Report: Microsoft dominance poses security risk (General Discussion)

Report: Microsoft dominance poses security risk // General Discussion

1  2  |  

jerme

Sep 26, 2003, 9:07pm
Find the original article and related material at:

http://news.com.com/2009-7355_3-5082632.html?tag=fd_lede

"The draft of the report asserts that Microsoft's problems in securing its
products and the ubiquity of those technologies result in a hazard for the
U.S. economy and industry, which increasingly relies on the Internet and
computers for critical functions."

Wow! Someone is a genius..... I mean, if we all use the same OS and someone
finds a flaw (in software that is notorious for being insecure, mind you) ,
it makes massive exploits (such as CodeRed, SoBig,Welchia...etc) possible
and that's a major security problem. Is it that had to see? Yet everyone is
still anal retentive about switching away from Windows and Microsoft. If
people had any intelligence, they'd be running from Microsoft like it was
the plague.

I'm just glad someone has got the BALLS to step up and say it....

.....Other opinions welcome....

-Jeremy

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 26, 2003, 9:33pm
Right, unless you play games. Which I do. Not to mention some of the great
little tidbits XP has.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

john

Sep 26, 2003, 9:37pm
AW-X !!

(aka AW Linux)

WISHLIST!

Lol

~John

[View Quote]

jerme

Sep 26, 2003, 9:40pm
> Not to mention some of the great little tidbits XP has.

You mean that great little DCOM exploit?

For me, no little "tidbit" has enough value to me to overcome the glaringly
obvious security issues.

You didn't mention anything about the issues I raised though. You would
rather play your games and let your computer be a part of a dDos scheme that
slows the entire internet (or at least whatever network you are on).
....Somehow that doesn't sound very responsible to me....

-Jeremy


[View Quote]

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 26, 2003, 10:02pm
Your missing my point. A computer is of no use to me if I can't do what I
want with it. If it means risking the entire internet, so be it. Its not my
program that has security flaws, and I'm not the one who makes the games I
play. If Microsoft had a larger development team we would be better off.
There would be FAR less bugs. If everyone used Linux and there weren't
hardware issues, we'd be better off.

Tidbits? How about my hardware working, that's a pretty big part of what I
like about XP. Not only does all your hardware work (unlike in Linux or Mac
OS) but the plug-and-play support is SUPERB. You almost literally do not
need software for anything, and most everything you can simply plug in and
it will work. Windows does have terrible menory handling and such though.

What you quoted was true. I really just don't see your logic. I bought a
computer to enjoy myself, not be "responsible." Why would I ever buy a
computer just to have it sit there, unable to do what I want? Computers,
though far cheaper than before, ARE NOT CHEAP. Seriously, I just don't get
why you think what you think. In fact, I WOULD rather be able to enjoy
myself on my computer while it slows down the entire internet, rather then
not enjoying myself on my computer while it doesn't slow down the internet.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

joeman

Sep 26, 2003, 10:16pm
Ok, lets all switch to Linux overnight! That solves everyone's problems.
Did you ever stop to think that everyone switching over to another operating
system would pose an even larger threat then the current windows "threat"?

-Joe

[View Quote]

anduin

Sep 26, 2003, 10:26pm
On 26 Sep 2003 20:02:27 -0400, ".duo.28daysleft" <ncommons at comcast.net> attempted to scribe the following words:

>Your missing my point. A computer is of no use to me if I can't do what I
>want with it. If it means risking the entire internet, so be it. Its not my
>program that has security flaws, and I'm not the one who makes the games I
>play. If Microsoft had a larger development team we would be better off.
>There would be FAR less bugs. If everyone used Linux and there weren't
>hardware issues, we'd be better off.

You raise a good point, duo. And it's true, that what we use in terms of an operating system doesn't make it our responsibility that the internet is slowing down. It's the major companies still using the same operating systems and hosting companies still using it that are causing the most troubles.

Because when they fail to update their system with patches or when someone finds a new exploit and develops a new virus to take advantage of it and a business goes down, a hosting company or even a DNS server; that's where the economy may have problems across the world with loss of customers, loss of business etc.

We, as the general internet users and gamers are not responsible for the actions of others. Although a virus may be made to use the general users of the internet as their host while they send themselves automatically to everyone else, it means nothing to us.

I'm on dial up, at a measly 2.2kb/sec because of my bad phone lines out in Country Australia, and I don't see the internet getting any slower for me ;)

Someone needs to start their own internet network and start gaining customers to a new and *improved* system allowing only security cleared users, patched systems and all that access (yeah, right).

--
Anduin (317281)
- 5mb FREE Webhosting at http://www.awnewbie.com/freehosting.html
- Free at awnewbie.com e-mail alias at http://www.awnewbie.com/email.html
- Professional hosting and POP3 emails also available. Check links above!

anduin

Sep 26, 2003, 10:43pm
On 26 Sep 2003 20:16:53 -0400, "joeman" <john at fakeplastic.com> attempted to scribe the following words:

>Ok, lets all switch to Linux overnight! That solves everyone's problems.
>Did you ever stop to think that everyone switching over to another operating
>system would pose an even larger threat then the current windows "threat"?

Another good point. Some hackers go for Microsoft because they hate it and think it's evil. Whilst some individuals go for Microsoft because it's the system used by most people and want their virus to spread as fast as possible to everyone, because they want to get their message across or prove that they are #1.

P.S: Not all hackers, I'm talking mostly black hat hackers. Or idiots that don't know what they're doing and end up in jail anyway.

--
Anduin (317281)
- 5mb FREE Webhosting at http://www.awnewbie.com/freehosting.html
- Free at awnewbie.com e-mail alias at http://www.awnewbie.com/email.html
- Professional hosting and POP3 emails also available. Check links above!

joeman

Sep 26, 2003, 11:00pm
I was going even beyond that. The amount of programs to be ported, and all
the data passed in the clear from one system to another.

-Joe

[View Quote]

bowen

Sep 27, 2003, 4:22am
[View Quote] Did you stop to think about your mom and I last night?

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

anduin

Sep 27, 2003, 4:36am
On 27 Sep 2003 02:22:14 -0400, "bowen" <Bowen at andras.net> attempted to scribe the following words:

[View Quote] <cough> And me.

--
Anduin (317281)
- 5mb FREE Webhosting at http://www.awnewbie.com/freehosting.html
- Free at awnewbie.com e-mail alias at http://www.awnewbie.com/email.html
- Professional hosting and POP3 emails also available. Check links above!

joeman

Sep 27, 2003, 7:27pm
No, because that's disgusting. If you want to do that, fine with me, but
I'd rather not be informed.

-Joe

[View Quote]

bowen

Sep 27, 2003, 8:04pm
[View Quote] That's your loss.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

kah

Sep 27, 2003, 8:13pm
".duo.28daysleft" <ncommons at comcast.net> wrote in
news:3f74d393$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> Your missing my point. A computer is of no use to me if I can't do
> what I want with it.

So what you're saying is, you want to use your computer as a security
threat?

>If it means risking the entire internet, so be
> it.

That's rather selfish... You really need to grow up Duo.

> Its not my program that has security flaws, and I'm not the one
> who makes the games I play.

No, but why use inferior quality programs? If a car was dangereous to
drive, would you buy it just because it looked sort of cool, everyone had
it and there were lots of accesories available for it? I hope not.

> If Microsoft had a larger development team
> we would be better off. There would be FAR less bugs.

No, they already have *immense* development teams. That's not the
problem. With larger teams, they'd just implement more "features",
meaning more bugs.

> If everyone used
> Linux and there weren't hardware issues, we'd be better off.

That's true (although there are very few hardware issues now).

> Tidbits? How about my hardware working, that's a pretty big part of
> what I like about XP. Not only does all your hardware work (unlike in
> Linux or Mac OS) but the plug-and-play support is SUPERB. You almost
> literally do not need software for anything, and most everything you
> can simply plug in and it will work. Windows does have terrible menory
> handling and such though.

I don't know about Mac OS, but in Linux most hardware works pretty well
now. A lot of hardware manufacturers release official Linux drivers, and
there's tons of drivers out there anyway. The hardware incompatibility
thing is a myth nowadays.

So, you're too lazy to install drivers manually, so that justifies using
buggy, insecure software? Okay, very good logic. It's not like you don't
need software, it's just that MS decided to waste your diskspace
preinstalling drivers for all sorts of hardware you don't have, to make
it look like you don't need any.

Yes, Windows has crappy memory handling. Considering memory is one of the
things that are really essential to a system, and also pretty expensive,
I'd rather have to spend a whole five minutes longer on installing
drivers for my new hardware.

> What you quoted was true. I really just don't see your logic. I bought
> a computer to enjoy myself, not be "responsible." Why would I ever buy
> a computer just to have it sit there, unable to do what I want?

You can still enjoy yourself while being responsible. Even if you don't
WANT to be responsible, the minute you plug that network jack in, you ARE
responsible for your actions on the network, wether you like it or not.
That includes your choice of software.

Having it sit there, unable to do what you want with it is stupid, but
since you obviously want to use it to be irresponsible, I'd rather you
did leave it off and disconnected. You've never struck me as a very
responsible person anyway. I don't expect you to understand any of this,
you're just too egocentrical.

> Computers, though far cheaper than before, ARE NOT CHEAP. Seriously, I
> just don't get why you think what you think. In fact, I WOULD rather
> be able to enjoy myself on my computer while it slows down the entire
> internet, rather then not enjoying myself on my computer while it
> doesn't slow down the internet.

Again, you display horrible egoism. Where is your sense of community, of
duty to your peers? You should seriously rethink your life philosophy.

KAH

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 27, 2003, 11:07pm
> So what you're saying is, you want to use your computer as a security
> threat?
You also miss my point. WHAT IS THE POINT OF BUYING A COMPUTER IF YOU DON'T
ENJOY IT? Seriously, I didn't buy a computer so I would never use it for
what I enjoy.

> That's rather selfish... You really need to grow up Duo.

Not selfish at all. Its how the world woks, get used to it. Consumers buy
products to improve the quality of life. Hear that? That means they buy
things to make their lives easier, more enjoyable, etc.

> No, but why use inferior quality programs? If a car was dangereous to
> drive, would you buy it just because it looked sort of cool, everyone had
> it and there were lots of accesories available for it? I hope not.

Umm... maybe because Linux isn't compatible with a majority of games. Not to
mention the majority of high-end sound and video cards. Seriously, if Linux
didn't have hardware issues and all the games for Windows were also on
Linux, I'd switch. As of now though, switching to Linux would eliminate 90%
of what I use my computer for.


> No, they already have *immense* development teams. That's not the
> problem. With larger teams, they'd just implement more "features",
> meaning more bugs.

They have a development team of 100s. Linux had a development team of 1000s.
That's why it isn't buggy. BTW, Linux is having some copyright issues...


> That's true (although there are very few hardware issues now).

Enough to stop me. If I can't upgrade my PC to have a Radeon 9700 Pro (which
I plan to do) I'm not switching to Linux for sure.


> I don't know about Mac OS, but in Linux most hardware works pretty well
> now. A lot of hardware manufacturers release official Linux drivers, and
> there's tons of drivers out there anyway. The hardware incompatibility
> thing is a myth nowadays.

Actually, Mac OS has less hardware issues than Linux. Any hardware issues,
unless very, VERY limited are unacceptable.

> So, you're too lazy to install drivers manually, so that justifies using
> buggy, insecure software? Okay, very good logic. It's not like you don't
> need software, it's just that MS decided to waste your diskspace
> preinstalling drivers for all sorts of hardware you don't have, to make
> it look like you don't need any.

Actually, for many devices, you CAN'T get Linux drivers. Plain and simple.
Actually, the way XP is constructed, VERY, VERY few devices need drivers.
That includes devices that came around AFTER XP's release.

> Yes, Windows has crappy memory handling. Considering memory is one of the
> things that are really essential to a system, and also pretty expensive,
> I'd rather have to spend a whole five minutes longer on installing
> drivers for my new hardware.

You mean, never install some of my new hardware? You realize that there are
a grossly large devices without linux drivers, right? Linux doesn't even
have basic drivers for things. Windows does not have severe enough memory
problems for it to be really significant.

> You can still enjoy yourself while being responsible. Even if you don't
> WANT to be responsible, the minute you plug that network jack in, you ARE
> responsible for your actions on the network, wether you like it or not.
> That includes your choice of software.

I put up a firewall. That's my being responsible. I don't need to stop
enjoying my computer by buying Linux and not being able to play any games.
Seriously, why would I choose software which doesn't do what I want? Why
would I buy Microsoft Word if I wanted to edit images?

> Having it sit there, unable to do what you want with it is stupid, but
> since you obviously want to use it to be irresponsible, I'd rather you
> did leave it off and disconnected. You've never struck me as a very
> responsible person anyway. I don't expect you to understand any of this,
> you're just too egocentrical.

Responsible? I'm not the one making the viruses trying to ruin everybody's
enjoyment of their computer. I'm not going to climb into a little shell and
be insecure. I'm just not an insecure person.

Egocentrical? I believe not. I have something which is called self-esteem.
And maybe your just wrong, and don't realize it. Next time have a basis for
your argument. I ace standardized tests, and am bored while taking them. I
know what I'm saying, and I know what your saying. I just don't agree with
what your saying. Though logically the well-being of the internet is first
priority, technically, since I am teh consumer, what I want is the priority.
I don't want the entire internet to go to hell for sure just so I can play
games, but I still want to play games. So I can make a compromise, I like to
call it a firewall. It isn't perfect, but its better than nothing.

> Again, you display horrible egoism. Where is your sense of community, of
> duty to your peers? You should seriously rethink your life philosophy.

How is it egoism? If I want to ride my bike in the woods I'm going to buy a
mountain bike, not a racing bike. Sense of community? I don't run the
internet, I don't make Windows, I don't choose what platforms the games are,
I don't choose what I like to do, HOW is the security of the internet my
responsibility? Why should I spend money on something I don't want? My life
philosophy is to do research, which quite possible could benefit the world.
I see the hole in my arguement, but there is no way to fix that gap. That's
Microsoft's job, not mine. I have a sense of community, but honestly, THINK,
who is falling victim if my computer is trashed by a scheme? ME. I'm not
stupid either. If I get a virus or something, I unplug my computer from my
network. Plain and simple. Its that easy. Its called making a compromise.

swe

Sep 28, 2003, 1:45pm
emm, ya, i agree with duo. ya'll are just angry at MS for its prices and
all, and try to find any excuse to lash at it, but the truth is, nowadays
(and before) almost everything is based around windows(AW for example). and
by changing from windows to linux we will go from a big windows community
full of games, programs and shit, to a small linux community full of very
few programs and even less games. until companies start making everything
compatiable with linux, its too much bother to change to it.

about the car, well, what if that was the case, everyone will be driving
Saabs and volves, but i doubt thats gonna happen anytime soon? people would
prefer other things, like ferraris, beemers and benz, mostly for the name,
gadgets, and looks. not everything is about performance, other wise most
people would rather have a caddilac 16s and ford focus.

and consumers arent the one who are responsible for making the internet
safer, its the idiots who make the viruses and the idiots who leave the
exploits who should be blamed, they are the ones who you should be tring to
get a solution from.

-SWE

[View Quote]

captain mad mike

Sep 29, 2003, 5:43pm
Exactly. That and Linux is a bit harder to use than Windows....at least for
a Windows user (like myself). And the other thing, MS RELEASES PATCHES FOR
THE BUGS! They may not always work, but if you GET the windows updates, you
can patch up all those security holes so your computer *isn't* such a
threat. Personally I think that everyone switching over to a non-MS OS is
just a tad extreme because of the viruses that are out there. Besides, if
SCO succeeds in claiming rights to the Linux/Unix source code then Microsoft
will get liscensing to use it, and we'll see Unix-based Windows.

-CMM


[View Quote]

kah

Sep 30, 2003, 4:29pm
".duo.28daysleft" <ncommons at comcast.net> wrote in
news:3f763464$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> You also miss my point. WHAT IS THE POINT OF BUYING A COMPUTER IF YOU
> DON'T ENJOY IT? Seriously, I didn't buy a computer so I would never
> use it for what I enjoy.

Your ignorance is your problem. You think Linux is some sort of strange,
scary weird thing that only freaks know how to use. That is *not* the case!
You can play games, chat with your friends over IM networks, browse the
web, do whatever you want in Linux as well.

> Not selfish at all. Its how the world woks, get used to it. Consumers
> buy products to improve the quality of life. Hear that? That means
> they buy things to make their lives easier, more enjoyable, etc.

The problem is that this product *seems* to improve their quality of life,
but in reality, the problems with it *deteriorate* their life quality!

> Umm... maybe because Linux isn't compatible with a majority of games.
> Not to mention the majority of high-end sound and video cards.
> Seriously, if Linux didn't have hardware issues and all the games for
> Windows were also on Linux, I'd switch. As of now though, switching to
> Linux would eliminate 90% of what I use my computer for.

You really are clueless about Linux, aren't you? It doesn't have any
compatibility problems with most new hardware, and even if you can't find
any official driver doesn't mean an unofficial won't do, generic drivers
aren't all too bad either. The important thing is OpenGL support really (a
gfx card without can not be called "high end"). A lot of the game engines
most new games are built on are available on Linux, including the Quake and
Unreal engines , though not all developpers prioritize porting their games
to Linux. For those cases, WineX is your friend.

> They have a development team of 100s. Linux had a development team of
> 1000s. That's why it isn't buggy. BTW, Linux is having some copyright
> issues...

Actually, to begin with Linux had a dev team of one. Today, it has hundreds
(I think hundreds would be closer to the truth than thousands) of
contributors, but that can't be the sole reason it's better; the MS
programmers are after all payed for their work, the Linux contributors are
not.

Yes, SCO is having fun sueing some people, but I doubt they'll get very
far.

> Enough to stop me. If I can't upgrade my PC to have a Radeon 9700 Pro
> (which I plan to do) I'm not switching to Linux for sure.

Have you actually checked if there are any known problems with the Radeon
9700 Pro? I doubt it.

> Actually, Mac OS has less hardware issues than Linux. Any hardware
> issues, unless very, VERY limited are unacceptable.

There is some hardware designed more or less specifically for Windows (for
example "WinModems") that Linux will have a hard time with, or is
completely incompatible with. But the majority of hardware will work fine,
without having to scratch your head very much either (the big distros now
all have nice user friendly tools that will assist you with the
installation). Unless you have some very exotic hardware, I expect your
current system would be Linux-compatible.

> Actually, for many devices, you CAN'T get Linux drivers. Plain and
> simple. Actually, the way XP is constructed, VERY, VERY few devices
> need drivers. That includes devices that came around AFTER XP's
> release.

Do you mean official drivers, or just any old driver? I'm aware that a
number of manufacturers are bad at writing Linux drivers, but nothing stops
users of that hardware to write their own drivers and releasing it to other
users. Then you can always use generic drivers (which you praise in XP), it
doesn't really matter that much.

> You mean, never install some of my new hardware? You realize that
> there are a grossly large devices without linux drivers, right? Linux
> doesn't even have basic drivers for things. Windows does not have
> severe enough memory problems for it to be really significant.

Your new hardware is what's most likely to work well, and hardware from the
last few years. If you have old hardware (I mean old), you might struggle a
bit.

> I put up a firewall. That's my being responsible. I don't need to stop
> enjoying my computer by buying Linux and not being able to play any
> games. Seriously, why would I choose software which doesn't do what I
> want? Why would I buy Microsoft Word if I wanted to edit images?

A firewall isn't always enough, but I guess it's a start. Already, you
won't have to buy Linux, you can just download the distro you think will
correspond the most to your needs/skills (you could always buy a CD kit, or
if you're on 56k). Second, you won't have to stop enjoying your computer,
you'll just be enjoying it more securely.

After clearing up your bad knownledge of Linux, I really don't see what
functionality you want from Windows that Linux doesn't have. Why would you
buy Microsoft Windows if you didn't want to expose yourself to security
problems?

> Responsible? I'm not the one making the viruses trying to ruin
> everybody's enjoyment of their computer. I'm not going to climb into a
> little shell and be insecure. I'm just not an insecure person.

I never said you were insecure in the sense you seem to mean. I meant your
system was insecure, in other words exposed to attacks by malicious third
parties.

> Egocentrical? I believe not. I have something which is called
> self-esteem. And maybe your just wrong, and don't realize it. Next
> time have a basis for your argument. I ace standardized tests, and am
> bored while taking them. I know what I'm saying, and I know what your
> saying. I just don't agree with what your saying. Though logically the
> well-being of the internet is first priority, technically, since I am
> teh consumer, what I want is the priority. I don't want the entire
> internet to go to hell for sure just so I can play games, but I still
> want to play games. So I can make a compromise, I like to call it a
> firewall. It isn't perfect, but its better than nothing.

I don't see what standarized tests have got to do with this, but nice for
you. I have a basis for my argument, you just don't know very much about it
and won't accept having someone rectify you. That's a bit too much self-
esteem.

You're MS's customer, not the Internet's or general community's customer.
You can demand them to improve their products, but they'll just respond by
obfuscating even more. You can play games on a safe platform such as Linux,
and then you'll really be contributing to keeping the Internet secure.

A firewall is a good step, I guess I may've misjudged you a bit, but you
could still move away from Windows completely at no loss.

> How is it egoism? If I want to ride my bike in the woods I'm going to
> buy a mountain bike, not a racing bike.

Riding bikes in the woods destroys the ground, bad example.

> Sense of community? I don't
> run the internet, I don't make Windows, I don't choose what platforms
> the games are, I don't choose what I like to do, HOW is the security
> of the internet my responsibility?

If you don't choose what you like to do, then who does, or was it just a
typo lol?

I'm not saying you're responsible for getting the problems there in the
first place, that's mostly MS's fault, *but* you can do something to fight
these problems. You are responsible for that.

> Why should I spend money on
> something I don't want? My life philosophy is to do research, which
> quite possible could benefit the world. I see the hole in my
> arguement, but there is no way to fix that gap. That's Microsoft's
> job, not mine. I have a sense of community, but honestly, THINK, who
> is falling victim if my computer is trashed by a scheme? ME. I'm not
> stupid either. If I get a virus or something, I unplug my computer
> from my network. Plain and simple. Its that easy. Its called making a
> compromise.

You won't have to spend any money on Linux, it's free. That's one of the
really nice things about it (not to mention the source-code itself is free
and that you can do whatever you want with it, more or less), besides that
it's got less bugs. Sure, you fall victim if you suffer damage from an
attack of whatever kind, but it's partially your fault. The problem is that
between the time you get the virus, to you realise that and have unplug it,
it might already have spread.

KAH

.duo.24daysleft

Sep 30, 2003, 10:03pm
> Your ignorance is your problem. You think Linux is some sort of strange,
> scary weird thing that only freaks know how to use. That is *not* the
case!
> You can play games, chat with your friends over IM networks, browse the
> web, do whatever you want in Linux as well.

Umm... no? I know how to use Linux. It just doesn't have a majority of the
games I play, or software I use. WIth the exception of Wordperfect (if they
still make it for Linux).

> The problem is that this product *seems* to improve their quality of life,
> but in reality, the problems with it *deteriorate* their life quality!

Right, but making me lazy and gain weight. >:-P

> You really are clueless about Linux, aren't you? It doesn't have any
> compatibility problems with most new hardware, and even if you can't find
> any official driver doesn't mean an unofficial won't do, generic drivers
> aren't all too bad either. The important thing is OpenGL support really (a
> gfx card without can not be called "high end"). A lot of the game engines
> most new games are built on are available on Linux, including the Quake
and
> Unreal engines , though not all developpers prioritize porting their games
> to Linux. For those cases, WineX is your friend.

Umm... no? I know someone first hand who couldn't use a Radeon 9700 PRO with
Linux. Recently. No drivers, or anything. Anywhere. WineX? A Windows
emulator? Is that slow? I know the Mac OS one is hella slow.That would be
enough to get me to switch though.

> Actually, to begin with Linux had a dev team of one. Today, it has
hundreds
> (I think hundreds would be closer to the truth than thousands) of
> contributors, but that can't be the sole reason it's better; the MS
> programmers are after all payed for their work, the Linux contributors are
> not.

Thousands of different developers.

> Yes, SCO is having fun sueing some people, but I doubt they'll get very
> far.

True.

> Have you actually checked if there are any known problems with the Radeon
> 9700 Pro? I doubt it.

I know someone who couldn't get it to work with Linux.

> There is some hardware designed more or less specifically for Windows (for
> example "WinModems") that Linux will have a hard time with, or is
> completely incompatible with. But the majority of hardware will work fine,
> without having to scratch your head very much either (the big distros now
> all have nice user friendly tools that will assist you with the
> installation). Unless you have some very exotic hardware, I expect your
> current system would be Linux-compatible.

I have some very exotic hardware.

> Do you mean official drivers, or just any old driver? I'm aware that a
> number of manufacturers are bad at writing Linux drivers, but nothing
stops
> users of that hardware to write their own drivers and releasing it to
other
> users. Then you can always use generic drivers (which you praise in XP),
it
> doesn't really matter that much.

Right, the ATI drivers for Windows are superb. I don't want bootleg drivers
that don't work well. The person I know who couldn't get the Radeon to work
couldn't really find great drivers.

> Your new hardware is what's most likely to work well, and hardware from
the
> last few years. If you have old hardware (I mean old), you might struggle
a
> bit.

All my hardware is ancient. I was going to put a new motherboard and video
card in though.

> A firewall isn't always enough, but I guess it's a start. Already, you
> won't have to buy Linux, you can just download the distro you think will
> correspond the most to your needs/skills (you could always buy a CD kit,
or
> if you're on 56k). Second, you won't have to stop enjoying your computer,
> you'll just be enjoying it more securely.

Of course it isn't. Ok.

> After clearing up your bad knownledge of Linux, I really don't see what
> functionality you want from Windows that Linux doesn't have. Why would you
> buy Microsoft Windows if you didn't want to expose yourself to security
> problems?

Windows has excellent plug-and-play support for one. It has some other great
features too. I'm also not sure all of my programs would work with Linux.

> I never said you were insecure in the sense you seem to mean. I meant your
> system was insecure, in other words exposed to attacks by malicious third
> parties.

Yes.

> I don't see what standarized tests have got to do with this, but nice for
> you. I have a basis for my argument, you just don't know very much about
it
> and won't accept having someone rectify you. That's a bit too much self-
> esteem.

Umm... no? Read my above posts.

> You're MS's customer, not the Internet's or general community's customer.
> You can demand them to improve their products, but they'll just respond by
> obfuscating even more. You can play games on a safe platform such as
Linux,
> and then you'll really be contributing to keeping the Internet secure.

I wish I wasn't MS's customer. I personally like the features of XP Pro and
the generally small amount of compatibility issues. I like how Linux is more
stable, reliable, and secure. Maybe I'll do a dual boot or something.

> A firewall is a good step, I guess I may've misjudged you a bit, but you
> could still move away from Windows completely at no loss.

Some loss.

> Riding bikes in the woods destroys the ground, bad example.

No, but it does wear it down and create trails. Anyway, reverse the analogy
and my point still stands.

> If you don't choose what you like to do, then who does, or was it just a
> typo lol?

I am not a believer in free will. I am a believer in genetics and
environment.

> I'm not saying you're responsible for getting the problems there in the
> first place, that's mostly MS's fault, *but* you can do something to fight
> these problems. You are responsible for that.

Maybe.

> You won't have to spend any money on Linux, it's free. That's one of the
> really nice things about it (not to mention the source-code itself is free
> and that you can do whatever you want with it, more or less), besides that
> it's got less bugs. Sure, you fall victim if you suffer damage from an
> attack of whatever kind, but it's partially your fault. The problem is
that
> between the time you get the virus, to you realise that and have unplug
it,
> it might already have spread.

Which versions are free? Links please. I want it, lol.

jerme

Sep 30, 2003, 11:16pm
Well said Kah... I really didn't feel like enlightening these Windows noobs
at the time, but thanks..

You really *should* try actually using Linux before you form some kind of
negative opinion about it. Linux runs great on my bran new PNY 256mb GeForce
4 5900 Ultra. So, I don't know what you're talking about when you say it
doesn't work with high end video/sound cards. That makes it painfully
obvious that you've never really used Linux. Sure, I had to compile my own
network adapter drivers, but that was a matter of downloading the source
from the manufacturer's site and running two commands. It's no more
complicated than that.

-Jeremy


[View Quote]

bowen

Sep 30, 2003, 11:18pm
[View Quote] You and I both know GeForce isn't high end. Because ATI is like, Apple
of the video card world. Actually, linux should nearly work fine with
any video card that supports OpenGL.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

jerme

Sep 30, 2003, 11:21pm
> Which versions are free? Links please. I want it, lol.

This is a link to the Red Hat Linux 9 ISOs. You'll need some CD burning
software that can burn ISOs. You don't want the SRPMs, just the regular
ISOs.

http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/iso/i386/

You need these files:
shrike-i386-disc1.iso 03-Sep-2003 17:54 638M
shrike-i386-disc2.iso 13-Mar-2003 22:30 646M
shrike-i386-disc3.iso 13-Mar-2003 22:35 485M



[View Quote]

.duo.24daysleft

Sep 30, 2003, 11:51pm
thank you

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

.duo.24daysleft

Sep 30, 2003, 11:51pm
I do have a ton of odd parts in my computer though >_<

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

.duo.24daysleft

Sep 30, 2003, 11:52pm
Except people actually buy ATI cards...

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

bowen

Sep 30, 2003, 11:53pm
[View Quote] LoL I know people who buy macs too. ;) Silly little people named Joeman.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

.duo.24daysleft

Oct 1, 2003, 12:22am
Right, but Macs are only 3% of the computer market. ATI is a much larger
share of the video card market, in fact, probably most of it.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

bowen

Oct 1, 2003, 12:35am
[View Quote] And Arnold has 95% of California's votes. ;) LOL

Arnold is like the Mac of the political world.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

.duo.24daysleft

Oct 1, 2003, 9:26am
heh. Anyway, to finish my statement, 90% of all computers are Windows
based... which is a lot, heh.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

kah

Oct 1, 2003, 2:41pm
".duo.24daysleft" <ncommons at comcast.net> wrote in
news:3f7a19cd at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> Which versions are free? Links please. I want it, lol.

More or less all of them are free. Many of the distros maintained by
companies also come as CD kits and various bundles that do cost money
though, but if you look around on the sites you should find download links.

KAH

1  2  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn