An Enlightening Paragraph

[cousinlucky]

I was reading an article today from which I would like to share this paragraph!

Second, I will have to share one of Boston’s techniques. He recommends using Puppy Linux, a stripped down operating system distribution which can run from a CD or USB stick, instead of having your operating system installed on your hard drive. Puppy Linux can also encrypt your data and save it back to the same USB stick, which he recommends. This is probably workable for some people, and is practically necessary when using a public computer (since they can’t be trusted) but other people will be entirely unable to do this, myself included. His advice to never, ever use Windows for anything is sound, of course. But I do many things which pretty much require an installed operating system, such as video editing. For people who can’t live off a USB stick, I would recommend you install Ubuntu or Fedora, both of which are much more full-featured and also offer simple full-disk encryption for your hard drive which is stronger than that provided in Puppy Linux. (I helped test the full-disk encryption feature in Fedora and contributed a few small bits of code to it.)

[hazel]

I've used Puppy. It's rather sweet, much nicer than Damn Small Linux, with a really friendly desktop. I'd certainly recommend it to the Windows user. But I didn't like using it myself because in Puppy you're always root. Puppy fans say it doesn't matter because a live distro is effectively reinstalled each time you run it so it can't get corrupted. But running it as root on a computer that has other Linux partitions on it made me feel dreadfully insecure.

Actually I don't mind at all using Windows on a public computer because, if it gets infected, that's their problem, not mine. And most public computers don't let you reboot so you can't use something like puppy anyway.

[Daniel_B]

His advice to never, ever use Windows for anything is sound

It annoys me how anti-windows many Linux users are, it is as if they hate windows more than they like Linux. They act like every time you go on the web with a windows machine you will get a virus, this is complete BS. I use windows day to day and have not gotten a virus in years. I have a hard time listening to anyone like that because they clearly have purpose driven logic (here is my conclusion, now lets find my logic). I like my games and various other apps on windows and I am not getting any viruses, Windows is more apt to do these tasks than Linux (for the sole reason that applications do not exist to do these tasks on Linux). So to say that no one should for any reason ever use windows is blind and devoid of logic for the sake of hating windows.

[reed9]

It annoys me how anti-windows many Linux users are, it is as if they hate windows more than they like Linux. They act like every time you go on the web with a windows machine you will get a virus, this is complete BS. I use windows day to day and have not gotten a virus in years. I have a hard time listening to anyone like that because they clearly have purpose driven logic (here is my conclusion, now lets find my logic). I like my games and various other apps on windows and I am not getting any viruses, Windows is more apt to do these tasks than Linux (for the sole reason that applications do not exist to do these tasks on Linux). So to say that no one should for any reason ever use windows is blind and devoid of logic for the sake of hating windows.

Very few people say no one should for any reason ever use windows. There are very real security risks involved with using Windows, though. If you want to mitigate your risk of getting a virus, it is fair to advocate using linux as an alternative. Even the Washington Post has recently done that.

If you're happy using Windows, use it. And if you haven't gotten a virus or malware, great. But your personal anecdotal experience says nothing about the relative safety and risks involved in using different operating systems or software. You can't rail against other people's lack of logic, if you throw logic out the window yourself. At least not with any credibility.

Also, it's not just you that has to be safe. It's your bank, your grocery store, your credit card company, it's the millions of other people whose computers form massive botnets that can take down websites and cause millions in damages. You can still be harmed by windows malware even if you yourself are never infected.

[Daniel_B]

Very few people say no one should for any reason ever use windows. There are very real security risks involved with using Windows, though. If you want to mitigate your risk of getting a virus, it is fair to advocate using linux as an alternative.

I to acknowledge that windows does have many security shortcomings, but many businesses (including my work) have many windows servers that have not once suffered an attack based off of windows insecurity. I work for Wintrust Mortgage, we are a high risk target and get plenty of attempts.

If you're happy using Windows, use it. And if you haven't gotten a virus or malware, great. But your personal anecdotal experience says nothing about the relative safety and risks involved in using different operating systems or software. You can't rail against other people's lack of logic, if you throw logic out the window yourself. At least not with any credibility.

I did not argue that windows was completely secure, I only said that it is BS to say that windows has no valid use and many of their virus claims are equally false.

Also, it's not just you that has to be safe. It's your bank, your grocery store, your credit card company, it's the millions of other people whose computers form massive botnets that can take down websites and cause millions in damages. You can still be harmed by windows malware even if you yourself are never infected.

Any operating system is insecure of run by an incompetent user, Linux or windows. Even a Linux server will not be safe with a password like 123456 for example. As I said before, my work has never had windows based security errors before and we have been using 100% windows for a very long time. I do not know of every corporate pitfall when windows was involved but I would be very surprised if windows was to blame instead of the users in most of the cases. edit: This includes code errors that allow bad things to be uploaded.

[reed9]

I to acknowledge that windows does have many security shortcomings, but many businesses (including my work) have many windows servers that have not once suffered an attack based off of windows insecurity. I work for Wintrust Mortgage, we are a high risk target and get plenty of attempts.

Again, I'm not saying you will be hacked, only that you are at higher risk.

I did not argue that windows was completely secure, I only said that it is BS to say that windows has no valid use and many of their virus claims are equally false.

You argued that it was BS because you had not gotten a virus in years. Which is arguing from anecdote, rather than logic, and therefore poor support for your claim. I am not and was not saying anything about the validity of your conclusion, only that it was a poor way to arrive at the conclusion, especially since you were critical of the logic of the opposition argument.

Any operating system is insecure of run by an incompetent user, Linux or windows. Even a Linux server will not be safe with a password like 123456 for example...

I totally agree with you. Although I wouldn't classify errors in code as user error. But yeah, linux is absolutely not 100% safe. Taking that a step further, for the average user, I also don't think the much touted separation of root and user accounts matters all that much. Most of what people care about are in their home folders anyway, and if all my personal files and information get hacked, it's not going to be much comfort that they couldn't get into root.

[Daniel_B]

You argued that it was BS because you had not gotten a virus in years. Which is arguing from anecdote, rather than logic, and therefore poor support for your claim. I am not and was not saying anything about the validity of your conclusion, only that it was a poor way to arrive at the conclusion, especially since you were critical of the logic of the opposition argument.

I did present my argument wrong. The base of my argument is not simply that I have not gotten a virus in years, but that almost no one has gotten anything close to what is being described. To massively get viruses has always (to my extensive pc tech experience) required very irresponsible use, this includes (and normally is solely) downloading trojan porno apps and pirating software. A virus here and there is not that uncommon, and is normally harmless once removed. While I personally have not gotten a virus in years, it is just one example of windows not being as terrible insecure as they act.

[Jonathan183]

A virus here and there is not that uncommon, and is normally harmless once removed. While I personally have not gotten a virus in years, it is just one example of windows not being as terrible insecure as they act.

... so if it's only a virus here and there its ok

One user receives an email with code executed by default, and all users setup as administrators by default so all users of that system get shafted ... no this is not a Windows problem - must be all the users downloading porn again.

[Daniel_B]

... so if it's only a virus here and there its ok

Most viruses that windows users get are fairly harmless, I never said that it is always OK.

One user receives an email with code executed by default, and all users setup as administrators by default so all users of that system get shafted ... no this is not a Windows problem - must be all the users downloading porn again.

I phrased that wrong. I meant that the vast majority of computers with massive amounts of viruses are because of p2p and porn. The email issues you speak of are crappy email clients (and people who open everything, a user error), not windows at fault.

[Jonathan183]

Most viruses that windows users get are fairly harmless, I never said that it is always OK.

OK

The email issues you speak of are crappy email clients (and people who open everything, a user error), not windows at fault.

but what gets installed by default & what happens by default? ... you may be able to setup Windows systems to be secure but that does not mean everyone knows how to.

1. Default - administrator setup for one user who can't surf the web, run email or run most of the applications in a gui.
All other users by default normal user accounts (with lots of warnings and a pain to change the default).

2. Software repository with free software to do basic things like surf the web and read emails, one or two choices for each application.

3. Most services giving remote access or requiring administrator rights disabled by default - user select enable them one at a time as they need them.

4. Don't have everything execute code and render html by default.

IMO this would greatly improve Windows security ...