, 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)

You must be kidding. Googles Zeitgeist only sees machines that people surf with, which means their desktops. Zeitgeist doesn't show servers nor does it show machines that falsely claim to be another browser on another OS.
Linux has a large base in server installations which you'll never see on Google's Zeitgeist because noone googles with them.
MacOS is not widely used on servers. In totals, Linux installations exceed MacOS installations. And thats what counts.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/188/23047#23047