Bush Turns His Back To Mac
Posted on 06/13/2002 9:58:48 AM PDT by dead
Keep dreamin', llama.
Yes.
It's not the first time that KaZaA has secretly installed unwanted software. Late last year, the Australian-owned software company was embroiled in a scandal in the Net community. As part of the install process for KaZaA's eponymous file sharing software, an extra application called ClickTillUWin was surreptitiously forced on to the user's computer.Kazaa Lite is Kazaa without Cydoor or the Brilliant Digital junk (which actually acts more like a virus than anything else).
Audiogalaxy's supposedly clean right now. I run Adaware pretty regularly. BTW, if you use adaware don't delete the spoof DLL from Kazaalite...Kazaa looks for it when you log on.
-Eric
There is also no such thing as an entirely safe automobile. B ut I'd be safer in a Mercedes than in a Yugo. Accumulated data over numerous years have proved this point.
Likewise, some companies' operating systems have regularly been shown to have security problems. Other operating systems have managed to be proven secure in it's default configuration for over five years.
Any operating system or software is vulnerable to a stupid user. However, some operating systems and software packages have proven to be more vulnerable than others, even given the same stupid users. That's due to the design philosophies.
As long as Microsoft keeps treating security as a PR problem instead of a design problem, malware, viruses and debilitating bugs will continue to plague the users of their software.
My email client will download the email with the attachment. Nothing happens.
I click on the attachment. My email client will ask me what I want to open the attachment with, the default being a hex editor. Again, nothing happens.
I open up a console window and change to the attachment directory. I type the name of the attachment. The operating system responds "Permission denied".
In order to execute the attachment, I must deliberatly issue "chmod +x attachment" before it will execute. And even then, the worst it can do is damage, delete or change files in my home directory. No other user's files and no system files can be damaged.
These are fundamental differences between how unix-type operating systems and Windows-type operating systems are designed. The amount of damage that a Code Red or a Nimda outbreak can cause shows this.
And the blah, blah, installed users, blah, blah, popular platform, blah, blah standard excuse doesn't cut it. Apache still holds the largest market share of web servers, yet IIS has had many more damaging attacks.
Like MSDOS, Amiga, MVS and C/PM, Windows-based operating systems are out of date. Those people that continue to use outdated, buggy, and unsecure legacy software will continue to have problems.
Until then, it's just theory....although Linux looks like it will end up being more secure. But, in the end - as it becomes a more flexible platform - the margin of security will probably not be that much more.
Apache vs. ISS, Sendmail vs. Exchange, NFS vs. SMB (CIFS)
All of the OSS packages listed above have a marketshare/installed base greater than the Microsoft package that it competes with, yet the statistics show that the Microsoft packages have a great deal more of the serious security problems.
As Linux migrates to the desktop, this will become much more obvious. Applying standard trend analysis techniques to the available data should convince all but the most entrenched Microsoft advocate.
Just goes to show you all those CFR conspiracy types were right. And there is not a dimes worth of difference between Bush and Gore after all.
True, but since many Mac users are utter morons, that capability will probably not help them.
It's comments like that that make think Bill Gate's little WinBorgs are all pompous PC bigots.
There you go again, FriendOfBill.
Of course, since most computer users of any kind are indeed utter morons when it comes to computers, I can't dispute the point.
And Exchange Server isn't a problem....it's the clients that are the problem.
And there is no reason to believe Linux will remain as secure as it is. To take market share, it's going to have to support automation or else it's not going to take the desktop share it should.
Seems that we all live in the same dream world, because Exchange Server is a wreck. Exhange Server has no vulnerabilities? Please go here and educate yourself.
And yes, Apache can be cracked. The arguement was whether IIS is less secure than Apache. And the answer is well documented. Running ISS is dangerous.
There is a lot of evidence that Linux and other OSS operating systes will become more secure over time rather than less. OSS programers treat security problems as bugs and fix them. Microsoft treats security problems as PR problems and tries to hide them.
I don't recall saying that. If you're going to make stuff up, don't reply to me.
I don't recall saying that. If you're going to make stuff up, don't reply to me.
And Exchange Server isn't a problem....it's the clients that are the problem.
56 posted on 6/18/02 12:04 PM Eastern by Psycho_Bunny
You may not have used the exact words, but you implied that Exchange wasn't a security problem.
In any event I tire of the dispute. It's sooooo old. And you're preaching to the coders choir. I simply don't live in the rose-pedal strewn world that thinks Linux is going to do everything but solve the problems in the middle-east and cook breakfast. I know better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.