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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On 03/12/2015 12:30 PM, A wrote:
If only it had a decent office suite. Hi A, Libre Office is starting to come into its own. I have a number of customers now running it (mostly in Windows, some Mac and some Linux). And they have probably fixed close to 50 bugs for me now. None of them miss M$O (M$ Office). I am not even sure most of them even realize they are not running M$O. And it didn't use to be this way. Back with Open Office (who never fixed anything), I had some secretaries get so upset that they went out and bought M$O with their own money. Things have changed since Libre Office. Now people ask me about Office and I tell them, I would love to sell it to you but Libre Office is free. See if you like LO, and if not, I will sell you a copy of M$O. As of about a year ago, not a single person has wanted to go to M$O. It use to be the other way around. The big deal killer I see the most often is miserable old Quick Books. Horrible stuff, but everyone has to have it. (I wonder if M$ regrets trying to kill Quick Books with their ill fated M$ Money. Quick Books keeps folks on Windows.) -T Have you tried the OSMO personal information manager? It is the hight of simplicity and it is sweet! https://sourceforge.net/projects/osmo-pim/ |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On 03/11/2015 03:18 PM, Slimer wrote:
Instability however, is another issue. Windows 7 is NOT unstable. Hi Slimer, Ask yourself why Windows 7 has restore points and roll back features. This is an attempt to control the inherent instability of the OS. Linux and OSx don't have such an animal because they don't need it. I control my "roll back" instability problems on my Windows OS'es by making a gold copy of my VM's (virtual Machines) hard drives and just restoring the whole thing when I need to. And I have two separate VM's of XP (also unstable) to cope if I am in a hurry and have customers waiting on me. I have no such problem with my Linux base system or any of my Linux VM's. That is a blatant lie on your part and makes the rest of what you have to say worthless. Be a gentleman and avoid name calling. -T |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On 03/11/2015 03:29 PM, Slimer wrote:
On 2015-03-11 12:58 PM, T wrote: Changed my mind after reading what other lies you posted. I especially love the part about it rolling back all my work a week after I worked on it. (Tip: erase the restore points and create your own new ones.) A rollback doesn't touch your documents at all. That is yet another blatant lie. Hi Shadow, What is with the name calling? Be a gentleman. If you want me to go into detail, just ask. I will give you a hint: I said nothing about documents being rolled back because I wasn't talking about documents. Think r-e-g-e-s-t-r-y. I was configuring things. Those configurations go into the registry. Did you miss the articles on W7 where M$ admitted they did not read testers comments? By all means, provide a link to a single one and make sure to quote the explanation as to _why_ they didn't. Look through Info Worlds archives, W7, when compared to Linux or Apple, is a toad. The only reason people use it is the lack of applications on other platforms. Another shameless lie. Mac OS X is by far the _slowest_ operating system I've ever used. On 4GB of RAM, Windows 7 is excellent. On 4GB of RAM, OS X is slow as molasses. I get superior performance on a Core i3 with 4GB RAM with Windows 7 running on NTFS than I could ever get on a Core i5 with 4GB RAM running OS X. Every single time I have to fix my parents' Mac Mini Core i5, I am ASTOUNDED by how slow it is. Again with the name calling. I do not see a lot of macs, but I do see them. Their use of solid state hard drive means they kick butt speed wise over mechanical drive systems of any type. OSx is basically Posix UNIX with an (extremely) proprietary GUI on top of it. What you describe sounds like something is wrong. Do you have an Apple Store near by that you can take it to? I have Linux server that run without a reboot for YEARS. A SERVER? Who the **** cares about your stupid server's uptime? Linux idiots have long boasted about how long they can go without restarting their computer as if everyone on the planet needed for their computer to run 24/7/365. It's such a ridiculous thing to consider when just about everyone CHOOSES to shut down every day even though they don't have to. I used the example of a server because that is where you would be expected to see the longest run time between reboots. Actually, about 50% of my customers have to be told. It would be interesting what Char's customers do as she deals with a lot of them too. They way I tell my customers is "It is like a car tire. The longer you use it, the quicker it wears out" I have to set up nightly reboot on Windows servers their quality is so bad. My brother-in-law handles Windows servers and he never restarts them. You're lying yet again. Did your mother ever teach you any manners? And ask him. I commonly have mine restart at 2:00 in the morning automatically. When I come across a Windows machine that is acting weird, the first thing I ask is when was the last time you rebooted? Then I tell them they should shutdown at night so as to get their daily required reboot. There is zero need for that in Apple or Linux. Complete bull****. My parents' Mac Mini, under my own recommendation, was never shut down. I believed bull**** like yours for so long that I actually thought OS X could perform well for weeks or months without shutting down. Meanwhile, it becomes disgusting pig on day 2. Before that, I had a G5 iMac, G4 Powerbook and G3 iBook also slowed to a crawl if not shut down every day. My Windows 8 laptop is never shut down and meanwhile remains fast at all times. It's not because I'm a magician either. Sounds to me like there is something wrong with it. Any Apple stores near by? Frankenstein (w8) is really bad on the reboot issue as it doesn't shutdown when it says shutdown (it suspends), so you do get a real reboot every night. I can't tell you how many Frankenstein computers I have fixed by pulling the power plug (then configuring it to actually shutdown). W7 is better for this because it actually shuts down. That was true for Windows 8. A shutdown option was indeed available but you needed to configure it in. However, everyone is running 8.1 since a while now and your statement is no longer correct. Like everything else you said, it's complete bull****. I have to configure it in 8.1 too. And sometimes the updates set it back. Anyone else see this? Just an aside, did you know that W7 and XP get broke into at a statistical dead heat? W7 is no more "secure" than W7, despite what M$'s marketing weasels say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonke...k-to-viruses-t Every Windows OS can be infected if stupid users are at the helm. Which is more impacted and which is less is inconsequential. That was not the point. The point was that M$ marketing department has stated that W7 is far more secure than XP and that is one of the best reasons to upgrade. The statement is false. And you are correct. The weakest security link is the user. -T |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:30:54 +0100, A wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:45 -0700, T wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. I've heard that repeated many times over the years, and yet there have been several openSSL issues that have recently come to light, one or more of which is said to have existed for over a decade. Just because people *can* check the source doesn't necessarily mean that anyone does. Linux isn't bulletproof but it's more secure than Windows. If only it had a decent office suite. Alas, maybe some day. A lot of that I think has to do with Linux users being more tech savvy as a whole than Windows users as most users are compromised by being tricked into either clicking on something they shouldn't or by being persuaded to part with their money or both. "More secure", yes, but I was primarily knocking the assumption that a lot of eyes are looking at the code because it's open source. I don't really think that's true. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On 03/12/2015 03:34 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:30:54 +0100, A wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:45 -0700, T wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. I've heard that repeated many times over the years, and yet there have been several openSSL issues that have recently come to light, one or more of which is said to have existed for over a decade. Just because people *can* check the source doesn't necessarily mean that anyone does. Linux isn't bulletproof but it's more secure than Windows. If only it had a decent office suite. Alas, maybe some day. A lot of that I think has to do with Linux users being more tech savvy as a whole than Windows users as most users are compromised by being tricked into either clicking on something they shouldn't or by being persuaded to part with their money or both. "More secure", yes, but I was primarily knocking the assumption that a lot of eyes are looking at the code because it's open source. I don't really think that's true. Hi Char, The kernel gets the most scrutiny. But anything dealing with security does to. It is not perfect, but it gets you there a lot faster. Just out of curiosity, how often do you have to tell your Windows customers to turn their computers off at night? -T |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:42:42 -0700, T wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:11 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:45 -0700, T wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. I've heard that repeated many times over the years, and yet there have been several openSSL issues that have recently come to light, one or more of which is said to have existed for over a decade. Just because people *can* check the source doesn't necessarily mean that anyone does. Hi Char, Of course. And when they are identified, they are fixed immediately. That is one of the reasons why Linux is far more secure (in this instance, a program running on Linux). Some Windows security issues are also fixed immediately, while others are rolled out on the normal patch Tuesday and still others take longer. I don't think the Linux (OSS) community is significantly different. You are completely missing the point. The Open SSL issues and the way they were handled is a triumph of how the system works. Maybe we should just agree to disagree then, because that looks like a perfect example that disproves the presumption that 'a lot of eyes can look at the source and therefore it's more secure.' There is a *HUGE* difference in the way these things handled by open source and by M$. M$ would have ignored it until they were embarrassed by it, as in the blaster virus. Like the OSS community has been embarrassed by the multiple OpenSSL vulnerabilities? I think that *HUGE* difference just evaporated. And yes, there are exceptions. In both directions. Linux isn't automatically worse in every way. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
T wrote:
On 03/11/2015 03:18 PM, Slimer wrote: Instability however, is another issue. Windows 7 is NOT unstable. Hi Slimer, Ask yourself why Windows 7 has restore points and roll back features. This is an attempt to control the inherent instability of the OS. Linux and OSx don't have such an animal because they don't need it. On win7 I use restore point with 3rd party software in case the vendor screwed up royally. It is much easier to use a restore point than to go in there to remove the trailings left all over the hard drive. On OS X, I use Time Machine to restore a machine to an earlier point in time and can be quite selective in what you want restored... in case a user somehow screws up his user account directory in a terminal by typing in rm *, you can just go into Time Machine and just click on the User/name and click restore. Same thing for all earlier computer systems, such as VMS, backing up files to a tape transport. I control my "roll back" instability problems on my Windows OS'es by making a gold copy of my VM's (virtual Machines) hard drives and just restoring the whole thing when I need to. And I have two separate VM's of XP (also unstable) to cope if I am in a hurry and have customers waiting on me. I have no such problem with my Linux base system or any of my Linux VM's. When I was using OpenSuse 11.3, for some reason during updates to software, it couldn't find the repository, but continued on anyway. It thoroughly hosed the system and wouldn't boot. That's when I ditched it for RedHat. I still use Solaris 10 in a VM because of their superior compilers. One issue with gcc (current) is that it won't compile older software that uses this piece of code at Global scope: FILE *Output = stdout; It don't like it, but Suns C compiler handles it. Neither does MS C compiler like it. Neither does OS X compiler like it. Other than that, I like Visual Studio the best. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On 2015-03-12 5:29 PM, T wrote:
On 03/11/2015 03:18 PM, Slimer wrote: Instability however, is another issue. Windows 7 is NOT unstable. Hi Slimer, Ask yourself why Windows 7 has restore points and roll back features. This is an attempt to control the inherent instability of the OS. Linux and OSx don't have such an animal because they don't need it. Linux is adopting btrfs which, as of right now, is an incredibly unstable filesystem but when complete, will allow Linux users to roll back the operating system to when it last worked. Is that evidence of Linux being unstable too? Hypocrite. I control my "roll back" instability problems on my Windows OS'es by making a gold copy of my VM's (virtual Machines) hard drives and just restoring the whole thing when I need to. And I have two separate VM's of XP (also unstable) to cope if I am in a hurry and have customers waiting on me. I have no such problem with my Linux base system or any of my Linux VM's. You do, you just pretend that they're not there and lie whenever anyone asks you about them. You are essentially lying for LIEnux. Be a gentleman and avoid name calling. Be a decent human being and stop lying. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt. - "Export-grade." Right. Not much of Winblows is "export grade"." - chrisv, demonstrating that he has no idea what "export-grade" means - "Both you and the POS that calls itself "GreyCloud" have *baselessly* accused advocates of "lying" about their kill-file usage." - chrisv, accusing someone who in his killfile of lying about his killfile - "For some time M$ mandated that IE be the only browser installed, and that it appear right on the desktop. OEM's had no choice in the matter - M$ insisted on control of the boot process." - chrisv, lying shamelessly - "Too bloated for the 386? X ran happily on lesser machines." - JEDIDIAH, lying shamelessly - "PnP hardware worked in Linux like it did in WinDOS." - JEDIDIAH, again lying shamelessly - "Are you still a homophobe or have you finally come out of the closet?" - Donald Miller, too dumb to know the difference between a homophobe and a homosexual. - "Idiot. That (referring to software Creative Labs provided with its Sound Blaster line) was needed because the MSDOS driver was too dumb to figure out the parameters on its own. That has absolutely nothing to do with "software which essentually configured the card"" - Peter Köhlmann, trying in vain to change the meaning of the word "configure." |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
T wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:11 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:45 -0700, T wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. I've heard that repeated many times over the years, and yet there have been several openSSL issues that have recently come to light, one or more of which is said to have existed for over a decade. Just because people *can* check the source doesn't necessarily mean that anyone does. Hi Char, Of course. And when they are identified, they are fixed immediately. That is one of the reasons why Linux is far more secure (in this instance, a program running on Linux). You are completely missing the point. The Open SSL issues and the way they were handled is a triumph of how the system works. Remember the Blaster virus? The vulnerability was know and published for years. The jerk that wrote the Blaster virus simply looked up what vulnerabilities had not been patched and wrote a virus for it. The scoundrels at M$ didn't patch it until someone wrote a virus for it! There is a *HUGE* difference in the way these things handled by open source and by M$. M$ would have ignored it until they were embarrassed by it, as in the blaster virus. By the way, on Mozilla's or Red Hat's bugzilla, if you check of "security", the attention you get can only be described as OH HOLY CRAP!!! (I just put a bug in on how to seize Linux and they figured out it was a security bug on their own and oh did they respond!) In Linux, if you fix a bug and write a "respectful" well documents bug report (the the appropriate Bugzilla), you get it fixed. In M$ world, who do you even report it to? "How many copies did you buy?" And yes, there are exceptions. If you have heard of the Las Vegas DEFCON conventions, then you'll be happy to hear that it is a hackers convention to see how long it takes to break into operating systems. Linux was broken in from the outside in under 20 minutes. Windows was broken into from the outside in under 5 minutes. Solaris UNIX was broken into in an hour. OpenVMS took over 2 days. So there really is no such thing as a totally secure operating system, it is just that some are harder to break in than others. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:42:42 -0700, T wrote: On 03/12/2015 12:11 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:45 -0700, T wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. I've heard that repeated many times over the years, and yet there have been several openSSL issues that have recently come to light, one or more of which is said to have existed for over a decade. Just because people *can* check the source doesn't necessarily mean that anyone does. Hi Char, Of course. And when they are identified, they are fixed immediately. That is one of the reasons why Linux is far more secure (in this instance, a program running on Linux). Some Windows security issues are also fixed immediately, while others are rolled out on the normal patch Tuesday and still others take longer. I don't think the Linux (OSS) community is significantly different. You are completely missing the point. The Open SSL issues and the way they were handled is a triumph of how the system works. Maybe we should just agree to disagree then, because that looks like a perfect example that disproves the presumption that 'a lot of eyes can look at the source and therefore it's more secure.' There is a *HUGE* difference in the way these things handled by open source and by M$. M$ would have ignored it until they were embarrassed by it, as in the blaster virus. Like the OSS community has been embarrassed by the multiple OpenSSL vulnerabilities? I think that *HUGE* difference just evaporated. And yes, there are exceptions. In both directions. Linux isn't automatically worse in every way. I wonder if the gcc team has fixed their apis like strlen, and others? I know that under Visual studio, if you use the old C style primitives, it flags these as insecure due to the potential for buffer over flows. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On 2015-03-12 5:45 PM, T wrote:
A rollback doesn't touch your documents at all. That is yet another blatant lie. Hi Shadow, You got my name wrong, your first lie in this post. What is with the name calling? Be a gentleman. If you want me to go into detail, just ask. I will give you a hint: I said nothing about documents being rolled back because I wasn't talking about documents. Think r-e-g-e-s-t-r-y. I was configuring things. Those configurations go into the registry. Goal post moved noted, lie #2. By all means, provide a link to a single one and make sure to quote the explanation as to _why_ they didn't. Look through Info Worlds archives, No evidence whatsoever to provide, lie #3. Another shameless lie. Mac OS X is by far the _slowest_ operating system I've ever used. On 4GB of RAM, Windows 7 is excellent. On 4GB of RAM, OS X is slow as molasses. I get superior performance on a Core i3 with 4GB RAM with Windows 7 running on NTFS than I could ever get on a Core i5 with 4GB RAM running OS X. Every single time I have to fix my parents' Mac Mini Core i5, I am ASTOUNDED by how slow it is. Again with the name calling. Liars deserve no less. I do not see a lot of macs, but I do see them. Their use of solid state hard drive means they kick butt speed wise over mechanical drive systems of any type. OSx is basically Posix UNIX with an (extremely) proprietary GUI on top of it. What you describe sounds like something is wrong. Do you have an Apple Store near by that you can take it to? The use of the SSD on OS X machines only allows it to run acceptably. Use that SSD with Windows and it'll fly. Apple is simply making up for horribly slow and memory-hungry OS X is by bundling most of its machines with that technology. Use a typical hard disk and you'll feel the pain. I have to set up nightly reboot on Windows servers their quality is so bad. My brother-in-law handles Windows servers and he never restarts them. You're lying yet again. Did your mother ever teach you any manners? She did, and she admitted that liars such as yourself deserve none of them. And ask him. I commonly have mine restart at 2:00 in the morning automatically. So because you do it, it means that everyone does. Right? Complete bull****. My parents' Mac Mini, under my own recommendation, was never shut down. I believed bull**** like yours for so long that I actually thought OS X could perform well for weeks or months without shutting down. Meanwhile, it becomes disgusting pig on day 2. Before that, I had a G5 iMac, G4 Powerbook and G3 iBook also slowed to a crawl if not shut down every day. My Windows 8 laptop is never shut down and meanwhile remains fast at all times. It's not because I'm a magician either. Sounds to me like there is something wrong with it. Any Apple stores near by? It's not damaged. The hard disk and everything has been tested. The OS is just slow. My students' Mac is the same way and no amount of your lies has managed to speed it up so far. That was true for Windows 8. A shutdown option was indeed available but you needed to configure it in. However, everyone is running 8.1 since a while now and your statement is no longer correct. Like everything else you said, it's complete bull****. I have to configure it in 8.1 too. And sometimes the updates set it back. Anyone else see this? Only you. Maybe you have no idea how to install 8.1? Hint: it's not in the Windows Updates. Every Windows OS can be infected if stupid users are at the helm. Which is more impacted and which is less is inconsequential. That was not the point. The point was that M$ marketing department has stated that W7 is far more secure than XP and that is one of the best reasons to upgrade. The statement is false. And you are correct. The weakest security link is the user. I don't see any difference in security between XP and 7. Considering that only 8 allows for applications to run within a walled garden and even then, only for applications in the modern interface, I can't imagine what 7 provided in terms of additional security. It had a really crappy malware protection built-in. Perhaps that's what Microsoft was referring to? -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt. - "Export-grade." Right. Not much of Winblows is "export grade"." - chrisv, demonstrating that he has no idea what "export-grade" means - "Both you and the POS that calls itself "GreyCloud" have *baselessly* accused advocates of "lying" about their kill-file usage." - chrisv, accusing someone who in his killfile of lying about his killfile - "For some time M$ mandated that IE be the only browser installed, and that it appear right on the desktop. OEM's had no choice in the matter - M$ insisted on control of the boot process." - chrisv, lying shamelessly - "Too bloated for the 386? X ran happily on lesser machines." - JEDIDIAH, lying shamelessly - "PnP hardware worked in Linux like it did in WinDOS." - JEDIDIAH, again lying shamelessly - "Are you still a homophobe or have you finally come out of the closet?" - Donald Miller, too dumb to know the difference between a homophobe and a homosexual. - "Idiot. That (referring to software Creative Labs provided with its Sound Blaster line) was needed because the MSDOS driver was too dumb to figure out the parameters on its own. That has absolutely nothing to do with "software which essentually configured the card"" - Peter Köhlmann, trying in vain to change the meaning of the word "configure." |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
T wrote:
On 03/12/2015 03:34 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:30:54 +0100, A wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:45 -0700, T wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. I've heard that repeated many times over the years, and yet there have been several openSSL issues that have recently come to light, one or more of which is said to have existed for over a decade. Just because people *can* check the source doesn't necessarily mean that anyone does. Linux isn't bulletproof but it's more secure than Windows. If only it had a decent office suite. Alas, maybe some day. A lot of that I think has to do with Linux users being more tech savvy as a whole than Windows users as most users are compromised by being tricked into either clicking on something they shouldn't or by being persuaded to part with their money or both. "More secure", yes, but I was primarily knocking the assumption that a lot of eyes are looking at the code because it's open source. I don't really think that's true. Hi Char, The kernel gets the most scrutiny. But anything dealing with security does to. It is not perfect, but it gets you there a lot faster. Just out of curiosity, how often do you have to tell your Windows customers to turn their computers off at night? Why waste power when you aren't using it? I turn mine off every night. I used to leave my old iMac G5 on all the time, till one morning I woke up to a burnt capacitor smell. After I got the power supply replaced I turned it off at night to preserve my machine. Not a good idea for the home user. Industrial strength machines that need to stay on 24/7 are a bit more pricey. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On 2015-03-12 6:34 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:30:54 +0100, A wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:45 -0700, T wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. I've heard that repeated many times over the years, and yet there have been several openSSL issues that have recently come to light, one or more of which is said to have existed for over a decade. Just because people *can* check the source doesn't necessarily mean that anyone does. Linux isn't bulletproof but it's more secure than Windows. If only it had a decent office suite. Alas, maybe some day. A lot of that I think has to do with Linux users being more tech savvy as a whole than Windows users as most users are compromised by being tricked into either clicking on something they shouldn't or by being persuaded to part with their money or both. "More secure", yes, but I was primarily knocking the assumption that a lot of eyes are looking at the code because it's open source. I don't really think that's true. One word: OpenSSL. The "many eyes" of open-source disregard a critical bug in there for the largest part of a decade. Who knows what other holes they'll find in the Linux can of worms? -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt. - "Export-grade." Right. Not much of Winblows is "export grade"." - chrisv, demonstrating that he has no idea what "export-grade" means - "Both you and the POS that calls itself "GreyCloud" have *baselessly* accused advocates of "lying" about their kill-file usage." - chrisv, accusing someone who in his killfile of lying about his killfile - "For some time M$ mandated that IE be the only browser installed, and that it appear right on the desktop. OEM's had no choice in the matter - M$ insisted on control of the boot process." - chrisv, lying shamelessly - "Too bloated for the 386? X ran happily on lesser machines." - JEDIDIAH, lying shamelessly - "PnP hardware worked in Linux like it did in WinDOS." - JEDIDIAH, again lying shamelessly - "Are you still a homophobe or have you finally come out of the closet?" - Donald Miller, too dumb to know the difference between a homophobe and a homosexual. - "Idiot. That (referring to software Creative Labs provided with its Sound Blaster line) was needed because the MSDOS driver was too dumb to figure out the parameters on its own. That has absolutely nothing to do with "software which essentually configured the card"" - Peter Köhlmann, trying in vain to change the meaning of the word "configure." |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
On 03/12/2015 03:53 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:42:42 -0700, T wrote: On 03/12/2015 12:11 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:37:45 -0700, T wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. I've heard that repeated many times over the years, and yet there have been several openSSL issues that have recently come to light, one or more of which is said to have existed for over a decade. Just because people *can* check the source doesn't necessarily mean that anyone does. Hi Char, Of course. And when they are identified, they are fixed immediately. That is one of the reasons why Linux is far more secure (in this instance, a program running on Linux). Some Windows security issues are also fixed immediately, while others are rolled out on the normal patch Tuesday and still others take longer. I don't think the Linux (OSS) community is significantly different. Hi Char, That is the way it is suppose to work. M$ has a bad history of ignoring things. The Blaster virus sticks out. You are completely missing the point. The Open SSL issues and the way they were handled is a triumph of how the system works. Maybe we should just agree to disagree then, because that looks like a perfect example that disproves the presumption that 'a lot of eyes can look at the source and therefore it's more secure.' You are looking at it wrong. When it was found (those extra pair of eyes), it was fixed and announced immediately. Not always the case with M$. And, after the patch was applied, your system still worked. How many times have you had to hold your breath after applying M$ patches? ¡Ay, caramba! With M$ making their updates mandatory in SOF (Son-of Frankenstein, A.K.K. Windows 10), this is going to make both your and my life a bit of hell. (This is one of the reasons why I want to get up to speed on in-place-reinstalls of SOF.) Linux does have an automatic update utility, but it is off by default. I leave mine off, so I can see what is updating and pick what I don't want to update at that time. M$ use to be that way too. I think we do have a different way of looking at things. As long as we are polite to each other, we may learn things from each other. There is a *HUGE* difference in the way these things handled by open source and by M$. M$ would have ignored it until they were embarrassed by it, as in the blaster virus. Like the OSS community has been embarrassed by the multiple OpenSSL vulnerabilities? I think that *HUGE* difference just evaporated. And yes, there are exceptions. In both directions. Linux isn't automatically worse in every way. Ask yourself. Which do you feel safer doing "on line banking". Or which do you feel safer with if you were on the International Space Station? By the way, Linux Live CD are a great way to remain secure and do on line banking. -T p.s. the more OS'es you work with, the more fun this profession becomes. :-) |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Build 10031
Slimer wrote:
On 2015-03-12 12:41 PM, GreyCloud wrote: Stormin' Norman wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:02:52 -0600, GreyCloud wrote: Stormin' Norman wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:43:56 -0600, "GreyCloud" wrote: You are deceiving yourself if you think Linux is not more secure. It is open for anyone to look at. No back doors. World wide code checkers. Windows is closed. And M$ doesn't give a s--- about security. There is a reason why the International Space Station ripped out Windows. The US Navy has converted all fleet ballistic missile and fast attack subs to run ALL systems on Linux. This was done for security and stability reasons. Of course, but it isn't your run of the mill distro either. It's been customized to suit their own needs. As NSA told the other vendors that if you want your operating system secure, then get rid of your browser and email program. OTW, get off the internet for security. I doubt that these FBM systems or fast attack subs are hooked up to the internet. It's the survivability of the os that counts in this instance and only costs the Navy the cost of modifying it to their needs, which is why super-computer vendors prefer linux... it save them a bundle of money not having to reinvent the wheel. It is the desktop environment that really stinks. Rather than engaging in speculation, here is an article about the IT infrastructure onboard one of the Navy's newest warships, the USS Zumwalt. http://arstechnica.com/information-t...-navys-newest- warship-is-powered-by-linux/ IMHO, Linux is in fact a ready-for-prime-time player. We are rapidly migrating my business over to Linux and away from Windows. Numerous businesses and government agencies have done this and many more are making preparations to do so. Linux by itself is pretty good. The X11 environment is another issue tho. It is slow to begin with, but good with networking. It is the distro makers that make the waters very muddy and the gui on each new release introduces new bugs or that they didn't think to test it out thoroughly. RedHat that I've got is one of the few that seems to be working correctly for most things. DOD will modify linux for their own needs and won't even be like what the regular vendors give. Besides, the fact that linux is free, makes it easier to fast-track a new development on these warships and lowers the cost tremendously. I'd have to see how the system is set up to see what changes were made. For business use, even the small VS SQL contract I have with one business, is asking for MS style services, so I write for that using Visual Studio. I couldn't even budge him towards OS X or Linux. He's never heard of linux, but knows that OS X isn't business oriented for his needs. It would have a lot easier to use MySql desktop environment, but he never heard of that one either. So it seems to appear an issue of trust on most businessmens agenda. If Fedora and Red Hat indeed share code and whatever Red Hat version you're using is based on 20 or 21, then I suggest that there's a bug with Mozilla software on certain configurations. On my older i3, both Thunderbird and Firefox took a good ten to fourteen seconds to load whereas Windows and any other distribution didn't. This is on a clean install. Nobody could pinpoint what the problem was and it seemed to affect a good number of users. I'm just using Knode. It works. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|