__/ [ tonnie ] on Friday 15 September 2006 12:22 \__
> Roy Schestowitz schreef:
>> __/ [ Big Bill ] on Friday 15 September 2006 09:17 \__
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:37:42 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> __/ [ Paul ] on Thursday 14 September 2006 17:44 \__
>>>>
>>>>> From : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5336284.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Google has just taken on legions of new workers. None are being paid -
>>>>> and you might be one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since workplace computers were hooked up to the internet, office
>>>>> workers have found more ways of wasting time at work, with e-mailed
>>>>> jokes or videos of apparently-amusing accidents.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip />
>>>> More recently, Google unveiled a servcies wherein people label images
>>>> for Google. Amazon has been doing something similar, but compensated
>>>> people for their time. Microsoft does the same thing when it encourages
>>>> people to serve as test dummies. Why would people help multi-billion
>>>> corporations for free?
>>> Because it's fun. Make sweeping the streets into a fun game instead of
>>> deadly boring and you'll have clean streets.
>>>
>>>> it's beyond me...
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft wants more Vista testers
>>> I finally got IE7 going yesterday, after a few snafus. The sites I've
>>> viewed so far through it seem ok, much to my chagrin. I was hoping for
>>> a coding frenzy :-(
>>
>> I thought IE7 requires XP at the least. Aren't you using Windows 98 SE?
>> Which reminds me: please upgrade as there are no longer patches available.
>> Your machine is a menace that could pollute the Web (us included) with
>> SPAM and DDOS attacks. Refusing to do so is just irresponsible. YMMV. The
>> most modern Linux distributions would run gracefully on hardware which is
>> Windows 98-compatible, in case you are willing to harness new skills with
>> the fastest growing platform.
>
> As far is i can remember, Win98 SE was the most secure, even more than
> XP. And now it has become a system that less are using, chances are it
> will become more secure in time. No virus maker that is respecting
> him/herself will see it as an important target anymore.
>
> And lets face it, since Linux aint used by the majority, it will be
> targeted less. Once it has become large enough, there will be searched
> for exploits and possible safety issues on a larger scale until it can
> and will be abused.
That's a widespread fallacy that is very convenient for Windows advocates to
use. Any security guru will tell you it is not true. See, for example, the
following:
The short life and hard times of a Linux virus
,----[ Quote ]
| For a Linux binary virus to infect executables, those executables must
| be writable by the user activating the virus. That is not likely to be
| the case. Chances are, the programs are owned by root and the user is
| running from a non-privileged account. Further, the less experienced
| the user, the lower the likelihood that he actually owns any
| executable programs. Therefore, the users who are the least savvy about
| such hazards are also the ones with the least fertile home directories
| for viruses.
|
| [...]
`----
http://librenix.com/?inode=21
I am not sure the above refers to memory allocation in GNU/Linux, which makes
memory buffer overflow exploits almost impossible. Windows was built as a
single-user O/S from the ground up, so it lacks the solid absis
(pseudo-multiuser does not help). Jim Allchin said Windows needs 60% of its
code to be rewritten, for a reason.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz \ Spread Mozilla Firefox. http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 476316k used, 38164k free, 53424k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
