appointed nic. In your case, the rhetoric is used to obfuscate the truth.
tmsbrdrs responded to your fallacious comparison of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 to "root-kitted Linux boxes" by pointing out the correct comparison would be with another browser and selected the strongest competitor to Internet Explorer 8: Firefox.
that is completely wrong. He didn't point out any such thing and simply gave another "quaint" anecdote about IE8. They are found here often and in regards to most any MS software and how someone's brother's friend's relative knows someone that has a neighbor that works at an OEM and has proof that Microsoft did this or that. Or in this case, the classic neighbor (often substituted with Mother, Grandmother, friend from work et al )
That was what I was replying to. My comments about Linux botnets was in no way differnt from the thousand of Linux or Apple blogs that morph into a referendum on Steve Ballmer etc.
Just trying to fit in man.
Or more correctly, just showing what comes from the other side, but hilariously, it's unnoticed.
Evidently you are unable to provide cogent or rationally persuasive arguments in favor of Internet Explorer 8 or against Firefox (any version) because your rebuttal was four paragraphs and you failed to address the real issue.
I was not trying to make any arguments against Firefox, that kind of behavior is left up to you and others who apparently are regressing into childhood and arguing in a "my Dad can beat up your Dad" manner. You just don't understand those of us with real jobs and who work with real technology are tired of seeing that rubbish in every windows blog.
Any statement in kind is simply sarcastic to try and demonstrate the uselessness of it, but it goes unnotices as such and taken as a real insult, or that I'm a hater of Linux and OS X and ipods and anything other than Microsoft software. I couldn't be any less of a "hater" of any other technology. My only problem is with the users of other technologies who feel the need to attempt and smear the name of Microsoft at all times. My posts are aimed at them, not the technology. Although the bugs and vulnerabilites in OS X and Linux are quite enough for zdnet to blog on nothing else, they just don't focus on that. Linux is given a free pass due to it's basically continuous beta state, and Apple because it's using BSD.
Which was paid for by American taxpayers big time. Knowing that I unwillingly participated in funding the technology that Apple has used, and Linux is totally derived from does not exactly thrill me.
You wrote a long introductory paragraph about a hypothetical operating system and included an irrelevant and disparaging statement about a computer-adept segment of Linux users. Are you aware that a legion is a quantity of Roman soldiers numbering between 3,000 and 6,000? In modernity, it is simply a large number and your implication is more than one group of large numbers. Do you know how many actual users there are of all versions and derivatives there are of Linux? Do you know how many modern communication devices and appliances now use modified versions of Linux? By ordinary, nontechnically minded people?
Speaking of irrelevant...and the "dictionary/grammar smack" that only comes from anal wannabe liberal elitists.
Legion S as a plural is totally acceptable. If there were people marching on the capital in several states or countries, I believe it would be acceptable to refer to these seperate large numbers of people as legions or multitudes. Just as there are many communities of open source and exp. communites supporting Linux based systems.
Of course I know that variants of Linux based systems are what are known as embedded versions of Linux OSes and are in those many modern devices you mention.
I'm not sure, are you saying that makes Linux OSes as "exposed" as Windows?
Although, since you brought it up, a Linux variant being used in certain routers has been getting slammed this year with root kits and creating a Linux Botnet. Have you heard of Psyb0t?
I think you are getting a little too over excited about my post. You can relax. I'm not out to destroy your reason for living.
In fact, I started out on Unix and thoroughly enjoyed working with it. I was doing development in C/C++ on SCO Unix and AT&T System V Rel. 4 and over time performed most of the system administration. It was very hard to work with at that time, which was near the mid 90s.
The patches were very complex and required many prerequsites before installing and the process was a bit slow. This was the days the patches were sent monthly on 1/4" cartridge tapes.
I more or less mastered a derivative of Polyforth, which was a very interesting system and programming environment which required all code be keyed into 1K blocks with a very archaic command set. I loved this language and environment. It was a healthcare system which was open sourced to the customers for internal coding and customization. Updates were a nightmare, especially major point releases as all custom code needed to be very well documented and I would go to the vendor and work with their implementation team to get the custom back into the new release which often required re-writing the custom to work with new code on the spot.
I like technology in general. I work with sites now that all have a client/server healthcare system that is closed, but provides a very high end reporting system and the ability to write all input to an external data repository (SQL 2000 at this point).
The backend is old and derived from MUMPS.
I'm not a NBMer as you'd like to believe, but the move to Windows in the mid to later 90s was a step forward for certain in many ways. Linux was not usable at that point as an out of the box solution like Windows.
Your second paragraph provided an unsupported personal opinion comparing the secureness of Microsoft's Vista, a generalized Linux, and Apple's OS X.
Well, ask Charlie Miller who chose OS X in pwn2own because of OS X not having any built in security and he owned it very quickly. He didn't want to try Vista due to the layered built in security, or Linux. I guess I'm not positive how much "built-in" security Linux has, but just go read the white papers on Vista's built-in security. It's security in depth model. I really have to provide proof of common knowledge?
Your third paragraph rambles on about how secure you think Internet Explorer 8 is when various of its features are active.
Your concluding paragraph provides a left-handed acknowledgement that "'free' software" will one day take the largest market-share but refuse to acknowledge that Linux will be in that mix. Finally, you disrespect all computer users who are not technically computer literate, and disparage Linux as a desktop operating system.
However, you failed to respond to tmsbrdrs's points and your own premise, and lost the debate!
You are serious aren't you? Is this your first visit here? You've not witnessed the blog after blog that has nothing to do with Windows that morphs into ABM sentimets flying everywhere? I thought it was site policy to do so!
But I keep forgetting, it's only if you disparage microsoft that it's valid and "legal".
Linux was implied in the "free software" statement. Don't be such a baby. Dang, my post really worked you up didn't it.
Well, considering the Linux zealots here, and there are hundreds of them, all disparage Windows users with terms such as "sheeple" and it goes downhill from there, all I can say is you are crazy.
All of MS, it's employees and users are disparaged on this site daily by juvenile-like users who just can't get over their MS bias and talk like objective adults.
What I said was not in any way disrespectful of anyone, just the truth. There are many users who are not technically minded and who do not know of the dangers on the internet.
My point was the people who are lured into social engineered type attacks would certainly do so on linux just as easily as on Windows.
But we have absolutely no precedence of that on the desktop from which to compare.
What, reality is an insult to you?
Chill out man....quite drinking whatever koolaide you are obviously drinking.
A recently released study by NSS Labs is once again claiming that based on their internal tests, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8 outperforms competing browsers like Google’s Chrome, Mozilla’s Firefox, Opera and Apple’s Safari in terms of protecting their users against “socially engineered malware” and phishing attacks.
What is “socially engineered malware” anyway? Basically, it’s the direct download dialog box that appears on a, for instance, scareware or Koobface video page spoofing Facebook’s layout, like the one attached. using “socially engineered malware” as a benchmark for malware block rate isn’t exactly the most realistic choice in today’s threatscape.
- MSIE 7 - 255,891 visitors - 43.33%
