*** Reply to message from "Damon Jebb" on Sun, 13
Jun 2004 00:49:11 +0100***
But SuSE 9.1 never will be (ready pathced). There will be 'security patches' to be downloaded if you want it to be secure against any newly discovered vulnerabilities, and there will be many of them before it is no longer available on the local computer store shelf.
This is a true statement, but you left out the part about; Should you connect to tne net, *before* you go get the security patches, chances are your machine wont be infected before you can get to the ftp site and get your patches! One reason... well, how about starting w/ the install, Suse wants to make certain your network connection works correctly, so they connect to Suse's site and download and install all the required patches up to that minute. Perhaps, if MS did that durning the origional install the users WOULD get the point eventually. Many of thier security problems they brought upon thier own heads... Now thier solution is to offer rewards for anyone who turns the worm writer in . In fact, apparently they will give a suitably large reward to someone who writes in and says, "hey, I know a bloke who wrote a worm, is there a reward? If so I'll "give" you his name. " I suspect they actually can't make thier system any more secure "out of the box" . It's a matter of corporate culture. Gates claims he always has been attempting to write ( using the term loosely) an OS "easy enough for his mother to use." So far, the claim is, they haven't dont it. All "security" battles come down to a clash between complete "ease of use" ( i.e. NO security, nothing closed off, and the whole system wide open in and out of it) and those who want total security (i.e. No ports open by default, and no way for anyone to *easily* open them w/o management, in the form of the IT dept, giving express permission!) That seems also to be the biggest problems for Linux users to accept about windows products, and also that windows users not only accept this state of affairs but actually brag about it. That, perhaps is the biggest reason for "choice". I can't use windows , I've not found the OS nor the programs one BUYS to actually accomplish the sorts of things I need to do, I don't like the way the thing works. I erased 3.0 which crashed on invocation, on a machine that was built to run 3.0 .. and installed os/2 . That did what I expected. I have attempted to use several versions since. Even paid to beta test w2k... but , it was clear after a week they were not interested in any of the reports of bugs, no matter how bad the bug might be. I actually never was able to figure out why they bothered w/ beta testing, unless it was they figured those folks would also pay for an upgrade. I tried XP myself, but I still don't like the way it works, or doesn't work. As for the kids not tossing it because of ease of use issues... what were they going to do w/ it that wasn't available on the linux partition? Their Mum put linux on because she got one bug too many, and made certain they couldn't get to the net using windows... So there are a couple of kids, w/ a windows partition that they can't do much w/ and a linux partition they can web surf, do thier homework that the school puts on the web... they can play and even create thier own mp3s out of the family albums, or their own for that matter. Ease of use isn't a really valid aurgument, so long as there are places like this list, Family members etc. They just don't see any issues of ease of use w/ Linux. Kids can be much more pliable that adults. Still, no one here will be hurt or upset if you give up your Linux partition for Xp or anything else. (BeOS?) And that is what windows users don't realise or understand about linux users. As long as you are trying to learn, people will be more than willing to help you, if you just want to spew stuff about how wonderful windows is, you'd best have you're asbestos undies on, as would any Linuxer on a windows list.
I am trying to put a more measured perspective on the argument, from an experienced user of both operating systems. As I said on another thread, as far as I'm concerned Linux is great for servers, not for the desktop.
yes, so you said... repetedly, but actually, it appears you are hear for an aurgument.. two doors down on the left... ;) -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit it's just an afterthought; okay ? : A ounce of pretension = a pound of manure.