Once you accept "close to 0 vulnerabilities then that is a good indicator that the OS is secure", you automatically accept number vulnerabilities as a good way to assess and compare the security of two OS's. Unless you want to defy logic.
the number of vulnerabilities detected in an OS alone is not a good measure of security
I disagree. Look at OpenBSD. One of their best "selling points" (and one which they rightfully are proud of) are only two discovered remote vulnerabilities in 10 years in the default configuration. It is one of the best ways to assess quality of code and the design, with regard to security.
It is also a mistake to assume that closed source application prevent hackers from looking for vulnerabilities. The key here is motivation. Windows is such a big target (unlike the open source players) that hundreds of hackers and security researchers trying to get their two minutes of fame decompile it every day.
I see you're looking at it from the cost vs. improvements point of view. If your XP boxes are never connected to the internet, you are secure against most malware (except for local DoS attacks, which may or may not be a worry). If your XP boxes are connected to the internet, I believe it is wise to upgrade to a more secure OS (after you make sure that all programs you use are fully compatible with it, of course). Windows XP doesn't really inspire confidence in me security-wise. It was written before 2001 when internet malware was still in embryonic state. The security-aware rewrite from scratch was long-needed. As regards after-release number of vulnerabilities, Vista appears to be even more secure than Linux and OS X. So, for me, security is the number one reason to upgrade. If I encounter serious incompatibilities, I will stay with XP until they are all resolved or until I find alternatives.
I do wonder however why you feel the need to press the issue so forcefully.
Because I consider myself FUD buster. FUD spread by conservative zealots. I'm using XP now and believe me that if I didn't see real security improvements in Vista backed up by verifiable figures, I wouldn't ever consider upgrading to it.
You are in the same camp of people who claim that Window 2000 is the best OS ever and that it's not worth it to upgrade to XP. History now repeates, but this time it's XP vs. Vista. Believe me, people like you are ridiculous and need help. I've tried to help them, but it never seems to work. They don't listen.
You basically asked me to explain how and why Vista is more secure than XP. I did so, and you essentially agreed that it is more secure. Then you said that increased security isn't enough. So I really have to wonder why you made me talk about the security aspects in the first place...
I just wonder why I wasted my time explaining why and how Vista is more secure than XP... You agreed but said you don't care. Why were talking about security of Vista vs. XP then? Why? Answer.
Of course. It's "just" security... who cares about security, right? Jeez, I really wouldn't want to do business with you. You're a typical biased Slashtard.
I wouldn't be surprised if Japan is doing this kind of as a big 'FU' to the States.
Then, as an EU resident, I'd like to ask why the "'FU' to the States" affects applies to us here in the EU too.
Hell, we're used to seeing fingerprints being taken from suspects in the movies. Now, in reality, any tourist that brings money to their economy is suspect? Disgusting.
Look, Vista is provably more secure than XP. I say again, provably. Both as regards features and as regards number of vulnerabilities discovered in respective after-release periods and even now (which is unfair comparison by the way, yet Vista still wins). If you downplay these clear facts, I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe you don't need a more secure OS. That's just fine with me. But I wouldn't need you if I were a CEO...
You are missing the point. You pointed to a list of software that didn't work on Vista BETA. NOD32 2.7 was released conveniently before Vista stable was released. Presenting that list as a proof that many programs don't work on Vista is lies, damned lies, sir.
Slashdot Mirror
Most games get an inferior mark on gamespot that in most other sites, which I find nice.
The real question though is whether those games were from companies that didn't pay the magazine (for ads or whatever)...
*Sigh* Whatever...
Once you accept "close to 0 vulnerabilities then that is a good indicator that the OS is secure", you automatically accept number vulnerabilities as a good way to assess and compare the security of two OS's. Unless you want to defy logic.
if like BSD you can claim close to 0 vulnerabilities then that is a good indicator that the OS is secure,
:-)
By saying that you agree with me that the number of discovered vulnerabilities does matter and that it is a good indicator of security.
the number of vulnerabilities detected in an OS alone is not a good measure of security
I disagree. Look at OpenBSD. One of their best "selling points" (and one which they rightfully are proud of) are only two discovered remote vulnerabilities in 10 years in the default configuration. It is one of the best ways to assess quality of code and the design, with regard to security.
It is also a mistake to assume that closed source application prevent hackers from looking for vulnerabilities. The key here is motivation. Windows is such a big target (unlike the open source players) that hundreds of hackers and security researchers trying to get their two minutes of fame decompile it every day.
I see you're looking at it from the cost vs. improvements point of view. If your XP boxes are never connected to the internet, you are secure against most malware (except for local DoS attacks, which may or may not be a worry). If your XP boxes are connected to the internet, I believe it is wise to upgrade to a more secure OS (after you make sure that all programs you use are fully compatible with it, of course). Windows XP doesn't really inspire confidence in me security-wise. It was written before 2001 when internet malware was still in embryonic state. The security-aware rewrite from scratch was long-needed. As regards after-release number of vulnerabilities, Vista appears to be even more secure than Linux and OS X. So, for me, security is the number one reason to upgrade. If I encounter serious incompatibilities, I will stay with XP until they are all resolved or until I find alternatives.
I do wonder however why you feel the need to press the issue so forcefully.
Because I consider myself FUD buster. FUD spread by conservative zealots. I'm using XP now and believe me that if I didn't see real security improvements in Vista backed up by verifiable figures, I wouldn't ever consider upgrading to it.
You are in the same camp of people who claim that Window 2000 is the best OS ever and that it's not worth it to upgrade to XP. History now repeates, but this time it's XP vs. Vista. Believe me, people like you are ridiculous and need help. I've tried to help them, but it never seems to work. They don't listen.
Why are you so defensive? Is the fact that Vista is more secure than XP too painful somehow?
That wasn't meant to be a joke (but I suspect the moderator knows that).
Researchers Sour on Vista SP1 RC1 Performance
You in Australia don't use top sites like Yahoo, Microsoft and the likes? I think you do.
Yes, the Linux random number generator was vulnerable in the past too. See e.g. http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/086.pdf
"The company said that Vista, Windows Server 2003 SP2, and the new Windows Server 2008 are not vulnerable."
And yet another proof that Vista is rewritten from scratch with the security in mind: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/22/040221
Linux, Firefox, and other big open source names are all registered trademarks. They protect the brand. Software is not the same as brand.
Net Applications measure traffic on the Fortune 500 companies websites. They are as representative as it gets.
You basically asked me to explain how and why Vista is more secure than XP. I did so, and you essentially agreed that it is more secure. Then you said that increased security isn't enough. So I really have to wonder why you made me talk about the security aspects in the first place...
Still nothing but speculation.
I just wonder why I wasted my time explaining why and how Vista is more secure than XP... You agreed but said you don't care. Why were talking about security of Vista vs. XP then? Why? Answer.
Of course. It's "just" security... who cares about security, right? Jeez, I really wouldn't want to do business with you. You're a typical biased Slashtard.
last I checked (about a year ago), was still the most wildly used Windows.
Windows "most wildly used" OS a year ago? Windows 2000 had about 5.5% a year ago. Now it has only 3%. Source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5
It has been a negligible obsolete system for many years.
replacing hundreds, or even thousends of PCs because they need to be upgraded
The only thing you need to do is ADD more memory. You don't need to replace anything (let alone PCs).
I wouldn't be surprised if Japan is doing this kind of as a big 'FU' to the States.
Then, as an EU resident, I'd like to ask why the "'FU' to the States" affects applies to us here in the EU too.
Hell, we're used to seeing fingerprints being taken from suspects in the movies. Now, in reality, any tourist that brings money to their economy is suspect? Disgusting.
Look, Vista is provably more secure than XP. I say again, provably. Both as regards features and as regards number of vulnerabilities discovered in respective after-release periods and even now (which is unfair comparison by the way, yet Vista still wins). If you downplay these clear facts, I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe you don't need a more secure OS. That's just fine with me. But I wouldn't need you if I were a CEO...
You are missing the point. You pointed to a list of software that didn't work on Vista BETA. NOD32 2.7 was released conveniently before Vista stable was released. Presenting that list as a proof that many programs don't work on Vista is lies, damned lies, sir.