If you are still unsure about Kaspersky…
The British government are being advised not to use Kaspersky anti virus software now.
In my opinion it is better to be safe and uninstall Kaspersky. They may not being deliberately opening back doors in other people’s computers, but why would you take that risk?
Originally shared by Alan Stainer
The advice is, don’t use Kaspersky software or any software that comes from Russia
If it poses a security risk to the government, then it poses a security risk to everyone.
Uninstall it and use something else if you have to. Windows 10 comes with Windows Defender and isn’t that bad these days. Certainly better than nothing or exposing your system to hackers through the back door of a Russian backed software company.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42202191
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42202191
Wow, really? I’ve been suspicious about Kaspersky when it first started being popular around 15 years ago. Never used it, never will
Wow, really? I’ve been suspicious about Kaspersky when it first started being popular around 15 years ago. Never used it, never will
Wow, really? I’ve been suspicious about Kaspersky when it first started being popular around 15 years ago. Never used it, never will
Wow, really? I’ve been suspicious about Kaspersky when it first started being popular around 15 years ago. Never used it, never will
Wow, really? I’ve been suspicious about Kaspersky when it first started being popular around 15 years ago. Never used it, never will
Wow, really? I’ve been suspicious about Kaspersky when it first started being popular around 15 years ago. Never used it, never will
I might start promoting the Open Source ClamAV. clamav.net – ClamavNet
I might start promoting the Open Source ClamAV. clamav.net – ClamavNet
I might start promoting the Open Source ClamAV. clamav.net – ClamavNet
I might start promoting the Open Source ClamAV. clamav.net – ClamavNet
I might start promoting the Open Source ClamAV. clamav.net – ClamavNet
I might start promoting the Open Source ClamAV. clamav.net – ClamavNet
To be honest, I’m starting to dump virus checking programs in favour of OS’s that actually protect the core system, and ensuring all my user content is in the cloud. Nothing is fool proof of course, non of the virus checks stopped my autoIT scripts from hooking the keyboard and snapshotting the active window and mouse state in Windows OS’s.
A point however here is a simple question, under who’s jurisdiction are the servers ??? That should cover all services, not just virus checkers, and is seldom asked outside of the NHS, where strict information governance rules state all servers should be within the EU.
To be honest, I’m starting to dump virus checking programs in favour of OS’s that actually protect the core system, and ensuring all my user content is in the cloud. Nothing is fool proof of course, non of the virus checks stopped my autoIT scripts from hooking the keyboard and snapshotting the active window and mouse state in Windows OS’s.
A point however here is a simple question, under who’s jurisdiction are the servers ??? That should cover all services, not just virus checkers, and is seldom asked outside of the NHS, where strict information governance rules state all servers should be within the EU.
To be honest, I’m starting to dump virus checking programs in favour of OS’s that actually protect the core system, and ensuring all my user content is in the cloud. Nothing is fool proof of course, non of the virus checks stopped my autoIT scripts from hooking the keyboard and snapshotting the active window and mouse state in Windows OS’s.
A point however here is a simple question, under who’s jurisdiction are the servers ??? That should cover all services, not just virus checkers, and is seldom asked outside of the NHS, where strict information governance rules state all servers should be within the EU.
To be honest, I’m starting to dump virus checking programs in favour of OS’s that actually protect the core system, and ensuring all my user content is in the cloud. Nothing is fool proof of course, non of the virus checks stopped my autoIT scripts from hooking the keyboard and snapshotting the active window and mouse state in Windows OS’s.
A point however here is a simple question, under who’s jurisdiction are the servers ??? That should cover all services, not just virus checkers, and is seldom asked outside of the NHS, where strict information governance rules state all servers should be within the EU.
To be honest, I’m starting to dump virus checking programs in favour of OS’s that actually protect the core system, and ensuring all my user content is in the cloud. Nothing is fool proof of course, non of the virus checks stopped my autoIT scripts from hooking the keyboard and snapshotting the active window and mouse state in Windows OS’s.
A point however here is a simple question, under who’s jurisdiction are the servers ??? That should cover all services, not just virus checkers, and is seldom asked outside of the NHS, where strict information governance rules state all servers should be within the EU.
To be honest, I’m starting to dump virus checking programs in favour of OS’s that actually protect the core system, and ensuring all my user content is in the cloud. Nothing is fool proof of course, non of the virus checks stopped my autoIT scripts from hooking the keyboard and snapshotting the active window and mouse state in Windows OS’s.
A point however here is a simple question, under who’s jurisdiction are the servers ??? That should cover all services, not just virus checkers, and is seldom asked outside of the NHS, where strict information governance rules state all servers should be within the EU.
Use wondows 10
Use wondows 10
Use wondows 10
Use wondows 10
Use wondows 10
Use wondows 10
Imran Ullah use anything other than Windows and you will make your computing experience a million times better and safer. Microsoft are known to hoover up information from their users, which in itself is a security issue for many.
Imran Ullah use anything other than Windows and you will make your computing experience a million times better and safer. Microsoft are known to hoover up information from their users, which in itself is a security issue for many.
Imran Ullah use anything other than Windows and you will make your computing experience a million times better and safer. Microsoft are known to hoover up information from their users, which in itself is a security issue for many.
Imran Ullah use anything other than Windows and you will make your computing experience a million times better and safer. Microsoft are known to hoover up information from their users, which in itself is a security issue for many.
Imran Ullah use anything other than Windows and you will make your computing experience a million times better and safer. Microsoft are known to hoover up information from their users, which in itself is a security issue for many.
Imran Ullah use anything other than Windows and you will make your computing experience a million times better and safer. Microsoft are known to hoover up information from their users, which in itself is a security issue for many.
Can’t say I ever bothered with an antivirus on Ubuntu anyway
Can’t say I ever bothered with an antivirus on Ubuntu anyway
Can’t say I ever bothered with an antivirus on Ubuntu anyway
Can’t say I ever bothered with an antivirus on Ubuntu anyway
Can’t say I ever bothered with an antivirus on Ubuntu anyway
Can’t say I ever bothered with an antivirus on Ubuntu anyway
Unfortunately linux has its vulnerabilities, just as windows has. Both are aggressively targeted and this is a huge flaw of open source. Open source means hackers can bust open the software, figure out how it works, and be much more successful at finding flaws. Apple has the advantage in that it was closed source for many years, so hackers didn’t have access to the core software to hack it.
Clam av works better on linux. The windows version has not been updated for some time, and I don’t think is being updated anymore. Clam has been much more successful at finding malware than avg, malware bytes, spybot, or windows defender.
Unfortunately linux has its vulnerabilities, just as windows has. Both are aggressively targeted and this is a huge flaw of open source. Open source means hackers can bust open the software, figure out how it works, and be much more successful at finding flaws. Apple has the advantage in that it was closed source for many years, so hackers didn’t have access to the core software to hack it.
Clam av works better on linux. The windows version has not been updated for some time, and I don’t think is being updated anymore. Clam has been much more successful at finding malware than avg, malware bytes, spybot, or windows defender.
Unfortunately linux has its vulnerabilities, just as windows has. Both are aggressively targeted and this is a huge flaw of open source. Open source means hackers can bust open the software, figure out how it works, and be much more successful at finding flaws. Apple has the advantage in that it was closed source for many years, so hackers didn’t have access to the core software to hack it.
Clam av works better on linux. The windows version has not been updated for some time, and I don’t think is being updated anymore. Clam has been much more successful at finding malware than avg, malware bytes, spybot, or windows defender.
Unfortunately linux has its vulnerabilities, just as windows has. Both are aggressively targeted and this is a huge flaw of open source. Open source means hackers can bust open the software, figure out how it works, and be much more successful at finding flaws. Apple has the advantage in that it was closed source for many years, so hackers didn’t have access to the core software to hack it.
Clam av works better on linux. The windows version has not been updated for some time, and I don’t think is being updated anymore. Clam has been much more successful at finding malware than avg, malware bytes, spybot, or windows defender.
Unfortunately linux has its vulnerabilities, just as windows has. Both are aggressively targeted and this is a huge flaw of open source. Open source means hackers can bust open the software, figure out how it works, and be much more successful at finding flaws. Apple has the advantage in that it was closed source for many years, so hackers didn’t have access to the core software to hack it.
Clam av works better on linux. The windows version has not been updated for some time, and I don’t think is being updated anymore. Clam has been much more successful at finding malware than avg, malware bytes, spybot, or windows defender.
Unfortunately linux has its vulnerabilities, just as windows has. Both are aggressively targeted and this is a huge flaw of open source. Open source means hackers can bust open the software, figure out how it works, and be much more successful at finding flaws. Apple has the advantage in that it was closed source for many years, so hackers didn’t have access to the core software to hack it.
Clam av works better on linux. The windows version has not been updated for some time, and I don’t think is being updated anymore. Clam has been much more successful at finding malware than avg, malware bytes, spybot, or windows defender.
MidnightVisions this is a very common misconception of how open source works but the fact that the vast majority of servers across the whole internet run a version of Linux proves that it’s not how things work. Open source software has vulnerabilities patched and deployed far more quickly and reliably than closed source simply due to the much larger community that works on and resolves those vulnerabilities when they are detected.
I run Linux at home (Ubuntu) and on the servers I manage at work (RedHat) not once have I ever needed an anti virus. Stronger firewall rules work much better.
MidnightVisions this is a very common misconception of how open source works but the fact that the vast majority of servers across the whole internet run a version of Linux proves that it’s not how things work. Open source software has vulnerabilities patched and deployed far more quickly and reliably than closed source simply due to the much larger community that works on and resolves those vulnerabilities when they are detected.
I run Linux at home (Ubuntu) and on the servers I manage at work (RedHat) not once have I ever needed an anti virus. Stronger firewall rules work much better.
MidnightVisions this is a very common misconception of how open source works but the fact that the vast majority of servers across the whole internet run a version of Linux proves that it’s not how things work. Open source software has vulnerabilities patched and deployed far more quickly and reliably than closed source simply due to the much larger community that works on and resolves those vulnerabilities when they are detected.
I run Linux at home (Ubuntu) and on the servers I manage at work (RedHat) not once have I ever needed an anti virus. Stronger firewall rules work much better.
MidnightVisions this is a very common misconception of how open source works but the fact that the vast majority of servers across the whole internet run a version of Linux proves that it’s not how things work. Open source software has vulnerabilities patched and deployed far more quickly and reliably than closed source simply due to the much larger community that works on and resolves those vulnerabilities when they are detected.
I run Linux at home (Ubuntu) and on the servers I manage at work (RedHat) not once have I ever needed an anti virus. Stronger firewall rules work much better.
MidnightVisions this is a very common misconception of how open source works but the fact that the vast majority of servers across the whole internet run a version of Linux proves that it’s not how things work. Open source software has vulnerabilities patched and deployed far more quickly and reliably than closed source simply due to the much larger community that works on and resolves those vulnerabilities when they are detected.
I run Linux at home (Ubuntu) and on the servers I manage at work (RedHat) not once have I ever needed an anti virus. Stronger firewall rules work much better.
MidnightVisions this is a very common misconception of how open source works but the fact that the vast majority of servers across the whole internet run a version of Linux proves that it’s not how things work. Open source software has vulnerabilities patched and deployed far more quickly and reliably than closed source simply due to the much larger community that works on and resolves those vulnerabilities when they are detected.
I run Linux at home (Ubuntu) and on the servers I manage at work (RedHat) not once have I ever needed an anti virus. Stronger firewall rules work much better.
ا
ا
ا
ا
ا
ا
Inb4 bios-level lockdown it is then
Inb4 bios-level lockdown it is then
Inb4 bios-level lockdown it is then
Inb4 bios-level lockdown it is then
Inb4 bios-level lockdown it is then
Inb4 bios-level lockdown it is then
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith That’s not it, and you don’t understand. Having access to open source code means hackers can directly see how their hacks work because they have access to the softwares core code their attacking. Closed source software makes it very difficult to hack because you can’t see how your hack is actually working. Its blind hit and miss with closed source vs hackers can watch their code work line by line on open source software. It does not matter how many people are working at the open source code.
Open source means everyone can look at, and tamper with the code, or use trojans and viruses to bypass security. Its the same as allowing criminals free and open access and a map of your home. The advantages of closed soruce is like having a locks on your home doors. Criminals breaking into a locked home have to stumble around with lots of guesswork where everything is located. With open source or an unlocked home, they have a map of everything, criminals can just go straight for what they want, skip what they don’t want, and avoid any traps. Hope that explains the differences.
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith That’s not it, and you don’t understand. Having access to open source code means hackers can directly see how their hacks work because they have access to the softwares core code their attacking. Closed source software makes it very difficult to hack because you can’t see how your hack is actually working. Its blind hit and miss with closed source vs hackers can watch their code work line by line on open source software. It does not matter how many people are working at the open source code.
Open source means everyone can look at, and tamper with the code, or use trojans and viruses to bypass security. Its the same as allowing criminals free and open access and a map of your home. The advantages of closed soruce is like having a locks on your home doors. Criminals breaking into a locked home have to stumble around with lots of guesswork where everything is located. With open source or an unlocked home, they have a map of everything, criminals can just go straight for what they want, skip what they don’t want, and avoid any traps. Hope that explains the differences.
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith That’s not it, and you don’t understand. Having access to open source code means hackers can directly see how their hacks work because they have access to the softwares core code their attacking. Closed source software makes it very difficult to hack because you can’t see how your hack is actually working. Its blind hit and miss with closed source vs hackers can watch their code work line by line on open source software. It does not matter how many people are working at the open source code.
Open source means everyone can look at, and tamper with the code, or use trojans and viruses to bypass security. Its the same as allowing criminals free and open access and a map of your home. The advantages of closed soruce is like having a locks on your home doors. Criminals breaking into a locked home have to stumble around with lots of guesswork where everything is located. With open source or an unlocked home, they have a map of everything, criminals can just go straight for what they want, skip what they don’t want, and avoid any traps. Hope that explains the differences.
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith That’s not it, and you don’t understand. Having access to open source code means hackers can directly see how their hacks work because they have access to the softwares core code their attacking. Closed source software makes it very difficult to hack because you can’t see how your hack is actually working. Its blind hit and miss with closed source vs hackers can watch their code work line by line on open source software. It does not matter how many people are working at the open source code.
Open source means everyone can look at, and tamper with the code, or use trojans and viruses to bypass security. Its the same as allowing criminals free and open access and a map of your home. The advantages of closed soruce is like having a locks on your home doors. Criminals breaking into a locked home have to stumble around with lots of guesswork where everything is located. With open source or an unlocked home, they have a map of everything, criminals can just go straight for what they want, skip what they don’t want, and avoid any traps. Hope that explains the differences.
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith That’s not it, and you don’t understand. Having access to open source code means hackers can directly see how their hacks work because they have access to the softwares core code their attacking. Closed source software makes it very difficult to hack because you can’t see how your hack is actually working. Its blind hit and miss with closed source vs hackers can watch their code work line by line on open source software. It does not matter how many people are working at the open source code.
Open source means everyone can look at, and tamper with the code, or use trojans and viruses to bypass security. Its the same as allowing criminals free and open access and a map of your home. The advantages of closed soruce is like having a locks on your home doors. Criminals breaking into a locked home have to stumble around with lots of guesswork where everything is located. With open source or an unlocked home, they have a map of everything, criminals can just go straight for what they want, skip what they don’t want, and avoid any traps. Hope that explains the differences.
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith That’s not it, and you don’t understand. Having access to open source code means hackers can directly see how their hacks work because they have access to the softwares core code their attacking. Closed source software makes it very difficult to hack because you can’t see how your hack is actually working. Its blind hit and miss with closed source vs hackers can watch their code work line by line on open source software. It does not matter how many people are working at the open source code.
Open source means everyone can look at, and tamper with the code, or use trojans and viruses to bypass security. Its the same as allowing criminals free and open access and a map of your home. The advantages of closed soruce is like having a locks on your home doors. Criminals breaking into a locked home have to stumble around with lots of guesswork where everything is located. With open source or an unlocked home, they have a map of everything, criminals can just go straight for what they want, skip what they don’t want, and avoid any traps. Hope that explains the differences.
MidnightVisions if closed source is so great, can you explain the Swiss cheese approach to security that is Windows vs the Linux security model which locks everything down by default?
MidnightVisions if closed source is so great, can you explain the Swiss cheese approach to security that is Windows vs the Linux security model which locks everything down by default?
MidnightVisions if closed source is so great, can you explain the Swiss cheese approach to security that is Windows vs the Linux security model which locks everything down by default?
MidnightVisions if closed source is so great, can you explain the Swiss cheese approach to security that is Windows vs the Linux security model which locks everything down by default?
MidnightVisions if closed source is so great, can you explain the Swiss cheese approach to security that is Windows vs the Linux security model which locks everything down by default?
MidnightVisions if closed source is so great, can you explain the Swiss cheese approach to security that is Windows vs the Linux security model which locks everything down by default?
MidnightVisions I think I know how to do my own job thanks.
Like Alan Stainer says please explain why Windows, a closed-source Operating System, is the most vulnerable OS out there and where you most often have to rely on antivirus software?
And again, yes vulnerabilities pop up now and then on Linux systems but the open source community, which includes large companies like RedHat, Google, vmware, Canonical and so on are constantly hunting for these vulnerabilities and patch them up very quickly. It’s also much much easier to patch Linux systems than Windows desktops, which reduces the risk of exploitations.
I repeat what I said, you don’t understand how open source works and why having the source code open is actually a good thing.
We could also talk about super user level access which secures the system even more but I’m not sure that would get us anywhere
MidnightVisions I think I know how to do my own job thanks.
Like Alan Stainer says please explain why Windows, a closed-source Operating System, is the most vulnerable OS out there and where you most often have to rely on antivirus software?
And again, yes vulnerabilities pop up now and then on Linux systems but the open source community, which includes large companies like RedHat, Google, vmware, Canonical and so on are constantly hunting for these vulnerabilities and patch them up very quickly. It’s also much much easier to patch Linux systems than Windows desktops, which reduces the risk of exploitations.
I repeat what I said, you don’t understand how open source works and why having the source code open is actually a good thing.
We could also talk about super user level access which secures the system even more but I’m not sure that would get us anywhere
MidnightVisions I think I know how to do my own job thanks.
Like Alan Stainer says please explain why Windows, a closed-source Operating System, is the most vulnerable OS out there and where you most often have to rely on antivirus software?
And again, yes vulnerabilities pop up now and then on Linux systems but the open source community, which includes large companies like RedHat, Google, vmware, Canonical and so on are constantly hunting for these vulnerabilities and patch them up very quickly. It’s also much much easier to patch Linux systems than Windows desktops, which reduces the risk of exploitations.
I repeat what I said, you don’t understand how open source works and why having the source code open is actually a good thing.
We could also talk about super user level access which secures the system even more but I’m not sure that would get us anywhere
MidnightVisions I think I know how to do my own job thanks.
Like Alan Stainer says please explain why Windows, a closed-source Operating System, is the most vulnerable OS out there and where you most often have to rely on antivirus software?
And again, yes vulnerabilities pop up now and then on Linux systems but the open source community, which includes large companies like RedHat, Google, vmware, Canonical and so on are constantly hunting for these vulnerabilities and patch them up very quickly. It’s also much much easier to patch Linux systems than Windows desktops, which reduces the risk of exploitations.
I repeat what I said, you don’t understand how open source works and why having the source code open is actually a good thing.
We could also talk about super user level access which secures the system even more but I’m not sure that would get us anywhere
MidnightVisions I think I know how to do my own job thanks.
Like Alan Stainer says please explain why Windows, a closed-source Operating System, is the most vulnerable OS out there and where you most often have to rely on antivirus software?
And again, yes vulnerabilities pop up now and then on Linux systems but the open source community, which includes large companies like RedHat, Google, vmware, Canonical and so on are constantly hunting for these vulnerabilities and patch them up very quickly. It’s also much much easier to patch Linux systems than Windows desktops, which reduces the risk of exploitations.
I repeat what I said, you don’t understand how open source works and why having the source code open is actually a good thing.
We could also talk about super user level access which secures the system even more but I’m not sure that would get us anywhere
MidnightVisions I think I know how to do my own job thanks.
Like Alan Stainer says please explain why Windows, a closed-source Operating System, is the most vulnerable OS out there and where you most often have to rely on antivirus software?
And again, yes vulnerabilities pop up now and then on Linux systems but the open source community, which includes large companies like RedHat, Google, vmware, Canonical and so on are constantly hunting for these vulnerabilities and patch them up very quickly. It’s also much much easier to patch Linux systems than Windows desktops, which reduces the risk of exploitations.
I repeat what I said, you don’t understand how open source works and why having the source code open is actually a good thing.
We could also talk about super user level access which secures the system even more but I’m not sure that would get us anywhere
Alan Stainer Windows can’t up and change everything over to a new idea when something completely new idea in software comes along. Windows has to keep itself on a course because of many contractual agreements which keeps it backwards compatible with its existing hardware infrastructures across all platforms and servers. Linux set out to be something different and being much smaller in distribution and background hardware, and without contractual obligations allowed it to change its software and internal structures, during revisions.
Microsoft has a huge lead over Linux in the background, business and server areas because it owns the companies, hardware and patents which hardware vendors install to businesses. This has been a major failing of Linux in general to create a company and business model that addresses the requirements and training issues that businesses require. Microsoft has absolutely walked away with that. Apple has nothing to do with any background servers or businesses, and only deals with the desktops, laptops and other consumer products. If Linux, formed a dedicated company that could challenge Microsoft across all business areas, it would be able to compete much better, but Microsoft owns much of the equipment, the hardware, and the contracts with installation providers on which equipment they will install.
Alan Stainer Windows can’t up and change everything over to a new idea when something completely new idea in software comes along. Windows has to keep itself on a course because of many contractual agreements which keeps it backwards compatible with its existing hardware infrastructures across all platforms and servers. Linux set out to be something different and being much smaller in distribution and background hardware, and without contractual obligations allowed it to change its software and internal structures, during revisions.
Microsoft has a huge lead over Linux in the background, business and server areas because it owns the companies, hardware and patents which hardware vendors install to businesses. This has been a major failing of Linux in general to create a company and business model that addresses the requirements and training issues that businesses require. Microsoft has absolutely walked away with that. Apple has nothing to do with any background servers or businesses, and only deals with the desktops, laptops and other consumer products. If Linux, formed a dedicated company that could challenge Microsoft across all business areas, it would be able to compete much better, but Microsoft owns much of the equipment, the hardware, and the contracts with installation providers on which equipment they will install.
Alan Stainer Windows can’t up and change everything over to a new idea when something completely new idea in software comes along. Windows has to keep itself on a course because of many contractual agreements which keeps it backwards compatible with its existing hardware infrastructures across all platforms and servers. Linux set out to be something different and being much smaller in distribution and background hardware, and without contractual obligations allowed it to change its software and internal structures, during revisions.
Microsoft has a huge lead over Linux in the background, business and server areas because it owns the companies, hardware and patents which hardware vendors install to businesses. This has been a major failing of Linux in general to create a company and business model that addresses the requirements and training issues that businesses require. Microsoft has absolutely walked away with that. Apple has nothing to do with any background servers or businesses, and only deals with the desktops, laptops and other consumer products. If Linux, formed a dedicated company that could challenge Microsoft across all business areas, it would be able to compete much better, but Microsoft owns much of the equipment, the hardware, and the contracts with installation providers on which equipment they will install.
Alan Stainer Windows can’t up and change everything over to a new idea when something completely new idea in software comes along. Windows has to keep itself on a course because of many contractual agreements which keeps it backwards compatible with its existing hardware infrastructures across all platforms and servers. Linux set out to be something different and being much smaller in distribution and background hardware, and without contractual obligations allowed it to change its software and internal structures, during revisions.
Microsoft has a huge lead over Linux in the background, business and server areas because it owns the companies, hardware and patents which hardware vendors install to businesses. This has been a major failing of Linux in general to create a company and business model that addresses the requirements and training issues that businesses require. Microsoft has absolutely walked away with that. Apple has nothing to do with any background servers or businesses, and only deals with the desktops, laptops and other consumer products. If Linux, formed a dedicated company that could challenge Microsoft across all business areas, it would be able to compete much better, but Microsoft owns much of the equipment, the hardware, and the contracts with installation providers on which equipment they will install.
Alan Stainer Windows can’t up and change everything over to a new idea when something completely new idea in software comes along. Windows has to keep itself on a course because of many contractual agreements which keeps it backwards compatible with its existing hardware infrastructures across all platforms and servers. Linux set out to be something different and being much smaller in distribution and background hardware, and without contractual obligations allowed it to change its software and internal structures, during revisions.
Microsoft has a huge lead over Linux in the background, business and server areas because it owns the companies, hardware and patents which hardware vendors install to businesses. This has been a major failing of Linux in general to create a company and business model that addresses the requirements and training issues that businesses require. Microsoft has absolutely walked away with that. Apple has nothing to do with any background servers or businesses, and only deals with the desktops, laptops and other consumer products. If Linux, formed a dedicated company that could challenge Microsoft across all business areas, it would be able to compete much better, but Microsoft owns much of the equipment, the hardware, and the contracts with installation providers on which equipment they will install.
Alan Stainer Windows can’t up and change everything over to a new idea when something completely new idea in software comes along. Windows has to keep itself on a course because of many contractual agreements which keeps it backwards compatible with its existing hardware infrastructures across all platforms and servers. Linux set out to be something different and being much smaller in distribution and background hardware, and without contractual obligations allowed it to change its software and internal structures, during revisions.
Microsoft has a huge lead over Linux in the background, business and server areas because it owns the companies, hardware and patents which hardware vendors install to businesses. This has been a major failing of Linux in general to create a company and business model that addresses the requirements and training issues that businesses require. Microsoft has absolutely walked away with that. Apple has nothing to do with any background servers or businesses, and only deals with the desktops, laptops and other consumer products. If Linux, formed a dedicated company that could challenge Microsoft across all business areas, it would be able to compete much better, but Microsoft owns much of the equipment, the hardware, and the contracts with installation providers on which equipment they will install.
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith Many parts of windows are closed source, but it is by volume the largest operating system on the planet. Apple has a much higher closed source policy, and for many years you could not create programs for Apple without signing non disclosure agreements. Apple was taken to court several times for refusing to reveal more efficient code to outside software developers, so its own software would be more efficient than an outside companies.
Because windows is the largest, it is the most targeted by hackers. Other software and program providers have released documentation on how to interface with windows. There are decades worth of books dealing with how to create programs to interface with windows, and how to hack windows. There is a video on youtube about Bill Gates being called into congress to testify about Microsoft Explorer dominating the browser market over then Netscape browser (the fore runner to Firefox for those too young to remember) and several others. Everybody in the room was asked, who uses microsoft products, and who uses another operating system. It was unanimous by a show of hands that all 300 plus people there that everybody used Microsoft.
Firefox can’t say that it is a leader in web browser innovation because for the last decade it has not created anything that was not done by other browsers first. The Opera browser has provided more innovations such as tabs, but that’s getting off topic.
Because Apple was the most closed source, it has had the least amount of trouble by malware. Since Apple has opened up to allow windows to run in its hardware, its latest operating system has revealed more bugs because hackers are using their knowledge gained form hacking windows to now be able to hack and exploit Apple hardware. Anyone involved with Linux knows the platform has been targeted by hackers, there have been several major ones this year alone. As I said in a previous post, open source is a double edged sword. Open source means you are giving criminals your keys and a map to your house because they can see the code they hack line by line. Close source is like locking the doors to your house. Criminals have to use guesswork on where things are located in your home, so there is much more fumbling around. Open source does not mean the police will be there immediately to stop them. Open Source does not mean that having hundreds or thousands of people looking at the code will be able to find hackers. Open source to hackers means they can download the code they want to hack, and try over and over until they can do it without being discovered. Does that explain it?
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith Many parts of windows are closed source, but it is by volume the largest operating system on the planet. Apple has a much higher closed source policy, and for many years you could not create programs for Apple without signing non disclosure agreements. Apple was taken to court several times for refusing to reveal more efficient code to outside software developers, so its own software would be more efficient than an outside companies.
Because windows is the largest, it is the most targeted by hackers. Other software and program providers have released documentation on how to interface with windows. There are decades worth of books dealing with how to create programs to interface with windows, and how to hack windows. There is a video on youtube about Bill Gates being called into congress to testify about Microsoft Explorer dominating the browser market over then Netscape browser (the fore runner to Firefox for those too young to remember) and several others. Everybody in the room was asked, who uses microsoft products, and who uses another operating system. It was unanimous by a show of hands that all 300 plus people there that everybody used Microsoft.
Firefox can’t say that it is a leader in web browser innovation because for the last decade it has not created anything that was not done by other browsers first. The Opera browser has provided more innovations such as tabs, but that’s getting off topic.
Because Apple was the most closed source, it has had the least amount of trouble by malware. Since Apple has opened up to allow windows to run in its hardware, its latest operating system has revealed more bugs because hackers are using their knowledge gained form hacking windows to now be able to hack and exploit Apple hardware. Anyone involved with Linux knows the platform has been targeted by hackers, there have been several major ones this year alone. As I said in a previous post, open source is a double edged sword. Open source means you are giving criminals your keys and a map to your house because they can see the code they hack line by line. Close source is like locking the doors to your house. Criminals have to use guesswork on where things are located in your home, so there is much more fumbling around. Open source does not mean the police will be there immediately to stop them. Open Source does not mean that having hundreds or thousands of people looking at the code will be able to find hackers. Open source to hackers means they can download the code they want to hack, and try over and over until they can do it without being discovered. Does that explain it?
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith Many parts of windows are closed source, but it is by volume the largest operating system on the planet. Apple has a much higher closed source policy, and for many years you could not create programs for Apple without signing non disclosure agreements. Apple was taken to court several times for refusing to reveal more efficient code to outside software developers, so its own software would be more efficient than an outside companies.
Because windows is the largest, it is the most targeted by hackers. Other software and program providers have released documentation on how to interface with windows. There are decades worth of books dealing with how to create programs to interface with windows, and how to hack windows. There is a video on youtube about Bill Gates being called into congress to testify about Microsoft Explorer dominating the browser market over then Netscape browser (the fore runner to Firefox for those too young to remember) and several others. Everybody in the room was asked, who uses microsoft products, and who uses another operating system. It was unanimous by a show of hands that all 300 plus people there that everybody used Microsoft.
Firefox can’t say that it is a leader in web browser innovation because for the last decade it has not created anything that was not done by other browsers first. The Opera browser has provided more innovations such as tabs, but that’s getting off topic.
Because Apple was the most closed source, it has had the least amount of trouble by malware. Since Apple has opened up to allow windows to run in its hardware, its latest operating system has revealed more bugs because hackers are using their knowledge gained form hacking windows to now be able to hack and exploit Apple hardware. Anyone involved with Linux knows the platform has been targeted by hackers, there have been several major ones this year alone. As I said in a previous post, open source is a double edged sword. Open source means you are giving criminals your keys and a map to your house because they can see the code they hack line by line. Close source is like locking the doors to your house. Criminals have to use guesswork on where things are located in your home, so there is much more fumbling around. Open source does not mean the police will be there immediately to stop them. Open Source does not mean that having hundreds or thousands of people looking at the code will be able to find hackers. Open source to hackers means they can download the code they want to hack, and try over and over until they can do it without being discovered. Does that explain it?
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith Many parts of windows are closed source, but it is by volume the largest operating system on the planet. Apple has a much higher closed source policy, and for many years you could not create programs for Apple without signing non disclosure agreements. Apple was taken to court several times for refusing to reveal more efficient code to outside software developers, so its own software would be more efficient than an outside companies.
Because windows is the largest, it is the most targeted by hackers. Other software and program providers have released documentation on how to interface with windows. There are decades worth of books dealing with how to create programs to interface with windows, and how to hack windows. There is a video on youtube about Bill Gates being called into congress to testify about Microsoft Explorer dominating the browser market over then Netscape browser (the fore runner to Firefox for those too young to remember) and several others. Everybody in the room was asked, who uses microsoft products, and who uses another operating system. It was unanimous by a show of hands that all 300 plus people there that everybody used Microsoft.
Firefox can’t say that it is a leader in web browser innovation because for the last decade it has not created anything that was not done by other browsers first. The Opera browser has provided more innovations such as tabs, but that’s getting off topic.
Because Apple was the most closed source, it has had the least amount of trouble by malware. Since Apple has opened up to allow windows to run in its hardware, its latest operating system has revealed more bugs because hackers are using their knowledge gained form hacking windows to now be able to hack and exploit Apple hardware. Anyone involved with Linux knows the platform has been targeted by hackers, there have been several major ones this year alone. As I said in a previous post, open source is a double edged sword. Open source means you are giving criminals your keys and a map to your house because they can see the code they hack line by line. Close source is like locking the doors to your house. Criminals have to use guesswork on where things are located in your home, so there is much more fumbling around. Open source does not mean the police will be there immediately to stop them. Open Source does not mean that having hundreds or thousands of people looking at the code will be able to find hackers. Open source to hackers means they can download the code they want to hack, and try over and over until they can do it without being discovered. Does that explain it?
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith Many parts of windows are closed source, but it is by volume the largest operating system on the planet. Apple has a much higher closed source policy, and for many years you could not create programs for Apple without signing non disclosure agreements. Apple was taken to court several times for refusing to reveal more efficient code to outside software developers, so its own software would be more efficient than an outside companies.
Because windows is the largest, it is the most targeted by hackers. Other software and program providers have released documentation on how to interface with windows. There are decades worth of books dealing with how to create programs to interface with windows, and how to hack windows. There is a video on youtube about Bill Gates being called into congress to testify about Microsoft Explorer dominating the browser market over then Netscape browser (the fore runner to Firefox for those too young to remember) and several others. Everybody in the room was asked, who uses microsoft products, and who uses another operating system. It was unanimous by a show of hands that all 300 plus people there that everybody used Microsoft.
Firefox can’t say that it is a leader in web browser innovation because for the last decade it has not created anything that was not done by other browsers first. The Opera browser has provided more innovations such as tabs, but that’s getting off topic.
Because Apple was the most closed source, it has had the least amount of trouble by malware. Since Apple has opened up to allow windows to run in its hardware, its latest operating system has revealed more bugs because hackers are using their knowledge gained form hacking windows to now be able to hack and exploit Apple hardware. Anyone involved with Linux knows the platform has been targeted by hackers, there have been several major ones this year alone. As I said in a previous post, open source is a double edged sword. Open source means you are giving criminals your keys and a map to your house because they can see the code they hack line by line. Close source is like locking the doors to your house. Criminals have to use guesswork on where things are located in your home, so there is much more fumbling around. Open source does not mean the police will be there immediately to stop them. Open Source does not mean that having hundreds or thousands of people looking at the code will be able to find hackers. Open source to hackers means they can download the code they want to hack, and try over and over until they can do it without being discovered. Does that explain it?
Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith Many parts of windows are closed source, but it is by volume the largest operating system on the planet. Apple has a much higher closed source policy, and for many years you could not create programs for Apple without signing non disclosure agreements. Apple was taken to court several times for refusing to reveal more efficient code to outside software developers, so its own software would be more efficient than an outside companies.
Because windows is the largest, it is the most targeted by hackers. Other software and program providers have released documentation on how to interface with windows. There are decades worth of books dealing with how to create programs to interface with windows, and how to hack windows. There is a video on youtube about Bill Gates being called into congress to testify about Microsoft Explorer dominating the browser market over then Netscape browser (the fore runner to Firefox for those too young to remember) and several others. Everybody in the room was asked, who uses microsoft products, and who uses another operating system. It was unanimous by a show of hands that all 300 plus people there that everybody used Microsoft.
Firefox can’t say that it is a leader in web browser innovation because for the last decade it has not created anything that was not done by other browsers first. The Opera browser has provided more innovations such as tabs, but that’s getting off topic.
Because Apple was the most closed source, it has had the least amount of trouble by malware. Since Apple has opened up to allow windows to run in its hardware, its latest operating system has revealed more bugs because hackers are using their knowledge gained form hacking windows to now be able to hack and exploit Apple hardware. Anyone involved with Linux knows the platform has been targeted by hackers, there have been several major ones this year alone. As I said in a previous post, open source is a double edged sword. Open source means you are giving criminals your keys and a map to your house because they can see the code they hack line by line. Close source is like locking the doors to your house. Criminals have to use guesswork on where things are located in your home, so there is much more fumbling around. Open source does not mean the police will be there immediately to stop them. Open Source does not mean that having hundreds or thousands of people looking at the code will be able to find hackers. Open source to hackers means they can download the code they want to hack, and try over and over until they can do it without being discovered. Does that explain it?
MidnightVisions if we are talking about operating systems in general, then no. Windows is not the largest. For a start the majority of servers run Linux, but operating systems don’t just extend to server and desktop configurations. Microsoft never really got started in the mobile arena which is saturated with Android (based on the Linux kernel). There are vulnerabilities, but not many, because once again it is locked down by default and Open Source (that’s why there are so many variations depending on what the different hardware manufacturers decide to do).
Here’s a handy website about the Android Open Source Project. source.android.com – Android Open Source Project
MidnightVisions if we are talking about operating systems in general, then no. Windows is not the largest. For a start the majority of servers run Linux, but operating systems don’t just extend to server and desktop configurations. Microsoft never really got started in the mobile arena which is saturated with Android (based on the Linux kernel). There are vulnerabilities, but not many, because once again it is locked down by default and Open Source (that’s why there are so many variations depending on what the different hardware manufacturers decide to do).
Here’s a handy website about the Android Open Source Project. source.android.com – Android Open Source Project
MidnightVisions if we are talking about operating systems in general, then no. Windows is not the largest. For a start the majority of servers run Linux, but operating systems don’t just extend to server and desktop configurations. Microsoft never really got started in the mobile arena which is saturated with Android (based on the Linux kernel). There are vulnerabilities, but not many, because once again it is locked down by default and Open Source (that’s why there are so many variations depending on what the different hardware manufacturers decide to do).
Here’s a handy website about the Android Open Source Project. source.android.com – Android Open Source Project
MidnightVisions if we are talking about operating systems in general, then no. Windows is not the largest. For a start the majority of servers run Linux, but operating systems don’t just extend to server and desktop configurations. Microsoft never really got started in the mobile arena which is saturated with Android (based on the Linux kernel). There are vulnerabilities, but not many, because once again it is locked down by default and Open Source (that’s why there are so many variations depending on what the different hardware manufacturers decide to do).
Here’s a handy website about the Android Open Source Project. source.android.com – Android Open Source Project
MidnightVisions if we are talking about operating systems in general, then no. Windows is not the largest. For a start the majority of servers run Linux, but operating systems don’t just extend to server and desktop configurations. Microsoft never really got started in the mobile arena which is saturated with Android (based on the Linux kernel). There are vulnerabilities, but not many, because once again it is locked down by default and Open Source (that’s why there are so many variations depending on what the different hardware manufacturers decide to do).
Here’s a handy website about the Android Open Source Project. source.android.com – Android Open Source Project
MidnightVisions if we are talking about operating systems in general, then no. Windows is not the largest. For a start the majority of servers run Linux, but operating systems don’t just extend to server and desktop configurations. Microsoft never really got started in the mobile arena which is saturated with Android (based on the Linux kernel). There are vulnerabilities, but not many, because once again it is locked down by default and Open Source (that’s why there are so many variations depending on what the different hardware manufacturers decide to do).
Here’s a handy website about the Android Open Source Project. source.android.com – Android Open Source Project
I’m not convinced by the notion that open source is more vulnerable, but I do understand why some may think it, I’ve heard people use it as an excuse in the NHS a few times.
The source is helpful, but it’s not beyond the whit of any decent hacker to dissassemble binaries and work out what’s going on, and interestingly that’s how most of them do it in Windows, because they don’t have the source.
Even Microsoft got up to it with a recent patch where they’d lost the source code.
What’s more important is the model of the OS, how you gain access to the kernel and surrounding infrastructure.
Don’t get me wrong, Linux isn’t indestructible, and even more so if a company has no patching occurring (and oh so many don’t because it’s a testing headache).
At the end of the day, evidence shows which is most secure irrespective of open or close source.
I’m not convinced by the notion that open source is more vulnerable, but I do understand why some may think it, I’ve heard people use it as an excuse in the NHS a few times.
The source is helpful, but it’s not beyond the whit of any decent hacker to dissassemble binaries and work out what’s going on, and interestingly that’s how most of them do it in Windows, because they don’t have the source.
Even Microsoft got up to it with a recent patch where they’d lost the source code.
What’s more important is the model of the OS, how you gain access to the kernel and surrounding infrastructure.
Don’t get me wrong, Linux isn’t indestructible, and even more so if a company has no patching occurring (and oh so many don’t because it’s a testing headache).
At the end of the day, evidence shows which is most secure irrespective of open or close source.
I’m not convinced by the notion that open source is more vulnerable, but I do understand why some may think it, I’ve heard people use it as an excuse in the NHS a few times.
The source is helpful, but it’s not beyond the whit of any decent hacker to dissassemble binaries and work out what’s going on, and interestingly that’s how most of them do it in Windows, because they don’t have the source.
Even Microsoft got up to it with a recent patch where they’d lost the source code.
What’s more important is the model of the OS, how you gain access to the kernel and surrounding infrastructure.
Don’t get me wrong, Linux isn’t indestructible, and even more so if a company has no patching occurring (and oh so many don’t because it’s a testing headache).
At the end of the day, evidence shows which is most secure irrespective of open or close source.
I’m not convinced by the notion that open source is more vulnerable, but I do understand why some may think it, I’ve heard people use it as an excuse in the NHS a few times.
The source is helpful, but it’s not beyond the whit of any decent hacker to dissassemble binaries and work out what’s going on, and interestingly that’s how most of them do it in Windows, because they don’t have the source.
Even Microsoft got up to it with a recent patch where they’d lost the source code.
What’s more important is the model of the OS, how you gain access to the kernel and surrounding infrastructure.
Don’t get me wrong, Linux isn’t indestructible, and even more so if a company has no patching occurring (and oh so many don’t because it’s a testing headache).
At the end of the day, evidence shows which is most secure irrespective of open or close source.
I’m not convinced by the notion that open source is more vulnerable, but I do understand why some may think it, I’ve heard people use it as an excuse in the NHS a few times.
The source is helpful, but it’s not beyond the whit of any decent hacker to dissassemble binaries and work out what’s going on, and interestingly that’s how most of them do it in Windows, because they don’t have the source.
Even Microsoft got up to it with a recent patch where they’d lost the source code.
What’s more important is the model of the OS, how you gain access to the kernel and surrounding infrastructure.
Don’t get me wrong, Linux isn’t indestructible, and even more so if a company has no patching occurring (and oh so many don’t because it’s a testing headache).
At the end of the day, evidence shows which is most secure irrespective of open or close source.
I’m not convinced by the notion that open source is more vulnerable, but I do understand why some may think it, I’ve heard people use it as an excuse in the NHS a few times.
The source is helpful, but it’s not beyond the whit of any decent hacker to dissassemble binaries and work out what’s going on, and interestingly that’s how most of them do it in Windows, because they don’t have the source.
Even Microsoft got up to it with a recent patch where they’d lost the source code.
What’s more important is the model of the OS, how you gain access to the kernel and surrounding infrastructure.
Don’t get me wrong, Linux isn’t indestructible, and even more so if a company has no patching occurring (and oh so many don’t because it’s a testing headache).
At the end of the day, evidence shows which is most secure irrespective of open or close source.
MidnightVisions like I said you’re falling into old fallacies and argue like we’re in 1998, we’re not.
Having access to source code doesn’t mean what you think it means. For a start the code changes and evolve all the time. By the time a hacker finds an exploit, a patch will have already been released. To take your analogy, the source code is like the bricks and mortar of your house, you find cracks, you patch them up before they create more problems but being open source isn’t like constantly leaving your door open. You need the right key and for things like servers you can also lock down visitors who came by a route other than what you authorised.
Windows on the other hand is like only being able to use one contractor to fix your house who works every other Tuesday so when a problem appears it takes longer to fix because only a handful of people know how to do that and worse you can’t do it yourself.
Do you understand now?
Linux is not just a desktop operating system, it powers most of what you know as “the cloud” but also it runs on over 2 billion (with a b) Android handsets. It’s the underlying kernel for systems like Chromebooks, Sony Playstations and a wide range of devices and services you wouldn’t even think about. If it was such a risk to be hacked you’d have thought it would never have become such a behemoth.
MidnightVisions like I said you’re falling into old fallacies and argue like we’re in 1998, we’re not.
Having access to source code doesn’t mean what you think it means. For a start the code changes and evolve all the time. By the time a hacker finds an exploit, a patch will have already been released. To take your analogy, the source code is like the bricks and mortar of your house, you find cracks, you patch them up before they create more problems but being open source isn’t like constantly leaving your door open. You need the right key and for things like servers you can also lock down visitors who came by a route other than what you authorised.
Windows on the other hand is like only being able to use one contractor to fix your house who works every other Tuesday so when a problem appears it takes longer to fix because only a handful of people know how to do that and worse you can’t do it yourself.
Do you understand now?
Linux is not just a desktop operating system, it powers most of what you know as “the cloud” but also it runs on over 2 billion (with a b) Android handsets. It’s the underlying kernel for systems like Chromebooks, Sony Playstations and a wide range of devices and services you wouldn’t even think about. If it was such a risk to be hacked you’d have thought it would never have become such a behemoth.
MidnightVisions like I said you’re falling into old fallacies and argue like we’re in 1998, we’re not.
Having access to source code doesn’t mean what you think it means. For a start the code changes and evolve all the time. By the time a hacker finds an exploit, a patch will have already been released. To take your analogy, the source code is like the bricks and mortar of your house, you find cracks, you patch them up before they create more problems but being open source isn’t like constantly leaving your door open. You need the right key and for things like servers you can also lock down visitors who came by a route other than what you authorised.
Windows on the other hand is like only being able to use one contractor to fix your house who works every other Tuesday so when a problem appears it takes longer to fix because only a handful of people know how to do that and worse you can’t do it yourself.
Do you understand now?
Linux is not just a desktop operating system, it powers most of what you know as “the cloud” but also it runs on over 2 billion (with a b) Android handsets. It’s the underlying kernel for systems like Chromebooks, Sony Playstations and a wide range of devices and services you wouldn’t even think about. If it was such a risk to be hacked you’d have thought it would never have become such a behemoth.
MidnightVisions like I said you’re falling into old fallacies and argue like we’re in 1998, we’re not.
Having access to source code doesn’t mean what you think it means. For a start the code changes and evolve all the time. By the time a hacker finds an exploit, a patch will have already been released. To take your analogy, the source code is like the bricks and mortar of your house, you find cracks, you patch them up before they create more problems but being open source isn’t like constantly leaving your door open. You need the right key and for things like servers you can also lock down visitors who came by a route other than what you authorised.
Windows on the other hand is like only being able to use one contractor to fix your house who works every other Tuesday so when a problem appears it takes longer to fix because only a handful of people know how to do that and worse you can’t do it yourself.
Do you understand now?
Linux is not just a desktop operating system, it powers most of what you know as “the cloud” but also it runs on over 2 billion (with a b) Android handsets. It’s the underlying kernel for systems like Chromebooks, Sony Playstations and a wide range of devices and services you wouldn’t even think about. If it was such a risk to be hacked you’d have thought it would never have become such a behemoth.
MidnightVisions like I said you’re falling into old fallacies and argue like we’re in 1998, we’re not.
Having access to source code doesn’t mean what you think it means. For a start the code changes and evolve all the time. By the time a hacker finds an exploit, a patch will have already been released. To take your analogy, the source code is like the bricks and mortar of your house, you find cracks, you patch them up before they create more problems but being open source isn’t like constantly leaving your door open. You need the right key and for things like servers you can also lock down visitors who came by a route other than what you authorised.
Windows on the other hand is like only being able to use one contractor to fix your house who works every other Tuesday so when a problem appears it takes longer to fix because only a handful of people know how to do that and worse you can’t do it yourself.
Do you understand now?
Linux is not just a desktop operating system, it powers most of what you know as “the cloud” but also it runs on over 2 billion (with a b) Android handsets. It’s the underlying kernel for systems like Chromebooks, Sony Playstations and a wide range of devices and services you wouldn’t even think about. If it was such a risk to be hacked you’d have thought it would never have become such a behemoth.
MidnightVisions like I said you’re falling into old fallacies and argue like we’re in 1998, we’re not.
Having access to source code doesn’t mean what you think it means. For a start the code changes and evolve all the time. By the time a hacker finds an exploit, a patch will have already been released. To take your analogy, the source code is like the bricks and mortar of your house, you find cracks, you patch them up before they create more problems but being open source isn’t like constantly leaving your door open. You need the right key and for things like servers you can also lock down visitors who came by a route other than what you authorised.
Windows on the other hand is like only being able to use one contractor to fix your house who works every other Tuesday so when a problem appears it takes longer to fix because only a handful of people know how to do that and worse you can’t do it yourself.
Do you understand now?
Linux is not just a desktop operating system, it powers most of what you know as “the cloud” but also it runs on over 2 billion (with a b) Android handsets. It’s the underlying kernel for systems like Chromebooks, Sony Playstations and a wide range of devices and services you wouldn’t even think about. If it was such a risk to be hacked you’d have thought it would never have become such a behemoth.
Its not about fixing, and its not about how long it takes to fix, and its not about how many people are looking at the code to fix it, its about how easy you make it for the code to be hacked. Open source means I can download the code and start hacking the code immediately.
Not everybody can decomple binaries or complete programs. That does not give you the programmers comments for each line of code. Microsofts programmers comments are not included with windows distributions, its on a separate disk. Even if a person decompiled the code, there is no programmers notes included. Open source programs include everything, every line of code with the programmers comments in each line of code, to explain what the code is doing, or suppose to do. If the person in a windows program is decompiling the software does not understand what the code is trying to do or accomplish, he has no access to the programmers comments that explains it. Open source programs include all notes and programmers comments required to understand what each line of the code is doing. That alone makes open source programs MUCH easier to experiment, hack and tamper with. It has absolutely nothing to do with antivirus programs, or who, or how many people look at the code to fix bugs and malware damage. Its about how easy it is to get the code, and the background information that makes it work. I hope that explains it for you.
Its not about fixing, and its not about how long it takes to fix, and its not about how many people are looking at the code to fix it, its about how easy you make it for the code to be hacked. Open source means I can download the code and start hacking the code immediately.
Not everybody can decomple binaries or complete programs. That does not give you the programmers comments for each line of code. Microsofts programmers comments are not included with windows distributions, its on a separate disk. Even if a person decompiled the code, there is no programmers notes included. Open source programs include everything, every line of code with the programmers comments in each line of code, to explain what the code is doing, or suppose to do. If the person in a windows program is decompiling the software does not understand what the code is trying to do or accomplish, he has no access to the programmers comments that explains it. Open source programs include all notes and programmers comments required to understand what each line of the code is doing. That alone makes open source programs MUCH easier to experiment, hack and tamper with. It has absolutely nothing to do with antivirus programs, or who, or how many people look at the code to fix bugs and malware damage. Its about how easy it is to get the code, and the background information that makes it work. I hope that explains it for you.
Its not about fixing, and its not about how long it takes to fix, and its not about how many people are looking at the code to fix it, its about how easy you make it for the code to be hacked. Open source means I can download the code and start hacking the code immediately.
Not everybody can decomple binaries or complete programs. That does not give you the programmers comments for each line of code. Microsofts programmers comments are not included with windows distributions, its on a separate disk. Even if a person decompiled the code, there is no programmers notes included. Open source programs include everything, every line of code with the programmers comments in each line of code, to explain what the code is doing, or suppose to do. If the person in a windows program is decompiling the software does not understand what the code is trying to do or accomplish, he has no access to the programmers comments that explains it. Open source programs include all notes and programmers comments required to understand what each line of the code is doing. That alone makes open source programs MUCH easier to experiment, hack and tamper with. It has absolutely nothing to do with antivirus programs, or who, or how many people look at the code to fix bugs and malware damage. Its about how easy it is to get the code, and the background information that makes it work. I hope that explains it for you.
Its not about fixing, and its not about how long it takes to fix, and its not about how many people are looking at the code to fix it, its about how easy you make it for the code to be hacked. Open source means I can download the code and start hacking the code immediately.
Not everybody can decomple binaries or complete programs. That does not give you the programmers comments for each line of code. Microsofts programmers comments are not included with windows distributions, its on a separate disk. Even if a person decompiled the code, there is no programmers notes included. Open source programs include everything, every line of code with the programmers comments in each line of code, to explain what the code is doing, or suppose to do. If the person in a windows program is decompiling the software does not understand what the code is trying to do or accomplish, he has no access to the programmers comments that explains it. Open source programs include all notes and programmers comments required to understand what each line of the code is doing. That alone makes open source programs MUCH easier to experiment, hack and tamper with. It has absolutely nothing to do with antivirus programs, or who, or how many people look at the code to fix bugs and malware damage. Its about how easy it is to get the code, and the background information that makes it work. I hope that explains it for you.
Its not about fixing, and its not about how long it takes to fix, and its not about how many people are looking at the code to fix it, its about how easy you make it for the code to be hacked. Open source means I can download the code and start hacking the code immediately.
Not everybody can decomple binaries or complete programs. That does not give you the programmers comments for each line of code. Microsofts programmers comments are not included with windows distributions, its on a separate disk. Even if a person decompiled the code, there is no programmers notes included. Open source programs include everything, every line of code with the programmers comments in each line of code, to explain what the code is doing, or suppose to do. If the person in a windows program is decompiling the software does not understand what the code is trying to do or accomplish, he has no access to the programmers comments that explains it. Open source programs include all notes and programmers comments required to understand what each line of the code is doing. That alone makes open source programs MUCH easier to experiment, hack and tamper with. It has absolutely nothing to do with antivirus programs, or who, or how many people look at the code to fix bugs and malware damage. Its about how easy it is to get the code, and the background information that makes it work. I hope that explains it for you.
Its not about fixing, and its not about how long it takes to fix, and its not about how many people are looking at the code to fix it, its about how easy you make it for the code to be hacked. Open source means I can download the code and start hacking the code immediately.
Not everybody can decomple binaries or complete programs. That does not give you the programmers comments for each line of code. Microsofts programmers comments are not included with windows distributions, its on a separate disk. Even if a person decompiled the code, there is no programmers notes included. Open source programs include everything, every line of code with the programmers comments in each line of code, to explain what the code is doing, or suppose to do. If the person in a windows program is decompiling the software does not understand what the code is trying to do or accomplish, he has no access to the programmers comments that explains it. Open source programs include all notes and programmers comments required to understand what each line of the code is doing. That alone makes open source programs MUCH easier to experiment, hack and tamper with. It has absolutely nothing to do with antivirus programs, or who, or how many people look at the code to fix bugs and malware damage. Its about how easy it is to get the code, and the background information that makes it work. I hope that explains it for you.
MidnightVisions I appreciate you trying to make yourself sound like you know what you’re talking about but this conversation started within the context of security and vulnerability and the need for anti virus software (just look up at Alan Stainer post about the trustworthiness of Kaspersky). Now you’re just changing the subject entirely.
The fact that open source software has its source code available for people to modify is the whole point. Just read the standard GPL licence
MidnightVisions I appreciate you trying to make yourself sound like you know what you’re talking about but this conversation started within the context of security and vulnerability and the need for anti virus software (just look up at Alan Stainer post about the trustworthiness of Kaspersky). Now you’re just changing the subject entirely.
The fact that open source software has its source code available for people to modify is the whole point. Just read the standard GPL licence
MidnightVisions I appreciate you trying to make yourself sound like you know what you’re talking about but this conversation started within the context of security and vulnerability and the need for anti virus software (just look up at Alan Stainer post about the trustworthiness of Kaspersky). Now you’re just changing the subject entirely.
The fact that open source software has its source code available for people to modify is the whole point. Just read the standard GPL licence
MidnightVisions I appreciate you trying to make yourself sound like you know what you’re talking about but this conversation started within the context of security and vulnerability and the need for anti virus software (just look up at Alan Stainer post about the trustworthiness of Kaspersky). Now you’re just changing the subject entirely.
The fact that open source software has its source code available for people to modify is the whole point. Just read the standard GPL licence
MidnightVisions I appreciate you trying to make yourself sound like you know what you’re talking about but this conversation started within the context of security and vulnerability and the need for anti virus software (just look up at Alan Stainer post about the trustworthiness of Kaspersky). Now you’re just changing the subject entirely.
The fact that open source software has its source code available for people to modify is the whole point. Just read the standard GPL licence
MidnightVisions I appreciate you trying to make yourself sound like you know what you’re talking about but this conversation started within the context of security and vulnerability and the need for anti virus software (just look up at Alan Stainer post about the trustworthiness of Kaspersky). Now you’re just changing the subject entirely.
The fact that open source software has its source code available for people to modify is the whole point. Just read the standard GPL licence
The Government of India is calling out bad apps that act, are or behave like a hacked Kaspersky. So that’s on topic, and apology accepted. : )
indiatimes.com – The Government Has Named 42 Apps “Chinese Spyware”, Including Big Names Like TrueCaller – Indiatimes.com
The Government of India is calling out bad apps that act, are or behave like a hacked Kaspersky. So that’s on topic, and apology accepted. : )
indiatimes.com – The Government Has Named 42 Apps “Chinese Spyware”, Including Big Names Like TrueCaller – Indiatimes.com
The Government of India is calling out bad apps that act, are or behave like a hacked Kaspersky. So that’s on topic, and apology accepted. : )
indiatimes.com – The Government Has Named 42 Apps “Chinese Spyware”, Including Big Names Like TrueCaller – Indiatimes.com
The Government of India is calling out bad apps that act, are or behave like a hacked Kaspersky. So that’s on topic, and apology accepted. : )
indiatimes.com – The Government Has Named 42 Apps “Chinese Spyware”, Including Big Names Like TrueCaller – Indiatimes.com
The Government of India is calling out bad apps that act, are or behave like a hacked Kaspersky. So that’s on topic, and apology accepted. : )
indiatimes.com – The Government Has Named 42 Apps “Chinese Spyware”, Including Big Names Like TrueCaller – Indiatimes.com
The Government of India is calling out bad apps that act, are or behave like a hacked Kaspersky. So that’s on topic, and apology accepted. : )
indiatimes.com – The Government Has Named 42 Apps “Chinese Spyware”, Including Big Names Like TrueCaller – Indiatimes.com