__/ [ John Bokma ] on Saturday 22 April 2006 05:57 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> __/ [ John Bokma ] on Saturday 22 April 2006 02:32 \__
>> I agree with this in general, but you will have a hard time persuading
>> me that Windows protects the user as well as GNU/Linux, for instance.
>> With Internet Explorer as default browser, all it takes is a Web
>> search that leads you to unfriendly sites. To name just one example...
> The same can happen on Linux with Firefox. Firefox has had several
> examples of exploits that could be abused. The current Linux user base
> is probably for a huge part smart enough to constantly update stuff.
> The problem is IE, not the OS. If IE runs as a limited user, IE can
> wreak havoc for the local user. This is the same for Linux.
>>>> and will also be a better (more usable, efficient) working
>>> Only if it makes better versions of the tools you're using available.
>>> GNU/Linux doesn't offer the tools I use daily on Windows XP. And no:
>>> close is still no cigar. Switching to Linux would make my environment
>>> less usable and way less efficient.
>> Switch and persistent use are different scenarios and any migration is
>> a long-term investment.
> True, it's never easy, even not if one stays with Microsoft for example.
> I am sure Vista is something that is going to take time to "get". I have
> quite some experience with other OSes, several Unix based ones, and of
> course GNU/Linux (several distributions even). But I know that some
> programs I want to use are not available on it. For some it's yet: Xara
> is being ported. That news made me so happy that I updated to Xara X'
> (also because I think it will take 6 - 12 months before it's workable).
>>> If your applications are going to run on Vista, and not on Linux,
>>> Linux is not an alternative. A peg made out of wood is not an
>>> alternative to a leg.
>> Unless you are Pinocchio (the point being is that different shoes fit
>> different feet).
> But the thing is that many Linux users keep talking about X is an
> alternative to Y. But sorry, InkScape is not an alternative to Xara. And
> the list goes on. Gaim is to me not (yet) an alternative to MSN
> Messenger for the same reason Miranda/Trillian is not an alternative to
> MSN Messenger.
>>> No: it's the user who has no clue (and Linux fanboys repeating it).
>>> Can you give an example of how a limited user account is too
>>> permissive compared to a user on Linux?
>> A limited user account permits Registry modifications.
> That's like saying that a Linux user can edit .bashrc in his/her home
> directory ;-)
With respect, in order for this to happen you would need to get a
non-trustable script, change its permissions to executable and then run it.
Changes made could be irreversible. But compare that with Windows where
merely viewing a directory in thumbnail mode (WMF) or opening your E-mail
client to receive an E-mail can lead to disaster.
It's no secret that everyone seeks reassurance for their chances, O/S
included. In this day and age, you don't have to be a developer in order for
computers to take up a large portion of your life. To some, Windows is the
only choice which is taken for granted, Linux bashing is often good for
nothing but leaving an open door to the ego fairy.
Best wishes and no hard feelings,
Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Bakset Case
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:15pm up 5:33, 10 users, load average: 0.15, 0.15, 0.10
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine