I just wanna smack him

[oldpablo]

This is key. If a primarily Windows guy administers a Unix network, don't expect the best performance out of Unix. If a primarily Novell guy administers a Windows network, don't expect the best performance out of Windows. If a primarily Unix guy administers a Novell network... he'll quit for putting them on such a piece of shit OS.

Honestly, while MS certs don't mean very much outside of MS products in general, someone who actually took the time to learn the products while passing the tests can do wonders with the system. Same for Novell certs, Cisco certs, and many other platform/OS certifications. Don't take a champion breast-stroke swimmer and expect him to dominate in the backstroke competitions without practicing the backstroke intimately first.

I hear that, I'm crosstraining in Novell AND Linux at my new job (no MS domains) and I'm like "who stole the damn wizards!" I used to be a command line junky and I guess its time to go back to my roots. And I have a few NT4.0 certs, didn't get any newer because I figured I'd skip a generation or two. Might go for the Win2k3 ones though...

 

[dwayne001]

OldPueblo is a bit too hardcore on the Windows front for me. Sure, I use XP...but c'mon, installing an SP immediateley is like getting a new chipset before the reviews come out. MS makes mistakes.

As for the weird MAC dude's article....it screams of MAC bias but really, which PC user, enthusiast, muggle or somewhere in between is gonna drop everything and get a mac or wipe windows away for linux based on 25 lines of rant. It's not economically feasible--and i don't mean money wise; the time it takes to learn all that new stuff....to avoid an SP?....OldPueblo, calm down.

You should never jump into anything too quickly, especially a service pack that promises to change so much. wait a few weeks, see what the deal is, learn the issues that you're gonna have to deal with upon install and then go w/ the flow.

For my part I'm very happy w/ SP1, and won't be upgradingto SP2 until I want to overhaul my hardware enough to warrant a fresh install of the OS.

 

[oldpablo]

OldPueblo is a bit too hardcore on the Windows front for me. Sure, I use XP...but c'mon, installing an SP immediateley is like getting a new chipset before the reviews come out. MS makes mistakes.

As for the weird MAC dude's article....it screams of MAC bias but really, which PC user, enthusiast, muggle or somewhere in between is gonna drop everything and get a mac or wipe windows away for linux based on 25 lines of rant. It's not economically feasible--and i don't mean money wise; the time it takes to learn all that new stuff....to avoid an SP?....OldPueblo, calm down.

You should never jump into anything too quickly, especially a service pack that promises to change so much. wait a few weeks, see what the deal is, learn the issues that you're gonna have to deal with upon install and then go w/ the flow.

For my part I'm very happy w/ SP1, and won't be upgradingto SP2 until I want to overhaul my hardware enough to warrant a fresh install of the OS.

FYI, my friend. I've been beta testing SP2 since the program became available. Therefore, I've actually been using it for several months now, production environment included. See, that's how it's supposed to be done. A lot of people don't "get" MS's business model.

 

[darkmyth]

I've used MS windows since ver 98 lol . Even though I really have no basis with things in my opinion's because I am not a softwear developer, MS employee, etc but as it was put by a credible IT guy. "You cannot polish a turd" MS being that turd. What it seems they do is make a horribly hole filled OS, release it to the public , and then some months later release fixes they found needed to be implemented when they should have done this during beta . But all program writers know, something can't really be perfect, there is always that little $hit sitting in a dark room that will find a hole in anything anyone produces. True MS should really rethink their programmers, and their monopolized tactics. But what the hell hey, people are still going to buy their crap and us geeks have to fix it. So why bicker over this idiots article? He's a dumbass, we know he's a dumbass, and mostlikly people tell him he's a dumbass, as was said on the first page of this thread their is no way to comment on his article so why keep going on it?

I like linux myself but I won't push it on people. To many are into the gui, :click: :click: done, way of doing things.

I personally hate Mac's os and macine's. But that's my opinion.

 

[lomn75]

What it seems they do is make a horribly hole filled OS, release it to the public , and then some months later release fixes they found needed to be implemented when they should have done this during beta

I really get tired of seeing this rant.

I'll put it simply: I have to deal with a Win server and a Red Hat server at school. Between OS and core applications, I patch them at pretty much the same frequency.

If you want to rant about bugs in software in general, fine. Just don't try to paint it as a one-sided situation.

 

[darkmyth]

I really get tired of seeing this rant.

I'll put it simply: I have to deal with a Win server and a Red Hat server at school. Between OS and core applications, I patch them at pretty much the same frequency.

If you want to rant about bugs in software in general, fine. Just don't try to paint it as a one-sided situation.

I run a redhat 9 server myself and don't have to patch the $hit out of it. It is mostly 90% - 10% wise of the two OS's fuxsored way of things. windows being the 90%

 

[oldpablo]

I run a redhat 9 server myself and don't have to patch the $hit out of it. It is mostly 90% - 10% wise of the two OS's fuxsored way of things. windows being the 90%

Darkmyth, seriously you are showing your ignorance. Its like saying the sun isn't shining. If MS were as bad as you and many others let on, they would be GONE. Businesses wouldn't stand for it. I guess I'll never know the joy of being a member of a hate club. I see good purposes in all technology. They all have their place, scenario and circumstance. lomn75 I am so with you. Why is it soo "cool" to hate a company?

 

[XOR != OR]

Darkmyth, seriously you are showing your ignorance. Its like saying the sun isn't shining.

Agreed.

If MS were as bad as you and many others let on, they would be GONE. Businesses wouldn't stand for it

Um, yes they would. You know why? They don't know any better. Or if they do, it's because someone exposed them to something else, and half assed it, so they are more scared of it than they dislike windows. That's how bussiness works I'm afraid.

I guess I'll never know the joy of being a member of a hate club. I see good purposes in all technology. They all have their place, scenario and circumstance. lomn75 I am so with you. Why is it soo "cool" to hate a company?

Same reason it's cool to watch wrestling ( although I'll personally never saw the attraction of watching a bunch of sweating mostly-naked men grapple ). We need our heroes and we need our villians.

 

[corrosive23]

Someone should remind that guy that the first version of OSX was dogshit pure and simple. Half the crap didnt work, you could watch dvd's couldnt burn cd's. and then they had the gall to charge you $129 for the fixs. Sad really.

 

[hulksterjoe]

OldPueblo is a bit too hardcore on the Windows front for me. Sure, I use XP...but c'mon, installing an SP immediateley is like getting a new chipset before the reviews come out. MS makes mistakes.

As for the weird MAC dude's article....it screams of MAC bias but really, which PC user, enthusiast, muggle or somewhere in between is gonna drop everything and get a mac or wipe windows away for linux based on 25 lines of rant. It's not economically feasible--and i don't mean money wise; the time it takes to learn all that new stuff....to avoid an SP?....OldPueblo, calm down.

Like I said before. I live in syracuse and have seen al's column for years. First off let me say that OldPueblo is correct and hes got al's number square on. Not so in the past. I can tell you that Al has gotten more biased and crotchety over the years and he does do a disservice by only reviewing and featuring programs that he enjoys. Thats not such a bad thing except for the fact that his interests aren't as diverse as this communities or most others. He is an avid photogragher but I'll tell you, I'f I see one more article this year on imagesand editing I'm gonna VOMIT.

 

[GreNME]

The letters are getting long now:

John,

Thanks for writing. We obviously disagree on whether I'm so biased, but I doubt that I'd be able to change your mind. You might want to look at the situation in another way, from the consumer's point of view. How many PC shoppers even know that they have a choice?

If you applied that kind of question to automobile shopping and discovered that half the shoppers had no clue that there were models from companies other than Ford, you'd suspect that some sort of shenanigans were going on. I think you're with me on this point, right?

Then how does this apply to Windows? Give it some thought. If Microsoft hadn't, for example, forced PC manufacturers and stores to sell ONLY Windows PC in order to be approved for the sale of Windows -- that's just one of the offenses Microsoft was found guilty of, and yet most Americans have no idea Microsoft did this, year after year -- then stores would have been selling Linux PCs and BeOS PCs and Unix PCs. Just one example, John.

The fact that most people don't know this isn't my fault or yours, but it's a problem nonetheless. Microsoft has even gone out of its way to avoid using the term "operating system," because it suggests that there must be other items with the same name -- another operating system from a non-Microsoft source, for example.

I realize your mind is made up, but you have to understand something. I write for consumers. They're the ones who need to understand that they have a choice. With the rise of spyware and the incredible, dismal number of viruses and worms -- all of which are Windows problems, not Mac OS X or Linux problems -- consumers are getting fed up.

I'm sure you agree that consumers deserve the best computer operating systems the industry can supply. And that would also mean that we actually agree that writing about Windows without mentioning the dangers of Windows is like writing about arsenic without mentioning that it is poisonous.

As for claims about the service pack, you're misunderstanding something. Microsoft has found a lot of problems with the service pack. So it's not my claims that matter here; it's Microsoft's findings. You need to contact Microsoft and ask them to double-check their findings if you believe them to be faulty. The list of programs that have problems with SP2 is quite long, John. If GM recalled a pickup truck and, when you got it back from the dealer, you found that the radio didn't work, the tires were out of balance and the tailgate wouldn't shut, you'd be a lot more likely to complain to the dealer or to GM than to a newspaper columnist who pointed out that there were problems with the recall.

Blaming the messenger is an old tactic. It doesn't work. Windows could be a lot better. We both know that. Microsoft could have made it better a long time ago. We both know that. Microsoft could have done the right thing and recalled Windows when it was clear that security problems were insurmountable. We both know that.

But that hasn't happened yet. I'm not giving up.

Al

And my reply:

Al (can I call you 'Al'?),

I already am looking at things from the consumer's point of view. That's why I've been so adamant about actually informing the consumer about the facts and not misinformation.

Let's begin with the biggest problem with your (mis)information:
http://www.securitypipeline.com/trends/30900008 —a trojan that can compromise a Windows machine running everything but... Surprise, surprise... XP Service Pack 2

Telling people to not install something that will keep them from being compromised is intentionally hamstringing the very consumers you claim to be wishing to protect. No matter what you say, you are not going to make everyone within shouting distance simply drop the software and/or hardware that they have spent good money on, even if you lead to them being infected by malicious attacks.

I, because I am adamant about the consumer being entitled to the truth, make it a point to not only ensure that clients and anyone who has a question about techniques and software that can help them stay more secure online, but often offer alternatives to people who are unaware that there exist such alternatives. However, since "RTFM" isn't going to be an adequate answer, it is my responsibility as someone who actually provides service to the consumer to give as much pertinent and helpful information as possible. They deserve no less.

People actually are unaware of a lot of alternatives concerning automobiles, and the automobile industry is highly culpable for the lack of such information, since you are so persistent about using car analogies. Iceland, for example, is one of the nations who has put the US to shame in alternate sources of energy to not only use in automobiles, but for all types of transportation and human services. The reason for this is because GM and the Japanese companies don't have a strangle-hold on research grants and government interests over there. The fact that development of hybrid autos is only just appearing on the consumer level after the technology is easily over a decade old (depending on who you talk to, twice that) is an easy enough indication of who is holding unfair control of what the consumers get to see.

In other words, your use of auto companies as an example denotes a little lack of understanding of the politics of such companies.

Yet I would guarantee you not only drive to work daily in your automobile, but will continue to do so. I am willing to bet that you will not begin telling everyone that they should stop driving automobiles. I think it's a safe assumption that, even though the world as a whole (and the US as the leading consumer of petrolium in the world), not a whole lot of people would even stop using these automobiles anyway.

To bring it back to your connection between autos and computers, the vast majority of people are likely to not heed your suggestion that they use a different operating system, and to expect a significantly large percentage of them to drop everything for a more expensive machine (from Apple) is laughable, especially in the current economic state (1.3 million more people living below the poverty line than in 2003: http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/poverty_survey/ ).

As for your comments about "the best operating systems the industry can supply," I don't think you realize how subjective such a statement actually is. Unless you are suffixing it with "for YOU, which may not be the same as for me," then you are being incredibly disingenuous. Different consumer groups have different needs, different wants, and different suites of software. No single "solution" is going to be for everyone.

Stores DO sell Linux PCs:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34969.html —Dell shipping Linux PCs internationally
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/prod...ath=0:3944:3951:41937:86796:96356&bti=0&sb=61 —Linux PCs sold by WalMart (you know... The huge department store found everywhere in the US)

We won't bother getting into the strong-arm tactics of Apple over the years with regard to the clone-makers and those small start-ups who were selling cheap models built from basically older refurb Apple parts. I mean, come on, if we're going to talk about consumer lock-in, Apple is just as culpable, just without the market saturation that Microsoft has. In fact, since you work at a paper, you should know about the three-plus years Apple kept print shops screwed out of being able to upgrade to OS X because they wouldn't get Quark supported for OS X. How about the fact that half of the "features" in OS X 10.1 didn't work consistently, and they had the gall to charge $129 US for the fixes in 10.2 (and another $129 US for 10.3, with little to no more support or software updates from Apple for 10.1)? Shall we talk about the fact that Apple is buying many of the popular developers for the Mac and then selling them as flagship products (Final Cut, Garage Band)? Best not to, since I'm not in the habit of trash-talking a platform I've come to like.

I know about the supposed dangers of SP2 to programs, because for the last six months Microsoft has had public beta testing for regular users, and has kept software development companies fairly well appraised of the changes for about a year. Despite the bitching of a few people—some with legitimate gripes and others with unrelated issues (like disabled services, another popular misinformation that is spread around)—Service Pack 2 has done very little harm (if any), and ignoring the many more benefits because of paranoia is simply counterproductive.

You'll get no argument from me that Windows doesn't have room for improvement. So does Linux. So does OS X. In the case of Windows and Linux, I'm doing my best to actually contribute to moving towards the improvement, and plan to do so with OS X as I learn more about it. Getting to know the nuts and bolts of operating systems may have been a hobby at one point, but now working and furthering education in the field has become even more rewarding. However, the single largest deterrent to the advancement for consumers is misinformation.

An old security policy is that a virus (or malware) hoax is often just as damaging as a virus (or malware) itself, and is much more insidious and difficult for us professionals to fix after-the-fact. Your suggesting to people to leave their machines susceptible to security exploits makes my job harder by proxy, because an ounce of prevention—in this case, installing an update that fixes flaws even you won't dispute—is worth far more than a ton of cure—in this case, removing various infections that can and may result from the lack of added security measures and code updates.

And since I work for $65 an hour in most cases (I have a sliding scale for some cases), making more work for me, while maybe helping me pay my bills, is not helping the consumer at all.

Erroso,
John "GreNME" Lieske

 

[GreNME]

Looks like he's given up trying to convince me otherwise:

Everybody calls me Al, John. Thanks for writing, and we will simply have to settle for agreeing that we disagree.

Have a great day!

Al

So much for expecting to promote equillibrium.

 

[oldpablo]

Looks like he's given up trying to convince me otherwise:

So much for expecting to promote equillibrium.

It's like talking politics. I won't bother with someone that's "<insert party name here> FOREVER!!" The simple fact that they are more interested in them being right or "their side winnning" means they really don't have a worthwhile perspective on anything...

 

[Shane]

Service pack 2 is a great patch and resolves alot of issues. I think that guy is just pissed off at Billgates/Microsoft cuz hes a linux lover.

 

[dwayne001]

FYI, my friend. I've been beta testing SP2 since the
program became available. Therefore, I've actually been using it for
several months now, production environment included. See, that's how
it's supposed to be done. A lot of people don't "get" MS's
business model.

You're missing the point !!!!!!. I have no idea what you mean by
"supposed to be" but I don't have hte time or the inclination to waste
my life away testing someone elses bread nad butter. There are books
to read and women to chase....in the end It's not about who's been
testing whatever for however long. You, Pueblo, are into it, you're
all over the development of this softare--which means you have the
time and energy to sit down and work through any probs that may come
up while you're working with the pre-release builds, etc. This is not
the case for me--the power-user or for the muggle who installs it
because auto updates told him/her to. The MAC guy was def appealing
to muggles.

Sure, I love machines and tech and all that stuff, but i'm not an IT
worker and i have no times for nonsense when it comes to Windows
compatability issues.

It's because of this that I'm gonna stand behind my original statement:
You should never jump into anything too quickly, especially a service
pack that promises to change so much. wait a few weeks, see what the
deal is, learn the issues that you're gonna have to deal with upon
install and then go w/ the flow.

For my part I'm very happy w/ SP1, and won't be upgradingto SP2 until
I want to overhaul my hardware enough to warrant a fresh install of
the OS.

 

[GreNME]

You're missing the point fan*boy. I have no idea what you mean by
"supposed to be" but I don't have hte time or the inclination to waste
my life away testing someone elses bread nad butter. There are books
to read and women to chase....in the end It's not about who's been
testing whatever for however long. You, Pueblo, are into it, you're
all over the development of this softare--which means you have the
time and energy to sit down and work through any probs that may come
up while you're working with the pre-release builds, etc. This is not
the case for me--the power-user or for the muggle who installs it
because auto updates told him/her to. The MAC guy was def appealing
to muggles.

Sure, I love machines and tech and all that stuff, but i'm not an IT
worker and i have no times for nonsense when it comes to Windows
compatability issues.

It's because of this that I'm gonna stand behind my original statement:
You should never jump into anything too quickly, especially a service
pack that promises to change so much. wait a few weeks, see what the
deal is, learn the issues that you're gonna have to deal with upon
install and then go w/ the flow.

For my part I'm very happy w/ SP1, and won't be upgradingto SP2 until
I want to overhaul my hardware enough to warrant a fresh install of
the OS.

Ladies and gentlemen, the ignorance award for the thread goes to... dwayne001

The service pack has made no such promises to change over the next few weeks. If you download it and install it a month from now, it will be the same service pack you get today. As I have pointed out already, there are already exploits that affect only SP1 machines.

If you don't want to install it because you are either paranoid or scared, that's just fine. You are entitled to your own decisions for the license you paid for. However, trying to rationalize it using such piss-poor logic and flat-out incorrect statements, then trying to pawn it off as some kind of ephemeral truth, is what is making you look bad here.

 

[Phoenix86]

edit: odoe - don't go putting words in other peoples mouths

EDIT:

The service pack has made no such promises to change over the next few weeks. If you download it and install it a month from now, it will be the same service pack you get today. As I have pointed out already, there are already exploits that affect only SP1 machines.

If you don't want to install it because you are either paranoid or scared, that's just fine. You are entitled to your own decisions for the license you paid for. However, trying to rationalize it using such piss-poor logic and flat-out incorrect statements, then trying to pawn it off as some kind of ephemeral truth, is what is making you look bad here.

Not quite entirely true, esp for a home user, or someone who doesn't have IT level support... Remember NT4.0 SP2 and SP3, or was it 1 and 2... Not entirely sure... I think it was 2 and 3... Anyways, 2 came out and was BSODing machines left and right, the next service pack was released in short fashion. For a home user waiting a week or two isn't a bad idea. In this case it gives the shoddy vendors more time to make their software SP2 compatible (granted this could have been done before the release, but once the SP is released they have a whole lot more customers bitching). It would also give a little more time incase there is a critical flaw which needs patching, case in point, SP2 is already patched.

 

[odoe]

The term fan boy is blocked out for a reason.
Don't try to get around it.

 

[GreNME]

Not quite entirely true, esp for a home user, or someone who doesn't have IT level support... Remember NT4.0 SP2 and SP3, or was it 1 and 2... Not entirely sure... I think it was 2 and 3... Anyways, 2 came out and was BSODing machines left and right, the next service pack was released in short fashion. For a home user waiting a week or two isn't a bad idea. In this case it gives the shoddy vendors more time to make their software SP2 compatible (granted this could have been done before the release, but once the SP is released they have a whole lot more customers bitching). It would also give a little more time incase there is a critical flaw which needs patching, case in point, SP2 is already patched.

Heh, you're reaching really far back for that example, dude. The plain fact is, SP2 will most likely not actually see any major changes except to remove the "full" parts of the net install that many will already have installed (or will have installed by WU automatically). All of the things that make SP2 what it is will not actually change.

You're right, there's a chance I could be wrong, however, compared to the probablity that I am correct here, the chance of me being incorrect about SP2 is rather minute.

 

[Phoenix86]

Heh, you're reaching really far back for that example, dude. The plain fact is, SP2 will most likely not actually see any major changes except to remove the "full" parts of the net install that many will already have installed (or will have installed by WU automatically). All of the things that make SP2 what it is will not actually change.

You're right, there's a chance I could be wrong, however, compared to the probablity that I am correct here, the chance of me being incorrect about SP2 is rather minute.

Tisk-tisk... Now why is it that we study history again?

 

[GreNME]

Tisk-tisk... Now why is it that we study history again?

As a history buff, I doubt you need to give me a lesson on that

Seriously, the situation is totally different between the two examples. In fact, about the only similarity is that they were both service packs. Hardly enough to indicate a bunch of changes.

 

[Phoenix86]

As a history buff, I doubt you need to give me a lesson on that

Seriously, the situation is totally different between the two examples. In fact, about the only similarity is that they were both service packs. Hardly enough to indicate a bunch of changes.

Come on, they are both SPs, which by definition is a LOT of changes. In fact XPSP2 is touted as one of the most changes to an OS in any SP, this is exactly the time NOT to forget NTSP2.

In fact, I'd bet NTSP2 changed a lot about how MS (longer test times) and companies (actually test before they implement) patch their systems.

 

[GreNME]

Come on, they are both SPs, which by definition is a LOT of changes. In fact XPSP2 is touted as one of the most changes to an OS in any SP, this is exactly the time NOT to forget NTSP2.

In fact, I'd bet NTSP2 changed a lot about how MS (longer test times) and companies (actually test before they implement) patch their systems.

You seem to be missing something here, though. Before (Win) 2000, not only were the test times probably shorter, but there was little public testing of the service pack itself. XPSP2 may have the most changes in a long time, but it's also had the most testing and one of the longest public betas of a service pack to date. In other words, they far more likely did all those changes and re-changes before August.

 

[oldpablo]

As far as I know, MS does not change an SP once it goes gold. Maybe in extreme circumstances, which I don't think SP2 has had at all by far. MS is far too happy simply to add updates after the fact (NT4 SP6/6a anyone?). They have an excellent distribution method so its generally not a big deal.

 

[Phoenix86]

In other words, they far more likely did all those changes and re-changes before August.

So everything was working day 1 right? Including important 3rd party apps like Symantec virus scan... Lots of 3rd party vendor patches came out after XPSP2 was released to public. Why not wait a bit and let everyone get their ducks in a row? Remember, I'm talking consumers w/o IT support.

NT4 SP6/6a anyone.

Which is yet another reason many people (people who can't afford to test) can wait a week or two on SPs and let the rest of us test it for them. They can and will find new things to update (SP6-6a), granted 2 weeks probably wouldn't have gotten you SP6a instead of SP6, but then again the a part of the update wasn't uber critical.

 

[GreNME]

So everything was working day 1 right? Including important 3rd party apps like Symantec virus scan... Lots of 3rd party vendor patches came out after XPSP2 was released to public. Why not wait a bit and let everyone get their ducks in a row? Remember, I'm talking consumers w/o IT support.

No, you misunderstand. "Day 1" was not the day it was released to manufacturers this time around. It started waaay back when it was in alpha, went on to beta, and over the months when people were banging out bug reports on it and when the information of the changes was released to software developers—over six months before its release. None of these changes were unexpected, and so far the only real snag seems to be the x86-64 snag. The issue with Symantec's A/V is an issue Norton has with allowing outside software access it (supposedly to prevent viruses the ability to hide from it or plant exclusions), not from SP2.

The changes that may come probably will come with 3rd party patches to their software, but that isn't going to change what SP2 is. It just means the vendors waited until the last minute to finally work on what they were told months ago.

 

[Phoenix86]

No, you misunderstand. "Day 1" was not the day it was released to manufacturers this time around. It started waaay back when it was in alpha, went on to beta, and over the months when people were banging out bug reports on it and when the information of the changes was released to software developers—over six months before its release.

Right, the vendors has it way back then, and yet there are still 3rd party app issues. Why should an end user have to worry about troubleshooting all that? Why not wait for the vendor patches to rollout as well (granted these are lazy vendors)?

The changes that may come probably will come with 3rd party patches to their software, but that isn't going to change what SP2 is. It just means the vendors waited until the last minute to finally work on what they were told months ago.

I'm not arguing that SP2 is buggy, just that the end result can be a less than happy system, and therefore a less than happy user. A user who cannot afford to test (think a family machine w/o a free tech in the family tree) should wait a bit and let these issues get panned out, wether they are SP issues or 3rd party problems as a direct result of the SP.

 

[GreNME]

Well, I don't really disagree with your overall meaning, but I do want to point out that the only thing I've really argued is that the SP itself is far less likely to change than some might seem to think. As for whether someone (typical end-user) should install or not, I usually explain it to them in a cost/benefit ratio—there might be a few things they may have issues with, and they might get a little annoyed getting them working the same again, but the ways in which prevention is put in place will equally reduce time they have to spend getting rid of malware/spyware and such, as well as assist their current A/V in keeping the big-nasties out.

More often than not, having to re-set-up one or two of their favorite programs is trivial to them compared to the annoying pop-ups and virus scares. There are a few who are skeptical, and it's totally their own choice.

 

[Josh_B]

Holy hell, that guy needs to have anything related to technology confiscated for his completely biased and majorly uninformed opinion...

No kidding. Linux isn't that great about security either. If you're looking for uber-security, go with OpenBSD... or unplug the PC from the network

Besides, everyone knows how Windows performs, (or in some cases, doesn't), but yet they continue buying it. You tell me who's to blame? I blame idiotic users who don't care about security, and are either too ignorant, or too lazy to perform the updates.

I'm not allowing MS to abscond from any responsibility they might have, but really now, you can't blame EVERYTHING on them. (Automatic updates just goes how far they had to go to twist Joe Sixpack's arm so he'll install the updates.)

That said, I do think that Linux can be MADE to be safer than a default Windows installation. Then again:

1) You have to know what you're doing. An unsecured Linux box running RedHat's default list of services is probably just as insecure as WinXP. Why do they insist on running so many (unnecessary) services, for a PC that's meant to be run as a desktop? The default RedHat installation allows CD-ROMs and other devices to automount... as well as the fact that it will allow you to set it up so that it will auto-login to Gnome/KDE. Strong passwords are not enforced either unless you edit your PAM configuration.

2) You could say the same thing about Windows - enabling the firewall in XP and enabling the NX bit (once AMD and MS figure out how it works....), as well as disabling unnecessary services would probably make for quite a secure box. Group policies, and good audit policies also go a long way. Automatic updates just adds that much more to the mix.

While I would never suggest that a default Windows install is more secure than a default Linux install, overall the security of a box comes down to how well you can lock it down.

Hence, it might actually be better to use an OS such as XP, and use your intimate knowledge of the OS to lock it down tight, than to try installing Linux. Giving yourself a false sense of security just by using an unknown OS leaves you more vulnerable than before.

 

[GreNME]

No kidding. Linux isn't that great about security either. If you're looking for uber-security, go with OpenBSD... or unplug the PC from the network

Well, unplugging from the network is the only surefire way, but as far as Linux's general grade on security, I think you're being too harsh. I really think that, depending on the type of install, a Linux box can be quite secure. Then again, I think the same for Windows and OS X as well. However, when talking default install, you are correct—OpenBSD has a lot of the general things set to "secure" by default.

With the exception of those who have their whole system set up for them (and in many cases, including them), how many people actually run totally default?

Actually, that's a little less of a real issue now, as long as those who don't know the ins and outs of securing a Win box simply leave the (now default) firewall setting on.

Hence, it might actually be better to use an OS such as XP, and use your intimate knowledge of the OS to lock it down tight, than to try installing Linux. Giving yourself a false sense of security just by using an unknown OS leaves you more vulnerable than before.

This is true.

The only issue I have with your post, Josh_B, is the thing about services: turning off services does not make your machine more secure, because if someone has access to the level where they can call on services, the system is already compromised. Also, QuackViper's suggestions on what the services actually do is quite often incomplete or flat-out wrong, and a lot of sites out there have simply copied/pasted his (incorrect) explanations as if they were gospel.

Dammit, this reminds me that I have to finish that run-down on services for publishing to my site.

 

[t. shuffle]

Dammit, this reminds me that I have to finish that run-down on services for publishing to my site.

Do it, man.

Enough people link to it, and it might just begin to be damage control. Who knows how far it could go.

Your country needs you.

 

[GreNME]

Well, it has to be finished to be put up. I needs me some more information, and there are actually some outside sources I'm hitting up for info on it. I hafta allow them time to get it to me (as I don't demand every waking minute of theirs when they have lives and jobs of their own, as I do).