Well, I asked for an example of an drive-by infection on Linux or OS X. I am still waiting.
The original post claimed that it isn't easier to infect Windows, i claimed the contrary. The fact is that we see drive-by infections on windows all the time.
If other OS's was equally insecure, we would see attacks directed to them as well. Vulnerabilities are there, but we don't see drive-by infections.
So if you can give an example of a drive-by infection on Linux or OS X, I would concede. If you can't give such an example, you should concede that you are wrong.
Actually, number 2 is not trolling. Windows is the only OS that support driveby.infections without interaction with the user. So it is easier to infect.
Yes, something is seriously wrong with this comparison. You compare a clean and unused operatingsystem with a fullfledged Linuxdistribution with a lot of applications.
Of course the Linuxdistribution will have more bugs, but you dont have to install all the software that comes with it. On the other hand, to be able to use the Windows server to something useful, you have to install more Microsoft and/or thirdparty software. It isnt even a webserver without installing more software in Secunias statistics. IIS has its own category.
Dont compare apples and pears, you will only fool yourself.
Obviously this has gone undetected so long because of the lack of understanding of the issue in general and the users lack of access to the code in special.
How many of these issues are still hidden?
I do use that as well. In order to be a good deliverer of IT, I use what our clients use so that I have the same problems as they do. I would like to put them all on Linux, but there is a lot of resistance.
Usually, I leave the computer on, but sometimes I need to reboot, because the machine get slow, memory is used up and it start to swap. I avoid doing it because it take the machine 5 minutes to go down and 2 minutes to start. Compare that to 20 seconds to go down and 20 seconds to boot for my portable with Ubuntu.
There is the explanation for the shutdown benchmark.
I know, a lot of people believe that when there is more users, there are more incentive to exploit and that is the only difference between Windows and Linux. It's just that it doesn't work that way.
They are implemented in a different way, and since my confidence in the security of Microsoft isn't that great, I don't believe you are right.
Slashdot Mirror
They have issued a warrant for his arrest.
I have a 100/100 unlimited and have no idea of the amount of traffic. I don't need to.
Well, I asked for an example of an drive-by infection on Linux or OS X. I am still waiting.
The original post claimed that it isn't easier to infect Windows, i claimed the contrary. The fact is that we see drive-by infections on windows all the time.
If other OS's was equally insecure, we would see attacks directed to them as well. Vulnerabilities are there, but we don't see drive-by infections. So if you can give an example of a drive-by infection on Linux or OS X, I would concede. If you can't give such an example, you should concede that you are wrong.
I said driveby infection, not vulnerabilities
Then maybe you could give me an example of a driveby infection on Linux or OsX.
Actually, number 2 is not trolling. Windows is the only OS that support driveby.infections without interaction with the user. So it is easier to infect.
Yes, something is seriously wrong with this comparison. You compare a clean and unused operatingsystem with a fullfledged Linuxdistribution with a lot of applications.
Of course the Linuxdistribution will have more bugs, but you dont have to install all the software that comes with it. On the other hand, to be able to use the Windows server to something useful, you have to install more Microsoft and/or thirdparty software. It isnt even a webserver without installing more software in Secunias statistics. IIS has its own category.
Dont compare apples and pears, you will only fool yourself.
I don't hate Microsoft, I hate their business model and the results of it.
No silverlight
Of course they are able to become an interoperability leader but that would ruin their business idea.
I never press the winky of anyone!
I have wasted a lot of time on Vista as well.
is it? Maybe legally, but not morally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillgrund_Wind_Farm
Microsoft park on the evil side as usual.
The swedish parliament does it. http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3912
Microsoft has a way of always create new taint!
Obviously this has gone undetected so long because of the lack of understanding of the issue in general and the users lack of access to the code in special. How many of these issues are still hidden?
I have 100 Mbit , two ways, and I'm not alone. Speed in browser is a factor. Remember, "640 Kb ought to be enough for everyone"?
I do use that as well. In order to be a good deliverer of IT, I use what our clients use so that I have the same problems as they do. I would like to put them all on Linux, but there is a lot of resistance.
Usually, I leave the computer on, but sometimes I need to reboot, because the machine get slow, memory is used up and it start to swap. I avoid doing it because it take the machine 5 minutes to go down and 2 minutes to start. Compare that to 20 seconds to go down and 20 seconds to boot for my portable with Ubuntu.
There is the explanation for the shutdown benchmark.
I know, a lot of people believe that when there is more users, there are more incentive to exploit and that is the only difference between Windows and Linux. It's just that it doesn't work that way. They are implemented in a different way, and since my confidence in the security of Microsoft isn't that great, I don't believe you are right.
There are still people that think ActiveX is a gift to humanity.
I am already updated. Thanks to Debian.
Flamebait? You must be jealous ;)