No, I'm pointing out that a web server is a much more valuable target than an end user's PC.
It's a central hub with a "trusted" entry point into many more of those end user PCs. You can't follow that logic? As a virus writer, would you rather own a bank's server or Grandma's home PC?
As a virus writer, I'd rather own 10,000 home PCs than a bank server. Those are the metrics you need to be comparing, not a single server to a single desktop.
The Microsoft propaganda is that nobody writes viruses for linux because it is unpopular, not because it is inherently more secure than Windows XP.
The fact is that no-one writes viruses for Linux because it's simply not worth it. The proportion of Linux users who would be ignorant enough to even let a virus onto their systems - let along not notice it was running - is miniscule.
I'm pointing out that there are plenty of interesting reasons to try to compromise a linux machine. If linux OS itself was as inherently insecure as windows XP its predecessors , no amount of effort by a professional admin would be able to keep it safe.
If XP was as "inherently insecure" as you suggest, then securing it it would be impossible, rather than fairly trivial.
It's difficult to comprehend how you could misinterpret my post so badly.
I haven't misinterpreted your post at all. You're trying to insist that Windows XP is generally exploited because it cannot be secured, rather than because of its user demographic.
The single biggest vulnerability in any system is the user. The typical Linux user is - by far - more knowledgable and aware than the typical Windows user. This is reflected by the simple fact that the vast majority of Windows "exploits" required end-user action to occur.
A PC on which an end-user can run arbitrary software, cannot be secured against viruses.
It's a really neat feature; the technology has been in NTFS since Windows 2000, but the UI exposure is fairly new (don't know if it's in Vista or not).
It's been in the Disk Manager since at least Windows 2003, and I'm 99% sure it's possible in XP. Possibly even 2000, but I don't have an installed machine handy to check.
It's this kind of idiotic "logic" that is typical of people trying to assert that marketshare and user demographics are irrelevant:
Since so many web servers out there are linux, it stands to reason that virus writers would be more motivated to attack linux, owning a much more strategic point in the web than some end user's windows PC.
Are you seriously trying to suggest there are more Linux web servers out there than Windows clients ? Are you seriously trying to argue that a professionally administered Linux server is a safer target than an unmanaged Windows desktop ?
Google is a massively parallel network built on linux. You're claiming no virus writers would be interested in owning the google cloud?
The demographic of typical Windows end-users and Google system administrators are so laughably different, it's difficult to comprehend how any would try and equate them.
The biggest failure of Windows 7 is that Microsoft is still pursuing their inherently faulty security model based on the main user of the PC running as root.
Firstly, this is a configuration semantic, not a "security model".
Secondly, it's flat-out wrong. The default user in both Vista and Windows 7 does not have Administrator-level privileges.
First off, as a loyal Mozilla user since the days of Mosaic, I strongly disagree that IE was "better" in 1996. Penn State installed IE on all its machine, and I hated it.
1996 is, indeed, a bit early. IE3 and Navigator 3 were basically on par. It wasn't until IE4 in 1997 that a clear advantage appeared.
Netscape was not.
Yes, it was. Even if your computer didn't come with a copy of Navigator (in itself unlikely), any ISP subscription would include it with the setup CD.
I have never, in my life, met a "consumer" who paid for Navigator - even when it *was* the clearly better browser.
Microsoft is not successful because they were selling the best software, or even the second best software.
Who defines "best" (and how) ?
A good business strategy does not improve our society; in fact the effect of Microsoft's monopoly position was to stagnate technological growth, especially in the operating systems, web browser, and office markets (not coincidentally, the three markets where Microsoft was most successful).
Evidence ?
Beyond that, Microsoft also used its success in one market -- operating systems -- to create a dominant position in other markets, killing competing, higher quality products.
Konquerer is integrated into KDE which is a desktop environment. KDE is not integrated into the Linux kernal.
IE is in no way "integrated" into the Windows kernel. That you would even suggest such a thing indicates you don't know what you're talking about.
IE (according to Microsoft) is integrated into the core OS and is inseparable.
No, IE's shared components are reused extensively throughout Windows and taking them out would break all the things that depend on them. Just like khtml (or WebKit in OS X).
Code re-use is generally considered to be an example of good software engineering. Hence the dramatically richer lineup of shared libraries and components that are part of today's OS environments, compared with a decade or two ago.
Can you use the Windows OS with a different Desktop Environment?
Of course. But don't expect Microsoft to help you out with it in any way.
Now why did Microsoft integrate IE into Windows?
Because they thought an OS-vendor supplied shared component that provided the functionality of web browser was a good idea. Given that every other remotely mainstream platform has since gone on to implement the same thing, it's kind of hard to argue they were anything less than market leaders, in this area.
To block competition while avoiding true compliance with the order not to bundle IE with Windows. By integrating they made it impossible to unbundle it and substitute your own free choice.
No aspect of IE's inclusion into Windows stops you using the web browser of your choice. None. Nor does it stop developers using some third-party shared component(s) that provide similar functionality to IE.
So the circumstances are different.
Of course they are. But that's irrelevant to the technical aspects of IE's "integration" which, as I said, are no different to khtml in KDE, or WebKit in OS X.
2. Web browsers and operating systems are separate markets.
No, they're not. Never have been. A few foolhardy souls have tried to create a browser market, but web browsers of some description have *always* been freely available and/or included with various OSes.
*That* is why the whole dog-and-pony show is a farce. There is no meaningful separate market for web browsers, and never has been.
A web browser has been a standard component of any consumer-oriented OS, for over a decade and been included with some OSes for even longer than that. There is no more a meaningful 'market' for web browsers than there is widget libraries, TCP/IP stacks, or similarly standard components.
do you really think that without the litigation it would now be possible to install firefox on a windows computer?
Yes. Without even the vaguest shadow of a doubt, I can confidently say that, without litigation, you would still be able to install third-party software on Windows.
I can say this not only due to complete lack of any credible evidence or historical precendent to suggest otherwise, but mostly because I spent a couple of seconds thinking about the alternative.
Seriously, how fucking stupid and paranoid do you have to be, to think that Microsoft would stop you installing software on their OS, when the primary reason Windows is so popular is because of its massive software library ?
This time let's see a version of Windows that doesn't have MSHTML.DLL, SHDOCVW.DLL, or even WININET.DLL. Then perhaps developer finally will stop embedding IE or calling these files bypassing users choice of browser...
Why stop there ? I say we get them to pull ALL the shared code out of Windows and force developers to do everything themselves, from GUI widgets to TCP/IP !
It is a part of the Windows OS. To be more accurate, the underlying technology is an important part of its UI. AFAIK, no Linux distro integrates any kind of browser in that manner, though with some of Mozilla's newer technologies, I don't find it all to improbable.
IE is no more 'integrated' than, say, khtml+Konquerer, or WebKit+Safari are.
Eh ? There is mountains of code reuse everywhere. Or do the platforms you use not have mountains of shared libraries ?
Heck, you'd have to be a masochist in this day and age to write even the most basic program _without_ reusing code.
OTOH in terms of projects growing and forking and branching off from one another and then rejoining its hard to make any claims that the GPLed code doesn't encourage that.
The GPL requires you to GPL your code, if you wish to link against GPLed code. Compared to - well, basically every other software license - that doesn't, this most certainly discourages linking against (and hence reusing) GPLed code.
To put it more bluntly, basically everything else - from Windows to FreeBSD - is more "code reuse" - friendly than anything under the GPL license, because it places fewer restrictions on doing so.
First of all, we are talking about email which isn't really all that important. At least when considering all the normal things that are.
In this context, email is not just important, it is critical. The idea that it would not be treated as such is laughable.
Second, you seriously don't know about tape media. Even the manufactures know there are problems and at best, if you store it perfectly and do everything right, they say ten years. I know it won't be perfectly handled, even the data vaults have issues. You keep thinking what you want, you will find problems eventually.
Tape vendors will guarantee their media - depending on usage and storage environment - from 30 to 100 years. 100 is certainly on the high side, but I would expect properly-stored, single-use archival media to easily hit the 20-30 year mark.
Finally, apart from having been responsible for enterprise-level backups systems, I've personally pulled data off tapes ~20 years old (that weren't even stored particularly carefully), multiple times. I think I've got a reasonably good handle on how reliable tape is as a medium.
I think that one of the main problems of windows and one of its main infection vector was (I heard they made progress) its tendency to open ports and services that less than 1% of users will use or are even aware of.
Very few users would be aware of what a 'port' or 'service' are in a technical sense. If you mean the _features_ that those services and open ports provide, I would consider the figure to be extremely questionable. The typical open service on a Windows machine is filesharing, and I'm fairly willing to bet more than 1% of people know you can share files between computers.
There has never been a single virus for linux that could gain root control from a user's action.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, or what you're trying to say. There have been no shortage of root-privilege escalation exploits on Linux, nor of them being combined with remote application exploits.
Regardless, the significance of 'root control' is a dramatically (and frequently) overstated anachronism. Most malicious code can do everything it might ever want to do with regular user privileges.
All the worms/virus that can hit linux boxes and spread are cross-platform (most of the time that means they target an application, like Apache, not an OS). We have yet to see a single virus epidemia that would target only linux boxes.
You're highly unlikely to ever see a "virus epidemic" on Linux until it's usage demographics are at least somewhat comparable to Windows. This has nothing to do with "security" and everything to do with "users".
Finally, none of this goes any further towards supporting your original assertion.
Oh, I know, it is a blog, not a reputed tech journalist, so you need a grain of salt
That is only the beginning of the problems:
* It's 2 years out of date.
* It's making some apples-to-oranges comparisons (eg: using XP Gold without similar era versions of Fedora/RH, etc)
* There are at least two outright lies in the table - neither of the Vista "vulnerabilities" are remotely exploitable, and for them to even be present the default configuration must be changed so the firewall is disabled. (Refer to the sourcematerial.)
All Linux default installs show zero vulns as well.
As do up to date versions of Windows XP and Vista (or would, if the goalposts weren't moved).
When some services are activated, they tend to show less vulnerabilities.
Even a cursory glance at the table shows they're running fewer services. Hardly evidence from which one can draw a reliable conclusion.
In short, it does little to support the assertion "it is simply true that flaws are more common and less efficiently patched in Microsoft products than in any other".
Rumors has it that was Steve Job's personal favorite. But it didn't sell well at all and was replaced by the Mac mini.The Mini did not 'replace' the Cube. They are completely different classes of machine.
Defend it any way you want, but the numbers speak for themselves... killing innocents is NEVER justified, and in any other country of the world, would be considered a war crime.
So you also consider the Palestinians war criminals ?
I find this moral stance quite odd - it would suggest that the deliberate destruction of the only surviving tissue sample of a deceased person should be treated as a murder.
He's trying to use a scientific-sounding way to say "soul".
Slashdot Mirror
The server has been working flawlessly at our school since September!
What are you using to replace Group Policy ?
No, I'm pointing out that a web server is a much more valuable target than an end user's PC.
It's a central hub with a "trusted" entry point into many more of those end user PCs. You can't follow that logic? As a virus writer, would you rather own a bank's server or Grandma's home PC?
As a virus writer, I'd rather own 10,000 home PCs than a bank server. Those are the metrics you need to be comparing, not a single server to a single desktop.
The Microsoft propaganda is that nobody writes viruses for linux because it is unpopular, not because it is inherently more secure than Windows XP.
The fact is that no-one writes viruses for Linux because it's simply not worth it. The proportion of Linux users who would be ignorant enough to even let a virus onto their systems - let along not notice it was running - is miniscule.
I'm pointing out that there are plenty of interesting reasons to try to compromise a linux machine. If linux OS itself was as inherently insecure as windows XP its predecessors , no amount of effort by a professional admin would be able to keep it safe.
If XP was as "inherently insecure" as you suggest, then securing it it would be impossible, rather than fairly trivial.
It's difficult to comprehend how you could misinterpret my post so badly.
I haven't misinterpreted your post at all. You're trying to insist that Windows XP is generally exploited because it cannot be secured, rather than because of its user demographic.
The single biggest vulnerability in any system is the user. The typical Linux user is - by far - more knowledgable and aware than the typical Windows user. This is reflected by the simple fact that the vast majority of Windows "exploits" required end-user action to occur.
A PC on which an end-user can run arbitrary software, cannot be secured against viruses.
It's a really neat feature; the technology has been in NTFS since Windows 2000, but the UI exposure is fairly new (don't know if it's in Vista or not).
It's been in the Disk Manager since at least Windows 2003, and I'm 99% sure it's possible in XP. Possibly even 2000, but I don't have an installed machine handy to check.
It's this kind of idiotic "logic" that is typical of people trying to assert that marketshare and user demographics are irrelevant:
Since so many web servers out there are linux, it stands to reason that virus writers would be more motivated to attack linux, owning a much more strategic point in the web than some end user's windows PC.
Are you seriously trying to suggest there are more Linux web servers out there than Windows clients ? Are you seriously trying to argue that a professionally administered Linux server is a safer target than an unmanaged Windows desktop ?
Google is a massively parallel network built on linux. You're claiming no virus writers would be interested in owning the google cloud?
The demographic of typical Windows end-users and Google system administrators are so laughably different, it's difficult to comprehend how any would try and equate them.
The biggest failure of Windows 7 is that Microsoft is still pursuing their inherently faulty security model based on the main user of the PC running as root.
Firstly, this is a configuration semantic, not a "security model".
Secondly, it's flat-out wrong. The default user in both Vista and Windows 7 does not have Administrator-level privileges.
First off, as a loyal Mozilla user since the days of Mosaic, I strongly disagree that IE was "better" in 1996. Penn State installed IE on all its machine, and I hated it.
1996 is, indeed, a bit early. IE3 and Navigator 3 were basically on par. It wasn't until IE4 in 1997 that a clear advantage appeared.
Netscape was not.
Yes, it was. Even if your computer didn't come with a copy of Navigator (in itself unlikely), any ISP subscription would include it with the setup CD.
I have never, in my life, met a "consumer" who paid for Navigator - even when it *was* the clearly better browser.
Microsoft is not successful because they were selling the best software, or even the second best software.
Who defines "best" (and how) ?
A good business strategy does not improve our society; in fact the effect of Microsoft's monopoly position was to stagnate technological growth, especially in the operating systems, web browser, and office markets (not coincidentally, the three markets where Microsoft was most successful).
Evidence ?
Beyond that, Microsoft also used its success in one market -- operating systems -- to create a dominant position in other markets, killing competing, higher quality products.
Evidence ?
drsmithy, do you ever stop making up crap to try to explain away anything unethical or illegal MS has ever done?
Do you ever stop beating yoru wife ?
What about 64-bit drivers, from my understanding Vista won't install them unless they have gone through Microsoft's certification process?
Your understanding is incorrect.
Konquerer is integrated into KDE which is a desktop environment. KDE is not integrated into the Linux kernal.
IE is in no way "integrated" into the Windows kernel. That you would even suggest such a thing indicates you don't know what you're talking about.
IE (according to Microsoft) is integrated into the core OS and is inseparable.
No, IE's shared components are reused extensively throughout Windows and taking them out would break all the things that depend on them. Just like khtml (or WebKit in OS X).
Code re-use is generally considered to be an example of good software engineering. Hence the dramatically richer lineup of shared libraries and components that are part of today's OS environments, compared with a decade or two ago.
Can you use the Windows OS with a different Desktop Environment?
Of course. But don't expect Microsoft to help you out with it in any way.
Now why did Microsoft integrate IE into Windows?
Because they thought an OS-vendor supplied shared component that provided the functionality of web browser was a good idea. Given that every other remotely mainstream platform has since gone on to implement the same thing, it's kind of hard to argue they were anything less than market leaders, in this area.
To block competition while avoiding true compliance with the order not to bundle IE with Windows. By integrating they made it impossible to unbundle it and substitute your own free choice.
No aspect of IE's inclusion into Windows stops you using the web browser of your choice. None. Nor does it stop developers using some third-party shared component(s) that provide similar functionality to IE.
So the circumstances are different.
Of course they are. But that's irrelevant to the technical aspects of IE's "integration" which, as I said, are no different to khtml in KDE, or WebKit in OS X.
2. Web browsers and operating systems are separate markets.
No, they're not. Never have been. A few foolhardy souls have tried to create a browser market, but web browsers of some description have *always* been freely available and/or included with various OSes.
*That* is why the whole dog-and-pony show is a farce. There is no meaningful separate market for web browsers, and never has been.
A web browser has been a standard component of any consumer-oriented OS, for over a decade and been included with some OSes for even longer than that. There is no more a meaningful 'market' for web browsers than there is widget libraries, TCP/IP stacks, or similarly standard components.
do you really think that without the litigation it would now be possible to install firefox on a windows computer?
Yes. Without even the vaguest shadow of a doubt, I can confidently say that, without litigation, you would still be able to install third-party software on Windows.
I can say this not only due to complete lack of any credible evidence or historical precendent to suggest otherwise, but mostly because I spent a couple of seconds thinking about the alternative.
Seriously, how fucking stupid and paranoid do you have to be, to think that Microsoft would stop you installing software on their OS, when the primary reason Windows is so popular is because of its massive software library ?
This time let's see a version of Windows that doesn't have MSHTML.DLL, SHDOCVW.DLL, or even WININET.DLL. Then perhaps developer finally will stop embedding IE or calling these files bypassing users choice of browser...
Why stop there ? I say we get them to pull ALL the shared code out of Windows and force developers to do everything themselves, from GUI widgets to TCP/IP !
Yes it was better then the competition, but because they cheated.
Why was it only better because they "cheated" ? What was this "cheating" ?
No Linux distro I know of nor OS X fundamentally needs it's BROWSER to do updates or anything like that. Fixed that.
Neither does Windows.
It is a part of the Windows OS. To be more accurate, the underlying technology is an important part of its UI. AFAIK, no Linux distro integrates any kind of browser in that manner, though with some of Mozilla's newer technologies, I don't find it all to improbable.
IE is no more 'integrated' than, say, khtml+Konquerer, or WebKit+Safari are.
There is very little code reuse anywhere.
Eh ? There is mountains of code reuse everywhere. Or do the platforms you use not have mountains of shared libraries ?
Heck, you'd have to be a masochist in this day and age to write even the most basic program _without_ reusing code.
OTOH in terms of projects growing and forking and branching off from one another and then rejoining its hard to make any claims that the GPLed code doesn't encourage that.
The GPL requires you to GPL your code, if you wish to link against GPLed code. Compared to - well, basically every other software license - that doesn't, this most certainly discourages linking against (and hence reusing) GPLed code.
To put it more bluntly, basically everything else - from Windows to FreeBSD - is more "code reuse" - friendly than anything under the GPL license, because it places fewer restrictions on doing so.
First of all, we are talking about email which isn't really all that important. At least when considering all the normal things that are.
In this context, email is not just important, it is critical. The idea that it would not be treated as such is laughable.
Second, you seriously don't know about tape media. Even the manufactures know there are problems and at best, if you store it perfectly and do everything right, they say ten years. I know it won't be perfectly handled, even the data vaults have issues. You keep thinking what you want, you will find problems eventually.
Tape vendors will guarantee their media - depending on usage and storage environment - from 30 to 100 years. 100 is certainly on the high side, but I would expect properly-stored, single-use archival media to easily hit the 20-30 year mark.
Finally, apart from having been responsible for enterprise-level backups systems, I've personally pulled data off tapes ~20 years old (that weren't even stored particularly carefully), multiple times. I think I've got a reasonably good handle on how reliable tape is as a medium.
I think that one of the main problems of windows and one of its main infection vector was (I heard they made progress) its tendency to open ports and services that less than 1% of users will use or are even aware of.
Very few users would be aware of what a 'port' or 'service' are in a technical sense. If you mean the _features_ that those services and open ports provide, I would consider the figure to be extremely questionable. The typical open service on a Windows machine is filesharing, and I'm fairly willing to bet more than 1% of people know you can share files between computers.
There has never been a single virus for linux that could gain root control from a user's action.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, or what you're trying to say. There have been no shortage of root-privilege escalation exploits on Linux, nor of them being combined with remote application exploits.
Regardless, the significance of 'root control' is a dramatically (and frequently) overstated anachronism. Most malicious code can do everything it might ever want to do with regular user privileges.
All the worms/virus that can hit linux boxes and spread are cross-platform (most of the time that means they target an application, like Apache, not an OS). We have yet to see a single virus epidemia that would target only linux boxes.
You're highly unlikely to ever see a "virus epidemic" on Linux until it's usage demographics are at least somewhat comparable to Windows. This has nothing to do with "security" and everything to do with "users".
Finally, none of this goes any further towards supporting your original assertion.
Oh, I know, it is a blog, not a reputed tech journalist, so you need a grain of salt
That is only the beginning of the problems:
* It's 2 years out of date.
* It's making some apples-to-oranges comparisons (eg: using XP Gold without similar era versions of Fedora/RH, etc)
* There are at least two outright lies in the table - neither of the Vista "vulnerabilities" are remotely exploitable, and for them to even be present the default configuration must be changed so the firewall is disabled. (Refer to the source material.)
All Linux default installs show zero vulns as well.
As do up to date versions of Windows XP and Vista (or would, if the goalposts weren't moved).
When some services are activated, they tend to show less vulnerabilities.
Even a cursory glance at the table shows they're running fewer services. Hardly evidence from which one can draw a reliable conclusion.
In short, it does little to support the assertion "it is simply true that flaws are more common and less efficiently patched in Microsoft products than in any other".
It is simply true that flaws are more common and less efficiently patched in Microsoft products than in any other.
Evidence ?
What it doesn't account for is the upload speed, which were very consistent throughout this silly test.
Probably because of this.
Rumors has it that was Steve Job's personal favorite. But it didn't sell well at all and was replaced by the Mac mini.The Mini did not 'replace' the Cube. They are completely different classes of machine.
Defend it any way you want, but the numbers speak for themselves ... killing innocents is NEVER justified, and in any other country of the world, would be considered a war crime.
So you also consider the Palestinians war criminals ?
I find this moral stance quite odd - it would suggest that the deliberate destruction of the only surviving tissue sample of a deceased person should be treated as a murder.
He's trying to use a scientific-sounding way to say "soul".