"Linux geek" sez: Windows more secure then Linux!

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by yellow, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #1
    While laughing my ass off after finding http://www.unixsucks.com/, one of the articles linked there made me laugh even harder.

    After spending the last couple days wrastling with Panther, Win2k, WinXP and Active Directory, this made me feel good. Apparently these guys were quoted after the open bar closed down...

    http://www.vnunet.com/news/1161323

    Of course, the writer might have left out the part where they said something to the effect of:

    Or something..



    Or perhaps I'm deluded?
     
  2. rasp macrumors regular

    rasp

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    Easthampton, MA
    #2
    Any system will have a weakness. And improperly maintained systems will have even more... Where was I going with this??? The long and short of the idea is that given proper motivation, the bad guys will find a way in. and we just try to make their job harder is all.
     
  3. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #3
    exactly because computer perception for most ppl, but it really a process. the only people that care to say that their os is the most secure is specifically for marketing purposes. anybody who knows anything about computer security knows that it a never ending process.
     
  4. panphage macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    #4
    I think this was probably a paid advertisement from microsoft. But if I had to guess, I'd say that microsoft's vulnerabilities are catastrophic due to random programs being able to make any changes they like to the OS w/o user intervention. I'd say that's less secure in my opinion.
     
  5. yellow thread starter Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #5
    Yes, and mind-bogglingly stupid. One major reason that I refuse to support Windows in my environment more then I have to.
     
  6. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #6
    We have both Red Hat (Enterprise Linux 3) and Windows (2000 Server) machines in our server room, so I keep an eye on the time between announcement and "fix" for both systems using subscriptions to things like SANS newsletters. There is NO WAY these numbers could be accurate without some sort of really odd skewing going on. I can't think of a significant Red Hat hole that's taken even two weeks to patch, let alone 30 or 71 days - so I'd really like to see what sort of stuff is being included in this rather than this vague (and sweeping) statement.

    On the Windows side, I would bet their number is skewed significantly downward (not that 30 days is a good turnaround time) because Microsoft does not generally acknowledge many vulnerabilities until they've got a patch for them. So you can have an MS vulnerability get announced in, say, Summer 2003, but MS doesn't acknowledge it until Summer 2004 at the same time they release the fix.
     

Share This Page