Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- From: jasonmbowen@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 May 2006 15:42:08 -0700
tholen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jason Bowen writes:
Leauki wrote:
Windows NT was slower and less compatible than OS/2, but it was always
more stable and more secure.
Not from my perspective. I've never had an infected OS/2 machine, whereas
a Windows laptop got infected simply by being connected to a network.
Specifically, what was your laptop infected with?
The systems people who discovered the excessive network traffic ran
a virus scan on it, the virus scan turned up nothing.
Whose Windows laptop got infected by simply connecting to a network in
the statement above?
Does it matter?
Yes, it matters. The laptop user should be aware of the laptops
condition.
The point is that Windows is not secure. That lack of security is quite independent of >who owns the laptop.
How come I've never had a virus? If Windows isn't secure, shouldn't I
suffer the same problem?
Do you have a name
given by a body such as CERT or do you know the attack vector?
All I know is that the machine was trying to spread the virus by
sending out packets looking for open ports on other machines
connected to the same network. The systems people said that it
had sent out 20,000 attempts in the few hours it had been connected
to their network.
So this laptop wasn't your laptop correct?
Does it matter? The point is that Windows is not secure. That
lack of security is quite independent of who owns the laptop.
Quite incorrect. An owner that applys patches and follows best
security practices will fare better.
I've run OpenBSD, Linux,
Mac OS X, Windows 9x, Win 2k, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Solaris
and OS/2 at home and have never had a problem.
Obviously the Windows machine wasn't connected to a network that also
had an infected machine attached to the same network.
No it has actually. I've defeated viruses/spyware/trojans at the
firewall and also via virus scan. They've all been on the same
network, it is called the Internet.
I know that a default
XP install without a virus scanner, and without installing all the
known patches, and without being behind a NATed firewall will succumb
to the massive scans on the Internet within minutes but I view that as
user error.
I don't; the key words here are "default XP install". The default is
not secure.
I do, security is a process, not a product. If your car needs regular
maintenance to run and you don't perform it and it dies, do you
consider the car company to be at fault?
If you stick a Solaris or Linux box without patches on the
Internet without the same precautions you will be rooted as well,
though it will take longer since less people look for holes in Solaris
or Linux.
Thus Solaris and Linux aren't secure either.
Do you define a secure operating system by whether or not somebody is
looking to exploit it?
Security patches are released to fix holes. If you run an operating
system without applying the patches you are leaving yourself open.
Most of the exploits on the internet use vectors that are known and
that have been fixed, most users just don't care to take the time to
apply updates. If people run a Sun Server without applying patches do
we say that Solaris is inherently insecure when they get compromised?
Security isn't a product, it is a process.
The problem is that new security holes are found in Windows on a
regular basis.
Take a look at the changes logs for Solaris, Linux and other operating
systems. Do a new install of RHEL 4 or Solaris 10 and then patch and
tell me how many patches are installed and note the number and the days
on which they came out.
And I've had Windows crash on me surprisingly often, considering
its supposed stability.
What are the crashes based on?
Nothing obvious. Just complete lockup.
Accessing certain hardware or running a certain program?
Not that I could tell.
Are they reproducible?
No, which makes it hard to track down.
Hmmm odd, I've always been able to trouble shoot. It has been my
experience that if XP has a fatal error it comes back with a message
letting you know. If it just freezes, it is probably hardware since
the OS obviously has responded to a trap. You keep removing parts of
the equation until the error goes away. Random errors suggest hardware
problems. Replacing things like memory or other swappable devices
always helps. I couldn't install Warp 3 on a machine with a zip drive
back in the day. I had to open the case and disconnect the drive and
install with un-attached.
If the hardware was at fault, I would expect the lockup to occur
again after rebooting, sooner rather than later.
If it is a memory cell that gets used randomly, hence random access
memory, the problem will be random. If the problem occurs when the cpu
hits a certain temperature, the problem will be random if that
temperature is not often hit.
If nothing happens
after a certain amount of time, the interest in tracking down a
hardware problem goes away.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- From: tholen
- Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- References:
- Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- From: jasonmbowen
- Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- From: tholen
- Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- Prev by Date: Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- Next by Date: Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- Previous by thread: Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- Next by thread: Re: how did Microsoft break away from OS/2?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
