Not if you had 95% less than 2 years ago. If I worked for a company that lost almost 20% market share over the course of 2 years to a competitor that doesn't even have any income, I'd be scared. Apparently you didn't get the memo. Most users aren't aware of security issues, and only really care when it actually impacts them. FF has won it's market share by virtue of having more advanced features that users liked; tabbed browsing, numerous extensions, built in RSS aggregation, etc. Quite simply, it's a better browser, better security or not. Linux is inherently more secure by virtue of the fact that hardly any viruses, trojans, and other malware exists that targets it specifically. That's not by design, of course, that's by coincidence. However, the Linux kernel itself is much more secure than the windows kernel, both from a technical standpoint (as anybody familiar with OS design can tell you), and from a "real world" standpoint. Windows Server 2003 had almost 5 times as many "Critical" patches issued in the last year than any major Linux distribution. There's a reason why hardly any companies (other than Microsoft) that are web-oriented run their servers on Windows machines, and it really isn't licensing costs. If it were as simple as disabling active X, the problem would have already been solved long ago. There's a laundry list of IE security flaws that have been issued in the last year (for a browser that's been in it's current major release version for 5 years now!) including: - javascript vulnerabilities - unicode (both in urls and in page content) - images (seperate issues impacting both jpeg and gif) - ssl certificates So, yeah, just disable all those things and then you'll have complete security (and an unusable browser, to boot!). In addition, disabling active X disables: - Flash - Most AJAX applications (XMLHttpRequest is implemented as an active x control) - SVG In other words, it's not a real solution. MS has made the decision to make xmlhttprequest a part of the IE core with version 7, but the real root of the problem is their insistance on "Black List" security (vs "White List") in everything that they do.
not really, i run a network of 100 computers ... i disable the ability for any domain outside of "specified" domains to install anything. it works awesome. when you go to a site that needs it ... then i add it to the OK list on the AD Server. that said, i started using firefox wayback for the css support. "That's not by design, of course, that's by coincidence." ... i disagree. ms has security issues but a huge reason is because many that exploit vulnerabilities in windows do it becuase they deem it cool to "fight the power" ... they think they are Luke Skywalker. if they percieved *ix as the bad guys then there would be concentrated effort to exploit it ... you can't convince me otherwise. not to mention ms has a reputation of being an os any level user can use ... sit down and work. no ... linux is not, has not, and probably won't for a long time be there. it's still a power users os.
GNU/Linux is there.. Penguin is just about to jump on ya and stump ya before you know it. GNU/Linux is there, oh it's there.. and here too. Btw, thanks for calling me a "power user"
LOL I've created a beast. I started this thread ages ago and it's mad to come back and see it every time I look in my "User CP"
Yeah, although it has admittely gone pretty offtopic lately.. (which may partly be my fault) Btw, that's nothing.. year and four months ago I started one topic on sitepoint forums and it still pops up every now and then.. Those kinds of topics are like forum "evergreens". Anyway, back to the lost topic.
mmm, an interesting article, and thoughts. I still believe with all the advertising that MSN etc are doing they will still not get the volumes that google is providing. Google is too well known as the best engine in the world.
Thanks, right back at you. I don't feel poor.. If you don't believe me, try it out yourself and see. Not my fault if you wont.
Like I said -- coincidence, not design. The "by design" security benefits of all unix-based systems (Solaris, BSD, Linux, HP-UX, etc.) vs. windows have been reiterated many times previously. Anybody who has ever written Operating Systems knows this. Windows is a hacked single-user environment, and that legacy has crippled it eternally from a security standpoint. It needs a fundamental re-write in order to ever be as secure as any unix system. Oh, and as far as linux usability goes -- are you familiar with OSX? That's right, it's based on another open-source unix variant (FreeBSD, by way of the Mach kernel), and it's widely regarded as the most user-friendly OS out there. There's absolutely no reason why a company with the motivation to do so couldn't create a GUI environment that's vastly superior to the current linux offerings (KDE & GNOME). Currently, though, no company has the motivation, although Mark Shuttleworth (of Ubuntu) seems to be heading in the right direction. In my experience, the only people I've ever encountered who genuinely think that Windows is better than the alternatives have never really used the alternatives (and certainly not for any significant period of time). Hell, most of them don't even know how to install an application on OSX in the first place (despite it being about a million times simpler than it is on Windows). When it comes to server administration, I think I'd rather find another job than actually have to deal with Windows' atrocious performance, security, and price. After 15 years, they STILL can't manage to figure out how to allow users to create symbolic links. It's no wonder why windows servers are a joke to any serious business.
Meh, I know Linux and the others are great, but.... to be truthful I'm just too lazy to use Linux... And my theory is, because I am too lazy to use Linux, most people won't bother to make the switch either. Inductive reasoning, I know. On a side note, as a webmaster for various companies (three, to be exact) I have always made sure to host my websites on a Linux server. Just not my PC, as various software conflictions irritates me.
You hit the mark Cyrus. I think one of the major reasons or "excuses" some people have not to even try GNU/Linux is just that; lazyness. They don't feel like they need something more and better than what they already have even when they do believe that GNU/Linux might in the end be better for them. They need some incentive or GNU/Linux has to become easy enough so that even the lazyest can get through without that much work. And the thing is that GNU/Linux already has become that easy. Today, most of what you would percieve as hard in GNU/Linux is not due to things being messy and hard to do, but simply because it's a bit different than what you're already used to or, granted, due to some shortcomings in hardware support which is more because of lack of support by some hardware manufacturers than the unwillingness of developers to develop drivers and support for that hardware into linux (but things are getting much better in that field as well). Today, chances are that if you get one of the mainstream desktop linux distros like Mandriva, SuSE, Ubuntu or Fedora you'll have a straightforward installation (not any harder than Windows XP, if you've ever installed Windows XP) and all hardware properly detected - basically getting everything to work out of the box. And it is evolving very fast. Some problems you may have had yesterday might already be resolved today. I know by my own experience. Also, GNOME and KDE are getting pretty close to the user friendliness of Mac OS X even surpassing it in some areas. Depending on a distribution you choose this experience can be even amplified if the distro maker has done a good job at integrating the desktop environment into the system. In the future, GNOME, KDE and small window managers like Enlightenment 17 are gonna surpass both Windows (Vista included) and OS X interfaces. Think of Plasma project for KDE and Cairo for GNOME and well Enlightenment E17 itself. It would be hard for proprietary systems to keep up with innovation simply because they are not open thus lacking the power of distributed development. Proprietary software wont be able to compete with FOSS. </rant> Thanks Daniel
What utter arrogant insulting bullshit! If I choose not to use Linux, it's because I'm too lazy to learn something new? What absolute garbage! Did it ever occur to you that a whole lot of people use Windows because they LIKE Windows?
You misunderstood me Minstrel. If I was really saying that then I would really be a complete a**. I meant that *one* of the major reasons *some* people have for not considering a switch is lazyness. I didn't mean that everyone is not switching just because of lazyness, that is, that lazyness is the only reason people don't switch. I am saying that because I've seen many people say they like the GNU/Linux idea and would like to give it a try, but are just plain inert. They don't want to go through the hassle. They themselves admit they are just lazy to switch. I only reffered to them, not generally everyone and certainly not to you. I'm sure there are people who like Windows for whatever reason. I just can't imagine anyone liking it after knowing all the facts about Microsoft who they are generally supporting by using their operating system, but even in that case if they have different views so be it. In the end, I know for myself and my choices and I stand behind them. Everyone is free to choose for themselves. I apologize for the unintended insult. Thank you Daniel
I for one, am too lazy to go through the hassle of dualbooting, etc. so Lazy in fact, that I'm busy building a linux box which will act as my proxy server as well as a PHP/MySQL server, so that I can learn linux, PHP and mySQL. New machine = tinkering + no more laziness for me
It WAS enough for Bill Gates. He's a billionaire. He hires people to remember stuff for him. The rest of us need more memory because we can't afford to hire people...
Its ture, and nobody can be right all the time. Maybe bill has said a few stupid things, but he still made a lot of money, and you don't just make that much money with out knowing SOMPTHING. Even if he was lucky...