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
  #46  
Old March 12th 15, 10:21 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old March 12th 15, 10:29 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old March 12th 15, 10:45 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old March 12th 15, 11:34 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old March 12th 15, 11:39 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old March 12th 15, 11:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:19 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
GreyCloud[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 419
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.


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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:20 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Slimer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default 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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:23 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
GreyCloud[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 419
Default 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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:25 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
GreyCloud[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 419
Default 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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:27 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Slimer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default 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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:28 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
GreyCloud[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 419
Default 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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:29 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Slimer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default 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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:29 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old March 13th 15, 12:29 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
GreyCloud[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 419
Default 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
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 11:36 AM.


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