|SUBJECT ||Re: [hangout] Re: Advocacy vs. Zealotry vs. Who Cares?!?
|From owner-hangout-destenys-at-mrbrklyn.com Sat Sep 4 02:43:31 2004
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id i846hVwE025021
for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:43:31 -0400
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id i846hS8c025020
for hangout-destenys; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:43:28 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: mdom set sender to owner-hangouts-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com using -f
Received: from mail.dadadada.net (MAIL.DADADADA.NET [22.214.171.124])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.11/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id i846hSS1025015
for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:43:28 -0400
Received: from billy by mail.dadadada.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
for ; Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:44:25 -0400
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:44:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [hangout] Re: Advocacy vs. Zealotry vs. Who Cares?!?
References: <200409012349.i81Nndt9017948-at-boa.b9.com> <200409011910.24218.neosad1st-at-charter.net> <20040902193507.M81999-at-mrbrklyn.com> <20040902205731.GA1560-at-mail.dadadada.net> <20040902213438.M20206-at-mrbrklyn.com> <20040903171055.GA16130-at-mail.dadadada.net> <20040903175915.M35727-at-mrbrklyn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
List: New Yorker GNU Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribe name-at-domian.com in the body to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on www2.mrbrklyn.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:16:39PM -0500, Steve Milo wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:10:55 -0400, Billy wrote
> > This stuff happens all the time, and it's usually fixed quickly.
> > But people just DON'T UPDATE what they believe to be their
> > 'totally impenetrable' Linux machines, because they believe the
> > machines are bulletproof. They aren't.
> I dont say that GNU/Linux machines are bulletproof GNU/Linux is just better
> and the best alternative out there.
> But the fundamental difference is that in a public environment you
> could lock down a GNU/Linux box. You can try to lock down a microsoft
> box but there are vulnerabilities discovered all the time.
My point is that this the 'new vulns every week' property is true of
Linux as well. To believe otherwise is to tell yourself a very
dangerous lie. Don't just believe me... Look at the facts!
Even if I were to accept that Linux and Microsoft OSes were different
regarding securability (I don't), there certainly would't be anything
FUNDAMENTAL about such a difference.
> Those vulnerabilities are ingrainged in a windows box.
I know FUD when I see it (on either side of the debate). Sir, this is FUD.
> On the pcs I have maintain all the machines run anti-virus, anti-spam,
They also potentially run untrustworthy application code downloaded from
suspicious websites like aim.aol.com (big adware pushers now,
apparently) and kazaa.com. If you don't install dumb shit on your
windows box, you don't need all that crum.. BTW, what's SPAM
filtering have to do with this discussion? As for viruses, DON'T RUN
ATTACHMENTS. If your problem is with the Outlook virus vector, ahem,
mail client, I agree that it should be chucked. Get another client for
Windows that isn't stupid. But your argument isn't against Outlook,
it's been against Windows, and I don't get the relevence of the complaint
about the need for anti-virus software.
> But if just one machine is not updated the whole network
> and all the microsoft machines are affected. It is simply
> unmanageable, the fires always have to be put out.
I don't see how this is MSFT's fault.
> Thats just from my experiences, what about the admins, the programmers,
> developers. Its insane. Its such a gawdawful design from the inside out. MS
> is evil, there is a whole industry within an industry that is dedicated to
> simply securing an ms network.
> GNU/Linux (Suse)? Night and day.
> Forget about security for a moment and look at the utilities that come with
> Suse 9.1. For about 80bucks you get software that can effectively be used as
> a total IT enterprise server.
Again, I get them for free.
> You can put them on as many machines as you want 1-10000000 and then
> some. Support is practically free, hire a competent staff and a wise
> IT manager will have saved their company millions of dollars in
> software and support. If someone doesnt want to learn how to setup a
> GNU/Linux server (especially if that distro comes with a sleek GUI)
> then that person should start looking for another job.
Ok. I'm with you so far.
> As far as security goes, like I said before there are hundreds of corporations
> that use GNU/Linux. Many of them have a vested interest maintaining IT
> security. One would think that by this time someone would have figured out a
> way to embaress the people making claims about how secure GNU/Linux.
> On an home user level, how often do regular uses update their windows
A lot! Windows Update bothers XP users periodically.
> More often than not most of the people doing the updating are IT
> departments and hobbyists. The average user is too beffudled with their
> crappy software to see past the smoke and mirrors.
> > If someone really really needed to get into your machine (say, if the
> > reward were equivalent to $100,000 instead of $1), it's ultimately
> > not that hard to do!
> If someone wanted to break into a bank that would be possible if the rewards
> were great enough and someone were crazy enough to do it. If someone wanted
> to circumvent airport security it would be possible. All things are possible
> given enough determination and reward. Analogies are meaningless.
Is that why you only bet him $1? Why not $100? What are you afraid of?
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc