A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Build 10031



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old March 13th 15, 12:32 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default Build 10031

On 03/12/2015 04:28 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
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.



Hi Grey Cloud,

The more you use it, the sooner it wears out.

30 years ago power supplies surged and burned stuff out.
So, folks learned never to turn anything off. But that
hasn't been the case for a lot of years now.

Also, some Windows users are so virused up (malware to the speech
police), the can't get their computer to boot back up.

-T
Ads
  #62  
Old March 13th 15, 12:57 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Roderick Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 456
Default Build 10031

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:32:14 -0700, T wrote:

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.



Hi Grey Cloud,

The more you use it, the sooner it wears out.

30 years ago power supplies surged and burned stuff out.
So, folks learned never to turn anything off. But that
hasn't been the case for a lot of years now.

Also, some Windows users are so virused up (malware to the speech
police), the can't get their computer to boot back up.


The concept of switching things off when not in use was drummed into
children by sensible parents sixty years ago, and in those days we had
wireless sets that could take five minutes to warm up and TV sets that
could take twice that. Now, in what is supposed to be a more energy
conscious time, nobody seems to care.

Some things have to be powered constantly to do their jobs, but a
great many devices are left connected to the mains because they are
not even provided with an easy way of switching off other than the low
voltage output of the power supply. In theory a PSU doesn't consume
anything when not loaded but in reality it must, and there are
millions of them...

Rod.
  #63  
Old March 13th 15, 01:15 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default 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.


WrongO, dude.

Think of the environments a bit first.

Windows:
Open to user driver fiddling. Users can and do add hardware.
Open to poorly tested security patches (some brick the machine).
Users can install just about anything, drivers without WHQL
certification, open source software they compiled with MinGW
or Visual Studio. It's completely open season. Why *wouldn't*
you have Restore Points in such an environment, even if they
don't cover all possible use cases ?

Linux:
Drivers are mostly included. Brick-age can happen when people
install NVidia or ATI tainted drivers. There's probably been the
odd occasion I've done something like that, and just reinstalled
to clear up the mess. That was the fastest resolution.

Applications sit in a pre-compiled Repository. That's a
curated environment. My experience, is the quality there
is a little better than Windows. Since it's curated,
there is less that can go wrong.

Many times, I've accepted a kernel update in a Linux VM,
and it doesn't boot. As long as I know there is a menu
where I can move back to the previous kernel and boot,
no problemO.

A Linux user can download an open source package (as source),
compile it and install it in /usr. But, when that Linux user
is honest, ask them how much trouble that caused. How much
maintenance is required to keep it running (when the next
version of Ubuntu comes along, and you update from 12.04
to 14.04). That's really no different than the kinds of
exposures in Windows.

The average Linux user (not you), just isn't that
adventurous.

OSX:
Drivers are for the most part, under Apple control.
On modern Apple, there may not be a lot of hardware
slots, to go adding PC hardware. Back in the day, I used
to add a couple .kext modules, to support an IDE card
in my SCSI Mac machine. And that could cause "sleep"
issues. It was less common to "tip over" an Apple
with a .kext, because the supplier had tested it a bit.

You can still have problems with third-party utilities,
but then, only the utility is busted.

And Apple has Time Machine, so they haven't exactly
abandoned the user. They're at least providing a
hint that you should do something.

On Linux, there is little in the way of hints about
disaster planning or what a "best-practice" might
be for keeping data safe or preparing for some
catastrophic event. Windows has provided some
feeble attempts at it, so users at least know
there is a word called "backup".

For example, I have a complete backup of this
Windows machine, sitting on a 3TB disk. And the
disk is left disconnected from the computer.
It's there, because of my concern over cryptolocker.
Not that I expect it'll actually happen to me, but
because I want to look "less stupid" when it does
happen.

*******

I can de-stabilize any OS, if you let me
get my hands on it. Would I appreciate it
if an automatic disaster recovery procedure
was present ? Yes.

Paul
  #64  
Old March 13th 15, 01:51 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default Build 10031

T wrote:

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.


Yes and no.

There are two aspects to the statement.

1) Microsoft developers add ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization).
They've added a feature to "plug" a certain kind of exploit.
They can then boast that they've made the OS "more secure",
by plugging a perceived entry point.

There is EMET. There is AppLocker (defined in next link).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ows_components

And for some of those, the implementation is more complete
on a later OS.

2) The other side of the coin, is "measuring" the infection
rate. I haven't seen a measurement or anecdotal story yet
that didn't contain a bias. You simply can't make blanket
statements, because the "threat landscape" moves
over time. Say I'm a malware guy, and I write all my
malware for Windows 8, ignoring Windows 7. Todd notices
three infections on his Win8 machine, and only two
infections on the Win7 machine. Do we conclude Win8
is less secure, or that nobody cares about Win7 (when
writing malware) ?

You would need to do some analysis of the "class" of attacks,
see whether there are attacks that only could have happened
on Windows 8 (new attack surface), to conclude it was less
secure. And Microsoft has made absolutely no attempt to
remove attack surfaces like ActiveX, allowing Java on the
machine, letting people play Flash videos, and so on.
The areas that an attack can come from, are not changing.
And in that sense, the security yardstick hasn't moved
at all.

And the thing is, Microsoft doesn't even control all the
attack surfaces. Adobe can add attack vectors, faster
than Microsoft can plug them.

And since when does anyone trust what a marketing person says ? :-)

Let's consider the addition of Metro tiles to Windows 8.
Is anyone aware of an attack through that vector ?
Well, the tiles all come from the Application Store,
so there's an opportunity to check them. Whereas
if the Metro tiles could be downloaded from CNET,
who knows what would get into the machine. The Metro tile
is pretty flabby, involving HTML or Javascript, so if
we could get our hands on it, it would likely tip
over real easy. Curation is what makes the difference there.
And someone has to check those 200,000 applications
in the store (or whatever the number is today), to make
sure no "evil" sneaks in.

Paul
  #65  
Old March 13th 15, 04:08 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default Build 10031

On 03/12/2015 04:29 PM, Slimer wrote:

"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?


Hi Slimer,

That would be the speck in Linux eye versus the board in
Windows eye.

When discovered, it was announced and fixed immediately.
And I really, really mean IMMEDIATELY.

No one was harmed by the vulnerability or the resulting patch.
No one's system even had to be rebooted.

The system worked. The patch did not have to wait years
for someone to write a virus based on it (like the
Blaster virus).

-T
  #66  
Old March 13th 15, 04:11 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default Build 10031

On 03/12/2015 04:23 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
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.


Hi GreyCloud,

Which Linux? Was it security hardened Fedora with SE Linux?
Or Ubuntu (which is not hardened)?

And, how about Free BSD?


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.


That is the best you can expect.
-T
  #67  
Old March 13th 15, 04:20 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default Build 10031

On 03/12/2015 04:19 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
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.


Hi Grey Cloud,

Time machine is sweet.

I use plain old command line Dump and Restore on Linux.
Backs everything up perfectly. It ain't pretty like
time machine, but I have used it on several occasions
to restore entire systems. You can pull single files
out pretty easy too.

Backing up Windows drives me nuts with the system and
file locks.

I love when my Windows virtual machines crash, I just
restore their hard drives from my latest Dump.



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.


The thing I love about Red Hat is their professionalism.
I am the one that found the "cut a DVD, destroy your hard
drive" problem. Red Hat jumped on it immediately and fix
it for me. And I am from the "community" too, meaning I don't
own a RHEL license. They said the bug was pretty obscure.


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.


Back in the day, I learned Modula 2. In hind sight,
I should have learned C instead.

Some day, maybe I will learn Perl. A new version is due out
soon.

-T

What the story behind the choice of Grey Cloud for your name?

  #68  
Old March 13th 15, 04:27 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default Build 10031

On 03/12/2015 04:20 PM, Slimer wrote:
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.


Wow! You really aught to do some research before you make
statements like that. And, you really need to develop
some manners.

Red Hat has adopted XFS for their file system. It is very mature
and very stable. Red hat tested the hell out of it for YEARS.

It also support EXT4 with is also stable and mature. I use EXT4
*ALL THE TIME*. I have played with XFS. XFS is better at HUGE
files in HUGE databases.

What the hell is "btrfs"?


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.


I am very chatty. Ask me anything you like.


Be a gentleman and avoid name calling.


Be a decent human being and stop lying.


I have said one lie. You are just being insulting for
whatever private agenda you have.

-T


It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

--Mark Twain



  #69  
Old March 13th 15, 04:41 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default Build 10031

On 03/12/2015 05:15 PM, Paul wrote:
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.


WrongO, dude.

Think of the environments a bit first.

Windows:
Open to user driver fiddling. Users can and do add hardware.
Open to poorly tested security patches (some brick the machine).
Users can install just about anything, drivers without WHQL
certification, open source software they compiled with MinGW
or Visual Studio. It's completely open season. Why *wouldn't*
you have Restore Points in such an environment, even if they
don't cover all possible use cases ?

Linux:
Drivers are mostly included. Brick-age can happen when people
install NVidia or ATI tainted drivers. There's probably been the
odd occasion I've done something like that, and just reinstalled
to clear up the mess. That was the fastest resolution.

Applications sit in a pre-compiled Repository. That's a
curated environment. My experience, is the quality there
is a little better than Windows. Since it's curated,
there is less that can go wrong.

Many times, I've accepted a kernel update in a Linux VM,
and it doesn't boot. As long as I know there is a menu
where I can move back to the previous kernel and boot,
no problemO.

A Linux user can download an open source package (as source),
compile it and install it in /usr. But, when that Linux user
is honest, ask them how much trouble that caused. How much
maintenance is required to keep it running (when the next
version of Ubuntu comes along, and you update from 12.04
to 14.04). That's really no different than the kinds of
exposures in Windows.

The average Linux user (not you), just isn't that
adventurous.

OSX:
Drivers are for the most part, under Apple control.
On modern Apple, there may not be a lot of hardware
slots, to go adding PC hardware. Back in the day, I used
to add a couple .kext modules, to support an IDE card
in my SCSI Mac machine. And that could cause "sleep"
issues. It was less common to "tip over" an Apple
with a .kext, because the supplier had tested it a bit.

You can still have problems with third-party utilities,
but then, only the utility is busted.

And Apple has Time Machine, so they haven't exactly
abandoned the user. They're at least providing a
hint that you should do something.

On Linux, there is little in the way of hints about
disaster planning or what a "best-practice" might
be for keeping data safe or preparing for some
catastrophic event. Windows has provided some
feeble attempts at it, so users at least know
there is a word called "backup".

For example, I have a complete backup of this
Windows machine, sitting on a 3TB disk. And the
disk is left disconnected from the computer.
It's there, because of my concern over cryptolocker.
Not that I expect it'll actually happen to me, but
because I want to look "less stupid" when it does
happen.

*******

I can de-stabilize any OS, if you let me
get my hands on it. Would I appreciate it
if an automatic disaster recovery procedure
was present ? Yes.

Paul



Hi Paul,

Go with the Red Hat for anything critical. And
sign up for support. You will not believe the
professionalism.

I have notes on how to restore X11 when a new nVidia
driver hits. Pain in the ass when that happens.
Supposedly, they have that fixed now. (We will
see!)

In Linux, I have tools available to me that are not
available in Windows. Have you discovered
ctrlaltf1 and ctrlaltf2 yet?

On my Linux servers, I leave the back up drives
disconnect when not in use. Not because of crypto
locker, but for something worse: meddling, worthless,
no-account, know-it-all, boss' sons.

I have restored entire Linux servers, including my own
twice, when I discovered the DVD error, with my
backups from Dump. Got great notes on it, if you
want them.

Haven't found a good way to disconnect a backup drive
from the command line in Windows yet. There are
ways, I just don't like them.

And lately, I do full (Linux) drive encryptions on the
base system and the backup drives. That is a pain in
the ass with Windows.

I also encrypt a lot of flash drives with EXT4 and LUKS.
You can read them in Windows with Free OTFE, but the
64 bit driver signing problem is a pain in the ass.

As I have stated before the OS you use is the one that
meets your needs.

-T

  #70  
Old March 13th 15, 04:50 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default Build 10031

On 03/12/2015 05:51 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:

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.


Yes and no.

There are two aspects to the statement.

1) Microsoft developers add ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization).


Hi Paul,

I have read about this. Can you tell if it improved anything
or just plugged an obscure vector the bad guys weren't using anyway?


They've added a feature to "plug" a certain kind of exploit.
They can then boast that they've made the OS "more secure",
by plugging a perceived entry point.

There is EMET. There is AppLocker (defined in next link).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ows_components

And for some of those, the implementation is more complete
on a later OS.

2) The other side of the coin, is "measuring" the infection
rate. I haven't seen a measurement or anecdotal story yet
that didn't contain a bias. You simply can't make blanket
statements, because the "threat landscape" moves
over time. Say I'm a malware guy, and I write all my
malware for Windows 8, ignoring Windows 7. Todd notices
three infections on his Win8 machine, and only two
infections on the Win7 machine. Do we conclude Win8
is less secure, or that nobody cares about Win7 (when
writing malware) ?

You would need to do some analysis of the "class" of attacks,
see whether there are attacks that only could have happened
on Windows 8 (new attack surface), to conclude it was less
secure. And Microsoft has made absolutely no attempt to
remove attack surfaces like ActiveX, allowing Java on the
machine, letting people play Flash videos, and so on.
The areas that an attack can come from, are not changing.
And in that sense, the security yardstick hasn't moved
at all.

And the thing is, Microsoft doesn't even control all the
attack surfaces. Adobe can add attack vectors, faster
than Microsoft can plug them.

And since when does anyone trust what a marketing person says ? :-)


The PCI (credit card security) folks do. :'(

I had to upgrade a bunch of perfectly functional
XP Point of Sales system because of it. Oh well, as
Bugs Bunny says, "It is a living!"



Let's consider the addition of Metro tiles to Windows 8.
Is anyone aware of an attack through that vector ?
Well, the tiles all come from the Application Store,
so there's an opportunity to check them. Whereas
if the Metro tiles could be downloaded from CNET,
who knows what would get into the machine. The Metro tile
is pretty flabby, involving HTML or Javascript, so if
we could get our hands on it, it would likely tip
over real easy. Curation is what makes the difference there.
And someone has to check those 200,000 applications
in the store (or whatever the number is today), to make
sure no "evil" sneaks in.

Paul


Everyone expect tings from the various M$ and Apple
stores to be clean. I wonder how many are not.

No fooling on the bias. The article I often quote from
Forbes is "dripping".

From what I have seen lately, their favorite vector is
attachments in eMail. Like throwing infected flash drives
in the parking lot of banks at night, only they
throw it in the eMail.

Here is a particular clever one:
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/03/...a-tidy-profit/

-T

  #71  
Old March 13th 15, 04:52 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default Build 10031

On 03/12/2015 04:27 PM, Slimer wrote:
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,

You are an ass hole. I do not wish to know you or
to ever have any future contact with you.

I am kill filing you.

-T
  #72  
Old March 13th 15, 12:25 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default Build 10031

T wrote:
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/


I have the latest Libre Office both in Windows and Linux. I suppose I
should have wrote "a decent email program". Libre Office is fine but it
doesn't come with an email program like Outlook and, yes, I've tried
them all and none do the job like Outlook for me.

--
A
  #73  
Old March 13th 15, 12:32 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default Build 10031

GreyCloud wrote:
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.


Were the break ins done remotely or did the hackers have physical access
to the machines?

--
A
  #74  
Old March 13th 15, 02:51 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Build 10031

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:39:09 -0700, 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?


Never. Why do you ask?

  #75  
Old March 13th 15, 03:03 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Build 10031

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:29:27 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/12/2015 03:53 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

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$.


I think you're completely missing the point, and since we've been around the
barn at least twice by now, I have to think it's intentional.

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!


I'm not one of those people who hold their breath when applying updates, so
the answer is never.

Ask yourself. Which do you feel safer doing "on line banking".


By far, I feel safer using the OS that I use every day. That's the OS that I
know and understand.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.