Re: Linux is as buggy as Windows

From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 10/02/03 

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:09:36 GMT

In article <87smmc15gv.fsf@saurus.asaurus.invalid>, buhr@telus.net
says...
> Leythos <void@nowhere.com> writes:
> >
> > David, for those of us in the development world, we can not always apply
> > ALL service packs to all servers.
>
> That's absolutely ridiculous.

Kevin,

I suppose that you've never developed applications? I can also feel
confident that you've never regression tested anything or you would know
about testing methods. In many cases you don't have to apply every
service pack, and with some applications on the market, they tell you
that their software is not tested with specific service packs - they
advise you to not install them until testing has been completed.

> I mean, we're all real impressed by your 3l33t c0mput3r skillz which
> have somehow made themselves known despite your best efforts to keep
> them humbly to yourself, but if you're going to pull your *** out in
> public---following up to a thread that is *clearly* concerned with
> maintaining a "user"'s typical desktop machine---with some irrelevant

Typical users home computer - I would say that since the poster listed
his up time on a Linux box, that by your definition he's not a typical
home user (since most home users run Windows or a MAC). My listing of my
own personal NT 4 Server's up time as 2 years if in deed true and it's a
computer in my home, is about as typical as the chap that posted about
his Linux up time. I could list longer times for the industrial servers
running in plants too.

> uptime statistics for industrial control systems (or other Windows
> boxes that live in the magical fairy land where they have no need for

Most of the systems live in the same space as the other corporate IT
systems and office users systems - and most of them are protected by the
same devices available to any home user. Sure, some are protected by a
Check Point firewall, but others sit in the company network and are just
as exposed as the rest of the company network.

> the two most important Windows security patches to come along in 2
> years), you'll have to excuse the rest of us for thinking you're an
> obnoxious idiot.

The security patch for Blaster and Slammer only effect people that are
lame enough to expose their computers ports to the internet without any
thought as to what they are doing. The ports that the Blaster and
Slammer worms hit should never have been open to the outside in the
first place - only a badly design IT infrastructure would expose them.
Your common Linksys cable modem router would stop them (and it does).

The systems I listed are examples of just how stable Windows is when
properly configured - has nothing to do with anything else. All the
Linux people slamming Windows say it's unstable - My information
indicates that a Windows platform can be as stable as any other system
(patches have nothing to do with it).

> I mean, if you don't need to apply those patches, you are clearly
> sufficiently protected by some other mechanisms (perhaps your enormous
> +5 iron-clad ego that deflects the attacks of mere mortals) that you
> don't need to worry about the patches the proles have to deal with.

Anyone that's exposed to the internet needs some form of protection no
matter what OS they run. Up time of the OS has nothing to do with
security, you guys keep changing the subject and get pissed when someone
points out how wrong you are. All machines need protection, and any
system that I install has the best form of protection, for the specific
case, installed with it. What's the point of doing it if you are not
doing it right?

> On the other hand, if that's the case, you really don't do yourself a
> service by lecturing people about how to maintain or configure an
> "Internet-safe" Windows installation by giving examples of uptimes for
> machines that are intentionally kept insecure.

Um, I was the second poster - the first chap was telling us how his
Linux box was up much longer than the 1 day that his windows box was. I
posted a response that I have several NT, Windows 2000 servers and
workstations that have been up longer than his Linux box - I don't think
anything was said about security in his or my post.

> I, too, know how to keep a Windows machine absolutely secure with a
> potentially infinite uptime. It's called pulling the fscking power
> cord out of the wall.

That would not count as UP TIME would it. You as well as the other chap
have not indicated any competence with the OS that you are slamming - as
clearly indicated by the above.

> Do you have any better suggestions, or just a facility for exuding a
> sense of superiority?

Actually, that are a lot of things that HOME users can do to decrease
their exposure to the internet threats - you may have seen some ideas in
this group or one of the other security groups (or do you just look for
the people that like windows (and other OS's) to flame them.)

> Looking forward to your reply with a loud PLONK,

I really hate dealing with closed minded kids - like you, they feel that
they are always right and can't learn once they've made up their minds.

If you took the time to study, instead of inflaming, you would learn
that windows can indeed be a stable platform (as with a lot of other
operating systems) and can indeed make a great home user OS.

>From the security aspect, I was called to a new clients office on
Tuesday, they didn't know it, but they were infected with the Nachi worm
- they were on dial-up. It took about 5 minutes to clean the machine and
get it working again - installed ZA, updated their AV files, installed
all service packs and security packs and all has been well since. Before
that time (the infection) they had not rebooted the Windows 2000
workstation machine in 3 months. 

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Quantcast