__/ [John Bokma] on Wednesday 26 October 2005 21:16 \__
> Borek <borek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:35:21 +0200, John Bokma <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> has been steady for 2 weeks though. All these zombies are Win32. f*
>>>> 'em.
I'd say it again if needed. *smile* It was not just blurted out in the heat
of the moment.
>>> You think there is a relation between the majority of users with little
>>> computer experience using win32?
>>
>> You doubt?
That experience should remain in the hands of the developer/s. If you unleash
a product that is self-destructive or one that begs for high maintenance,
you cannot annul that peril and the user is ultimately dissatisfied.
Abstraction, for instance, can be about:
-User does not need to understand "malware"
-User need not be asked to update his/her system
-User can mess about with and execute merely anything without worries
-End user can surf any site across the Net without woe
> Well, there are people who think that if we all move them over to some
> other OS, suddenly all problems are gone.
>
> Ages ago I used an exotic OS: RISC OS.
We indeed talk about "ages ago". The way the Linux kernel gets administered
is different. Don't forget that *nix is intended for some mission critical
tasks like servers and data management:
http://crashrecovery.org/us-army-unix.jpg
The only main flaw is forgetting to change the default root password...
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7207
The notion of a superuser (Microsoft begin to adopt and embrace it) means
that a so-called "virus" would have to be a malicious script that the user
executes as root and then passes (voluntarily) to 7 most trusted friends
asking to do the same or else bad fortune would come their way.
I remember when I was 14 and I wrote a batch file that would wipe off a
hard-drive. Under the right disguise (filename) it could be invoked by a any
user and not even ask for confirmation or prompt the user with some
indicative warning. It was a 'proof of concept' type of thing. A good system
is difficult to destruct at will, unless of course you have a sledgehammer.
> The claims were:
>
> - not many people use it, so NO VIRUSES
> - the OS is in ROM, so it's secure
>
> After a short time there were like 200+ viruses for this wonderful secure
> OS. The latter statement was used for ages, which is odd, because one of
> the powerfull things about this OS in ROM (Ha, you can never update it),
> was that you *could* update it with modules in RAM (you also could copy a
> ROM module to RAM, and since RAM had faster access times, the module ran
> faster).
>
> So how does Linux (for example) protect users with very little skills? I
> have no answer to that.
I hope it was explained above. With all sincerity, John, I have a great deal
of trust in Linux. I never have to reboot, update, defrag the drive and this
current machine has served me well for over 2 years. I set up another SuSE
machine at home 3 days ago.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
5:05am up 62 days 15:14, 5 users, load average: 0.77, 0.74, 0.61
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
