Me upset? No. Disappointed with your weak response that didn't offer any substantial argument, yes. I may only be 17 years old, but I have more of clue than you in the area of security, obviously. Reply to me only once you've gotten a clue.
What you are saying cannot be proven. Its purely theory.
You're clearly an idiot.
Calling someone an idiot -- the mark of a true a genius. Ha!
Nice job of trying to twist around what I say to try and fit it to your argument. Now I expect another personal attack of some sort and/or another attempt to try and prove something that can't be proven.
Higher use is completely logical. Windows has complete market dominance. See how many exploits Linux would have if it were in +95% of the market.
Ok, lets talk about Linux then. Linux (lets assume we're talking about the OS including userland tools) had many more exploits during its earlier days than Windows 95/NT had at that time. Linux was known to be insecure and was a hackers playground. If you were running Linux and had it connected to the internet, you were practically asking for your system to be compromised. Now things have flip-flopped. Windows seems to have more exploits, and everyone pretty much assumes Linux is safer than Windows (I'm the paranoid type who won't believe any software is secure so I don't want to take either side).
My point is, Linux was certainly not in high use at the time, yet it had more exploits. This was probably due to the immaturity of the software. It has much higher use these days (than it did before), yet less exploits.
Windows is the opposite. It has much higher use these days, yet more exploits.
The relationship between higher use and number of exploits may seem logical, but its a bit too vague of an idea to really claim that it is one of the reasons for the large number of exploits.
Generalizations are difficult to make when it comes to security. A lot of the claims we can make are only theory. It is definitely an interesting area to watch, and will be interesting to see what patterns emerge over the coming years.
Because when someone acts as though Windows is completely insecure, they 99% of the time pretend Linux is the all-secure "solution."
Linux wasn't mentioned in this thread until you brought it up.
Open source software doesn't automatically mean secure code. See? You illustrate my point above.
I didn't pretend that Linux or even open source software is the "all-secure 'solution'" I was making a point that "higher use" is about as good an argument as closed source vs open source.
This is great news. God knows we need another BSD, I don't think anyone is happy that currently we only have FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, TrustedBSD,
Forking can be a good thing. It allows for ideas that may not have had a chance otherwise. Look at what has happened with Linux. There are distros that give a wide variety of different user experiences, and many that fill a niche. Though, the existing BSD's are already pretty nice, it doesn't hurt to have another flavor.
You're right, all Linux software is 100% secure and has never had a hole.
Why is it that whenever someone criticizes Windows for insecurity, the only retort is a jab at Linux?
Though personally, if I wanted to make that kind of argument, I would've mentioned the remote root exploit in SSH in the default install of OpenBSD as a counterexample to this.
Also, the MUCH MUCH higher use of Windows has nothing to do with it.
Neither does the fact that the source code is closed.
Slashdot Mirror
Me upset? No. Disappointed with your weak response that didn't offer any substantial argument, yes. I may only be 17 years old, but I have more of clue than you in the area of security, obviously. Reply to me only once you've gotten a clue.
What you are saying cannot be proven. Its purely theory.
You're clearly an idiot.
Calling someone an idiot -- the mark of a true a genius. Ha!
Nice job of trying to twist around what I say to try and fit it to your argument. Now I expect another personal attack of some sort and/or another attempt to try and prove something that can't be proven.
Higher use is completely logical. Windows has complete market dominance. See how many exploits Linux would have if it were in +95% of the market.
Ok, lets talk about Linux then. Linux (lets assume we're talking about the OS including userland tools) had many more exploits during its earlier days than Windows 95/NT had at that time. Linux was known to be insecure and was a hackers playground. If you were running Linux and had it connected to the internet, you were practically asking for your system to be compromised. Now things have flip-flopped. Windows seems to have more exploits, and everyone pretty much assumes Linux is safer than Windows (I'm the paranoid type who won't believe any software is secure so I don't want to take either side).
My point is, Linux was certainly not in high use at the time, yet it had more exploits. This was probably due to the immaturity of the software. It has much higher use these days (than it did before), yet less exploits.
Windows is the opposite. It has much higher use these days, yet more exploits.
The relationship between higher use and number of exploits may seem logical, but its a bit too vague of an idea to really claim that it is one of the reasons for the large number of exploits.
Generalizations are difficult to make when it comes to security. A lot of the claims we can make are only theory. It is definitely an interesting area to watch, and will be interesting to see what patterns emerge over the coming years.
So why can I not use KaZaA to download the .torrent file and run it from there? Of Freenet?
.torrents.
Because these P2P networks will get flooded with fake
Because when someone acts as though Windows is completely insecure, they 99% of the time pretend Linux is the all-secure "solution."
Linux wasn't mentioned in this thread until you brought it up.
Open source software doesn't automatically mean secure code. See? You illustrate my point above.
I didn't pretend that Linux or even open source software is the "all-secure 'solution'" I was making a point that "higher use" is about as good an argument as closed source vs open source.
Unless you're really smart: put all the Windows users inside the DMZ.
Surely you can't be serious?
Maybe firewalling off your servers from your users is a good idea (if possible), but putting users running any OS inside the DMZ is a bad idea.
This is great news. God knows we need another BSD, I don't think anyone is happy that currently we only have FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, TrustedBSD,
Forking can be a good thing. It allows for ideas that may not have had a chance otherwise. Look at what has happened with Linux. There are distros that give a wide variety of different user experiences, and many that fill a niche. Though, the existing BSD's are already pretty nice, it doesn't hurt to have another flavor.
You're right, all Linux software is 100% secure and has never had a hole.
Why is it that whenever someone criticizes Windows for insecurity, the only retort is a jab at Linux?
Though personally, if I wanted to make that kind of argument, I would've mentioned the remote root exploit in SSH in the default install of OpenBSD as a counterexample to this.
Also, the MUCH MUCH higher use of Windows has nothing to do with it.
Neither does the fact that the source code is closed.