If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
JD wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: JD writes: If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and all the popular web tools are there. Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac. The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux The fact of your simple fact is it isn't true. There are less than 100 viruses for Linux (even fewer that are 'popular') but they do exist and are growing in number. The 'no virus' argument has always been a 'damned if you do' kind of thing with Linux because part of what's 'protected' it is the rather small market share. I.E. if one wants to inflict damage on a multitude of systems then you pick a platform that's popular enough to propagate it. And as Linux becomes more popular it'll attract more attackers and lose that 'feature' Linux aficionados are touting as a reason to make it more popular. The curse of success. and the strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows! One can run with root privileges in Linux just as easily as one can run as Administrator in Windows. and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux. Not quite right either, depending on what it is you want to do. In a business environment one of the big drawbacks to Linux has been the lack of a full featured replacement for the MS Exchange server, which then translates to what the client needs to be. Bynari claims to have a replacement (using Outlook with it requires their plug-in) but it isn't 'free' and neither is their client on the desktop. you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators Partly true. The emulators are always 'behind' compared to Windows and not all Windows apps will operate properly. you can even play Halflife2 and Doom3 on Linux. and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
JD writes:
The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux and the strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows! There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux. Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of user identification than a simple user/root philosophy. Under Windows, each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with centralized control of access to all individual PCs. ... and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux. The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows, and only under Windows. you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators ... You can run them much more easily under Windows. and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs. UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will no longer contain any UNIX, anyway. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Aldwyn Edain writes:
And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD. Almost the same thing. Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of UNIX--even though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as opposed to Linux, which is a clone), but the user interface is vastly more coherent, user-friendly, stable, performant, and secure, thanks to the huge amount of money invested in it by Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget by comparison. Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats Windows (slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications available, however (although there are far more than you can find for Linux, including many major name-brand applications, such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft products). -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
Aldwyn Edain writes: And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD. Almost the same thing. Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of UNIX--even though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as opposed to Linux, which is a clone), but the user interface is vastly more coherent, user-friendly, stable, performant, and secure, thanks to the huge amount of money invested in it by Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget by comparison. Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats Windows (slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications available, however (although there are far more than you can find for Linux, including many major name-brand applications, such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft products). And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft threatened to stop making Office for the Mac. Apple is dependent on Microsoft. People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that out of plain ignorance. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe writes:
And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft threatened to stop making Office for the Mac. Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm continually amazed by its survival. Apple is dependent on Microsoft. I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading application for the Mac. People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that out of plain ignorance. Plain ignorance, and unbridled emotion. Most Linux fans are in fact Microsoft-haters who want something that looks, feels, and behaves like Windows, but don't want Microsoft's name on it. They've latched on to Linux and they are trying to make Linux into an ersatz Windows. This is an exercise in futility, since nothing will ever do Windows as well as Windows itself does Windows. Promoting Linux as a serious alternative to Windows leads many unsuspecting people down a path to certain disappointment and frustration, and it also guarantees that Linux will never be anything more than an inferior and largely useless substitute for Windows. A few Linux users understand this and promote Linux as an environment in itself, rather than as an alternative to Windows, but they are small voices in a large and noisy crowd. Additionally, the massive emphasis on the desktop that most distributions seem to put on Linux is really trying to put a round peg into a square hole. UNIX and clones such as Linux are not ideal desktop operating systems; they work better as servers. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes: And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft threatened to stop making Office for the Mac. Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm continually amazed by its survival. Apple is dependent on Microsoft. I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading application for the Mac. What's kind of amusing is that MS developed Office *for* Apple and created 'Windows' to make it available on the PC. snip |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux. I don't know when you last looked at Linux but most distro's now have a Full GUI setup environment that automatically partitions your hard drives, detects and sets up your hardware (admitedly some hardware still lacks support). Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup because they come pre-installed. Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of user identification than a simple user/root philosophy. I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain users can do depending on what "group" they are in. Under Windows, each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with centralized control of access to all individual PCs. This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX, Linux/UNIX was built with security firmly in mind whereas windows security was an afterthought! EVERYTHING in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive / cdrom, Every file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can be set to any combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on CHROOT's and Jails. Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings. Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down, Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know that don't use the admin account? the simple fact that many users are simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however) ... and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux. The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows, and only under Windows. Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST. you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators ... You can run them much more easily under Windows. That's obvious they were designed for that. and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs. UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will no longer contain any UNIX, anyway. I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers. You are seriously underestimating Linux. This post I fear has seriously went OT however I have enjoyed the conversation however I will not be able to respond/read posts until Sunday evening as I am going away for the weekend. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
JD writes:
I don't know when you last looked at Linux ... About two months ago. ... but most distro's now have a Full GUI setup environment that automatically partitions your hard drives, detects and sets up your hardware (admitedly some hardware still lacks support). I tried Mandrake, and it hung after the pretty splash screen. Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup because they come pre-installed. Yes. The same is true for Windows. But even an installation of Windows from scratch is extremely easy and quick. I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain users can do depending on what "group" they are in. Seems a bit odd to not even let root log in locally. It is the system console, after all. This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX ... No, it isn't even possible in Linux/UNIX, with the exception of a handful of very heavily modified versions of these operating systems. Standard UNIX doesn't hold a candle to the granularity of security available in NT-based versions of Windows. ... Linux/UNIX was built with security firmly in mind ... No, Linux and UNIX have absolutely no clue concerning security. They are barely a step away from no security at all; they have just about the minimum necessary for a timesharing system, and that's it. ... whereas windows security was an afterthought! No, Windows security is designed directly into the kernel, and is enforced in the kernel as well. EVERYTHING in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive / cdrom, Every file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can be set to any combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on CHROOT's and Jails. Every object in Windows, file, device, resource, etc., has an access control list that can specify any combination of _dozens_ of different permissions for any combination of user accounts or account groups. It blows UNIX security completely out of the water. There is really no comparison. Oddly enough, the ancestor of UNIX, Multics, did even better, but UNIX dropped all the Multics security features for the sake of simplicity, user-friendliness, and speed. Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings. All versions of Windows from NT forward have been built with security from the ground up. Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down, Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know that don't use the admin account? It depends on the environment. I know of companies where nobody can log onto his own desktop machine with an administrator account; everyone uses simple user accounts, and only the IT department has administrator access to machines. ... the simple fact that many users are simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however) The same is true for UNIX. Many UNIX desktop users run as root. Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST. There are a quarter-million Windows applications out there. Nothing for Linux or even the Mac comes anywhere close to that. That's obvious they were designed for that. So why run them under Linux emulations of Windows, if you can just run them under Windows for real? I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers. NT-based versions of Windows are rock solid also, they can run for years without a boot. I almost never boot my Windows machines. You are seriously underestimating Linux. No, I've just been using these operating systems for many years, and I know what they can and cannot do. Always use the right tool for the right job. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
If you love playing with the OS and using your mind to come up with
creative ways to run almost everything - in one form or another - Linux is great. If you never want to be bothered with the OS and just want to get your work done reliably and simply without too many application choices, get a Mac and run OS X. If you want to run just about anything and have lots of choices in applications and do it relatively easily without having to bother with compatibility, run Windows XP. I have run all of them at one time or another on desktop computers. Right now, I only have XP on my computers. Clyde |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Game freezes system - possible ATI issue? | Blaedmon | Ati Videocards | 1 | February 12th 05 05:20 PM |
Still no gameplay. Could this be the problem? | Ferrante | Nvidia Videocards | 14 | December 16th 04 12:38 AM |
New Radeon 9600 Pro - No Direct3D support? | Scott Smith | Ati Videocards | 7 | September 28th 04 04:50 PM |
Radeon 7500 Saphire Windows ME Problem | Pamela and Howard Signa | Gateway Computers | 5 | February 17th 04 10:07 PM |
parhelia w/ 3 monitors | tony wong | Matrox Videocards | 16 | September 12th 03 03:59 AM |