Racing cars are also safer than road cars, because racing drivers know what they're doing. Yeah right..

CheshireDragon: so in other words I have to BECOME technical before I can use Linux, then I'd say gtfo Linux.

You have to read books to "operate" Linux, for Windows you don't, you just use and learn and learn.

Linux is not user-friendly if you want to install the simplest thing like a Media Player with codecs you have to know several commands and where to find it.

It's like they think the commands just pop up in your head or something.

I even had several cases of corrupted updates.

Linux can go corrupt but, the thing is, "If you use Linux then you know what you are doing." If it breaks then you can fix it and generally fast. Linux does require that you have technical knowledge and its not for everyone. It may not have the ease of use and application dominance as windows but it does run more secure, efficient and faster then Windows OSes.
Yeah, WinVista might be "safer"(then XP) now but, I am still going to stick with my Linux, SuSE, Gentoo, SlackWare anyone? :P Hell, I even have Fedora Core on an older machine of mine, A.K.A. "the hold you hand" Linux hehe

"If you use Linux then you know what you are doing." If it breaks then you can fix it and generally fast. Linux does require that you have technical knowledge and its not for everyone.

This is the reason Linux will remain far behind Windows and Mac. It is very hard to teach yourself how to use it without having a heavy lean towards geekdom. I consider myself PC savvy as far a installation and fault finding. But I gave up on Linux. I even had trouble finding clear and simple step by step instructions on how to install or update a programme. Until Linux has a point and click install process, it will NEVER threaten the likes of Windows.
I get the impression that Linux doesn't want to become "mainstream". Otherwise the O/Source community would have made it configurable by pretty much everyone, like Windows. AKA point and click install/uninstall and updates.

Amen to that. I am in the same position few years ago when Linux was the hottest topic on the IT world. I actually gave it a one week trail, and finally gave up. It's cannot go mainstream like Windows and Mac. It's too complicated. If I have it install on my gf's computer and tell her to use it (and tell her it's the future), she will give me a blank stare and break up with me on the spot.

I am always wondering who is that idiot that come up with Linux will replace Windows and even be a competitors to it. I bet MS was so grateful that someone come up with something like this because there was on the monoploy trail with DOJ. NOW they can say they do have competitors. And what is even worst, Sun Microsystem who make Solaris actually sponsor Linux, and guess what happened, Sun is losing money and market shares to Linux and Windows.

Okay okay, I'm a linux user (Arch linux if you're that curious..) but I also have a windows xp pro desktop next to me.. With all the software compatibility issues that are bound to occur with Vista.. why would i scrap my perfectly decent winxp install, losing the ability to use certain software, and pay ANOTHER licensing fee just to use it? It's great that they're so concerned with security now, but considering how targeted MS products are, how secure can it actually stay? Recently I also really find myself asking if MS publishing these quotes and such is just to get more vista advertising. Well just my thoughts, no need to flame or even to pay attention.

whahaha Linux safer? wtf is safe, if you have 1 config or command line wrong you have to run over multiple files to find the error, same with installing stuff... if the installation goes wrong your Linux can go corrupt.

Ofcourse if you are a TOTALLY linux-tard you probably know what to do, but not everybody has 24/7 to escape into a virtual world.

You guys are like World of Warcraft players, no-lifers no seriously you are... get a life and think about TAKE IT EASY instead of do everything the hard way.

In Windows it's not that hard and since they're going to put less config stuff in the Register it becomes even easier to get rid of crap.

People are lazy and are always looking for ways to make something go faster, I think the MAJORITY of people would want to do 1 thing instead of 10+ to run a program or install something.

Most people who manually alter Linux config files and enter commands through the command-line generally know what they're doing and can fix problems that they cause. If they don't and they still want to tinker, that's like them messing with their car although they don't have any mechnical knowledge . . . they'll face the consequences.

Also, if an installation goes wrong (with either Windows or Linux), at that point most people just reinstall. I've had Windows installation run smoothly and after a couple of days, something breaks due to an mis-installation and I need to reinstall to fix it.

The MAJORITY of people who want to try/use Linux will either buy SuSE/Red Hat/Mepis/etc. or download Fedora/Ubuntu/OpenSuSE/etc. These distributions that focus on the desktop market provide by default, one program for each type of application (Evolution for mail/calendaring, Totem for multimedia, OpenOffice for office productivity, etc.)

Even though I prefer Linux, many people don't. I am VERY happy MS is taking security seriously. Most business with my (and Linux and Mac lovers) info run MS. Anything that helps them become more secure is a PLUS for all of us.

This is of course marketing bull, but I like the direction here and so should EVERYONE!

Amen to that!

You windows people are a joke, all of you are just lazy as all hell and really have no technical skills whatsoever, all you know how to do is reboot a computer/server (hey good job!). Furthermore, What an idiotic statement from microsoft (but hey did we expect anything less?). They certainly will be taking that statement back once its released I assure you that.

You Linux people are filthy, lazy, unemployed wankers who can't have sex and don't now the difference between a user and a programmer.

It's plain and it's simple....people use windows because it's a better product over all. Better is not necessarily, mind you------ better in 90% of cases = easier to use. It's the same reason that the ipod dominates the market. It's not BETTER than most other mp3 players, it's easier. People buy their ipod, get the newest itunes and buy songs/videos etc. They don't know, or maybe even care that there are other online stores out there renting songs for a set price a month, or even that these stores insure your music so if you lose it you can D/L it again. No. They care that they can buy a few songs and listen to it where and when they want to in a trendy little music player.
I use both windows and linux but I use windows way more, simply because I cant bother with dealing with command lines for things anymore. I'm at home and it's 2006, the command line sh&t needs to be over with already, and unfortunely linux just isn't done with it. Yeah there are many things you can do without command lines, but equally there are many things you can't do without em'. Adding lines to config files, etc. etc. etc. No....I want to be able to double click an exe file to have my program set up, and then I want to be able to run the program when I want to. I want to be able to pop a hardware card in and have it work sooner than later.
And Linux isn't safer, thats as much of a fallacy as the OSX not having viruses deal. See, hackers put alot of work into exploits, viruses, rootkits etc. Why the hell would you waste time on products that take up what, like 5 to 10 percent of the entire worldwide market? Second reason is that a high percentage of Linux users know what they're doing, which means that most exploits for a linux machine now will be debunked rather quickly.....so of 5% of the market you'll get a decimal number net' of people who may get something and have it running for a long time on their machine. With Windows it's easier - so many people who know little to nothing about computers are running windows that it just makes a 'prime' target. Again, this doesn't mean linux is safer. If you don't know what you're doing, you'll get viruses, malware, rootkits JUST the same. I consider myself someone who knows what he's doing, but I'm not willing to sacrifice ease of use for the so-called 'security' of being in a technological minority. My windows is as safe as a computer saavy linux users'.
So cut it out already. Keep a more open mind.

What a silly comment...
I hate extremists off all kind, including Windows and Linux extremists too : they are both wrong.

You arre the kind of person who says everything MS do is wrong and everything done under Linux is great... Both statements are wrong.

I do like both Linux and Windows but to do different things.

LMAO :D Dude that's a good one !!

What? wtf? Wow I didn't know that you need to learn some technical skills before you can use the so called easiest trouble free Linux or Mac ;)

Actually, they think being able to run a compiler on someone elses code, and alter a few lines here and there make them programmers. :p

I'm guessing that your post is a response to the idiotic post about all Windows users being lazy and incompetent. It still bothers me. In fact I posted a nasty response till I caught on. I figure that the vast majority of statements that have the word "all" in them are invalid. Betanews really needs an ignore feature.

It was indeed.

Funny!

I suppose the best way to prevent malware infections is to not release it... Oh, wait. *cough* Metafile *cough*

MSRA? Microsoft should have started with MRSA (*) as a target acronym and worked backwards, given how prone Microsoft products are to being infected...

*: Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus

There are so many how linux/OSX is better and more secure than Windows. Just because they are not target, it doesn't mean they are not vulnerable. Linux and OSX has a combine market shares around 5%. There are reason why Windows about to capture over 90%+ of the market. The system is stable and user friendly. You can throw anything at it, and it will recognize, if it doesn't, you can easily google a driver for it. Can you claim that for Linux and OSX?

Linux and Mac is up around 10%, so there should be 10% viral infection, but there's not... Ignoring the fact that I've NEVER had to load a driver on a Mac or Linux. It just works. However, I've had to load a LOT of drivers in Windows, especially using a generic install disk. It's called quality and O/S level security. Linux asks to make changes. OS/X asks to make changes. Windows just bends over and begs for it.

I have NEVER had to load a driver for Mac or Linux. It just works.

I have NEVER had to load a driver for Mac or Linux. It just works.

That means nothing.

Well, other than the fact that you either have very generic hardware, or have not upgraded since 1984. :)

That means nothing.

Well, other than the fact that you either have very generic hardware, or have not upgraded since 1984. :)

***Never*** had to load a driver in linux, eh? You must be running an HP with integrated video & a Celeron processor. Not slamming the open-source crowd here, but nitwits who make generic blanket statements about the "superiority" of any given platform tend to piss me off. We run Win32/Linux/BSD/Novell here and I can tell you that setting up a RAID5 array using a DPT SCSI controller in linux (Debian 3.1) is a flat-out pain in the nads!!

When you gain some experience outside of your parents' basement, Duane, you'll have no recourse but to adjust your attitude a bit to conform with the parameters of reality.

-mike

Actually I would say that windows has 90% market share because it has been distributed on every brand name computer sold for the last 20 odd years.

I purchased a laptop not long back and guess what I could not buy it without windows even though I don't use it. The Microsoft licence agreement said if I did not agree to the terms of the license agreement then to return it for a full refund but guess what the laptop had a license agreement that said the laptop and software where a bundled package and you could not return individual components only the complete package.

Now if people that don't use or want windows has to buy it on a new laptop then i'd say that people who don't know nothing are going to end up with it too wouldn't you say?

as for drivers in windows i helped a freind reinstall windows xp on a computer and guess what they lost their motherboard disk that had the sound drivers. I downloaded about 12 - 15 different drivers for the same chipset sound card before the sound card worked a couple even crashed the computer and every sound driver install required a reboot.

In linux just lspci and find out what sound chipset is being used then modprobe chipsetdriver and away you go no reboots no searching all good.

if the drivers are not included with windows and you loose the driver disk then windows is a nightmare linux not so.

the average user will never touch linux...it is still too complex and will not do all the tasks windows will do...linux will continue to have a niche market because as an everyday os it is not practical for the commmon user (games and easy to use interface and simple driver support)...no clue at all why you would need to download 12-15 drivers but you cant blame windows for that... blame the manufacturer because windows did not make the soundcard

Bulls***. The average user use windows because they can pirate it. Not because Linux is hard.
Ubuntu, SuSE Linux and Fedora Core are all easier to install then Windows. I guarantee you that.

And for the driver support, no microsoft didn't do the soundcard, nor did the linux kernel developers. Still they bring you the driver straight up...

Fedora Core is the most difficult Linux version to install because of the fact it uses a XEN kernel by default. I can't get NVIDIA's graphics card driver or the Madwifi Atheros Wi-Fi driver to work, both drivers compile just fine but when I try to load them with Mobprobe or Insmod I get an error message stating the module is in an invalid format. I also get a similar error message when I try to start the X graphical interface.

And linux is free, what's your point?. Lets see...Pirated copy of program or free program that's supposedly 'godlike' compared to windows. Pfft.

Never? Wow. You're fortunate. Try buying some hardware for a change. I guarantee you'll have stuff to setup. I also have linux and I've had to get drivers for my video card and I've had to work about an hour to get my wireless card working right with some encryption on it. For that reason, Linux is just not a productive OS for me, and it will remain on the backbench until hardware and software come in mainstream for it.

You know, that's not always the case. Case in point, 62% of websites use Apache and 30% use IIS (http://news.netcraft.com..._web_server_survey.html). Yet IIS has far more security problems than Apache.

I suspect that if other Microsoft servers were more popular (DNS, FTP, SMTP), they would exhibit similar number of problems as compared to their more popular counterparts.

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft originally programmed Windows 95 as a desktop OS, not really designed for constant network connectivity. Because of that, there was no thought of controlling hardware access or a superuser; if you're sitting at the desktop, you are the superuser. This is the origin of a lot of Microsoft bugs . . . that and legacy support in latter OS's.

UNIX/Linux/BSD/Minix/etc. originally started off as a network OS. Back when they started, computers were too expensive to have personally so a university would buy one and allow its users to log in through a network. With that in mind, from the very beginning there was a superuser, privilege levels, etc. I'm sure the early UNIX's were hacked up quite a bit as well but according to the stories I've read, the hackers were more benevolent than today. Also keep in the mind that they've had 20+ years to clean and fix their problems.

So to summarize my long winded response, Microsoft has done a phenomenal job in gaining marketshare but their security problems are due to the quality and character of their OS and not solely dependent on their marketshare (not counting user stupidity exploits, of course).

Linux and Mac is up around 10%, so there should be 10% viral infection

It is not clear what you are saying there, let alone what kind of logic you are using.
Using a form of military/tactical logic, 10% share would indicate 1/81 the infections of the 90% share. However, even then, using the 10% figure is not quite correct. As you are assuming everything in the 10% is targetable by the same things. Separate that 10% out into its distinctly different distributions and then use those %'s.

Echo! Echo! J/k

I don't have any of that. I will admit I haven't upgraded since '02 abouts. I don't need to. It runs good, doesn't get viruses, doesn't crash, and is even a laptop! When I used to use Windows on it, the (MS-certified) driver blue-screened the computer multiple times. It has been fixed VERY recently, but '02 to '05 was too long of a wait.

I should have been more clear. To the best of my knowledge, Mac usage is around 3% and *NIX is 3.5%. I know the distro game. It's NOT a fair way to compare, but still... Where are the viruses? Where are the crashes? I'll ignore classic Mac because it doesn't have the features I want, though.

I do buy hardware. Generally, however, I convert old Windows boxes (long useless) to fully-functional Linux ones. And, I didn't say setup. I said load drivers. I suppose I did once for a new tower w/ NVIDIA. Wireless is easy w/ the right distro.

LOL! Actually, one of them is an old HP Pavilion with all that. But, a Toshiba laptop, and a Sony VAIO, and a nicer tower next to it.

And, the personal comment was unnecessary. I have experience on all of the list. Not much Novell, I'll admit. I just got my A+ cert via Cisco Academy. I know it isn't a lot, but I'm not a nitwit.

Security is great and all, but if it's so secure that I can't do what I want to do with it, Vista isn't worth anything to me! I'd rather stick with Linux (and hey, OS X is great, too) along with my own common sense.

Vista the most secure OS?
Yeah right!!! ha ha ha ha ha
After supporting WiNbLoWzE for the past 7 years I was placed in front of an OSX machine one day. 30 minutes later I was convinced that there really is such a thing as a secure OS and believe me it's not Windows.

Come on now peeplez, how many times are we going to let Microsoft pull the wool over our eyes?

Fool me once, shame on you.
Allow you to fool me 6 times? Just shoot me. :)

*30 minutes later I was convinced that there really is such a thing as a secure OS*

Was that about the time it finished copying 3 small files across a network. I've played with OSX also, I found it slow for just about everything except loading itself, especially when trying to multitask...but it looks pretty and it is expensive...Oh yeah, and it has the most ridiculously hyperbolic commercials I've ever seen.

You played with OS X once? You found it slow? What machine was it running on, a 1999 PowerMac G3 400 with 128MB of RAM? Listen, I run OS X on my PowerBook G3 400 wth 768 MB and I'll admit it isn't the quickest thing in the world, but on a modern mac, it's wicked fast. And that is with the kernel intentionally tuned for compatibility and stability rather than raw speed.

Heh..

We bought a Dual-CPU G5 about 8 months ago. It was slower than a Dell GX 270 until the latest update.

No I played with them quite a few times. I had to support our universities handful of Mac using faculty and staff along with the horde of windows using ones. Almost every Mac I used was dog slow compared to all but the slowest windows machines I encountered. I am not sure which model they were, they had grey acrylic case shells and some were blue in the front and some were gray in the front. If they were on a USB KVM switch, you had to wait until they had finished booting before switching away from them, otherwise the mouse and keyboard would never be recognized.

I haven't had any stability problems with WinXP and they were extremely rare with Win2K, and I am betting I can find more hardware compatible with XP than you can for OSX.

There was one or two fast macs...the ones built into their large white screens...but they still weren't nearly as fast as PCs half their price.

Blue on the front was a Power Mac G3. Grey a G4. The blue is definitely not a comparable platform when running OS X, as it is OS 8/9 era. Early grey's also were OS 9 era. Not fair machines to compare to Windows at the time.

You made a comment about the Macs not recognizing USB devices if not switched to during boot. I can start any Mac today without either connected and attach them at any time.

I however, have never been able to find a way to do that with Windows. The DOS keyboard error either stops everything in its tracks or Windows refuses to recognize them after boot... no KVM switch involved!

He was comparing them to the windows workstations, of the *same* period.

Yep, most the PCs were older than the Macs. I actually saw a 66Mhz Win95 box at one point. To put a timeframe on this, I think OS 10.2 may have been released around then.

"DOS keyboard error" do you mean BIOS?

They are claiming it will be the 'most secure OS in the industry'.

"Windows Vista is the first operating system from Microsoft to be built from the ground up using the SDL development model. Every bit of code is scrutinized for Common Criteria Certification and security compliance checkpoints must be met along the way."

I looked at the CC (www.commoncriteriaportal.org) website and Windows 2000 SP3 (EAL4+), Max OSX 10.3 Tiger (EAL3), and Windows 2003 server (EAL4+), and various forms of Redhat (EAL2 to 4+), Suse (EAL 2/3)and Solaris (4/4+). So this seems like a pretty bold claim; but there is of course the caviat of 'from Microsoft' above.

I found it Windows 2000 got CC certification but they never submitted any form of Windows XP certification, probably because it couldn't pass.

So I would be curious as to what Common Criteria Level Certification they are shooting for; if it is anything below EAL4+; who really cares. Just about every other OS out there (including OpenSource software) has gone through the Very expensive Common Criteria certification and most have obtained at least level 3 or 4.

I guess what would be great is if they were able to obtain 4+ or greater certification in their standard consumer/home desktop software.

AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

www.openbsd.com

I need to go change my pants now.

Microsoft said the same thing about Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4, and Windows ME and Windows 98.... Making false statements like that before the product is released is a time honored tradition, marketing gimick that Microsoft uses to get people to go out and spend money on their buggy products. At least the free unixes (FreeBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, etc) fix their bugs before they become a problem -- Microsoft doesn't care about bugs in their software.

hmm... I used 2k for like 2 years before switch to XP, and they both secure. I haven't get hack or hijack. But if I am stupid enough to d/l some stupid s*** and turn my computer into a zombie, can I blame MS for my stupidity?

Like how rijp said, people are the problem, not software. No software is uncrackable or hacker proof, it has been proven many many times in the past. I hope you are not like that supid politian made a statement that want to ban MS from release vista unless it's a perfect system.

Being the most secure does not equal totally secure. Each of those systems may have been the most secure at the time, but finding security flaws later on doesn't mean Microsoft lied. At the same time being unexploited does not equal secure.

Well you couldn't be more wrong. Malware, et al., is a "Windows only" problem, as anyone who uses a Mac already knows. The fact is, you can pull a stock Mac out of the box, plug into the net, and, without any additional third-party security/anti-virus software, surf the net freely, download whatever you want, read every bit of spam sent to your email - and not get a single trojan/virus/worm/whathaveyou.

That inescapable fact alone should tell you that "people" are not the problem when it comes to OS security. Frankly, Muglia's statement that Vista is the most secure OS ever couldn't be more dumb and shows that MS hasn't learned a thing over the years. I'm sure MS has done a lot with this release of Windows, but what's been touted so far simply isn't enough. When it's eventually released into the wild, it will have the biggest bulls-eye in history painted on it. Cracking it isn't a question of if, it's a question of when. I'm betting it will be much sooner than MS thinks.

Malware, et al., is a "Windows only" problem, as anyone who uses a Mac already knows.

Do not mistake not being targeted as being secure.

Sorry buddy. People are not the problem when it comes to exploits. And exploits is what the real security issue is. There have been thousands of exploits discovered in Windows systems over the years that have allowed attackers to compromise a system. Exploits have nothing to do with users downloading spyware and malware or whatever. Compare that to OpenBSD: only one exploit discovered in the default install in more than 8 years...I don't know any other OS that can claim that.

Does the default install include a full featured browser capable of installing updates automatically?

Just because its only user only found one exploit in the default install doesn't mean that is the only exploit, just that the default install has at least one exploit.

Relatively speaking, how easy is it for a OpenBSD user to install a patch for that security hole?

PC-Tool just nailed it. Amen.

Regardless of who targets what, the fact (and reality) remains that the malware, et al., problem it is an inherent Windows software problem. Period.

And by the way, every report that has bothered to analyze and compare the level of OS security built into Windows and Mac OS X has reached the same conclusion, over and over again. Mac OS X is, by design, infinitely more secure by default - out of the box - than any Windows OS to date. That doesn't mean that OS X is invulnerable, it means that the bar is significantly raised for malware authors - potential or otherwise - to do any damage on the level that malware authors enjoy today on Windows with relative ease.

The problem with MS is that they left the security barn door wide open for far too many years. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and doing what they said they were going to do when Longhorn was announced (a complete rewrite of the OS from the ground up) they pursued a "patch as patch can" approach in the interim with a predictable lack of permanent meaningful results. Now that Vista (fka Longhorn) is about to arrive, it appears to be hardly the "complete rewrite" as advertised. The system registry, ActiveX controls, long the malware authors tools of the trade for infecting Windows PCs are coming along for the ride in Vista. No doubt MS has taken steps (finally) to offer greater protection of these long compromised Windows OS "features," but I'm afraid the malware authors of today will find the Vista of tomorrow all too familiar when the rubber meets the road.

Yeah, sure.

Let me refresh your memory: MS stated that the next Windows whould get antivirus technology installed by default. That means bye-bye antivirus companies, who on earth is going to buy another antivirus? So it crash & burn against MS's one?

This has turn the antivirus companies -for quite some months now- into a race for finding a way to sell antivirus to linux/macos users. And, you know what? They have found like 3 or 4 exploits that could posibly, under certain circunstances, allow a virus to activate. And, guess what. They havent sold a single personal use antivirus for linux or mac, and we haven't suffered a single wave of virus atack. Not a single one.

Because this OS' are build from ground up thinking on security, not on "let the upgrades for the next version we will sell next year". Burn that into MS's developers' skulls, and maybe, MAYBE, we can start talking of a secure Windows by 2010 or 2020...

inherint? Do you *know* what that word means? (much less, how to spell it..."inherent")

lmao...

Sorry, I thouhgt I was talking to someone with a modicum of intelligence. My bad.

involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit

They (malware) are not built into the OS, which is what the word would imply if you knew what it meant.

Idiots will always be idiots. When you make an OS that is useable by idiots, those who wish to write viruses will target them.

As for Vista, both of the items you mentioned, Registry, and AcitveX, are incorrect, at least, as you imply. The registry is inaccessible to the browser, and ActiveX, when run via IE, will be sandboxed, just as IE will be.

Has you done the research, instead of flaming, you'd probably know that.

WTH?

MS is not bundling AV with Vista. I don't know where you are getting your info, but it's wrong. Such a thing would cause an endless number of lawsuits.

Now see, When MS goes out and says thatone of their products is the most secure, or is unhackable (Xbox 360), some people take it as a personal challenge to exploit the hell out of that product. Think back, before the 360 was released Heres a snippet.

"One of the reasons we went with custom hardware design for all our silicon is that it allows us to build security at the silicon level," he said. "There are going to be levels of security in this box that the hacker community has never seen before," but he admitted that "I'm sure sooner or later someone will work out how to circumvent security. But the way we have done the design doesn't mean that it will work on somebody else's machine." from:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050910-5296.html

Now, you look around, there is a modchip for the 360 about to be released, PLUS firmware modifications that let you play backup copies."But the way we have done the design doesn't mean that it will work on somebody else's machine." umm, ya, it does

Now, the same is gonna happen for vista, they are gonna tout it as unhackable, unexploitable, then 2 weeks after final release, 12 big security updates to fix holes and try to save their own asses. And ofcourse, i will end up getting it, and i will end up using those updates, because I like games, and dont have enough money to get a mac.

That's why Apache is always hacked... right? Oh, wait. It's not.

Regardless of who targets what, the fact (and reality) remains that the malware, et al., problem it is an inherent Windows software problem. Period.

I do not want to get into a debate here, nor do i want to speculate. I do just want to state the obvious.

OS Platform Statistics
As of April of 2006:
WinXP - 74.0%
Win2K - 11.2%
Win98 - 1.8%
W2003 - 1.9%
Linux - 3.3%
Mac - 3.6%
*Platforms that count for less than 0.5% are not listed.
source - http://www.w3schools.com...sers/browsers_stats.asp

Now, With all this being stated, I wonder why Windows operating system's are the inheriting platform of the vast majority of malware.

As PC_Tool stated...
Do not mistake not being targeted as being secure.

It hasn't? Best check your information again there, duane.

Yes, but Windows has 19835(random number) exploits in a default install. They include:

A) Everything, 'cause you're an admin.
B) Dozens of ports open to let other people connect to your computer.

A) Everything, 'cause you're an admin.
You mean I can tell my computer what to do?

B) Dozens of ports open to let other people connect to your computer.
How many can get to me behind my NAT?

But you're missing the point. If any OS is designed to be more secure than competing OS systems out of the box, that fact doesn't change whether one person uses it, a hundred folks use it, or tens of thousands use it. The challenge of software design and security imposes a greater mandate than simply waiting to see if mass acceptance garners the attention of malware authors. By that time, it's already too late.

And do you have any idea how many millions of active users 3.6% translates into? And still not a thing malware-wise on the platform? The proportion of active Mac users and the virtual malware no-show just doesn't add up, considering the Mac's present installed base. The argument that Mac's are not targeted at all due to it's market share just doesn't wash. Even if it were just a million active users, that's a considerable malware propagation target.

PC_Tool, you're not going to carry the day with posts such as this, which is simply riddled with inaccuracies, ad hominem attacks, and arguments that are simply of your own invention.

Instead of just shooting from the hip, you might take the time to read the post you are responding to more carefully. If you did, you would have noticed that:

a) Inherent was not misspelled

b) The definition of inherent as "existing in something as a characteristic attribute." is appropriate in the context it was used since malware, et al., infection is limited solely to Windows platform vulnerabilities. Malware infection has become a "characteristic attribute" of Windows, whether Windows users remain in denial about that fact or not. Malware, of course, is not "built into" Windows, but the vulnerabilities and exploits that allow their existence are. Deal with it, as I'm sure you already are.

c) It appears you missed the following statement from my original post regarding the registry and ActiveX: "No doubt MS has taken steps (finally) to offer greater protection of these long compromised Windows OS "features" So, yes, I have "done my research," and yes, I stand by every foreboding word of my original post. You, on the other hand, may return to gulping down your kool-aid.

A) Try forming a sentence I can understand.

B) I don't know, but you wouldn't need your NAT with a Mac, OpenBSD, or a modified/hacked windows. A standard install of windows? Hell yes!

I've been running a modified Win2k box for about a year now to see if it can be hacked or picks up a virus. So far nothing has gotten in, because no ports are open by default. I even do stupid stuff like randomly install software or run executables people link me to, and it's still running fine with nothing malicious in it.

Ahh...that sweet sweet smell of 8 processes when you boot up in the morning.

actually, it has, double check your info, apache has been hacked left and right where as iis5 that comes with win 2k3 has only had 2 exploits since it came out

A) Fixed. Sorry, I was in a hurry.

So, we've come to the conclusion that with some modifications from the default install Windows can be secure; and that with some modifications from the default install OpenBSD can be usable.

Sorry mate, again, i dont want to debate, nor speculate, just state the obvious....

Threats to Mac OS X

* The Sony® Digital Rights Management (DRM) debacle affects Mac OS X, installing kernel extensions even if you decline to accept the license agreement. This software is both a rootkit and spyware.
* Worms and Trojan Horses targeting Mac OS X and have emerged, including:
o OSX.Inqtana.A, which propagates via Bluetooth®.
o OSX.Leap.A deletes, infects, or corrupts files and attempts to spread through iChat.
o SH.Renepo.A / SH.Renepo.B, aka Opener, is a rootkit that can disable the Mac OS X firewall, steal personal information, destroy data, and replicate itself to other systems on your network. That SH.Renepo can replicate itself to other systems on your network by copying itself to any mounted drive, including shared volumes, may explain why Symantec® characterizes this threat as a virus while the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) defines it as a Macintosh worm.
o MacOS.MW2004.Trojan, a nasty bit of malware that masquerades as a Microsoft® Word 2004 installer that erases the infected users Home folder and potentially more.
* While tricking you into installing a Worm or Trojan generally requires some social engineering, their malicious payloads can easily be packaged within apparently innocent application downloads.
* While viruses targeting the Microsoft Windows® operating system generally cannot affect your Mac:
o You can spread these by sending infected documents or e-mails to other users.
o Running Microsoft VirtualPC for Mac exposes your Mac to all Windows viruses.
o Macro viruses, such as those written for Microsoft Office products, can infect your Mac or destroy data. One should disable automatic macro execution in the preferences of your Office applications.
o Implementing Boot Camp and installing Microsoft Windows on your Intel®-based Mac exposes that computer to the same threats as running Windows on a PC.

The rise in Mac OS X exposures — including numerous Apple® Security Updates, several containing fixes for critical exposures, the highest level of threat — has prompted the SANS™ Institute to add Mac OS X to its list of "Top 20" Internet security vulnerabilities.

The rising popularity of the Mac and Mac OS X is considered by security professionals to make it an increasingly attractive target for malware and spyware. We agree with this assessment. Prior versions of the Mac OS were also subject to security threats: Section 7 of the "Viruses and the Mac FAQ" cited "around 40 Mac-specific viruses and related threats" before the advent of Mac OS X.

heres some more on this element of the topic pertaining to mac virus'/spyware/adware, etc..
http://news.com.com/Appl...100-7355_3-5228038.html

Widget Vulnerability - Tiger - Mac OS X Vulnerability.
Published: Monday 31st 2004

With Apple's latest release of Mac OS X Tiger (10.4) along came the first security issue that effected the Apple portion of the operating system directly. The security issue revolved around the ability to automatically install Widgets when a user accessed a website that contained the code. Example code was created by stephan that showed how he discovered this issue and how it could be exploited for future malicious uses by exampling benign code.

Initially it was reported that once a Widget was installed via the automatic installer the item could not be removed, this was later corrected with instructions. To remove a widget the user needs to navigate to their library folder for the widgets and drag the item to the trash.

Shortly after the news hit the Internet, Apple released Mac OS X 10.4.1 that corrected this issue along with other issues. Now when you access a website that has the Widget installer code on it the web-browser asks if you want to download it.

source- http://www.macvirus.org/

My point in posting all this is, not to say I believe Microsoft is "Vista Most Secure OS Ever", far from it!

My actual point is if someone takes their time and knows what they are doing, and unfortunately do have malicious intensions, any OS is vulnerable if this person decided to dedicate themselves to explointing the particular OS...
Thanks, aka out -

P.S. you made and excellent point here...
"If any OS is designed to be more secure than competing OS systems out of the box, that fact doesn't change whether one person uses it, a hundred folks use it, or tens of thousands use it.
The challenge of software design and security imposes a greater mandate than simply waiting to see if mass acceptance garners the attention of malware authors. By that time, it's already too late."

uh huh

rijp fanboys now

what's the world coming to?

i think most of us with half a brain realize that an OS's virus' and malware are proportionate to it's userbase

but thanks for the three page post
:-)

LOL. Yes....So call it a tie. 20k exploits in a default windows install.....so, 20k fixes to make ur machine rock solid safe from probably every hacker out there. And with bsd 20k things to do to make the os marginally useable. But at least you know its safe against the 10 or so hackers trying to get in.

HEAR HEAR!

OpenBSD fixed that exploit over two years ago. If you have that exploit on your system, you're using an outdated and non-supported version of OpenBSD.

Um, what exploit, being useable?

All this shows is that the Mac has flaws (no surprise there). In order to have any significance, there should be a comparison between the number of Mac viruses and Windows viruses (using a common criteria, time frame, definition, etc.); if what you're implying is true, that the number of viruses is directly proportional to the user install base, then for every Mac virus, there should be about 24.7 Windows viruses (according to your statistics Windows has 88.9% marketshare, Mac has 3.6% marketshare, 88.9/3.6=24.7).

I personally don't want to do the work of trolling through Security Focus or Nessus to run the numbers but just from the list below, you list about 7-8 Mac vulnerabilities. That should mean there would be around 198 vulnerabilities for Windows. I suspect that there are far more Windows vulnerabilities than that.

Even if you didn't count half of the viruses and there were actually 20 Mac viruses/vulnerabilities, that means there should be 494 Windows viruses/vulnerabilities. Again, I think Windows has more than 494 vulnerabilities.

I believe it was in the OpenSSH in OpenBSD version 3.3.

http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/5MP030A7PA.html

First of all, that should be LAmp, not just Apache. There's only so much you can do without OS level security.

Where do you get your numbers? I can't find anyone that isn't obviously biased.

I'm a Microsoft fan and I use a lot of their products and I also use Linux and Apple on a regular basis as well. I would feel a lot safer if this was a 3rd party security company saying this and not Microsoft. And yes, I'm running a Vista Beta 2 and it is pretty solid, but hackers haven't had a chance to play around with it yet either. Only time will really tell...

The moron was installing it on an outdated laptop. He expects a Beta OS to install on a laptop XP will barely run on/ Yeah.

He's an idiot.

Vista Beta 2 works quite well on my Dell Precision 340 desktop with the only upgrade being an ATI Radeon 9600 and an SB Live!.

That is:
1.5 Ghz
768MB Ram
128 MB video card.
SB Live!

I am running Vista Beta 2, and Office 2007 Beta 2. This is *with* Aero fully enabled.

This system is easily 4 years old (likely older) and runs Vista just fine with only 2 minor upgrades.

It is fast, secure, and intuitive. It takes only a slight amount of time to "unlearn" some habits, nad the end result is more satisfying and more intuitive than any previous version of Windows.

The UAC needs to be fixed, and they need to give the user more control over indexing (excessive HD thrashing for the first hour or so...during use). Other than those issues, I have not had a single problem with this system.

I must admit, however, that I have *not* tried to play any DX9 games on this system. They only plan to support DX9 as an afterthought anyway, so I don't expect it will be a plesant experience even when the OS is final.

Yes, but you above all people, know how to make things work. Vista isn't the problem, people don't read. That's the problem.

HCL! Yeah, its just there to take up space...

And you have experience, obviously he doesn't, given that he is trying to install Vista on his etch-a-sketch equivalent.

I haven't tried Vista yet because I'm still waiting to get the DVD from Microsoft but apparently a lot of the problems people are having running games are due to graphics driver bugs, not Windows Vista OS bugs. Check out NVIDIA's release notes on their latest driver.

NVIDIA states, for example, that the bug that prevented Doom 3 from loading in Vista was due to missing features in NVIDIA's own OpenGL driver.

Not too terribly suprising. But, MS bashers will use it against the OS.

Go figure. It's the same thing with XP. they blame the OS for their crappy hardware and crappy drivers. (not to mention their inability to *not* click the *HOTT WAREZ* *POOOORRRRN* links.)

*shrug*

Wow - nice to know that it runs - I have virtually the same system as my main PC. I'm pretty sure that I won't be installing Vista on it, though.

Runs pretty well, actually. I'd imagine the final will be faster still.

Don't know if I'd spend the extra bucks to upgrade the OS on *this* beast, btu I will definately be running it on my gaming rig once they RTM it.

And linux zealots defend linux by saying "the kernel is secure", usually without actually saying kernel unless they're backed into a corner.

Regarding your comment on DX9 under Vista. I play Dark Age of Camelot, and tried it under Vista. It does not run well at all. But during upgrade from XP, the installer made me aware of that, so I half-expected it not to run at all. It did start and... walk, not run. The graphics were as expected, exactly the same as under DX9, but without the speed.

So, to anyone who expects a "legacy" DX9 game to run unmodified under Vista, think again.

By the way: In order to get the game to even start, I had to run it in XP Compatibility Mode.

For those who may be interested, I've been beta testing Vista for a while now, and there have been steady improvments. The version I'm using right now is the Public Beta 2 that was just released a few days ago.

As mentioned above the UAC needs a total overhaul. It's just too intrusive. I turned it off for that very reason. And before anyone gets their shorts in a twist over me doing this, I do know how to use my computer in such a way as to prevent malware and other friendly little buggers from invading my computer. I turned off the indexing too, for the very reason that you mentioned. Also, it seems to eat more resources than it should.

Oh, and one thing PC_Tools: I appreciate your insight, but calling people on this, or any other site "morons", is a little over the top, and more than a little unwelcome. People have a right to their opinions, even if they are considered to be wrong.

yeah I havent had any problems with network center but then again I am not using wireless...my only problem with networking in vista was setting up a network printer for whatever reason when I clicked to search for it it could never find it
but if I browsed I found it with no problem...

IP address. You should know your LAN IP addresses..

Is the printer attached to a machine (therefore it must be shared) or can you set a static IP address on the printer?

I know my ip address its just I was testing out the printer wizard...in xp when I went to search for network printer it found it right away but with vista I had to browse for it was all...not a complaint just didnt understand why the wizard couldnt find it but by simply clicking on browse it saw all my networked pcs

its called "BETA" for a reason...some people have hardly any problems some do...ie7 worked fine on my pc...and vista is running smoothly on my pc as well...

MICROSOFT JUST REPEATING WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT XP DOESNT CUT IT.

MICROSOFT MUST PROVE IT!

Go try Vista Beta 2. That's the proof!

BETA? No. A COMPLETE VERSION NUMBNUTS.

Try a Microsoft beta?! Thanks for the laugh. I tried IE7, saw it was really an alpha, tried to uninstall it and revert back to IE6, but could not. (A read through Microsoft's forums revealed I was far from being alone.)

As I repaired a computer last night, I kept wondering why some web pages were displaying so poorly. I thought I was still missing some malware or a virus somewhere--until I remembered my client had installed IE7 beta 2. I had also wondered why some simple BHO upgrades were miserably failing.

Microsoft offered me a beta test of Office Live. I attempted to transfer a domain, but when signing up for the service I copied and pasted the wrong domain name in the form. The form M$ used did not allow one to go back and/or correct any mistakes. Yes, I caught the mistake *before* I submitted the form. And, I **immediately** contacted support alerting them to the problem, I *know* in time enough for someone who actually cared about the test and testers to catch it.

I am now told I must try again with the domain name I really wanted, and also am told I must use a different credit card. In sum, they had not foreseen even the simplest possible mistake, had no mechanisms to handle any errors, and were truly lost about handling it without pain or injury to the beta tester. Duh! However, I still receive updates and information about the now useless account and a wrong domain name that supposedly is not in Microsoft's records because it did not transfer.

Shall we continue with the debacle called Live Mail? Once again, thanks for the laugh about Microsoft's "beta" (a.k.a. "alpha" to the real world) products.

Remember the saying: "The proof is in the pudding." Well, I've had my fill of Microsoft pudding (i.e., beta products).

So you expect Beta products to be safe, secure, and flawless?

Sounds like MS isn't confusing Beta with Alpha. In fact, it sounds like *you* are confusing Beta with Finished.

Beta 2 is usually when they freeze the featureset and begin (read that again, emphasis on BEGIN) to go bug hunting.

This has been typical of MS for *many* years.

What really amuses me, is that you expect traditional BHO objects to work in *beta* browser that has been deliberately coded so they *won't* be able to install. Keep in mind, BHOs are a *major* inlet for malware.

What is with the caps? Are you compensating for something?

Microsoft doesn't have to prove a thing. If you like it, than fine, otherwise Vista is currently being beta tested, if you feel that it's not sufficient that's why you report problems.

Otherwise, its a free country. you can always use Linux...

Oooh, I saw a lowercase letter...next thing you know he'll be using a multi-button mouse. Sorry, couldn't resist.

"What is with the caps? Are you compensating for something?"

Yeah, his Mac.

I'll not bother to respond. It appears there are reading comprehension skills lacking here. And then there's that whole notion of "thinking" which I will also not try to teach.

so...in other words you have nothing to say and can't admit to being wrong...its ok...we are all wrong, sometimes.

Reap_r is right.

It's the user 99% of the time when I find security problems. There are hundreds of thousands of XP users that mindlessly say "no" to notices about security updates, even Microsoft's semi-auto-update notices, or the ones generated by their Norton/McAfee/etc. software. They think saying "no" to *everything* keeps them safe. Duh. (What idiot at Microsoft had the default auto-update time set for 3 AM? Out of a couple hundred, I have yet to find more than a half-dozen home computers that are actually on at that time of night. Duh!) I actually found one this past weekend where the owner had said "no" to everything for two whole years! He called me because he had "some problems." His repair bill? $600 USD. By the way, I stopped counting the malware infections when the number of them reached 1200+.

Microsoft does not need hackers to truly test Vista's security, but moms and dads, aunts and uncles, and brothers and sisters--all who see a computer as an appliance. Turn it on. Turn it off. That's as much as they will *ever* learn, and even *want* to learn.

And yes, this is pure marketing hype. Too bad P. T. Barnum is still so very right, except there are likely several suckers born every minute now with a far larger world population, than when he originally said it.

Let's face it, no amount of securing an OS will prevent lusers from crapping up their computer and exposing them and their employers to risk. As long as there are smart and greedy people out there writing malware, there will be problems. I don't see any magic bullet here. Heck I can't even think of one. If you have enough functionality on a machine and enough data on it for it to be actually useful, there will be risk. That risk is magnified when users who are ingorant and/or lazy circumvent the very protections that guard them for convencience sake. In business there are ways to mitigate this risk. Security processes and standards can reduce it, but users are the real problem. If you educate them enough to be safe then they are no longer users, they are computer techs and we have enough of those if you ask me.

This is pure marketing hype by MS. Of course they are putting more security into Vista, they have so many problems with what is out there that they really must.

Let's say MS is correct, Vista will be the most secure OS ever. What does mean?
1- More processing power is now going tbe required to do all those security checks constantly. More CPU, more memory.
2- MS will still own 90%+ of the market share. As a result, it is a much larger target for hackers than Linux or OSX. If hackers spent as much time digging into these other OSs, then we might be impressed with XPSP2. Who knows?

Your second statement makes sense. The first one however, is flawed.

An OS isn't constantly monitoring files for checks. The holes come from vulnerabilities, and those are executables and dll's which are constructed to be secure. Its like a door with no leaks. If you fill the house with water, and water manages to seep under the door or find some unknown crack, THEN you know you have a faulty door.

No more CPU is needed to keep the machine secure, its already built with known doors closed and therefore hackers can't use conventional methods to break down the OS.

But you are correct, they will continue to keep trying to break down OS doors to find other ways in.

My gas grill tends to explode and I have been badly burned several times. The manufacturer assures me their new model is the safest grill ever, but they want to charge me full price. I think I should at least get a discount considering how many times I have been injured by the current model.

Very well said, great analogy. Curent users of Windows XP should get a free upgrade to Vista.

Not to mention that this Grill will use 3 times the gas of your current system, and will require you to be wearing a flame resistant suit. You will need to enter a separate security code to turn the knobs, open the lid, lite it, or insert a Grilling Utensil or food.

lol, all in good fun!

Never happens.

how do you figure that? microsoft is constantly fixing holes in xp ... not leaving customers blowing in the wind.

when the first 100 patches for vista are release dwill that entitle you to ms's next os for free as well?

You really should try charcoal...no burns that way.

Seriously though, I like your allegory.

Speaking of that, tonka trucks. They were steel, heavy, lots of places to get injured, and had many sharp points. Easily bent, and you could actually stand up in one (at 5 years old or less) and ride it like a skateboard. Yet, my friends, me cousins, just about everyone I know managed to escape injury we didn't get even a single blood stain, despite the apparent "security risks".

Now, today's toys are plastic, big round edges, no moving parts, nothing to pinch toes or fingers, they are safe, yet some dimwitted twirp manages to find the 1 small security problem, expose it and they break a finger or hurt themselves very badly..

So no matter what you do, someone will find a way to figure out how to injure themselves by doing something stupid, or break something and blame the product for being inferior....

One might suggest you read the instructions on your grill before trying to light it. ;)

Heh...

Not to mention those that actually read the instructions for lighting the grill and for safe operation of the grill hava had no problems.

But it's the grill's fault, right?

Yeah, like guns kill people! Guns, grills, and unsecure OS are the problem!

Don't you watch OCE, gawd!

OCE?

Apparently not...

You hit the nail on the head..

They quit making sharp metal pointy toys like Tonka trucks and Jarts and all those people that would have been eliminated through their own stupidity are now able to grow up and use computers.. Yes we all know these people, we tend to provide tech support for them. Wouldn't we have been better off keeping those 'dangerous toys' around to rid the gene pool of those people ?

I can dream can't I ?

Well RIJP, we can also go one step further and say that we can also blame the Courts (At Least in the US, Mind You I live in the US). Need I say more than "McDonalds". If you are stupid enought to place a HOT cup of Coffee between your legs and drive faster than posted speed limits, one deserves to get burned. But then the Courts turn around and allow that person to blame McD's sue them for Millions. She also had an empty cup holder, go figure...

If it's hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, it's too hot. Regardless of the circumstances.

I really wish people would stop bringing this up.

Coffee is supposed to be as hot as it can be without turning into vapor. What's next? Are people going to sue the company that built their hot water heater because the water coming out of their sink made the skin on their finger (and possibly what's underneath) disappear?

As Alexq said : MS said XP was the safest OS ever and promised it will stay secured with its built-in firewall and so on...

The built-in firewall is pure crap and hundreds of flaws has been discovered...

But they sure don't (really) lie : Vista is the safest Microsoft OS ever... but it's not a very big deal as XP is not really secured :(

But saying it's the most secured OS ever, even comparing with unices is a real big (and bad) joke...

Actually, if you turn it on and keep it on, the Windows Firewall is quite reliable. The problem with it, if you can really call it a problem, is that it doesn't prevent user incompetence... meaning... it doesn't prevent users from clicking on things and visiting sites that they shouldn't. So I suppose you could argue, it's only as secure as the user, since it's not like Symantec Internet Security that assumes you're dumber than snot and blocks everything by default.

Windows firewall is fine. It's only provides incomming protection, but if you are stupid enough to run programs that compromise your system, an outgoing firewall is not going to save you.

My Windows XP is perfectly secure. It's got the XP firewall, and it's behind a NAT. I have spyware and virus scans scheduled once a week, and have never enountered either spyware or viruses on my system.

Then again, I don't download virus laden programs from Kazza/Bittorrent/Usenet, and I don't open programs from untrusted sources.. If I want to test a untrused app, I do it in a sandbox (VMWare).

The best security is EDUCATION...

Not to say you're the same guy, but man, your comments sound like the late Mastertech. You need an education if you think your system is "perfectly secure" under any conditions.

Let's look at some other things you've said in the past...

http://www.betanews.com/...rives/1100012093#c51159
http://www.betanews.com/...rives/1100012093#c51124
http://www.betanews.com/...rives/1100012093#c51111
http://www.betanews.com/...hare/1144184064#c214308
http://www.betanews.com/...hare/1144184064#c214507
http://www.betanews.com/...hare/1144184064#c214020
http://www.betanews.com/...hare/1144184064#c214417

That's just from two articles, and already you make most of Mastertech's fallacious arguments. From what I've seen, I don't think you're quite as bad as Mastertech was (at least not as rabid as he was/is), but you should think twice before making arguments that simply didn't hold up with Mastertech.

Correct goodthings2life, complete idiots are those that complain about Windows Firewall. I have had Windows installed since December 2006 with the firewall enabled along with NOD32 that I totally disabled from running in the background, if I think something seems suspicious I right click it and scan it. No problems as of yet! (apart from Windows Genuine Advantage being a b**** to me which was easily fixed and not really a security problem).

You're damn right! I'm in the same situation as you described, and my XP pro is more than 1 year since install, all the time internet connected, and no security problems.
The ones that do not agree with you are: mac, unix, linux and so on users!
Or the ones that are not yet fully educated.

As is true with any consumer product, software or otherwise. The greatest danger to the consumer, is the consumer themselves. You just can't make anything "idiot proof," as there is always going to be an idiot to prove you wrong.

Vista is a natural progression. XP is a secure OS if you don't do anything that is not risky. As long as you don't go to sites you don't trust, download unknown programs, keep your firewall on, patch you system, etc. you'll be fine.

However, most users don't know any better. So next part of the evolution is the protect the user from themselves. Vista in concept does a good job with this. Only time will tell how well it will work.

BUSTED!

*Windows firewall is fine. It's only provides incomming protection, but if you are stupid enough to run programs that compromise your system, an outgoing firewall is not going to save you.*

WRONG! It does incoming and OUTGOING, its part of the filtering of packets. But its limited, AND you get better protection by using an external firewall/router because you aren't relying on the OS to be the last line of defense. Plus, its software, it needs updating on a regular basis.. If you get hacked, the firewall could be compromised in the process.

And .. *The best security is EDUCATION...*

That said could be true of so MANY things in life.

A firewall is integrated with the OS. enterprise companies don't use integrated firewalls for 1 reason, single point of failure. It may be sufficient, until your computer crashes and brings with it some critical services, and thus your firewall would be gone.

Its never a good idea to use software as a firewall rule anyway, simply because it needs the CPU to keep up, this is where denial of service can have the most impact, because if your CPU is overrun, the firewall can't get its fair share of "monitoring" and you are relying on an unstable system to protect you.

The Windows firewall is sufficient, in a crunch, but not as a 100% solution. You STILL should use a router of some sort. Not to mention, your windows OS is the LAST line of defense when it comes to virus and spyware, I wouldn't to make the OS the services, drivers, video, spyware, virus AND security.. that's a bit much to ask, especially when there are other ways you insulate the OS from outside interferrence.

You may not have had a problem with it yet, but routers are cheap, and they are just dummy devices, they don't do anything EXCEPT 1 function. I would take a single function device to protect me over an integrated solution ANY DAY of the week.

http://www.microsoft.com.../maintain/sp2netwk.mspx

Quote:

"Windows Firewall allows all outbound connections, but applies rules to the types of communication that are allowed back into the computer."

My system is perfectly secure thank you.

I have NAT, 1st line of defence, Windows firewall 2nd line, Avast antivirus, MS antispyware, and my ISP does virus scanning on inbound emails. Lastly, I don't use IE or OE.

Never had a virus, never had spyware.

We don't complain about the firewall in Windows, but we do have a history, ZoneAlarm is another well known firewall software. It has some problems, for one, it can conflict with other software, it can also be disabled by a virus/spyware program.

So there isn't anything wrong with the Windows Firewall, but its not the BEST solution you can have. So, they aren't idiots, we have more knowledge about such things that you have not come across.

Using a separate router is a more efficient and better method for firewall, rather than an integrated solution.

"Build a better idiot-proof device and they'll build a better idiot." - Unknown

But using a seperate router might greatly interfere with their Kazaa use.

no, no, no..file share and music sharing has been contained!

- RIAA.

Kazaa therefore no longer exists! (wink wink)

I just run linux... Never had a virus, never had spyware....

...never played a decent game...never had a decent , standard installation routine (or desktop, for that matter)...

Oops. There I go feeding the trolls again.

I think everyone is missing the "My" part of "My system is perfectly secure".

And just so people don't misread me as they often do, I am agreeing that XP can be safe if the user takes reasonable precautions and gets their updates

"Oops. There I go feeding the trolls again."

Its hard to resist, they're so hungry.

...and FUN!

Silence is golden....

I have Gentoo Linux on a server, again, that's never had a virus or spyware, i just sucks as a desktop operating system.

Heh...you noticed that too?

*grins*

Even though music file sharing may be contained, you can still get the next best thing at "allofmp3.com" (ultra low prices). It's not illegal for a website to charge an insanely low price of $2 for an entire album if it's in NEAR cd quality sound or less than $10 for the entire album in full cd quality sound.

I only wish there were more music websites that were against price gouging.

Haha, let's define the attack vector(s) before we say anything is secure.

My friends in the military was telling me a story of a high-level attack and penetration excercise where they kidnapped an officer while he was vacationing in Puerto Rico. The officer didn't know it was an excercise and gave up his smartcard and passphrase. They briefed him on the excercise and released him; they held him for a total of 2 hours or so.

There was also the case where the FBI planted an hardware keystroke logger on a mafia member: http://www.theregister.c...mafia_trial_to_test_fbi/

MSDOS wasn't in the slightest bit secure, as it was prone to boot sector viri; Microsoft have in the past put backwards compatibility and performance ahead of security.

No MSDOS wasn't secure. But to compare MSDOS with XP is like comparing an Model A with a Ferrari. There have been advancements, improvements, and technology which flat wasn't available back then.

Plus, backwards compatibility in XP for DOS programs, doesn't use REAL mode DOS. Its an emulation. And contrary to your post, MS has not put backwards compatibility and performance ahead of security, but it is a concern.

The flaws in OS aren't necessarily weaknesses, as much as they are simply a target of some very saavy hackers that will keep trying to break it. Master Lock has probably the best locks in the world. you can't pick them, you can't hack saw, or cut them to make them break loose.. but with the right high powered rifle and a spot on the lock to make it break.

Same with Windows, you take enough shots at it, eventually you can find a spot that is not as strong as others.

If it's true, it's nice.

That's what they said about Windows XP when it was coming out after Windows 2000 had hundreds of security wholes discovered regularly.

And that's what they are saying about Windows Vista after Windows XP has hundreds of security wholes discovered regularly.

And it's what Apple says, every new release...and what teh Linux Distros say every new release.

Funny how that works, eh?

MSDOS 1 was more secure.

Secure on a LAN, Secure on the internet, no trojens, no viruses. Im sure Vista is more vunerable.

MSDOS didn't exactly have the same kind of networking support we have in Windows these days. There are virus' for DOS as well. Where did you get your facts from?

The VIC20 and Commodore64/128 computers my family had when I was growing up were more secure than all modern OSes put together. No hacker on the internet could've hacked it. It never had a single virus, trojan, nor an instance of spyware; and if any of those did happen, all I would've had to do was reboot. ;)

I dont recall a single virus that appeared while msdos 1 was out and in use, if u can name one ill stand corrected.

DOS 1.0:

Released: 8/12/81

DOS 1.1:

Released: May, 1982.

DOS 2.0:

Released: Jan, 1983.

Not much time to write or release a virus. And no real "Internet" for them to propigate on.

Not to nitpick, but DOS 1.25 was the first "MS-DOS". Prior to that, they we're sold in beige IBM boxes.

DOS 1 didn't support half of the crap you are saying it did. Viruses and Trojans did not really exist in the public eye until around 1984 (MS-DOS 2.1).

Secure, possibly, but only because of the time at which it was released, and the evident *lack* of any threat to security, or even a delivery mechanism at that point.

For pete's sake, the best you could get was a Boot Sector virus on a floppy disk...if you were *extremely* unlucky.

Actually, until MS-DOS 5.0 IBM developed a significant portion of DOS. Basically, Microsoft developed the DOS kernel itself and IBM and other OEM's developed everything else in the OS.

DOS was a huge mess until it was finally released at retail.

As long as they greatly improve UAC between now and the release, and as long as networking is improved (edit: which they have already committed to do), then I would love to embrace Vista for all the other benefits. As it stands now, however, UAC and Network Center make Vista a terrifying experience... even for a long-term PC geek such as myself.

What problems did you have with Network Center?

Didn't they say the same thing about every previous version of Windows?

So has every single Linux and Unix vendor and so has Apple... and yet they're ALL plagued by security updates... so, umm, did you have a point to make, or are you just trolling for the sake of starting the usual "my OS is better than your OS" arguments?

Between me, you and PC_Tool we will set these people straight!

"So has every single Linux and Unix vendor and so has Apple..."

No. An occasional overzealous user might make that claim, but the only UNIX "vendor" I know of that comes close to it is the OpenBSD foundation. Do you have quotes from Sun, HP, IBM, RedHat, and Novell?

Microsoft boasting Vista as the most secure OS on the market is laughable at best. Simply stating that the reason Windows is hacked so often is related to its popularity is absurd. Untill just recently UNIX was the #1 server OS, yet it is not plagued by the same security problems (I wonder why). The problems with Microsoft Operating Systems stems back to its original MS-DOS operating system and it’s thrown together at the last minute from scraps of stolen code nature. Bill Gates has made billions by stealing code from smaller companies and subsequently loosing lawsuits proving he did. His monetary gain from stealing the code far outweighed the resulting fines, so he proceeded on. The history of Microsoft is plagued by multiple lawsuits proving they stole code for various products such as the first popular GUI (windows) from Xerox to the first popular web browser (IE) from Spyglass. The widely known fact that Microsoft's software is full of holes is very literal. They are holes from where they altered stolen code and slapped their name on it. Microsoft OS security has always been a joke to any hacker. If it wasn't for 3rd party hardware and software companies such as Symantec and Cisco, and good system admins, all would be lost. If Microsoft spent 1/10th their marketing and PR budget on actual R&D and grew their own OS from the ground up I might change my tone. I will admit that Microsoft is now trying to develop something somewhat secure, but until I can go a month without a critical update and 6 months without a complete rebuild I won't be impressed. I've got FreeBSD servers running 15 year old code that are still bulletproof (still running also being key). So for you MCSEs out there feeling warm under Microsoft's big umbrella be forewarned, the new security implementations will be a nuisance if anything. With nearly 15 gigs of code to exploit, Microsoft Vista may turn out to be the biggest fish ever skewered by hackers. Oh, and I can't wait to start telling people their data is unrecoverable because the Vista machine they crashed encrypted all of their data with a 256 bit cipher. For more information on Microsoft’s shady history go here- http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html

*laughing*

Good troll. To bad your supporting statements are ridiculous.

Antitrust was not a documentary.

How so? explain how forcing people to use an obviously flawed IE browser though forced licensing (largest fine ever imposed on a corporation) is good business practice. IE is integrated with explorer and can easily provide access to APIs to install root kits. Why not admit defeat and push people to use Firefox? My argument is that Microsoft's security flaws are caused mainly by bad business pratices and an out of control ego.

anyone with the name microsoft is satan should just not post...you've lost all credibility with such a childish name...most of the major oses have bugs in it (even your beloved linux it has come under scrunity that the kernal 2.6 has A LOT of problems with it. Mac releases updates as well there is NO such thing as 100% secure as long as there are people out there willing to prove everyone wrong it wont stop) So again it is mainly the people that cause a lot of these problems because if people were all aware viruses would not spread , spyware would not get downloaded

"Antitrust was not a documentary."

No it was not, but my arguments are based on fact. Defending Windows only makes intelligent System Admins laugh. Window's only advantageous trait is it's easy of use. Something that Linux is quickly closing the gap on.

because it still is the people that are INSTALLING and SECURING their own pc. Viruses and Spyware dont just magically pop up on your computer. The USER needs to intiate it. You dont have to use IE if you dont want to...you can install another browser if you like and the new version of Windows has IE in a protected mode so it doesnt hurt explorer if there is a problem...so your arguments are flawed

"anyone with the name microsoft is satan should just not post...you've lost all credibility with such a childish name..."

Tell that to the hundreds of companies Microsoft has buried with unfair business practices such as preditory pricing. Do the words "anti-trust lawsuit" mean anything?

Tell me, pelase, how they *forced* anyone to use IE?

As for flawed, it was *far* better than any other product on the market at the time of it's initial release.

IE is integrated with explorer and can easily provide access to APIs to install root kits.

Fixed in Vista. Obviously, doing any actual research is not necessary for trolling purposes, eh?

? My argument is that Microsoft's security flaws are caused mainly by bad business pratices and an out of control ego.

And you have *so* much valid justification to back that ASSertion up, don't you?

Tell that to the hundreds of companies Microsoft has buried

Name one, and prove they did not die simply due to inferior products.

Linux will never close the gap. Any SysAdmin visiting what most people refer to as "Reality" could see this clearly.

You are 100% correct, and Microsoft has taken a big step with IE7. Unfortunetly, 90% of the world will still be running XP or earlier with IE6 or earlier for many many years thanks to forced licensing. If you are unfamiliar with forced licensing, Microsoft forced Computer manufactures such as Dell, Hp etc to install only IE on thier systems or loose millions in discounts. The Eurpopean Union deemed this unacceptable and imposed the largest fine ever on Microsoft. Microsoft also imployed several other tactics to ensure IE's supremecy. Like giving away disks with IE on it for free, even though the cost of creating it was greater than zero. This put Netscape and others out of business. Who wants to buy a browser when you can get one for free. This my friends is predetory pricing. By stifiling competition Microsoft has hindered progress.

I'll give you a tip. Try Fedora Core 5 or the new Mac OSX kernel (based on BSD) and than tell me Opensource isn't looking a lot friendlier.

The broswer I'm typing this post on is Firefox which is based on Mozilla, which came from Netscape. Netscape was and is a better product. And they were stomped out by Microsoft.. soo sad :(

PC_Tool,

If you have nothing to bring to the table besides insults, I will notifiy the moderator.

Opensource, you say? OSX?

Are you really that out of touch?

http://www.macworld.co.u...fm?RSS&NewsID=14663

OSX is no longer open.

As for Core 5, I have not used it yet. I won't comment on it, but I *highly* doubt it's more desktop-friendly than Ubuntu Dapper, which I suue frequently.

But that's beside the point. The very fact that there are *so* many distro's, all fighting for the desktop, is making sure they will *never* get there. Remember all the flak MS got for it's multiple versions of Vista? Multiply that by 100 or so.

Stomped out? When?

As for better, I agree Firefox is better.

Now, compare the code in Firefox to that of Netscape 3.0.

Any similarities? Any at all? Nope.

Netscape was dead before MS even hit the market. All it needed was 1 browser to even come *close* to it's abilities. They had no direction, no mamagement, and *zero* communication. They were dead, they just didn't know it yet.

Can't back it up, eh? Good job.

Yeah, my bad on the emphasis. I don't play well with trolls.

Offended by the word ASSertion? I'm offended by your use of a religious term in your name. Stuff it, pencil-neck. :)

That better?

One would think, that in ordeer to prove or disprove a point, a little abuse might be taken in stride. But, I suppose, since you cannot prove *any* of your claims, you have to swing at what you can hit, eh?

I've edited and included *more* abuse in this post...to give ya something to swing at since you cannot respond to the actual *meat* of my initial repsonse to your lies.

...unfair business practices such as preditory pricing
I assume you mean including stuff in the OS for free. You aren't going to complain about how they overcharge next are you?

PC_Tool,

If you do the research yourself, you will find what I say is true. If you choose not to research it, I will never sway you. Nor do I care to. Ignorance is bliss, I can't argue that. Here is a good start for you. http://www.theregister.c...report_windows_vs_linux/

Compare the code in the IE7 to IE 3. You are talking apples an oranges my man.

Based on existing patches and flaws?

Nice one. Considering the user-base of one *greatly* outweighs that of the other.

Sorry. Keep swinging. They're using the same tired excuse everyone else uses. Market-share. It proves nothing, other than that people don't use it.

I have one word for you. "FREE" No matter what distro you pick, they are all working their way to more and more desktops. $500 for XP pro, I say go fly a kite Fedora is still free :)

You claim Netscape was a great browser by pointing to firefox.

Then tell me IE7 to IE3 is apple to oranges? (something I never even brought up)

My God, man, does your absurdity know no bounds?

Netscape sucked. Everyone knew it. They were *begging* MS to release a competing product.

Don't argue with me about Netscape, boy. I was *there*.

Please read the article before criticising me. It addresses the fact that windows has more market share and simply comparing numbers is impossible. You have to look at other things such as the severety of the flaw, and the damge to the system. Linux excels in all security fields. Please don't reply again till you are more informed. As for now, I'm going home. Resting soundly because none of my servers communicating with the outside world are running Windows.

$500 for XP pro?

Yeah, I guess there *is* a sucker born every minute. Who snagged you on *that* con, man? I want to congratulate him.

Free does not equal Good. Or even useable, for that matter.

Microsoft forced Computer manufactures such as Dell, Hp etc to install only IE on thier systems or loose millions in discounts.
If this is true and you can back it up, then wow I didn't know that; but it sounds more like you are confusing MS with Intel. Especially when the EU stuff is over mediaplayer / compatibility / documentation / funding-the-EU issues.

Like giving away disks with IE on it for free, even though the cost of creating it was greater than zero.
So should AOL get one of the largest fines in history for their free trials. Ok, bad example, after all it is only a free trial period. What about netzero, they give theirs away for free, and if you don't need more than like 5 hours a month you never have to pay. Hey, Microsoft should sue netzero for unfair competition.

You know, I don't think I have seen one of those free IE discs since...well, since bandwidths got to the point where downloading service packs is painless.

Every Linux?

I am reading the article off and on as I post and so far it seems like typical Linux Zealot tripe disguised as serious consideration.

The author points out Windows/IIS is not in the top 50 uptime webservers. He mentions nothing of how much demand was put on these servers, only that most were BSD/Apache servers and that one was up for about 5 years (wonder how much traffic it dealt with)...and then unashamedly makes a minor flaw(uptime resets) in Linux an excuse for it not being on the list.

He tries to argue for average response time to security issues and then gives up, saying average isn't important...which tome suggests he may have found MS's average to be better than everyone thinks.

And there is always the priceless "the virus cannot damage anything except the user's own files". Oh, good, it can only harm the stuff I can't reinstall.

You are *still* looking at existing flaws. Which mean the larger target will, statistically, have *more* of.

You're right, the numbers don't mean squat, but niether do the *existing* flaws. The arguemt over which OS is more secure is pointless when one is targeted, and one is not.

I'm not saying that Linux is not currently safer than Windows. I'm simply stating that it is *not* due to it being inherently more secure, as there is no way to prove that. The only reason it is more secure is simply due to the fact that it is not a target.

Yeah, I am planning on trying it, hoping it will actually install on some of my machines, unlike FC4.

Have you ever tried to do a Windows/Microsoft Update without using Internet Explorer? Microsoft insists that you use their Web browser (the most exploitable of the popular Web browsers) in order to easily apply security patches to the most unsecure popular operating system, which they happen to be responsible for foisting upon the marketplace, largely though their monopolistic business practices. Do you see a problem there?

If Microsoft actually cared about security, it would rewrite it's automatic update system to utilize any major (standards compliant) Web browser that supports Java. It would also still offer a Web site that let users select and download any/all patches available for their Windows boxes. Those patches would be full-version redistributables that could be installed offline since many people still don't have always-on high speed Internet access.

I have to laugh when someone comments about Windows being susceptible to malware...

Microsoft Windows *IS* malware when used as Microsoft intends it to be. Why else would Microsoft demand that people install software to snoop on their machines just to close security holes and fix all the other bugs Microsoft created in the first place? Windows Genuine (Dis)Advantage is the most blatant piece of malware Micro$oft has ever touted as a feature!

the most unsecure popular operating system, which they happen to be responsible for foisting upon the marketplace, largely though their monopolistic business practices. Do you see a problem there?
Yeah, you cannot discern between what they use their monopoly for and what gives them their monopoly. To spell it out, Windows IS their monopoly and you cannot "foist" in the sense you use it if no one wants it.

Those patches would be full-version redistributables that could be installed offline since many people still don't have always-on high speed Internet access.
Most are, just go to download.microsoft.com.

...Micro$oft...
You almost made it, almost a whole post without the '$' sign.

$500? Wow, someone screwed you, man...

Have you ever tried to do a Windows/Microsoft Update without using Internet Explorer?

Yep.

http://windowsupdate.62nds.com/

Works beautifully.

Aside from that, there is Windows Catalog, which is accessible to most browsers. IE is *not* the only way to update windows.

If Microsoft actually cared about security, it would rewrite it's automatic update system to utilize any major (standards compliant) Web browser that supports Java

Vista fixes this with a Windows Update application.

The rest of your post is tripe.

So if giving something away if the "cost of creating it was greater than zero" is "predetory pricing" does that mean Linux is engaging in predatory pricing?

AOL and Netzero are not selling their connection software, they are selling the service. Whether it be free(with ads, so they still make their money) or a subscription like aol. Also, there is a catch 22; you can't connect to internet and download aol without the aol software to connect you to the internet, so a disk is needed.

I believe any System Admin who runs Unix or Linux servers would beg to deffer. Unix has been around since Day 1. It was and still is what the internet runs on. Right around when MS-DOS was just being stolen from Digital Research, UNIX had already been around for 12 years or so. MS-DOS actualy has some roots in UNIX. LINUX, SUN, AIX, HP-UX and many others all have their roots in UNIX. To say that all of these servers running the same code that gaurds our national secrets and runs the internet have not been under attack over the last 37 years is ludacris. Just like Windows there have been flaws, some of them serious. But the code has stood the test of time. My LINUX and UNIX servers at work are constantly being hammered from all over the world, yet they do not crack. Their OS is stripped of its GUI and runs on 100mb of disk space. They are configured by simple text files and can do ten times the work of my windows servers. I have run corporate UNIX web servers on Pentium 2 machines with 512mb of RAM recieving thousands of hits per day all because the OS is much leaner, meaner and doesn't require a life support system or a reboot to apply patches. Windows machines require everything to be constantly backed up because the likelyhood of a crash is so great. Rebooting a production database server every month is not healthy nor enjoyable. Oh, I have one of thoose BSD machines your speaking of. It's a Gateway desktop Pentium I 133 with 256mb of RAM. Its going on 6 years without maintenence or a reboot at my old college, queitly serving webpages. LOL I doubt if anyone even knows where it is, every once in awhile they upload a new webpage and it makes me smile to see that apache logo in the corner, next to my initials :)

Would beg to differ with what? What claim did I make? I was analysing the construction of article writer's argument, not agreeing or disagreeing with him. If anything, I was stating how I really would like see to an analysis not so blatantly biased from either side.

Apparently the reference to IE disks being availible when download speeds were low was a little to subtle.

If MS released free SP2 discs(not XPSP2, just SP2) we would call it good customer support making such a large patch so easily and freely availible; but if it is a browser, then it is anticompetitive. You know, I could swear a firewall was in SP2...hey, security companies should sue.

I speak of opensource linux distributions. Open-Source software is free to the public to do with it as they please. The source code is there to modify if you wish. Open source software is mostly created by individuals in their spare time or by groups of individuals working on a "project". Many open-source programs are created in universities, including one of the first UNIX kenerals, BSD (from Berkley) The only catch is that you are expected to post code you modify on the internet for others to use. Thats how most Linux distributions are put together. A collection of several programs written by hundreds of individuals and refined over the years. The software is licensed for free usualy under a General Public License or the original BSD license. Since their is no company behind it, no one is making money, hense the anti-trust laws do not apply. The only exception to the rule is companies like RED HAT who started as a GPU LINUX distributor but now sells a commercial version of their distribution for servers. In this case, the laws apply.

You are correct, patches should be given away free, especialy if they related to security. But the problem doesn't lie in patches, its the software itself. It costs money to develop a mainstreme web browser especialy back when the internet was in its infintile stage. Just as it costs money to distribute oil. Back in the 1800's Standard Oil was putting its smaller competitors out of business by selling oil at a loss (amongst other things). The smaller companies couldn't compete and soon went bankrupt. Soon Standard Oil had a monopoly on Oil(90% of the market) and could charge any price the pleased. The US goverment stepped back and said hey, this isn't cool and created the Sherman anti-trust act. They split up Standard Oil into several companies you probably hate today (exxonmobile, amoco, BP, Marathon) and made things competitive again. In a free-market capitalist society, having companies compete for your business is key to keeping prices fair. Now apply this model to Microsoft. A federal judge found that Microsoft used its monopoly to push internet explorer to consumers at a loss to them. It costs money to develop the software, stamp cds and mail them, host file servers, etc. Netscape was a smaller company and could not compete with free so they went under. Providing an update patch on a disk is much different than providing an entire web browser at no cost to the consumer.

Integrating ie in windows was bad. that's why every single os has done that exact thing since then. Konqueror, safari....they all have their brwoser integrated. As to IE insecurity, well, that's so easily fixed by disabling active x and java script in the security tab of the option panel. just slide the bar to high and you're all set. and you know what, firefox is implamenting the same kind of client side scripting and vulnerabilities, if not exploits, are being found for it to.

Gosh now I can flat out call you an ignorant idiot. I mean for crying outlout do some basic fact checking. DOS has nothing to do with unix. You wanted to refer to wint that was developed by the same Dave Cutler who developped VMS. And FYI they do not share any code at all for one thing, for another, how could Dave have stolen what he invented in the first place?

CD, MKDIR, RMDIR enough said. The theft I speak of refers to CP/M. I never said MS-DOS was a rip off of UNIX, only that they share simular commands and interfaces. "1982 - Digital Research sues Microsoft and IBM - Wins - . It was obvious MS-DOS and its PC-DOS variant were simply rip- offs of Digital Research's CP/M operating system. It remained only to prove it contained DR code. DR's Gary Kildall sat down at an IBM PC supplied by IBM and, using a secret code, got it to pop up a Digital Research copyright notice."

If it weren't for IE, wouldn't it have cost MS more for creating update CDs.

It costs money to develop a simple text editor like notepad too, should Windows not have come with that? That is the inherent problem with the "bundling" issue. There is no set definition that everyone can agree on of what an OS actually is. In the strictest Computer Science definition, an OS does not have to have any shell at all. Maybe MS should get in trouble for bundling that.

Christ, it isn't a hard concept to understand. The OS at the top is going to attract the most attention and inexorably have the most exploits. It has nothing to do with the architecture. If Mac had a 80% market share I'm sure you would all be heralding Vista as a fortress.

Dude, Netscape got "stomped" because they failed to evolve. This was due largely to the fact that its primary developers graduated from college, moved out of their parents basements, and moved on to other things that enabled them to earn salaries. (fancy that . . . getting PAID to develop software! I can imagine all the linux zealots cringing at the thought of having to pay for something, but I digress)

If you have a problem with Microsoft, you are living in a bubble. Try getting pissed off about the insurance industry, the U.S. Postal System, state-run lottery programs, etc. Get a ^&%$ clue, you lamer!! The primary objective of ANY company is to attain and maintain profitibility. If you fail to understand such a simple concept, try taking a few night classes until you evolve opposable thumbs. Then, MAYBE you will be ready to debate. Until then you should not even have access to a computer.

'nuff said

You're citing "facts" based on what you read on theregister.com???

Hate to break it to ya there 'Satan', but the web site you've chosen to idolicize is staffed largely by writers who couldn't get hired by the Weekly World News or similar 'B' tabloids.

If you're hoping to claim that your 'research' is valid, try obtaining your 'facts' from an engineering publication instead of a gossip rag.

And anyone who actually knows anything about the history of operating systems (including Unix, VMS, CP/M, DOS, and Windows NT) will know that it is in fact you that are ignorant of the facts. DOS was based on CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers), but used a different filesystem... one that used the same type of structure (directory/subdirectory/file) that was used in Unix. In addition, early versions of DOS used command-line I/O redirection (pipe) capabilities and standard input/output/error file concepts that were pioneered in Unix.

While it is also true that some parts of DOS were also influenced by DEC's VMS, this was long before Windows, much less Windows NT; the latter did rely heavily on experience with VMS to try to finally transform Windows/DOS into a true multitasking and multi-user operating system (unlike all forms of Unix and Linux which by design began as multi-user, multitasking operating systems).

So your claim that DOS has nothing to do with Unix is false; all modern (and many historical) operating systems have learned from the excellent (seminal!) work done in the development of Unix. And your claim that the previous poster "wanted to refer to wint (sic)" is also shown to be incorrect.

If you decide to accuse someone else of ignorance, YOU should be sure of your facts. Or YOU will be the one that looks like a fool. Oh, and by the way, don't try to put this comment off as being from someone who has any particular partisanship when it comes to any particular operating system. I have, and do, use many different systems (currently WinXP, Linux, OS/X, and Solaris), both at home and in my career, and I find that there are things that I like and dislike about all of them.

What I truly dislike, however, is those who are not only polarized (in favor or against whichever OS) and not only cannot accept that there are good and bad issues (design, security, etc) with a particular system, but are also rude enough not only to claim that someone else is ignorant (and yet, they themselves get their facts wrong), but also to presume to tell the other person what they "wanted to refer to".

You're the idiot.

"...written by hundreds of individuals..."
That is my problem with open source. I know there are some really smart people out there; but if they could compensate for the ones that are not, the world wouldn't be in the state it currently is.

Theres a lot of os bashing going on here, I started using computers with dos 4.77 mhz.
I've used windows 3.0 through xp, I have a Novell CNE in 3.12, MCSE With Microsoft NT 4.0. The bottom line is use the operating system that best serves your needs, I currently use CentOS as my prefered server.

I decided for different reasons not to use microsoft products " they no longer meet my expectations " microsoft has pushed so hard antipiracy, that they are delving into our privacy there for I no longer support microsoft products, Linux has met my needs!