ARGH! Badly Maintained PC Rant!
- Thread starter Skeeter
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
security through obscurity
Security through UNIX my old boy. Nothing gives you that feeling a safety that a well designed OS does (Linux, BSD, OS X and so on)
Windows on the other hand...
Security through UNIX my old boy. Nothing gives you that feeling a safety that a well designed OS does (Linux, BSD, OS X and so on)
Windows on the other hand...
If any of them had 90% market share for the same period of time there would be just as much crap made for them.
At the moment though there's just no point in making spyware etc for linux etc as not enough people use it for home pc's, and those that do are generally more knowledgeable of pc's than the average user and not worth targeting.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
That graph shows that more vulnerabilities where fixed on the UNIX/Linux based OSes. It doesn't say what they were, how serious they were, or how quickly they were fixed.
Or how the vulnerabilities where found. Mayhap the people stress tested the alternative OSes harder?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
I have to disagree as the underlying core of those OSes are far more resistant to malicious code.
Linux or OS X isn't for everyone though and unfortunately more and more people are getting PCs and connecting them to the Internet without any real understanding of what protection they need. Perhaps there should be some sort of Computer Driving License?
That graph shows that more vulnerabilities where fixed on the UNIX/Linux based OSes. It doesn't say what they were, how serious they were, or how quickly they were fixed.
also says there are more unfixed vulnerabilities vulnerabilities in osx than vista, and that there where the most vulnerabilities in the linux to fix and more where left unfixed than in vista, except for unbuto.
As for them being more resilliant, if you put the same millions of dollars up on offer for making mallicus code for them, then they will be cracked.
Actually it shows that overall it had many more vulnerabilities in its first year, fixed or otherwise.That graph shows that more vulnerabilities where fixed on the UNIX/Linux based OSes. It doesn't say what they were, how serious they were, or how quickly they were fixed.
You know what? I'm going to be so glad to be without computers for 4 years so I won't have to deal with all this kinda crap
Why were are you going? 4 years in a field?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Who puts up "millions of dollars" to crack Windows? I am not saying you could not crack the UNIX core but simply by the way the system work makes it very difficult for software to be installed via the backdoor unlike Windows.
Again, the graph doesn't say how serious the vulnerabilities were.
Seeing as I feel like I a preaching Paganism to a hard-line Muslim here I will quit. I stand by my point that an Apple is better for your casual computer user.
If your computer is vunerable, its serious. What more do you need?
A vulnerability is a vulnerability, stop making red herring arguments.
In other words we've proven that OSX had more vulnerabilities in its first year than Windows Vista, even that Windows Vista had a higher percentage of said vulnerabilities fixed, so you're just going to go and say "Mac is better because I say so, so there!!!!
"
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Sigh. There are levels of vulnerabilities and it does not mean it is serious.
Me said:
Doesn't matter what I say, does it? Windows is, of course, the best for your average computer user. How could I have forgotten that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
A vulnerability is a vulnerability, stop making red herring arguments.
In other words we've proven that OSX had more vulnerabilities in its first year than Windows Vista, even that Windows Vista had a higher percentage of said vulnerabilities fixed, so you're just going to go and say "Mac is better because I say so, so there!!!!
1. See above.
2. Can we have a graph that compares Vista to 10.5?
err, the money that is made by bot nets, spam bots etc.
So even after a graph shows that there where more Vulnerabilities with all the osx/linux ones, both fixed and unfixed compared to vista, and in most cases xp, you still say the linux ones are more secure, you know I feel like I a preaching Paganism to a hard-line Muslim here
All vulnerabilities are serious.
All you are doing is preaching (hey, you said it first.)Doesn't matter what I say, does it? Windows is, of course, the best for your average computer user. How could I have forgotten that?
You're the kind of Mac user that Mac users get annoyed about.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
...and you and mr.sly are the kind of Windows users that I get annoyed by.
Seemingly I have been pegged as a Mac Preacher despite the fact that all I am trying to say is right tool for the right job.
Sigh.
/me exits thread.
Don't know why you're directing that at me.
And you can have your graph for 10.5 when its been out a year.
What are you saying, that you're annoyed as us because we proved that Windows Vista had less vulnerabilities in its first year than Mac OSX 10.4, and fixed a higher percentage of them? The only reason I can see for you to be mad about that is if you're some kind of fanboy and arguing from emotion instead of from logic.
You're the one who decided to get smug in your original post, don't get bitter because your high horse has dashed off. Just graciously accept that you were over-exaggerating how secure OSX is and move on.
Last edited: