On Wednesday 01 August 2007 13:47:03 Robin Laing wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tuesday 31 July 2007 15:36:48 Harold Fuchs wrote: > >> It is moot as to whether the reason for this is because > >> Mac/Linux are more secure or because Windows is more common > >> and therefore more likely to yield the results an attacker > >> wants. Both theories probably carry weight. > > > > This is totally wrong. Any Unix based operating system is by > > default out of the box more secure than the most hardened > > install of Microsoft. > > > > Microsoft is like your house; only the exterior points of entry > > are secured but once someone enters the house they have access > > to the entire house. This is because most people run Windows in > > an administrator mode because it is more convenient and a pita > > to get to the admin mode if you are not already there. > > > > Any Unix OS runs in a secure non-admin mode. Your house would > > need to have all points of entry including the interior secured > > so, even if someone got in, they would still have to go through > > the same process to get to the next part of the house or > > system. For the authorized person; moving into admin mode while > > in user mode is very easy to do in a Unix OS. > > > > The argument about Windows being more widely used is just > > Microsoft's way of trying to down play the superior security of > > a Unix OS. Linux and MAC OSs are a Unix based OS. Also the Unix > > platform is the most dominate platform used for servers and > > those servers do not have a problem with viruses or worms. > > Unauthorized entry into a Unix OS is not nearly as easy as it > > is with a Microsoft OS. Be careful not to spread Microsoft FUD. > > To add to this, in Linux you can also add security tools on top > of those in the base OS. SELINUX and other hardening tools to > make it even impossible for someone that has physical access to > your machine to change things. I have no fear about letting kids > play with my Linux machine because I know they cannot screw it > up, even when they try. > > To use the above example, it would be like putting fingerprint > readers on all the door, drawers and cupboards before you can > open them. And then have a way of making sure that they are > authorized to move stuff in those locations. > > Basic security in Linux is higher than basic security in Vista > according to our IT people that I have talked to.
Windows is not a secure system and Microsoft does not care how much money they suck out of businesses or individuals. I run Linux at home but have to deal with Windows 2000, XP and Vista at work. We install windows computers with touch screens with POS software. They have to work on a network and have Internet access and have to be secure and safe from all the garbage. The software we sell and support will run on Linux but I have not been able to convince the owner or the developers to use Linux yet. I think when, we can no longer get Win 2000 and have to start purchasing Server because we can no longer set up enough boxes without it they may decide to give it some serious consideration to switch to Linux. -- http://24.197.142.167/ See the Openoffice.org FAQ Microsoft users go to http://www.pclinuxos.com for a great user friendly Linux experience! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
