<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Linux vs. Windows: Suspending logic and reason for blind faith ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-20T04:54:43-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Cool Story Bro!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3688534]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Let's ignore the fact that you present yourself as more logical than the entire Linux community yet you make many assumptions and ask very little questions about the theories of &quot;many eyes&quot; and &quot;security through obscurity&quot; and about how people would come to such conclusions.Let's also ignore your own logical fallacies here such as the assumption that those that believe in security through the &quot;many eyes&quot; and also even the &quot;security through obscurity&quot; approach  do not have perfectly logical and valid reasons to do so. Let's ignore the fact that because you aren't convinced of the reasoning behind these theories that others who don't agree with your thinking do not have the ability to form reasonable conclusions.Let's not ignore the fact that Linux updates are more frequent because the flaws are seen by more people and that the next logical step is that making the code more obscure prevents these frequent updates which provide better security to say nothing of the more secure locked down nature of any Linux OS.Sorry but I don't respond to trolls well, so I'll just ignore all that and say cool story bro!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3688534]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[RedHugh82]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:19:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Obviously Biased]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3412998]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This article is obviously biased. You completely ignored the fact that with security by obscurity, a security flaw remains open until someone actually uses it. That leads to guaranteed damage, from any security flaw. Just because source is closed, doesn't mean people aren't willing to find exploits for that software. In fact, due to the closed nature of the source, there is more reason to look for security flaws in closed source software because of the high probability that it won't get fixed.Sure, many eyes includes evil eyes as a subgroup. But the majority isn't. On the other hand, anyone looking to exploit closed source is obviously attempting to cause harm.Your closed minded view is based solely on the false assumption that closed source can't be exploited, even if an exploit exists.So in conclusion, your statement that the &quot;security through obscurity&quot; disproves the coined &quot;many eyes&quot; security &quot;method&quot; is clearly incorrect. While neither system is perfect, I would much rather be using an operating system that has a chance of a security flaw being exposed before it can be used maliciously. And get it patched nice and fast. What I definitely would not want is a piece of software that may have a security flaw, but no one is reviewing that software, so chances are the flaw (if it exists that is) won't be fixed before it is used maliciously.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3412998]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[MadMockers]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:41:21 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Linux]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3412619]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[How to enable to POP3 &amp; SMTP in Squid]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3412619]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ravindrad]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:04:15 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Thanks for the recap.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3405329]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[So, not a smoking gun...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3405329]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:53:36 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Have now read the Coverity report]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3405321]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Just a quick go back - the report is now available, and having read it, it was really much ado about nothing, in a lot of senses.  The key findings:- Android Linux kernel has less than half the industry-average number of findings (470 issues located out of 765K SLOC); even the newest code, added just for Android, is better than industry average (0.8 findings/K SLOC, vs. industry avg of 1.0/KSLOC)- They are VERY clear that these simply MAY indicate vulnerabilities - their product can't determine if things are false positives, dead code, not reachable under any standard use, etc.- They asked Linux developers to go through the findings, and of the 1/3 which have been examined, developers have tagged 33% as false positives; that high a false positive rate is outside acceptable for them, indicating the possibility of problems with their scan.Their industry average is built on all their scans, including proprietary code.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3405321]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[daboochmeister]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:08:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Or you could look at this article]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3404948]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[http://www.infopackets.com/news/business/microsoft/2011/20110105_new_windows_exploit_opens_door_to_total_system_takeover.htmI wounder if it's been known about for any length of time. While it's certainly been there for a very long time.This is part of M$ Culture Don't tell anyone and they will never know. Col]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3404948]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[HAL 9000]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:49:44 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[even better. Google would tell you it got cracked]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3404548]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;hacked&quot; is not the correct term when one's meaning is ciminal activities like breaking into computer systems without prior permission or.. cracking.The nice thing is that Google's FOSS culture means you'll probably hear about it from Google first. With the last major break in they where very open about the details so that other's could learn and improve there systems based on the experience.Compare that to Microsoft's history of transparency regarding bugs and breaches including; http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/cross_fuzz/fuzzer_timeline.txt]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3404548]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:46:15 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Exactly but ...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3404445]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[even then: why? if google is a juicy target, it does not get hacket?. at least exist the posibility that we know if it gets hacked, because we can check if it can be hacked. But with closed source; if there exist the posibility of been hacked, it would be hidden (pe. by MS) because is bad publicity, and hidden by the bad guys in order to exploit it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3404445]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[orendon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 08:06:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Exactly but ...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3403872]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[There are more options to defend it]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3403872]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[orendon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 14:16:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[neutral response]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3399838]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have no differences with anything you said in your most recent response to me in this subthread,  AnsuGisalas.  It makes sense within the confines of your point.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3399838]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:38:11 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I know case pretty well...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3399712]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[English has the same genitive &quot;-s&quot; as danish does, although it's not as often used (John's book got eaten/This book of John's is pure filth/The readers of the book were shaken in their faith).In danish it's not a case, but a clitic.In danish we can say something that is a word-for-word equivalent to &quot;The man with the green hat on's wife is the principal of a notorious all-girls academy&quot;.Fun, right? ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3399712]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 06:09:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[@Ansu... Genitive...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3399686]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[doesn't really exist in English like it does in other languages, like Deutsche (German) -- in the instances that it _could_ be used in English, most native English speakers don't really know what it's called; I've never heard of it being taught in &quot;standard&quot; English classes, not even the English classes I had in college / university. I'd never heard of the genitive case until my German classes in college.Simplistically, genitive case shows possession, for example -- das Land der Elefanten -- the land of the elephants -- to show possession German uses the genitive case (indicated by word order and modifying the noun's article) but English uses a prepositional phrase (of the elephants) to show that possession.It seems there may be a bit of a &quot;differential language barrier&quot; here.[[ Editor's Notes: I've stopped reading this thread a while ago, but I thought I'd help out with my (admittedly limited) knowledge of other languages... but I'll warn you - it's been a *lot* of years since my college German classes, so don't take my words as gospel...  ]]Laterz!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3399686]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rmerchberger@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:54:07 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Words are just words...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3399653]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[if we analyze what it refers to, we see an action undertaken while overriding first-party risk assessments of same due to accepting the assertation of an outside authority.As such, an action is just an action, until it complies with the above. This actually corresponds with the iconic form of the statement: The possessive (&quot;of faith&quot;) is used as a specifier/modifier narrowing down the kind of &quot;leap&quot; in question.It reads between the lines that the overridden risk assessment is unfavorable, or at best, very uncertain.Belief and faith, then, can be differentiated like so: Belief is following an outside authority. Faith is following an outside authority beyond the comfort zone.Or something...This is not meant to be an argument for or against any party in the above exchange, just my two cents.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3399653]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:42:46 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I guess it depends.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398865]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It depends on what you want it to mean, I suppose.  If you want it to mean something other than the obvious, you can twist it to that meaning.Anyway, even applying faith as a possessive to the term &quot;leap&quot;, you still end up with leap being the act, and not faith.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398865]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:28:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Genitive?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398818]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's a leap of faithIt's a faith's leapCompare: It's the common man's Champagne / It's the Champagne of the common man.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398818]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:34:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Well...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398817]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[this one for instance :http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&amp;threadID=338233&amp;messageID=3394486&amp;tag=content;leftColRipped you a new appendix, that one!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398817]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:29:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Clever adversaries...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398680]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Ok... I'll do that. When do they get here???]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398680]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dcolbert@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:42:08 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Big fires...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398669]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Start from little sparks.  Although sometimes it seems the firebug might need to throw some accelerant on the flames.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398669]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dcolbert@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:40:07 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[why didn't anyone notice that three foot bonfire over there]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398446]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[.. while standing over here with me beside this twelve foot tall bonfire..?(thank you for pointing it out though, I started this month home for a week with a sic four year old)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398446]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:59:43 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[DC... short memory?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398420]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Ansugisalas = Windows boy.Ansugisalas != FOSS boy.Being an ass, even as skillfully as you do it, won't serve any good purpose. Using corrupt pseudologic and being flippant and doing noncommital runarounds won't either.I examined your point, it was pretty thin.You said you have to trust your clever friends about the d20? Why not trust your clever adversaries about the penguin? After all, you've demonstrated quite clearly that you have no better reason to distrust it than the fact, that you think it's a cult.I suggest that it's not, they're really just people who made the save against the illusory betterness of corporate code.Trust me on this one.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-338233-3398420]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:52:25 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

