Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 18:14, Andre Truter wrote:
Nope, that is wrong.
Please don't let's feed the trolls anymore, Ms. Walsh is clearly not interested in a discussion here.
What discussion was addressed to me that I did not respond to? Clearly no one here understands the nature of 99% of Windows virii and how they could easily run on Linux if Linux had a full port of Explorer, ActiveX and the desktop libraries. It is rare that malware attacks come in through open Windows "ports" -- it is through application level attacks that most Windows malware is spread -- Outlook was one of the first favorites, now it's constantly Explorer or the Windows _equivalent_ of Apache : "IIS: the MS web server". Equating Explorer or Apache with with Windows is like calling KDE or Apache, "Linux". Linux is a kernel and Windows NT is a kernel.
If she were she'd respond when she's called on her mistakes,
If I make one, I may or may not respond -- is there some rule that I'm suppose to roll over and expose my belly? You may be clueless, I'm not playing by "doggie" dominance and hierarchy rules. It's weird to be put in a position of defending MS, since I tend to strongly dislike them, but so many people really don't know what they are talking about. Where do you think Window's (as separate application on top of WinNT) got it's "ActiveX" technology from? Before that it was called DCOM, and before that "COM" and before that...I think "CORBA"?, but Window's "COM" technology came from Unix (Sun). Look at technology common to Windows & *nix, say Java: how much less secure is Java on Windows than Gnunix? What started this conversation no one has addressed: the primitive [absent] interactive GUI "Firewall" technology available on Windows. Don't think I don't know what I am talking about. I've had over 15 years in unix & Linux experience. I've run Windows as a desktop for more than a couple of years as it has a superior GUI. But you don't try to tell me that the lack of an interactive GUI firewall that checks all inbound/outbound traffic isn't needed or useful. If I install FF, on Linux, on startup, *by default*, it will go out and download the Firefox home page after you first install it. Unless you are on a separate subnet and block the use of outgoing port 80, it will succeed. When I install the same program on my Windows box, Firefox is blocked and I receive a popup on my desktop telling me that application "Firefox" is trying to contact host "xxyz" on port 80. Do I wish to allow this? That ability isn't readily available on Linux. That's not to say it _couldn't_ be done, it's just saying that it doesn't currently have the interactive GUI to control an all encompassing Firewall of the type that has been available on Windows for over 6 years (or more). I'm not saying I can't configure a firewall that will block FF by default on Linux when it starts and will *ask* me what to do when it detects the effort: "should it be: 1) allowed always, 2) denied always, 3) allowed this one time, or 4) denied this one time?" The behavior I see on Linux is "silent failure" -- a log file entry is generated, and it doesn't tell me what application made the request.
instead she just continues on her wishful thinking crusade about what windows can do in an ideal world.
--- I'm only talking about what my Windows box is configured to do in the *real* world vs. my Linux box[en]. It certainly isn't a "crusade". If I have my druthers to setup an email/browsing client for someone who is OS-agnostic, I've chosen Gnunix as it's less likely to have problems. That certain doesn't mean mean it's *perfect*. Why are so many people caught in black & white thinking? So many people are caught up in defending Gnunix that they can't see the flaws. Instead of answering the original poster with a means to do what they wanted to do, the *Linux* way is to convince them how stupid it is to want what they want. Rather than hearing abuse for liking security popups from my firewall, I'm told I don't know what I want and I really did want "black" and any choice other than "black" is obviously stupid coming from a "troll". The reason MS has been successful in the marketplace is that rather than spending all this energy telling me why I shouldn't want what I want, they have traditionally just bent over backwards to enable it (too much so, allowing harm from the opposite direction). Neither direction is 100% right. They need sensible blending -- something you won't have as long as you color everything "MS", "wrong". -l