«

On Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:56:23 PM UTC-5, Mxsmanic wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
> > Um, no. Solaris supports fully NT-compatible ACLs on ZFS filesystems.
>
> Then it's not standard UNIX. There are many non-standard UNIX systems with
> enhanced security, although it's unusual for it to approach NT-level security.

Whoa; just what does "standard Unix" mean to you, then? Apparently,
something completely different than what it means to the rest of us.
Solaris is the main commercial Unix system in the market.

> NT applies security ACLs to a lot more than just file systems.

SELINUX controls a lot of things too; mostly in more detail than I
care about.

> Multics did even better. Unfortunately, security doesn't sell.

The purpose of security is to interfere with doing things. Naturally,
if the people who are primarily interested in doing things get
to choose, security isn't a top priority.

On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:09:39 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

> The 'Single Unix Specification' is defines a moving target drawn up by a
> self-appointed outside group attempting to rationalize what was already
> there.

That's how most standards work. Rationalizing what is there works a lot
better than inventing new stuff with no experience to back it up.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > Why bother posting such silly statements?
>
> Why bother asking questions like this with no refutation or counterpoint?

where's the proof for the crap you've said?

On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:28:43 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Andrew Reilly writes:
>
>> That's how most standards work. Rationalizing what is there works a
>> lot better than inventing new stuff with no experience to back it up.
>
> If the founders of UNIX followed that philosophy, there wouldn't be any
> UNIX.
>
> Rationalizing what is there is for people who don't want to change, even
> when the change would be an improvement.

Sure: the only point of having a "standard" is so that disparate groups
can rely on certain (existing) capabilities. If you don't have disparate
groups, such as when you're starting a new thing, or are the only vendor
of the thing, then you don't need to be constrained by a standard. Once
new features or new things have been proven and become popular, and are
used by large groups, it's time to standardise so that the many users of
such standardised things can get useful work done. Works the same for
operating systems, languages, television broadcasts and plain old nuts
and bolts.

Of course the nuts and bolts example reinforces Tannenbaum's comment:
"The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
from."

Cheers,

--
Andrew

On May 22, 2:27*pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson writes:
> > Sure, but Windows didn't even exist back in the 1970's... which is what
> > you are talking about!
>
> Yes, but the 1970s were forty years ago. Windows security has evolved, UNIX
> security has not.

I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
third party antivirus.
No need for that for the one running Linux.

DanP

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
> > third party antivirus.
>
> I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
> Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
> more problems than they solve.

bullshit. you're either incredibly lucky or a liar.

On May 23, 9:56*pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DanP writes:
> > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
> > third party antivirus.
>
> I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
> Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
> more problems than they solve.

You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
security relies on third party AV.
And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.


DanP

In article <3dad5da1-8929-40c0-99ce-c78c94ca9dc6
@c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On May 23, 9:56*pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > DanP writes:
> > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
> > > third party antivirus.
> >
> > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
> > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
> > more problems than they solve.
>
> You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
> security relies on third party AV.
> And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.

Windows security does not rely on _any_ kind of antivirus.

Lock the system down and the damage that malware can do is very limited.

However Microsoft provides their own antivirus at no charge if you
really want to have one.

On May 24, 3:42*pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <3dad5da1-8929-40c0-99ce-c78c94ca9dc6
> @c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, dan.pe...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 9:56*pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > DanP writes:
> > > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
> > > > third party antivirus.
>
> > > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
> > > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
> > > more problems than they solve.
>
> > You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
> > security relies on third party AV.
> > And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.
>
> Windows security does not rely on _any_ kind of antivirus.

So you don't need an antivirus with Windows.

> Lock the system down and the damage that malware can do is very limited.

Doh. I want to use my computer online. And wouldn't an AV protect
against the malware?

> However Microsoft provides their own antivirus at no charge if you
> really want to have one.

Why did MS bother making an AV if you don't need one? And why do they
recommend having one "to protect your PC"?
See http://www.microsoft.com/security/pc...rotect-pc.aspx

If you don't run an AV on Windows you have no way of knowing you run a
clean system (unless you say offline but science you re reading this
that is not the case).


DanP

On May 24, 3:42*pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <3dad5da1-8929-40c0-99ce-c78c94ca9dc6
> @c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, dan.pe...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 9:56*pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > DanP writes:
> > > > I would not think for a moment to run my Windows laptop without a
> > > > third party antivirus.
>
> > > I've done that for as long as Windows has existed. In fact, for most of
> > > Windows' history, I've run with no antivirus at all. AV products often cause
> > > more problems than they solve.
>
> > You go against MS advice, the company that makes Windows. Windows
> > security relies on third party AV.
> > And in doing so you have no way of knowing your system is clean.
>
> Windows security does not rely on _any_ kind of antivirus.

So why does it throw up a warning saying the system isn't protected
and suggest you turn on or buy antivirus software ?


> Lock the system down and the damage that malware can do is very limited.

Lock it down so you can't use it.....brilliant idea
Or get updates, or surf the web for camera specs prices, email,
porn

>
> However Microsoft provides their own antivirus at no charge if you
> really want to have one.

Which is why anti-virus companies sell so many anti-virus products.
They have tried pushing them on Mac users, but mac user know they
aren't much use
and using them will most likely cause more problems than they would
solve.