Without a doubt, online security is a major concern. The idea of monoculturism may be applicable to the computer industry due to the prevalence of MS operating systems. This, of course, assumes everyone has the same version of an MS operating system, with a single, universal exploitable flaw. The fact that not everyone has the exact same operating system nor the exact same component and software configuration tends to undermine the argument of 'monoculture' somewhat more.
Start by Installing a stable, easy to use and secure Linux distro.
SuSE 9.0 is an easy to migrate to OS for any XP user....and no, not everything is the same as XP. It's not XP. You will have to do some learning, but the learning curve is minimal.
Or you could just continue being the average lazy, ignorent Windows user and keep contributing to the problem.
Hackers are about to make it even easier for you to be flattened by a virii attack now th
Start by Installing a stable, easy to use and secure Linux distro.
So.. In order to be diverse, everyone must use Linux. Aparently your dictionary has a different definition of diverse than mine.
Hackers are about to make it even easier for you to be flattened by a virii attack now that Microsoft source has been leaked to the entire world.
Exactly how is "Windows Source available on the internet" more dangerous than "Linux source available on the internet" ?
The problem isn't that Microsoft software has security issues. All the OS's have 'em to some degree. The problem is exactly "monoculture". One bullet kills all. I'm more of a mind that companies need three operating systems.... Call them Alpha, Bravo and Charlie to avoid the existing OS arguments.
Alpha runs on the corporate web servers, ftp servers and in general anything hooked to the outside world.
Bravo runs on the intranet servers that provide file storage, user authentication, etc etc.
Charlie runs on the employee desktops.
Thus any virus that targets the public layer (Alpha) won't effect internal operations. Any virus that targets the workstations (Charlie) won't spread to the intranet servers (where important data should be stored, and regularly backed up) and any virus that targets the intranet servers (Bravo) needs to get past the other two (Alpha and Charlie) -- or introduced directly -- to be a threat.
Exactly how is "Windows Source available on the internet" more dangerous than "Linux source available on the internet" ?
Because Linux has been open all along and subjected to a cummulative 10+ years of the equivalent of peer review. Windows source hasn't, and has only been reviewed/inspected by a relative handful of people with PHBs urging them to finish what they're doing to move on to the next project.
The trouble with diversity (Score:5, Interesting)
However, diversity of computers fos
Re:The trouble with diversity (Score:0)
Want to increase online security?
Then change.
Start by Installing a stable, easy to use and secure Linux distro.
SuSE 9.0 is an easy to migrate to OS for any XP user.
Or you could just continue being the average lazy, ignorent Windows user and keep contributing to the problem.
Hackers are about to make it even easier for you to be flattened by a virii attack now th
Re:The trouble with diversity (Score:4, Insightful)
sorry--wrong format (Score:1)
So.. In order to be diverse, everyone must use Linux. Aparently your dictionary has a different definition of diverse than mine.
Hackers are about to make it even easier for you to be flattened by a virii attack now that Microsoft source has been leaked to the entire world.
Exactly how is "Windows Source available on the internet" more dangerous than "Linux source available on the internet" ?
The problem isn't that Microsoft software has
Re:The trouble with diversity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The trouble with diversity (Score:1)
Here's the first "exactly how". [securitytracker.com]
cheers- raga