We never urge No one to not connect to the internet"Which was Created by Us":) Infact ALL Os got thier source code from Us we're the Best Around and NO OS Will ever pin us down Chow Chow!

To Jonathan commented on 18 August 2003:

You are so VERY wrong.....my PC had the server service disabled, along with Workstation, Computer Browser and Messenger and I STILL got the msblaster worm. Know the facts before you speak.

-Dan

You're right. At no point does Microsoft explicitly say "Don't connect
your Windows computer to the Internet." But what was the premise of the
Microsoft article then? I think it's to make sure that you keep your
Windows computer well away from that pesky Internet. Thus, Microsoft is
*urging* Windows computers to be kept away from the Internet. What else
are they saying?

Yes, you can turn off services in Windows. But according to Microsoft,
there will be some things that won't work when you do so:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/secur...

Also, where does the author say that setting up a Linux firewall is
easy? He doesn't.

The article seems reasonable to me. We're on a Linux site remember. It actually seems more innocent than some of the stuff that Microsoft puts out about Linux:
http://members.microsoft.com/partner/salesmarketing/salestools/competiti...

Good article, but what does Mr. Suehring consider a "recent" article from the Microsoft XP site? The article he cited is from one year ago. It is not a typo either.

I only bring this up because I feel it is important for Linux sources to get their facts correct in order to not be guilty of spreading Microsoft-style FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about Microsoft products and advice.

I did agree with Mr. Suehring in his conclusions, although I believe that as all the flavors of Linux begin being used more and more throughout the world, we are going to be seeing more and more Linux security vulnerabilities showing up. It is part of the inevitable nature of computer programming, no matter whose language or product it is.

Normally, I'd be reading this article with some amusement. It really isn't something to be angry about, generally. There are always going to be people who really need an OS like Windows, because they are never going to do anything more than write an Email or type up a document. I know many of these people, and while my first impulse is to teach them GNU/Linux, I understand that variety is the spice of life, but complexity (for some) is sometimes the bane of it.

BUT, like I said, that would be my normal attitude. Here is why I am furious about this article today. Recently, in response to SCO v. IBM, Microsoft reportedly invested huge sums of money in SCO to pay for "licensing fees" related to Linux (I'd be interested in HOW Microsoft is using those licenses and what distros they run). Because the details are not all yet public, I can not make accurate criticism. But I am furious. And, where I normally view advice from Microsoft such as that found in this article as simply babying a technically-inept public, I now see it for what it is: maximizing Microsoft's marketing reach, and fattening their wallets.

If the money funnelling into SCO from Microsoft is any indication, Microsoft would rather see software die a slow death from the restrictions placed upon creative programming due to licensing and expensive software. Remeber, Microsoft had to pay $60 million to Caldera in an earlier lawsuit. What other reason would Microsoft have to pay SCO/Caldera except the hope that SCO wins the legal battle and software is forever wrapped in the chains of licensing and patents?

Forget about securing your PC to go online being an important issue; soon, you'll have to worry about securing your Linux distro from prying lawyers who want to sue you for the source you use to make your Linux distro unique and useful.

This is the reasons why many Linux advocates cannot be taken seriouly, they're blinded by the only pupose they have in life: prove that Linux is better than Windows.

Windows and Linux both have easy to configure (and free) firewall available. So the question why computers on the Internet are insecure? Because the average user don't understand the technology well enough to protect himself. The weakess link is the user.

What a ridiculous article. Arrogant FUD like this that have no basis in reality is one reason for Linux remaining on the fringes. A Linux firewall is easy to set up? Yeah right. For who? People like me maybe, but not the average computer user. The average computer user doesn't even know what a port is.

Don't get me wrong, I use Linux and Unix all the time and appreciate the power and choices they bring, but articles like this are just a total waste of bandwidth. Get off your elitist high horse and help some people.

Microsoft Urges Users Not to Use Windows on the Internet?
That will happen when Linux tops MSWindows in systems installed worldwide.

Agree with Incogmito: there's NO such sentence in the article URGING the users to NOT CONNECT Windows to the Internet. If I were the author, I would add an apology at the top of the article. I won't come back to that site until this is done.

This is just so much hot air. Nowhere does the microsoft article that is referred to proclaim "don't connect windows computers to the internet!" The author of the original article is giving practical advice that any computer user should follow. My linux box is running a firewall and yours should too. Promote Linux but don't use stupid FUD to do it.

I am questioning your entire premise of this article... If a user shutdown the Server Service on their Windows OS (a unnecessary service for a home user for sure and probably one for most corporate users) their PC would never have been infected.

The turning off the Server Service shuts down all INCOMING RPC requests while still allowing you to browse other network resources.....isn't that exactly what you said Windows was incapable of doing?

"The answer on Linux boxes is simple: Turn off unused services"...well...I hear that the same thing for the Windows OS's as well.

Windows XP DOES include a function to turn off services!!!