Most insecure OS - Linux - NOT!

Off topic chat and stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
georgep1
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 6:09 pm

Most insecure OS - Linux - NOT!

Post by georgep1 »

Per the headline on the news page Dec 1...<br><br>Please...the Aberdeen Group is paid by Microsoft for that study. They chose one measure, the number of CERT advisories, and used that as the sole measure of insecurity. Doh! Which just goes to show you, if you want to state something, you can dredge up some number somewhere that will back up your position. Similar to Intel's paid for study by the same group to show how AMD's performance rating is misleading.<br><br>The least you could do is put up the excellent rebuttal to this crap <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.linuxvoodoo.com/news/article ... <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Anything published by the Aberdeen Group should be scrutinized heavily for paid for FUD factor. <p></p><i></i>
E-Machines T6000 (AMD64 3200+) (Don't laugh! It absolutely rocks!)
GigaByte K7N400 Pro2, 3200+, 1 GB DDR, 80 GB WD SE
Epox MVPG5, K6-III+@550, 384 SDRAM, 80 GB WD SE
TX97-XE, K6-III+@400, 256 SDRAM, 40 GB WD HD
User avatar
Nohr
Nohrmal
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2001 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Most insecure OS - Linux - NOT!

Post by Nohr »

Never said I agreed with it. It's just something I thought would be of interest. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>If it makes you happy though I'll post your link alongside it. <p>-=-=-=-=-<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://nohr.darktech.org/computers.htm" target="top">Nohr's Rigs</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--></p><i></i>
georgep1
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 6:09 pm

Re: Aberdeen FUD

Post by georgep1 »

I didn't think you necessarily agreed with it, but those who know little about Linux and security issues, and/or uninitiated in the Aberdeen Group's ethics (or lack thereof), might actually believe it. <p></p><i></i>
E-Machines T6000 (AMD64 3200+) (Don't laugh! It absolutely rocks!)
GigaByte K7N400 Pro2, 3200+, 1 GB DDR, 80 GB WD SE
Epox MVPG5, K6-III+@550, 384 SDRAM, 80 GB WD SE
TX97-XE, K6-III+@400, 256 SDRAM, 40 GB WD HD
User avatar
jsc1973
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2001 11:55 am
Contact:

...

Post by jsc1973 »

As soon as I saw the word "Aberdeen" associated with that article, my first thought was "bullshit". The Aberdeen Group would "prove" the earth was flat if the Flat Earth Society paid them enough to do it. <p></p><i></i>
FIC VA-503+, Rev. 1.2, AMD K6-III+ 450@550MHz, 80GB Seagate ATA-100, 3dfx Voodoo3 3500 TV, TB Montego II Quadzilla, Win98se, 384MB PC100

Compaq Presario 1273, AMD K6-III+ 450@400MHz 1.8v, 40GB Samsung 5400RPM, extremely hacked Win98SE, 288 (yes, 288!) MB RAM
(Also an AMD FX-8350, which does the heavy lifting these days...)
User avatar
blue
Site Admin
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 2:37 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

lol

Post by blue »

god damn, just give it up open source will never rule.<br><br>and saying its secure is like saying MAC OS is the extream tweakers OS :P <p></p><i></i>
p3 1ghz laptop
geforce2 go
256mb ram
georgep1
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 6:09 pm

Re: LOL

Post by georgep1 »

I was wondering how long it would take blue to make some comment. At least it was predictable. <p></p><i></i>
E-Machines T6000 (AMD64 3200+) (Don't laugh! It absolutely rocks!)
GigaByte K7N400 Pro2, 3200+, 1 GB DDR, 80 GB WD SE
Epox MVPG5, K6-III+@550, 384 SDRAM, 80 GB WD SE
TX97-XE, K6-III+@400, 256 SDRAM, 40 GB WD HD
io333
K6'er Elite
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2001 11:11 am

no one can fry like blue

Post by io333 »

blue might have a point. it's hard to beat billions of revenue with volunteerism. i'm a gentoo user myself and i've been waiting for linux to mainstream for quite a while now, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. <p></p><i></i>
feizex
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:48 pm
Contact:

Games games games...

Post by feizex »

I for one would be happy to run linux. The reason that I don't is because of games. Any other app can be ported but you can't do that with games and expect 0 related problems. (I would love to be wrong on this).<br><br>With things such as DirectX and other windows API's always changing, it is [seemingly] always going to be painful to try running Windows games in Linux.<br><br>The above is my own opinion. <br><br>I did a google search and this is the first article that I came across:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www17.tomshardware.com/howto/02q ... <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
feizex
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:48 pm
Contact:

...

Post by feizex »

Here's what they did their testing with:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.transgaming.com/">www.transg ... <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
feizex
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:48 pm
Contact:

well some games....

Post by feizex »

Well they do support quite a few games with a perfect 5 rating. See here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.transgaming.com/dogamesearch ... <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
blue
Site Admin
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 2:37 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

um

Post by blue »

whats really so bad about windows? I like the layout of windows and its looks. <br>sure linux is free and not made by microsoft but is that any reason to call it good?<br>and no Im not against open source/linux/unix I just dont see them as being better <p></p><i></i>
p3 1ghz laptop
geforce2 go
256mb ram
Mr Toastz
K6'er Elite
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:41 am

Soul-less MS OS anyways!

Post by Mr Toastz »

Yeah, that's right! I'm one of those clueless hippie-type mac users, and us cult-types never like big brother!!!<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>conscience: and your point is?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Oh, all right! One thing I seem to remember that part of the XP eula is agreeing not to do reviews, etc. of WindowsXP, or something like that. (Where did I see this... ArsTechnica? Must check). It's been a while though, so I can't remember the specifics on this...<br><br>Anyone read the XP eula recently? Any tidbits you might like to share?<br><br>I use M$ OS's for two reasons... because of the application compatability and because of K6Plus. Note that I haven't upgraded from 98se, and most of my machines will not upgrade past that point, but since most of our members use Windows, I have an obligation to at least understand the OS. I leave the XP stuff for blue, nohr, etc. to field and stay familiar with 98se for us older OS users.<br><br>My Parhelia machine by definition will have to use XP, unless I can get concrete proof that Photoshop 7 will work in Linux with triple monitor support... or an x86 port of OSX is imminent. <p></p><i></i>
Mr Toastz
K6'er Elite
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:41 am

Here's something sort of related...

Post by Mr Toastz »

I'm searching slashdot, and here's one of the tidbits I found on EULAs....<br><br>Microsoft Media Player "Security Patch" Changes EULA Big Time<br>MicrosoftPosted by CmdrTaco on Saturday June 29, @12:23PM<br>from the under-the-guise-of-security dept.<br>MobyTurbo writes "In an article on BSD Vault a careful reader posts that in the latest Windows Media Player security patch, the EULA (the "license agreement" you click on) says that you give MS the right to install digital rights management software, and the right to disable any other programs which may circumvent DRM on your computer." So if you want your machine secure, you also want microsoft to have free reign on your PC.<br><br>And, oh yes, let's not forget this little jewel...<br><br>Microsoft Fakes Citizen Letters of Support<br>MicrosoftPosted by michael on Thursday August 23, @07:11AM<br>from the corporations-are-people-too dept.<br>An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to this Seattle Times article, Microsoft is sending letters to Utah's Attorney General in support of the company, but with fake signatures of citizens (some of whom are dead!). The article says: "Letters sent in the last month are on personalized stationery using different wording, color and typefaces, details that distinguish Microsoft's efforts from lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day. State law-enforcement officials became suspicious after noticing that the same sentences appear in the letters and that some return addresses appeared invalid."" The original source appears to be this story in the LA Times today.<br><br>I just tried to find the Windows XP license agreement on their website. No luck... despite several different searches. Why would a company make their 'product terms of use' hard to find/unavailable on their own website? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub70.ezboard.com/bk6plus67153.s ... rtoastz>Mr Toastz</A>  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.ezboard.com/ezgfx/gicons/black_ball.gif" BORDER=0> at: 12/6/02 3:40:11 am<br></i>
User avatar
Nohr
Nohrmal
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2001 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Here's something sort of related...

Post by Nohr »

lol, that's just sad! <p>-=-=-=-=-<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://nohr.darktech.org/computers.htm" target="top">Nohr's Rigs</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--></p><i></i>
georgep1
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 6:09 pm

Re: EULA

Post by georgep1 »

I think the prohibiting review part Toast is talking about is the benchmarking of the .NET software. It wasn't in the XP EULA, but I've seen it either in another OS install EULA, or in the EULA for some Windows Update item.<br><br>Here is some of the most concerning/bothersome parts of the EULA. The first one bothers me because I change hardware components often. Then 2nd and 3rd bother me because we are agreeing to let them download onto my system anything they see fit. Checking the software on my computer, and automatically downloading updates that I didn't ask for. This would be disconcerting enough if it was from some corporation that was trustworthy, but with Microsoft and "its subsidiaries" doing it, quite worrying. I don't like it, and it's not because I have any unlicensed software on my computers. Giving this much power over the computer to the maker of an OS is ridicuous.<br><br> * Mandatory Activation. THIS SOFTWARE <br> CONTAINS TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES THAT<br> ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT UNLICENSED<br> OR ILLEGAL USE OF THE SOFTWARE. <br> The license rights granted under this EULA are limited<br> to the first thirty (30) days after you first run the<br> SOFTWARE unless you supply information required to<br> activate your licensed copy in the manner described<br> during the setup sequence (unless Manufacturer has<br> activated for you). You can activate the SOFTWARE<br> through the use of the Internet or telephone; toll<br> charges may apply. You may also need to reactivate the<br> SOFTWARE if you modify your HARDWARE or alter the<br> SOFTWARE. <br><br> * Security Updates. Content providers are using the digital<br> rights management technology ("Microsoft DRM") contained<br> in this SOFTWARE to protect the integrity of their<br> content ("Secure Content") so that their intellectual<br> property, including copyright, in such content is not<br> misappropriated. Owners of such Secure Content ("Secure<br> Content Owners") may, from time to time, request MS,<br> Microsoft Corporation or their subsidiaries to provide<br> security related updates to the Microsoft DRM components<br> of the SOFTWARE ("Security Updates") that may affect<br> your ability to copy, display and/or play Secure Content<br> through Microsoft software or third party applications<br> that utilize Microsoft DRM. <br> YOU THEREFORE AGREE THAT, IF YOU<br> ELECT TO DOWNLOAD A LICENSE FROM<br> THE INTERNET WHICH ENABLES YOUR USE<br> OF SECURE CONTENT, MS, MICROSOFT<br> CORPORATION OR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES<br> MAY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH<br> LICENSE, ALSO DOWNLOAD ONTO YOUR<br> COMPUTER SUCH SECURITY UPDATES THAT<br> A SECURE CONTENT OWNER HAS REQUESTED<br> THAT MS, MICROSOFT CORPORATION OR<br> THEIR SUBSIDIARIES DISTRIBUTE. MS,<br> Microsoft Corporation or their subsidiaries will not<br> retrieve any personally identifiable information, or<br> any other information, from your COMPUTER by downloading<br> such Security Updates.<br> <br> * Internet-Based Services Components. The SOFTWARE contains<br> components that enable and facilitate the use of certain<br> Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that<br> MS, Microsoft Corporation or their subsidiaries may<br> automatically check the version of the SOFTWARE and/or<br> its components that you are utilizing and may provide<br> upgrades or supplements to the SOFTWARE that may be<br> automatically downloaded to your COMPUTER. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
E-Machines T6000 (AMD64 3200+) (Don't laugh! It absolutely rocks!)
GigaByte K7N400 Pro2, 3200+, 1 GB DDR, 80 GB WD SE
Epox MVPG5, K6-III+@550, 384 SDRAM, 80 GB WD SE
TX97-XE, K6-III+@400, 256 SDRAM, 40 GB WD HD
Post Reply