Come on you had to hear about this when they were talking about the new IE. They are intigrating a pop-up killing in the new version of IE, in addition to "fixing" the problem where those annoying gator program plug-ins pop-up and some stupid user clicks yes to install. Also the firewall is getting a make over, now no ports will be open by default unless a program like AIM requests an Open Port for a file transfer. In addition this will help stop the spread of worms if the unknowing user has the Firewall turned on by default.
Also you are right NT doesn't stand for "New Technology" it stand for "NTen", but I guess you already knew that being the smart guy you are.
In addition if you had updated your Outlook you would have already found that they did fix that vb-script problem, but I guess you don't pay any attention to those patchs do you. In addition the OS Service Pack is different from the Office Service Pack.
Do you expect the Linux Kernel team to fix problems with Open Office? NO YOU DON'T! So why do you expect it from Microsoft?
Congradulations you are probably one of the most uninformed people on Slashdot, and that is hard to do because the/. community is amoung the smartest.
I don't think you understand the SQL CE database is right on the handheld it self. There is no transmitting to a server. This was done for the reason to cut down on propriatary data storage formats on the handheld. You just have to interact with the database.
I think that is the key point that is giving you trouble.
I think we all have to thank SCO for this on slaught of little companies trying to make a buck. It happened with Microsoft with Eolas. Now it is happening to Roxio.
Let me ask this why is all of the sudden this a problem for all these companies? EZ CD Creater has been around forever. How will this effect Nero and some of the other OSS versions.
Some super wal-marts actually have them in stock. I haven't found any in my local wal-marts but they are out there according to consumer reports. I am not douting that, but I was just refuting the point that "no body would get Windows and Lindows mixed up". There are people out there.
Actually Consumer Reports took people of varying ages that have never used any computer before. They gave them money and sent them into a Wal-Mart that stocked both and told them to buy a computer. When they came out they asked them did you get Microsoft Windows on your PC. 18% of them said yes and they actually walked out with a Lindows PC.
So saying that you could not mistake them is not true. Maybe you would never mistake them because you are in the know. But what about everybody else?
Yes but that is what I was arguing. That it might be theory, but people saying any OS is secure is just hog wash. It can be a number of things that lead to an insecure system. Amount of surface area you have in the market. Bad security issues. Software that creates an exploit in a secure system (SSH to gain root access).
>"It says more than that, actually. If Windows had similar functionality in its kernel, it would have made it a lot more difficult to exploit Windows security hole. It would have been harder for a worm to infect a large portion of the internet in less than an hour. This just shows one area of system security where Linux can have a clear advantage at this point."
You have to also remember very few of the Windows exploits are acutally on the kernel it self, many of them deal with IIS, SQL 2000, Outlook, etc. And up until Win 2003 IIS and TCP/IP where never intigrated into the Kernel.
No that is not true because their are perceived secure boxes. Just look at the SSH exploits. How many people said those boxes were secure, before that exploit was found?
No because on the internet every machine is the same. There is no difference between Linux, Windows or Mac, because they all use ethernet, NAT, DNS, HTTP, DHCP, etc.
Well there would really be no use going after Microsoft only having 5% of the share of desktops. Because it might be used in some small cases but you wounldn't have the large out break that we do today. And I am really positive if MacOSX had the 90% of the share the exploit that everybody says isn't getting used would be running rampent over the internet right now.
I agree with everything you say. However look at it in an economics way. What OS has the most surface area? If a hacker wants to attack systems around the world, and cause the most damage, what OS is he going to attack? Now look at the previous question and answer it with Linux owning 90% of the desktop market.
I am sure if a developer wanted to target a specific office or mac-show, they would target the exploits of the MacOSX. But when you want to cause the most harm through out the world you need to write for the most common OS, which is Windows.
See all you people are just focusing on the micro aspecs of my comment, take a look at it in the macro sense. Because if you start looking at it that way, you will see that Windows is dominat and thus more open to attacks than other OS's.
I am not talking about security here I am talking about actual surface area the OS has through out the world.
It also has to do alot with the community at the time. Also Amiga's and PC's really never existed side by side like Windows Linux and Mac do right now.
So for that community Amiga had 100% of the market, so proving the theory correct of the author.
You have really missed the point. All that you are spewing out is the industry propoganda. Just take a look at my statement, I know the truth hurts, but there is no such thing as a totally secure box that is connected to a network. In addition maybe there are just a ton of bugs that haven't been discovered because not as many people are looking for them as there are looking for the Windows ones.
MacOSX now has 90% of the market and Windows only has 5%. How often do you think this hole in the security would get used for DDoS attacks and other network exploits.
All the time it would get used, because the developers of worms have no *deliousions about what OS is going to get their worm in the wild the fastest. Currently creating a worm for Linux or MacOSX is like shooting an arrow in to the Ocean and hoping to hit a fish. There really isn't any point.
This is all fine and dandy but you have seemed to miss my point. I am not comparing the number of exploits actually used. I am just saying thinking just because we don't get attacked that we have that much of a better product is a false assumption. I mean just take a look at an article yesterday on/. about the SPAM and Apache/PHP combo.
Yeah that is also fine to say the Linux Kernel is becomming more secure but that statement really doesn't gauge where the Linux Kernel is compared to Windows. It just says that the Linux Kernel is progressing. This is what all my fellow Linux friends have been saying and it just seems like the OSS propoganda that is just paroted everywhere.
Don't get me wrong Linux is great I use it every day, but if the tables were reversed and Linux had 90% of the market, there would be just as many Linux exploits and worms as their are for Microsoft now.
I think you missed my whole point. I agreeded with what you just said. What I was saying, was that having the Linux/OSX people not haven't a lot of attacks aimed at them has given them a false sence of security. If you look at BugTraq Windows and Linux are almost equal on number of bugs found. But the problem is, is that it is a waist of time to make a exploit for only 10% of the market when the same exploit is on 90% of the other guys OS.
I think you need to read this statement that he stated in the article. Your statement may be true, but it just isn't worth the time to create something that will exploite the hole in OSX.
----
I was tired of the "We use Macs because they don't get attacked by viruses and hackers" refrain from Mac nuts.
I generally counter with what is apparently a secret carefully hidden from Mac zealots: "That's because only a fraction of the world uses Macs. What's the point of attacking a niche market? No one will notice!"
----
I have been trying to say this exact statement forever to the Linux community. ----- I was tired of the "We use Macs because they don't get attacked by viruses and hackers" refrain from Mac nuts.
I generally counter with what is apparently a secret carefully hidden from Mac zealots: "That's because only a fraction of the world uses Macs. What's the point of attacking a niche market? No one will notice!" ---- I think we have to remember as he is only talking about OSX, everything he is saying also applies towards Linux... It is about time we recongnized this, and start making changes in the Kernel to secure the OS, instead of adding value add features that only a small part of the population will ever use.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on you had to hear about this when they were talking about the new IE. They are intigrating a pop-up killing in the new version of IE, in addition to "fixing" the problem where those annoying gator program plug-ins pop-up and some stupid user clicks yes to install. Also the firewall is getting a make over, now no ports will be open by default unless a program like AIM requests an Open Port for a file transfer. In addition this will help stop the spread of worms if the unknowing user has the Firewall turned on by default.
/. community is amoung the smartest.
Also you are right NT doesn't stand for "New Technology" it stand for "NTen", but I guess you already knew that being the smart guy you are.
In addition if you had updated your Outlook you would have already found that they did fix that vb-script problem, but I guess you don't pay any attention to those patchs do you. In addition the OS Service Pack is different from the Office Service Pack.
Do you expect the Linux Kernel team to fix problems with Open Office? NO YOU DON'T! So why do you expect it from Microsoft?
Congradulations you are probably one of the most uninformed people on Slashdot, and that is hard to do because the
Maybe it's time you upgraded, or at least got some of the patchs that helped correct the spell check engine.
I don't think you understand the SQL CE database is right on the handheld it self. There is no transmitting to a server. This was done for the reason to cut down on propriatary data storage formats on the handheld. You just have to interact with the database.
I think that is the key point that is giving you trouble.
I think we all have to thank SCO for this on slaught of little companies trying to make a buck. It happened with Microsoft with Eolas. Now it is happening to Roxio.
Let me ask this why is all of the sudden this a problem for all these companies? EZ CD Creater has been around forever. How will this effect Nero and some of the other OSS versions.
Wow who feel asleep at the wheel today? Not only was it a double post it was right after each other. I thought I was having daja-vue.
Some super wal-marts actually have them in stock. I haven't found any in my local wal-marts but they are out there according to consumer reports. I am not douting that, but I was just refuting the point that "no body would get Windows and Lindows mixed up". There are people out there.
Actually Consumer Reports took people of varying ages that have never used any computer before. They gave them money and sent them into a Wal-Mart that stocked both and told them to buy a computer. When they came out they asked them did you get Microsoft Windows on your PC. 18% of them said yes and they actually walked out with a Lindows PC.
So saying that you could not mistake them is not true. Maybe you would never mistake them because you are in the know. But what about everybody else?
Yes but that is what I was arguing. That it might be theory, but people saying any OS is secure is just hog wash. It can be a number of things that lead to an insecure system. Amount of surface area you have in the market. Bad security issues. Software that creates an exploit in a secure system (SSH to gain root access).
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SECURE OS
>"It says more than that, actually. If Windows had similar functionality in its kernel, it would have made it a lot more difficult to exploit Windows security hole. It would have been harder for a worm to infect a large portion of the internet in less than an hour. This just shows one area of system security where Linux can have a clear advantage at this point."
You have to also remember very few of the Windows exploits are acutally on the kernel it self, many of them deal with IIS, SQL 2000, Outlook, etc. And up until Win 2003 IIS and TCP/IP where never intigrated into the Kernel.
No that is not true because their are perceived secure boxes. Just look at the SSH exploits. How many people said those boxes were secure, before that exploit was found?
No because on the internet every machine is the same. There is no difference between Linux, Windows or Mac, because they all use ethernet, NAT, DNS, HTTP, DHCP, etc.
Well there would really be no use going after Microsoft only having 5% of the share of desktops. Because it might be used in some small cases but you wounldn't have the large out break that we do today. And I am really positive if MacOSX had the 90% of the share the exploit that everybody says isn't getting used would be running rampent over the internet right now.
I agree with everything you say. However look at it in an economics way. What OS has the most surface area? If a hacker wants to attack systems around the world, and cause the most damage, what OS is he going to attack? Now look at the previous question and answer it with Linux owning 90% of the desktop market.
I am sure if a developer wanted to target a specific office or mac-show, they would target the exploits of the MacOSX. But when you want to cause the most harm through out the world you need to write for the most common OS, which is Windows.
See all you people are just focusing on the micro aspecs of my comment, take a look at it in the macro sense. Because if you start looking at it that way, you will see that Windows is dominat and thus more open to attacks than other OS's.
I am not talking about security here I am talking about actual surface area the OS has through out the world.
It also has to do alot with the community at the time. Also Amiga's and PC's really never existed side by side like Windows Linux and Mac do right now.
So for that community Amiga had 100% of the market, so proving the theory correct of the author.
You have really missed the point. All that you are spewing out is the industry propoganda. Just take a look at my statement, I know the truth hurts, but there is no such thing as a totally secure box that is connected to a network. In addition maybe there are just a ton of bugs that haven't been discovered because not as many people are looking for them as there are looking for the Windows ones.
Let take your theory and put it into action here.
MacOSX now has 90% of the market and Windows only has 5%. How often do you think this hole in the security would get used for DDoS attacks and other network exploits.
All the time it would get used, because the developers of worms have no *deliousions about what OS is going to get their worm in the wild the fastest. Currently creating a worm for Linux or MacOSX is like shooting an arrow in to the Ocean and hoping to hit a fish. There really isn't any point.
This is all fine and dandy but you have seemed to miss my point. I am not comparing the number of exploits actually used. I am just saying thinking just because we don't get attacked that we have that much of a better product is a false assumption. I mean just take a look at an article yesterday on /. about the SPAM and Apache/PHP combo.
Yeah that is also fine to say the Linux Kernel is becomming more secure but that statement really doesn't gauge where the Linux Kernel is compared to Windows. It just says that the Linux Kernel is progressing. This is what all my fellow Linux friends have been saying and it just seems like the OSS propoganda that is just paroted everywhere.
Don't get me wrong Linux is great I use it every day, but if the tables were reversed and Linux had 90% of the market, there would be just as many Linux exploits and worms as their are for Microsoft now.
I think you missed my whole point. I agreeded with what you just said. What I was saying, was that having the Linux/OSX people not haven't a lot of attacks aimed at them has given them a false sence of security. If you look at BugTraq Windows and Linux are almost equal on number of bugs found. But the problem is, is that it is a waist of time to make a exploit for only 10% of the market when the same exploit is on 90% of the other guys OS.
I think you need to read this statement that he stated in the article. Your statement may be true, but it just isn't worth the time to create something that will exploite the hole in OSX. ---- I was tired of the "We use Macs because they don't get attacked by viruses and hackers" refrain from Mac nuts. I generally counter with what is apparently a secret carefully hidden from Mac zealots: "That's because only a fraction of the world uses Macs. What's the point of attacking a niche market? No one will notice!" ----
I have been trying to say this exact statement forever to the Linux community.
-----
I was tired of the "We use Macs because they don't get attacked by viruses and hackers" refrain from Mac nuts.
I generally counter with what is apparently a secret carefully hidden from Mac zealots: "That's because only a fraction of the world uses Macs. What's the point of attacking a niche market? No one will notice!"
----
I think we have to remember as he is only talking about OSX, everything he is saying also applies towards Linux... It is about time we recongnized this, and start making changes in the Kernel to secure the OS, instead of adding value add features that only a small part of the population will ever use.
I am also using 6.0.2800.1106CO. But I also don't have the most tipical setup on my computer.
Yeah I dont' think that is the problem. Good joke I just couldn't help not cracking up.
No bug in my box from some reason. It works fine on my version IE 6.0 on Windows 2000.
Oh okay I knew it was somekind of *nix they were using. I didn't realize that they just recently switched.