[opensource] Linux vs. Windows

BRIAN SWANEY swaney.29 at osu.edu
Thu Oct 26 08:42:52 EDT 2006


This has been an interesting conversation and I actually read all of these. I actually read all the way too (unless there are more following your e-mail). I actually like debates and found them somewhat amusing. I just didn't reply too quickly because I've been out to class, a meeting with some assistant dean, and then at an ntSig meeting (where my battery died) to learn a small amount about programming (so long as it works, I doubt the provider this new book I got really matters). My loss I guess, I just flooded my inbox (I actually though I had 3 e-mails, but had 23).

Please accept my apology for the content of my original e-mail. I should have known that noting (possible) advantages/disadvantages of the 2 operating systems as well as giving the e-mail a subject that implies a competition or battle between 2 sides that are obviously arch rivals to a mailing list that is heavily populated by both sided would be somewhat like throwing a lit torch at a shelf full of firewroks with all the flaming it would cause. Yes, that can be considered a run-on sentence for those of you who want to correct my grammar; I actually appreciate when people do that. Apparently I had another misconception, that the 2 groups have agreed to disagree, and, in the process I started the war all over again. Anyways, I guess I wasn't thinking before posting (again). Please also accept my additional apology if this has reached your mail quota and you missed any important e-mail (although something tells me that you might not be recieving this one either).

By-the-way Nick, Your closing sentence in response to all of this was hilarious, and no I didn't find any spelling or grammatical errors.

-Brian Swaney
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_51043_7580782.1161815143507"


------=_Part_51043_7580782.1161815143507
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

As fun as flame wars are, they tend not to be productive at all.  In the
end, two or more people are just pissed off at each other and neither of
them are going to entertain what the other has to say.  We could have a
reasonable discussion about the security in Windows and Linux, but when
people start the smartass comments, the discussion looses value.  The only
way to have a productive argument like this is to respond to each other
without trying to make the other person look like an idiot.  It just isn't
necessary.  I don't mean to pick on this message, but it happened to be the
one that made me decide to respond.  I'm also not trying to imply that Brian
D. is the only person here guilty of any of this.  That said, comments like
"*gasp*" just piss people off.  It's rare that someone is going to respond
to a smartass comment and think "You know what, that guy just called me an
idiot, but he has such a good point that my entire perspective has been
changed."  Furthermore, spelling and grammar corrections with a smartass
tone aren't helpful or productive either (it's considered polite in argument
to give a person the benefit of the doubt, ie if you know what they meant,
you don't need to call them on it, or at least, you don't need to act like
his/her point was invalid).  Also, if a discussion is carried forward mainly
by smartass comments, people are going to loose interest eventually and stop
paying attention (although apparently I haven't).

The long and the short of it is, if you (generally, not talking to anyone
specifically) want to help the discussion, respond rationally /without
attacking the other person personally/.  If you want to piss people off,
then go ahead with the flame war.  Maybe I'm being naive, but I would expect
readers of this list to understand this.  That said, this isn't the first
(and probably won't be the last) flame war on this list, but if we want to
help the community, we should try and avoid them.

OK, that's all I've got.  Feel free to send me your death threats and
spelling corrections.

Nick

On 10/25/06, Brian Dittmer <dittmer.6 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
> I wasn't "sighting" anything, maybe citing...but anyway, you should READ
> THE WHOLE ARTICLE before you disregard it immediately.  They actually
> use, *gasp*, a process and *double gasp* INFORMED RESEARCH to come to
> their conclusions.
>
> Besides, you still haven't addressed the fact that your claims are
> baseless and you've yet to back them up with any evidence.  Com'on, you
> ridicule Brian (the other one) for not being able to use Google...find
> some evidence from a reputable source with a documented process that
> says Windows is as secure or more secure than Linux.  If you're going to
> start a flame war (and if you thought your original email wouldn't
> you're more clueless than I thought) at least back it up.
>
>
> Charlie Hayes wrote:
> > No, I'm claiming that now (two years after that document was made)
> > Windows security is on par with Linux. Plus the register isn't a
> > "source" worth sighting.
> >
> > -Charlie
> >
> > On Oct 25, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Brian Dittmer wrote:
> >
> >> Charlie Hayes wrote:
> >>> That document is over two years old. Note my phrasing: "At this
> point".
> >> So you're claiming Linux is in fact worse off than it was two years
> >> ago?  Again, cite some sources.
> >>>
> >>> -Charlie Hayes
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 25, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Brian Dittmer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Charlie Hayes wrote:
> >>>>> At this point the general security of Windows is about the same as
> >>>>> GNU/Linux system.
> >>>> Wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensource mailing list
> Opensource at cse.ohio-state.edu
> http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource
>

------=_Part_51043_7580782.1161815143507
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

As fun as flame wars are, they tend not to be productive at all.&nbsp; In t=
he end, two or more people are just pissed off at each other and neither of=
 them are going to entertain what the other has to say.&nbsp; We could have=
 a reasonable discussion about the security in Windows and Linux, but when =
people start the smartass comments, the discussion looses value.&nbsp; The =
only way to have a productive argument like this is to respond to each othe=
r without trying to make the other person look like an idiot.&nbsp; It just=
 isn't necessary.&nbsp; I don't mean to pick on this message, but it happen=
ed to be the one that made me decide to respond.&nbsp; I'm also not trying =
to imply that Brian D. is the only person here guilty of any of this.&nbsp;=
 That said, comments like &quot;*gasp*&quot; just piss people off.&nbsp; It=
's rare that someone is going to respond to a smartass comment and think &q=
uot;You know what, that guy just called me an idiot, but he has such a good=
 point that my entire perspective has been changed.&quot;&nbsp; Furthermore=
, spelling and grammar corrections with a smartass tone aren't helpful or p=
roductive either (it's considered polite in argument to give a person the b=
enefit of the doubt, ie if you know what they meant, you don't need to call=
 them on it, or at least, you don't need to act like his/her point was inva=
lid).&nbsp; Also, if a discussion is carried forward mainly by smartass com=
ments, people are going to loose interest eventually and stop paying attent=
ion (although apparently I haven't).
<br><br>The long and the short of it is, if you (generally, not talking to =
anyone specifically) want to help the discussion, respond rationally /witho=
ut attacking the other person personally/.&nbsp; If you want to piss people=
 off, then go ahead with the flame war.&nbsp; Maybe I'm being naive, but I =
would expect readers of this list to understand this.&nbsp; That said, this=
 isn't the first (and probably won't be the last) flame war on this list, b=
ut if we want to help the community, we should try and avoid them.
<br><br>OK, that's all I've got.&nbsp; Feel free to send me your death thre=
ats and spelling corrections.<br><br>Nick<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_=
quote">On 10/25/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Brian Dittmer</b> &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:dittmer.6 at osu.edu">
dittmer.6 at osu.edu</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex=
; padding-left: 1ex;">I wasn't &quot;sighting&quot; anything, maybe citing.=
..but anyway, you should READ
<br>THE WHOLE ARTICLE before you disregard it immediately.&nbsp;&nbsp;They =
actually<br>use, *gasp*, a process and *double gasp* INFORMED RESEARCH to c=
ome to<br>their conclusions.<br><br>Besides, you still haven't addressed th=
e fact that your claims are
<br>baseless and you've yet to back them up with any evidence.&nbsp;&nbsp;C=
om'on, you<br>ridicule Brian (the other one) for not being able to use Goog=
le...find<br>some evidence from a reputable source with a documented proces=
s that
<br>says Windows is as secure or more secure than Linux.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you'=
re going to<br>start a flame war (and if you thought your original email wo=
uldn't<br>you're more clueless than I thought) at least back it up.<br><br>=
<br>Charlie Hayes wrote:
<br>&gt; No, I'm claiming that now (two years after that document was made)=
<br>&gt; Windows security is on par with Linux. Plus the register isn't a<b=
r>&gt; &quot;source&quot; worth sighting.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; -Charlie<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; On Oct 25, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Brian Dittmer wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&=
gt; Charlie Hayes wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; That document is over two years ol=
d. Note my phrasing: &quot;At this point&quot;.<br>&gt;&gt; So you're claim=
ing Linux is in fact worse off than it was two years
<br>&gt;&gt; ago?&nbsp;&nbsp;Again, cite some sources.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&=
gt;&gt;&gt; -Charlie Hayes<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; On Oct 25, 2006,=
 at 1:57 PM, Brian Dittmer wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Charl=
ie Hayes wrote:
<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; At this point the general security of Windows is a=
bout the same as<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; GNU/Linux system.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&=
gt; Wrong.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.th=
eregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/">
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/</a>=
<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;<br=
>&gt;<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Opensource =
mailing list
<br><a href=3D"mailto:Opensource at cse.ohio-state.edu">Opensource at cse.ohio-st=
ate.edu</a><br><a href=3D"http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/o=
pensource">http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource</a><b=
r>
</blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_51043_7580782.1161815143507--


-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Opensource mailing list
Opensource at cse.ohio-state.edu
http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource


More information about the Opensource mailing list