Re: Update #4 coming


"Glenn" <glenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3061.228T2400T573380glenn@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> + On 01-Jan-06 19:50:30
> +Clockmeister <no-one@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>
>>> Yes, but that only makes the number of exploits on each hole larger, and
>>> the number of affected systems..
>
>>Ofcourse. It's not like Linux is all that secure either, just that not as
>>many are paying attention.
>
> Linux (that I didn't mention btw) is not "that secure" either no, but due
> to
> *ix securitymodel its safer "as default"..
>
>
>>>>MS also have 10000+ times a larger user base to support with many
>>>>thousands
>>>>of hardware and software products to support as well.
>>>
>>> ''support'' ..I guess you never tried to use their ''support'' then..
>
>>Never had to. Their automatic updates have never caused me grief either.
>
> Lucky you.
>
> The automatic updates only gives problem for people not running a legal
> copy, or people with no good connection to internet..

First part no, second part yes. Automatic updates work perfectly well on
dodgy installs.

however they create
> another problem that isn't really microsofts fault, that when the new
> patches arrive people starts to exploits the holes and people that didnt
> update is in the ***.. (this basically goes for all systems however..)

That isn't the fault of MS, that goes for any system.

> Lucky enough I have free licenses for all MS operatingsystem so I can
> easilly update my gamingmachine (that is running XP) at home, but since
> i never ever would pay for windows I would have some troubles if I
> couldn't.
>

No you wouldn't.

> (Probably I wouldn't update it and only rely on my (BSD based) firewall,
> unfortunatly firewalls are pretty bad protection, especially for windows.)

My hardware firewall works fine.

>>> And if they could put some effort in maintaining their OS instead of
>>> adding
>>> new useless functions in word windows probably would be much better.
>
>>They maintain XP just fine.
>
> No.
>
> They maintain it yes, but they often do just as I pointed out before,
> they workaround bugs instead of fixing them.
>

Well I can't think of any right now, can you?

>>> Exactly what excuse does microsoft have to not fix dangerous bugs "for
>>> real" ?
>
>>They do fix them "for real".
>
> They are pretty wellknown for not doing that..

By the anti-MS crowd no doubt. I used to be one of them btw.

>>>>*ix variants often support specific hardware very well, but don't offer
>>>>little support for other stuff, and/or development speed is extremely
>>>>slow.
>>>
>>> When was the last time you used some *ix ? 1985 ?
>
>>About 4 years ago but gave up when my onboard soundcard wouldn't work with
>>Red Hat. Worked fine under XP though, and it still does. I've messed
>>around
>>with Knoppix for a while since but it too is little more then a curio.
>
> Reminds me of when the windowspeople at work had to buy a new soundcard
> for
> ALL new dellcomputers since NT4 didnt support the one on the motherboard..

I've never used NT, never really had any problems with hardware on 95/98 or
XP though. (ME had some issues)

> Also reminds me of when i bought my old worklaptop and first installed
> Fedora core4 on it thinking of keeping it for myself.. everything except
> for the wavelan worked directly out of the box.. then I decided to give
> it to my girlfriend and installed XP Pro on it, then it didnt have support
> for the gfxcard, soundcard, ethernet or the wavelan out of the box.. after
> hours looking for drivers at fujitsu-siemens homepage I finally got
> everyting
> except the wavelan to work..
>
> Lucky me that I had another computer with netaccess and a CD-burner..
>

That is because you didn't install the OEM version of Windows that came with
the laptop.





.

Loading