| Author |
Message |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 748
Location: ct
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ClickFanatic wrote: | No matter how much you disagree with linuxdoctor, he does mention something which every computer user should realise: the 'closed source' applications that you allow to run on your system have a very large freedom to do what they like. Many applications aren't very verbose about what they do (and even if they are, they could be mis-informing you), so you have to rely on trust in the developer.
The question is, how can you trust the developer? There might be multiple possible answers to this question, but one of them is definitely 'open source'. |
If an application you buy is suppose to do your taxes and instead it steals all your information, you can file multiple lawsuits against the people involved in selling/distributing/writing this software.
If software does something it isn't suppose to do, it is the company releasing the software to fix it and reimburse the people who don't.
That question of "how can you trust the developer?" can go for anything you have done for you. How can you trust a chef? He could poison your food. How can you trust someone to work on your car? He could cut your brakes. Unless you do everything for yourself you are forced to put trust into another person. Whether they write code or movie scripts you put some trust into both people.
| linuxdoctor wrote: | I was not wrong. I expanded the definition.
|
And who said you have the freedom to define words? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
The Grinch
Lifeless Person
Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 6385
Location: Chuck Norris's nightmares.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can always trust that paid software will actually "Work". 
By the way linuxdoctor. You're doing it way wrong.
The way to promote a product isnt to ignorantly bash another product, especially when you're talkin to people who actually use those products, and know that you're ****, because they work fine, and never once give the actual users the problems you speak of. (I can say that because i never get them and been using them for years  As with many others )
So if you want people to actually pay attention to linux, and this open source, then you have to make it seem worth it. By explaining why you think its great, without the lies and other random propaganda. Really turns people off.
It's really sad that you can't promote linux, etc without the **** talking. Sad sad sad.
If the linux core fanboys are like you, then that probably explains why it hasnt taken off yet, and most likely never will. Which in itself is sad because if it really is as amazing as you claim, hardly anyone will ever know, and it'll never get the attention it deserves. Sad sad sad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Jacky
3.14159265358979323846264
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 4175
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Grinch wrote: | I can always trust that paid software will actually "Work".
By the way linuxdoctor. You're doing it way wrong.
The way to promote a product isnt to ignorantly bash another product, especially when you're talkin to people who actually use those products, and know that you're ****, because they work fine, and never once give the actual users the problems you speak of. (I can say that because i never get them and been using them for years As with many others )
So if you want people to actually pay attention to linux, and this open source, then you have to make it seem worth it. By explaining why you think its great, without the lies and other random propaganda. Really turns people off.
It's really sad that you can't promote linux, etc without the **** talking. Sad sad sad.
If the linux core fanboys are like you, then that probably explains why it hasnt taken off yet, and most likely never will. Which in itself is sad because if it really is as amazing as you claim, hardly anyone will ever know, and it'll never get the attention it deserves. Sad sad sad. |
You somehow brought out what I wanted to say.
Is that how a Linux user should behave, linuxdoctor? You are like so cocky and think Linux rule the world and Microsoft should just... go to hell or something...
If you want to get people to use your Linux, do it decently, not bashing Microsoft and making yourself look like a hero by not using Microsoft products, then calling them evil and stuff.
What's more I just hate people coming up with quotes and stuff. Going to the extend of using quotes to get people to use an OS? That's quite nerdy if you ask me.
Yes if all the Linux fanboys are gonna be like you linuxdoctor, Linux can never take off. You most probably would be better off than Mac fanatics, at least you can explain all the geeky stuff, while Mac fanatics can only say "Mac rocks PC sucks".
The original topic was talking about Vista, and you had to pull a Linux war in here.
_________________
| ClickFanatic wrote: | Your nonsense make my forum visits rather brief, Jacky. It's like:
"Hey look, a reply notification!"
*click* *click*
*reading garbage*
"Oh it was Jacky again..."
*close* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 748
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like to say I run linux on all my main systems. I have one desktop that is really bad running windows for a single game which I am to lazy to install in wine.
I'm just saying this to point out not all linux users and fanboys are like linuxdoctor but when you get to those annoying ones I have to say linux then windows then mac seem to be worst to best. But in quantity that seems reversed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Enough is enough, get back on topic!
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: | | Windows may not be very secure but propriety software doesn't want hobbyists writing patches that they will be supporting for their software. Windows is just exploited because of it's market share. This doesn't mean linux/unix systems are going to have more bugs. It means they won't be exploited as much. |
Wrong. If you find a linux exploit you can make a lot of money out of it. A lot of companies use linux servers with data on them that other companies would just love to get their hands on. But then again, the main issue is that a lot of the people that you call hobbyists also happen to have quite some experience with programming. In specific you'll usually find people specialised in either OS development or electronics working on this type of projects. And those really know what they're doing. They didn't have a bunch of pre-made microsoft libraries to do their work. They had to start from scratch in a lot of cases.
| Quote: | | I haven't run vista ever but really I can run an OEM install of windows XP for 2 years without having a single problem. Sure, it will be slightly slower but 90% of virus's are going to on your system because your an idiot. |
See my W32.Blaster example, without an antivirus an unpatched windows xp that isn't behind a router has it within an hour in a lot of cases.
On top of that is microsoft's lack of courage. After a set amount of builds the linux kernel breaks binary compatibility. That way applications have to be updated every now and then. This also allows far more efficient methods to be put in place without having to worry about backwards compatibility. Leading to an overall far more efficient system.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 748
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | mcwkm wrote: | | Windows may not be very secure but propriety software doesn't want hobbyists writing patches that they will be supporting for their software. Windows is just exploited because of it's market share. This doesn't mean linux/unix systems are going to have more bugs. It means they won't be exploited as much. |
Wrong. If you find a linux exploit you can make a lot of money out of it. A lot of companies use linux servers with data on them that other companies would just love to get their hands on. But then again, the main issue is that a lot of the people that you call hobbyists also happen to have quite some experience with programming. In specific you'll usually find people specialised in either OS development or electronics working on this type of projects. And those really know what they're doing. They didn't have a bunch of pre-made microsoft libraries to do their work. They had to start from scratch in a lot of cases.
|
You do realize even attempting to hack into someones computer is illegal and as a individual, you probably don't have the resources to prosecute. A company does have the legal department and resources to prosecute anyone who successfully gets into their server as long as they are able to find out who it is. The money that you can make from said linux exploit would quickly leave your hands and you would find yourself caged into a room without a computer to use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: | | You do realize even attempting to hack into someones computer is illegal and as a individual, you probably don't have the resources to prosecute. A company does have the legal department and resources to prosecute anyone who successfully gets into their server as long as they are able to find out who it is. The money that you can make from said linux exploit would quickly leave your hands and you would find yourself caged into a room without a computer to use. |
You do realise that there are people living from selling exploits they find?
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 748
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | mcwkm wrote: | | You do realize even attempting to hack into someones computer is illegal and as a individual, you probably don't have the resources to prosecute. A company does have the legal department and resources to prosecute anyone who successfully gets into their server as long as they are able to find out who it is. The money that you can make from said linux exploit would quickly leave your hands and you would find yourself caged into a room without a computer to use. |
You do realise that there are people living from selling exploits they find? |
Yes but selling information about the exploits they find to improve security is different |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8144
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: | | Yes but selling information about the exploits they find to improve security is different |
Do you really think they always report it? More than you think sell it to either script kiddies or underground organisations.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme $niper
Lifeless Person
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 1870
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm taking a security course and one of our random discussions during class ended up being about how most Windows users are set up as Administrators by default and how Vista's UAC tried to eliminate some of that vulnerability but is easily defeated simply by disabling it (most users end up doing that because of how annoying it is).
I'm currently an OS X user, so I was wondering why Microsoft can't simply adopt the Apple method of security? All users, even administrators, are prompted for their admin password when doing something like installing a program, or when a program is attempting to access sensitive parts of the drive.
It's simple, it's effective. If I don't expect the popup, it means that something is trying to access my system that shouldn't be. That way, I don't get bugged every time I click on something.
_________________
Come visit Shattered Abstracts! (Photoblog!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1530
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme $niper wrote: |
I'm currently an OS X user, so I was wondering why Microsoft can't simply adopt the Apple method of security? |
OS X is a variant of Unix so security on OS X is Unix security.
The reason why Microsoft doesn't change it's security model is because of something called 'legacy.' It's the way things have always been done for Microsoft and that's the way it will be. It really has more to do with human psychology than anything else.
It's hard to say why it is that way but Microsoft isn't the only organisation that does that. Back in the 1970's, when Unix came into existence, there were a great many things that Unix inherited that at the beginning they were required to keep from older systems. Back in those days you would see Unix documentation about something that didn't seem to make much sense in the Unix context but was done anyway. This stuff was always prefaced with the phrase, "for historical reasons" and it became a code-word for out-of-date ideas and concepts that are a hang-over from other eras and concepts that simply can't be shaken.
Microsoft is saddled with the same sort of things. All Microsoft systems owe their origins to an operating system (to be kind) for the Intel 8080 and imitators like Zilog Z80 called CP/M. It's file system, it's way of organising memory and the way programmes are run is still basically the same as that old 8080 system. It is shoe-horned into very powerful processors now but it is still the same primitive software from which it came.
Unix was designed as a powerful system. It owes it's origins to Bell Labs research scientists and is a very sophisticated system. It has grown and improved since that first Unix on the PDP-8 back in 1969 because it was designed for growth in mind. The fact that Unix has so many clones and imitators is a testimony to its power, strength and resilience. Apple's OS X has the same Unix legacy and one of the many reasons it is such a nice system. Apple built on Unix's strengths. Microsoft's OS's were not but was forced to grow and adapt anyway. CP/M was hobby system, meaning it was very primitive, and designed for a very limited scope. It is for that "historical reason" WIndows is such a poor system.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.
Big business is a disease we will need to cure before we will ever achieve real prosperity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme $niper
Lifeless Person
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 1870
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, that's interesting to know, though I did know about the OS X being a variant of Unix part already. The release of Leopard finally had OS X become a fully certified UNIX system.
But still, within all of this, I think it has to be more than just stubbornness on Microsoft's part. There must be a way for them to take a different approach to security without re-writing Windows from scratch (like they should be doing anyway). If it really is just Microsoft refusing to revamp their methods, then that's pretty lame.
_________________
Come visit Shattered Abstracts! (Photoblog!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4685
Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme $niper wrote: | | But still, within all of this, I think it has to be more than just stubbornness on Microsoft's part. There must be a way for them to take a different approach to security without re-writing Windows from scratch (like they should be doing anyway). If it really is just Microsoft refusing to revamp their methods, then that's pretty lame. |
Well, part of Windows' succes is due to the massive availability of software. People who upgrade to a new version of Windows kind of expect their favourite tools that were made for a previous release to work with the new one.
This puts Microsoft under pressure. On one side they can't risk upsetting their customers, but on the other they have to keep up with things like security and new (low-level) technology.
_________________
If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Jacky
3.14159265358979323846264
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 4175
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ClickFanatic wrote: | | Xtreme $niper wrote: | | But still, within all of this, I think it has to be more than just stubbornness on Microsoft's part. There must be a way for them to take a different approach to security without re-writing Windows from scratch (like they should be doing anyway). If it really is just Microsoft refusing to revamp their methods, then that's pretty lame. |
Well, part of Windows' succes is due to the massive availability of software. People who upgrade to a new version of Windows kind of expect their favourite tools that were made for a previous release to work with the new one.
This puts Microsoft under pressure. On one side they can't risk upsetting their customers, but on the other they have to keep up with things like security and new (low-level) technology. |
I was going to say that too.
I have my bad times with Microsoft products too. Just yesterday I spent like hours fixing my DRM, on a newly-installed XP machine.
Windows is in use everywhere worldwide. They can't just roll out everything at once, there's the risk that all Windows PC worldwide starts malfunctioning if they screw up and people have to start coming up with 3rd-party patches and stuff.
They did it with Vista, they made several new changes at once, see what happened in the end.
_________________
| ClickFanatic wrote: | Your nonsense make my forum visits rather brief, Jacky. It's like:
"Hey look, a reply notification!"
*click* *click*
*reading garbage*
"Oh it was Jacky again..."
*close* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledgebase 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
