20 things you'll hate about vista Options

[Seeker]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...ticleId=9000829

[prefix]

Anyone that just lumps linux together as a pile below XP and level with 2000 doesn't know a damn thing about operating systems. You can't even put redhat and slackware into the same category.

[prefix]

Microsoft's second additional authentication protection in Vista was to go through every process to gauge whether to assign it User Account Controls. This protected list is extremely long in Vista Beta 2, including Control Panels for Windows Firewall, Scanners and Cameras, Parental Controls, iSCSI Initiator, Device Manager, BitLocker drive encryption and Add Hardware. Numerous functions accessed in the System Control Panel (and many others) also cause the User Account Control confirmation dialogs. So many things are, in fact, protected by requiring your OK that it'll drive you batty. And there's no way to say "never ask me this again about this item." If you disliked Windows XP Service Pack 2's version of Internet Explorer 6 because of its many security nag screens, you would absolutely hate Windows Vista Beta 2.

Yea, those things should be locked to an administrator. WTF is wrong with that. They bitch about windows getting all this malware and shit yet they bitch when they start to setup account limitation, PICK WHICH ONE YOU LIKE THE DON'T BITCH ABOUT THE OTHER!

This article gets a score of -50000000000. This guy's just fucking retarded. He doesn't want to learn how anything new works he just wants to sit around and bitch because not everything looks or acts like windows 98. I mean that seems like what he wants, everything he doesn't like such as getting to the control panel he liked better the way it did it in 98 or 2000.

[Dogmeat]

Anyone that just lumps linux together as a pile below XP and level with 2000 doesn't know a damn thing about operating systems. You can't even put redhat and slackware into the same category.

boy isn't that the truth ...

[zetec]

vista sucks. gotcha.

i give impala 2 days to ghey up the thread before i have to lock it.

and prefix: yeah, they pop up under everything but the administrator account. what windows has taught you is that "if you don't suck at computers, ALWAYS use the admin account". unfortunately, that's NOT the case. As with linux, they reccommend that you NEVER run root unless you absolutely have to. It's the most functional, but it's also the least secure. (as a direct result of that) The problem is, the windows boxes are popping up for damn near EVERYTHING you try to do, and there's no quick way to login or auth (and stay authed; think su or sudo in linux.) It's fairly obvious that rather than rewrite everything from the ground up, microsoft has decided to nag the users to death so that if/when the pc is afflicted with some sort of malware, they can blame it more or less on the user. "well, you SAID it was okay!" In the end, users are just going to use the admin account for day-to-day activities, and then we'll be right back at square one with the pc's being just as vulnerable as before, although now we won't even be able to use user-class priveleges. (think GPO's)

[impala454]

vista sucks. gotcha.

i give impala 2 days to ghey up the thread before i have to lock it.

This just goes to show that you don't bother looking at anything I say with an objective point of view.

and prefix: yeah, they pop up under everything but the administrator account. what windows has taught you is that "if you don't suck at computers, ALWAYS use the admin account". unfortunately, that's NOT the case. As with linux, they reccommend that you NEVER run root unless you absolutely have to. It's the most functional, but it's also the least secure. (as a direct result of that) The problem is, the windows boxes are popping up for damn near EVERYTHING you try to do, and there's no quick way to login or auth (and stay authed; think su or sudo in linux.)

CTRL-Right Click any exe in windows and click "run as". Not too difficult if you ask me.

It's fairly obvious that rather than rewrite everything from the ground up, microsoft has decided to nag the users to death so that if/when the pc is afflicted with some sort of malware, they can blame it more or less on the user. "well, you SAID it was okay!" In the end, users are just going to use the admin account for day-to-day activities, and then we'll be right back at square one with the pc's being just as vulnerable as before, although now we won't even be able to use user-class priveleges. (think GPO's)

It more or less is the user's fault most of the time anyways. "Click here to win a PS3!!!" and shit like that. At least w/the user not having admin access will help protect them somewhat. Besides, you're only as secure as your neighborhood. I.e. if you live in the projects with a armored house and bars on the windows you're still less safe than living in a avg house in the suburbs. If you still haven't got the analogy, a vast majority of people in the world using a PC use windows, so it makes the most sense to develop viruses & malware for that OS. Your precious Linux and/or OSX or whatever else is out there feels more secure to you because people don't want to waste their time attempting to attack like 2% of the PC Users out there.

[zetec]

This just goes to show that you don't bother looking at anything I say with an objective point of view.


CTRL-Right Click any exe in windows and click "run as". Not too difficult if you ask me.


It more or less is the user's fault most of the time anyways. "Click here to win a PS3!!!" and shit like that. At least w/the user not having admin access will help protect them somewhat. Besides, you're only as secure as your neighborhood. I.e. if you live in the projects with a armored house and bars on the windows you're still less safe than living in a avg house in the suburbs. If you still haven't got the analogy, a vast majority of people in the world using a PC use windows, so it makes the most sense to develop viruses & malware for that OS. Your precious Linux and/or OSX or whatever else is out there feels more secure to you because people don't want to waste their time attempting to attack like 2% of the PC Users out there.

stop ressurecting threads just to be a whiny microsoft whore.

[impala454]

i hadn't even seen the thread yet bitch

[prefix]

Your precious Linux and/or OSX or whatever else is out there feels more secure to you because people don't want to waste their time attempting to attack like 2% of the PC Users out there.

That's not a valid arguement at all. If anyone was going to make viruses they'd rather make them for linux because linux has more than 60% of the server market. That's where all valuable information is stored, not on someone's home computer. Good luck finding someone that still runs web services under root though, might work out if this was like 1995.

[impala454]

That's not a valid arguement at all.  If anyone was going to make viruses they'd rather make them for linux because linux has more than 60% of the server market.  That's where all valuable information is stored, not on someone's home computer.  Good luck finding someone that still runs web services under root though, might work out if this was like 1995.

We're not talking about hacking into a single server. We're talking about viruses & malware. The whole point of losers making viruses and malware is so they get to see them spread and cause people problems. Sure some may harvest information along the way but they're generally just a nuissance that causes computer illiterate peopl's computers to crash. And although I seriously doubt 60% of the servers out there are "linux", even if they were, that means the other 40% are something else (most likely windows). Anyhow, how do you come up with 60%? Does some dude run around asking every company what OS they're using? I'm sure any company out there would be happy to reveal details of software running on their servers

[Hartmann]

Anyhow, how do you come up with 60%?  Does some dude run around asking every company what OS they're using?  I'm sure any company out there would be happy to reveal details of software running on their servers

That's public information (at least for public servers). Any server that hosts a publicly accessible website discloses their server software because the server's handshake turns that info over to the client. Solution: Run a simple bot that crawls public servers.

[impala454]

That's public information (at least for public servers). Any server that hosts a publicly accessible website discloses their server software because the server's handshake turns that info over to the client. Solution: Run a simple bot that crawls public servers.

So then I guess the statement should be... 60% of publicly available web servers. Not "60% of the server market"

[Hartmann]

So then I guess the statement should be... 60% of publicly available web servers. Not "60% of the server market"

Well, you could always look at server sales as well

[impala454]

But how many companies order their servers with an OS pre-loaded? If it's going to be linux their going to want to load it themselves, if it's windows they'll have either a site license or a limited # of licenses for server 2003 and also want to load it themselves.

[Hartmann]

But how many companies order their servers with an OS pre-loaded? If it's going to be linux their going to want to load it themselves, if it's windows they'll have either a site license or a limited # of licenses for server 2003 and also want to load it themselves.

I would say a decent amount do.

Survey companies also do surveys to try and get an idea of the market.

Most large companies that use Linux have some sort of support agreement with a Linux company, so those numbers are disclosed as well. Just like Windows Servers license numbers sold are disclosed.

[impala454]

Ok so you're going to base the whole 60% linux figure on a extremely general statement like "Survey companies also do surveys to try and get an idea of the market."?

I guess I can only speak from my own experiences. At tech we had mostly windows boxes, ran exchange, active directory, MS SQL. At my company now we have about 50-60 servers, same deal, exchange, active directory, mssql. maybe 5 servers are linux, and only for a legacy product that we're redoing for windows right now.

on the topic... do any of you guys really believe virus & malware developers target linux more than windows?

[pebkac]

on the topic... do any of you guys really believe virus & malware developers target linux more than windows?

...

Did you read the argument? They're saying that they don't target Linux because it's more secure than Windows.

[prefix]

Ok so you're going to base the whole 60% linux figure on a extremely general statement like "Survey companies also do surveys to try and get an idea of the market."?

I guess I can only speak from my own experiences. At tech we had mostly windows boxes, ran exchange, active directory, MS SQL. At my company now we have about 50-60 servers, same deal, exchange, active directory, mssql. maybe 5 servers are linux, and only for a legacy product that we're redoing for windows right now.

on the topic... do any of you guys really believe virus & malware developers target linux more than windows?

Ok, the only article I could find that was relatively new was this one http://www.informationweek.com/windows/sho...=Product%20News

Microsoft's Windows edged out Unix in 2005 as the best-selling server operating system, research firm IDC said Wednesday, marking the first time Unix hasn't held the top spot in more than a decade.

Sad but it shows that for the last decade Unix has held more of a market share than Windows. Also 70% of the servers on the internet are running Apache.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

And no I don't believe that virus and malware developers target linux, but that's the point; it's harder. They know that if you do that shit on a windows box you'll have access to everything. Meanwhile you do that to someone on a linux box you still have no permission to anything that is of any importance.

About tech being microsofts whipping boy that's because MS donates most of that shit to the school, and if not they're purchased at a very discount rate. Some of that being the fact that microsoft has to give things to schools as part of their agreement to get out of monopoly charges.

[impala454]

...

Did you read the argument?  They're saying that they don't target Linux because it's more secure than Windows.

Yes I read the argument. The argument started with

That's not a valid arguement at all. If anyone was going to make viruses they'd rather make them for linux because linux has more than 60% of the server market. That's where all valuable information is stored, not on someone's home computer.

[impala454]

Sad but it shows that for the last decade Unix has held more of a market share than Windows.  Also 70% of the servers on the internet are running Apache. 
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

where do you see 70% of the servers out there running "unix"? According to the graph, 61% are apache. Apache != unix. Anyhow like I said before, this is web servers, not servers in general. Bank of America doesn't store all your credit card numbers on the same server they host their website off of. Also notice Apache is rapidly declining and IIS is rapidly increasing. I personally have no problem with either, as they're both great web server software.

And no I don't believe that virus and malware developers target linux, but that's the point; it's harder.  They know that if you do that shit on a windows box you'll have access to everything. Meanwhile you do that to someone on a linux box you still have no permission to anything that is of any importance.

What makes it harder? Why is linux more secure? What software in linux makes it so secure, and what software in windows makes it easy enough for a 5 year old to hack every windows box in the world? It's so easy a CAVEMAN could do it! These generall blanket statements are as ignorant as it gets.

About tech being microsofts whipping boy that's because MS donates most of that shit to the school, and if not they're purchased at a very discount rate.  Some of that being the fact that microsoft has to give things to schools as part of their agreement to get out of monopoly charges.

It's called a site license. It's not donations (heh unless you consider your technology fee a donation )

[Hartmann]

I guess I can only speak from my own experiences. At tech we had mostly windows boxes, ran exchange, active directory, MS SQL. At my company now we have about 50-60 servers, same deal, exchange, active directory, mssql. maybe 5 servers are linux, and only for a legacy product that we're redoing for windows right now.

Exactly, it's from what your experience is. Go to a Fortune 500 company and you'll find everything being run, from Sun SPARCs to Linux to IBM UNIX to Windows. You can't box it up and say that since that's what your company does, that's what everyone else is doing.

[Hartmann]

You just did the exact same thing dipshit. "go to a fortune 500 company blah blah". Oh but I'm sure you've been to them all.

A lot those companies make their architectures available to the outside. I love you too.

[Hartmann]

you guys want to keep up w/all this windows is insecure, linux is a bank vault kinda shit, go ahead, until you start showing me some fucking code and details, your words are a bunch of meaningless i-hate-microsoft bullshit. call me a fanboy all you want, i'm not starting threads with microsoft love, all i ever do is ask why questions that don't ever get answered. the only real answer is biased hatred of a company just bc they make a lot of money. compare software to software, not biased opinions.

Wow. You assume a lot. I was simply stating where he was pulling his facts from. I am working at a Windows centric job, hell, I'm sitting in VS.NET 2005 feature presentation right now. Still love you ass munch.

[Spectatrix]

[pebkac]

I disagree.

[prefix]

Alright well you totally missed the first part of the article apparantely. You see if Microsoft has just gained the majority of the market this year, which means 50% or more, and unix has had more than 50% for the last 10 years. That means that unix has had more than 50% for the last 10 years. Hence this article.

Microsoft's Windows edged out Unix in 2005 as the best-selling server operating system, research firm IDC said Wednesday, marking the first time Unix hasn't held the top spot in more than a decade.

So if we have that someone's had more than 50% for the last 10 years then that would be around 60%. You see how that works? Are you reading this whole thing now? Or are you too busy quoting things getting ready for a response to not grasp the point of what's being said?

where do you see 70% of the servers out there running "unix"?  According to the graph, 61% are apache.  Apache != unix.  Anyhow like I said before, this is web servers, not servers in general.

I never said that all apache computers were running unix, so stop jumping to conclusions.

What makes it harder?  Why is linux more secure?  What software in linux makes it so secure, and what software in windows makes it easy enough for a 5 year old to hack every windows box in the world?  It's so easy a CAVEMAN could do it!  These generall blanket statements are as ignorant as it gets.

Don't you have some sort of degree in computer something? In linux there are different users. Therefore if some jackass downloads malware or some stupid shit; it can't do what it does in windows and make itself start on startup, or put its executable into a vital folder, or open sockets.

[prefix]

And why don't you ever post any kind of fucking facts whenever you post anything? All you do is wait for someone to post something, then tell them they're wrong. Then when they post something in support you say that's wrong and just get gay. How about sometime when you say something you try to prove it's right instead of just saying everyone is wrong.

[zetec]

And why don't you ever post any kind of fucking facts whenever you post anything? All you do is wait for someone to post something, then tell them they're wrong. Then when they post something in support you say that's wrong and just get gay. How about sometime when you say something you try to prove it's right instead of just saying everyone is wrong.

QFE

[Testm0nkey]

had anyone here even bothered to ask me my opinion i would have had this trainwreck settled days ago

[FORSAKENR320]

had anyone here even bothered to ask me my opinion i would have had this trainwreck settled days ago

shut up whore

[prefix]

had anyone here even bothered to ask me my opinion i would have had this trainwreck settled days ago

What's your opinion testm0nkey

[Testm0nkey]

thank you prefix

Well FIRST OFF, i disagree completely. slackware doesnt even belong on the same level as redhat which in and of itself is an entirely SUBPAR OS. i dont mean to be a linux cock mongerer but the man clearly doesnt understand anything outside of the dark ages. lumping linux, xp and LAUGH win 2000 in the SAME FUCKING ATMOSPHERE should be an instantaneous death sentace.
SECONDLY, basic user not having admin access? what kind of nazi facist society are they hoping for here? yes the average computer user may be a mongoloid half head but clearly this is a bad idea. unheard of in civilized societies.
THIRDLY! yes it is only as safe as the neighborhood, impala. that is exactly why i moved out when that black family moved in next door.

it is shit like the unintelligble arguments in this thread that i left the market

[chook]

I think that a good build of UNIX is much safer than any MS os. I am having some legacy problems with a 2k3 server box in the Biology dept. I think the trend is from microsoft pushing its product on academia and we are seeing a delayed affect. Ms software is easier to learn than UNIX software period. Although I have to say testmonkey, I think windows is subpar on many issues.

On a perl script that was used to crunch dna sequence intensities, it took around 5 hours on the 2k3 server and 4 mins on a UNIX machine. It was how each managed memory is what the difference came from. The unix machine did burst writes while the windows machine would hit the 2 gig limit for each process and start doing God knows what. I rewrote the script so it was much more efficient after that fiasco.

MS-easier learning curve, although I do not like the way you script them

UNIX-its can be like climbing K2, but can do a hell of a lot more with them.

that is my opinion