Originally posted by rtfazeberdee
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gentoo Developer: Is The Linux Desktop Less Secure Than Windows 10?
Collapse
X
-
This is very nice, I'm gonna lok at it to learn more. Thank you very much
Originally posted by ⲣⲂaggins View PostThen don't give it the root pw. You should be able to install a proprietary program into a user's home dir, all done inside a sandbox to limit access to just the installation directory. If it doesn't give you that option, you can always try fooling it with overlayfs, or just work in a container.
Maybe it's called superuser instead of root, I just said that because I don't know exactly what is called, but I know that it wants higher permission.
I mean I understand what it asks for higher permission for Gparted for example, because that program can absolutely destroy everything, but I don't understand why others need this kind of power. Seriously?
I see too many programs on linux saying "Give me the power to be God and destroy everything if I want".
Of course I can say no, but then the program won't open. What's the point on that?
Originally posted by ⲣⲂaggins View PostBecause defaults are there to work for most things but to be changed when needed.
I have never seen any distro having any control panel where I can set some boundaries for programs, what can they access (read or write) and what they can not.
It's either access to everything or don't use/install it
Comment
-
Originally posted by Danny3 View PostMaybe I din't explained well, I'm talking about the pop-up window that appears in Ubuntu when you launch a program and asks for your password.
Maybe it's called superuser instead of root, I just said that because I don't know exactly what is called, but I know that it wants higher permission.
I mean I understand what it asks for higher permission for Gparted for example, because that program can absolutely destroy everything, but I don't understand why others need this kind of power. Seriously?
I see too many programs on linux saying "Give me the power to be God and destroy everything if I want".
Of course I can say no, but then the program won't open. What's the point on that?
Originally posted by Pentarctagon View PostI'm not sure how this is all that debatable - Windows is taking certain security measures that most Linux distributions are not. ASLR in particular seems like something that should have been enabled everywhere a long time ago.Last edited by F.Ultra; 07 February 2017, 07:03 AM.
Comment
-
Less secure? Maybe it's possible... On the one condition that you must count 'Microsoft having unrestricted access to all your files and settings' as "secure" that is, that you would trust Microsoft with all your data. A company that exists solely for profit and doesn't give two shits about what you think, yeah I think that sounds trustworthy as all hell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rabcor View PostOn the one condition that you must count 'Microsoft having unrestricted access to all your files and settings' as "secure" that is, that you would trust Microsoft with all your data.
Originally posted by Mark ShuttleworthDon’t trust us? Erm, we have root. You do trust us with your data already.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chithanh View Post
And the difference between Microsoft and regular black hats is that Microsoft has 100% unrestricted access to all windows 10 systems, and if they decide to throw in a patch (which btw they have for win 7 through 8.1) they have it for older versions of windows as well. 24/7 no need for going through back doors, they go through the front and you can't lock the door on them. At least the black hats are usually just people or groups of people, they did not create your operating system, and they do not have unrestricted access to it from the very moment you install it and hook it up to the internet. They have to fight for your system, Microsoft and well I guess Canonical don't have to fight for it, but in Canonical's case, if they try to do something people don't like, they get called out for it because everyone can see their open source code and anyone can keep track of their patches and updates to their software which a lot of people do. Microsoft doesn't have to go through that sort of scrutiny they throw us their software and say "trust us, with everything, we'll do shit behind your back but don't worry, it's ok, you can trust us." except for their handful of open source ventures, which I admit is a bit surprising to me.
Originally posted by duby229 View Post
I suppose my experience predisposes me to broken machines and I had always just chalked it off to that, but I always thought OSX felt slow too! Like it's working hard just to work. It reminded me of XP on a Willamette P4.Last edited by rabcor; 07 February 2017, 10:26 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostI suppose my experience predisposes me to broken machines and I had always just chalked it off to that, but I always thought OSX felt slow too! Like it's working hard just to work. It reminded me of XP on a Willamette P4.
Performance is actually lower, but user experience (system responsiveness) was pretty good.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rabcor View PostMicrosoft has 100% unrestricted access to all windows 10 systems, and if they decide to throw in a patch (which btw they have for win 7 through 8.1) they have it for older versions of windows as well. 24/7 no need for going through back doors, they go through the front and you can't lock the door on them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pawlerson View PostThanks for the information. Hopefully they'll listen to grsecurity and make it better. Ps. FreeBSD has the same problem.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment