There is something strange about our host Robert emotional connection to Microsoft and the windows OS at least in my opinion.
Bill do you know that this site runs on Linux? Do you know that I operate a web development company that works exclusively
You can find better Microsoft fanboys Bill. I just don't share your irrational paranoia about them and think one-size-fits-all folk in technology are ideologues who don't provide useful advice. I have run public servers now for years, and security is something I have to deal with in practical, not theoretical, terms (I bet a2k has has a couple dozen automated hacking attempts on it since I started writing, as the logs of attempted attacks run into the thousands a day sometimes). I know that any of the major operating system can be secure or insecure and it's your own security practices that make the biggest difference.
You hurt my feelings Robert!
I'm sorry, that wasn't what I had intended and I know I can come across pretty strong, especially when in a hurry. A business partner of mine told me recently that my recent working schedule (been in a huge rush doing long hours) has made me curt and abrasive, and I know that when I am at this pace that is a frequent result. But I still disagree with you Bill, and where I fail to express it tactfully I hope you accept my apologies.
You'd said that Mac and Linux users don't need to be worried about security, and this is dangerous advice. In fact, the thread was about forums being hacked and I'll bet good money that each and every one of them were running Linux, not Windows. Should they not have worried either? Hell, the only time a computer I manage has ever been compromised it was a Linux and it was a forum hack here on able2know as well. It's a false sense of security to think that any particular platform is invulnerable. I work with Linux almost exclusively and see it rooted all the time. In fact last week one of my clients running Linux called me about being hacked (thankfully we are not in the IT business and aren't responsible for their security). There is no silver bullet Bill. Hating Microsoft isn't going to get you anywhere. And the worst part is that with all your irrational hatred of them, you still stay on their product, albeit an old antiquated one while refusing the use the newer one that you yourself admit is more secure.
You just don't make sense Bill, and I mean you no personal slight by saying so and wouldn't bother to even say so if you didn't spend so much time trying to convince others to follow suit.
An operating system can't bring you security. The biggest variable in computing security is the user. A user can be about as secure on any of the major operating systems and can also be about as insecure on them all. For this reason, tech ideologues are dangerous folk. They can't get past their hatred or love for particular companies enough to give sound advice and start portraying computer security as a simple matter of chosign between the rival ideologies.
Now you may feel insulted because I think you are misguided when it comes to computer security and have irrational phobias about Microsoft, but it's no different a charge than the converse one you repeatedly make about me saying I have financial or emotional interest in Microsoft.
I don't feel insulted by you claiming that I am an irrational Microsoft fanboy (I think it's kinda funny) and you shouldn't take it too personally that I think you are the opposite, the irrational Microsoft-hater.
So I can apologize for any insult I may have caused, and I can try to couch my opinion more tactfully, but at its core it's not going to change and I am going to dissent with your strongly-held opinions. So here I'll argue with them again, but please don't take it personally.
Yes as he pointed out Mac can indeed be attack however they had only at the very most a ten percent share of the market for home computers therefore any malware design to attack them by way of the net will not be able to attack the 90 percent of the computers that are running windows.
Have you ever heard of the concept "security through obscurity"? This is a famously flawed security strategy that is essentially what you are saying is the Mac security advantage: that they are too obscure to be targeted for attack.
You are correct that their small market share means that most malware will first target more popular platforms but this simply does not mean that their software is invulnerable, and as I've shown you in the last few years their software has been some of the easiest to hack in annual hacking competitions.
For this reason, telling people that merely getting off Windows means they no longer have to worry about security is wrongheaded. Your reasoning is merely that Macs have a smaller market share, but this is not security. This is obscurity.
In order to get an example of a Mac attack software you needed to offer a 10,000 dollar prize or download an illegal copy of IWORK and all you need to get examples of windows attack software is to place an unpatch Windows system on the internet for a few minutes as unlike the Mac there are 10 of thousands malware just waiting to attack.
This is just plain wrong. If you unpatch the Mac I can hack it myself. There are published exploits that patches fix just like for Windows. Unpatch either and you have easy hacks that are public knowledge already.
Come on Robert take a deep breathe here people like you and I running windows system need to have layers of security to get the same safety as a Mac users have out of teh box.
I've never once had any of my Windows systems compromised (without intentionally doing so for curiosity and study) and I just don't do all the stuff you do. That's why I think it's so paranoid. I'm very security-conscious and I don't have any security problems on Windows without all the fear and work that you seem to have to endure.
And Vista is secure enough to run out-of-box for most people. I'm running an out-of-box install right now and as far as I know you can't root me even if I don't lift a finger for security without a zero-day exploit and those kinds of exploits can get through any operating system and any false sense of security you have by not using any particular operating system.
The same wasn't true for XP by the way, but that's another one of your irrational soap boxes, how you prefer the less secure XP to Vista, claim Microsoft is "forcing" it on you and then also deride them for not being secure. All while admitting that Vista is, in fact, more secure.
I like Linux a lot, but it's not helped by ideologues spouting misinformation about it. And that's why I speak out against the mindless ideology and fanboys in technology. I've helped people with their computers (linux, PC and Macs) here for years now, and I've heard so many fanboys just pop in to say "get a Mac" or some random anti-Microsoft nonsense instead of giving real help that I resent their mindless ideology a great deal. It's simple and mindless while doing something helpful is actually a lot of work and requries a lot more understanding.
There is a time and a place for everything. These are just tools, and the answer to "my car is broken" is not always "buy a different brand". I have no particular attachment to Microsoft, but the solution to everything is not a the same damn hammer. I prefer Linux from an ideological standpoint as well, but purely ideological advice is not practically useful.