A senior Microsoft executive, speaking exclusively to vnunet.com, has dismissed Linux’s reputation as a secure platform as a “myth”, claiming that the open source development process creates fundamental security problems.
Linux security is a ‘myth’, claims Microsoft
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
So this guy is saying that Red Hat can’t patch the kernel and release that to their customers if the need arises? Uh…what?
Gets a pay raise ! And job promotion for being a supreme brownnosing sycaphant.
Where is his proof for his claims ? Microsoft has tons of security problems compared to linux and bsd.
Do you see anywhere in the article trumpeting other operating systems like openbsd,mac osx, vms ? Right, he really cares about security.
“In Microsoft’s world customers are confidant(sic) that we take responsibility.”
…about bloody time.
Why do they (vnunet) even publish things like these?
I’m getting tired of having to beat a dead horse all over again every time they spread FUD like this.
Why do they (osnews) even publish things like these?
Hey, everybody needs to take a break and have a good laugh.
“Most customers look for more than just a product from their vendors. They need a solution that comes with the appropriate levels of support and service. This is where Linux is becoming more challenged as people expect more from Linux.”
Stock market thinks otherwise. In the past two years RHAT and even NOVL outperformed MSFT.
I claim that Windows are unsecure. Ie. Ubuntu has no open port after default installation. Windows exposed to Internet, will be dead within a day, if not secured by thrid part solutions. Also, if Photoshop would have a security hole, there’s no apt-get/slapt-get/emerge/pacman to upgrade your whole system. Because GIMP’s flaws are handled by distribution developers.
OSNews
Fanning the Flames of Trolls
…install it, connect your computer to the internet (with a public IP) and have fun.
From Windows XP’s EULA:
LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL
OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach
of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except
for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED
TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if
the Product does not meet Microsoft’s Limited Warranty,
Stock market thinks otherwise. In the past two years RHAT and even NOVL outperformed MSFT.
Of course that’s true because you pretend so.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=1y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=RHAT,NOVL
Good one
Wait, it’s not April 1st…
of course everybody knows linux is not totally secure. it’s not linux that makes systems secure but the programmers and the sysadmins.
it’s just that, for now, linux has a way better security record than MS
and MS better address that not by WORDS but by actual ACCOMPLISHMENTS (XP SP2 is a step in the right direction)
“For Microsoft, security is a mith”
If Microsoft is pretty confident about its products, it needn’t spreed FUD about other products. The fact is the OS market is about to evolve in a big way in the coming years. The era of big and easy bucks for Microsoft is over. Microsoft has earned easy $billions from selling unreliable & underperforming products. Microsoft is losing markets in Europe. It’s bound to lose markets in the US. It has to understand there’s little it can do about its majestic past.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=2y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=RHAT,NOVL
What was that saying about lies and statistics? The graph you gave was the one year graph. The graph I just linked to is two years. The original poster specified a three year period, so I’m closer. Yahoo has no 3 year graph, only 1, 2 and 5.
I like the obfuscation. Is Red Hat responsible for the security of the Linux kernel? No. Is Red Hat responsible for the security of the Red Hat kernel? Sure it is. Which one are Red Hat users using? No enterprise-aimed distro uses a stock kernel by default, and customers certainly hold RH responsible for patching the RH kernel when security issues arise…
Simply Managed Code. Managed Code is going to change the world. Linux/unix/solaris/macos/freebsd need to get on the ball. Managed code is going to prevent exploits on the application level, even on the OS level depending on the componenet.
Managed code is simply this… All your code is compiled at runtime but from a bytecode like java. It runs faster cause the compiler in managed code knows more about your system than the developer does, compiler knows if you are running a Power4 Chip or an AMD64. Same code works everywhere.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=MSFT&l=off&z=m&q=b&c=aapl%…
and apple beats them all
i’m having a linux server myself, microsoft, tell people linux is a pain in the ass to configure (like any other unix) and fix you own management console! that way you will have a lot more happy customers.
in the real world linux is as safe as windows, i’m running a linux server, on my job we use windows (2000 & 2003) and there was no security issue in the last 3 years with either of them.
oh, so the last 3 years of hassle-free computing on my debian box hasn’t really happened…or something? Like, wow man.
This McGrath fellow (who looks quite a bit like Issac Brock of Modest Mouse) is making a lot of claims with very little to back them up.
I would be willing to humor the claim that Windows is more secure from remote attacks than Linux, although recent embarrassments like the myDoom virus seem to shoot that claim down cold.
But Linux is fundamentally more secure than Windows because the average user simply cannot break a Linux system without root access. On Windows, users have access to everything. A consequence of this is that a virus ran by a user could destroy the whole system. A virus ran by a user on a linux box could cause quite a bit of inconvenience, but could not do irreparable damage.
His claim that the Linux kernel has less developers eyes on it than Microsoft is an interesting (and possibly valid) one, but he has no way of knowing how many people are looking at the source. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow, and Microsoft has a finite number of eyes. I haven’t done any research, but i would be willing to believe that Microsoft actually has more full time developers working on Windows, but they clearly do not believe in their product enough to open the source to public inspection.
At the end of the day this man’s words are meaningless because we are expected to “take his word for it”. Until Microsoft allows side-by-side inspection from public and independent parties, they don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
Stock market thinks otherwise. In the past two years RHAT and even NOVL outperformed MSFT.
Perhaps you haven’t done your homework, but RHAT has gone from a little over $25 5 months ago to just over $10 now. A loss of roughly 60% of share value in 5 months doesn’t really seem to be “outperforming” much of anything. You should maybe do more homework.
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/1y/r/rhat.gif
Ha, that’s funny, when people starting those holy wars, providing stupid arguments about average users and open ports – average users of what? Average users of servers? Then I don’t think that average users of servers put their systems to the internet unpatched, without properly configured firewalls, yep, multiple ones – like “hardware” firewall -> dmz -> “software” firewall -> lan. They obviously use IDS and so on.
Average users of desktops? Then they don’t use Linux at all. Period. Geeks run Linux and BSD on desktop, but they’re geeks, not averagr users. Average users don’t care about open ports – they simply don’t know what it is. They see their computers as an appliances for chatting, gaming, Internet browsing and mail.
If those “average desktop users” will ever use Linux on their desktops, they won’t get any security, because, obviously, Linux (and other Unix-like OS) require much more knowlege to make it secure – there’s no simple progams like ZoneAlarm or Norton Security something, which require little to no configuration to get decent level of security.
And, also obviously, really secured and locked down system would be extremely inconvenient for desktop use. And if those “average desktop users” will run Linux, they’ll run it as root, and all that stuff.
So, what we’re talking about?
The out-of-the-box Redhat or Fedora install asks about applications during installation. How much simpler do you need it? and this is built in to the distro…not some download or $69.00 add-in.
And, also obviously, really secured and locked down systems are extremely easy to use…MAC OS X.
What we are talking about is another undereducated loudmouth droning on and on about things they know nothing about.
Yes, I’m a Windows user since 3.11, as well as Linux (including desktop) – started to use Linux in 1999, that was, if memory serves, suse 6 or something, when most people, including, probably, you, haven’t even heard about it.
there’s no simple progams like ZoneAlarm or Norton Security something, which require little to no configuration to get decent level of security.
“Norton Security something”? Gee, good to see you really know what you’re talking about…
The fact is that most modern Linux distros have simple-to-use wizards to set up the iptables firewall/nat masquerading program. The one on Mandrake Linux is extremely simple and straightforward, although the best defense is of course to have a safe default install.
And if those “average desktop users” will run Linux, they’ll run it as root, and all that stuff.
That’s pure conjecture. It helps to use facts instead of suppositions when trying to make an argument. I’ll argue that there are enough warnings about not using “root” on modern Linux distros that most average desktop users won’t login as root, ever. They’ll simply supply the root password when prompted for software installation, etc.
Root doesn’t even appear on the KDM login screen when you start up a Mandrake Linux box…
Yes, I’m a Windows user since 3.11, as well as Linux (including desktop) – started to use Linux in 1999, that was, if memory serves, suse 6 or something, when most people, including, probably, you, haven’t even heard about it.
Simply stating how long you’ve been using an OS is not an argument.
I started using Windows during the 2.0 days. I’ve been using Linux in 2001. What does that mean? Nothing. You’ve got to actually come up with arguments rather than anecdotical factoids…
“Managed code is simply this… All your code is compiled at runtime but from a bytecode like java. It runs faster cause the compiler in managed code knows more about your system than the developer does, compiler knows if you are running a Power4 Chip or an AMD64. Same code works everywhere.”
Gentoo,BSD,LFS…
some companies aren’t liking that about managed code cause is easier to be reverse-engineered
O.K.
Please, eplain me the following, for example – what makes iptables better than xp built in firewall? Both are just stateful packet filters, nothing more. So, why xp firewall is turned on by default and doesn’t require any additional configuration, while iptables should be configured.
Next, please explain me, what kind of “application layer” firewalls exist on Linux platform? And if any, are they free?
Next, please, give me some facts about your experience with Windows and Linux (you may include Solaris on Sparc as well) as server OS? How many servers do you manage? How many users are they serving? Did you ever work as a systems/network/whatever administrator in any corporate environment? What products did you work with? How did you rolled up desktops, software, software updates? How did you set up branch offices? What kind of networking experience do you have? Did you ever configure a router? Which one? Managed switches?
Come on, give me arguments, not your anecdotal factoids, and we’ll talk, o.k.?
I hit a nerve, there, didn’t I?
Your volley of questions, which is really a way for you to create a diversion, doesn’t change the fact that claiming experience on a web site is not in itself an argument. You may throw a fit all you want, that’s still the inescapable truth.
So, why xp firewall is turned on by default and doesn’t require any additional configuration, while iptables should be configured.
Well, very few services are turned on by default on a Linux install, which limits the risk. I don’t know if (for example) Mandrake Linux turns the firewall on by default or not – I’ve basically upgraded my Mandrake install since 8.0, so my config has followed along since those days. I wouldn’t be suprised if it is – in any case, the issue was whether there is an easy-to-use GUI to configure the built-in firewall, and there is.
Next, please explain me, what kind of “application layer” firewalls exist on Linux platform? And if any, are they free?
I assume you mean firewall that limit outbound connections…it is possible to setup iptables to do that (I think the latest version of firestarter includes this, but I’m not sure).
Next, please, give me some facts about your experience with Windows and Linux
No, because that is irrelevant. One cannot use experience as an argument. That’s what I meant by “factoids”. Add to that the fact that it’s impossible to prove whether this past experience is real or invented to give oneself credibility, and you understand why trying to use one’s experience to back up one’s opinion is kind of useless.
An argument should stand on its own merit, not on the reputation of the person who makes it. That is the only point I’m trying to make here, and it seems you still haven’t gotten it.
> Root doesn’t even appear on the KDM login screen
Very true. Ubuntu don’t even have a root account. 🙂
O.K. I’d suggest you to google for “application layer firewall” – it has nothing to do with limiting outbound access or quantity of connections.
Ever heard of OSI stack? Some firewalls work on 3-d layer – pix, ipfw, iptables, ipchains and so on, some – ISA server and (probably) Checkpoint, can inspect upper layers. And to get most of it all, those different kind of firewalls should be combined, so you have very fast, but dumb packet filter on the edge of your network and more intellectual thing protecting the LAN. And since they’re most probably are from different vendors, it’s harder to break.
And don’t bother replying on my posts without hard facts from your own experience, because experience and knowlege gained from experience and both formal and self education counts, and throwing lots of logical implications without the facts as you do, just making the storm in a glass.
Have a nice day
You are a turkey. You been using linux since 1999??…SO WHAT!!… Thats like saying I had some cheese yesterday. Do you care?
From what I am reading in your posts it would seem that you are nothing but an inexperienced OS user. The proof is in the reading mate. Do some actual research on the net and you will find the information you want in abundance!… You do know how to use a search engine right??
I can’t beleive you don’t even know anything about linux firewalls yet you have been using SuSe 6 since 1999…. If you have, and I doubt you really have, then you wouldn’t be talking the complete rubbish you’re talking about. I think you installed linux and found it too difficult. You probably used it purely as a desktop and nothing more, you didn’t like it and are now spreading FUD just like so many other turkey’s who can’t do anything for themselves. Stay with your Windows OS, Norton Antivirus whatever, and those other cool apps you use to keep l33t hackers out of your box. Being so technical savvy like you are it would seem that Windows is truly the right OS choice for you.
Oh and just for the record. I have used Linux since 1996 and not once have I ever been compromised or had a virus infect my system…. You tell me whether thats been the same for you on a Windows platform!
Bye….
maybe they renamed it as “toor”, heh?
There’s an administrative account anyway, no matter how is it named 
Please, eplain me the following, for example – what makes iptables better than xp built in firewall? Both are just stateful packet filters, nothing more.
You have never used it, right? Go and see what you can do with IPTables and plugins.
And don’t bother replying on my posts without hard facts from your own experience, because experience and knowlege gained from experience and both formal and self education counts, and throwing lots of logical implications without the facts as you do, just making the storm in a glass.
You’re not getting it, are you? I’m not saying that facts learned through experience are not important, I’m saying that claiming experience as a way to bolster credibility is not a valid argument. Is that so hard to understand?
In any case, iptables and Snort! work just fine for my security needs. The original point was that you apparently claimed there was no easy-to-setup firewalls on Linux, and I said there are. I can understand that you’re unhappy about being proven wrong, but that’s your problem – not mine.
maybe they renamed it as “toor”, heh?
No, there is no root account. It’s disabled. You can perform admin tasks by calling sudo. It’s a very secure way to perform upgrades/reconfigurations. Running Admin account on desktop — please! With IE and it’s ability, it’s like a walk in a dark alley. You may like it, but it’s your risk.
I don’t care if you doubt what I have used and since when, you should reread your own posting, especially the last part – and see your own arguments.
And, regarding the search engines and firewalls, if you so experienced and knowlegeable user, let’s discuss the differences between ipchains and iptables, then we can move to ipfw, from there we could start discussion about pix and ios firewall features, then compare it to isa 2000 and 2004.
Also we could discuss various setups for perimeter networks and what scenarios did YOU and I REALLY used and how it worked.
Let’s start discussion or maybe you just can’t keep up with googling fast enough, “expert” ?
>>but that’s your problem – not mine
Well, that’s not a problem at all – I think that Linux in general and iptables in particular are harder to set up for inexperienced user than Microsoft XP and it’s ICS/firewall, you obviously disagree – well, that’s fine – as the saying goes: “Opinion is just like an @sshole – everybody has one”
Okay, let’s agree to disagree, then. I’m a bit tired of all these flamewars.
In any case, I’m happy that MS is taking security seriously – even if they’re having problems with XP SP2, as indicated in that article linked to on OSNews today:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9552
The more secure Windows is, the less everybody has to worry. I think we can probably agree on that.
You’re right, your googling experience is to l33t for me. I bow down to you o mighty one…. My experience goes back as far as 1996 like I said as well as having sat my RHCE in 2001 when ipchains instead of iptables was being used. If you think I’m going to sit here writing the difference between the various applications then your more stupid than I think. I have NO reason to try and prove my experience to you and neither should anyone else for that matter. YOU are the one that made the obsurd statements so YOU prove to us why Windows is SO much better than Linux…. please we are waiting
Well, just read the raver31’s comments – he-he, that’s right, our discussion taking some strange direction.
I’m glad you’re sit RHCE in 2001, I believe they used different format of exam back then, so you’d better try the newer version.
And, talking about my “cock” – MCSE 2000 & 2003 Security and Exchange, CCSP – looks bigger than yours
Don’t take it too serious, are you happy with Linux as A nun, he moos does? Fine. I’m glad for you.
Oh, I’ve mistaken with my cert – it’s Security & Messaging, but on Exchange anyway
> And, talking about my “cock”
Nobody wants to talk about that, alright?
You don’t seriously think M$ is going to badmouth itself, do you? I mean this reaction is expected of anyone.
Any customers looking for real advices on the merits and problems of linux shoudl not ask M$, for obvious reasons.
Yup. He’s right. Linux security is indeed a myth. Why? Well 50% of the SysAdmins don’t know what they are doing. But another myth is that Windows HAS security.
you know, and i know, the complete trash that some people spread about the relative security merits of microsft operating systems and others.
unfortunatley the FUD works. business decision makers, CXOs, ..they hear this and believe it. surely a multibillion dollar company doesn’t talk trash. so they listen. because most business people are not brave enough to follow their convictions … they instead work every day to cover their own backs.
and like the saying goes – no-one got fired for buying IBM. same goes for MicroSoft.
Managed code is simply this… All your code is compiled at runtime but from a bytecode like java.
So far, so good…
It runs faster cause the compiler in managed code knows more about your system than the developer does…
That’s why Java and .NET applications are renowed for their speed… But don’t worry, Gentoo ricers would agree with you.
Managed code is slow. However, the application development time is ridiculously low. That’s the real advantage of managed code. Anyway, the turtleistic speed won’t matter once we get faster processors, just like when development passed from ASM to higher level languages.
…compiler knows if you are running a Power4 Chip or an AMD64. Same code works everywhere.
True. However, Microsoft doesn’t seem to care about portability…
Didn’t we hear this line from SUN last week?
But Linux is fundamentally more secure than Windows because the average user simply cannot break a Linux system without root access.
The same is true on Windows.
The difference is, on Windows, users are set to Administrators (similar, but not equivalent, to root).
This is a minor configuration issue, it is *not* a “fundamental” problem. It’s trivial to configure yourself with a regular user account in Windows.
A consequence of this is that a virus ran by a user could destroy the whole system. A virus ran by a user on a linux box could cause quite a bit of inconvenience, but could not do irreparable damage.
Viruses rarely destroy these days. Note that just about everything the average virus/malware/trojan/whatever does, it could do just as easily from a regular user account.
A change in Windows defaults will probably stop most of today’s malware in its tracks, because it tends to be written under the assumption the end user is an Administrator, and tries to install itself to system-wide areas that regular users can’t access. However, it won’t take malware authors long to start writing their code to not have this requirement and simply install and execute from the user’s home directory area.
Fundamentally, as you like to say, the problem is with the *end users*.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_li…
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=2y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=RHAT,NOVL
People are over the whole FUD campain.
Linux may have virri… A virus may only last 6-12mnts on desktop PC’s. Exploit based viruses may only last intill updates. Did microsoft know that most linux users are more likely to update every day? Linux experts every 3 hours or so via cron.
Want your own update server RSYNC ftp done.
Linux has a 1:1(add zero’s here) chance of viruses. Look at honeypot experiment.
Carefull microsoft or you will have a protest outside your building.
Ok guys.
I’m a software geek who use to build networks in my younger days. I was a CNE which was at the time the first certfication program in our industry outside of some IBM training.
MS has made bad decisions with their software. So for example when they went from NT 3.51 to 4.0 MS shoved in the 32-bit API to burry OS/2. Actually DOS with a pretty Win95 shell did that but that is another story. Anyway, to this VERY DAY MS has put the video driver in ring 0 since 4.0. Why?
Because when the put the 32-bit api into 4.0 it was SLOWER in the video benchmarks. Management MADE THEM SPEED IT UP.
So think about this for a minute. Does anyone force Linus to HACK THE OS for a benchmark?
Well folks it is still there. Don’t believe me put a bad video driver in your MS OS and get ready for a blue screen.
This does NOT happen on ANY OTHER OS. BeOS, Mac, Linux and even OS/2 for crying out loud.
So on with the story…
MS had so many hooks into Windows 3.11 with Word 2.0 that when they went to Windows 95 does anyone remember the word version number? I’m thinking the number was SIX. 🙂
MS for POLITICAL reasons claims the IE browser is part of the OS. NO ONE gets patched UNLESS they are on XP now. Feel free to download Firefox and it will solve your problems. But MS has very nicely HOOKED IE into the KERNAL for SPEED REASONS. Remember how MS use to shout how much FASTER IE was on Windows? Hmmm… Well who has the quickest PATHES and FIXES now?
MS does not write their code for MAINTENANCE. MS writes their code to lock people in.
You doubt me on this? The NT 4.0 beta at one point LIMITED the number of IP CONNECTIONS you could have out of your machine. MS took the stance of you needed the ‘server’ until so many people complained so loud they caved on this.
MS has one startegy and that is to not give you ANY OTHER solution other than a MS one.
In short MS has a very simple business practice. When a crumb falls from the table and a small company gets fat on it. MS does one of two things. Prevents the crumb from falling or offers them a chair at the table.
They don’t let ANYONE ELSE play ball.
On a good note MS has everyone so mad at them that they are willing to GIVE CODE AWAY just to spite MS.
Another case in point is did anyone pay attention to IBM given AWAY FOR FREE PATENTS? MS for the last few years has gottent the stupiest pattens to lock ANY OTHER software up in court for years. They got a patent on a //*TODO* comment and the behavior in the IDE. What crap. I can’t remember who first thought of it but it was NOT MS but they did get the patent.
MS has become big an slow. They also are loosing revenue stream. They also have made LOTS of bad software choices due to a stupid manager within MS playing CHESS instead of software engineering 101 practices.
CaptiveX is a hack as was COM/DCOM. The registry was NEVER designed for multiple users hence MS’s hate for CITRIX. The Unix world was built from the begining with multiple users and EACH PROCESS being tagged to a user/privelege. MS is still a hack here.
MS has become like the Detroit car maker. There is a very small engine that has been built over seas that is going to KILL them on maintenance and performance benchmarks. Just like Toyota and Nissan started to do in the 70’s.
MS CAN NOT fix all of it’s security problems. They just move the wholes around. You don’t believe me?
Read an article in CPU from the guy who BUILT DirectX for MS. I think he knows what he is talking about. There are so many senior level guys bailing out of Redmond that it isn’t even funny. They are tired of all the new MBA’s passing the koolaid an no one really fixing the REAL problem.
BTW
This was written using FireFox on an XP box. I’m slowly and surely moving everything over to Federoa Core 3 on a 64-bit AMD Shuttle box an love it. The next hardware I buy will be pure Linux or Mac Mini. I’m getting off the MS island before all of the boats are gone or MS drills wholes in them cause the volcano is fixing to blow an it will NOT be pretty.
CPU article:
January 2005 • Vol.5 Issue 1
Page(s) 14 in print issue
SP2 & Security
The Saint by Alex St. John
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=arti…
Special quote:
I feel much safer online now that I know Microsoft, the company that has used the back door they installed for themselves on my computer 11 times in the past five months to patch security holes in their own software, is protecting me from Adobe Acrobat by warning me that Adobe’s software MAY be harmful and preventing me from installing it. Unfortunately, Internet Explorer (the most prevalent spyware and adware product on the Internet, not to mention the greatest source of security vulnerabilities) does not bother to warn you about itself.
The fact is Microsoft can’t actually fix Windows security at this point. The Windows OS was fundamentally not designed with the threats of the Internet in mind. The modern Windows OS was created for corporate environments where everyone has skilled IT departments that carefully control all online access and software on user machines. In the home it just doesn’t work and frankly probably can’t be fixed. Microsoft’s solution will be to add layer after layer of bloated obstructive security garbage to the OS because that’s cheaper and more expedient than solving the problem in a way that works for software not published by Microsoft.
Recently?
I am just curious that is all.
Please provide links so I can study this.
Only recent Linux desktop please:
no production servers, no Red Hat 7.1, etc.
Only Linux Distros since last year.
Linspire are welcome.
I am genuinely curious – not gloating – not trolling – not flaming
… am not in the mood today
I noticed the Issac Brock thing too, sorta creeped me out..
As much as I enjoy bashing Microsoft, I also realize that if Linux was as popular in the desktop market as windows, then the script kiddies would be there to make sure life was hard on everyone. Though the Open Source model does make it more difficult for someone with malice to attack, it is still up to the user to update, and I assure you if the windows users migrated to linux, they would not update, thus leaving even the quickest patched holes to remain open and ready for exploitation.
But I agree that this Issac Brock wanna-be sure is foolish.
I am a pro microsoft person, but even i have to say that the artical is a bit far fetched.
Windows can be secure but it requires a lot more work, where as Linux and MacOS come secured out of the box.
ACK!
It always strikes me, that when you setup winXP Pro (i would understand home…), you get a root-like account without password protection by default – this is just plain evil 🙂
Ironically vnu takes care of the MCSE tests.Let’s take the good old analogy toolbox yet again.Say we buy two vauxall chevaliers(car).We desire to race with it on some private circuit.One of the vauxalls has it’s hood welded shut.However we would like like to tune both engines and besides a stiff bar placed between the telescope suspension poles would certainly benefit overall stabillity on the track.
How are we going to do that if the hood is welded???
Oh,it isn’t? You have to be MCSD or one could buy an expensive
software package,or multiple ones.Who can assure me the MS source code is top notch? They have never let me see it.You have to reverse engineer a little.Hardly an assuring solution.
To the point,let’s say both Linux and XP are equal secure out of the box.On linux it’s simple to further restrict firewall rules.On XP you have to buy an third party app,for pretty much everything security related.I’m glad i switched to FreeBSD+Linux lately and i deeply regret to have taken the MCSE security course w2k (passed),i have realy learned not much worth the trouble.No advanced firewall configurations,no deep understanding of vulnerabillities,flaws,safe coding,. In 3 months using FreeBSD+Linux and writing scripts,coding some basic apps and hanging around in multiple communities i have learned about security than in one year MCSE course time.
MS thinks security is:certificates,vpn, man their update service doesn’t offer ssl per default.When you yourself connect via ssl it has the courage to ask you wether you want to see the non-secure things,man that’s…..
Ironically vnu takes care of the MCSE tests.Let’s take the good old analogy toolbox yet again.Say we buy two vauxall chevaliers(car).We desire to race with it on some private circuit.One of the vauxalls has it’s hood welded shut.However we would like like to tune both engines and besides a stiff bar placed between the telescope suspension poles would certainly benefit overall stabillity on the track.
How are we going to do that if the hood is welded???
Oh,it isn’t? You have to be MCSD or one could buy an expensive
software package,or multiple ones.Who can assure me the MS source code is top notch? They have never let me see it.You have to reverse engineer a little.Hardly an assuring solution.
To the point,let’s say both Linux and XP are equal secure out of the box.On linux it’s simple to further restrict firewall rules.On XP you have to buy an third party app,for pretty much everything security related.I’m glad i switched to FreeBSD+Linux lately and i deeply regret to have taken the MCSE security course w2k (passed),i have realy learned not much worth the trouble.No advanced firewall configurations,no deep understanding of vulnerabillities,flaws,safe coding,. In 3 months using FreeBSD+Linux and writing scripts,coding some basic apps and hanging around in multiple communities i have learned about security than in one year MCSE course time.
Seeing this Gates dude giving 750 million for the tsunami victims,how touching when you have > 30 billion.They don’t tell you more than half the money comes back via contracts etc etc
MS thinks security is:certificates,vpn, man their update service doesn’t offer ssl per default.When you yourself connect via ssl it has the courage to ask you wether you want to see the non-secure things,man that’s…..
Linux have long had the advantage of having more educated users. Users that normally don’t do stupid things like opening and executing each and every binary e-mail attachment they get from unknown people in the mail. If or rather when Linux gets that kind of users the security statistics will not look so good anymore. At least not with most current Linux distros. Thy are just like windows based on read and write permissions to files for users and groups.
But luckily, there is SELinux providing role based mandatory access control. Right now it is not turned on by default in most distros and the few ones that do, have very lax security policys usually targeted at servers. So the matter of having a secure Linux is not that far away. The SELinux technology is allready there in the standard 2.6.x kernel. We just need to start using it.
However, there are more improvements that could be made if we consider the entire GNU/Linux system. E.g. why is it that a windows user connecting through samba have better control of file permissions, than the Linux admin running Gnome or KDE? Posix ACLs have been available in many Linux file systems for a long time now. Why doesn’t the most commonly used Linux GUIs support them?
Microsfot have very good sense of humour.
No sweat guys. Another Microsoft lie while they tremble in front of OSS.
http://news.com.com/Report+Major+Windows+security+update+foiled/210…
And in other news Ford claims it’s cards are safer than Nissan’s.
Woop-de-doo.
Actually he’s right… to some degree. Linux is not really a secure OS. That’s why the real big dogs use FreeBSD or OpenBSD, even M$ was using it with Hotmail.
It seems that Linux is threat.
Strange that MS with so many % of market have this need to flame Linux …
MS knows for sure how bad is their OS … And know they feel some dangerour with some support to Linux, Novell, RH, IBM …
even sun is change Unix for Linux in Solaris …
Linux isn’t the top secure system, but it is better then some Windows OS’s. That’s a fact and not a myth, the only think that have “some” security is Windows 2003 Server …
MS has made bad decisions with their software. So for example when they went from NT 3.51 to 4.0 MS shoved in the 32-bit API to burry OS/2. Actually DOS with a pretty Win95 shell did that but that is another story.
False. NT’s primary API was Win32 from the get-go in 1993. This was a decision made *after* the surprise runaway success of Windows 3.0.
Anyway, to this VERY DAY MS has put the video driver in ring 0 since 4.0. Why?
Because when the put the 32-bit api into 4.0 it was SLOWER in the video benchmarks. Management MADE THEM SPEED IT UP.
So think about this for a minute. Does anyone force Linus to HACK THE OS for a benchmark?
Well folks it is still there. Don’t believe me put a bad video driver in your MS OS and get ready for a blue screen.
It wasn’t just a benchmark. The video drivers are run in kernel mode because they offer better video performance for *everything*.
“Management” made them “SPEED IT UP” beucause the *customers* wanted better performance.
This does NOT happen on ANY OTHER OS. BeOS, Mac, Linux and even OS/2 for crying out loud.
What ? None of those OSes make changes to improve performance when users demand it ?
MS had so many hooks into Windows 3.11 with Word 2.0 that when they went to Windows 95 does anyone remember the word version number? I’m thinking the number was SIX. 🙂
Word for Windows jumped from version 2.0 to 6.0 to bring it in line with Word for Mac. A marketing decision. Much like the way Windows 95 was called Windows 95 instead of Windows 4.0.
MS for POLITICAL reasons claims the IE browser is part of the OS.
If you take IE out, parts of the OS break.
NO ONE gets patched UNLESS they are on XP now.
Because Windows 2000 has ended its primary support phase after *5 years*. Not to mention it still gets critical patches.
But MS has very nicely HOOKED IE into the KERNAL for SPEED REASONS.
IE is in no way hooked into the Windows “kernal” [sic].
Remember how MS use to shout how much FASTER IE was on Windows?
Because it was (and is).
Hmmm… Well who has the quickest PATHES and FIXES now?
Are you even capable of grasping the difference between application performance and patch release schedules ?
The NT 4.0 beta at one point LIMITED the number of IP CONNECTIONS you could have out of your machine.
They still do AFAIK. Although I think it’s purely a licensing restriction rather than a physical one.
MS took the stance of you needed the ‘server’ until so many people complained so loud they caved on this.
You’ll probably be horrified to know other OSes like Netware and even some unix variants also have user limitations depending on the version.
MS has one startegy and that is to not give you ANY OTHER solution other than a MS one.
In short MS has a very simple business practice. When a crumb falls from the table and a small company gets fat on it. MS does one of two things. Prevents the crumb from falling or offers them a chair at the table.
They don’t let ANYONE ELSE play ball.
Well, they are in business to stay in business.
Another case in point is did anyone pay attention to IBM given AWAY FOR FREE PATENTS?
Yes, and some of us are old enough to remember when IBM was the big baddy, so we view it with suspicion.
MS for the last few years has gottent the stupiest pattens to lock ANY OTHER software up in court for years. They got a patent on a //*TODO* comment and the behavior in the IDE. What crap. I can’t remember who first thought of it but it was NOT MS but they did get the patent.
If you think Microsoft are the only ones getting junk patents, you’re either naive or stupid.
The registry was NEVER designed for multiple users hence MS’s hate for CITRIX. The Unix world was built from the begining with multiple users and EACH PROCESS being tagged to a user/privelege. MS is still a hack here.
NT (and the registry) was designed from day one to be multiuser.
This was written using FireFox on an XP box.
This was written on Firefox on an iBook. Is it relevant ?
I feel much safer online now that I know Microsoft, the company that has used the back door […]
Funny kind of “back door” that you have to *manually enable* (or allow the system to enable) first.
The fact is Microsoft can’t actually fix Windows security at this point.
90% of their security “problems” lie with end user ignorance, that can’t be fixed.
Microsoft’s solution will be to add layer after layer of bloated obstructive security garbage to the OS because that’s cheaper and more expedient than solving the problem in a way that works for software not published by Microsoft.
How do you propose they fix it ? Be specific.
by this microsoft guy are either wrong or a lie (depending on how much he really knows).
– Really astounding
Find me a linux distro that meets Orange Book C2 and you have a winner…
Windows meets it.
Windows meets it because windows got the money
If you take IE out, parts of the OS break.
I don’t think that’s true. There are software to remove IE from Windows. Some apps may break, but not the OS.
On a side note, I’m glad to see you’re always there to help protect the poor, defenseless monopoly from those nasty FOSS zealots!! You, Russian Guy and Lumbergh should form a club. Hey, you might even get funding from MS itself! 🙂
Stanford U in 2004.
http://securecomputing.stanford.edu/alerts/multiple-unix-6apr2004.h…
Stanford, along with a large number of research institutions and high performance computing centers, has become a target for some sophisticated Linux and Solaris attacks. An unknown attacker (or group) has compromised numerous multi-user Solaris and Linux computers on Stanford’s campus using a variety of mechanisms. In most cases, the attacker gets access to a machine by cracking or sniffing passwords. Local user accounts are escalated to root privileges by triggering a variety of local exploits, including the do_brk() and mremap() exploits on Linux and the sadmind, arbitrary kernel loading modules and passwd vulnerabilities on Solaris.
MS talking about security is just a bad joke.
A good one is http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/05jan/xuf007550.gif“&… .
This seems to be more about servers than desktops.
I don’t think that’s true.
Nevertheless, it is. The help system and shell, just to name a couple that spring instantly to mind.
There are software to remove IE from Windows.
All of which (AFAIK) either
a) *don’t* actually remove the whole thing (ie: they leave in the core components that other parts of the system depend on; or
b) require older versions of the same system components (prior to IE’s integration) to replace the ones they’re breaking.
Some apps may break, but not the OS.
When you’re going to start talking like that, you need to define exactly what you mean by “OS”. If you flip-flop between the academic definition of an OS and the market definition at your convenience without telling anyone, it makes it rather hard to have any sort of meaningful discussion.
Windows is a business product, not an academic project. People who buy Windows don’t buy a kernel, they buy a complete package. Same with people buying OS X and *most* people buying or otherwise acquiring Linux.
On a side note, I’m glad to see you’re always there to help protect the poor, defenseless monopoly from those nasty FOSS zealots!! You, Russian Guy and Lumbergh should form a club. Hey, you might even get funding from MS itself! 🙂
Amazing how correcting false statements about Linux, OSS, IBM, the GPL, etc is ‘destroying FUD’, but doing the same thing with false statements about Microsoft, Windows or anything the OSS cult deems ‘evil’ is ‘astroturfing’.
Maybe you should following some of your own beliefs – “[…] (p.s. using insults only shows that you don’t have actual arguments) […]”.
Stanford, along with a large number of research institutions and high performance computing centers, has become a target for some sophisticated Linux and Solaris attacks.
I’m not really sure if that sort of crack (and vulnerability) is comparable to the prepackaged, network-scanning skriptkiddie toolkits and social engineering “free pr0n !” style nasties that the typical Windows exploit consists of
.
When you’re going to start talking like that, you need to define exactly what you mean by “OS”. If you flip-flop between the academic definition of an OS and the market definition at your convenience without telling anyone, it makes it rather hard to have any sort of meaningful discussion.
I didn’t flip-flop. To me OS means “operating system”, as in the wikipedia definition: “In computing, an operating system (OS) is the system software responsible for the direct control and management of hardware and basic system operations, as well as running application software such as word processing programs and web browsers.” It doesn’t mean anything else to me, so there hasn’t been an opportunity for me flip-flop.
Stop trying to look for a fight where there isn’t one.
Amazing how correcting false statements about Linux, OSS, IBM, the GPL, etc is ‘destroying FUD’, but doing the same thing with false statements about Microsoft, Windows or anything the OSS cult deems ‘evil’ is ‘astroturfing’.
Well, if you corrected false statements about Linux, OSS, IBM or the GPL once in a while, you might seem a bit less partisan and not part of the Microsoft cult (yes, I’m going to use the same insulting words as you do).
Maybe you should following some of your own beliefs – “[…] (p.s. using insults only shows that you don’t have actual arguments) […]”.
Please indicate to me exactly where I insulted you in that previous post. I want an exact quote. If not, I will have to ask you to retract yourself before I continue this conversation any further.
Then again, perhaps you do feel insulted by being lumped along with Russian Guy and Lumbergh. If that is the case, then I sincerely apologize.
I didn’t flip-flop. To me OS means “operating system”, as in the wikipedia definition: “In computing, an operating system (OS) is the system software responsible for the direct control and management of hardware and basic system operations, as well as running application software such as word processing programs and web browsers.” It doesn’t mean anything else to me, so there hasn’t been an opportunity for me flip-flop.
Sorry, you need to be more specific. Is a shell “basic systems operation” ? How about a text editor ? Network connectivity ?
Well, if you corrected false statements about Linux, OSS, IBM or the GPL once in a while, you might seem a bit less partisan and not part of the Microsoft cult (yes, I’m going to use the same insulting words as you do).
As usual you seem to have difficult grasping the different be “pro” and “not anti-“.
Please indicate to me exactly where I insulted you in that previous post. I want an exact quote. If not, I will have to ask you to retract yourself before I continue this conversation any further.
Clearly, by its tone and implications, this comment:
“On a side note, I’m glad to see you’re always there to help protect the poor, defenseless monopoly from those nasty FOSS zealots!! You, Russian Guy and Lumbergh should form a club. Hey, you might even get funding from MS itself! :-)”
is supposed to be derogatory.
Not to mention the other typically snide comments you fit into any thread as early as possible (eg: “[…] I know you’ll try to have the last word on this (you always do) […]”)
On another note, a poster in another thread brought up the topic of a post you made in a thread about Cuba ( http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:DU9gFoBbcWAJ:galaxy.osnews.com… ). After reading it, I must say I find your hypocrisy in criticising me for supposedly being some sort of ‘microsoft apologist’ or similar to be, in a word, disgraceful.
“”On a side note, I’m glad to see you’re always there to help protect the poor, defenseless monopoly from those nasty FOSS zealots!! You, Russian Guy and Lumbergh should form a club. Hey, you might even get funding from MS itself! :-)”
is supposed to be derogatory.”
Depends what side of the fence you’re on. Like the other 2 mentioned you almost never have an unkind word to say about MS, nor a kind word to say about OSS. You think you’re not biased? You think you’re fair? You’re not. Just another person in here taking sides with zeal. Since you mentioned the word ‘cult’, I suppose that puts you in the MS cult. Of course you’re not a raving Lunatic like Russian Guy, but you are biased like the rest of the people in here. I believe that was A nun, he moos’ point
Sorry, you need to be more specific. Is a shell “basic systems operation” ? How about a text editor ? Network connectivity ?
Wikipedia not specific enough for you? If you had bothered to check the link I provided, you would have found all the info you need. Go on, check it out. You’ll find all the answers you need.
Now, if you don’t agree with Wikipedia, then I suggest you help them write a better entry.
As usual you seem to have difficult grasping the different be “pro” and “not anti-“.
Well, am I wrong in noting that you almost never have a positive comment to make about Linux? And that you almost never have negative comments to make about Windows? To me, that’s bias. Sorry.
Clearly, by its tone and implications, this comment:
How do you know about tone, since it was a written comment? And as far as “implications” go, that is an interpretation of what I wrote, not what I actually wrote.
There was no insult in what I wrote, except by association with Lumbergh or Russian Guy. As I said before, if you find being associated with those guys insulting, then I offer you my sincerest apologies. Otherwise, there was no insult, just a little friendly jab. It’s not like I said that you were part of a cult, or anything (I did say that, but only after you used the word yourself.)
Not to mention the other typically snide comments you fit into any thread as early as possible (eg: “[…] I know you’ll try to have the last word on this (you always do) […]”)
Again, that is not an insult. And it’s the truth, you are a very persistent poster, and in every discussion we’ve had you’ve always made a point in having the last word.
I’m sorry if the truth hurts, but again it wasn’t an insult. At this point I will ask you to retract yourself or I will not continue this discussion.
On another note, a poster in another thread brought up the topic of a post you made in a thread about Cuba. After reading it, I must say I find your hypocrisy in criticising me for supposedly being some sort of ‘microsoft apologist’ or similar to be, in a word, disgraceful.
This is both off-topic, and off-site, like the original post was. Note that the poster (Lumbergh – hey, I guess you can’t be too insulted to be lumped with him since you seem to agree with him) was modded down for continually bringing it up, so be warned.
In any case, I stand by what I said as it is based on experience, discussion with Cuba citizens and expatriates, and my numerous visits there: the main reason why Cubans live in such difficult conditions is the embargo, not Castro’s regime. The real hipocrisy is that the U.S. will trade with much worse regimes (as far as human rights go), even countries that call themselves communists (such as China), with the argument that trade will improve living conditions and individual liberties. If this is the case, then why is the embargo against Cuba still standing?
Mods, sorry for the off-topic rant at the end, I just had to respond to that cheap shot. As for you, drsmithy, since I didn’t insult you I’ll just wait your retraction and ignore any other posts in the meantime.
I believe that was A nun, he moos’ point
That was exactly my point. At least some people get it…
Where is this idiot getting his information from and who the heck put him in charge of anything? This must be the most disinformed interview that I have ever read from a MS exec. First of all it doesn’t help you anny that you pay Microsoft to patch their crap because they almost always take their sweet time to do so and a couple of years later you even loose the ability to get updates because it apparently takes too much piece of the M$’s pie. Also if you need to know who is responsible for inproving the linux security it’s not that hard to find out. After all there are only about a 100 interview with Linus and his *captains* talking about it.
What microsoft exects need to do it forget all the brainwashing crap and get it in theis thick sculls that just because you don’t talk about the problems they won’t disappear. After all most righteous hacks are done with security vulnarabilities that are not made public. Oh yeah and just because there are 2 linux viruses that were written 2 years ago doesn’t mean that linux viruses actually exist. The whole reason why people write viruses is because M$ refuses to address their security problems. Viruses are not typically designed to allow intrusion.
Oh yeah and unless M$ decides to stand on their own 2 feet and admit some of their faults nothing really is going to get any better for them. M$ might have increased the number of licencies sold last year but that doesn’t actually mean that their user base has grown at all. I know if quite a few institutions that buy new computers with preloaded windows only because they have no choise. However, all those thousands of computers now run linux (oh yeah Red Had). And all that mission critical crap and linux not being stable is such a dumb statement. Maybe the dumb UK exec should try using linux a couple of times and then form an opinion rather than make things up.
Depends what side of the fence you’re on. Like the other 2 mentioned you almost never have an unkind word to say about MS, […]
That’s because I don’t take it as a personal affront that Microsoft exists. They’re just another greedy, ruthless corporation, whose behaviour will, at best, be amoral. That’s all I treat them as.
I do have quite a few criticisms of Windows. However, since most of them are things you only run into when you start using it for more than playing games and browsing the web, they rarely get brought up in this forum.
[…] nor a kind word to say about OSS.
I have had a lot of kind words to say about OSS. It’s the GPL-or-die and anti-Microsoft zealots I have an intense dislike of. I also don’t particularly like the way the GPL is “marketed” by the OSS community.
You think you’re not biased? You think you’re fair? You’re not.
Undoubtedly, but I certainly do my best to *try* and be objective and present, at the very least, a reasonable argument along with my assertions.
Contrast this to the typical postings from the other side of the fence:
“MS talking about security is just a bad joke. ”
“On a side note, I’m glad to see you’re always there to help protect the poor, defenseless monopoly from those nasty FOSS zealots!! You, Russian Guy and Lumbergh should form a club. Hey, you might even get funding from MS itself! :-)”
Just another person in here taking sides with zeal. Since you mentioned the word ‘cult’, I suppose that puts you in the MS cult.
So without ever actually being obviously – let alone zealously – “pro Microsoft” I’m somehow part of the “MS cult” ?
Of course you’re not a raving Lunatic like Russian Guy, but you are biased like the rest of the people in here. I believe that was A nun, he moos’ point
His “point” – or at least implication – is that since I’m not a vocal OSS booster and don’t curse Microsoft with every breath, then I must be a paid astroturfer (or aspiring to be one). It seems the concept that I’m neither pro-, nor anti-Microsoft, but simply consider them to be no different to any other corporation like IBM, Apple or Sun, is difficult to grasp.
This is a consistent theme that gets pushed not only by him, but a large proportion of other posters on this forum when confronted by someone who doesn’t think Bill Gates is the devil incarnate.
Wikipedia not specific enough for you?
Not when I know I’m having a discussion with someone who likes to move the goalposts and redefine their assumptions at a whim.
Not to mention Wikipedia is a somewhat questionable source at the best of times. Even on the OS page you cite, there are errors – they list NT as a monolithic kernel and OS X as a microkernel, when in truth both are hybrids between the two.
If you had bothered to check the link I provided, you would have found all the info you need. Go on, check it out. You’ll find all the answers you need.
Except it doesn’t really answer any of them. Apparently whoever wrote the wikipedia article thinks “user interface” counts as a basic function. Therefore, since you accept that definition, and given that removing IE from Windows breaks the shell, we can agree that taking IE out of Windows does, in fact, break “parts of the OS”.
Now, if you don’t agree with Wikipedia, then I suggest you help them write a better entry.
There are two reasonable definitions of “operating system”. Either:
a) the academic definition, which basically stops at the kernel and wouldn’t even include things like a shell, TCP/IP or even something like glibc; or
b) the market definition, which basically includes whatever the OS vendor wants to call part of the OS. So Microsoft is just as entitled to call IE or Media Player “part of Windows” as Red Hat is allowed to call Apache or GNOME “part of RHEL”.
You can’t pick and choose the applications *you* think are essential to the “core” OS and say “this is an OS and if it comes with anything else, that’s not part of the OS”. Which is basically what 99% of the people who bitch about IE in Windows do (since they typically consider a CLI shell to be “part of the OS” in unix).
Fifteen years ago you were lucky to get a networking stack in your consumer-level OS. Today, it’s a standard feature. Ten years before that, you there weren’t any UI standards (for either designing them or programming them). Today it would be difficult to find a consumer OS without a GUI, UI guidelines and a well-known API (or two or three).
Well, am I wrong in noting that you almost never have a positive comment to make about Linux?
You need to find a context in which I can make a positive comment about it. That might be hard, however, since I’m not a particularly big fan of Linux at the best of times. I use it reluctantly when I need a unix on x86 with decent commercial support or when something it does well is applicable to my goals (eg: I use it one my file server at home because of its software RAID and LVM capabilities). I much prefer FreeBSD and Solaris, in the unix world.
And that you almost never have negative comments to make about Windows? To me, that’s bias. Sorry.
Again, you need a context wherein I can make a negative comment. I’m not going to say something bad I don’t believe to be true, just to appease you, and since most of the comments here about Windows rarely get more technical than “I think Windows sucks, I’m 1337, w00t”, or “Windows has no security, but unix was designed from the ground-up with security in mind”, the opportuntiy for on-topic criticism rarely pops up.
However, since you’re probably just going to hammer away at this point, or go and sulk until I do, here’s a couple for you:
– The handling of user profile directories under Windows (and particularly Terminal Server) sucks. It’s difficult (and unsupported) to move the user profiles root (typically C:Documents and Settings) after installation. It’s very fiddly (and unreliable) to have user profile directories located on a central server, particularly if you want to have users moving around onto different machines and/or access the user profiles *completely over the network* and not have a local cache.
– The handling of IMAP by Outlook (all versions) sucks. Not only is the default location of the local message cache unconfigurable (at least reliably), that location is also not considered part of the user’s roaming profile and hence:
* won’t be synchronised with roaming profiles when the user logs off
* is deleted when you configure your terminal server to delete profiles after a user logs off
* is not copied when you use the systems “copy profile” functionality
Added to that, some twit at Microsoft decided a good place to store the configuration details with regards to things like the viewing pane configuration, message display settings and the like for that IMAP account was within the local cache .pst file for the account. The same file that isn’t synchronised, copied, or in any other way tied to the global user account. Thus resulting in users getting a fresh, unconfigured Outlook screen for that account every time their local profile gets deleted. Then there’s the lack of features like search folders for IMAP accounts.
– Distributing software to machines using AD GPOs on a per-machine (rather than per-user) basis is poorly documented, in many cases *incorrectly documented*, requires a couple of configuration changes that could potential render any file servers for those distribution points marginally less secure, and requires a file share that can have *no access restrictions whatsoever* applied to it.
– Microsoft did not do enough to kill the old DOS-based Windows in the mid to late 90s. This has left some rather nasty legacies (most obviously, a lot of software that doesn’t run out-of-the-box without Administrator privileges) that are substantial contributors to the amount of malware the Windows platform sees. They should have followed the “original plan” which had Windows NT 5.0 replacing both Windows 95 and NT 4.0 around 1998 (or, more realistically, 2000). This was one instance where caving to customer demands (for a longer lifecycle of the more legacy friendly Windows 9x/Me) was a poor decision.
Again, that is not an insult. And it’s the truth, you are a very persistent poster, and in every discussion we’ve had you’ve always made a point in having the last word.
That’s because in every discussion we have, you persistently ignore or brush away questions I raise.
I will continue to participate in a thread until such time that I feel any comments I have made that should be responded to, have been responded to adequately (or I disappear on a weekend holiday, which happens fairly frequently).
This is both off-topic, and off-site, like the original post was.
I agree. I wouldn’t have raised it except it is particularly germane to aspects of your commentary. That is, you consistently attack me (and probably others) for doing exactly the same thing you did in that thread.
That’s hypocrisy of the highest order.
In any case, I stand by what I said as it is based on experience, discussion with Cuba citizens and expatriates, and my numerous visits there: […]
I wasn’t actually commenting on the specifics of your assessment of Cuba. I don’t know a great deal about the situation and certainly not enough to discuss it. You may well be right in your argument and conclusions, but that’s irrelevant to the point I was raising.
The point I was trying to make is that you are making comments based on a combination of common knowledge, your experiences and reasoned arguments – precisely the same thing I do with every post.
Undoubtedly, but I certainly do my best to *try* and be objective and present, at the very least, a reasonable argument along with my assertions.
Contrast this to the typical postings from the other side of the fence:
Come on – how can you say this with a straight face! You claim to be objective and then present a biased sample as proof that “the other side” is less reasonable than you (you even presented a little joke as if it was a serious comment).
The fact of the matter is that there are as much (if not more) unreasonable posts by anti-Linux posters. Check out the modded down comments in this thread
http://www.osnews.com/moderation.php?news_id=9549
“Linux is welfare OS.”
“Glad to see you defending the fangirls as usual.”
“Any site that has to do with operating systems also entails being led in a circle jerk by RMS.”
“Yeah, turning your computer into a PDP-11 and sodomizing yourself with sed, awk, and perl is a LOT less annoying than keeping a virus definition file up-to-date.”
“Freeloaders prefer Apache while American IT professionals from Fortune 1000 prefer IIS.”
There are trolls on both sides of the fence. But at least, since you are refering to the “other side of the fence”, that means that you admit your bias. That is the most honest thing I’ve ever heard you hint at.
It’s the GPL-or-die and anti-Microsoft zealots I have an intense dislike of. I also don’t particularly like the way the GPL is “marketed” by the OSS community.
Who ever said GPL-or-die? Certainly not me: I work for a company that produces proprietary software products. And if you dislike people who don’t like Microsoft, then it means you dislike the majority of Windows users as well. Nobody likes a bully, and MS has been one of the biggest bullies around. They have abused their monopoly, invented astroturfing, and been a detrimental force to competition in the industry.
His “point” – or at least implication – is that since I’m not a vocal OSS booster and don’t curse Microsoft with every breath, then I must be a paid astroturfer
No, re-read what I said. I didn’t say you were one, I said you should apply to be one. That’s not the same thing at all.
Meanwhile, you again misrepresent my words to suit your agenda: it’s not that you don’t curse MS with every breath, or that you’re not a vocal OSS booster, it’s that every time you post a comment here it’s either to defend MS or discredit Linux. I’m all willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the fact of the matter is that your record speaks for itself: you have a pro-MS bias (and have pretty much admitted as such in your last post).
And there’s no need for ugly strawmen like saying that we are intolerant of people who don’t think that “Bill Gates is the devil incarnate.” I don’t know why you feel the need to exaggerate and distort the position of those who disagree with you like that.
The fact of the matter is that I like Bill Gates. The PC wouldn’t be what it is today without him, and for that we all owe him a great deal.
And in any case, everyone knows that it’s Steve Ballmer that is the devil incarnate.
(That’s a JOKE, son. Lighten up. I’m still waiting for that retraction, though.)
Not when I know I’m having a discussion with someone who likes to move the goalposts and redefine their assumptions at a whim.
Which would be fine and dandy except that I did not do this. I haven’t tried to offer contradictory definitions of what an OS is. If you really are claiming that I did, then I’m afraid to say that you’re either mistaken, or lying.
There are two reasonable definitions of “operating system”.
You mean “reasonable” because they support your point. Personally, I think the Wikipedia definition does just fine. Stop trying to obfuscate the matter, and contribute to the Wikipedia definition if you don’t like it.
Personally, I’m fine with the idea that the OS is a) the kernel and its modules/drivers, b) a shell and c) low-level system utilities. GNU/Linux, if you will.
Anyway, you’ve got MY definition of an OS (which is to say, the Wikipedia definition). Please consider from now on that when I say OS, this is what I mean – and don’t claim that I said or intended to say things I didn’t, that’s just plain dishonest.
That’s because in every discussion we have, you persistently ignore or brush away questions I raise.
Nope. On the other hand, you constantly misinterpret what I say and put words in my mouth. You can do better than that.
I wouldn’t have raised it except it is particularly germane to aspects of your commentary. That is, you consistently attack me (and probably others) for doing exactly the same thing you did in that thread.
I do not consistently attack you – you consistently butt in when I’m having an argument with someone else, taking a contrary position. In other words, you come out looking for a fight (even if, as it happened in the other thread, you’re actually supporting my argument).
In any case, I’m not attacking you here. I’m simply pointing out that you have a bias, just like I’ll admit I have one too. But it is not hypocritical of me to say what I think is the truth, just like it is not hypocritical of you to do the same. Rationalize all you want, that was still a cheap shot.
The point I was trying to make is that you are making comments based on a combination of common knowledge, your experiences and reasoned arguments – precisely the same thing I do with every post.
Yes – well, except when you use strawmen arguments (i.e. that who disagree with me think Bill Gates is the devil incarnate). You do make comments based on common knowledge, experience and arguments. The problem is that you always feel compelled to intervene when someone criticizes Microsoft. That seems both futile (i.e. MS can take care of itself) and ill-founded, as there are many very good reasons to criticize Microsoft (the company, not the product).
Anyway, I think we’ve pretty much said it all. Let’s all admit we have a bias, and that we all have a right to our opinions. We’ll agree to disagree and then go to bed. Good enough for you?
…I will recognize the fact that you did provide criticism of Windows (not really of Microsoft, though). And I really don’t think you’re in the same boat as Lumbergh and Russian Guy. Again, I offer my apologies for that little jab. In retrospect, it wasn’t a very nice thing to say.
100% of all errors occur between chair and keyboard?
(My take: go get a solution that “just works” and see how long time it takes before it stops working leaving you with a error message you are incapable of understanding since you wasn’t thought of how things worked in the first place.)
I much prefer FreeBSD and Solaris, in the unix world.
So do i 🙂
Debian,SuSE,are my exeptions though,if i have to use Linux.
As for MS,it is heavily overprized,i mean both XP versions.About time MS is going to include some additional stuff like burning programs,anti addware/spyware,dvd authoring software,etc.And and a upgrade once in 1-2 years a la MacOsX.Astonishing easy to handle a lot of stress loads with FreeBSD, besides a very fast tcp/ip stack,downloading ,watching TV,burning a dvd, and writing a letter with OOo-2.0 is piece a cake and the system won’t complain or slow down to much.Personally i think the less point and click security/sytem configuration the less additional human error codes.Yesterday i went to a Mac store for the first time, i simply had to see for myself were everybody is talking/flaming about.Played around a little with the “cheapest” i-book.Good enough for me,slick design,fast enough,robust,just what i need.MacOsx and FreeBSD is just what the doctor described for me heh,just kidding.Serious,i wish i had gotten an aqquaintance with OsX a bit earlier on.Switched from MS to Linux,first distro Redhat 6.2,now a few months ago to FreeBSD , for me it has it all,i hope to add a Mac one day to make my dream complete, gave my girlfriend scooped my just bought mini:-(. Ah well more reason to buy some (dual) G5 someday.
Microsoft is still trying to outsource their product from competetors, just like Nazis. But i have faith in open source, and open source is why Linux will prevail. Getting people interested in a less commercialized operating system is a bit of a challenge though, Linux could use more funding and advertising to gain more attention in order to prevail, it’s a process that just can’t happen overnight but i think Microsoft feels the heat.
Find me a linux distro that meets Orange Book C2 and you have a winner…
Windows meets it.
The orange book dates from the end of the 70’s or early 80’s.
It’s nice to know Windows meets 25 year-old requirements … LOL
The Orange book is as relevant today as steam engines in the transport industry.
The fact of the matter is that there are as much (if not more) unreasonable posts by anti-Linux posters. Check out the modded down comments in this thread
From where I read, there’s a hell of a lot more FUD and incorrect assertions aimed at Windows (“Windows is fundamentally insecure”, “Windows isn’t multiuser”, “Windows needs to be rewritten”) than vice versa. Most of the crap aimed at Linux, etc is of the clearly trolling or false variety, whereas as a great deal of the crap aimed at Windows stems from a deep misunderstanding of Windows itself (or experience dating from Windows 95).
Who ever said GPL-or-die?
O_o
The number of people who think the GPL is the be-all and end-all of software licensing isn’t exactly small (or quiet).
And if you dislike people who don’t like Microsoft, then it means you dislike the majority of Windows users as well.
No, I dislike people who hate Microsoft irrationally.
They have abused their monopoly, invented astroturfing, and been a detrimental force to competition in the industry.
Well, personally, I don’t think they ever *had* a monopoly under any reasonable market definition and if you think they were the first company to ever use paid supporters masquerading as legitimate users, you’re pretty naive.
I’m still not entirely sure how “competition” can be “detrimental”, either.
[…] it’s that every time you post a comment here it’s either to defend MS or discredit Linux.
No, I often post here *correcting* incorrect statements made regarding Microsoft and/or Windows, or explaining *why* they act in a particular way (since a rather large number of participants in OSNews seem to lack a basic understanding of how to run a profitable business.
As I’ve said numerous times before, I don’t particularly like Linux. I find (in most cases) it’s difficult to work with, technically inferior and carries a community with the mentality of 14 year olds significantly lacking in actual, real life experience.
I don’t know why you feel the need to exaggerate and distort the position of those who disagree with you like that.
IME, for most of them, that’s not much of a distortion. I’ve met *very* few rational, technically competent, experienced Linux advocates. Most of them are carrying a chip on their shoulder big enough to build a house from and have very little *useful* knowledge of the alternatives.
(That’s a JOKE, son. Lighten up. I’m still waiting for that retraction, though.)
That one I can see. Maybe it has something to do with the delivery ?
Which would be fine and dandy except that I did not do this. I haven’t tried to offer contradictory definitions of what an OS is. If you really are claiming that I did, then I’m afraid to say that you’re either mistaken, or lying.
True enough, you haven’t. It’s happened before, however.
You mean “reasonable” because they support your point.
No, reasonable because any other definition is one made only for the purpose of supporting an argument.
Personally, I’m fine with the idea that the OS is a) the kernel and its modules/drivers, b) a shell and c) low-level system utilities. GNU/Linux, if you will.
And there’s the problem. What’s a “low level system utility” ? How does one draw the line between “low level” and “high level” system utilities ? Why draw the line at “system utilities” at all ?
In other words, you come out looking for a fight (even if, as it happened in the other thread, you’re actually supporting my argument).
I enter a discussion either to correct something I think is wrong, or to enter into a discussion of whatever the topic is on hand.
But it is not hypocritical of me to say what I think is the truth, just like it is not hypocritical of you to do the same. Rationalize all you want, that was still a cheap shot.
The hypocritical part was not you saying what you think is the truth – I strongly encourage *everyone* to speak their mind all the time. The hypocritical part was you criticising *me* (as opposed to whatever I might have said) for speaking what I think is the truth.
That seems both futile (i.e. MS can take care of itself) and ill-founded, as there are many very good reasons to criticize Microsoft (the company, not the product).
Most of those criticisms tend to stem from a deep misunderstanding of how to actually run a business, simply false information, or a hypocritical stance wherein they consider identical behaviour from other companies to be fine. *That’s* the sort of thing I don’t like.
Anyway, I think we’ve pretty much said it all. Let’s all admit we have a bias, and that we all have a right to our opinions. We’ll agree to disagree and then go to bed. Good enough for you?
Good enough for me.
(I still have a reputation to live up to, though, so I had to post this
)
Most of the crap aimed at Linux, etc is of the clearly trolling or false variety, whereas as a great deal of the crap aimed at Windows stems from a deep misunderstanding of Windows itself (or experience dating from Windows 95).
That’s true to a certain degree, though I’d say Win98 rather than Win95.
The number of people who think the GPL is the be-all and end-all of software licensing isn’t exactly small (or quiet).
Actually, it is. Most people who like the GPL don’t have a problem with other free licenses (such as BSD, etc.), and they don’t even have a proplem with proprietary applications. However, many of them have a problem with the idea of a proprietary OS and proprietary file formats, as these have given MS a disproportiate amount of leverage on the personal computing industry (fortunately, they haven’t been able to use this to extend their monopoly to other markets, and I think it’s too late for that).
I’d suggest that you have the impression that there are more anti-MS trolls because of selective bias, which we all do unconsciously.
Personally, working in the game industry I’ve sometimes checked out discussions on gaming boards, and let me tell you console enthusiasts (i.e. PS2 vs. Xbox vs. GameCube) are ten times worse than those you’ll find here (on both sides of the fence). And they’re not all kids and teenagers, either!
Well, personally, I don’t think they ever *had* a monopoly under any reasonable market definition
They have in the legal sense, and I think they still do in Intel personal computing. Note that “monopoly” doesn’t mean 100% market (which is virtually impossible).
and if you think they were the first company to ever use paid supporters masquerading as legitimate users, you’re pretty naive.
Of course I don’t believe that, but it doesn’t make the practice any more acceptable. That’s basic ethics.
And there’s the problem. What’s a “low level system utility” ? How does one draw the line between “low level” and “high level” system utilities ? Why draw the line at “system utilities” at all ?
The fact that lines are blurry doesn’t mean there are no lines. To me, the ability to copy files, create them, delete them, edit them in a basic way and so on through a command line interface is pretty basic.
I’m quite happy with the Wikipedia definition. I think you’re being incredibly nitpicky here.
The hypocritical part was you criticising *me* (as opposed to whatever I might have said) for speaking what I think is the truth.
I didn’t realize my little jab irritated you that much – being on Internet forums you expect people not to be to thin-skinned. I wasn’t criticizing you for speaking what I think is the truth, I was criticizing what you were saying (which is the nature of debate), and spoke what I believe to be the truth, that you often seem biased in your posts. Sorry if you perceived it otherwise because of the added color.
Most of those criticisms tend to stem from a deep misunderstanding of how to actually run a business,
A monopoly isn’t just “a business.” At some point, that entails social responsibilities (hence the anti-trust trial). Ethics is important in business if we want the free market to be truly free, and not just a free-for-all.
Monopolies who abuse their monopoly power, as MS has done, should be strongly criticized. It’s the least citizens can do, since it seems that they always find a way to escape judicial sanctions anyway…
simply false information, or a hypocritical stance wherein they consider identical behaviour from other companies to be fine.
I would tend to think that people who criticize MS for its actions would similarly criticize other companies who did the same. After all, IBM was once the big bad wolf itself. The problem is that there are very few companies like Microsoft right now, so it’s actually hard to find other companies who can display the same kind of behavior (i.e. abuse of monopoly).
Good enough for me.
All righty, then.
(I still have a reputation to live up to, though, so I had to post this
The only reason I harped on this is that I’m the same way. I love a good debate, and I hate not having the last word as much as you do…that criticisim is the only hypocrisy you’ll find in my posts! 🙂
(All right, you can have the last word this time. Peace.)
That’s true to a certain degree, though I’d say Win98 rather than Win95.
Well, personally I don’t consider them to be very different
.
Personally, working in the game industry I’ve sometimes checked out discussions on gaming boards, and let me tell you console enthusiasts (i.e. PS2 vs. Xbox vs. GameCube) are ten times worse than those you’ll find here (on both sides of the fence). And they’re not all kids and teenagers, either!
That I’d have to agree with, based on my fairly limited exposure to those communities.
They have in the legal sense, and I think they still do in Intel personal computing. Note that “monopoly” doesn’t mean 100% market (which is virtually impossible).
I’m aware of what a legal monopoly is. I still don’t think they ever had one because IMHO the market definition used to draw that conclusion was flawed. Most notably, it excluded Apple from consideration as a competitor. When I read what the market definition was going to be, my impression that the whole thing was just a witch-hunt sparked by jealous and incompetent competitors was cemented – and I *hate* witch-hunts, even if I disagree with who/whatever it is being hunted.
The fact that lines are blurry doesn’t mean there are no lines.
But from a practical perspective, it does, because everyone’s idea of what a “low level utility” is will be different, depending on not only their level of knowledge, but also their requirements.
Many technical users, for example, would class a compiler as a “low level system utility” – but you’d be hard pressed to find any Windows or OS X users that did.
To me, the ability to copy files, create them, delete them, edit them in a basic way and so on through a command line interface is pretty basic.
But what about an OS that doesn’t *have* a commandline (eg: MacOS Classic) or its commandline is only accessible with a loaded GUI ?
Not to mention, it’s a matter of perspective. I’d propose that someone buying a computer today considers a web browser and email program *at least* as important as tools for manipulating and editing files.
A monopoly isn’t just “a business.” At some point, that entails social responsibilities (hence the anti-trust trial). Ethics is important in business if we want the free market to be truly free, and not just a free-for-all.
IMHO that distinction can’t be made. You either have a “free [-for-all] market” (in which case ethics are irrelevant) or you have a regulated market (the only question being the amount of regulation).
FWIW I agree abusive monopolies are a bad thing – I just don’t think Microsoft are (or ever were) a monopoly (in the sense that you either bought Microsoft, or you didn’t buy anything at all, which I think is the only sense that matters in that debate).
(All right, you can have the last word this time. Peace.)
Agreed.
Yeah, first, where the heck is Microshafts proof? Secondly, does Microshaft really know what the hell “Open Source” really is? If they didn’t they wouldn’t make such an ill-formed comment such as this.
Here are the points:
1. Open Source = Public Source = Well Documented = If there is a bug, a “COMMUNITY” fixes it, and redistributes the source and updates…
2. Microshaft = Proprietary = NO DOCUMENTATION ON THE SOURCE = Undocumented Backdoors = MAJOR SECURITY RISK!
I think that sums it up…. Period…
Any Microshaft freak want to challange this? Here lets do it this way:
How many patches did Microsoft release in the past 1 month (1 to make it simple)?
Answer: On the average 72 (this month 64)
How many patches did LINUX (for example RedHat) release in the past 1 month?
Answer: On the average 26 (this month 19)
Were here comes the best part…
ON the AVERAGE, how many “SECURITY HOLES” does ONE update from Microshaft fix?
Answer: 176
ON the AVERAGE, how many “SECURITY HOLES” does ONE update from Linux (RedHat) fix?
Answer: 2
Well there you have it ladies and gentilmen…
If you need the sources of this information:
http://www.microsoft.com (they misspell it, it should be http://www.microshaft.com)
http://www.redhat.com
And the best way to settle this, get the worlds best hacker in here, and ask them, “Which OS would you perfer hacking the most for ease of hacking?”…
I bet my life savings his answer would be “Windows” PERIOD.
“There are bits of the Linux software stack that are missing. These are factors that are holding back Linux.”
What on earth is he talking about?