As far as I know I'm not thinking or even saying that. I admit I've made an unconscious effort in blurring my point here, though, thanks in part to the fact that I'm a bit too easy to flame up (sorry, I'll try to restrain myself better in the future).
So, first of all, for clarity, is the subject here now intrinsic insecurity of Windows, or that an out-of-date OS with (broadband) Internet access in the hands of a newbie is a security threat? Because yeah, the latter strikes me as kind of an obvious statement. My point, as a response to the top of the thread, is that the former has been greatly exaggerated.
To be honest, I would actually consider a preconfigured Linux box a more ideal newbie setup than Windows XP. Partly because it's more difficult to mess up irreversibly without continuous root access, and partly because there's no vendor telling the OEM what they can or cannot do to secure the box. But I still make use of Windows as a development and gaming platform, and know how to handle it in a network environment.
I possibly shouldn't even touch this. But I'll spell slowly for you because I'm in a good mood and this is my first thread here.
No OS I know of is secure by itself. Heck, not even half-safe.
Yeah, I know, we're on Slashdot, so it's taken for granted that some are. But let's pretend not. My point, let it be told up front, is that they require proper use.
Let a Linux newbie install Lindows (or whatever it is this week). Observe how only the root account is created. Put this person in IRC. This is asking for trouble.
Let a complete newbie install Windows. Observe how only an Administrator account is created. Start IE. This is also asking for trouble.
It's also why I install Firefox and Thunderbird on my friends' computers and advocate using limited accounts. (And OS switching - whenever it's realistically applicable. My sister is quite happy with SUSE.)
I haven't managed to get any OS on my own boxes "dead as fuck" like you mean for several years now (except for a graphing calculator but that required some exceptional measures). If that makes me a moron, I really couldn't care less about your kind of intelligence.
I guess you could say the same about any Unix workstation, as they're also sufficiently in the hardware and software marginal to be outside the most tempting intrusive ad market. Cookie-led data mining and Javascript programs work just as well as on the PC, of course.
Don't get me wrong: I'd just as well get rid of the x86 platform, but not for the same reason as most of the Mac converts seem to want it (to get rid of Windows, that is). Currently I prefer Linux, and I get a better bang for my buck processing power-wise from AMD than from IBM. I've also had enough experience of my mother's numerous Mac problems over 10+ years to know they're far from being completely trouble-free devices. YMMV, naturally.
Well, don't use an insecure browser. Don't install every "FREE!!!" app you come across. Be picky about web sites and especially picky about plug-ins. All simple principles, which I apply in both free and non-free operating systems, but apparently more difficult to come across than I'd thought.
So far, I haven't had any detectable spyware infestations on either the XP Home on my laptop, or the XP x64 on my other desktop box (a boot option for games; the other box runs Linux 24/7). Of course, I know the possibility that Ad-aware is missing a lot of miscreants, but I'd expect at least one or two of them to be caught if they really are there.
Excuse me, Sir. I believe you missed the implication that the sentence, and it's content, was meant to be hypothetical - as was emphasized by use of words such as "couldn't".
Not that I'd ever expect such a high level of education as is required to make such deductions from Sir, but always glad to help.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know I'm not thinking or even saying that. I admit I've made an unconscious effort in blurring my point here, though, thanks in part to the fact that I'm a bit too easy to flame up (sorry, I'll try to restrain myself better in the future).
So, first of all, for clarity, is the subject here now intrinsic insecurity of Windows, or that an out-of-date OS with (broadband) Internet access in the hands of a newbie is a security threat? Because yeah, the latter strikes me as kind of an obvious statement. My point, as a response to the top of the thread, is that the former has been greatly exaggerated.
To be honest, I would actually consider a preconfigured Linux box a more ideal newbie setup than Windows XP. Partly because it's more difficult to mess up irreversibly without continuous root access, and partly because there's no vendor telling the OEM what they can or cannot do to secure the box. But I still make use of Windows as a development and gaming platform, and know how to handle it in a network environment.
I possibly shouldn't even touch this. But I'll spell slowly for you because I'm in a good mood and this is my first thread here.
No OS I know of is secure by itself. Heck, not even half-safe.
Yeah, I know, we're on Slashdot, so it's taken for granted that some are. But let's pretend not. My point, let it be told up front, is that they require proper use.
Let a Linux newbie install Lindows (or whatever it is this week). Observe how only the root account is created. Put this person in IRC. This is asking for trouble.
Let a complete newbie install Windows. Observe how only an Administrator account is created. Start IE. This is also asking for trouble.
It's also why I install Firefox and Thunderbird on my friends' computers and advocate using limited accounts. (And OS switching - whenever it's realistically applicable. My sister is quite happy with SUSE.)
I haven't managed to get any OS on my own boxes "dead as fuck" like you mean for several years now (except for a graphing calculator but that required some exceptional measures). If that makes me a moron, I really couldn't care less about your kind of intelligence.
I guess you could say the same about any Unix workstation, as they're also sufficiently in the hardware and software marginal to be outside the most tempting intrusive ad market. Cookie-led data mining and Javascript programs work just as well as on the PC, of course.
Don't get me wrong: I'd just as well get rid of the x86 platform, but not for the same reason as most of the Mac converts seem to want it (to get rid of Windows, that is). Currently I prefer Linux, and I get a better bang for my buck processing power-wise from AMD than from IBM. I've also had enough experience of my mother's numerous Mac problems over 10+ years to know they're far from being completely trouble-free devices. YMMV, naturally.
Well, don't use an insecure browser. Don't install every "FREE!!!" app you come across. Be picky about web sites and especially picky about plug-ins. All simple principles, which I apply in both free and non-free operating systems, but apparently more difficult to come across than I'd thought.
So far, I haven't had any detectable spyware infestations on either the XP Home on my laptop, or the XP x64 on my other desktop box (a boot option for games; the other box runs Linux 24/7). Of course, I know the possibility that Ad-aware is missing a lot of miscreants, but I'd expect at least one or two of them to be caught if they really are there.
Excuse me, Sir. I believe you missed the implication that the sentence, and it's content, was meant to be hypothetical - as was emphasized by use of words such as "couldn't". Not that I'd ever expect such a high level of education as is required to make such deductions from Sir, but always glad to help.