Windows 8 to Make USB Portable Workspace

[guzz46]

Ok you can believe what you want, but let me explain why i replied to you in the first place, tomtompiper said this "I cannot agree, an operating system that allows itself to be compromised because a user clicks one wrong button is not fit for purpose" to which you replied "Then no OS is fit for purpose.. No OS is that safe" so you are implying that a linux user can get his machine compromised just by clicking one wrong button, but you have yet to prove that to be true.

I don't assume that everyone gets their software from trusted repo's, thats how you install software in linux, thats what every distro recommends, there is pretty much no need to browse the net looking for a .deb file anyway, its smaller user base isn't the reason, its the much better security designs that i have mentioned, i don't think you realize how many people use linux, yet where is even one linux virus?

I never said its not impossible to get malware in linux, but to get one you would basically have to install it your self, not just click on something like you would in windows, and you have yet to prove that you can (probably because you can't)

An admin account isn't a mistake but creating the default user as admin is, which is why linux distro's have a root user and a standard user, which is obviously another security design benefit.

I fail to see how you can't see that using trusted signed repo's isn't an OS security benefit (we are talking about the distro as an OS not just the linux kernel) do you think that downloading a .exe from some random website is getting it from a trusted source? have you seen windows 8 app store?

Everything i say is true, google it if you don't believe me, linux has been ready for a long time, in fact in this day and age of malware it appears that its more ready than windows is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption

 

[enforcer22]

I have a feeling you don't read anything i say. Every distro recommends.. but it isn't 100% ! I recommend you don't click ok to every OK button but that obviously doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of viruses for linux my unwillingness to look them up doesn't make that un true.

"I never said its not impossible to get malware in linux, but to get one you would basically have to install it your self"

so you agree with me all along. (an example of pushing OK which is what i have been talking about this whole time.)

"An admin account isn't a mistake but creating the default user as admin is"

Thats exactly what i said ffs. I never said the admin account was a mistake.

"do you think that downloading a .exe from some random website is getting it from a trusted source? have you seen windows 8 app store?"

When the hell did i even imply that?

If it was so ready this whole time why isn't it 90% of the market instead of .7% to 1%? and wiki as proof really? REALLY? I did google it thats why i said what i read says your way off your rocker. And after reading your replies to my posts and not only agreeing with me for most of it while at the same time arguing im wrong and not only that arguing points i wasn't even talking about in the first place im not going to take your reading skills at face value.


I funny thing i did read in this posts of your is "I never said its not impossible to get malware in linux" then you go onto say " yet where is even one linux virus?" malware can be a virus and can open a gateway for a virus.

Since we are using such a "trusted" site as wiki (snicker) here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware . so you

#1 argue the same points as me in a couple cases yet classify me wrong.
#2 somewhat over state the security of linux (though i do agree it to be more secure)
#3 contradict your self in almost every post you make.
#4 you cant freaking read.
#5 You apparently think just because linux was made to work some way (trusted download sites and other things) the user is just going to do it.

You keep talking about how i don't prove anything. But so far neither have you. Other then most business's use linux for their servers which is way on the other side of the world of what i was talking about. 4% of computers shipped almost all of which is business. Your link really didn't help your case at all.

Ill give linux one thing though.. Its perfect for nitch stuff where you need to basically mold it for things like car decks and GPS.

Please for the love of god don't make me get the crayon.

 

[guzz46]

I recommend you don't click ok to every OK button but that obviously doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of viruses for linux my unwillingness to look them up doesn't make that un true.

Is that so? then where are they? just lead me to one linux virus, i know you won't because there are no linux viruses in the wild, because of the very reasons i mentioned, and you still have yet to prove how i can get my linux machine infected just by clicking ok or even ok a few times, you do remember that you need to enter a password to install software in linux right? and that linux users get their software from their distro's repo's? do i really need to remind you how insecure windows is that you can get a virus just by clicking a popup window or even visiting a URL.

so you agree with me all along. (an example of pushing OK which is what i have been talking about this whole time.)

No i don't agree with you, once again you need to enter your password in linux to install software, not just by clicking ok a few times on a file that doesn't even have executable permissions in the first place.

If it was so ready this whole time why isn't it 90% of the market instead of .7% to 1%?

Because people use what comes on their PC's, they don't actually choose to use windows, and microsoft does its best to keep OEM's from shipping PC's with linux installed.

I funny thing i did read in this posts of your is "I never said its not impossible to get malware in linux" then you go onto say " yet where is even one linux virus?" malware can be a virus and can open a gateway for a virus.

Yes its not impossible to install software on linux, and if you want to install malware then you are free to do so, have you even been reading anything i have been saying? like the reasons why there are no linux viruses in the wild, in the wild remember, not in a lab, you do know the difference don't you?

Yes i believe that linux users (especially average users) will install software from the repo because thats what they have been told, and there is no reason to look for software any where else, they probably wouldn't even know how to install software outside of the software center.

What haven't i proven? just google it and you will see that everything i say has been the truth, that linux doesn't give files executable permissions by default etc.. etc... etc... you are the one that needs to prove that i an get my linux machine infected just by clicking on the wrong button, do i need to remind you again the reason i replied to you in the first place?

tomtompiper said this "I cannot agree, an operating system that allows itself to be compromised because a user clicks one wrong button is not fit for purpose" and you replied "Then no OS is fit for purpose.. No OS is that safe"

You made that remark so where is your proof?

 

[enforcer22]

Wait did you just ask me for proof of a virus on a computer? Or proof of one in the wild? cuz the first you would have to be a moron to ask and the second is a totally different thing.

And not all people get their software from the linux distro to even assume that is idiotic.

Yes you might have to enter your password Assuming you aren't logged in as admin which doesn't excuse the user from clicking ok I'm confused as to your argument there. I think your just trying to talk circles around that so you dont have to admit even in linux once you click ok its done.

Yeah i forgot MS tells you what to use.. wait.. why is there a unix linux mac os freebsd wait... isn't MS saying to not use those ? so why do they even exist? If you think the OEM's wouldn't ship with linux if they thought there was a market for it your more insane then hitler.

If you mean to say by wild there is no virus infecting a linux box anywhere your fin nutz. There is always a reason to do something which includes look for software other then what someone is told. If people only did what they were told then .. wait you live on this planet?

I did google i said that twice now. both times i also mention what i found said your wrong on so for every account i have replied to in this.

My proof is a human coded it humans make many mistakes why are you so intent on making linux bullet proof when its not? where is your proof it is? why do you insist linux defies the laws of software. Why is it linux is wholly immune to all things bad? if you believe any of that btw your rock wants you to go back to living under it. only someone delusional would think their OS cannot be compromised because someone installs something with malicious code.

BTW its either all or average you cant have both.. You cant tie up all your lose ends by saying one thing then saying another at the same time. Stop counterpointing your self.

Hell first you didn't agree with me linux had a small suer base and tried to prove it with a link now you agree with me only you put the blame on someone else.

You sound like a propaganda machine. just say what some fanboy says and repeat it as if its really a fact. Yet your own proof via the link you gave proved your point wrong. You tell me a user cannot be compromised then you say they can but they have to do stuff to allow the program to run which is what i said which is why i said you agree with me because thats what i said from the start is if a user allows it to run on their computer (aka saying ok) they can be infected but even though we both said it when i say it im wrong when you say it somehow its different. Fell like I'm talking to a wall. You agree with me when it suits your argument but at the same time tell me I'm wrong which would also make you wrong. Either your just messing with me or your freaking retarded.

 

[guzz46]

Oh man, how simple can i make this, i will say it again, the reason i replied to you in the first place is because of this.... tomtompiper said this "I cannot agree, an operating system that allows itself to be compromised because a user clicks one wrong button is not fit for purpose" and you replied "Then no OS is fit for purpose.. No OS is that safe"

So where is your proof that a linux machine can become compromised just by clicking on the wrong button? if you don't have proof then just say it instead of beating around the bush, i know you don't have proof anyway.

Are you a politician or something? let me explain this once again, linux distro's have the user as a standard user (ubuntu doesn't even enable the root account by default) and linux users get their software from their distro's repos despite what you (a windows user who doesn't know how linux works thinks) so they don't download software from websites to install on their computer, and linux doesn't give files executable permissions by default so even if someone did downloaded something it wouldn't even be able to run because it doesn't have permission to execute.

Windows has the user as admin and uses executable files so if you click on something and it has a hidden virus it can infect your system (even possible bypass UAC) thats why windows security sucks.

If you mean to say by wild there is no virus infecting a linux box anywhere your fin nutz

Are you really that stupid? in the wild means floating out there on the net with the ability to infect linux machines, but if you would like to prove me wrong then give me proof, i could say there are aliens out there but just because you don't see them it doesn't mean they don't exist.

I did google i said that twice now. both times i also mention what i found said your wrong on so for every account i have replied to in this.

No you didn't because i'm not wrong, but once again you can show me that every thing i have said about linux security is wrong by showing me actual proof, not just words you have typed on your keyboard.

My proof is a human coded it humans make many mistakes why are you so intent on making linux bullet proof when its not? where is your proof it is? why do you insist linux defies the laws of software. Why is it linux is wholly immune to all things bad? if you believe any of that btw your rock wants you to go back to living under it. only someone delusional would think their OS cannot be compromised because someone installs something with malicious code.

WTF! where have i counterpointed myself? if you had read what i had written i said you are free to install malware on linux if you wish (if you can find any that is) once again read the start of this post, eg.. on windows just click on a popup window or even just visit a website to get infected by a virus, show me how this can happen on a linux machine, PLEASE

Hell first you didn't agree with me linux had a small suer base and tried to prove it with a link now you agree with me only you put the blame on someone else.

What the hell? of course linux has a smaller user base, i gave the link to prove its not as small as you think and its not the reason why linux has no viruses out in the wild infecting linux machines, its linux superior security design.

You sound like a propaganda machine. just say what some fanboy says and repeat it as if its really a fact. Yet your own proof via the link you gave proved your point wrong. You tell me a user cannot be compromised then you say they can but they have to do stuff to allow the program to run which is what i said which is why i said you agree with me because thats what i said from the start is if a user allows it to run on their computer (aka saying ok) they can be infected but even though we both said it when i say it im wrong when you say it somehow its different. Fell like I'm talking to a wall. You agree with me when it suits your argument but at the same time tell me I'm wrong which would also make you wrong. Either your just messing with me or your freaking retarded.

Excuse me but who is the retarded person here? you implied that a linux user can get his machine compromised just by clicking on one button, but i have asked you for your proof many many times but you can't give me any, you just beat around the bush.
Heck you must realize how poor windows security is if a user can get a virus just from browsing the net, after all this is what this is all about, how stupidly easy it is to get a virus on windows.

Once again PLEASE explain to me how a linux machine can become compromised just by clicking on the wrong button, like for example a browser popup window.

 

[enforcer22]

"Oh man, how simple can i make this, i will say it again, the reason i replied to you in the first place is because of this.... tomtompiper said this "I cannot agree, an operating system that allows itself to be compromised because a user clicks one wrong button is not fit for purpose" and you replied "Then no OS is fit for purpose.. No OS is that safe"

So where is your proof that a linux machine can become compromised just by clicking on the wrong button? if you don't have proof then just say it instead of beating around the bush, i know you don't have proof anyway.

Are you a politician or something? let me explain this once again, linux distro's have the user as a standard user (ubuntu doesn't even enable the root account by default) and linux users get their software from their distro's repos despite what you (a windows user who doesn't know how linux works thinks) so they don't download software from websites to install on their computer, and linux doesn't give files executable permissions by default so even if someone did downloaded something it wouldn't even be able to run because it doesn't have permission to execute.

Windows has the user as admin and uses executable files so if you click on something and it has a hidden virus it can infect your system (even possible bypass UAC) thats why windows security sucks."

None of which is even relevant to what i said.

"No you didn't because i'm not wrong, but once again you can show me that every thing i have said about linux security is wrong by showing me actual proof, not just words you have typed on your keyboard."

I'm giving you as much proof as you have given me. I never said what you said about linux security is wrong I never faulted linux's better security not once. I am only talking about the user thats all i have ever been talking about. Linux does have better security and it does a good job against a lot of viruses none of which i ever disputed.

"What the hell? of course linux has a smaller user base, i gave the link to prove its not as small as you think and its not the reason why linux has no viruses out in the wild infecting linux machines, its linux superior security design."

The user base of linux is as small as i mentioned.. You didn't even come close to proving otherwise.

"Excuse me but who is the retarded person here? you implied that a linux user can get his machine compromised just by clicking on one button,"

I did? when? where? i ONLY said if someone clicks ok ( if i really have to go into detail here) Once a user lets something install on their computer its their fault not the OS which has been my whole point this whole time. Which you agreed could happen so i still have no idea why your arguing with me.

"Heck you must realize how poor windows security is if a user can get a virus just from browsing the net, after all this is what this is all about"

Since when? in what universe has it even been remotely about that? maybe in your head of all the stuff you made up in your mind that I'm talking about ok ill agree with that. You have a knack for putting words in my mouth and talking about a lot of crap i wasn't even refering to let alone remotely close to talking about.

"Once again PLEASE explain to me how a linux machine can become compromised just by clicking on the wrong button, like for example a browser popup window."

Why would i? i never said clicking the wrong button did anything. in fact i don't know what clicking the wrong button would do on any OS. that is so vague a description its meaningless.

this sentence makes absolutely no sense at all.. You have already told me how . Do you not even read what you say? Still not talking about popup windows as i wasn't referring to security of a browser. Please listen this time its getting annoying saying the same thing over and over. ( i assume thats what you mean by wrong button at least)

Only thing i can say you you admit there is malware for linux out there but say there aren't any viruses in the wild. Which is it? Unless you wish to separate malware viruses Trojans root kits and everything else to separate sub sections. All types of viruses all ways to compromise a computer all ways of getting your info and ways of taking control of your computer so i simply group them into one since their purpose is all in the same.

Quote "UNIX / Linux Viruses - straight from the hip...
by Clay, Frederic and Andrew

Problem:
The myth that Linux is immune to viruses still persists.

Solution:
"We" refute this myth.

The "debate" continues to rage on about UNIX and Linux viruses. Much of what you may have read is simply uninformed and inaccurate. More and more "virus experts" are crawling out of the woodwork and many seem to have little "real world" knowledge of UNIX. This is probably because most viruses and anti-virus software is written for Windows-based systems. However, that is no excuse for disseminating misinformation, so we'll just focus on the known facts here.

The computer virus problem is much less prevalent under the Unix platform, but that does not at all mean it is nonexistent. Unix viruses (though very few) do exist. Additionally, some of the oldest worms are UNIX based! If you consider your data important, you need to accept these facts.
(Name one Linux virus? Okay... Bliss.)

That said, there are certainly (and not surprisingly) very few viruses in the wild viable under Unix. This is partly because of access restrictions in the environment. For example, if a user runs a file that is infected with a virus, it can only do what this user has privileges to do (under normal conditions-not much) so at very least, it cannot spread to other systems. But, if a superuser (or anyone with full permissions) runs a virus, it could possibly infect the whole system and travel to other systems... etc.

Also, one must remember that viruses are much less prevalent under UNIX operating systems simply because those operating systems are not as widely used for home systems as DOS/Windows operating systems. If more people used UNIX operating systems at home, obviously more viruses would target them. The rise in popularity of the GNU/Linux operating system, has certainly shown this to be true.

Beware, as Unix type systems such as GNU/Linux become more popular and home user friendly, more and more inexperienced users will probably operate their systems as a user with full system access, giving malware an easy way to disrupt the system."

I think i get what your thinking. You make a lot of assumptions about linux users. That they are to smart to do anything wrong and only download software from "guaranteed" parties and never ever EVER install anything under anything more then the equivalent of a guest account. Only problem with assumptions are they are the mother of all f ups. If we assume as you apparently are in the perfect world where no program needs more then mediocre user level and everyone that uses linux is perfect then your statements might hold true. Though perfect is about as obtainable as reading skills are for you.

Feel free to dispute a bunch of stuff i never talked about now while agreeing with me on the one thing i did say while double talking it to sounding how it can almost sound like your saying something different then you are. Try not to take everything so lateral and use the common sense tool.

 

[guzz46]

I'm giving you as much proof as you have given me. I never said what you said about linux security is wrong I never faulted linux's better security not once. I am only talking about the user thats all i have ever been talking about. Linux does have better security and it does a good job against a lot of viruses none of which i ever disputed.

Great, so why then when tomtompiper said this "I cannot agree, an operating system that allows itself to be compromised because a user clicks one wrong button is not fit for purpose" did you reply with this "Then no OS is fit for purpose.. No OS is that safe"? you are saying that a linux user can get his machine compromised just by clicking one button, so i asked for proof, and i have yet to see any.

I did? when? where? i ONLY said if someone clicks ok ( if i really have to go into detail here) Once a user lets something install on their computer its their fault not the OS which has been my whole point this whole time. Which you agreed could happen so i still have no idea why your arguing with me.

No, as above you implied that a linux user can get his machine compromised just by clicking one button (or ok if you wish)
You still seem to be forgetting what this is about, which is that windows isn't fit for its purpose because it can become compromised just by the user clicking on something, that can't happen on linux.

 

[enforcer22]

The only thing you keep saying thats even close to relevant to what my original post was is what tomtom said. everything is just a bunch of gibberish. I don't even know how i allowed you to get me caught up in this argument when the whole time it was all totally irrelevant to my original point.

I dont care how secure or insecure windows is that had absolutely nothing to do with my point. The security level of linux is equally irrelevant.

I never said any such thing about clicking a button saying that over and over wont make it true. You never had a clue what this was about and for some reason i let you drag me into all this crap.

Now since you had to take what he said as literally as possible. as his response to my post that the user is at fault for installing a virus. which is true he seems to think linux can some how stop you all together at least thats how i took it. And you go down all these roads of pointlessness that have absolutely nothing to do with anything and i allowed it to happen. Now i can see why your so hell bent on proving your point. You read the last half of what was going on and assumed you knew what was going on. seems i did get one thing right.. you do not read everything. And no OS is safe thats a fact. Indisputable. my whole point all along. I never said how it could be done or what it would take i only said it was possible.

 

[guzz46]

I never said any such thing about clicking a button saying that over and over wont make it true. You never had a clue what this was about and for some reason i let you drag me into all this crap.

I'm sorry but you did when you implied that linux can become compromised by clicking on one wrong button, if you didn't mean it then you shouldn't of said it, and i believe what tomtom meant is that windows isn't fit for its purpose if a user can get a virus just by clicking on something, not even installing anything... just clicking on something.

 

[enforcer22]

He means a system that can be compromised by the user wasn't fit. He was replying to what i said which was once the user allows a program to install (clicking OK) its on the user not the OS. I never implied simply clicking a button would compromise a computer thats ridiculous. who would even think that was possible let onlone thats what was meant if they had read the whole conversation.

Only other possible answer is he wasn't replying to what i said. Or you could have read what i have been saying and you (assuming common sense of course) would have known i have been saying once the user says OK its their fault. why you decided to take what he said in reply to what i said so literally that it allowed all this crap ill never know. Sorry I'm not use to talk to narrow thinking people. I assumed you would put 2 and 2 together and realize that had nothing to do with what was being said.

 

[enforcer22]

I also never once implied linux could be compromised by clicking a button. You came up with 3 when you added 2 and 2 apparently. Thats what tom said not me perhaps if he worded it better. I just used common sense and realized what he was trying to say.

 

[guzz46]

I never implied simply clicking a button would compromise a computer thats ridiculous

Really? so i should not believe anything you write then? because thats what you implied, remember... tomtompiper "I cannot agree, an operating system that allows itself to be compromised because a user clicks one wrong button is not fit for purpose" EnFoRceR22... "Then no OS is fit for purpose.. No OS is that safe"

And by the way i have received a virus warning in windows 7 on a virtual machine just from visiting one of those websites on malwareblacklist.com (without even clicking anything)

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable-8-10-viruses/

 

[enforcer22]

whats a virus warning have to do with anything? more irrelevance. and no i never implied it since i never said it there is nothing to believe. no OS is safe from the user if i need to use crayon and spell it out word for word. If you read the whole conversation which started by me saying o forget it. If you cant read anything else said repeating it for the 10th time wont make any difference.

Believe what you want doesn't matter to me. If you want to think linux cant be infected with a virus because a user clicked ok.. which is normally a button in a GUI FYI ignorance is bliss i suppose. Thats as about is literal as i can get. btw a warning isn't the same as being infected not that it has any relevance to anything.

 

[guzz46]

Whats that got to do with anything? well you said this "I never implied simply clicking a button would compromise a computer thats ridiculous" thats why i said got a virus warning just from visiting a website (without even clicking on anything)

But then you say this "If you want to think linux cant be infected with a virus because a user clicked ok" so what is it then? can a user compromise a system by clicking one button (ok) or not?

 

[enforcer22]

You are so off of what the point was in that conversation i don't even think you know what your arguing. i still even after your explanation dont see any relevance to you getting a virus warning on some website.

What does any of that having to do with me saying most of the problems i see on computer has been the result of the user. so you went to a website that has a virus whoopty freaking doo. just because that other dude wanted to put the total blame for infections totally on the OS doesn't mean that has any relevance at all with any of it.

I pretty much have come to the conclusion your just messing with my head. Since i refuse to believe someone could be so with out reading skills or common sense on this magnitude. next time just butt out of other peoples conversations until you know what exactly is being said. You are totally clueless on what we were talking about. I'm now done with this conversation you can rationalize everything by your self from now on. the fact you take click ok so goddamn Literally only leads me to believe you are a huge pain in the ass to anyone that has to deal with you since you cannot muster enough common sense to even realize what that even meant in the context in which the conversation was taking place. Talking to you is a waste of time. I hope i gave you another thread to grab onto and twist around for your amusement.

 

[guzz46]

What does any of that having to do with me saying most of the problems i see on computer has been the result of the user

That is the point, that its not the users fault, its the security design flaws in windows, which is exactly why i have been trying to explain why they wouldn't have those problems if they were using linux.

And you still haven't answered my question if a user can compromise a system by clicking on one button or not, oh and i didn't reply to your whole conversation, just the quote, hence using the quote, all i wanted to know was how i could compromise my linux machine just by clicking one button.

 

[oxygens]

[citation][nom]fuzzyplankton[/nom]16GB??? Ubuntu runs on a 1GB stick... Fail.[/citation]
Correction: Ubuntu runs out of disk space on a 1 GB stick. In a short time.

BTW, Windows takes about 5GB after install (and you don't need to run "apt-get" every 2 minutes). Make sure you don't just right click with Explorer to check, it will double count all hard links and show you 10 GB taken. Just measure the Windows\winsxs folder.

 

[oxygens]

[citation][nom]Horhe[/nom]I agree that 16 GB is way too much. There are fully functional Linux distros that can fit on a CD. While reading the title, for a moment I thought that Windows will return to the pre-Vista size. Even to this day I can't understand what and why Windows Vista / 7 features take up so much space compared to Windows XP.[/citation]

About 9GB of those 16GB will prolly be free space, unless occupied by hibernate.sys and pagefile.sys. Other than that, nobody will install Windows on a normal flash stick which wears out after a few writes (and also...next year most USB sticks, especially SSD USB sticks, will always be >16GB).