More Lunix Myths

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Mathew Good, Jan 16, 2007.

  1. Mathew Good

    Mathew Good Guest

    Mathew Good, Jan 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mathew Good

    Chris Hope Guest

    Mathew Good < wrote:

    > I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good
    > Lunix is, so read the first article..
    >

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html

    Using secunia advisories to compare how Linux compares with Windows
    isn't a particularly good way of trying to determine if one is better
    than the other. For a start several vulnerabilities can be tied into
    one advise notice and secondly numbers alone can be a bit meaningless -
    eg 100 minor vulnerabilities that don't really do anything compared
    with 1 or 2 really nasty ones.

    In reality, an unpatched system of pretty much any operating system is
    going to leave you with security issues. Some vendors are better at
    finding, reporting and supplying updates than others. It isn't that
    hard to ensure your Windows machine is secure and the same for OSX,
    Linux, the BSDs etc. If they're fully patched, have firewalls and
    whatever other security software is required then each should be more
    or less equally secure as the other.



    Anyway, looking at those advisories linked to from the first article you
    mentioned:

    From http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=advisories

    "Secunia has issued a total of 170 Secunia advisories in 2003-2007 for
    Microsoft Windows XP Professional. Currently, 19% (32 out of 170) are
    marked as Unpatched with the most severe being rated Highly critical"

    This includes a lot of stuff that's not just the kernel of Windows, so a
    straight comparison with Linux doesn't really work.

    From http://secunia.com/product/2719/?task=advisories

    "Secunia has issued a total of 108 Secunia advisories in 2003-2007 for
    Linux Kernel 2.6.x. Currently, 17% (18 out of 108) are marked as
    Unpatched with the most severe being rated Moderately critical"

    This is just the kernel only. Note of course the most severe rating is
    lower than that for Windows.

    From http://secunia.com/product/5036/?task=advisories

    "Secunia has issued a total of 213 Secunia advisories in 2003-2007 for
    Ubuntu Linux 5.04. Currently, 0% (0 out of 213) are marked as
    Unpatched."

    These are for *all* software packages that come with Ubuntu. To be
    comparable the one for Windows would need to also include the same
    packages installed on Windows, eg imagemagick, ruby, mozilla, php4,
    php5 etc (these are listed on that page). Note that *everything* has
    been patched.

    From http://secunia.com/product/2535/?task=advisories

    "Secunia has issued a total of 322 Secunia advisories in 2003-2007 for
    RedHat Enterprise Linux ES 3. Currently, 0% (0 out of 322) are marked
    as Unpatched."

    Ditto as for Ubuntu.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
     
    Chris Hope, Jan 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mathew Good

    Earl Grey Guest

    Earl Grey, Jan 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Hi there,

    Mathew Good wrote:
    >
    > I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good Lunix is, so read the first
    > article..
    >
    >
    > http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html


    So someone has posted a comment about security on a blog. Yeah, I really
    think I should heed those words...not!

    The assumption that 231 Linux vulns are more serious than 213 Windows
    ones is highly subjective and not based on any form of objective, even
    remotely so, analysis. The author, known as just 'Andrew' needs to learn
    about objectivity in his 'journalism' if he is to be taken seriously by
    those with more than half a brain cell. He's just a 2-bit blogger, not
    an expert to be listened to by any stretch of the imagination.

    Oh, and the chick isn't bending her knees, she'll **** her back in no
    time... :)

    > http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2434
    >
    > http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=7711


    Woger, you bitch about the Linux guys, yet here you're doing very much
    the same as they do...trolling.

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    "Maybe politicians should ask the people whether
    or not they wanted all these wars"...
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jan 17, 2007
    #4
  5. On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:30:25 +1300, Mathew Good <
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good Lunix is, so read the first
    >article..
    >
    >
    >http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html


    I certainly dont know about Windows XP being more secure than Linux.
    My linux box that sits between the internet and my windows boxen is
    the only thing preventing them from being flooded with viruses and
    other forms of malware.

    My linux box is able to sit there on the internet day and night
    without having had a single patch in over a year. Its never had a
    single problem.

    My Windows XP box can last up to 5 minutes on the internet without a
    firewall.

    I some how find it hard to believe that Windows XP is the more secure
    one.
     
    David Goodwin, Jan 17, 2007
    #5
  6. Mathew Good

    Scott Lemon Guest

    "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in
    message news:45ad6ecf$...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > Mathew Good wrote:
    >>
    >> I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good Lunix
    >> is, so read the first
    >> article..
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html

    >
    > So someone has posted a comment about security on a blog. Yeah, I really
    > think I should heed those words...not!
    >
    > The assumption that 231 Linux vulns are more serious than 213 Windows
    > ones is highly subjective and not based on any form of objective, even
    > remotely so, analysis. The author, known as just 'Andrew' needs to learn
    > about objectivity in his 'journalism' if he is to be taken seriously by
    > those with more than half a brain cell. He's just a 2-bit blogger, not
    > an expert to be listened to by any stretch of the imagination.


    Ignore the bias in the blog, the fact is there though. The numbers aren't
    great on *either* OS.
     
    Scott Lemon, Jan 17, 2007
    #6
  7. Re: More Dimdows Myths

    In message <1169020071.991961@ftpsrv1>, Scott Lemon wrote:

    > "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in
    > message news:45ad6ecf$...
    >>
    >> Mathew Good wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good
    >>> Lunix is, so read the first
    >>> article..
    >>>

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html
    >>
    >> So someone has posted a comment about security on a blog. Yeah, I really
    >> think I should heed those words...not!
    >>
    >> The assumption that 231 Linux vulns are more serious than 213 Windows
    >> ones is highly subjective and not based on any form of objective, even
    >> remotely so, analysis. The author, known as just 'Andrew' needs to learn
    >> about objectivity in his 'journalism' if he is to be taken seriously by
    >> those with more than half a brain cell. He's just a 2-bit blogger, not
    >> an expert to be listened to by any stretch of the imagination.

    >
    > Ignore the bias in the blog, the fact is there though. The numbers aren't
    > great on *either* OS.


    Perhaps because you're not looking at all the numbers. One important measure
    is the size of the window of exposure--how long between the discovery of
    security holes and the fix being released. By this measure, closed-source
    trails well behind open-source.

    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/05/ie_unsafe/>
    <http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/196603177>
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/26/security_researcher_versus_oracle/>
    <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1872574,00.asp>
    <http://news.com.com/Unpatched+flaw+found+in+Microsoft+software/2100-1002_3-5668257.html>
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 17, 2007
    #7
  8. Hi there,

    Scott Lemon wrote:
    > "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in
    > message news:45ad6ecf$...
    >
    >>Hi there,
    >>
    >>Mathew Good wrote:
    >>
    >>>I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good Lunix
    >>>is, so read the first
    >>>article..
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html

    >>
    >>So someone has posted a comment about security on a blog. Yeah, I really
    >>think I should heed those words...not!
    >>
    >>The assumption that 231 Linux vulns are more serious than 213 Windows
    >>ones is highly subjective and not based on any form of objective, even
    >>remotely so, analysis. The author, known as just 'Andrew' needs to learn
    >>about objectivity in his 'journalism' if he is to be taken seriously by
    >>those with more than half a brain cell. He's just a 2-bit blogger, not
    >>an expert to be listened to by any stretch of the imagination.

    >
    > Ignore the bias in the blog, the fact is there though. The numbers aren't
    > great on *either* OS.


    Quite right. But my question remains unanswered...do 100
    exploits on either platform carry the same level of danger?
    I'm still willing to bet that linux will remain less eaten
    by viruses, on a per head of population basis.

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    "Maybe politicians should ask the people whether
    or not they wanted all these wars"...
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jan 17, 2007
    #8
  9. Mathew Good

    Earl Grey Guest

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    > Hi there,
    >
    > Scott Lemon wrote:
    >> "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in
    >> message news:45ad6ecf$...
    >>
    >>> Hi there,
    >>>
    >>> Mathew Good wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good
    >>>> Lunix is, so read the first
    >>>> article..
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> So someone has posted a comment about security on a blog. Yeah, I really
    >>> think I should heed those words...not!
    >>>
    >>> The assumption that 231 Linux vulns are more serious than 213 Windows
    >>> ones is highly subjective and not based on any form of objective, even
    >>> remotely so, analysis. The author, known as just 'Andrew' needs to learn
    >>> about objectivity in his 'journalism' if he is to be taken seriously by
    >>> those with more than half a brain cell. He's just a 2-bit blogger, not
    >>> an expert to be listened to by any stretch of the imagination.

    >>
    >> Ignore the bias in the blog, the fact is there though. The numbers
    >> aren't great on *either* OS.

    >
    > Quite right. But my question remains unanswered...do 100
    > exploits on either platform carry the same level of danger?
    > I'm still willing to bet that linux will remain less eaten
    > by viruses, on a per head of population basis.
    >


    You get a sense of that by just paging through those secunia
    vulnerabilties with an eye on the little criticality bar
    The Windows ones often light up the top orange and red on the scale
    whereas the Linux kernel ones seem to be the bottom end of the scale.
     
    Earl Grey, Jan 17, 2007
    #9
  10. Mathew Good

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Re: More Dimdows Myths

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > > Mathew Good wrote:


    Had to that, know where one zealot is using the word "Lunix", the other
    would jump in with "Dimdows".

    How predictable and childish.
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Jan 17, 2007
    #10
  11. Mathew Good

    El Chippy Guest

    Re: More Dimdows Myths

    On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:03:41 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> > > Mathew Good wrote:

    >
    > Had to that, know where one zealot is using the word "Lunix", the other
    > would jump in with "Dimdows".
    >
    > How predictable and childish.


    Where's a fanatic zealot with a Botd or Hoto to deal to the both of them
    when you need one eh Shaun? ;-)
     
    El Chippy, Jan 17, 2007
    #11
  12. Mathew Good

    Miguel Guest

    Re: More Dimdows Myths

    El Chippy wrote:

    > Where's a fanatic zealot with a Botd or Hoto to deal to the both of them
    > when you need one eh Shaun? ;-)


    Botd = Babe of the Day

    Hoto = Japanese dish of noodles and vegetables....(Google is my friend)

    Are you being deliberately cryptic or am I missing something pretty
    obvious.

    Regards
    Miguel
     
    Miguel, Jan 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Hi there,

    Earl Grey wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >> Hi there,
    >>
    >> Scott Lemon wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in
    >>> message news:45ad6ecf$...
    >>>
    >>>> Hi there,
    >>>>
    >>>> Mathew Good wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good
    >>>>> Lunix is, so read the first
    >>>>> article..
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> So someone has posted a comment about security on a blog. Yeah, I
    >>>> really
    >>>> think I should heed those words...not!
    >>>>
    >>>> The assumption that 231 Linux vulns are more serious than 213 Windows
    >>>> ones is highly subjective and not based on any form of objective, even
    >>>> remotely so, analysis. The author, known as just 'Andrew' needs to
    >>>> learn
    >>>> about objectivity in his 'journalism' if he is to be taken seriously by
    >>>> those with more than half a brain cell. He's just a 2-bit blogger, not
    >>>> an expert to be listened to by any stretch of the imagination.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Ignore the bias in the blog, the fact is there though. The numbers
    >>> aren't great on *either* OS.

    >>
    >>
    >> Quite right. But my question remains unanswered...do 100
    >> exploits on either platform carry the same level of danger?
    >> I'm still willing to bet that linux will remain less eaten
    >> by viruses, on a per head of population basis.
    >>

    >
    > You get a sense of that by just paging through those secunia
    > vulnerabilties with an eye on the little criticality bar
    > The Windows ones often light up the top orange and red on the scale
    > whereas the Linux kernel ones seem to be the bottom end of the scale.


    Yes, something that the Windows folk might want to note
    before they starting heralding the so-called insecurity of
    Linux systems.

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    "Maybe politicians should ask the people whether
    or not they wanted all these wars"...
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jan 17, 2007
    #13
  14. Mathew Good

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Re: More Dimdows Myths

    El Chippy wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:03:41 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > > > > Mathew Good wrote:

    > >
    > > Had to that, know where one zealot is using the word "Lunix", the
    > > other would jump in with "Dimdows".
    > >
    > > How predictable and childish.

    >
    > Where's a fanatic zealot with a Botd or Hoto to deal to the both of
    > them when you need one eh Shaun? ;-)


    LOL!! Exactly.
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Jan 17, 2007
    #14
  15. Mathew Good

    Blue Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:30:25 +1300, Mathew Good wrote:

    >
    >
    > I am totally fed up with these loony Lunix idiots stating how good Lunix is, so read the first
    > article..
    >
    >
    > http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/01/windows-xp-more-secure-than-linux.html
    >
    >
    > http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2434
    >
    > http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=7711


    Been there done that.

    Thanks for your view Roger. Look you need not concern yourself with Linux
    if you do not wish to. The users will not hunt you down and force yo to
    try it.


    http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2434


    Says

    Case in point: Ulteo. A fine piece of work, I'm sure, but I fail to see
    any reason to consider them over Windows? "


    Do not give me a gun! Ulteo is still very much in alpha 1. The reason to
    consider is that it if off to places the journalists will discover in
    about a decades time.

    BTW, who is them in the above quote? Troll Alert.
     
    Blue, Jan 17, 2007
    #15
  16. Mathew Good

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Re: More Dimdows Myths

    Miguel wrote:
    > El Chippy wrote:
    >
    > > Where's a fanatic zealot with a Botd or Hoto to deal to the both of
    > > them when you need one eh Shaun? ;-)

    >
    > Botd = Babe of the Day
    >
    > Hoto = Japanese dish of noodles and vegetables....(Google is my
    > friend)
    >
    > Are you being deliberately cryptic or am I missing something pretty
    > obvious.
    >
    > Regards
    > Miguel


    El Chippy knows that I play Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction. Those acronyms
    represent weapons, Breath of the Dying and Heart of the Oak.
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Jan 17, 2007
    #16
  17. Mathew Good

    Blue Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:40:43 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > Woger, you bitch about the Linux guys, yet here you're doing very much
    > the same as they do...trolling.


    Disagree, not trolling, but expressing a viewpoint.

    Roger is scared that all people might switch to Linux leaving him in the
    lurch, or that he does want to try, as he might like the Linux flavour.

    Trolling implies wanting people to respond to ones bait. It is my belief
    that Roger does not have that intent.
     
    Blue, Jan 17, 2007
    #17
  18. Mathew Good

    El Chippy Guest

    Re: More Dimdows Myths

    On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:52:32 -0800, Miguel wrote:

    > El Chippy wrote:
    >
    >> Where's a fanatic zealot with a Botd or Hoto to deal to the both of them
    >> when you need one eh Shaun? ;-)

    >
    > Botd = Babe of the Day
    >
    > Hoto = Japanese dish of noodles and vegetables....(Google is my friend)
    >
    > Are you being deliberately cryptic or am I missing something pretty
    > obvious.
    >
    > Regards
    > Miguel


    a bit of an inside joke, references to very nice weapons in Diablo2.
     
    El Chippy, Jan 18, 2007
    #18
  19. Mathew Good

    Rob S Guest

    Re: More Dimdows Myths

    El Chippy wrote:
    > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:52:32 -0800, Miguel wrote:
    >
    >> El Chippy wrote:
    >>
    >>> Where's a fanatic zealot with a Botd or Hoto to deal to the both of them
    >>> when you need one eh Shaun? ;-)

    >> Botd = Babe of the Day
    >>
    >> Hoto = Japanese dish of noodles and vegetables....(Google is my friend)
    >>
    >> Are you being deliberately cryptic or am I missing something pretty
    >> obvious.
    >>
    >> Regards
    >> Miguel

    >
    > a bit of an inside joke, references to very nice weapons in Diablo2.


    Do they match up to the BFG?

    --

    Rob
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    http://aspir8or.blogspot.com
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    Spouse: 'What did you do today?' Computer Science Prof: 'I taught some
    UNIX.' Spouse: 'That's nice, dear. What did you teach them?'
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     
    Rob S, Jan 18, 2007
    #19
  20. Mathew Good

    El Chippy Guest

    Re: More Dimdows Myths

    On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:38:14 +1300, Rob S wrote:


    > Do they match up to the BFG?
    >


    Never was much of a fan of FPS type games, so i will let someone else
    answer that one :)
     
    El Chippy, Jan 18, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Walter Roberson

    TX, fully switched -- hop limit myths?

    Walter Roberson, May 20, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    6,371
    Andrey Tarasov
    May 22, 2004
  2. Ghallabi ibn Khurasani Hawari

    Re: XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP

    Ghallabi ibn Khurasani Hawari, Feb 3, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    527
    AvengerĀ©
    Feb 3, 2005
  3. Hala al-Allah

    Re: XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP

    Hala al-Allah, Feb 3, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    470
    Hala al-Allah
    Feb 3, 2005
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    595
    DVD Verdict
    Aug 30, 2004
  5. Ghallabi ibn Khurasani Hawari

    Re: XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP

    Ghallabi ibn Khurasani Hawari, Feb 3, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    425
    AvengerĀ©
    Feb 3, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page