Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
:rotfl: :rotfl:

That's like trying to power your Lamborghini with a Yugo engine.

OK, all jabs aside, if you follow the sysreqs and procedures to the letter, it is supposed to be a fairly stable platform. But I will still take VMWare ESX any day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,057 Posts
:clap: :clap: :clap:

That company kills me. Several years ago, if you searched their website with the word Linux you received a response of "No topics found" for your search request.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
Nope, just a pragmatic computer user. NDD tells me that at it's core, OS X is more secure/less buggy. Fine. I won't argue.

If your beloved Apple stuff becomes as popular as windows ( :smokin: )...you'll see just as many problems, or nearly so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,531 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,224 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,531 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
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
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.

The numbers really are rather meaningless. I am sure there are statistics that point in each direction. 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.

Hopefully MS gets their act together and ships Vista with most of the crap remote services turned off rather than on, with a respectable firewall, and with enhanced filesystem permissions, which don't allow a regular user to be an Admin 100% of the time on every thread that gets forked.

My Linux boxen have one or two ports open on them, usually SSH and possibly FTP if it's inside the firewall. Macs also only have SSH and AFP open. All the SSH stuff ONLY accepts SSH2 RSA keys for authentication, no passwords.

The windows boxes seem to have many things open, such as RPC, that tend to break things if you close them off.

OK, I am ranting now, but I would MUCH rather have to deal with a herd of Unix boxen anyday than a Windows infrastructure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,531 Posts
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........
Absolutely. And therein lies the real issue. There are too many computer illiterates on Windows, helping to propegate the worms/viruses, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
I'm not computer illiterate. I know what you guys are talking about.

BUT, I'll be the first to admit, I'd fumble around to close all the ports Windows leaves open. I have virus protection on all my machines though (and NDD to call when I fuck up), and don't seem to have problems.

I think OSX does the right thing auto-config'd with this stuff closed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,224 Posts
RRWANTR said:
I find it laughable that people argue over this shyte....:p

Keep it to more important stuff....like CBRs vs RCs...:p
Or Honda vs Suzuki.:p
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,271 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
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
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.

I manage several Solaris and BSD systems as well as some 2500 Windows systems and when you actually read the frikkin documentation, both can be made as secure as the other. Unfortunately, market share has precluded knowledgeable people from being hired as Windows admins in most cases.

One of my clients that runs about 40 Solaris Servers along with a couple dozen W2k3 systems has an admin for the Unix side that is well qualified, knowledgeable, experienced and certified. The Windows admin has an MS Administrator cert and about 16 months experience working on DESKTOPS. The Unix guy hauls down 160K + benefits while the Windows admin is making 45K after 2 raises. My daughter could bury the Windows admin in about ten minutes and she has never managed any systems . . .

Nature of the beast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
sheepofblue said:
Oh and NavyDevilDoc SSH and AFP are off by default on a new Apple system.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,271 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
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.
not any more . .
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top