Re: Video editing in Linux?

From: Andy Fraser (andyfraser31_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:17:01 +0100

In alt.linux, SjT uttered these immortal words:

>>> OSS IS more insecure because it is far easier to find security holes
>>And to fix them.
>
> It's still insecure, whether you or anyone else can fix them quicker
> is not the point,

That *is* the point. The window of opportunity is very small. Once a
security hole is fixed no one can exploit it.

> once they're in, they're in and the damage has been
> done.

Irrelevant. That applies to OSS and CSS. I asked why OSS software is
insecure and all you can do is make points and arguments that apply to all
software.
 
> The difference is that any tom *** or harry could do it with some
> basic knowledge in netcode and c, and it could be made available from
> the the top linux groups completely un-noticed until someone chances
> to notice it.

That makes no sense at all. The top Linux groups? What the hell are they
when they're at home?
 
[snip irrelevant stuff]
>>If anyone downloads and installs unconfirmed software from any old website
>>then that's their fault.
>
> It's still an issue with OSS.

I'm not disputing that. It's also an issue with CSS. You really don't have a
clue do you?
 
> Well, i would find it much easier to add my code to an OS project than
> backwards engineering someone elses executable, in fact i wouldn't
> have a chance at doing that unless someone taught me how to code hex
> in machine code.

That's irrelevant unless you're an idiot and download any old software from
anywhere.
 
>>Not only do your arguments not hold water but they have nothing to do with
>>OSS at all yet you state that "OSS IS more insecure". You even capitalised
>>the word "is" like your forcefully stating a fact!
>
> It is more insecure, and to it's benefit it is undoubtly quicker to
> repair, to deny that open source products are more secure from being
> attacked is being stubborn.

Stubborn? That's the pot calling the kettle black. You post arguments that
relate to all software, you're told that it relates to all software and
still stick to your guns. You're either a troll or an idiot. You've already
said you're not a troll in another post.
 
>>> I've not come across one yet, we always wait for the repackaged
>>> versions that MS put out which do not require a reboot, it's not brain
>>> science.
>>
>>What repackaged versions? From where?
>
> From MS.
>
> Can you not google?! Quick search:

Why should I look for it? You mentioned it, you back it up.

> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/news/noreboot.mspx

Thank you.
 
> I suscribe to their sys admins news feed so get updates when the
> noreboot patches are released.

As it says on the page you posted a link to, MS reckon only 25% of patches
are eligable for noreboot. Does that mean you don't install the other 75%? 

-- 
Andy.
Quantcast