While there is some fact in the numbers issue UNIX in general is more secure than 'doz. The number of security patches is laughable, I read the article and it has one HUGE flaw. Mac OS X and Linux patches counted all the applications also as part of the 'system' now given that the list of apps that come on windows is fairly small and *nix systems have a large list it is not suprising. Further both systems come with compilers and a number of graphical apps installed (SUSE Linux comes with THREE browsers) Also check the severity of the security defect that was patched No system is perfect but I find it laughable that 'doz users always claim how everyone is just is bad to divert attention from the deficiency of Windows security.BDA116 said:Yeah it's more secure because not as many hackers care to mess with it. Same with Linux.
You all do know that Red Hat Linux had more than four times the number of security patches that Windows had last year, right? OSX had nearly as many.
Windows can be made just as secure as any other system, but because it is THE operating system the world uses there are many many security holes left wide open by dumb users.
Hackers as a whole hate Microsoft and target them and them alone. For the most part having hackers/coders create the same types of issues with security and viruses would be equivalent to pissing in your own kool-aid.
They do it for glory and glory alone, to brag about it amongst themselves. If one started bragging about how he shredded OSX or Linux, which are both easier to get coding for (Linux being open and all), he would be ostracized.
iSnobs crack me up.
I find it laughable that people argue over this shyte....sheepofblue said:but I find it laughable that 'doz users always claim how everyone is just is bad to divert attention from the deficiency of Windows security.
Actually, the real issue is that Microsoft tends to roll patches into one chunk for the whole system, whereas Unix systems release one patch per app per patch.BDA116 said:The vast majority of Windows patches are overblown by Linux/Apple users. Very laughable indeed. Again, Unix is more secure because of its limited use and limited number of attackers. The security patches for Red Hat were no less severe than the few for Windows. It cracks me up how the Jobs sheeple refer to Windows boxes as virus boxes when their own system is every bit as open to virus attack. Again, there is no point in making a virus for the fruit when nobody uses them so your propogation numbers go nowhere - which is all the makers are worried about.
There were 55 actual security patches for Windows in '05
There were 268 actual security patches for Red Hat in '05
Absolutely. And therein lies the real issue. There are too many computer illiterates on Windows, helping to propegate the worms/viruses, etc.navydevildoc said:.......In the end, if I place a Windows machine unprotected on the internet, within 15 minutes it will have more shit on it than a porta-potty seat. Unix boxes tend to not have this problem. In fact, they don't........
Because there is nothing to argue about on RC :freebird:RRWANTR said:I find it laughable that people argue over this shyte....
Keep it to more important stuff....like CBRs vs RCs...
Or Honda vs Suzuki.
W2k3 R2 comes with essentially nothing open (even RPC) and does a full patch and update routine before allowing the user to open the firewall. The latest IBM releases enhance that even more.sheepofblue said:Because there is nothing to argue about on RC :freebird:
Oh and NavyDevilDoc SSH and AFP are off by default on a new Apple system.
:idunno: I like windows users I get paid by the hour. I might even go and do some more development on the flaming piles in a year or two to keep it on my resume
It always has been.... but my Bushel of Apples needs administering somehow... and the G5 is a killer file server, so it's on.sheepofblue said:Oh and NavyDevilDoc SSH and AFP are off by default on a new Apple system.
not any more . .navydevildoc said:It always has been.... but my Bushel of Apples needs administering somehow... and the G5 is a killer file server, so it's on.
But that's my point. Out of the box, there is hardly any external services enabled on a *nix/OSX box. On Windows, everything is ON until turned off.