ago, just Firefox 1.0 alone to browse the web free of ads and threats.

Now see how it looks today when Firefox gained some userbase and become quite commonly used browser.

I noticed that some webpages even have some clever mechanisms of bypassing adblock - one example is popular polish portal www.interia.pl - go there if you use Firefox with adblock and do some experiments yourself.

I think that when Linux become more common at desktops, it almost certainly will follow similar path in field of security, as Firefox did in field of "browsing the web in way it should be browsed"

Reply Parent Score: 1