Windows XP More Secure than Linux
Windows XP -170 Advisories = 213 Vulnerabilities.
Linux Kernel v2.6.x - 108 Advisories = 231 Vulnerabilities.
:o
That’s good to know, Thanks Mastertech.
Mastertech,
If your post was just a ploy to get us to see the picture on the site, it worked.
Thanks, you made my day!
Your welcome but it was for the security info. 
Since I use Linux strictly from a Ubuntu bootable CD, I highly
doubt that I’m more at risk when using Linux than when using XP. ;D
In any event, my system of choice is XP and browser of choice is IE7.
I wrote it last time (before I nuked both mastertech-infected threads): It’s just some randomly selected numbers and Mastertech’s interpretation of them is plain wrong. Same song again. :
Kubec, why don’t you just close the thread? :
This is an article on Ubuntu security specifically, and Linux in general. It also compares the XP security model to Ubuntu. It is authored by “Aysiu” who is on the Ubuntu forum staff.
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/security
An interesting read, and a realistic take on Linux security issues.
Maybe because some folks from the land of the free would have (again) objections and would like to teach us apes what is a freedom of speech? ::)
Maybe because some folks from the land of the free would have (again) objections and would like to teach us apes what is a freedom of speech? ::)
Without the “land of the free”, your market would be pretty small. Is this what you really want to post on your forum?
If you’ve got a problem with Mastertech, address it, otherwise watch your mouth.
Don’t know if it’s my pidgin or what, but I wrote about ‘some folks from…’, ie. not general objection to USA folks.
I’ve got another idea. It seems that anytime Mastertech posts it causes problems. Moderators then after a period of time delete his posts and any responses made to them. Moderators, why not just ban him from the forum if it’s causing problems that you don’t want to see???
Looks like the number of vulnerabilities for the latest version of the Linux kernel vs the number of vulnerabilities for Windows XP. Hardly random, and I didn’t interpret anything, I posted it directly from the source site (popular technology). If you click on the links these are all of the vulnerabilities since each was released. Interesting how just the latest version of the Linux Kernel has more vulnerabilities than Windows XP in the last five years.
Why are certain people afraid of this information? This is supposed to be a security related site yet all security related information that exposes anything certain people don’t like is deleted?
You DID interpret it. See the subject. The number of reported vulnerabilities or reports has no direct connection to the security.
I may just make any statement like this - for example “This vulnerability makes impact on 4353 various Linux distributions whereas this vulnerability makes impact only on one Windows version”.
The subject is the same as the source.
Wait so the number of security vulnerabilities is not related to security? :
Or are you saying the number of Linux Kernel v2.6.x vulnerabilities are not related to the security of all the distributions that use this Kernel? :
Or are you trying to use the ridiculous number of Linux distributions as some sort of excuse for not relating them to the vulnerabilities in the Kernel?
It sounds like you are making excuses for something very obvious.
The NUMBER of vulnerabilities means NOTHING.
If you don’t understand the above, the discussion is useless.
As one of those folks:
"Maybe because some folks from the land of the free would have (again) objections and would like to teach us apes what is a freedom of speech?Thanks for not closing this thread. :) I just don't know where the remark to apes applies ???
Linux may have a few more vulnerabilities, but last I checked, Linux didn’t need additional security software…
Really so if someone has 30 more ways to compromise your system that is not less secure? Try selling someone else a bridge. No I don’t understand denial of the obvious.
Yawn, time for this one to go to bed we aren’t interested.