Windows vs Linux - Business

See, the problem is that while the absolute number of successful compromises of Windows systems is widely recognized as being greater in part because of the sheer number of Windows systems, [b]the number of exploits is a percentage rate, not an absolute quantity[/b]. Thus, the exploitability [b]per Windows system[/b] is still exponentially greater than for most other modern operating systems. This, in combination with the numbers factor, means that the absolute number of compromises is geometrically greater for Windows.

What Windows users have been using as arguments for years is the claim that the only reason there are more exploits is the greater number of Windows implementations in certain niches. While that's a valid explanation for more compromises, it's not valid for more exploits -- and, regardless of where there might be more compromises in certain niches for Linux systems, there are still not more exploits, anyway.

Are you sure that wasn't OpenSSL? I thought there was an OpenSSL vulnerability discovered, not an OpenSSH vulnerability.

"[i]You mention me adding irrelevent or meaningless information to this discussion...just how meaningful was your pointing out that from time to time I post incorrectly?[/i]"
It was quite relevant to the content of your immediately preceding post. The problem is that you have a tendency to post a reply to something that has zero bearing on what was in the post to which you're replying. I haven't committed that sin here.

"[i]you've been the only one to complain.[/i]"
That's patently false. My statement here was in direct response to your reply to someone else's post on the exact same subject, in fact, so I'm not only not the only one to complain, there was another such complaint just two posts before my complaint here. If you're going to lie, try to do so a little more effectively than that. By expecting me to believe that, you insult my intelligence.

OpenSSL installation requires exactly three things:

libc
libopenssl
zlib

One of those is just standard C libraries. If it was a C library thing, the announcements of the OpenSSL vulnerability would have been a C vulnerability.

One of those things (zlib) is just a compression library.

That leaves libopenssl, which is an OpenSSL specific library unrelated to OpenSSH.

Granted, OpenSSL and OpenSSH both make user of libc and zlib, but if either of those was the problem this would be much more widespread than merely OpenSSL and OpenSSH. Besides, OpenSSH is an OpenBSD project, and OpenSSL is not. Considering that there has, in the entire history of OpenBSD, been a grand total of only one remotely exploitable vulnerability anywhere, and it was discovered and fixed by the maintainers before it could be exploited by a security cracker, I'd say chances are slim their rigor would have been circumvented in this case.

The fact that all letters but one are shared in common between the software packages OpenSSH and OpenSSL doesn't actually indicate any other similarities in particular between the two.

Can you read and do you comprhend what you read?

[b]That little check box called "Notify me via email..." that should help you out. And you've been the only one to complain.[/b]

I complained also in case it slipped your mind. Yes the little box will tell me when new posts are added but the e-mail won't tell you squat about what or where they are in the thread or from whom.

Give your head a shake and yes, someone with your level of reading comprhension better stay mired in Windows. You would only become lost in Linux. Windows is designed by geniuses for execution by, iwas about to say idiots but instead will say by people with minial skills and the dimmest of minds. Linux on the other hand, assumes a modicum of intelligence. I guess that eliminates you right there.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

We may have looked at this already but It looks to be worth taking another look.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

hackers have the code for linux, so they will not write something less damagin

with windows, its a brain storming of finding flaws and exploiting them..

1. As Linux becomes more popular, there are more (friendly) eyes on the code, so it actually gets [b]more[/b] secure as it becomes more popular.

2. Security crackers (what you incorrectly refer to as "hackers") can do very little with source code: what they use to find vulnerabilities is reverse-engineering techniques that determine the behavior of the software, which works just as well on closed source.

3. The Linux record for security speaks for itself as compared with the Windows record.

4. Tell all your little friends to stop bringing up this inapplicable red-herring argument that is based on logical fallacies and ignorance.

Can't you all just agree to disagree? :-)

In my personal opinion, WinX are for people that just expect things to work out of the box and are used to calling "support". Linux is intended for the computer enthusiast who likes to know what's going on under the hood. (Plus cheapskates like me who begrudge spending ?3K on a firewall when and old box with Red Hat 8 will do just fine)

I am in no way an expert on open source, but I personally am very exited where its going and its potential.

Some people would argue that:

- MAC OS XYZ is great for the media hungry, professional digital artist;
- Windows XP/Vista great for the home user who just wants things to work;
- Linux for computer enthusiasts and savvi IT professionals who are aware that opensource can save money in the workplace.

Different people want different things out of an OS and there will never be a time (IMHO) where universal agreement will be acheived as to which one is the best.

I'd make the following changes to the way you characterize who should be using Windows and Linux:

Windows is for people who want things to "just work" [b]when they first get the computer home[/b] and don't think about whether it will still be working in a month.

Linux is for people willing, or even eager, to know something about their computers, and understand that they can save money (and time) not only up front but also further down the line when crap doesn't break down on them all the time, as well as gaining additional productivity because a lot of the tools simply run more efficiently and reward the savvy user with more effective functionality.