Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog...
From: Richard (riplin_at_Azonic.co.nz)
Date: 10/10/03
- Next message: David Essex: "Re: Sleightly improved mbp Visual COBOL results"
- Previous message: William M. Klein: "Re: Smile, we have a threesome..."
- In reply to: jce: "Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog..."
- Next in thread: Richard: "Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 9 Oct 2003 20:09:42 -0700
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote
> > The problem with Windows is that every copy is exactly the same. ...
> However, the main selling point of windows is *exactly* that.
Maybe, but it is a falacy that it is one user interface that reduces
training costs. There are sufficient changes in the various GUIs and
options to mean that it is no more difficult to move to, say, KDE,
than to XP.
> Why do people choose Redhat over Debian over Mandrake over Suse over
> Slackware etc.
Why do people choose Audi over BMW over Mercedes over Yugo ?
Why don't they just buy a Ford 'like everyone else does' ?
I use several different distros. I have Mandrake on one of my desktop
machines and laptop, redhat on a server, Freesco on my router,
smoothwall on customer routers, Pocketlinux as terminal server, fli4l
and LTSP as print servers.
The distros compete in overlapping but somewhat different areas, just
as brands of cars or colas do.
> To be successful you have to be easy. Easy cuts the need for
> administrators. Lack of administrators and "standard builds" leads to what
> you describe.
>
> Therefore. Businesses goals conflict business safety >:-O
Yes, and they seem to be realising that.
> I specifically wondered if Linux would get the same attention once a
> distribution becomes the "Windows alternative"
It may do, but at least Unix/Linux is built onto a decent security
model from the start. Windows still needs to dump all its 'legacy'
stuff that took no account of multi-user (for TSE) or proper security.
> > While the majority of web servers run Apache on Linux or BSD (up now
> > to 64.6%,
> Do these number include 3rd Party "powered" by Apache? Just curious.
I don't know what you mean by this. If it has 'pwered by Apache' then
the Apache web server is running. The '3rd party' may be an addon or
a module loaded by Apache.
> > their needs - and none have the vulnerability that will execute code
> > when a message or attachment is opened, none will automatically feed
> > an attachment into Word with macro execution turned on.
> I'm not sure how you can say *none*.
Because there aren't any. I suppose it is possible that someone may
write an EMail client that would automatically install software and
run it, but why ? Most don't even do HTML unless specifically told
to. Most users don't even know why this would be a problem, they
don't know why Word attachments are foolish to send and worse to
receive. MS hides the fact even that there are Word documents in the
EMail from them.
> Even Linuxconf had major issues a while back which caused grief for Redhat
> or kept maintaining that they 'didn't own it'.
It wasn't 'sendmail' it was Qmail that for compatibility used a
wrapper with the name sendmail. Redhat doesn't have Qmail in the
distro, it had to be loaded searately.
This is a major difference between Windows and Linux. MSBlaster and
many viruses were serious problems that attacked machines 'out of the
box', leading to machines becoming 'owned' by outsiders or destruction
of the system. Linux security issues are mostly related to problems
that only arise with someone deliberately doing something wrong at the
console, not some kid the other side of the world.
> Again - when you download do you check the official message digest? Do you
> know the source of your tar/rpm. :-)
Usually.
> > Also visit www.grc.com and get a port scan and notes on security, such
> These sites just *scare* me needlessly.....kind of like the termite control
> companies.....
Not 'needlessly', they scare you for a reason - to get you to buy
their software. Actually I put ZoneAlarm on Windows machines, but use
GRC to check them.
> but I did download something trusting that it wasn't a front
> put up by someone to install millions of trojans.
Did you get a port scan ?
- Next message: David Essex: "Re: Sleightly improved mbp Visual COBOL results"
- Previous message: William M. Klein: "Re: Smile, we have a threesome..."
- In reply to: jce: "Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog..."
- Next in thread: Richard: "Re: Cobol data protection? Get a dog..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
