Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Don't use Lin$ux distributions made by companies then.

YesItsMe

Why bother to troll? This is a linux forum and linux has precedence over windows here. And vice-versa for windows in a window's forum.

Please read a thread's topic before contributing to it.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Can you install Windows from the Windows Store?

You know that's not the point of what I was saying YesItsMe as well as I do. So, you would install Ubuntu from deb (Debian packages for Ubuntu) packages from Ubuntu's repo's that only Ubuntu's developers have to ability to add packages to. That's not only the way most Linux/Ubuntu users install software, but the recommended way of installing software. Where there is very, very little chance of even getting/downloading any malware of any kind. I've never seen even one virus on Linux since I've been using it, and as far as I know, there's been no other security related issues - let alone though installing any software packages.

But yet, we hear about Winblow$ security issues all the time, don't we?

Starting with Windows NT: By design. Unlike the Lin$ux losers called "kernel developers", Microsoft is fine with dropping backwards compatibility if it improves security.

And I take it that's why M$'s UAC killed Vista, that they even delayed to try and avoid such issues? What you also don't mention is the fact M$ expected you to pay for Winblow$ XP Professional Edition if you even wanted NTFS permissions. Being based on NT started with 2000 not later. Therefore M$'s user privilege system could not have been as good as the Linux/UNIX one, if UAC didn't even exist in Winblow$ before Vista - that well... killed it. "By design" ? Nay, sorry YesItsMe, I hardly call that security focused OS design. Sorry.

How come the Lin$ux n00bs need third-party patches (SELinux, AppArmor, grsecurity, PaX and whatever) to achieve a remotely similar security level to what Windows brings you out of the box? Even with a nice GUI!

And Winblow$ morons need UAC because M$ couldn't design a secure system from the start ? Oh, yes, that's right, they well... couldn't... ouch!

Almost forgot, and Winblow$ losers need a GUI because they can't use a command-line ? Sad, isn't it?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 So, you would install Ubuntu from deb (Debian packages for Ubuntu) packages from Ubuntu's repo's that only Ubuntu's developers have to ability to add packages to.

I wouldn't install Dumbuntu on anything, not even if you gave me good money for that. I'd rather shoot myself in the foot - that'd hurt less.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 And I take it that's why M$'s UAC killed Vista

Vista was not killed, it survived long enough. Microsoft's UAC was similar to Lin$ux's precious $udo dialog$ though. Eww, GUIs!

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Being based on NT started with 2000 not later.

Being based on NT started in the mid-90s. Use the internet, kiddo.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 the Linux/UNIX one

Please stop trying to diminuish UNIX's good reputation by using the bullshit "Lin$ux/UNIX" term.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 And Winblow$ morons need UAC because M$ couldn't design a secure system from the start ?

And Lin$ux losers need $udo because... oh, right. With a GUI dialog, of course. Lin$ux kids need their clicky stuff. They are too degenerated for using the command line - unline Windows users, that's why we got the superior PowerShell.

You forgot to answer why Lin$ux idiot$ need third-party patches for achieving a remotely similar security level as what Microsoft gives us by default. Does that mean you admit that Lin$ux fails at security? Reminder: The UAC is not a part of that.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe I wouldn't install Dumbuntu on anything, not even if you gave me good money for that. I'd rather shoot myself in the foot - that'd hurt less.

And that was the point of what I said was it ? I don't think so.

Vista was not killed, it survived long enough. Microsoft's UAC was similar to Lin$ux's precious $udo dialog$ though. Eww, GUIs!

That's why M$ was forced to let people have XP instead of Vista, as most people wanted to go back to XP? Yeah, that's right, that's exactly what happened.

Being based on NT started in the mid-90s. Use the internet, kiddo.

I don't think you understand what I wrote; The first version of Winblow$ NT was released on the 27 July 1993. I never said otherwise. I DID say that the first version of Winblow$ that was BASED on NT was Winblow$ 2000 (NT 5.0), which it WAS - I suggest YOU use the Internet and read this.

Please stop trying to diminuish UNIX's good reputation by using the bullshit "Lin$ux/UNIX" term.

Did I say something wrong?

I take it you don't know that there's a reason Linux and UNIX share the last part of their names, being "nix" ? I'll use whatever term I wish, just for you.

And Lin$ux losers need $udo because... oh, right. With a GUI dialog, of course. Lin$ux kids need their clicky stuff. They are too degenerated for using the command line - unline Windows users, that's why we got the superior PowerShell.

And where did "PowerShell" come from I wonder? That's right, the BOURNE-AGAIN SHELL for UNIX and Linux. Thieves!
That's also why like UNIX itself, Linux is also a command-line driven system and that UNLIKE Winblow$, there has ALWAYS been many different command-line commands to use. Some people even prefer the command-line, where most Winblow$ users are just too stupid and lazy to be able to use it.

You forgot to answer why Lin$ux idiot$ need third-party patches for achieving a remotely similar security level as what Microsoft gives us by default. Does that mean you admit that Lin$ux fails at security? Reminder: The UAC is not a part of that.

I didn't forget. It's just that it's incorrect and moronic that it's really not very deserving of any proper response, to be perfectly honest with you - yeah, why I bother, I don't know. That's true too. You have not even stated what this "similar level of security" actually refers to, let alone provided ANY proof that Winblow$ is any better. So I wouldn't flatter yourself just yet.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 That's why M$ was forced to let people have XP instead of Vista

Nobody forced Microsoft to do anything. They are in charge of their products.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I don't think you understand what I wrote; The first version of Winblow$ NT was released on the 27 July 1993.

And Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, not "based on NT" - but its successor. Just like Dumbuntu 18.04 is not "based on" Dumbuntu 17.10. Learn to read, moron.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I take it you don't know that there's a reason Linux and UNIX share the last part of their names, being "nix" ?

Since when does "Linux" end in "nix"? Learn to read, moron.
If you consider Linux to be "UNIX", you should also consider Windows NT with its Interix subsystem (= older NT versions) to be "UNIX".

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 And where did "PowerShell" come from I wonder? That's right, the BOURNE-AGAIN SHELL for UNIX and Linux.

The GNU sucker shell "bash", basically imitating ("stealing from") the good UNIX Bourne shell (THIEVES!), was not "for UNIX" before some Lin$ux kid decided to port it. We never wanted it. We have better shells, we had them for decades.

The PowerShell was designed by someone who had worked on Interix before - the POSIX subsystem, not the Lin$ux $ub$ystem, imitating IBM AIX. Its syntax is heavily inspired by Scheme, not by the ba$h $hit. Now could you explain how you came to the laughable conclusion that the PowerShell has anything to do with your beloved Bourne shell rip-off?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 UNLIKE Winblow$, there has ALWAYS been many different command-line commands to use.

Some of which came from (or already existed in) Xenix, Microsoft's 80s UNIX. You're welcome.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 It's just that it's incorrect

How so and why? Please bring more arguments or admit that you're just a huge mental failure, as all Lin$uxers are when they are confronted with facts.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 You have not even stated what this "similar level of security" actually refers to

For the third time now: All of the precious third-party tries to fix Lin$ux's "security" (as in: it has none without them) are already integrated in the NT kernel. Which of PaX/grsecurity, SELinux and AppArmor is not?

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Nobody forced Microsoft to do anything. They are in charge of their products.

I think you'll find M$ DID extend support for Winblow$ XP because of people that decided to go back to it, instead of running Vista.

And Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, not "based on NT" - but its successor. Just like Dumbuntu 18.04 is not "based on" Dumbuntu 17.10. Learn to read, moron.

It still doesn't change the FACT that Winblows 1.x to ME were NOT Windows NT, does it?

Since when does "Linux" end in "nix"? Learn to read, moron.

Alright fine, you got me there, I meant "sounds" like "nix", when one says it verbally.

If you consider Linux to be "UNIX", you should also consider Windows NT with its Interix subsystem (= older NT versions) to be "UNIX".

Don't worry, I know the difference between the two as much as you do, so don't flatter yourself.

The GNU sucker shell "bash", basically imitating ("stealing from") the good UNIX Bourne shell (THIEVES!), was not "for UNIX" before some Lin$ux kid decided to port it. We never wanted it. We have better shells, we had them for decades. The PowerShell was designed by someone who had worked on Interix before - the POSIX subsystem, not the Lin$ux $ub$ystem, imitating IBM AIX. Its syntax is heavily inspired by Scheme, not by the ba$h $hit. Now could you explain how you came to the laughable conclusion that the PowerShell has anything to do with your beloved Bourne shell rip-off?

So you're saying that they ripped it off of Interix instead? Interesting.

Some of which came from (or already existed in) Xenix, Microsoft's 80s UNIX. You're welcome.

And exactly which ones are we "welcome" to, may I ask?

How so and why? Please bring more arguments or admit that you're just a huge mental failure, as all Lin$uxers are when they are confronted with facts.

Because you haven't made an argument that really makes a lot of sense. That's why. When it's YOU that's calling people a "huge mental failure", it makes me wonder about YOUR mental health - not trying to make fun of mental health issues.

For the third time now: All of the precious third-party tries to fix Lin$ux's "security" (as in: it has none without them) are already integrated in the NT kernel. Which of PaX/grsecurity, SELinux and AppArmor is not?

You still have not proven that because the Winblow$ unknown (because you don't say) counterparts are "integrated" into the NT kernel that Winblow$ is more secure than Linux. You still have provided no proof that Winblow$ is more secure than Linux full stop. Also, is that why Linus is well known for his rants about having to harden the kernel. Is that why when there is a security flaw found there's a patch out not long after?

Sorry YesItsMe, still NOT convinced that you have "proven Winblow$ is more secure than Linux".

Since when does "Linux" end in "nix"? Learn to read, moron.

Since when was Linux spelt the way you do. Even bigger moron. (to use your words)

You lot (both sides) are beginning to sound like that pathetic sweet advert on TV at the moment with the people behaving like children.

How do you expect visitors to this forum to treat your comments with respect????

and YEsitsMe, if you are the same one I know, you should know better

Originally Posted by dave@burn-it.co.uk Since when was Linux spelt the way you do. Even bigger moron. (to use your words) You lot (both sides) are beginning to sound like that pathetic sweet advert on TV at the moment with the people behaving like children. How do you expect visitors to this forum to treat your comments with respect????

I made a mistake, at least I can admit it - unlike yourself.

You're like that fly that just keeps buzzing around that get's away every time you go to swat it. You're a child yourself david, buzz off.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I think you'll find M$ DID extend support for Winblow$ XP because of people that decided to go back to it, instead of running Vista.

According to which Microsoft press release?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 It still doesn't change the FACT that Winblows 1.x to ME were NOT Windows NT, does it?

With the Windows 1.x series being phased out after Windows Me. Those were two different products. Your "fact" that Windows 2000 was the first Windows "based on NT" is a lie related to your failure to understand anything you read.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Alright fine, you got me there, I meant "sounds" like "nix", when one says it verbally.

Not in most languages.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I know the difference between the two as much as you do, so don't flatter yourself.

Then stop trying.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 So you're saying that they ripped it off of Interix instead?

You mean: Microsoft used Microsoft products to improve other Microsoft products? Now that's awful. How dare they!
Lin$ux, on the other hand, needs to import third-party stuff done long before Linux even came to existence because they suck at creating their own software.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 And exactly which ones are we "welcome" to, may I ask?

As far as I imagine, all LSB shell commands, except "rpm".
(edit: I admit that I might miss some. Please correct me.)

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Because you haven't made an argument that really makes a lot of sense.

Still waiting for a reply to "how so and why?".

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 You still have not proven that because the Winblow$ unknown (because you don't say) counterparts are "integrated" into the NT kernel that Winblow$ is more secure than Linux. (blah, blah)

Scroll down on this page until you see a lot of green fields in a table. Those are Microsoft's built-in security features, most of them enabled by default.

Which of those comes with your Lin$ux kernel (excluding third-party $hitpatches like grsecurity) and is enabled by default?

Originally Posted by YesItsMe According to which Microsoft press release?

While, what makes you think their still going to have a press release, when support for XP ended on the 8th April 2014 - over 3 years after the fact. I did find some other links that DO confirm M$ DID extend support of XP (as I said before).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...indows-XP.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonk.../#6ad2c05a70fc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window...port_lifecycle

It wasn't difficult to find either.

With the Windows 1.x series being phased out after Windows Me. Those were two different products. Your "fact" that Windows 2000 was the first Windows "based on NT" is a lie related to your failure to understand anything you read.

I think you need to take your own advice and learn to read what's being said yourself; Nobody said that Winblow$ 1.x was the same as NT. The fact of the matter is that Winlow$ 1.x to ME did NOT have any form of user privilege system in place what-so-ever. FACT.

Not in most languages.

I would have to disagree with you there.

Then stop trying.

Once again, STOP trying to flatter yourself. And no, I was NOT trying to flatter you - you do a good enough job of that yourself. So why do I need to ??

You mean: Microsoft used Microsoft products to improve other Microsoft products? Now that's awful. How dare they! Lin$ux, on the other hand, needs to import third-party stuff done long before Linux even came to existence because they suck at creating their own software.

No, I don't mean that. You said that, not me. Given you seemed to imply that M$ did in fact rip-off the Bourne-Again Shell and then you seemed to imply it was something M$ had come up with some years beforehand; I was asking you weather your saying it's Bourne-Again Shell/Bourne Shell or Interix. So which is it or is it something else ?

As far as I imagine, all LSB shell commands, except "rpm". (edit: I admit that I might miss some. Please correct me.)

Well that's a pretty BIG statement to make, isn't it? I hope you can prove that.

Still waiting for a reply to "how so and why?". Scroll down on this page until you see a lot of green fields in a table. Those are Microsoft's built-in security features, most of them enabled by default. Which of those comes with your Lin$ux kernel (excluding third-party $hitpatches like grsecurity) and is enabled by default?

I'm sure you are, so here's some issues with what you say:-

* You have once again NOT proven that Linux does not have as many security related patches as Winblow$.
* You have not proven that Winblow$ is more secure than Linux.
* You're forgetting that NONE of the "security patches" you refer to where in Winblow$ 1.x to ME, why? Because they were NOT!

* You're also forgetting that most Winblow$ users don't normally follow best security practices, like logging in as an Administrator instead of as a limited user, even if you do - I personally know many people JUST like that! More importantly, because of the FACT that Winblow$ has historically NOT been designed with much if ANY security in mind, this as carried on to the user, like downloading software from multiple websites instead of the same place called the package manager - things Linux has had for years and years - has Winblow$ had package managers for years and years? No, it's only been in RECENT years it's had anything even close to that.

And your saying that people should just accept some greedy corporation dictating to them about how they can and can't use hardware THEY have paid for? Something that only M$ can improve the code for, instead of being able to just download it and make whatever modifications they want to it. You expect them to sign a NDA do you?

Well I'm sorry YesItsMe, but nay, and as someone who HAS used both systems (and still does), I can honestly tell you that if Linux was no better than Winblow$, was as insecure as your claiming, etc, I would NOT be using it. I still am using it, despite what you say. So sorry, but still not convinced and other than saying something to the effect of "Winblow$ has more patches than Linux, therefore it's more secure", you still have NOT explained why yourself.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I did find some other links that DO confirm M$ DID extend support of XP (as I said before).

Which of those says that it is because Vista was "bad"?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Nobody said that Winblow$ 1.x was the same as NT.

You claimed that "being based on NT" had "started" with Windows 2000 which is wrong.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I would have to disagree with you there.

Which other language than English pronounces "Linux" like something-nix?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Given you seemed to imply that M$ did in fact rip-off the Bourne-Again Shell

No, I never did that intentionally.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 and then you seemed to imply it was something M$ had come up with some years beforehand

Because it was. You lied that Microsoft had imitated the ridiculous Bourne shell rip-off by the GNU thieves, not me. I disproved you.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Well that's a pretty BIG statement to make, isn't it? I hope you can prove that.

You were the one to make the big statements here by claiming that the whole lot of command-line stuff was in Linux before Microsoft had them in its products. You - as a Lin$ux kiddo - are probably able to name three common Linux commands (not distribution-specific) which are in most distributions but were not in Microsoft's 80s UNIX. If you are not, I must assume that my claim was correct.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 * You have once again NOT proven that Linux does not have as many security related patches as Winblow$.

I gave you a list of kernel security features in Windows and I am still waiting for you to answer which of those are part of the upstream Linux kernel. You seem to try to derail this discussion from the subject at hand because you don't want to admit that your toy OS kernel is not nearly as secure as Windows 10 is. Feel free to prove me wrong by answering my question.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 * You have not proven that Winblow$ is more secure than Linux.

I did, see above.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 * You're forgetting that NONE of the "security patches" you refer to where in Winblow$ 1.x to ME, why?

You want to compare the Windows security of 1983 to the Linux security of 1983? Oh, come on.
We are talking about the current versions, aren't we? Because Linux 0.something was not terribly awesome either. (Not that 4.x was...)

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 * You're also forgetting that most Winblow$ users don't normally follow best security practices

Name your source.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 like logging in as an Administrator instead of as a limited user

Windows 10 hides the Admin account by default, even users configured as admins will have to confirm Admin tasks with their password. No, the UAC is mandatory for modern Windows apps to work, you can't just "disable" it anymore without losing functionality. Please do your research before lying.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 because of the FACT that Winblow$ has historically NOT been designed with much if ANY security in mind

That was before Windows NT - which is more than 20 years old now. Not much younger than Linux, that is.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 like downloading software from multiple websites instead of the same place called the package manager - things Linux has had for years and years - has Winblow$ had package managers for years and years?

Linux distributions have third-party package managers which are not an official part of Linux.
Windows has third-party package managers which are not an official part of Windows.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 And your saying that people should just accept some greedy corporation dictating to them about how they can and can't use hardware THEY have paid for?

You mean, like Canonical or R€d Hat?

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I can honestly tell you that if Linux was no better than Winblow$, was as insecure as your claiming, etc, I would NOT be using it.

"If actual food was better than what McDonald's gives us, we would NOT eat there."

USE THE BEST TOOLS

• Windows for Desktops/Office/Gaming and most important for MS to spy on you
• Macs for Video editing and for professional graphic artists using Photoshop and no control over your IOS i.e a locked down operating system
• Chromebooks for web applications and for schools
• Linux for everything else

Originally Posted by BillyVine USE THE BEST TOOLS (...) Linux for everything else

Could you please decide?