That;s a very unfair position and untrue of Windows and Microsoft. But
you mention your reasons which can be understood.
I think this is offensive actually ..... (quoted)
<<<but we need to burn our fingers a few times before we learn to avoid
fire. >>>
I am guessing you probably mean the crew that does other than "Safe
Practices" - meaning visiting shady areas on the Net, opening spams
looking for possible deals actually (Spam Mart lol) , going for free
stuff in Peer to Peer, etc.
Otherwise (and I had opened a IT Security for Home/Small Business in
South East Pennsylvania USA with a couple of programmers in the family)
that is very offensive to the chronic 45 to 55 Billion USDollars ripped
off from USA Citizens yearly since stats going back to 2005-6 and the
approximately 4 percent that became "un-people" that can never get
credit cards again because of the credit companies as a direct result of
the ID Theft committed against them. These people were as normal and
average as any User on the world wide web. They were not security savvy
and got scammed, ripped off, and victims of Identity Theft and further
in business as victims of crimewares called "Ransomware". These people
certainly did not need to ...
<<<but we need to burn our fingers a few times before we learn to avoid
fire. >>> ....they were innocent victims of crimewares and botnets being
run by dangerous murderous internet crime gangs - many being the young
"Russian Gangs".
This would tread by me into what nobody here wants to here - a windows
security thang. Microsoft has been up for monopoly charges several
times. No angels - but mostly found innocent. But we are talking Linux
security and there are two incidents that turned the head. One was Linux
was among a handful of others in official legal publications legally
termed as "riskware " in 2009 I believe it was. Microsoft Windows has
never been legally termed as "riskware". This is a legal court term too.
Linux NEVER disputed that. The other is that Windows Vista is the ONLY
found operating system and software that does not allow rootkits to run
on or in it as Linux does. Neither had Linux achieved Unix Certification
whereas Windows was the only one to do so until very very very recently.
For education visit "Vista Bashing". Bill Gates and Microsoft were ready
to sue at law for libel the lies and defaming of Vista that had reached
levels of actually hurting sales. Some Linux users and otherwise love to
be Windows Bashers and will lie through their teeth while doing it -
possibly even setting up their new marks for cyber crime on Linux. The
truth came out that it was software creators that have been the largest
security hole on Windows - not Windows. That's what the Vista release
was all about. It was so sophisticated that even the antivirus companies
took a couple of years to create "Vista Certified" products. Most - the
best they could create was "Works With Vista" and most all software
creators to this day. This shows who the master programmers are in the
world. This is why it is locked code as 90 percent of the world uses it.
Sure they got rich. So did Henry Ford and still sells a reasonably
priced product with all the competition. Windows Vista was actually the
crown jewel of security software for the decade (2000 - 2010). Viruses
can NOT write to the computer disk in Vista. Rootkits can NOT run on
Vista with UAC on as instructed and recommended (User Account Control).
I don;t believe there is any other such operating system in the world.
It was intentionally designed for this and Bill Gates and Microsoft
challenged the world to create more secure softwares. They knew Vista
would bomb heavily because of software compatibility. This was quite
INTENTIONAL. It was their crown jewel in computing security by creating
the actual operating system itself as the most secure software in the
world. It has taken this long to this year but the first reports of UAC
being cracked by malware have come in.
The whole point was that in security I did my homework and know what I
am talking about. What is to blame is not Windows for you. What is to
blame is the cyber criminal underground. These have so unmercifully
without conscience attacked the world community of computer users in
theft that makes the old american mafia look like a cancelled brownie
meeting. A golden horde.
I respect Linux and Users, and I am one and a contributor and will
continue to be so for life no doubt. I don't think the spread of "feel
good security" ignorantly or otherwise is helping anyone and especially
the person trying to hide behind it - not believing it themselves. I
feel your (quoted ) <<<I am a bit jaded about Windows.>>> should be
where it belongs - against Cyber Thieves and not Windows. FYI... again
Windows has been Unix Certified years and years ago meaning stable and
secure. Linux has not achieved that as being only "Unix-Like" Certified
as somewhat unstable and somewhat not secure.
I think you need a lesson in security which may change your "jaded
opinions of windows". In law and fact, the show is on the other foot and
we should not deceive people as you made the best security point to
being a responsible Netizen by securing your computer with your best
ability as being malware free.
That was a fantastic truth ISPs and the entire security community have
wished for all users on all systems. That is my view and teaching that
the beginning of wisdom on any computer is to "Never operate any
computer without antivirus minimum". Period.
gerald philly pa usa
Perhaps a new string about security is necessary.
(I have been on windows over 10 years)
On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Roy wrote:
> If anyone is unsure, the DO err on the side of caution. You are right. As
> you use Linux then you will see what I said about being not worth the
> effort. If I was a good citizen then I would care about spreading viruses
> to Windows users. While I can' t be infected I can still be a carrier. If
> you are conscientious, then this is a serious consideration. I am a bit
> jaded about Windows. I figure that people get what they deserve. That may
> sound harsh, but we need to burn our fingers a few times before we learn to
> avoid fire.
>
> I appreciate your thoughts. It makes me remember how I once felt. It is not
> wrong to feel like protecting others. I just feel the futility of it when I
> know how big the problem is and how little MS cares about users or
> security. Their answer is UEFI (not their invention, just their
> excuse)which is like wrapping Swiss cheese in a zip lock. You can keep
> things out but it is still Swiss cheese inside. Once you open the bag you
> will risk mold and contamination. If they really cared then they would fill
> the ziplock with something more substantial.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/sep/28/windows-8-secure-boot-worry
>
> Roy
>
> Using Kubuntu 11.10, 64-bit
> Location: Canada
>
>
> On 29 October 2011 20:06, G.LinuxDucks<g.linuxducks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Well thanks Roy. I was hoping this did not get taken wrong to be
>> anything other than how it turned out as some civil discussion. I
>> appreciate you taking the time and sharing your extensive experience - a
>> veteran now 10 year user of Linux. Anyone can plainly see you had/have
>> no reason to lie about anything and your long experience is the great
>> value here. You have made many good points. I think your views are most
>>
--------------cut----------------------------------cut------------------- /
No comments:
Post a Comment