K
kony
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:05:49 +0100, "Simon Finnigan"
<SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3e0jc3tk6u73mbkacao6a28qa61558ut7b@4ax.com...
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>>>In article <wbqdnZAgH4r7-FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
>>>says...
>>>
>>>> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I
>>>> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on
>>>> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This
>>>> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've
>>>> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for
>>>> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole
>>>> box is compromised and must be wiped clean.
>>>>
>>>That says more about your incompetency than anything.
>>
>> Idiot. What percentage of the population, currently connected to the
>> Internet, would you say are "competent" in regards to computers?
>>
>> Starting to see the problem with Windows' insecurity, cretin?
>>
>>>If it were that
>>>bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>>
>> It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the
>> Internet, cretin.
>
>What a well reasoned, credible arguement. I`m so glad you chose not to back
>up your statements with any mere facts or statistics, because you obviously
>don`t need them
While I have no idea if it has happened to the "majority" of
home windows machines, statistically speaking, I can tell
you that windows vulerabilities have cause infestation on
the majority of other people's systems that I have seen.
However, we're talking about Windows vs Linux, and failing
to distinguish the actual vulnerability in these "drive-by"
infections which is not windows itself per se but rather the
integrated browser which a windows user is not forced to
use.
Nevertheless, even ignoring that at any given moment there
are always holes exploitable on windows, and a few
inevitably there for Linux as well, there is one remaining
factor relating to security: While nothing is 100% secure,
the prudent security level depends on the risk.
The risk of being infected on a windows system is much
higher because windows is targeted. We could argue that
it's targeted because a hacker wants to do as much damage or
take control of as many bots as possible or a similar
argument that it only makes sense to focus on the masses
since the majority of home PCs run windows, but regardless
of the reason it is _really_ less secure as a result, and
Windows PCs will remain less secure even if the inbuilt
security measures become overwhelmingly better than on any
other OS.
<SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3e0jc3tk6u73mbkacao6a28qa61558ut7b@4ax.com...
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>>>In article <wbqdnZAgH4r7-FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob
>>>says...
>>>
>>>> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I
>>>> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on
>>>> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This
>>>> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've
>>>> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for
>>>> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole
>>>> box is compromised and must be wiped clean.
>>>>
>>>That says more about your incompetency than anything.
>>
>> Idiot. What percentage of the population, currently connected to the
>> Internet, would you say are "competent" in regards to computers?
>>
>> Starting to see the problem with Windows' insecurity, cretin?
>>
>>>If it were that
>>>bad, it'd be happening to everybody.
>>
>> It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the
>> Internet, cretin.
>
>What a well reasoned, credible arguement. I`m so glad you chose not to back
>up your statements with any mere facts or statistics, because you obviously
>don`t need them
While I have no idea if it has happened to the "majority" of
home windows machines, statistically speaking, I can tell
you that windows vulerabilities have cause infestation on
the majority of other people's systems that I have seen.
However, we're talking about Windows vs Linux, and failing
to distinguish the actual vulnerability in these "drive-by"
infections which is not windows itself per se but rather the
integrated browser which a windows user is not forced to
use.
Nevertheless, even ignoring that at any given moment there
are always holes exploitable on windows, and a few
inevitably there for Linux as well, there is one remaining
factor relating to security: While nothing is 100% secure,
the prudent security level depends on the risk.
The risk of being infected on a windows system is much
higher because windows is targeted. We could argue that
it's targeted because a hacker wants to do as much damage or
take control of as many bots as possible or a similar
argument that it only makes sense to focus on the masses
since the majority of home PCs run windows, but regardless
of the reason it is _really_ less secure as a result, and
Windows PCs will remain less secure even if the inbuilt
security measures become overwhelmingly better than on any
other OS.