On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:56:26 -0500 "John Lightfoot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Besenbruch wrote: > > <snip> > Clueless people will always be with us. No OS is going to keep them safe, > but some may do a better job than others. You seem successful in managing > Windows boxes, but my experience is the opposite. Those daughters who kept > getting their computer infected? They never were told the root password. It > also meant a lot that they couldn't just double click something and have it > run. Such a simple difference in design can mean the world. > </snip> > > I don't see why you think Linux is any better at this. If you gave those > same daughters a fully patched Windows XP box, turned on automatic updates, > and gave them accounts that were only in the Users group (i.e. not > administrators), their chance of getting infected would be zero, too. I don't think your chances of getting infected are ever "zero". Good old "nothing's ever 100% secure"... I've seen quite a few applications that (at least claim) to require adminstrative privileges. This may be a design flaw in those applications, or perhaps there's an underlying problem in Windows' user privileges seperation, or some such. In short, I've found it far less painful to run as a restricted user (I don't mean a "Power User" user either - these are just users who haven't made themselves administrators yet) on UNIX-like systems than on Windows. -- Nick Withers email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.nickwithers.com Mobile: +61 414 397 446 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
