All the points have been covered and Linux still remains more secure that letmeindows.

It reminds me of the saying.

Someone told me they wrote a hack for windows
I replied I bought windows and it had all that built in.

Ibbo

The thing about microsoft security is its all based around restricting what the user can do instead of educating them to make smart choices.

No it's not. The vast majority of vulnaerabilities found in Microsoft products are buffer overflows - exactly the same type of security flaws you find in Linux, MacOS, Firefox and any other software. The restricting users side of it is there mainly for business to restrict the user to do only the things they need to do for their job function. That's just common sense and results in a gain of productivity, not a loss.

It's like saying "instead of teaching people how to drive we will tie their hands behind their back and lock them in a cupboard under the stairs. That way they won't need to be taught how to drive."

That's the most pointless analogy I've ever heard. If it was really like that then why do Microsoft sell so many copies of their software?

Sign up for any hosting, see what OS is on the server.

Windows, windows, windows and windows is what's been on the last 4 servers I signed up for hosting on, in fact. It's all a matter of preference, not what's 'better' or 'more secure'.

The only people who use windows are people who need a warentee that they can claim against when it all goes wrong.

No. Also people who have been trained in Microsoft software (so you can hire someone with a degree of confidence that they kno what they're doing, unlike what you get with open source software), also support - you can go directly to Microsoft if you have any problems with their software, unlike open source where you can post a message on a forum and hope you get a decent reply before the deadline in 48 hours.

Linux still remains more secure that letmeindows

You just cannot say that one pice of software is more secure than another. There's way too many external factors involved.

That's the most pointless analogy I've ever heard. If it was really like that then why do Microsoft sell so many copies of their software?

Because it comes preinstalled, and because computer manufacturers are as equally against open source as miscrosoft are.
Have you ever had the option to have linux as the main OS on a computer you purchased? People are ignorant, they dont even know that windows is installed software, they dont know what linux is, they dont know that there is a choice.

It cant be a coincidence that the more people know about computers the more likely they are to use linux.

No. Also people who have been trained in Microsoft software (so you can hire someone with a degree of confidence that they kno what they're doing, unlike what you get with open source software), also support - you can go directly to Microsoft if you have any problems with their software, unlike open source where you can post a message on a forum and hope you get a decent reply before the deadline in 48 hours

You say it as if its a bad thing.
I have called microsoft twice for technical support, both times they told me to reinstall windows.... I could have told them that!

Just because something is open source dosnt mean its of lower quality.
Open source is a great thing. Whats wrong with posting your problems on a message board to have them answered by another linux user? Do you never ask windows related questions on message boards?
Is the ability to call someone really worth the £120 that XP costs?

Thats the whole ethics of open source. Its coded by the users and the users offer support. How many people do you think microsoft have on thier support teams around the world? 10-20'000? Linux has millions. Millions of people who are ready to give support any time of the day... and it dosnt cost you a 50p per minute phone call while some kid looks through his official book of "Microsoft support answers" to get a fix..

The linux V Windows argument is an age old one on the internet, and the main obsticle people have is that they don't get what open source is about.

You can say what you want about linux,,,, but it scares the crap outa' bill gates.

Because it comes preinstalled, and because computer manufacturers are as equally against open source as miscrosoft are.

You're talking about one small part of Microsoft's market. What about server side? I've never bought a server with a pre-installed OS. What about MapPoint? Visio? Visual Studio? ISA Server? SQL Server? Excahnge? SharePoint? SMS? Do they all come pre-installed too?!!

It cant be a coincidence that the more people know about computers the more likely they are to use linux.

That's totally not true. All the people I know who are pro-linux tend to be script kiddies of no higher than university level experience. The people I know with proven experience in IT don't touch open software with a 50 foot pole.

Open source is a great thing. Whats wrong with posting your problems on a message board to have them answered by another linux user?

Cos there's absolutely no guarantee you'll get a working solution.

The linux V Windows argument is an age old one on the internet, and the main obsticle people have is that they don't get what open source is about.

It's not really much of an argument. Well, at least the Microsoft supporters don't really see it as one. If you look at the way people discuss this topic, you usually find the open source supporters childishly dissing Microsoft/Windows and saying 'one is better than the other' whereas the Microsoft supporters come across as saying there's nothing wrong with open source software, it's just not really considerable as a solution if you're serious about what you want to get done.

You're talking about one small part of Microsoft's market. What about server side? I've never bought a server with a pre-installed OS. What about MapPoint? Visio? Visual Studio? ISA Server? SQL Server? Excahnge? SharePoint? SMS? Do they all come pre-installed too?!!

You have kinda proved my point. When people do have the choice they use linux, apache and MySql... All open source.

That's totally not true. All the people I know who are pro-linux tend to be script kiddies of no higher than university level experience. The people I know with proven experience in IT don't touch open software with a 50 foot pole.

Its the other way round, the skiddies use windows.
And if that were true, who are the people coding the various flavours of linux? Are script kiddies really making secure, free, open source operating systems? I don't think so.

Cos there's absolutely no guarantee you'll get a working solution.

Theres no guarentee youl get a working solution when calling MS support either. Microsoft have only ever told me to reinstall windows. What kind of support is that?

It's not really much of an argument. Well, at least the Microsoft supporters don't really see it as one. If you look at the way people discuss this topic, you usually find the open source supporters childishly dissing Microsoft/Windows and saying 'one is better than the other' whereas the Microsoft supporters come across as saying there's nothing wrong with open source software, it's just not really considerable as a solution if you're serious about what you want to get done.

The argument tends to come completely from MS supporters. They just refuse to listen. The linux supports try to explain how linux is free, stable, secure and the MS supports just stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

When a flaw is found in linux there is a patch within 2 day, simply because linux has so many people working on it. Microsoft can take weeks because they need to do compatability testing because they are selling a product. The simple fact that MS are selling a product means it hampers the speed in which they can deal with security threats.
A linux user can even code thier own patch of they know enough.

What do you think would happen if you called bill gates and said "I found a flaw in your operating system, so i looked through the source code and created a patch for it, i then released the patch and everybpdy was protected against the exploit within 2 days, I done this all for free"?
He would have you arrested.

You have kinda proved my point. When people do have the choice they use linux, apache and MySql... All open source.

Hmm.. funny that Microsoft are still making billions from said software even though 'everybody' is using open source....

Its the other way round, the skiddies use windows.

Call anyone with MCP or higher qualification a 'skiddie' and theyll just laugh at you.

And if that were true, who are the people coding the various flavours of linux? Are script kiddies really making secure, free, open source operating systems? I don't think so.

Name me an industry standard recognised qualification relating directly to open source software.

Theres no guarentee youl get a working solution when calling MS support either. Microsoft have only ever told me to reinstall windows. What kind of support is that?

Thats just your experience. You could of been phoning the wrong helpline number for all I know. I've never had to call them myself, but heard that they were pretty helpfull from collegues.

free, stable, secure

Free, yes. But you may want to think about the other two words a bit harder.
There is no such thing as secure software.

Microsoft take slightly longer to release their patches because they test them properly and put them through quality control - something you just don't get with open source. For all you know, the patch could open up a whole new can of worms. At least with Microsoft, they instantly publish an article acknowledgeing the issue, describing it, mitigating factors, and provide workarounds that Administrators can use in the meantime.

No it's not. The vast majority of vulnaerabilities found in Microsoft products are buffer overflows

This is whats know as smashing the stack and its a flaw thats been ironed flat out of NIX for about 5 years at least.

The simple thing is its very avoidable by calling strncpy instead of strcpy. The former does bounds checking while the latter does not and will quite happily overwrite its memory allocation causing your stack to crash (and god forbid if they injected something into your stack when it goes coz they will be in).

And if Bill and Co aint got a grip of that yet then us linux "script kiddies" will always be thinking better of ourselves because we know now that our daemons do not come boxed with strcpy() anylonger.

The greatest plus for open source is that you can see for yourself what your code will do before its been run. Unlike MS products you simply have to trust that it does what its says on the box. And god forbid it dont, wheras open source is simply the source so if you want to hack the source and ensure you get 90% of your ethernet line (an example) then by all means go ahead.

Before us many have argued over this subject and long after us people will still argue over this subject.

Did bill and MS initialy hit the market with windows as a user OS and not a server OS (im quite sure) and if that is the case then the last decade or so has seen him mature his OS to compete with the server platform market becuase he simply wants a monopoly (and be damned if it dont work properly "pay me anyway").

But if that is the case I can see where he has had a very hard time. (didnt he even get some UNIX guys in to manage the development of NT when migrating from user to server).

These days we just get delivered a box with XP on it that apparently does it all.

Ibbo

This is whats know as smashing the stack and its a flaw thats been ironed flat out of NIX for about 5 years at least.

Buffer overflows aren't the only type of vulnerability and strcpy() isn't the only way of creating them. On top of that, how can you be sure that every bit of Linux related software everywhere that uses strcpy() has been re-written, re-compiled, re-distributed and re-implemented everywhere?

The greatest plus for open source is that you can see for yourself what your code will do before its been run.

People who want to get things done prefer not to sit there sifting through thousands of lines of code before they even install their OS.

Buffer overflows aren't the only type of vulnerability and strcpy() isn't the only way of creating them. On top of that, how can you be sure that every bit of Linux related software everywhere that uses strcpy() has been re-written, re-compiled, re-distributed and re-implemented everywhere?

To be certain i cannot.

But to be even more certain I know it will exist in older releases of NIX who have not updated for some time. Take the Linux Kernel for example, its an ongoing development project and as soon as someone posted an expolit using strcpy they will have fixed it and hammered it to ensure a similar approach is not possible in future.

It has been used extensively in the past to crack a box open but is a very rare occurance on NIX these days.

People who want to get things done prefer not to sit there sifting through thousands of lines of code before they even install their OS.

Thats very true and I am one of them. There are many many geeks (real geeks) out there who love nothing more than to scrutinise code and I am quite happy for them to do so too.

However if you install and crash you can in theory trace the executables exit via a suitable debugger. Then if you have some talent you can quite easily patch it up, recompile and try again.



Ibbo

Then if you have some talent you can quite easily patch it up, recompile and try again.

Great, if you're a programming guru. Not so good if you're a corporate/end user...

"Not so good if you're a corporate/end user."

Does it matter what your using if your one of these? You will have a systems administrator or one of his tech guys top sort it for you.

Ibbo

One characteristic that is always true of open source software is "free as in speech".
People should be free to choose which operating system(s) they use.
Choice of operating system can be influenced by many factors including suitability for the task, security issues, ease of use, availability, system resource requirements, cost, skillset, personal preference etc.
No system satisfies all of these all of the time.

Although I would nearly always answer the Linux-based platform offers equal or superior solutions to those of its rivals I will certainly defend the right of others to differ.

I think it is counter-productive for those in the Linux camp to constantly criticise perceived rivals. We should concentrate on the positives, after all Linux was created "Just for fun."

I feel Norton Pro is very good.

I think it is counter-productive for those in the Linux camp to constantly criticise perceived rivals.

And visaversa.
Im tired of the usual "windows costs money so it must be better" argument.

Also i think a lot of people are forgetting that all linux users have at some point used windows, but not many windows users have used linux.
So linux users are more qualified to make a judgment based on a comparison, But the windows users, as usual, are not prepared to listen to people who know what they are talking about. Is it not better to critise percieved rivals when you know about the rival than it is to critisise something you have never used?

We should concentrate on the positives, after all Linux was created "Just for fun."

So was the altair.
To be honest i think the fact that linux was born out of fun is to it's credit.
Linux is a piece of hobby coding that over time has evolved into a community driven operating system used by nasa. Thats a fantastic achievment, not something that can be used in an argument against linux.

You might not mean to, but you are coming across as if you are somehow worried about 'rival' operating systems. You seem to be second-guessing what others are thinking and unduly generalising about a very large user-base some members of which use multiple operating systems.

This is a waste of energy. You have no way of winning an argument ( in its true sense ) in this way. You change people's minds by making the most of opportunities that might arise, for example someone sees you using Epiphany when they normally use Firefox. Rather than tell them Firefox is rubbish, you should explain the benefits of using Epiphany. They can then make an informed decision as to whether they try the software for themselves.

Trying to convert through criticism very seldom works and portrays the community as unwelcoming and elitist. This does not further the open source cause.

Norton is very slow but effective.
While trying to speed up my PC I removed Norton from my computer (very difficult) and used free virus programs.

AVG is very good at it job and still allows your PC to be quick.
Also I use PrevX Home. This is also free and covers the space between my Microsoft security and the AVG anti virus. Nothing gets through to your computer unless you let it. You can set it to allow your normal transactions but nothing will run on your PC that shouldn't.

And its all free

For a firewall, I use Zonelabs ZoneAlarm.
As for the anti-virus, I use a program known as CA - EZ Antivirus. It is very good, so much so that large companies use it over McAfee and Norton.

I Use Avg And Norton Anti Virus And Mcaffe

The dbx reader and dbx extract has prompted you a path of the Outlook Express files' storage. And now save the damaged dbx files in the safe folder, they can be useful.