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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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