Doomgaze: So you believe that BSD is so high and mighty that it is absolutely secure? BSD is the god of all OSes?
[Message Edited]

Nope, its not absolutely secure.
The core of it is, but that would be nothing but the core of the system running.

And thats worthless without the software required to do its job.

apache is notorious for exploits
iis is notorious for exploits
sendmail
almost every ftpd
xservers

(edited for bad taste
[Message Edited]

I don't get that page, Static. What is it?
People who hack into web sites make their report to that web site?

Anyhow, if 85% of the webservers attacks are againsty Linux Webservers, I'd say it's understandable since 85% of the web servers run Linux.

An no, no OS is absolutely secure, just like no house is absolutely secure. On the other hand, some are more secure than others. Fact remains that Linux is more secure than Windows 2000/XP (lets not even mention Windows 9x). Now if the amins neglect to make the necessary updates in order to patch security holes are they are discovered, well then it's the admin that is to blame not the OS. It's like buying the best security system for your house and leaving the windows opened.

Linux is still less exploited then server 2k. That does not make it more secure. paxx to suggest that linux is running on 85% of hosting servers is certainly hyperbole.

Actually 64% of the web is running Apache webserver (roughly)
Which is run on Linux, Unix, Windows, and just about every other platform made.

So no, 85% of web servers do NOT run linux.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/02/july_2003_web_server_survey.html

very current servey regarding web server usage by OS

On the other hand, some are more secure than others. Fact remains that Linux is more secure than Windows 2000/XP (lets not even mention Windows 9x). Now if the amins neglect to make the necessary updates in order to patch security holes are they are discovered, well then it's the admin that is to blame not the OS. It's like buying the best security system for your house and leaving the windows opened.

Well stated paxx. There is more to system security than what OS you run.

I can make a win2k or xp webserver just as secure as any linux server.

Dosen't matter the platform.

Well stated paxx. There is more to system security than what OS you run.

TechCat this is what others including myself have been trying to put across to you about Linux. I find linux an incredibly useful OS for many reasons.

no OS is absolutely secure, just like no house is absolutely secure. On the other hand, some are more secure than others. Fact remains that Linux is more secure than Windows 2000/XP (lets not even mention Windows 9x). Now if the amins neglect to make the necessary updates in order to patch security holes are they are discovered, well then it's the admin that is to blame not the OS. It's like buying the best security system for your house and leaving the windows opened.

Paxx the info I was volanteering about linux admins was not a knock on the OS merely one illustration as to why Linux hacks are on the rise. And yes I agree the No OS is perfect. BTW I like the pun about "leaving the windows opened"

speaking of linux, tech check your mail.

I got your e-mail. You can instant message me at [email protected] on MSN if you wish.

thx tech but linux will have to wait a little longer...

Hmmm ... I got involved in customizing Windows so that I could create something like the desktops available on UNIX systems and the alternate desktop for Windows 3.x produced by Central Point Software back in the day. Having spent many years developing on Windows and many flavors of UNIX, I can say this about the Linux/Windows debate.

Windows is friendly, has an enormous variety of easily installed major applications available, is a resource hog, and is still (even with XP) unstable. I've had numerous occassions where Ctrl-Alt-Del didn't work and I've had to reboot.

UNIX (including Linux) requires more user sophistication, is limited in the available major applications, but has lots of very useful utilities, is extremely stable, and offers much more user control. And it's FAST.

Bottom line, I found myself FTPing frequently between the systems, doing routine work like editing and email on Windows and running critical programs on UNIX. It all depends on what you want to do and what you want your computer to do.

Finally, unlike Billyware, with UNIX you're not limited to the GUI that comes packaged with the OS, so the Linux people have less need to spend their time customizing the interface and can spend more time doing real work -- like creating a new game for Windows users.

There are some pretty good open source alternatives to commercial applications only available to Windows. For example, I use to use Money on Windows to balance my checkbook, but later I discovered GNUcash on Mandrake 9.1. I migrated to GNUcash because I got sick and tired of all the tutorial crap that automatically plays in Money sometimes.

This really does not even make sense for you to have even said anything of the kind for having a Linux version of WC, because linux is the most skinnable OS there is out there.

For it's major shells i bet there have to be more than 100s of different skins, and people are making new shells all of the time. Just go to www.google.com/linux and do a search for shell skins...

Of course anyone that had actually tried linux would allready know this... Go Fig.

I think that all of the Windows OS's would be better if they have that support base that Linux has, and remember, Microsoft has been around with windows since 1980, and it took them this long to implement skinning, as of where linux was made in 1995, and that had it long before win98 came out.

And yes, i use WinXP and Linux, Mandrake, Caldera and Suse to be exact. Open your mind, try Linux.

The downside to all the different shells for Linux is if you have one favorite desktop environment you use a lot, in my case KDE, there are not a lot of skins out there. www.kde-look.org does not have much compared to Wincustomize.com. There are some really nice skins and icons at kde-look though.

That is true about kde-look, but all it needs is a good fanbase to go off of. If they had 1/2 the people that WC has, then there would be a lot more skins for KDE, but i also ment Gnome and Gnome 2 for the skinning. (although i perfer KDE... )

But just take a look at how many people on WC have downloaded the converted Everaldo "Crystal" Icons, and used them for WindowsBlinds and even ObjectDock! the graphics MUST be good if windows users can "Borrow" them, you know?

Yes Crystal is a great icon theme. I have them both on Linux and on Windows. In my opinion, they seem to fit better in KDE than in Windows. Have you seen the Aqua Fusion icons for KDE? They are pretty well done and I believe they would be popular here if somebody decides to get permission and port them to IconPackager.

Finally, unlike Billyware, with UNIX you're not limited to the GUI that comes packaged with the OS, so the Linux people have less need to spend their time customizing the interface and can spend more time doing real work -- like creating a new game for Windows users.

You're forgetting that Linux GUIs need to be customized as well, and considering Linux, it'll probably take even longer to customize that than to customize Windows.