On 11/06/14 22:40, Billie Walsh wrote:
On 06/11/2014 02:08 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
But who cares about security, really? If they did nobody would be running Windows, eg. Now, of all the group of people who would be - or should be! - worried by security are corporations but how many are using Windows, eg?
I have two computer that run Windows 7. One is set up as a two user system, administrator and myself, the other is a three user setup, Administrator, my best half and myself. Only the administrative user has any administrative privileges. In this configuration it is very much like running Linux except I have seen no kind of "sudo". You have to use the administrator password.
My reference to security when mentioning Windows, and other closed systems, is bring made with a broad brush and not simply confined to the use, or not use of, "sudo" or similar. I have Windows 7 Professional installed and don't have any special settings for "Administrator" - just like I didn't have such special settings when running XP, eg, many years ago, and just like the normal "Joe in the street" doesn't do when s/he has Windows installed. YOU know about the use of Administrator access so you have consciously configured your Windows systems to use the Admin. configuration. But the "joe in the street" hasn't a clue about this. I know about it but my W7Pro is not setup to do so because I only use W7Pro once in a blue moon. But this "sudo" thing is not what I was stressing. It is the overall insecurity of W and other closed-source systems. Having said this, I know about the recent problem with SSL - meaning that even opensource is subject to containing serious boo-boos. But not like the "others" where there is a flourishing third-party business finding and then creating at a cost protection against the malware which could be done away with by the correct coding of programs. Slightly off this subject of security, but an illustration of what I am talking about re the whole scene being a money-spinner by design. Way back in the early 90s there was an upstart which produced an application to quickly and efficiently defragment an HDD with Windows partitions containing DOS/NTFS files. I cannot remember its name - possibly it was called something like Diskkeeper or some such, but I cannot remember. Anyway, it was fast and it did a bloody good job. So, MS bought this upstart for ?$$$$ and incorporated this defragmenter in its Windows s/ware. But when they did this they also emasculated it so that it became one of the most crappiest defragmenters around: slow like a turtle with arthritis. It is still used in Window 7. I tried to defragment a small partition (~60GB) using this W defragmenter and it took over 50 minutes [#]. But using another application - O&O Defrag Professional ( a German product - you reading this Oh Great PITA-you-know-who?!) a much larger partition (~100GB) with almost double the number of files was defragmented in around 15minutes. There is no incentive to "go Linux" because "Follow the money" is the mantra. (Have you seen the film The Wolf of Wall Street?) [#] And when I then used O&O Defrag to defrag this same partition after it was "defragmented" by W7 it is still had work to do to complete the defrag done by the W7 defrag. Dont' believe me? Try it yourself. DISCLAIMER: I do not have any financial, or otherwise, association with O&O Defrag, nor with any organisation or group which, nor person or persons who, is less than impressed by MS and its products. BC -- Over the years you've helped raise awareness of a number of issues but the main one has been what a pain in the arse you are. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org