Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Analyst: Vista Security "Self-Defeating"

__/ [ ws ] on Wednesday 10 May 2006 10:26 \__

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>> On Tue, 09 May 2006 23:52:41 -0700, Da'Punk-A wrote:
>>> VISTA: You got 2 items of photo ID and a thumb print?
>>> [sound of broken glass as Vista box gets to street level the messy
>>> way]
>>> USER types in pw.
>>> LINUX does what the fuck it's told.
>> The key difference, IMO, is that Windows tries to prevent you doing
>> anything dangerous and, in the process, makes it that much harder to
>> do anything useful - but stops you shooting yourself in the foot.
>> Linux, by contrast, makes it relatively easy to do most things,
>> provides some protection against dangerous things, but, when you do
>> goof, it takes the foot, the leg, and most of the county in the
>> process.
> Riddle me this, Kelsey: Why is it then so difficult for Windows to stop
> *others* from executing these same dangerous commands and getting 0wn3d?

I was going to add /exactly/ that type of comment until I realised that ws
had  beat  me  to it. Being permissive is not necessarily  a  good  thing.
Systems to which downtime can be critical (let alone quirks) cannot afford
to operate with lenient policies. Incidently, I wrote something along this
line  earlier  this  morning  in the thread titled "What's  running  on  a
Googller's PC". To quote:

 Q __/ [ Drakazz ] on Tuesday 09 May 2006 22:58 \__
 Q > GNU/Linux is not somehow protecting you from viruses. It's just the
 Q > thing that Windows is used more and people who are unfamiliar with
 Q > computers will fail due their lack of knowledge about computers, which
 Q > usually causes them to accidentaly download viruses etc.
 Q > There are viruses on UNIXes too, but they are not that well known.
 Q I  partially disagree with the part where you argue that "GNU/Linux is not
 Q somehow  protecting  you  from  viruses".  While  it  does  not   actively
 Q protecting  the user from viruses, it protects the user from his/herself
 Q by  making it harder for unauthorised code (e.g. viruses) to penetrate the
 Q system.  The  click-to-execute  approach, for example, is too  lenient.  I
 Q could say much more on that.

>> On the other hand, Linux makes it almost mindlessly easy to do things
>> such as backing up and restoring critical items, so when you do nuke
>> the neighbourhood, you can rebuild fairly quickly as a rule.
> And it *does* pretty much make sure you can't blame the mess on
> others. ;-)

I  strongly agree with Kelsey as I have been down the alley of  mistakenly
losing  some  settings (could happen in /any/ platform) and being able  to
restore  them  from ".<app-name>". "Everything is a file" is a  darn  good
ideaology,  to this date. It also makes it easier to deploy clusters  with
the same behaviour, but without creating images.

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    #ff0000 Hot Chilli Peppers
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 10:20am  up 12 days 17:17,  9 users,  load average: 0.13, 0.18, 0.27
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index