Which's More Secure: Vista, Linux, Mac, *BSD & Solaris
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
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.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
OpenBSD is more secure for the default install, but, only because everything is turned off. Meaning, if the system can boot without it, forget it. Although...if memory serves, SSH is enabled by default, but, it is a secure protocol
yup, i absolutely agree with you, i prefer OpenBSD too and i don't care about the easy installation of windows and linux but i am using vista for daily use and for gaming
what i dislike OpenBSD is the hard customization, since a bunch feature are turn off by default.
anyway, i am not yet use Mac OS, but have a plan to installing it on my x86 machine
The reason Vista (I'm guessing) was made was to get contracts from studio's to license their movies, etc, to be distributed over the Internet and still be secure.
And I think this is a crucial point not to be overlooked. In an open source operating system, security breaches are caused by mistakes which can be fixed. In a closed source OS, the breaches can be caused by mistakes or by malicious code within the OS. Now, we usually trust the providers of our OS's, but with WGA and all the drm in Vista, MS has made it clear that at least some of the spyware will be embeddedinto the OS. Therefore, I don't feel that its too extreme to say that vista cannot be secured and should *never* be used for sensitive information.
Distribution: Solaris 9 & 10, Mac OS X, Ubuntu Server
Posts: 1,197
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by secretlydead
The reason Vista (I'm guessing) was made was to get contracts from studio's to license their movies, etc, to be distributed over the Internet and still be secure.
What? You think that's what's driving Vista? I mean, yeah, they put that in. But there's no way Microsoft's marketing interests are that limited. They are much bigger than movie distribution.
And, if you haven't been watching the news, Apple is now renting movies through iTunes and has contracts with all the major studies. Shares in Blockbuster and Netflix dropped a bunch the day that was announced.
What? You think that's what's driving Vista? I mean, yeah, they put that in. But there's no way Microsoft's marketing interests are that limited.
I wouldn't say that DRM is the reason that vista was made, but it is a huge factor in the reason that vista was made the way it was. And ultimately, the reason for the DRM and spyware is far less important than the presence of the DRM and spyware.
And I'm not saying that Mac necessarily isn't doing the same thing, but at least they haven't got caught.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.