banimod / etpro / ettv forums

the last quote is from the honeypot survey which u based ur 3month claim on; so they on the payroll to?

ps. 5k? lol hes probs paid that an hr

>>steven! wrote:linux average size is summet like 2 million lines of code;

Depends on what you include in the calculation. According to this Debian 2.2 contained more than 55 million lines.

>>steven! wrote:windows xp on the other hand is sumwhere in the region of 10 to the 8.

40 million according to this.

Of course those numbers include a lot of stuff that isn't enabled or even installed by default (especially for a Linux distro).

Imbroglio wrote:READ -------> THIS

wow its on slashdot, that bastion of objective operating system news.

IMHO what you do with your pc has 100x more influence than which OS you run, and anyway for every study or "professional opinion" on what Os is "better" there's another one saying the same for some other OS. who fucking cares.

DG wrote:...what you do with your pc has 100x more influence than which OS you run...

Welcome to the only intelligent comment thus far.

i have to wonder how this thread degenerated from a bugreport into a genitalia size comparison.

e-penis is a big (pardon the pun) deal with your modern young gamer

listen just because i have a tiny penis doesn't make you any better than me

anyway, i was just getting sick of the constant influx of comments he has about every single topic posted, so i acted out of stupidity, i'll take the blame for it

>>steven! wrote:hahaha roll on the naive nubs;

full control with backdoor installed takes less than 2mins and making windows enter a reboot loop takes less than a minute.

bear in mind this is with both linux and windows unpatched (straight out the box)

But u have to INSTALL the backdoor first and THAT takes 3 months. And what fool would run an unpatched Linux system connected to the internet for longer than an hour? Only a read-only W32 luser.

Linux isn't more or less secure than Microsoft, in the respect that it's certainly possible to create viruses and worms that target Linux and to initiate intrusion attacks against Linux"

linux benefits alot from being an obscure os/ just like firefox does for being an obscure browser (not for long ) ; systems with the larger market share will always be attacked the most, as there is more to gain

Linux and Firefox obscure? If there's something obscure, it's WinDOS and M$ Internet Exploder. U can get full sources to Linux and Firefox but u can't get them for WinDOS or IE.

Linux and Firefox benefit from open source because the patch can be made and available for download in less than 24 hours. Not like Micro$loth patches that take half a year to finish and then bring more new holes to the system.

BTW, I've seen some page that tracks known security holes and patches. Linux distributions had a few (1 to 3) marked as low-danger, WinDOS XP with SP2 had about 25 and 5 marked critical (around 60 more holes fully or partially fixed). Do u still think WinDOS is secure?

But what should I explain to someone who doesn't even know that hackers have better things to do than cracking someone else's computers.

no installing the backdoor takes a matter of like 10seconds.

ok how can an os (the windows family has about 90% market share) and a browser (with 65ish% market share) be classed as obscure? this means that they are used by the majority of users. whereas the latest figures for firefox only give is a 20% market share which is a huge leap forward for them and is justified with the range of features it offers. whereas linux has a pathetic 5% marketshare (which hasnt changed much at all in yrs)

however: just because more exploits have been found in windows os and IE does not mean they are any less secure technically, they have more users so ofc are going to find more problems with a larger testing pool. i guess we will all see how secure firefox is when it gets a bigger chunk of pie and becomes more of a target for hackers. (i am a firefox user and have been for nearly 5months; i just wish they distributed the browser with its true advantages of tabbed browsing/ better searching/ better bookmarking / faster page loading. rather than saying it is more secure. this topic is also a common discussion on the mozillazine forums).

:: being obscure does not mean the source code is available or not; in this sense it means they are not used by a majority. OFC open source means patches can be made and distributed fairly quickly, but hackers also have access to the source code; and patches will only be made once an exploit has been brought to the developers attention.

ps. stop with the geeky "winDOS" "Micro$loth" u aint impressing anyone by not being able to refer to products by their real names.

>>steven! wrote:no installing the backdoor takes a matter of like 10seconds.

Ok, install a backdoor on my machine. Time starts now.

>>steven! wrote:no installing the backdoor takes a matter of like 10seconds.

Assuming u have full access with root privileges. Do u have them on clean fully patched and well protected Linux system? Not for next 3 moths

ok how can an os (the windows family has about 90% market share) and a browser (with 65ish% market share) be classed as obscure? this means that they are used by the majority of users. whereas the latest figures for firefox only give is a 20% market share which is a huge leap forward for them and is justified with the range of features it offers. whereas linux has a pathetic 5% marketshare (which hasnt changed much at all in yrs)

M$ software may not be obscure in user interface but it hell IS obscure in internal design. That's why it takes so long to make so crappy patch on so many holes. Linux on the other hand is very clearly designed because it would be impossible to get it to this point without clear design.

however: just because more exploits have been found in windows os and IE does not mean they are any less secure technically, they have more users so ofc are going to find more problems with a larger testing pool. i guess we will all see how secure firefox is when it gets a bigger chunk of pie and becomes more of a target for hackers. (i am a firefox user and have been for nearly 5months; i just wish they distributed the browser with its true advantages of tabbed browsing/ better searching/ better bookmarking / faster page loading. rather than saying it is more secure. this topic is also a common discussion on the mozillazine forums).

There's a question how good is that testing pool for M$ crap when lots of their users can't even describe the problem and those who can have no access to sources to pin it down. The millions of Linux testers on the other hand can fix the problem on spot and just upload patch in a few minutes.

:: being obscure does not mean the source code is available or not; in this sense it means they are not used by a majority. OFC open source means patches can be made and distributed fairly quickly, but hackers also have access to the source code; and patches will only be made once an exploit has been brought to the developers attention.

If the majority would always choose superior product, Bill Gates would starve to death.

And of course hackers have access to the sources. Hackers are the guys who write bugfixes for Linux.

ps. stop with the geeky "winDOS" "Micro$loth" u aint impressing anyone by not being able to refer to products by their real names.

Then go ahead, find the difference between hacker and cracker and refer to Linux by its full name.

>>steven! wrote: systems with the larger market share will always be attacked the most, as there is more to gain

there are actual programs to scan for windows xp users and their passwords. (just proving ur point)
i was never interested in hacking, since now im fully aware of the fact EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET IS BEING RECORDED, NO HACKER WILL EVER SURVIVE. YOU ARE HOPELESS! FEAR!!!