Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
From: kurttrail (dontemailme_at_anywhereintheknownuniverse.org)
Date: 01/26/04
- Next message: kurttrail: "Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?"
- Previous message: Jupiter Jones [MVP]: "Re: Encryption/Decrypt failed same user id"
- In reply to: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?"
- Next in thread: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?"
- Reply: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:03:58 -0500
Karl Levinson [x y] mvp wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:%23L$%23md64DHA.1816@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>>> Take a closer look at your list.
>>> Many of those such as Blaster would have been a non issue if users
>>> had simply used the patch that was available for weeks before
>>> Blaster came on the scene.
>>
>> They are total non-issues for Linux or UNIX users.
>
> Riiiight, Linux, Unix and OpenBSD have zero vulnerabilities.
Did I say that?
>
> Right, Linux has fewer vulnerabilities than Windows.
Did I say that?
>
> Right, users that can't configure and patch Windows would magically
> be able to keep Linux secure.
Did I say that?
>
> Right, Linux web servers are hacked less frequently than Windows web
> servers according to www.zone-h.org
Did I say that?
Nope to all four! I said in reply to Jupiter that those Windows based
viruses were a non-issue for *nix based OSs.
>
>> No, it comes down to having only one Desktop OS target.
>
> Right, switching to Linux or more than one desktop OS makes companies
> more secure / easier to secure.
Did I say that? Can't you address what I actually write?
Would it have been as easy as it was for the Japanese to destroy & damage as
many ships on Dec. 7, 1941, if those ships were spread out across the
Pacific, instead of being all bottle up in Pearl Harbor?
Is having only one target to hit easier than hitting multiple target with
one shot?
It's a matter of common sense. Not whether one OS platform is better than
another, rather that having multiple OS platforms are intinsically more
secure than only having one.
>
>> If there were multiple Desktop OS in the PC market, less people at
>> any given time would be affected by any one computer nasty.
>
>> Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target.
>
> Riiiiiight. Maybe if www.debian.org was running some Windows
> servers, they wouldn't have been hacked a few months ago.
It affected one server, not potentially 95% of the Desktop computers on the
planet or anybody else system other than Debian's.
> In the past 12 months, Microsoft, Linux, Cisco and others all had
> highly critical remote vulnerabilities discovered that required
> patches.
Yep, and because there are multiple choices in server networking platforms,
an attack on one platform doesn't take out the others. This is just my
point, but your too much of a "MS uber alles" advocate to see it.
> And *nix already owns the lions share of web servers. So
> how would switching to heterogeneous OS environments do anything to
> increase security or reduce support costs?
It's common sense dude. During the cold war, did the USA & the USSR build
one central location each for all their missiles, or did they spread the
missiles out over vast areas? They spread them out to multiple locations.
Now it would have been easier to control all those missiles if the were
centrally located, but the threat of having them all taken out in one
massive first strike was so untenable, that both countries spread their
missiles to the four winds.
MS's Desktop monopoly OS, is like having all your missiles in one central
location, you risk losing them all with just one shot.
> Or would it actually
> increase support costs, double or triple the amount of work and
> patches required, and increase the likelihood that a company would
> make critical security mistakes that lead to a compromise?
Nope, you answer my question, which you conveniently cut out, first, and
that was, "Please try to explain to everyone how having only one big target
of an OS is safer for society as a whole, if you disagree with . . . .
Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target."
But you won't, and that's why you cut it out in the first place, because you
know it's a totally indefensible position! And that's why you were trying
to put other words in my mouth and paint me as pro-*nix, to try to bury my
actual point in a blizzard of your Bull Sh*t! Didn't think I'd notice, huh?
Well, don't you ever think you can play games with my opinions, and get away
with it. Better people than you have tried, and failed just as miserably
you have.
Now to answer your question in two parts, "Or would it actually increase
support costs, double or
triple the amount of work and patches required,"
Who knows? Does having multiple Server OSs now, increase support costs,
double or triple the amount of work and patches required, as compared to the
support costs, amount of work & patches for the monolitic Desktop
environment that the general public is forced to accept at present?
"and increase the likelihood
that a company would make critical security mistakes that lead to a
compromise?"
It would affect only that one companies products, hence lessoning the effect
that any one companies critical security mistakes would have on the general
public as a whole. As this is exactly my point.
> Sure, like you, I find it puzzling that Microsoft hasn't released a
> patch for the IE URL issue yet. But that doesn't make your pro-*nix
> statements above true.
I'm not pro-*nix, and I didn't make any pro-nix statements, that was your
fantasy. I am advocating a diverse desktop PC OS market that would by it's
very nature lessen the effects of any one given computer nasty from
affecting potentially 95% of the PCs on the planet.
"Please try to explain to everyone how having only one big target of an OS
is safer for society as a whole, if you disagree with . . . . Multiple
targets are just plain safer than one big target."
-- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
- Next message: kurttrail: "Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?"
- Previous message: Jupiter Jones [MVP]: "Re: Encryption/Decrypt failed same user id"
- In reply to: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?"
- Next in thread: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?"
- Reply: Karl Levinson [x y] mvp: "Re: MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
