Quote by hiddensnakehands
thanks, that's precisely the point i am trying to make
Yep, you're welcome.
This thread is closed for posting.
page 6 of 8 « Previous 1... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next » 173 total items
-
Visit my website here.
View Kyle's Latest Wall here (Jumping For Joy!) | Scott's Latest here (Night Magic).
- Jun 29, 2005
- Gallery
-
i hate it cause Bill Gates got all the credit for making private computers. its not true, Macintosh did it all. they made computers afforadable, small and more compact. Bill Gates did s**t. I also own a Mac for my Flash movies
"Death Comes On Swift Wings, Without Mercy, Without Regret"
- Jun 29, 2005
- Gallery
-
macintosh made computer afforadable???? please, look up the price of a mac mini, and o yeahhhh apple got the credit because of ipod
This signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.
- Jun 29, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by kylewassonSure, we all have problems with software (sometimes
I do, but not as much since I have a tweaked Win ME on a 4 year old
Presario), computers crashing and other things, but it's not
Microsoft's fault. It's our own, no one's perfect. We should learn from
our own mistakes. Simple as that.
Security flaws are inherently the fault of whoever produced the flawed software. In the case of Windows, that is Microsoft. If you believe that it is your own fault, it is only your own fault for choosing Windows.
Quote by hiddensnakehandshave u used windows xp and 2003? winxp is one stable secure(if u follow
instructions) and user friendly operating system, and 2003 is so
feature rich if you know how to use it as opposed to the tiger that
just got released, keeps crashing on me when using pear pcIf that is so true, then why do I have no problem at all making an entire living off one client who has less than 20 PCs (all Windows XP, except for three Win98 boxes that are actually less likely to have problems), primarily removing viruses and other malware that makes the computers unusable, despite the careful precautions they take?
I am invincible!
- Jun 30, 2005
- Gallery
-
microsoft is evil and bill gates is a man bent on ruling the world... i think thats the reason why he created xbox was to further poison the minds of the people to increse the number of his followers... i dont like xbox either... imma ps2 gamecube man myself.....
Power tends to corrupt, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely..............
"Bishamonten! God of war... Guide me so that I may be led to victory against my nemesis"--Uesugi Kenshin
Its not about how one dies, but about how one has lived...
()"."."()
( ( T ) )
(O)-(O) This is Teddy.Life long enemy of bunny.He has sworn to protect the world from bunny's evil deeds.Copy Teddy in your sig to help save the world !!- Jun 30, 2005
- Gallery
-
http://www.microsuck.com/content/ms-hidden-files.shtml .. you guys might wanna check this site..
Quote by uesugikenshinmicrosoft is evil and bill gates is a man bent on ruling the world... i
think thats the reason why he created xbox was to further poison the
minds of the people to increse the number of his followers... i dont
like xbox either... imma ps2 gamecube man myself.....i don't think bill gates wants to rule the world per se, but he sure is damn greedy
- Jun 30, 2005
- Gallery
-
Why Linux is less secure than windows, i will give you 4 points
1. Windows only suffers so many attacks because there are more Windows installations than Linux, therefore Linux would be just as vulnerable if it had as many installations
2. Open source is inherently less secure because malicious hackers can find flaws more easily
3. There are more security alerts for Linux than for Windows, therefore Linux is less secure than Windows
4. There is a longer time between the discovery of a flaw and a patch for the flaw with Linux than with WindowsThis signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.
- Jun 30, 2005
- Gallery
-
Irrelevant, hidden.
1: Those attacks are only successful because of security flaws that are the fault of Microsoft. If an attack is made upon a Linux system, which would be the fault of whoever programmed that portion, the security advisories go out immediately and lots of programmers work on the problem. Which brings us to:
2: Open source is inherently more secure because more people can work to fix the problems when they are discovered, and people can audit the code itself. This is something that Microsoft will never achieve.
3: There are less security alerts for Linux, actually. There are lots of programs which run under linux which are also being obviously counted in your statistics. I assure you if you were to add up all the windows additional programs, it would far outstrip the number of Linux security advisories. And this doesn't even touch on how many security advisories Microsoft piggy-backs on other fixes and never officially addresses, if they fix them at all.
4: That is a lie. Microsoft just keeps them a secret until they have a fix out. Linux generally has a patch available almost immediately.
I am invincible!
- Jun 30, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by BorisGrishenkoIrrelevant, hidden. 1: Those attacks are only successful because of security flaws that are the fault of Microsoft. If an attack is made
upon a Linux system, which would be the fault of whoever programmed
that portion, the security advisories go out immediately and lots of
programmers work on the problem. Which brings us to:
rather than claiming it is the fault of microsoft, why dont u say it is the fault of those hackers?
Quote: 2: Open source is inherently more secure because more people can work
to fix the problems when they are discovered, and people can audit the
code itself. This is something that Microsoft will never achieve.
that is so not true, it is more secure in a sense because there are so many different versions of Linus out there, and they are not even compatible with each other
Quote: 3: There are less security alerts for Linux, actually. There are lots
of programs which run under linux which are also being obviously
counted in your statistics. I assure you if you were to add up all the
windows additional programs, it would far outstrip the number of Linux
security advisories. And this doesn't even touch on how many security
advisories Microsoft piggy-backs on other fixes and never officially
addresses, if they fix them at all.
that might be because the magnitude of affect is very small, think about how many ppl use linux
Quote: 4: That is a lie. Microsoft just keeps them a secret until they have a
fix out. Linux generally has a patch available almost immediately.
you know better than i do, that microsoft dont keep them a secret, and with the amount of programers each linux distro has, if one got hacked, what do you think their work efficiency would be?This signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.
- Jun 30, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by hiddensnakehandsrather than claiming it is the fault of microsoft, why dont u say it is the fault of those hackers?
Blaming the h4x0rs is not just irresponsible, it is stupid. Without the security holes, they would not have been able to do it at all.
Quote by hiddensnakehandsthat is so not true, it is more secure in a sense because there are so many different versions of Linus out there, and they are not even compatible with each other
The different distros are a direct result of people redesigning things the way they feel they should be built, as a direct result of having access to the code. Also, it is a benefit to security specifically because it makes it near impossible for a single virus, flaw, or security breach to be able to take down "linux systems" as a whole. Every security engineer or security technician knows that a homogenized system environment is the least secure, even moreso when that homogenization is Microsoft.
Quote by hiddensnakehandsthat might be because the magnitude of affect is very small, think about how many ppl use linux
Irrelevant, and also a blatant lie.
Linux is widely used on servers, which are among the most frequently attacked, which makes your numeric argument completely null and void. Additionally, your complaint about "magnitude of effect" actually appears to support my position, since if the security problems on Linux were so serious as you claim, then obviously it would have a much higher magnitude of effect.
Additionally, Windows is far more apt to spread viruses that it contracts. Inserting a virus on a Linux system takes a much more concentrated effort.
Quote by hiddensnakehandsyou know better than i do, that microsoft dont keep them a secret, and with the amount of programers each linux distro has, if one got hacked, what do you think their work efficiency would be?
Again you lie directly. Microsoft does in fact try to keep them a secret. Also, last time I heard about a Linux developer getting h4x0r3d, he was back up and running almost immediately and the problem was quickly patched.
I am invincible!
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
ok...
REASONS WHY I HATE BILL gates AND microsoft COMPANY
by zerokool- Bill Gates is a thief
- he is making money with something that doesnt belong to him
- BILL gates = 666 (ascci code)
- bill is satan (read above)
- Bill wants to conquer the wolrd and domintate the human race
- Still he belives he is a nice person by makind donations
- he is rich...very RICH (calculating he wons us$1230000 every second = 9800 billon dollars PER YEAR brute)
- he do wathever he wants and nobody stops him
- he think he is nice loooking
-right now he is winnig money while he does nothing ...-Windows is full of crap
-windows ia the only comercial system ..the is no other
-hard to maintain
-if you just change somethihng fromthe sistem (a litlle bit)....it crashes or ...
-blue screen....i HATE BLUE screen
-if ya want to have more than one OS you must be very carefull (linux do not suffer this defect)
-I you wanna keep your pc runing smothly you must at least do one of this things : defrag once per month (and defrag takes a LOT of time if your HDD is big), erase everything and format or simply have another HDD to store info...
-is ineficient
-is unstable
-is ugly (try linux SUSE 9 with kde and then we talk)
-is expensive
-expensive
-very expensiveZerokool
The end is now here...
why you just be nice?. Because the world is not nice!- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by hiddensnakehandsrather than claiming it is the fault of microsoft, why dont u say it is the fault of those hackers?
This statment is comparable to leaving your house door unlocked and then later u get burgled and then blame the burglar for walking into your house and stealing stuff. When in the 1st place u could have prevented it by just locking your door.Quote by hiddensnakehandsthat is so not true, it is more secure in a sense because there are so many different versions of Linus out there, and they are not even compatible with each other
Open source is to a certain extent more secure because more people can work on a fix rather than a fixed amount of programmers, also fixes are not released immediately for Windows when flaws are found unless they're really big flaws that create problems on a massive scale (e.g blaster worm), most of the time patches are only realeased once a month. Mainly on the 2nd tuesday of every month.- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by hiddensnakehandsrather than claiming it is the fault of microsoft, why dont u say it is the fault of those hackers?
That is completely and totally false. First of all, hackers don't break systems, crackers do. Secondly, crackers only exploit the security loopholes that are already existent the systems. If the manufacturers (i.e.. Microsoft) overlook (and in MS's case, intentionally), flaws in their appications, then there is someone bound to discover and exploit that hole. Thirdly, Linux servers are far more challenging to crack than NT machines. If a cracker just cracks for the hell of it, they'll do it on a Linux, not an inferior and child's play NT.
Quote by hiddensnakehandsyou know better than i do, that microsoft dont keep them a secret, and with the amount of programers each linux distro has, if one got hacked, what do you think their work efficiency would be?
Another joke that MS has been playing on you. Microsoft only release a patch when their reputation is on the line or is facing a major lawsuit. (http://www.themacobserver.com/article/2003/02/12.6.shtml) It's old but hey!!!
And thanks to variety of Linux distros out there, major network systems do not suffer major damages and inconveniences. Whereas NT systems, having the same type of structure, are morelikely to suffer from major losses.
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote: That is completely and totally false. First of all, hackers don't break systems, crackers do. Secondly, crackers only exploit the security loopholes that are already existent the systems. If the manufacturers (i.e.. Microsoft) overlook (and in MS's case, intentionally), flaws in their appications, then there is someone bound to discover and exploit that hole. Thirdly, Linux servers are far more challenging to crack than NT machines. If a cracker just cracks for the hell of it, they'll do it on a Linux, not an inferior and child's play NT.
everyone knows the difference between hackers and crackers, and please dont get so smart at it. linux servers are harder to crack? by being an open source distro, it means everyone has access, and therefore, logically, it will be much easier to crack, microsoft is just being targeted because so many stupid users who dont care about their security uses it.
This is just like bacteria who developed resistance to a vaccine, and you blame the vaccine?
and No, it does not bother me that one company owns about 90% of the market.
I think regardless of whether you hate or love or neutral towards Microsoft, you should be greateful that Microsoft did all of us a favor by distributing an operating system into everyone's home. there are OS befoe windows, but they are just not willing to release it or put it this way, they do not have the market vision to do so, this way, cant you see microsoft being so smart?>
<b> without windows, i wont even hold a job right now</b>This signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
i don't quite hate Microsoft, and don't like it also.
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by hiddensnakehandsby being an open source distro, it means everyone has access
Wrong again. Don't you get it? If you've got a custom Linux, even if someone has mastered it so much, it's still gonna be a problem to brea-in because someone has another customized one that is as unique as the one the cracker has.
So it means you are grateful to Microsoft because they gave you a job? You should be thankful to yourself having the ability to work things out with MS rather than praising MS.
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by jakulito
Quote by hiddensnakehandsby being an open source distro, it means
everyone has access
Wrong again. Don't you get it? If you've got a custom Linux, even if
someone has mastered it so much, it's still gonna be a problem to
brea-in because someone has another customized one that is as unique as
the one the cracker has.
that is exactly my point, they are not even compatible with each other, how would you develop a popular operating system based on this? and this whole talk of linux being the future, that might be true, but before that, they should at least have only one distro, some big distro such as redhat or mandrake needs to eat up smaller distros
My first Microsoft OS is windows 3.1 before that, i was using some thing called sys 6 from apple, and i tell you windows 3.1 is such an amazing upgrade. i am not going to comment on linux because they been around since the early 80'sThis signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
True. I'll let Boris handle that one. I'm a Mac person.
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
microsoft products are expensive, crashes the most often, have the most bugs, most prone to viruses, and is sending info of u to microsoft... u cant find win98 first ed on the market cus it crashed on its grand release... bill gates got a blue screen on the opening ceremony..
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
that is a pretty good joke, but put it in perspective, windows is also the most popular.
This signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by hiddensnakehandsthat is exactly my point, they are not even compatible with each other, how would you develop a popular operating system based on this? and this whole talk of linux being the future, that might be true, but
before that, they should at least have only one distro, some big distro
such as redhat or mandrake needs to eat up smaller distros
My first Microsoft OS is windows 3.1 before that, i was using some
thing called sys 6 from apple, and i tell you windows 3.1 is such an
amazing upgrade. i am not going to comment on linux because they been
around since the early 80'sThat is the most idiotic thing I have heard on the subject yet. The thing that makes Linux so good is that the distributions must compete with each other to be "the best" or to have the best features. That is the beautiful thing about opensource...even without switching to something totally incompatible, there are options in the middle of the stream. If Mandrake is being a whore, you can switch to Fedora without losing any basic user-functionality or compatibility at all. Same goes for switching from Fedora to Gentoo, or from Debian to SuSE, and so forth.
Additionally, eating up distros is impossible. Most of the best distros are developed by volunteers.
Your claim that linux is from the 80s is also false. It was first developed in the early 90s.
I am invincible!
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
Well I use microsoft, but I hate bill gates cos he's a billionaire and doesn't seem to show any sign that he is donating to charity and make a difference, also, the microsoft idea was not his, it was his friends and he stole it off him. Now his friend makes apple computers...
- Jul 01, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by IniquitymaidenWell I use microsoft, but I hate bill gates cos he's a billionaire and doesn't seem to show any sign that he is donating to charity and make a difference...
Well, to be fair, IIRC he does donate a good bit. Most recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3913581.stm
Check out the right column, too.
- Jul 02, 2005
- Gallery
-
That's just for show. So as to relieve him of the usual talks of him being a total selfish tyrant.
He's trying to fool those people into thinking he's a kind, considerate being when he's actually a total scum that performs the biggest con job on the largest scale without anyone seeing. He's the Devil Himself.
- Jul 02, 2005
- Gallery
page 6 of 8 « Previous 1... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next » 173 total items
Back to Computers & Internet | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.