| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Most Insecure OS? Yep, It's Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 13:00 EST/18:00 GMT | News Source: WinInformant | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
According to a new report by the Aberdeen Group, open source solution Linux has surpassed Windows as the most vulnerable operating system, contrary to the high-profile press Microsoft gets for its security woes. Furthermore, the Aberdeen Group reports that over 50 percent of all security advisories issued by the Computer Emergency Response Team (Cert) in the first ten months of 2002 were for Linux and other open source software solutions, which muddles the argument that proprietary software such as Windows is inherently less secure than open solutions. And here's another kicker to the status quo: Proprietary UNIX solutions were responsible for just as many security advisories as Linux in the same time period. Could Windows actually be the most secure mainstream OS available today? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 522 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:00:30 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 11/27/2002 2:11:43 PM |
|
I thought this was funny! :)
From Paul Thurott's wininformant... "I'm not sure why I feel the need to constantly restate my stance on Linux security (maybe because of all the threatening email I got after yesterday's story), but here I go again. I'm constantly amazed at how people fully accept stories about how vulnerable Microsoft software is or how wonderfully crafted Linux is, but when someone offers the reverse, they react in the crazed manner of a cornered animal. That reaction doesn't make sense. Some people accept, without any substantiated evidence, that Linux is secure out of the box, regardless of the fact that it often comes without a box at all--think about that for a second: No box. Anyway ... I lost my train of thought. But you get the idea." |
| #27 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 11/27/2002 3:30:17 PM |
|
bas - "if PHP is so slow/bad/whatever, then why will Yahoo.com "switch from a proprietary system written in C/C++ to PHP for their backend scripting"?"
Performance is just one factor when choosing a platform for web deliverables. Another big factor is ease of migration, and if your systems run Unix (like Yahoo's do); it makes sense to stay on your existing platform. As far as PHP vs ASP.NET comparisons, here ya go: http://www.webmasterbase.com/article/871 That was written by a PHP guy. While he doesn't give any benchmarks, he does say: "Just like all .NET applications, ASP.NET applications are compiled. This makes them much faster than PHP, whose applications are interpreted. To achieve the same effect with PHP, Zend and PHP accelerator must be installed on the server, and this is rarely the case at most Web hosting companies. Also, OO is much faster in ASP.NET than it is in PHP." I haven't been able to find any direct performance comparisons (mostly because they wouldn't be fair, since ASP.NET is compiled, where as PHP is interpreted), but here are some comparisons of PHP vs JSP vs ASP and JSP vs ASP.NET, and of course ASP.NET vs ASP. ASP.NET beats the pants off both JSP and ASP, so it is logical to make the conclusion that ASP.NET beats PHP in terms of raw speed: http://www.sloppycode.net/benchmark/ http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/nileperf.aspx http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/petshopperf.aspx That's just talking about speed. As far as which is "better", as I said before, many factors are involved. There are several huge benefits that ASP.NET has over PHP, most of which are gone over in the first link's article. My favorites include the separation of code from content. In PHP, you're forced to intermix your PHP with the HTML you're formatting your data with, making things hard to maintain. In ASP.NET, you have a code behind file that contains all your code, and then you have a aspx file that contains all your HTML. This makes things MUCH easier to maintain. Not to mention things like Server Controls and User Controls, which provide a way of creating blackbox pieces of code/content that can be reused, or even inherited from. PHP just can't compete as far as speed, maintainability, productivity, etc. The only reason to stick with or choose PHP is if you have a significant investment in a platform that can't do ASP.NET, or if your workforce is already trained in PHP. Considering Yahoo had quite possibly the most un-maintainable system possible (C/C++ CGIs), PHP is a huge improvement for them... although I would have gone with JSP/J2EE in their case. (Perhaps app server costs made the JSP/J2EE approach prohibitive.) |
| #28 By 7760 (12.155.143.51) at 11/27/2002 11:21:12 PM |
|
Rogue Penguin wrote:
Ocing doesnt have any effect on software. OCing does affect software... indirectly. If the system isn't stable, the software will fail. I know that you realize this. My point is that you can't separate software from hardware when talking about hardware issues. How would you ever know that your system was instable without software? You wouldn't. Actually its the fastest, most stable system I've ever built/seen. That's not really the point. I guarantee you that it's a lot less stable than what it would be if it were running at spec. Also, everything seeming to be okay doesn't mean that the system is really stable. Many people use their OC'ed systems for days before trying out that one component of their system (hardware 3D, USB peripheral, etc.) that ends up crashing things. With regard to your stability tests between Windows and Linux, even graphical Linux is nowhere near as hardware intensive as Windows is. Windows is almost always doing something, and when it's actually something that you initiated, it hits multiple subsystems numerous times. I think that Windows will always be a little less stable, as long as graphical Linux is not much more than a glorified Win3.1 in nature. That's just at specs. Throw in an OC system and the difference is magnified greatly. I don't mind if any Linux fans argue that Linux is more stable than Windows (since it's true); just don't draw comparisons using overclocked systems or <gasp> Linux text shells. I sure hope that you weren't using Linux in text shell mode, since that with Windows a totally unfair comparison. P.S. I wish that Windows were fully usable and configurable in text mode like Linux. |
| #29 By 7760 (12.155.143.51) at 11/27/2002 11:24:42 PM |
|
bas, reports like Aberdeen's and the hoopla over security, in general, are almost entirely centered on businesses, not the home. Almost all of the security fixes are issued with businesses in mind, since, naturally, businesses are where the interesting data is. You don't need much security at home; hence, XP defaults to a low security mode.
I don't see why you're making a deal out of XP making admins out of all users. This is largely the reason behind the domain and workgroup network models. If you want or require security, you set up a domain; if you just want to connect a few computers as quickly and easily as possible, you set up a workgroup. Instead of bashing Microsoft for allowing a simple setup as an option, think to yourself why Linux is an utter failure in the mainstream (especially on the home and small network desks). You can't go mainstream without making things simple, and you can't make things simple without setting up (often baseline) defaults. It's rather logical. Linux will never become mainstream by continuing to require keen computer skills and patience. A majority of all of the computer users in the world have neither. That's Linux's biggest problem. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 522 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:00:30 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
