Linked by David Adams on Sun 6th Nov 2011 04:34 UTC
Linux While it may seem like Linux-only projects are betraying their loyal base by developing Windows or OSX versions, I would argue that cross-platform development is actually better for Linux as a whole, better for individual software projects and their developers, and ultimately better for Linux users.
Thread beginning with comment 496262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 05:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seems simple enough"
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Rubbish. Almost every case reported Linux systems have not been "compromised" but rather, simply hacked. Someone has obtained a password.
Contrary to your utopian idea that Linux is somehow magically secure on it's own, an improperly configured and/or administered Linux box is just as insecure as anything else. That is fact whether you like it or not.

In the hands of ordinary users, Windows systems are often compromised simply by the system being on the net. No password guessing required. There is a whole class of activity called "phishing" devoted simply to getting Windows users to visit malicious sites with a view to compromising their Windows systems. Simply by visiting the wrong website.

Windows security is no different than anything else. When properly configured and administered, Windows has low risk of breach. Again, that is fact whether you like it or not.

Sigh! Clearly someone who doesn't know the first thing about Linux package management, and hasn't used it (or, if they have used it that was ages ago, or they are simply lying).

I have been using Debian and various Debian-based distros for many years on a daily basis. Occasionally others, though no where near the same degree. You are a complete fool if you think Linux package management is not without it's problems and/or dependencies aren't a mess. It's not as if I just let some huge cat out of the bag. The problems are well-known and common knowledge. For you to try to deny it is idiotic at best.

Windows "solution" to dependencies is ... every package includes static copies of all the libraries it uses. The size of Windows itself is a dead giveaway ... I made a set of Windows 7 recovery DVDs, it took four DVDs, whereas a Linx installation (with far more functinality out of the box) can be done from a single LiveCD!

Some software packages include static copies, some don't. Neither of which has anything to do with Windows but rather the party that maintains the software package. And whether you package the dependencies directly or your package manager forces you to obtain them externally is of no real difference. Windows is bloated, there's no question. And increasingly more and more Linux distros are becoming that way as well, also no question.

Most of the things I've mentioned Linus Torvalds has complained about himself not to mention users across the various big Linux mailing lists so I don't know who you think you're fooling.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Seems simple enough
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Nov 2011 23:09 in reply to "RE[5]: Seems simple enough"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Rubbish. Almost every case reported Linux systems have not been "compromised" but rather, simply hacked. Someone has obtained a password.
Contrary to your utopian idea that Linux is somehow magically secure on it's own, an improperly configured and/or administered Linux box is just as insecure as anything else. That is fact whether you like it or not. "

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/20-banking-hacks-turn-...

You, sir, are in denial.

Although the article above doesn't mention it, when they say "PC" or "computer", they actually mean "Windows".

"In the hands of ordinary users, Windows systems are often compromised simply by the system being on the net. No password guessing required. There is a whole class of activity called "phishing" devoted simply to getting Windows users to visit malicious sites with a view to compromising their Windows systems. Simply by visiting the wrong website.
Windows security is no different than anything else. When properly configured and administered, Windows has low risk of breach. Again, that is fact whether you like it or not. "

The facts actually contradict you.

http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/10/drive-by-malware-block...

I am the one who has provided up-to-the-minute-examples, whereas all you have posted is your say-so.

Edited 2011-11-07 23:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[7]: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Tue 8th Nov 2011 03:37 in reply to "RE[6]: Seems simple enough"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

You, sir, are in denial.

Although the article above doesn't mention it, when they say "PC" or "computer", they actually mean "Windows".

Pasting some random article, written by some random person, and posted on some random website, certainly doesn't prove anything other than you scoured the web until you found anything that sounds like it might support your theory that Linux is magically secure all by itself and configuration/administration aren't even a part of the equation.

The facts actually contradict you.

I am the one who has provided up-to-the-minute-examples, whereas all you have posted is your say-so.

You haven't provided anything at all, including any apparent knowledge or experience on the subject. The fact that you think Linux is magically secure and immune to compromise, and that Windows is the opposite, speaks loud and clear that you have no clue what you're talking about. Not even a little bit.

Reply Parent Score: 2