Got Vista or Win7? Worry.

September 10, 200915 yr

Saucy wrote:

> It's just plain easy:

>

> Control Panel > Windows Firewall.

>

> Take the least little bit of interest in computing and it's a no

> brainer. 'See, unlike on these innumberable and strange Linux distros

> out there, blocking a port on Windows is easy. It might be hard to do on

> Ubuntu, but it is no further away than the Control Panel on Windows.

>

> Saucy

Most computer users don't know they have a firewall and even less know

that they should be blocking a port. Most users are interested in

*using* their computer, not configuring it or learning "no brainer"

[sic] computing. Nice try but no cigar.

With Ubuntu, it isn't necessary but we have Firestarter if one wants to

change the configuration of a port and it's just as easy as Windows. The

difference is with Ubuntu, no need, with Windows, lots and lots of need.

Alias

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:h86q2s$5l0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> Saucy wrote:

>>> Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with

>>> Windows 7's built-in firewall.

>>>

>>> Saucy

>>

>> Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to

>> how to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post

>> and link.

>>

>> With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

>> public.

>>

>> Alias

>>>

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>> news:h860mf$hvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

"Saucy" wrote:

>INLINE with some cuts:

Don't feed the expatriate troll, doofus.

>"Alias" wrote in message

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

"John Galt" wrote in message

news:0i8ia55qa7ohkqdebkue3i1aq4g24l6pp3@4ax.com...

> "Saucy" wrote:

>

>>INLINE with some cuts:

>

> Don't feed the expatriate troll, doofus.

Hope he gets it! .

>

>>"Alias" wrote in message

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

Saucy wrote:

> INLINE with some cuts:

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:h88hd1$dfa$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>> news:h88648$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>> news:h87ren$br6$3@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern

>>>>>> and not getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

>>>>>

>>>>> I did not once mention that safety was not a concern. I merely

>>>>> asked the question 'do you really think people will switch to

>>>>> Ubuntu for the reason you posed'. I do not think it will make the

>>>>> slightest bit of difference.

>>>

>>>> And the reason is safety.

>>>

>>> That does not answer the question I posed and once again you have

>>> avoided it.

>>>

>>> I will try again because I can see you are finding it quite difficult

>>> to understand.

>>>

>>> Do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of your

>>> cries of worry with Vista and Windows 7?

>>

>> If they're smart, they will.

>

> LOL - Is that the best you can come up with? There's no reason on earth

> anyone would even install Ubuntu. If one wanted a Linux distro there are

> far better distros out there - for free I might add. But Linux itself

> sucks. It's a monolithic kernel OS which makes the device driver

> situation a major difficulty. Want a new device? One that it not

> precompiled into the kernel? Then recompile the kernel! This major issue

> might not be a problem for a static computing project in a laboratory,

> but it makes for a ridiculous situation in a general purpose operating

> system.

You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>>>

>>> Your scare tactics do not scare me!

>>

>> That's because you're stupid. Fact: Windows is malware prone. Ubuntu

>> is not.

>

> Alias, security by obscurity is just fooling yourself. In case you don't

> check industry news, computers running UNIX / Linux are broken into and

> hacked all the time. RedHat Linux has an errata list as long as your

> arm. Yada yada sure sure when I mention security, Linux is suddenly

> reduced to the "just the kernel". But let's face it, the kernel without

> a software system doesn't do anything. So as a whole, the Linux system

> is a weak, vulnerable and not all that secure, needing constant patching

> and updating (and every time a new device comes along, a recompile).

> Funnily enough, many / most Linux distros have no or only crummy patch

> systems.

You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

> Sure, there is more casual "malware" written against Windows desktops.

> Why try to exploit Linux desktops - there are hardly any out there.

Over ten million is not "hardly any" and many enlightened governments

are using Linux.

>

> But these days the malware writers are having to depend almost entirely

> on social engineering tactics to get the malware installed. Windows is

> very resistive. About the only chance these days that the malware

> writers have otherwise is a "zero day", but every OS is vulnerable to

> that. Anyway, such a thing hits the news usually same day regardless,

> enabling us to close the port we need to etc. etc.

You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

> This is not IE 6 in 2002, Alias. Windows is much more secure than it

> used to be.

Har, har, har, pull the other one, it has bells on it.

> Users run with user not administrator privileges unless they

> give the system permission to elevate. Internet Explorer 8 runs in a

> "Protected Mode" armored sandbox. Nowadays, malware has to ask the user

> for permission. If it were Linux instead of Windows, the same people who

> would say 'Yes" to the malware are the same who would always run as

> "root". lol

You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>> Alias

>

> Don't be sad. Linux might have been a cool-o neat-o idea for the

> self-appointed granola crunching hip crowd ex hippies and weak minded

> socialist / communist painfully politically correct university and

> rainbow coalition types in the early and mid 1990s. But in practice it

> isn't. It's even losing market share in the small areas it used to be

> "ok" for, as now there are systems replacing it that do better than just

> "ok". Besides, the rainbow coalition has moved on. They are sitting

> pretty in coffee shops with their Apple laptops running Apple's Mac OSX,

> not Linux. Let go, man. They've moved on, so should you. 'Guess living

> in Spain down by the beach has sort of left you out of the circuit. Your

> rainbow coalition and granola crunching comrades are into laptops and

> OSX now, Alias.

>

> Saucy

Now you're revealing your bias and prejudice and, of course, how

completely clueless you are.

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

webster72n wrote:

>

> "John Galt" wrote in message

> news:0i8ia55qa7ohkqdebkue3i1aq4g24l6pp3@4ax.com...

>> "Saucy" wrote:

>>

>>> INLINE with some cuts:

>>

>> Don't feed the expatriate troll, doofus.

>

> Hope he gets it! .

"Saucy" is a she and a very clueless, bigoted and biased she.

Alias

>

>>

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

Alias wrote:

> Saucy wrote:

>> INLINE with some cuts:

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:h88hd1$dfa$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>> news:h88648$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>>> news:h87ren$br6$3@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern

>>>>>>> and not getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I did not once mention that safety was not a concern. I merely

>>>>>> asked the question 'do you really think people will switch to

>>>>>> Ubuntu for the reason you posed'. I do not think it will make the

>>>>>> slightest bit of difference.

>>>>

>>>>> And the reason is safety.

>>>>

>>>> That does not answer the question I posed and once again you have

>>>> avoided it.

>>>>

>>>> I will try again because I can see you are finding it quite

>>>> difficult to understand.

>>>>

>>>> Do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of your

>>>> cries of worry with Vista and Windows 7?

>>>

>>> If they're smart, they will.

>>

>> LOL - Is that the best you can come up with? There's no reason on

>> earth anyone would even install Ubuntu. If one wanted a Linux distro

>> there are far better distros out there - for free I might add. But

>> Linux itself sucks. It's a monolithic kernel OS which makes the device

>> driver situation a major difficulty. Want a new device? One that it

>> not precompiled into the kernel? Then recompile the kernel! This major

>> issue might not be a problem for a static computing project in a

>> laboratory, but it makes for a ridiculous situation in a general

>> purpose operating system.

>

> You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Your scare tactics do not scare me!

>>>

>>> That's because you're stupid. Fact: Windows is malware prone. Ubuntu

>>> is not.

>>

>> Alias, security by obscurity is just fooling yourself. In case you

>> don't check industry news, computers running UNIX / Linux are broken

>> into and hacked all the time. RedHat Linux has an errata list as long

>> as your arm. Yada yada sure sure when I mention security, Linux is

>> suddenly reduced to the "just the kernel". But let's face it, the

>> kernel without a software system doesn't do anything. So as a whole,

>> the Linux system is a weak, vulnerable and not all that secure,

>> needing constant patching and updating (and every time a new device

>> comes along, a recompile). Funnily enough, many / most Linux distros

>> have no or only crummy patch systems.

>

> You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>> Sure, there is more casual "malware" written against Windows desktops.

>> Why try to exploit Linux desktops - there are hardly any out there.

>

> Over ten million is not "hardly any" and many enlightened governments

> are using Linux.

>

>>

>> But these days the malware writers are having to depend almost

>> entirely on social engineering tactics to get the malware installed.

>> Windows is very resistive. About the only chance these days that the

>> malware writers have otherwise is a "zero day", but every OS is

>> vulnerable to that. Anyway, such a thing hits the news usually same

>> day regardless, enabling us to close the port we need to etc. etc.

>

> You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>> This is not IE 6 in 2002, Alias. Windows is much more secure than it

>> used to be.

>

> Har, har, har, pull the other one, it has bells on it.

>

>> Users run with user not administrator privileges unless they give the

>> system permission to elevate. Internet Explorer 8 runs in a "Protected

>> Mode" armored sandbox. Nowadays, malware has to ask the user for

>> permission. If it were Linux instead of Windows, the same people who

>> would say 'Yes" to the malware are the same who would always run as

>> "root". lol

>

> You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Don't be sad. Linux might have been a cool-o neat-o idea for the

>> self-appointed granola crunching hip crowd ex hippies and weak minded

>> socialist / communist painfully politically correct university and

>> rainbow coalition types in the early and mid 1990s. But in practice it

>> isn't. It's even losing market share in the small areas it used to be

>> "ok" for, as now there are systems replacing it that do better than

>> just "ok". Besides, the rainbow coalition has moved on. They are

>> sitting pretty in coffee shops with their Apple laptops running

>> Apple's Mac OSX, not Linux. Let go, man. They've moved on, so should

>> you. 'Guess living in Spain down by the beach has sort of left you out

>> of the circuit. Your rainbow coalition and granola crunching comrades

>> are into laptops and OSX now, Alias.

>>

>> Saucy

>

> Now you're revealing your bias and prejudice and, of course, how

> completely clueless you are.

>

> Alias

That is all you can come up with? What an idiot. You are clueless 100%.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

Alias wrote:

> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>> Alias wrote:

>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>> webster72n wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "John Galt" wrote in message

>>>>>> news:0i8ia55qa7ohkqdebkue3i1aq4g24l6pp3@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> "Saucy" wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> INLINE with some cuts:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Don't feed the expatriate troll, doofus.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Hope he gets it! .

>>>>>

>>>>> "Saucy" is a she and a very clueless, bigoted and biased she.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I thought she created a truthful post about the failings of

>>>> Ubuntu/Linux

>>>

>>> You would agree with her FUD because you post the same crap.

>>>

>>>> which you don't like, nor can you refute.

>>>

>>> It's been refuted countless times.

>>

>> Prove it. If she is lying, why don't you call her on them? You

>> can't. End of story.

>

> No time to fool around with trolls like you and her today. Search Google

> Groups if you want to reread the rebuts.

>

> Alias

>>

Liar. You have plenty of time to fool around. You are a troll and are trolling. So if you

say you don't have time to refute her claims, you are lying. You just don't have the smarts to

do so. No wonder, you use Ubuntu.

You say you want to get people to use that INFERIOR OS Ubuntu, why not go where the people

would love to hear your twisted message? How about taking some of that imaginary $14k a week

you claim to get from the tooth fairy and take a trip to some of the poor nations of Africa and

pass out Ubuntu CDs to the masses?

That would be a better use of your time than trolling here. Just think, if you passed out

10,000 CDs, you may get 3 or 4 people to try Ubuntu.

HA HA HA HA.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

Since Control Panel on Windows is too much for most users, switching to root

and configuring firewalls with Firestarter would be way beyond, wouldn't it?

Yeah, it would be, especially when they probably don't remember their root

password .. oh wait .. they probably are already running as root - no

problem then! LOL

Where does one find the Firestarter executable anyway, at

/user/bin/binary/bin/%username%/devconfig/config/firestar.bin ?? LOL

Saucy

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h8b3ra$fk2$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Saucy wrote:

>> It's just plain easy:

>>

>> Control Panel > Windows Firewall.

>>

>> Take the least little bit of interest in computing and it's a no brainer.

>> 'See, unlike on these innumberable and strange Linux distros out there,

>> blocking a port on Windows is easy. It might be hard to do on Ubuntu, but

>> it is no further away than the Control Panel on Windows.

>>

>> Saucy

>

> Most computer users don't know they have a firewall and even less know

> that they should be blocking a port. Most users are interested in *using*

> their computer, not configuring it or learning "no brainer" [sic]

> computing. Nice try but no cigar.

>

> With Ubuntu, it isn't necessary but we have Firestarter if one wants to

> change the configuration of a port and it's just as easy as Windows. The

> difference is with Ubuntu, no need, with Windows, lots and lots of need.

>

> Alias

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:h86q2s$5l0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> Saucy wrote:

>>>> Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with

>>>> Windows 7's built-in firewall.

>>>>

>>>> Saucy

>>>

>>> Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to

>>> how to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post and

>>> link.

>>>

>>> With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

>>> public.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>> news:h860mf$hvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

"Saucy" wrote in message

news:uUJXETkMKHA.4964@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Since Control Panel on Windows is too much for most users, switching to

> root and configuring firewalls with Firestarter would be way beyond,

> wouldn't it? Yeah, it would be, especially when they probably don't

> remember their root password .. oh wait .. they probably are already

> running as root - no problem then! LOL

>

> Where does one find the Firestarter executable anyway, at

> /user/bin/binary/bin/%username%/devconfig/config/firestar.bin ?? LOL

>

As you have NO idea how modern distributions work, please refrain from inane

comments....

thank you.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

Gordon wrote:

>

> "Saucy" wrote in message

> news:uUJXETkMKHA.4964@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Since Control Panel on Windows is too much for most users, switching

>> to root and configuring firewalls with Firestarter would be way

>> beyond, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would be, especially when they probably

>> don't remember their root password .. oh wait .. they probably are

>> already running as root - no problem then! LOL

>>

>> Where does one find the Firestarter executable anyway, at

>> /user/bin/binary/bin/%username%/devconfig/config/firestar.bin ?? LOL

>>

>

> As you have NO idea how modern distributions work, please refrain from

> inane comments....

>

> thank you.

Err - Who appointed you, Err the Net cop? Err maybe you should shove your head up your

ass where it belongs. Err.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

He left the USA and now uses an unAmerican operating system. Hm .. pattern

there?

Saucy

"John Galt" wrote in message

news:0i8ia55qa7ohkqdebkue3i1aq4g24l6pp3@4ax.com...

> "Saucy" wrote:

>

>>INLINE with some cuts:

>

> Don't feed the expatriate troll, doofus.

>

>>"Alias" wrote in message

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

Saucy wrote:

> He left the USA and now uses an unAmerican operating system. Hm ..

> pattern there?

>

> Saucy

>

> "John Galt" wrote in message

> news:0i8ia55qa7ohkqdebkue3i1aq4g24l6pp3@4ax.com...

>> "Saucy" wrote:

>>

>>> INLINE with some cuts:

>>

>> Don't feed the expatriate troll, doofus.

>>

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>

He can't afford Windows. He only gets an imaginary $14k a week from the tooth fairy!

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

Go before barrel fuleels

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h88hd1$dfa$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>> And the reason is safety.

>>

>> That does not answer the question I posed and once again you have avoided

>> it.

>>

>> I will try again because I can see you are finding it quite difficult to

>> understand.

>>

>> Do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of cries of

>> worry with Vista and Windows 7?

>

> If they're smart, they will.

You are very good at dodging the question put very simply to you. You

should have been a politician. I bet you could slide your way out of a

sewer.

"If they're smart, they will." Just doesn't cut it. That is your

assumption of what smart is to a computer user, which means zip by the

sounds of it. Rather presumptuous of you don't you think? Still you have

not answered the question put to you.

I'm smart. I use Vista. I have never encountered a safety issue. I have

been totally happy with Windows for years. Why should I change? "If it

ain't broke don't fix it" I believe the saying is.

I know, this is also the case for millions of other users. Are you saying

that all of those users are also not smart? Your tunnel vision is very

apparent! I suggest you get out more. If you do insist on staying in all

the time, try some reading instead of planting your nose, inside your

computer, all of your life.

>> My answer to that would be I doubt it very much. What would you answer

>> be?

>

> See above.

That is not an answer to the question I put to you. Read above to explain

why and try to take on board, reality this time.

Let's try once more, because I love to see a slippery snake backed into a

corner.

You remember the question. Read it slowly this time, take deep breaths as

you read it and exude concentration.

Do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu, in your wildest, wildest

dreams, because of your cries

of worry with Vista and Windows 7?

I'll give you a clue this time. The answer is either yes or no. Now give

me an honest answer in this fine newsgroup, (if you can.)

> It only affects Windows 7. Good luck.

There you go again with your scare tactics. Told you, they're not very

scary at all, as you can see from all the responses in here. I admire your

tenacity and loyalty to a dying breed, but rats fleeing from a sinking ship,

springs to mind.

Luck hasn't anything to do with it. Reading helps, you should try it some

day but then you are so blinkered and biased, what would be the point? Also

knowing quite a few MVP's and other REAL EXPERTS in the industry helps.

There input is invaluable and as I said before, I have heard nothing but

good reports about it. What's not to like? Let me reiterate, these are

REAL EXPERTS, not wannabe's like you.

> Try googling it if you know how.

Oh please give me strength! There are good and bad reports about everything

on Google. That is just one outlet, that's how narrow minded you are.

Yes I have read umpteen reports on Google. Add to that readings from stacks

of unbiased PC magazines, conversed with several unbiased MVP's, some face

to face, talked to several unbiased experts in the industry, some face to

face. Do you really think I would not of done my homework first. No, you

know nothing about me or who you are talking to you for that matter.

>>> Yes, one should be afraid of compromising one's computer and it ain't no

>>> stinking "scare tactics". With Ubuntu, one need not worry about this

>>> sort of thing. http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>

>> But then you would say that wouldn't you because as I said before, you

>> are trying to promote for your own ends.

> And my ends are?

Well they are not biased towards Window's for a start, that sort of gave me

a clue.

>> Your scare tactics do not scare me!

>

> That's because you're stupid. Fact:

There we go, I wondered when the insults would start. A sure sign when one

cannot win a debate, they result in throwing insults. How old are you? 3?

I'll tell you what I really am though, a realist. Look it up in the

dictionary. Basically, it means that I do not believe in fairy tales.

>Windows is malware prone. Ubuntu is not.

So you keep saying, I hope you'll be very happy together!

I'll stick with the best if you don't mind.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h8b9ks$b4$2@news.eternal-september.org...

> webster72n wrote:

>>

>> "John Galt" wrote in message

>> news:0i8ia55qa7ohkqdebkue3i1aq4g24l6pp3@4ax.com...

>>> "Saucy" wrote:

>>>

>>>> INLINE with some cuts:

>>>

>>> Don't feed the expatriate troll, doofus.

>>

>> Hope he gets it! .

>

> "Saucy" is a she and a very clueless, bigoted and biased she.

>

> Alias

And you're not I suppose, although I assume you are a he.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 10, 200915 yr

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h8b9g2$b4$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Saucy wrote:

>> INLINE with some cuts:

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:h88hd1$dfa$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>> news:h88648$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>>> news:h87ren$br6$3@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern and

>>>>>>> not getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I did not once mention that safety was not a concern. I merely asked

>>>>>> the question 'do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu for

>>>>>> the reason you posed'. I do not think it will make the slightest bit

>>>>>> of difference.

>>>>

>>>>> And the reason is safety.

>>>>

>>>> That does not answer the question I posed and once again you have

>>>> avoided it.

>>>>

>>>> I will try again because I can see you are finding it quite difficult

>>>> to understand.

>>>>

>>>> Do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of your cries

>>>> of worry with Vista and Windows 7?

>>>

>>> If they're smart, they will.

>>

>> LOL - Is that the best you can come up with? There's no reason on earth

>> anyone would even install Ubuntu. If one wanted a Linux distro there are

>> far better distros out there - for free I might add. But Linux itself

>> sucks. It's a monolithic kernel OS which makes the device driver

>> situation a major difficulty. Want a new device? One that it not

>> precompiled into the kernel? Then recompile the kernel! This major issue

>> might not be a problem for a static computing project in a laboratory,

>> but it makes for a ridiculous situation in a general purpose operating

>> system.

>

> You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Your scare tactics do not scare me!

>>>

>>> That's because you're stupid. Fact: Windows is malware prone. Ubuntu is

>>> not.

>>

>> Alias, security by obscurity is just fooling yourself. In case you don't

>> check industry news, computers running UNIX / Linux are broken into and

>> hacked all the time. RedHat Linux has an errata list as long as your arm.

>> Yada yada sure sure when I mention security, Linux is suddenly reduced to

>> the "just the kernel". But let's face it, the kernel without a software

>> system doesn't do anything. So as a whole, the Linux system is a weak,

>> vulnerable and not all that secure, needing constant patching and

>> updating (and every time a new device comes along, a recompile). Funnily

>> enough, many / most Linux distros have no or only crummy patch systems.

>

> You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>> Sure, there is more casual "malware" written against Windows desktops.

>> Why try to exploit Linux desktops - there are hardly any out there.

>

> Over ten million is not "hardly any" and many enlightened governments are

> using Linux.

>

>>

>> But these days the malware writers are having to depend almost entirely

>> on social engineering tactics to get the malware installed. Windows is

>> very resistive. About the only chance these days that the malware writers

>> have otherwise is a "zero day", but every OS is vulnerable to that.

>> Anyway, such a thing hits the news usually same day regardless, enabling

>> us to close the port we need to etc. etc.

>

> You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>> This is not IE 6 in 2002, Alias. Windows is much more secure than it used

>> to be.

>

> Har, har, har, pull the other one, it has bells on it.

>

>> Users run with user not administrator privileges unless they give the

>> system permission to elevate. Internet Explorer 8 runs in a "Protected

>> Mode" armored sandbox. Nowadays, malware has to ask the user for

>> permission. If it were Linux instead of Windows, the same people who

>> would say 'Yes" to the malware are the same who would always run as

>> "root". lol

>

> You're entitled to you FUD based erroneous opinion.

>

>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Don't be sad. Linux might have been a cool-o neat-o idea for the

>> self-appointed granola crunching hip crowd ex hippies and weak minded

>> socialist / communist painfully politically correct university and

>> rainbow coalition types in the early and mid 1990s. But in practice it

>> isn't. It's even losing market share in the small areas it used to be

>> "ok" for, as now there are systems replacing it that do better than just

>> "ok". Besides, the rainbow coalition has moved on. They are sitting

>> pretty in coffee shops with their Apple laptops running Apple's Mac OSX,

>> not Linux. Let go, man. They've moved on, so should you. 'Guess living in

>> Spain down by the beach has sort of left you out of the circuit. Your

>> rainbow coalition and granola crunching comrades are into laptops and OSX

>> now, Alias.

>>

>> Saucy

>

> Now you're revealing your bias and prejudice and, of course, how

> completely clueless you are.

I would steer away from this lady if I were you, she is way above your

class.

Your answers to her very detailed post, are very futile, predictive and way

over your head.

Know when you're beaten!