Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Millions of Windows Users Need To Clean Up Their Act.

Filed under

Security is black and white. Either you are secure and protected, or you’re not. Strange as it might seem at first, I don’t blame Microsoft for their demonstrated inability to build a perfectly secure personal computer. After all, it’s not possible. But I do hold Microsoft responsible for continually marketing and selling something they can never produce. And they MUST be held responsible for the consequences of believing their own marketing and press.

Microsoft’s software has NEVER been secure, and NEVER will be. With each generation of feature-rama upgrade, it becomes more and more complex, and less and less understandable. There can not be anyone left at Microsoft whose mind can still grasp the technical details of the entire system. They had to give that up with MS-DOS. Microsoft’s lack of security foresight is single-handedly responsible for creating the eMail virus. Their consumer operating systems — as well as their high-end server platforms — are notoriously insecure.

So why am I saying that millions of Windows Users need to clean up their act? There is one simple reason.

You are “owned”.

Full Article.

So tired of the FUD

Blah Blah Blah, I'm so tired of hearing about how much Windows Sucks. I'm not a MS fanboy (I design for the end result, not by what vendor is the most popular that week), but neither myself, nor my friends, nor my family, nor my kids, nor my clients have ANY trouble running Window systems (desktops or servers) and they're not "owned". Anyone with half a brain can keep their system patched to date (it's called "auto update" people, it's not rocket science), use anti-virus (AVG it's free for home users), use MS Anti-Spyware (it's free for home users) and stick their network behind a firewall (IPCOP or PFSENSE - and yes, they're free). With those safe guards in place, I would truly like to see a windows box "get owned" - it doesn't happen. I'd also like to see some proof for the oh so popular "unprotected windows box on the 'net will be owned in 14 minutes" article. I put a WinXP Pro SP1 box with a public IP on my external network for several days - nothing happened. It's all FUD (and dumbass reporters who can't check the facts before writing a story). I like Linux (and I tried to like OS X but after 1.5 years of trying it just didn't happen) but I'm getting tired of the fanboy's who can only promote them using FUD instead of features. If you can't "sell it" by the facts and features - then maybe it just isn't as good as you think it is. Lets put a little more science into "computer science" and leave the propaganda for governments to use.

I know you're not talking to me

(and dumbass reporters who can't check the facts before writing a story).

You know skippy, I think getting beat up for your lunch money so much as a kid really left some nasty psychological scars on you pal. You were provided a link to a page of reports from one of the leading experts on Windows XP in the world...just put your mouse on the link and click, it's real simple. Oh, is Mr. Gibson a fanboi?

Let's try this:,2000061744,39200021,00.htm

and this:

Or maybe this:

A "protected" Windows machine survives well against most attacks, I have one running at one of my offices, however; consider the senior citizens, kids and carpool moms who just don't realize the danger. Now I do understand that techno-fascists will claim people such as this have no business using a computer.

Go on...Agree with it, I've seen your posts elsewhere, that is exactly how you think. Besides, you lost any credibility when you had to resort to name-calling. A practice I am sure you avoid in face-to face debates.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Intel Cache Allocation Technology / RDT Still Baking For Linux

Not mentioned in my earlier features you won't find in the Linux 4.9 mainline kernel is support for Intel's Cache Allocation Technology (CAT) but at least it was revised this weekend in still working towards mainline integration. Read more Also: Intel Sandy Bridge Graphics Haven't Gotten Faster In Recent Years

Distributing encryption software may break the law

Developers, distributors, and users of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) often face a host of legal issues which they need to keep in mind. Although areas of law such as copyright, trademark, and patents are frequently discussed, these are not the only legal concerns for FOSS. One area that often escapes notice is export controls. It may come as a surprise that sharing software that performs or uses cryptographic functions on a public website could be a violation of U.S. export control law. Export controls is a term for the various legal rules which together have the effect of placing restrictions, conditions, or even wholesale prohibitions on certain types of export as a means to promote national security interests and foreign policy objectives. Export control has a long history in the United States that goes back to the Revolutionary War with an embargo of trade with Great Britain by the First Continental Congress. The modern United States export control regime includes the Department of State's regulations covering export of munitions, the Treasury Department's enforcement of United States' foreign embargoes and sanctions regimes, and the Department of Commerce's regulations applying to exports of "dual-use" items, i.e. items which have civil applications as well as terrorism, military, or weapons of mass destruction-related applications. Read more

Linux Kernel News

Games for GNU/Linux