PDA

View Full Version : A good read on Un*x / Windows



mikebartnz
07-09-2004, 02:46 AM
Hi there all thought this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/does_open_source_software_enhance/) was a good read on why un*x as against Windows is more secure.

drb1
07-09-2004, 03:15 AM
> Hi there all thought
> this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/does_open
> source_software_enhance/) was a good read
> on why un*x as against Windows is more secure.

The problem is its all true.

drb1
07-09-2004, 03:23 AM
Did you read the xandros link?

Laura
07-09-2004, 03:25 AM
That's an interesting one, Mike - once you really plough into it.
It adds to my belief that Linux is well worth a try for those experienced and knowledgeable about their computers.
I'm far from ready for it yet, but look forward to the time when I know enough to take an experimental plunge.

drb1
07-09-2004, 03:32 AM
Laura,

Experiment, if I didnít think you would freeze it I would lend you a little hard drive, 4 g will do.

Have you tried mandrake move. Good for a tut.

JohnD
07-09-2004, 10:09 PM
MS have made lots of noise over the past few years about security and at last are beginning to make a bit of progress. But .... why do they ignore the simple things, for example:

1. Why have so many categories of user? Why let XP create administrator equivalent accounts with no password by default? You can't beat the simplicity of a root user and all other users of a restricted nature. Instead of this, most home users browse the net logged in as a power user leaving their systems wide open to access! If you try to browse the net as ordinary user and (say) download Nortons AV signature updates, they cannot install and you have to repeat the download logged in as a minimum of power user. In contrast to this, Linux always prompts for root user's password when necessary allowing you to use a lower level account.

2. As far as I know MS have not yet provided a replacement to telnet which transmits logins and passwords as plain text. Linux has had for ages secure shell (ssh) which does the same job but uses encryption. You can get ssh for Windows, but it is not from MS.

If MS are serious about security, why not fix the basics?

drb1
07-09-2004, 10:32 PM
> MS have made lots of noise over the past few years
> about security and at last are beginning to make a

Ect

>
> If MS are serious about security, why not fix the
> basics?

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html

Came from another thread here should answer your questions.