dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fja5cf$akb$2@aioe.org...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fj9dnm$8qr$4@aioe.org...
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Alias" <akaalias@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fj7fvr$j5k$2@aioe.org...
>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8<
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The market share has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No of course not.
>>>>>>> The hackers are always going for the least probability of success
>>>>>>> by only attacking <1% of machines and users.
>>>>>>> Why would anyone send out 100 million emails trying to get users
>>>>>>> to install some malware when you could send a mere 1 million to
>>>>>>> linux users?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BS FUD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go on then explain to me where all the hackers, spammers and other
>>>>> idiots are going to go just because windows disappears?
>>>>
>>>> Get a real job?
>>>>
>>>>> Are you going to deny them access to Linux somehow? Maybe you could
>>>>> have activation in it? sorry they just removed that from their source.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you find a credible answer let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Securing Linux is easy and you know it. Stop playing dumb.
>>>
>>> Securing Linux is as hard as securing windows or a Mac or any other
>>> computer.
>>> People like you not understanding this is one of the main problems.
>>> Sure I can make Linux or windows secure even for you but not while
>>> you think you know about security and have admin access.
>>> Why do you think corporations remove admin access for most of their
>>> users on Unix and windows?
>>> Its to stop people like you that think they know what they are doing
>>> from doing things they should not.
>>> While you have control over the computer it is not safe whatever OS
>>> it runs.
>>> The same is true for most users windows or Linux.
>>> I know you won't understand this, which is why the problems will
>>> persist until the internet 2 edge access control model is installed
>>> and working. Its not possible to control the machines that access the
>>> internet so the alternative is to control the access/traffic through
>>> the network and limit the damage. The work to do this is underway and
>>> will arrive soon.
>>
>> Do you think you could be more vague, supercilious and arrogant for
>> us, Dennis?
>>
>> BTW, you're full of sh¡t.
>
> Everything you post here shows you know nothing about security.
> You keep telling users ubuntu is secure when it is not.
> The best you can manage is that it secure compared to windows.. the same
> OS you maintain is so insecure you should switch.. to another insecure
> OS.. and offer no useful advice on how to secure Ubuntu.
> People like you that think they are secure when they are not are the
> biggest problem, not viruses.
> If you can't understand something that simple then there is no hope for
> you.
> You will be at home joe/jane and Peter as they also have the same
> unfounded beliefs.
> You can call me arrogant if you want but the evidence suggests that you
> need someone to explain things in single syllable words and then you
> still find an excuse to ignore it.
>
>
>
I know so little about security that I haven't ever had a virus or
malware attack any of my machines and get away with it since 96. If you
use a router with a hard firewall and only install apps from the repo,
Ubuntu is a solid as a rock vs. Windows which is like a sieve.
I just cleaned up a Windows XP box. The AV was out of date and the
resident scanner nuked. No firewall, hard or soft, the XP firewall was
turned off. No anti malware programs. The owner didn't know what a
firewall is, much less how to update *anything*. Windows Updates auto
updates was turned off. Now, to explain to this noob how to keep XP
secure is complicated for her. To explain to only install apps from the
repo is very easy for her. Which OS is more secure for noobs? Hint: you
don't need to be genius to figure that one out.
Alias
