GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Originally posted by stabile007 And I am sure I can find Window experts who disagree. My point is while you think it is secure it probably is not. Someone would ifnd a way around it.
Not this one. Even microsoft employees know it is less secure. But you have to look at it's origins. Windows was designed for desktop use, linux for serving up. 2003 goes a long way to fixing some of windows inherent problems, but nothing short of a base up rebuild is going to make it safe. And true, someone will always find a workaround, but it will be someone with a brain and not skript kiddies. It's like criminals, I don't mind the true professional criminals, it's the yahoos with no impulse control and a gun that are dangerous.
You only need one reason to convince people why IE is bad: Due to Microsoft's decision to declare IE as part of the operating system (yeah, sure) it has been so heavily integrated into Windows that you pretty much cannot avoid using it. The problem with this is that IE has become the default method for accessing your local files (which presumably are safe and secure and can be opened without concern) in addition to being the default method for accessing files of dubious/unknown origin on the Internet. In other words, Microsoft has made IE the single tool to access both your PC's safe, internal files as well as potentially infected, dangerous, external files. This would be analogous to using a single knife to scrape, umm, "dirt" off your boots and then using it to cut your food at the dinner table. No thanks. -- J.W.
Distribution: slamd64 2.6.12 Slackware 2.4.32 Windows XP x64 pro
I think SP2 broke more than SP1. Do some googling on that on though. I know a major corp, that won't touch SP2. Now that should say something. I have tried both and don't bother with sp2 either. Just remember Windows are made to be opened.
Originally posted by tormented_one I think SP2 broke more than SP1. Do some googling on that on though. I know a major corp, that won't touch SP2. Now that should say something. I have tried both and don't bother with sp2 either. Just remember Windows are made to be opened.
I know Major Corporations who won't touch Linux does that say something? No. my argument right now is I don't care what OS or program you are running if it has 90% market share someone will break it and someone willl make it easy to do for others.
And wether or not something is better ends to be a subjective thign as well. Otherwise everyone would be linux by your argument. But they aren't. It really comes down to personal opinion. if someone feels IE is better you can try and argue with them until blue in the face but its a waste. Personally I avoid IE like a plague that it is. And yes Firefox has many advantages to it. But some of them could get lost as it gets more popular.