If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 02:26 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 12:55 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:16 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:08:18 +0100 Good Guy wrote: On 27/07/2014 17:32, Alias wrote: Safer? LOL! Linux doesn't do malware. Windows does and it does it very well. There is no point in creating malwares for Linux because not many people use it. Malware writers will have a better target rate if they spend time on Windows system knowing that it is where money can be made; Not on Linux users who are not likely to be using Linux for any serious business. It is very difficult to write malware for Linux. Actually it is currently impossible to get malware on Linux without confirmation. Heck they can't even install toolbar for any browser Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. Provide easy example... And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. I didn't seen rootkit on Linux server long ago. You are talking about server program vulnerabilities. Show me buffer overflow exploit on desktop... Sure easy enough. For example, 7 months they were passing out a Linux trojan and nobody caught it. If it was on Windows, AV would have erased it in micro seconds. http://computingondemand.com/linux-i...y-complacency/ That is a statement that for Linux users to blindly believe that the are safe. Not that they don't check what they are down loading from third party's, most do. Most Linux users aren't into gaming heavily otherwise it would have been caught sooner. Plus this is from 2010, see http://www.zdnet.com/coverity-finds-...de-7000028514/ about how fast the average fix for Linux compare to any proprietary software.(Windows/Apple for instance) Then again that's one instance how many are there for Windows? Thousands. -- Caver1 |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 7/27/2014 3:09 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 07/27/2014 02:04 PM, Johnny wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. That applied to a server running with root privilege. That bug has been fixed. You don't run a desktop Linux operating system with root privilege. When I first started using Linux Mint I was concerned with security. After using it for 8 months, I know I'm more secure running Linux without any malware protection, than running Windows with Avast or any other anti-virus program. Just do a search for rootkit windows/antivirus windows and see the load of programs offered pay and free. Then do the same for Linux and the most that you see is a definition of/what they do and it is mostly for servers. Oh man! You really believe Linux hackers are going to post how to's and stuff right on the Internet? Really? No that stuff is a huge secret since so many believe that Linux is safe when it isn't and a hacker could make thousands, millions, billions, and some cases trillions of dollars before someone discovered that they have been hacked. Come on really and you think they would post it? The secret is public knowledge about Windows (so the hackers secret has been blown in regards to Windows), but it is still a big secret in regards to Linux. Keep the big secret alive, I say. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 02:31 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 1:04 PM, Johnny wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. That applied to a server running with root privilege. That bug has been fixed. You don't run a desktop Linux operating system with root privilege. No, you can hack into a Linux machine with the user not logged in as root. It is easy enough to do through the many vulnerable buffer overflow holes that exists within Linux. There was one but not any now. When I first started using Linux Mint I was concerned with security. After using it for 8 months, I know I'm more secure running Linux without any malware protection, than running Windows with Avast or any other anti-virus program. I have been running Windows since '93 and I never had a malware infection yet. There are others here that can claim the same too. So we must be doing something right, you think? That has nothing to do with the Windows OS. That comment speaks about you. How many hacks/bugs/viruses/rootkits/trojans... for Windows compared to Linux? Do you know the answer or are you blind? -- Caver1 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 7/27/2014 3:15 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 07/27/2014 02:18 PM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:22 PM, Ron wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:00 PM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 10:08 AM, Ron wrote: On 7/27/2014 10:41 AM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 9:34 AM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 9:06 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote: I don't think I'm too old to learn new stuff, but why should I have to, just to do what I could do before? Computers are supposed to serve our needs, not the other way around. It isn't that hard at all and the more you use it, the more it makes a lot of sense. Doing it otherwise would have been more counterproductive. Lots of things are better under 8 compared to 7. The Task Manager, file transfers, SSD support, Performance Monitor, On Screen Keyboard, Hybrid Sleep, faster booting, etc. are all better. Faster booting before the 8.1 update. I used to be able to push the power button and be typing in the Google Chrome search bar in 45 seconds (same as my Windows 7 machine with a hybrid HDD) now it takes anywhere from 1:30 to 1:45+ depending on the weather. Reboots are 3 minutes plus! Wow, really? Why? I just checked mine and 20 seconds to shutdown and 10 seconds to boot. And this one has all of the updates. Google "Windows 8.1 update slow boot". Some people that updated to Windows 8.1 from 8 are getting a black screen and it never boots. Oh no, I believe you and I don't doubt that for a second. Updates are a very serious matter and can toast your OS. Most of the time they don't, but you still should take updates as a serious matter and have backup plans. 10 seconds to push the power button, open Chrome, and start typing? I find that hard to believe, especially if you are using a SATA HDD. I don't use Chrome, but 10 seconds after hitting the power button the desktop is there and I can use the Windows search right away. And no, check the sig, this one doesn't have a hard drive anymore, just a cheapo slowest in its class SSD. Linux x64 will boot in four seconds with a SSD. Without a fast startup feature like Windows has. Also not equal if you are comparing a SSD to his SATA. What would it matter if Linux booted in 25 milliseconds? I have been using Linux since 2008 and I still can't find a good use for it yet. It does webpages, email, and newsgroups somewhat ok (but so does my Androids), but everything else it isn't so hot on. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 03:01 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 1:52 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:26:05 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:55 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:16 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:08:18 +0100 Good Guy wrote: On 27/07/2014 17:32, Alias wrote: Safer? LOL! Linux doesn't do malware. Windows does and it does it very well. There is no point in creating malwares for Linux because not many people use it. Malware writers will have a better target rate if they spend time on Windows system knowing that it is where money can be made; Not on Linux users who are not likely to be using Linux for any serious business. It is very difficult to write malware for Linux. Actually it is currently impossible to get malware on Linux without confirmation. Heck they can't even install toolbar for any browser Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. Provide easy example... And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. I didn't seen rootkit on Linux server long ago. You are talking about server program vulnerabilities. Show me buffer overflow exploit on desktop... Sure easy enough. For example, 7 months they were passing out a Linux trojan and nobody caught it. If it was on Windows, AV would have erased it in micro seconds. http://computingondemand.com/linux-i...y-complacency/ This is not what you re talking about. User simply downloaded malware binaries by hand on server and runned it. You can download and run malware no problem but this is not hacking Linux... Show me buffer overrun, show me how it is easy to hack Linux... Really? You want me to expose my black book of hacks to the public? Hackers never publish their hacks, where have you been? That would be stupid since then they would be patched and the hacks would become worthless. And the talk about banks using Linux, yeah that is so easy. If you are not up to the task yourself, you can purchase a kit to do just that. https://blogs.rsa.com/thieves-reachi...nux-inth3wild/ There is also a port of this for Windows. As far as I know there has been a documented case of any Linux infections by this yet. One of the people associated with this trogan also suggested that the vector of injection for Linux be email and social connections as it is hard to spread through Linux desktops. Unlike Windows. Also Linux vulnerabilities are patched rather quickly. Since this was in 2013 it probably has already been negated. -- Caver1 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 7/27/2014 3:30 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 07/27/2014 02:26 PM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:55 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:16 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:08:18 +0100 Good Guy wrote: On 27/07/2014 17:32, Alias wrote: Safer? LOL! Linux doesn't do malware. Windows does and it does it very well. There is no point in creating malwares for Linux because not many people use it. Malware writers will have a better target rate if they spend time on Windows system knowing that it is where money can be made; Not on Linux users who are not likely to be using Linux for any serious business. It is very difficult to write malware for Linux. Actually it is currently impossible to get malware on Linux without confirmation. Heck they can't even install toolbar for any browser Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. Provide easy example... And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. I didn't seen rootkit on Linux server long ago. You are talking about server program vulnerabilities. Show me buffer overflow exploit on desktop... Sure easy enough. For example, 7 months they were passing out a Linux trojan and nobody caught it. If it was on Windows, AV would have erased it in micro seconds. http://computingondemand.com/linux-i...y-complacency/ That is a statement that for Linux users to blindly believe that the are safe. Not that they don't check what they are down loading from third party's, most do. Most Linux users aren't into gaming heavily otherwise it would have been caught sooner. Plus this is from 2010, see http://www.zdnet.com/coverity-finds-...de-7000028514/ about how fast the average fix for Linux compare to any proprietary software.(Windows/Apple for instance) Then again that's one instance how many are there for Windows? Thousands. Oh man! Linux only fixes things when they become public. You really believe Linux hackers are going to spill their guts and post all of their hacks online? Especially when there are banks, governments, large corporations who are convinced that Linux cannot be hacked. You got to be kidding, right? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 03:28 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:16:37 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 2:03 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:01:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 1:52 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:26:05 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:55 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:16 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:08:18 +0100 Good Guy wrote: On 27/07/2014 17:32, Alias wrote: Safer? LOL! Linux doesn't do malware. Windows does and it does it very well. There is no point in creating malwares for Linux because not many people use it. Malware writers will have a better target rate if they spend time on Windows system knowing that it is where money can be made; Not on Linux users who are not likely to be using Linux for any serious business. It is very difficult to write malware for Linux. Actually it is currently impossible to get malware on Linux without confirmation. Heck they can't even install toolbar for any browser Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. Provide easy example... And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. I didn't seen rootkit on Linux server long ago. You are talking about server program vulnerabilities. Show me buffer overflow exploit on desktop... Sure easy enough. For example, 7 months they were passing out a Linux trojan and nobody caught it. If it was on Windows, AV would have erased it in micro seconds. http://computingondemand.com/linux-i...y-complacency/ This is not what you re talking about. User simply downloaded malware binaries by hand on server and runned it. You can download and run malware no problem but this is not hacking Linux... Show me buffer overrun, show me how it is easy to hack Linux... Really? You want me to expose my black book of hacks to the public? Hahahhahahahhaha. Are you one of those Linux lemmings who believes that Linux is malware proof? Hahahahahaha! Linux is malware proof. It is not proof to hacking but it is almost impossible to install malware without user knowing it. Desktop Linux is malware proof. Period. This is why it is extremely difficult to hack Linux machines. There aren't significant exploit packs targeting Linux but there are some. Most of them are targeting servers not desktops. Being that malware could get into the Linux desktop but not not as root it could possibly infect the users data but not the OS. -- Caver1 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 03:48 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 2:28 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:16:37 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 2:03 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:01:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 1:52 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:26:05 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:55 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:16 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:08:18 +0100 Good Guy wrote: On 27/07/2014 17:32, Alias wrote: Safer? LOL! Linux doesn't do malware. Windows does and it does it very well. There is no point in creating malwares for Linux because not many people use it. Malware writers will have a better target rate if they spend time on Windows system knowing that it is where money can be made; Not on Linux users who are not likely to be using Linux for any serious business. It is very difficult to write malware for Linux. Actually it is currently impossible to get malware on Linux without confirmation. Heck they can't even install toolbar for any browser Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. Provide easy example... And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. I didn't seen rootkit on Linux server long ago. You are talking about server program vulnerabilities. Show me buffer overflow exploit on desktop... Sure easy enough. For example, 7 months they were passing out a Linux trojan and nobody caught it. If it was on Windows, AV would have erased it in micro seconds. http://computingondemand.com/linux-i...y-complacency/ This is not what you re talking about. User simply downloaded malware binaries by hand on server and runned it. You can download and run malware no problem but this is not hacking Linux... Show me buffer overrun, show me how it is easy to hack Linux... Really? You want me to expose my black book of hacks to the public? Hahahhahahahhaha. Are you one of those Linux lemmings who believes that Linux is malware proof? Hahahahahaha! Linux is malware proof. It is not proof to hacking but it is almost impossible to install malware without user knowing it. Desktop Linux is malware proof. Period. This is why it is extremely difficult to hack Linux machines. That is a fallacy. There is no known OS that can't be hacked into. "It's a Trojan Horse," Stone explained. "Do you know what operating systems are immune to Trojan Horses? It's a pretty straightforward answer: None of them are. Ever. There's not an operating system that's ever been written that's immune to a Trojan Horse." http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/78748.html That is why trojans are the favorite attacks against *nix systems. As most *nix users are so dumb that they believe that will never happen while the hacker is in without the users knowledge. But there are very few of them unlike Windows. -- Caver1 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 04:01 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 2:30 PM, Caver1 wrote: On 07/27/2014 12:26 PM, Good Guy wrote: On 27/07/2014 12:32, Ed Cryer wrote: My answer; You'd get lots and lots of people taking up the Win skeleton and tailoring it. The market would become overflowing with competing versions of it; a bit like we have with gas and electricity suppliers, who scramble their tariffs in order to befuddle the punters, tell outright lies and rule; until eventually the gov would have to step in and bring them to order. It's happened already. Look at Linux distros. Nobody knows which one is legitimate and which isn't. There are thousands of them and people are simply not bothered with them anymore. Best to stick with Windows or Macs knowing that somebody is in charge of them. With Linux nobody is in-charge; It's become a big jungle that people should avoid. you'll be safer in Taliban land!!!!. That's why many cities, businesses(small and large),branches of military, etc are switching to Linux? Also there are less flaws that get corrected faster in Linux than Windows or Apple. http://www.zdnet.com/coverity-finds-...de-7000028514/ This from a Windows/Apple magazine. That is just another fallacy, like if you do good you will be rewarded with 73 virgins. All OS are hackable. It is just a fact of life. The only ones who will be protected are the ones on their toes waiting for them regardless of the OS. And most Linux users don't bother. As they are sound asleep and can't bother. Did you even read the article. It had nothing to to with hackability. It had to do with quality and how long it took to fix a problem. Linux won hands down Most Linux users don't think that they can be infected because thy are on there toes. -- Caver1 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 04:19 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 3:06 PM, Caver1 wrote: On 07/27/2014 01:47 PM, Alias wrote: BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:16 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:08:18 +0100 Good Guy wrote: On 27/07/2014 17:32, Alias wrote: Safer? LOL! Linux doesn't do malware. Windows does and it does it very well. There is no point in creating malwares for Linux because not many people use it. Malware writers will have a better target rate if they spend time on Windows system knowing that it is where money can be made; Not on Linux users who are not likely to be using Linux for any serious business. It is very difficult to write malware for Linux. Actually it is currently impossible to get malware on Linux without confirmation. Heck they can't even install toolbar for any browser Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. More FUD and bull**** from our resident braggart. He's stated this in the past and referred to an old article which also stated that this had been taken care of. No longer possible. And while you ignore the new "Hand of Thief” trojan which targets Linux, no less. Claiming that Linux is unhackable while hacking into Linux is going on constantly isn't proving anything. Never stated that Linux was unhackable. And it is not going on constantly. It is going on but not that often. -- Caver1 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 7/27/2014 3:38 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 07/27/2014 02:31 PM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 1:04 PM, Johnny wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. That applied to a server running with root privilege. That bug has been fixed. You don't run a desktop Linux operating system with root privilege. No, you can hack into a Linux machine with the user not logged in as root. It is easy enough to do through the many vulnerable buffer overflow holes that exists within Linux. There was one but not any now. You mean only one that you know of. On the other hand, I know many. When I first started using Linux Mint I was concerned with security. After using it for 8 months, I know I'm more secure running Linux without any malware protection, than running Windows with Avast or any other anti-virus program. I have been running Windows since '93 and I never had a malware infection yet. There are others here that can claim the same too. So we must be doing something right, you think? That has nothing to do with the Windows OS. That comment speaks about you. How many hacks/bugs/viruses/rootkits/trojans... for Windows compared to Linux? Do you know the answer or are you blind? Actually there are zillions available for Windows and I keep on top of them just waiting for one to hack into my machines. And when they try, I'll turn the tables on them and they will see a message on their screen saying something like this: "And who is being hacked now!" That is usually enough to scare the hell out of them, although some wants to play some more and then I have to make my point more clear by trashing their machine(s). At that point, I never had one try again. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 04:35 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 3:09 PM, Caver1 wrote: Just do a search for rootkit windows/antivirus windows and see the load of programs offered pay and free. Then do the same for Linux and the most that you see is a definition of/what they do and it is mostly for servers. Oh man! You really believe Linux hackers are going to post how to's and stuff right on the Internet? Really? No that stuff is a huge secret since so many believe that Linux is safe when it isn't and a hacker could make thousands, millions, billions, and some cases trillions ofity and researchers. If the Linux community is posting it is becau dollars before someone discovered that they have been hacked. Come on really and you think they would post it? The secret is public knowledge about Windows (so the hackers secret has been blown in regards to Windows), but it is still a big secret in regards to Linux. Keep the big secret alive, I say. Once again you didn't do/read what I suggested. You just ran off half cocked. Never said that hackers were posting the information. That's just your ignorance coming forth. I stated that if you do a search for malware Windows you would find many many programs designed to combat them. Because there is so much malware for Windows and because it is so easy. If you do the same for Linux you find very few because it is much harder to do in Linux. Most of what you find for Linux is the discription/explanation of what they are. Hardly any programs to fight them as there are very few compared to Windows and it is much harder to accomplish. Those that are posting it is the Linux community and researchers. If the Linux community is posting it is because they are figuring out how to stop it. Being that Linux is an open system by posting what they have found gives others the benefit of their knowledge so they can further the process. The researchers want to know how it works so they can pass it on to the ones responsible for blocking/fixing the problem just like in Windows. So it is no big secret in Linux. In fact it is fixed faster than the other OS on average. -- Caver1 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 04:42 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 3:15 PM, Caver1 wrote: On 07/27/2014 02:18 PM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:22 PM, Ron wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:00 PM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 10:08 AM, Ron wrote: On 7/27/2014 10:41 AM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 9:34 AM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 9:06 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote: I don't think I'm too old to learn new stuff, but why should I have to, just to do what I could do before? Computers are supposed to serve our needs, not the other way around. It isn't that hard at all and the more you use it, the more it makes a lot of sense. Doing it otherwise would have been more counterproductive. Lots of things are better under 8 compared to 7. The Task Manager, file transfers, SSD support, Performance Monitor, On Screen Keyboard, Hybrid Sleep, faster booting, etc. are all better. Faster booting before the 8.1 update. I used to be able to push the power button and be typing in the Google Chrome search bar in 45 seconds (same as my Windows 7 machine with a hybrid HDD) now it takes anywhere from 1:30 to 1:45+ depending on the weather. Reboots are 3 minutes plus! Wow, really? Why? I just checked mine and 20 seconds to shutdown and 10 seconds to boot. And this one has all of the updates. Google "Windows 8.1 update slow boot". Some people that updated to Windows 8.1 from 8 are getting a black screen and it never boots. Oh no, I believe you and I don't doubt that for a second. Updates are a very serious matter and can toast your OS. Most of the time they don't, but you still should take updates as a serious matter and have backup plans. 10 seconds to push the power button, open Chrome, and start typing? I find that hard to believe, especially if you are using a SATA HDD. I don't use Chrome, but 10 seconds after hitting the power button the desktop is there and I can use the Windows search right away. And no, check the sig, this one doesn't have a hard drive anymore, just a cheapo slowest in its class SSD. Linux x64 will boot in four seconds with a SSD. Without a fast startup feature like Windows has. Also not equal if you are comparing a SSD to his SATA. What would it matter if Linux booted in 25 milliseconds? I have been using Linux since 2008 and I still can't find a good use for it yet. It does webpages, email, and newsgroups somewhat ok (but so does my Androids), but everything else it isn't so hot on. That's because you are too dumb to figure Linux out. If it doesn't have any real capabilities why does NASA use it, I believe since 1998, Why does the scientific community use it, why are more and more city govrnments switching to it...I could go on. By the way concerning WordStar Linux equivalents have you tried Joe? -- Caver1 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 04:52 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 3:30 PM, Caver1 wrote: On 07/27/2014 02:26 PM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:55 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 12:16 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:08:18 +0100 Good Guy wrote: On 27/07/2014 17:32, Alias wrote: Safer? LOL! Linux doesn't do malware. Windows does and it does it very well. There is no point in creating malwares for Linux because not many people use it. Malware writers will have a better target rate if they spend time on Windows system knowing that it is where money can be made; Not on Linux users who are not likely to be using Linux for any serious business. It is very difficult to write malware for Linux. Actually it is currently impossible to get malware on Linux without confirmation. Heck they can't even install toolbar for any browser Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. Provide easy example... And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. I didn't seen rootkit on Linux server long ago. You are talking about server program vulnerabilities. Show me buffer overflow exploit on desktop... Sure easy enough. For example, 7 months they were passing out a Linux trojan and nobody caught it. If it was on Windows, AV would have erased it in micro seconds. http://computingondemand.com/linux-i...y-complacency/ That is a statement that for Linux users to blindly believe that the are safe. Not that they don't check what they are down loading from third party's, most do. Most Linux users aren't into gaming heavily otherwise it would have been caught sooner. Plus this is from 2010, see http://www.zdnet.com/coverity-finds-...de-7000028514/ about how fast the average fix for Linux compare to any proprietary software.(Windows/Apple for instance) Then again that's one instance how many are there for Windows? Thousands. Oh man! Linux only fixes things when they become public. You really believe Linux hackers are going to spill their guts and post all of their hacks online? Especially when there are banks, governments, large corporations who are convinced that Linux cannot be hacked. You got to be kidding, right? Its almost not worth replying to this. That's a false statement and you know it. Once again read this it was researched by a very respectful research group. It was also unbiased. And it has nothing to do with hackability. -- Caver1 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 8 is a Flop, just as I predicted
On 07/27/2014 05:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/27/2014 3:38 PM, Caver1 wrote: On 07/27/2014 02:31 PM, BillW50 wrote: On 7/27/2014 1:04 PM, Johnny wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:30:08 -0500 BillW50 wrote: Nonsense. It is so easy to hack into Linux. One easy way is to use a buffer overflow and you are right into root. And you just leave your rootkit and the user has no idea (and most users doesn't even scan for malware). In fact, rootkit is new to the Windows world and *nix had them for decades now. That applied to a server running with root privilege. That bug has been fixed. You don't run a desktop Linux operating system with root privilege. No, you can hack into a Linux machine with the user not logged in as root. It is easy enough to do through the many vulnerable buffer overflow holes that exists within Linux. There was one but not any now. You mean only one that you know of. On the other hand, I know many. Show the proof. When I first started using Linux Mint I was concerned with security. After using it for 8 months, I know I'm more secure running Linux without any malware protection, than running Windows with Avast or any other anti-virus program. I have been running Windows since '93 and I never had a malware infection yet. There are others here that can claim the same too. So we must be doing something right, you think? I also never had an infection on Windows. That has nothing to do with the Windows OS. That comment speaks about you. How many hacks/bugs/viruses/rootkits/trojans... for Windows compared to Linux? Do you know the answer or are you blind? Actually there are zillions available for Windows and I keep on top of them just waiting for one to hack into my machines. And when they try, I'll turn the tables on them and they will see a message on their screen saying something like this: "And who is being hacked now!" That is usually enough to scare the hell out of them, although some wants to play some more and then I have to make my point more clear by trashing their machine(s). At that point, I never had one try again. I really believe that. But then again you are only one person and not the OS. If it was such a hard problem to do in Windows you wouldn't see so many trying, and succeeding.Many have been infected that's why the hackers are making money. The other day there was a post by a Linux newbie that had downloaded a program from a third party instead of from the devs site it installed two malware programs. He didn't know what they were were so he posted for help. He was told to delete them. Didn't have to follow certain steps or download a program to uninstall them because they just sat there and couldn't do anything. -- Caver1 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|