, 2003-10-02
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
Expand all |
Post comment
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-02
Anonymous (13 replies)
Anonymous (13 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad.
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-06
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-07
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-07
Anonymous-2 (1 replies)
Anonymous-2 (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided -- And seriously misguided!
2003-10-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided -- And seriously misguided!
2003-10-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided -- And seriously misguided!
2003-10-10
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses - Sad. - Misguided - More Misguided
2003-10-08
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-07
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,shill@microsoft.com, but no.
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.
2003-10-04
Anonymous (10 replies)
Anonymous (10 replies)
MCSEs, what a joke
2003-10-06
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
RE: Sorry "Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.", but definitely not...
2003-10-06
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,ltorvalds@space-for-rent.com, but no.
2003-10-06
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Sorry,shill@micrsoft.com, but no... again.
2003-10-07
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses (Another "I HATE WINBLOWZ")
2003-10-05
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses (Another "I HATE WINBLOWZ")
2003-10-06
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-02
Anonymous (8 replies)
Anonymous (8 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux will not succeed in replacing Windows at work because..
2003-10-03
Ken H (1 replies)
Ken H (1 replies)
Linux will not succeed in replacing Windows at work because..
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Why this article SUCKS
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Think OpenBSD, Linux and cia are much more SECURE !
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Think, yet another troll.
2003-10-06
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
mail client exploit + local root exploit = just as bad as if you were root anyway.
2003-10-05
AlphaParticle (1 replies)
AlphaParticle (1 replies)
mail client exploit + local root exploit = just as bad as if you were root anyway.
2003-10-07
Anonymous
Anonymous
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns
2003-10-07
Pamela (2 replies)
Pamela (2 replies)
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns?
2003-10-07
Anymouse (1 replies)
Anymouse (1 replies)
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns?
2003-10-08
leavetheworldabetterplacethanyoufoundit (1 replies)
leavetheworldabetterplacethanyoufoundit (1 replies)
Scott's Right, Microsofties. Deal With It.
2003-10-07
Penguinisto (2 replies)
Penguinisto (2 replies)
If Linux is so secure.....
2003-10-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2003-10-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2006-03-30
My head is spinning (1 replies)
My head is spinning (1 replies)
Re: Re: Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2006-06-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)

I guess you know: make a standard windows installation. do nothing, just keep it online - and someone will break in. But a standard linux-installation just keeps the ports closed, no-one breaks in. No user has to do with this, isnt it?
If you want to keep up a win2000 system, you have to use (expensive) AV software, and patch it. and for installing a patch, you have to reboot, which an administrator doesnt like, does he? again, both unlike linux. And its alot more work anyway to keep it up-to-date (for me, an upgrade equivalent of upgrading from win '95 to 2000 whould be 2 commands, maybe a few times pressing [enter], thats it. for you??? hours and hours of work! Reinstallation of all software (buying new software? etc etc etc)
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/188/22988#22988