Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Linux and Antivirus software

<< < (4/8) > >>

muzzy:

--- Quote from: kintaro ---Yes well, muzzy.net is powered by the following... (well the host it redirects to)
--- End quote ---


Yay. You just portscanned http://www.cs.helsinki.fi, where I currently keep my homepages. The university probably doesn't like it, and if you were living in Finland you could get spanked for portscanning. There's been a case in highest court of law already in which portscanning was determined to be illegal, because it is used to find services that the user won't have right to use, and the act of scanning shows an intent to use them.

Either way, whatever OS my webspace provider uses shows their preferences, not mine. Though, I have to admit I do prefer having my website on a *nix platform despite all the issues it implicates. I just can't quite trust IIS, and I kind of like having a shell, too.

Kintaro:
Yes well, I am in Australia.

In Australia, lazyness is something we celebrate every day. Feel free to email my internet service provider, and I garentee that nothing will ever be done. Nothing will be done on a legal scale because the amount of legislation in Australia regarding the Internet is rather slim. This countrys government is more backwards then you would ever beleive.

And its funny that you state right there that you prefer a Unix platform, despite the bullshit you spout everywhere.

muzzy:
And its funny that you state right there that you prefer a Unix platform, despite the bullshit you spout everywhere.

Right tool for the right job. Same applies for everything, there are no golden hammers that work for every problem. For a dedicated web server for multiple users, I definitely wouldn't use windows. And if I had to, I definitely wouldn't use IIS. The issue with apache on windows is that the damn thing is developed on *nix platforms and mainly tested in them, so there are mysterious performance issues with it on win32. Sometimes apache+php+mysql solutions are just hundreds of times slower (really, i'm not kidding) on Windows 2000 than they are on pretty much any *nix system. I believe some of the problems are due to malloc implementation in the C runtime that ships with w2k, as it aligns things in funny way. On XP and Windows 2003 it should be better but I haven't done any benchmarking. Perhaps Windows2003+apache would work great for a webserver, but not having tested it I won't take sides.

For my personal desktop systems, I've found that windows is the best choice for usability, stability, flexibility, security, etc.

I don't have just a single preference for tools to use, I have different preferences for different tasks. I believe it's important to recognize strenghts and weaknesses of each system, and use the one that best fits a task at hand.

Calum:
there's one thing that annoys me onnnn this board, and that's when people get slammed purelly because  they don'''t agree with the general outlook of the majority.

muzzy here has not said anything unreaasonable here, and people are jussssst criticising out of habit, because they know that s/he is "pro-windows", where's the point? i think it's a great idea to have an intelligent discussion about these things, rather than have eeverybody think the same thing and just come here to mutually backslap!

i do happen to disagree with a lot of the things s/he has said about specific issues, but this is no reason for a blanket criticism, in my opinion.

Kintaro:
I don't have just a single preference for tools to use, I have different preferences for different tasks. I believe it's important to recognize strenghts and weaknesses of each system, and use the one that best fits a task at hand.

"If you repeat the same lie enough eventually people will believe it" - Adolf Hitler.

I think I know why you spout bullshit about Linux as a desktop system. You keep repeating yourself with a purpose, you keep making these same claims about Linux security, Windows security, with a purpose.

FUD FUD FUD! NTFS supports ACLs, it's just the default windows configuration that's to blame. It can be configured to be pretty good, but most users aren't aware of this. Also, many apps expect the permissions to be fucked up, and won't work if they aren't...

Unfortunately true. A lot of windows users don't know enough about the system to set it up properly, and since the config is braindead by default, the system will suck unless the user knows what to do.

What comes to messing the PC, most users don't have the ability to determine what's safe and what's not, and frankly most of them aren't interested in learning the necessary skills for that. Apps can still screw user's own stuff, even if the rest of the system stays protected. Don't you guys do anything with your computers or why aren't your own files the most valuable part of your personal systems?

Well, I have to admit I was being a little provocative there, but didn't find a better way to introduce myself to these forums. I'm a Windows user, and happy to run windows. I consider linux to be simple system, for the simple users. IMO, if you feel you're bound in windows and only able to express yourself in linux, it's probably because you can't use Windows

My two windows systems are both completely stable and secure. Haven't had any real problems with them, ever. I suspect windows is just too complex OS for you guys, so linux and such systems might be a better choice for your needs.

Tech-savvy or not, I've found that most windows haters simply do not understand how windows works. I won't defend Microsoft as a company, although I think the US government is partially to blame for the inability to cut MS into pieces. A lot of problems with Microsoft come from the fact that they're so damn big and so damn rich, that they can do pretty much anything they want to.

I've found windows to be fairly stable, quite secure, and many parts are well designed. Unfortunately, microsoft values backwards compatibility more than security, so there are some total braindead things around left from single user win16 times. I wish they'd go away, however the problem only relates to win32 apis and the concerned executive subsystem. If some day we can throw that away and move completely to .NET, a lot of the problems will just simply disappear.

What comes to security design, there's very little of that anywhere. The overall design is the old *nix design, of filesystem defining the access right, with suid bits set for applications that need greater access. Capabilities came at some point but I'm not aware of them still being used. Regarding the suid, it'd be more secure to have one central database of what's suid and what's not, so nobody's going to create a suidroot shell under some obscure directory and hide it there. And don't you tell me that there are security solutions to detect these, when you were pointing out the existance of security industry being implication of insecure design in Windows
* Note: Compareing default Linux to his optimised Windows.

There have been some funny kernel patches for linux around for quite a while now, but I hadn't seen any real distro use any of it. I hadn't heard that FC3 ships with it by default, and that definitely makes things interesting. With such patches, you can actually have a linux system that I'll admit is more secure than Windows. However, for now, I'll wait to see these things actually get more widely used.
* Note: Compareing default Linux to his optimised Windows.

So, wouldn't the best approach to solving the problem be user education? Software lock-in can be expensive, and businesses understand money. However, GNU is an evil empire when it comes to lock-in as well. Everyone's writing their "sh" scripts with bash syntax nowadays, m4 is backwards incompatible, gcc has language extensions that are widely used, etc. How are these not lock-in issues?

Linux can be more suitable to you, and as I said it's probably better for a lot more people because it's simpler than Windows. Windows is more complex, and way tougher to learn. Despite Windows being marketed for clueless folk, the Windows itself hasn't been designed for newbies. It's a serious OS for serious people, and currently (imo) the biggest problems are the amount of work it takes to properly configure one. If the default installation wasn't so braindead, a lot of you guys would appreciate the whole system more.
* Here he goes on about default Windows being the problem, after only ever finding hordes of problems in Default Linux and comparing them to his Optimised Windows. This is manipulation of information and journalism almost to the level of scum that is Fox News. Or similar to the propaganda spread by the Nazi's to spread idealogy.

Response:
* Note also that he has tendancy to blame companies, organisations, users, people, administrators, everything but Microsoft. Hitler liked to blame everything on Jews, Communists, and Homosexuals, etc, rather then the flaws in the strategys of germany in World War I.
* He has a tendancy to constantly belittle intelligence and constantly makes claims to express indirectly that he is superior. That educated Windows users are superior, much like the claims Hitler made that his perceived "Aryan Race" is superior.

With this analysis, I have concluded that Muzzy is the offical Windows Hitler.

Seig Heil!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page