does not require time to secure
response, a MAC securing procedure, which seems to be rather timely.
The number one thing that pisses me off. Close 2nd is MACs have superior hardware
actually… isn’t windows new “root user” switching kind of eliminating a lot of potential threats that it had before?
I agree with ya there. I haven’t really looked into many of the changes in Vista to prevent attacks, but I have heard from knowledgeable professors that there have been many improvements. Microsoft knows where their downfalls lie within XP, they’re not stupid.
People def. target Windows OSs more, but as you said, large corporations use unix OSs to run their servers and so its definitely somewhat of a target. Also, lately(from what I have noticed, could be wrong) a lot of companies are turning to open source unix/linux solutions. So that may change.
yeah but human stupidity just makes people mash the “OK” button, so it really wont work in many cases.
read the first sentence of the introduction…
edit: sorry for the triple posts, im such a post count whore
THAT DOES NOT MATTER IT STILL TAKES TIME TO SECURE!
true… actually, if linux distro’s finally got rid of the console, it would probably be a more dominate force is the OS market.
It has enough developers and I’d even install ubuntu on my parents machine for them, but if a problem ever popped up, they’d be SOL until I could get around to fixing it.
It’s like the NYSPEED hater’s ball up in hurr
Does anyone else feel like this?
Talking directly into a brick wall
my argument this entire thread has been that out of the box, OSX is more secure…I did not say that it is inpenetrable.
He switched to osx and all the sudden he doesnt get spyware or viruses. So thats why he likes osx. thats not to say he will never get any, but his chances are lower with an out-of-the-box install.
just got mine too, and i have always hated macs since my lcIII
and i fucking love this box
you are just hurting for some kind of rebound arguement…
shame shame thomas.
Do you work in the industry?
I have yet to see a company change its IT structure in favor of open source…
I have seen people try to debate the cost savings…till they figure out well what happens when your XXXXXX brand Linux server crashes…or the XXXXX mail server on the XXXXXX brand Linux server stops working properly…
I guess you could explain the COO, CEO or whoever when everything is down for a day when something breaks…“Well Jimmy45345 on the XXXXXX linux forum will post back any time now with a solution to our problem well as soon as he gets out of class”
no i don’t, still in school for one more semester, thats why i said i could be wrong. I try to read as much as I can though. I plan to get into unix/linux systems administration after graduation.
Yeah, thing with open source is that you have to pay for the support contracts which are probably a lot more costly in the long run. So I would have to agree that cost savings are defintiely not a good reason to go open source
fuck I hate computers…
even a lot of experienced administrators hold service contracts with the vendors they get their shit from.
example: If the netapp server in the CSE dept. fails, say bye bye to your home folders. That is unacceptable. The service contract can have a technician out within hours that will get that fucker back up and running in no time. Also, if a drive in the array fails, the company is immediately notified by the machine itself, and a new hdd is overnighted to the dept. Nice features to have when the systems are so critical.
Like Formula said, its tough explaining to the CIO that you have no fucking idea why nobody can access their home folders.
This brings up another good point:
Kids, Don’t :jam: Then :blah: it only leads to 
.
dan never stops drinking though…