Is uncle Billy a pleb?

[PHEAPLE]

I was wondering why is windows so insecure, and I found out that the possible cause may be users`: they don't install AV and so on.. more details here

[nellie2]

:D Tell me about it, I've lost count of the number of times people have told me that they turned their AV off because it was intefering with a game or they couldn't get a download or because it made their system run slow or they didn't have enough hard disk space for it!!!

Etc etc etc

[PHEAPLE]

have you read that post at least?

[nellie2]

Oh yes I read it.. :flowers:

[PHEAPLE]

congrats.

then i dont understand your question..

[nellie2]

I didn't ask a question, I was agreeing with you!

[-pops-]

?

I don't understand the thread.

Assuming "Billy" refers to Mr Gates, the creator of Microsoft and "pleb" is an abbreviation of plebeian, I don't see how these fit together or fit with the premise of the question posed in respect of Windows insecurity.

[AlanHo]

I agree you were agreeing with him nelllie. I also agree with your sentiments.

However - Like pops - I don't understand the thread. In my case because when I tried to click on the site I kept getting a "The page cannot be displayed" message, hence I was not able to read it.

[nellie2]

The link takes you to a blog... which is basically going on about people always blaming Microsoft for things going wrong. There are a few sweeping statements made that I wouldn't really agree with, but I do agree with the sentiment of the article in as much as it is usually the user and not the operating system or the hard ware that has caused the problem in the first place.

[PHEAPLE]

according to macmillan english, pleb (not plebeian, though it's possible they mean the same thing) is:

pleb / pleb / noun [C] Br E informal - an insulting word for an ordinary person. This word shows that the speaker thinks ordinary people are not important or intelligent.

I'd note that in this case the "speaker" mentioned above is those who say those things quoted in the post.

And uncle billy is bill gates, as he's called by those guys.

P.S.: I'm not that kinda proud windows user. I use Slackware Linux too, so I have an experience on both sides, I said what I said out of experience.

[andsome]

Maybe you don't realise that Nellie is one of the top computer security experts in the country, and has been recognised as such by Microsoft.

[PHEAPLE]

But i realised. But I dunno where I said I don't trust nellie, or I denied what he said.

[nellie2]

I wouldn't put it quite like that andsome :blink:

As far as I can see, PHEAPLE was just showing us a point of view and saying that the author had a good point.

[PHEAPLE]

hehe:) i'm the proud author..

[nellie2]

:D :D

[trackrat]

Having just read the blog, why is it that the author finds it necesscary to use bad language.

It seems to me that it is easier to use bad language these days than to find another word that describes the same emotion.

Where ever you go to these days (cafes, clubs, pubs etc) all you seem to here is fowl language and the women are as bad as the men.

[scuzzman]

Respectfully, I disagree with your blog post. The principle reasons Windows is inherently insecure is:

1) The integration of a Internet Explorer into the OS kernel.

2) Lack of a basic security model when installed as a desktop workstation, leaving the user and any programs they run, knowingly or not, with write access to system internals. *Reportedly fixed in Vista, to a degree*

3) The RPC control model

4) A predominately ignorant user-base (comes with user-friendly to a degree)

Aside form these things, Windows can be secure. Windows 2000 Pro was, IMHO, the best thing to ever come out of Redmond and is something I'd consider a real OS (aside from the IE integration, it's pretty secure when appropriately tweaked).

Security though obscurity is a flawed theory. The reason is: While it is impressive, to a Black Hat, to own 10,000 Windows boxes, it is even more impressive to own 2000 Linux boxes because they're that much more capable (due to an uninhibited implementation of Berkely Sockets).

As usual, this all is IMHO, and can be (dis)regarded as such.

[deuces wild]

hehe:) i'm the proud author..

Foul language and misspelled words.............nothing I would be proud to admit to being the author of. ;)

[AlanHo]

Foul language and misspelled words.............nothing I would be proud to admit to being the author of. ;)

Hear hear.....how true.

[PHEAPLE]

Respectfully, I disagree with your blog post. The principle reasons Windows is inherently insecure is:

1) The integration of a Internet Explorer into the OS kernel.

2) Lack of a basic security model when installed as a desktop workstation, leaving the user and any programs they run, knowingly or not, with write access to system internals. *Reportedly fixed in Vista, to a degree*

3) The RPC control model

4) A predominately ignorant user-base (comes with user-friendly to a degree)

Aside form these things, Windows can be secure. Windows 2000 Pro was, IMHO, the best thing to ever come out of Redmond and is something I'd consider a real OS (aside from the IE integration, it's pretty secure when appropriately tweaked).

Security though obscurity is a flawed theory. The reason is: While it is impressive, to a Black Hat, to own 10,000 Windows boxes, it is even more impressive to own 2000 Linux boxes because they're that much more capable (due to an uninhibited implementation of Berkely Sockets).

As usual, this all is IMHO, and can be (dis)regarded as such.

I totally agree with you, I didn't say windows does not have it's problems. But as you said appropriately tweaked, and I'd add here an A-V plus a SP.. (I dunno if these are inside your tweaking or opposite..)

And I agree with the windows 2000 thing. It's my favourite version, but I have a problem.. My sister sat on my driver CD, so it broke, and I don't find any windows drivers on the net around. So I need XP, which bundles them..

@others: imho doesn't matter what style of language do I use, if I want I can speak "regularly" as well. English ain't my native language, and I learn regular british english in school.. I have to exercise so-called slang somewhere.. and I'm proud of myself. I don't care if you care or not..

[AlanHo]

I'm pleased you can be so proud of yourself - I wish I could claim such fluency in a foreign language and be so profane without any sense of shame. Do the right thing and slavishly copy your peers - at least you will garner their respect.

[scuzzman]

Respectfully, I disagree with your blog post. The principle reasons Windows is inherently insecure is:

1) The integration of a Internet Explorer into the OS kernel.

2) Lack of a basic security model when installed as a desktop workstation, leaving the user and any programs they run, knowingly or not, with write access to system internals. *Reportedly fixed in Vista, to a degree*

3) The RPC control model

4) A predominately ignorant user-base (comes with user-friendly to a degree)

Aside form these things, Windows can be secure. Windows 2000 Pro was, IMHO, the best thing to ever come out of Redmond and is something I'd consider a real OS (aside from the IE integration, it's pretty secure when appropriately tweaked).

Security though obscurity is a flawed theory. The reason is: While it is impressive, to a Black Hat, to own 10,000 Windows boxes, it is even more impressive to own 2000 Linux boxes because they're that much more capable (due to an uninhibited implementation of Berkely Sockets).

As usual, this all is IMHO, and can be (dis)regarded as such.

I totally agree with you, I didn't say windows does not have it's problems. But as you said appropriately tweaked, and I'd add here an A-V plus a SP.. (I dunno if these are inside your tweaking or opposite..)

And I agree with the windows 2000 thing. It's my favourite version, but I have a problem.. My sister sat on my driver CD, so it broke, and I don't find any windows drivers on the net around. So I need XP, which bundles them..

@others: imho doesn't matter what style of language do I use, if I want I can speak "regularly" as well. English ain't my native language, and I learn regular british english in school.. I have to exercise so-called slang somewhere.. and I'm proud of myself. I don't care if you care or not..

You can't possibly "totally agree" with me. Security through obscurity is your principle argument in your "article".

[PHEAPLE]

Respectfully, I disagree with your blog post. The principle reasons Windows is inherently insecure is:

1) The integration of a Internet Explorer into the OS kernel.

2) Lack of a basic security model when installed as a desktop workstation, leaving the user and any programs they run, knowingly or not, with write access to system internals. *Reportedly fixed in Vista, to a degree*

3) The RPC control model

4) A predominately ignorant user-base (comes with user-friendly to a degree)

Aside form these things, Windows can be secure. Windows 2000 Pro was, IMHO, the best thing to ever come out of Redmond and is something I'd consider a real OS (aside from the IE integration, it's pretty secure when appropriately tweaked).

Security though obscurity is a flawed theory. The reason is: While it is impressive, to a Black Hat, to own 10,000 Windows boxes, it is even more impressive to own 2000 Linux boxes because they're that much more capable (due to an uninhibited implementation of Berkely Sockets).

As usual, this all is IMHO, and can be (dis)regarded as such.

I totally agree with you, I didn't say windows does not have it's problems. But as you said appropriately tweaked, and I'd add here an A-V plus a SP.. (I dunno if these are inside your tweaking or opposite..)

And I agree with the windows 2000 thing. It's my favourite version, but I have a problem.. My sister sat on my driver CD, so it broke, and I don't find any windows drivers on the net around. So I need XP, which bundles them..

@others: imho doesn't matter what style of language do I use, if I want I can speak "regularly" as well. English ain't my native language, and I learn regular british english in school.. I have to exercise so-called slang somewhere.. and I'm proud of myself. I don't care if you care or not..

You can't possibly "totally agree" with me. Security through obscurity is your principle argument in your "article".

"passionful" linux users (like you), are the same. I don't bother.

[catgate]

My sisters have laughing.

But my grandmother used to say that "If it were not for Zinc Urinal Acetete the differentiation between group one metals, in qualitative analysis, would be much more difficult".

And there are few who would disagree, I'm sure. :)

[AlanHo]

My sisters have laughing.

But my grandmother used to say that "If it were not for Zinc Urinal Acetete the differentiation between group one metals, in qualitative analysis, would be much more difficult".

And there are few who would disagree, I'm sure. :)

Catgate

As a galvanised Linux oriented baptist I am afraid that I must disagree with you. You must have misquoted your grandmother who is not deserving of such treatment. It is not Zinc Urinal Acetete - but its sister compound Zinc Urinal Acetate which is actually a group 2 metal having been displaced in the metallic compound table by Sulphurated Iron Laxatived Polyanal triumphative beta version 4.1A.

I trust this puts the matter to rights and gets this thread back on course.