@scottalanmiller said in Formbuilder services for tablet / phone ...:
It's as if it isn't provisioned (I don't think that it is), but something in the system broke and then provisioned it as a trial instead of part of our account.
Ahh. In Zoho One you have to add the new app in the portal before you use it or you will get the trial version - even if you are licensed for it. It has tripped me up a few times already.
I don't know if it's the same in Zoho Workplace.
@scottalanmiller said in Formbuilder services for tablet / phone ...:
In the short time since this thread was active, we've moved into the Zoho Workplace suite now. It's almost nothing more than we had before, but a little bit of additional collaboration, some new interfaces, and hopefully some team storage. However, their conversion team hit a snag and WorkDrive isn't working yet. So we haven't been able to realize any of the real benefits, yet.
What was the problem with workdrive? Or was it moving your data to workdrive that was the problem?
What did you think guys? First back in the day it was just redhat linux, then you get redhat commercial linux, then redhat linux became fedora, and then you got redhat enterprise linux, and then centos and then (I don't know were stream came into the picture)...
Contrast that to something like debian, a true community based distro that has been well...just debian...all this time.
Anyway, my point is that redhat is commercial and since redhat started, they changed everything around multiple times. In all of these projects, including fedora, redhat is the largest contributor bar none. Fedora is not a true community based distro. It's redhat developers with the help of a community. Big difference. I think 35% of all Fedora contributors are redhat employees.
Since redhat is a commercial for profit company they will do whatever their leadership and owners decides and so will their distros. Money talks as they say. To think fedora would be anything near what it is without redhat, is naive. And to think that there wouldn't be any changes long-term, as there has been in the past, and as there will be in the future, is naive as well.
So none of this should have come as a surprise for anyone. If it did, you were not thinking straight.
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
At what point does someone go from being a security researcher who's raised the red flag to a platform who apparently refuses to fix simple but large vulnerabilities to a black-hat?
There are numerous cases of White-Hats saying "hey we gave them months to fix this issue and we were continually ignored, for the security of the users, we're making this public to get the platform to fix this issue"
The difference between a hacker and a security researcher is the intent.
This is from the arstechnica article:
"To recap, the scraping was pulled off by a hacker who goes by the handle donk_enby. She originally set out to archive content posted to Parler last Wednesday in hopes of preserving self-incriminating material before account holders came to their senses and deleted it."
That is obviously not security research in any way shape or form.
donk_enby goes on:
“I want this to be a big middle finger to those who say hacking shouldn’t be political,”
So a hacktivist.
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Pete-S said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Closed source can be secure, but it always is at a security disadvantage as closed source is inherently harder to secure than open source.
Just arguments and no proof yet again
No, we provided the proofs. Just because the closed source camp withholds the proof that you decide we need doesn't change the facts. It only supports them.
That's a sad argument and false. You have provided zero proof, because there are none.
Just show us just one simple peer reviewed research paper that shows us that open source is more secure by nature.
PS. And I'm the open source camp btw.
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Closed source can be secure, but it always is at a security disadvantage as closed source is inherently harder to secure than open source.
Just arguments and no proof yet again 
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Pete-S said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
And you don't know how many lines of code there is in Windows. Or do you have access to the source?
You can tell from the size of the compiled code within reason. So yes, we do know in a practical sense, very much so.
Then windows is have much more lines of code in it. Install a minimal base system and compare.
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Pete-S I think if you look at that list and think about it, you'd see just how dramatically that list is telling us that open source is winning on vulnerabilities. Now, I still stand by my statement that the list is utter gibberish and means literally nothing whatsoever, BUT, let's assume that it means something and that the numbers are all true and directly comparable.
Now, let's look at the numbers that are bad enough to make the 2019 list (notice Linux isn't even on the list, it's all Windows and OMG cPanel!!!) with Fedora at 184 and Windows Server 2016 at 360. Fedora includes Linux, plus lots of other things, and includes every version of Fedora (about 31 releases in 2019.) Windows Server 2016 is a single release by comparison.
Now let's look at the size of the two. Fedora isn't just the tiny footprint that Windows is, no. It includes databases, video games, multiple products in every category... Windows Server 2016 is between 2-6GB. Each release of Fedora is around 250GB. It's apples to oranges. Windows is a tight OS with very few "extra packages" included in the OS. Sure it has Notepad, but the amount of bloat is small (in the OS itself.) Fedora may not install much by default if you don't want it to, but the entire OS is as much as 100x the size of Windows. Windows Server doesn't include Exchange or SQL Server. But Fedora includes several competitors to Exchange and myriad competitors to SQL Server, as examples. Plus half a dozen commercial video editors. Multiple web browsers, and on and on. Windows Server is also just the server release, but Fedora has Workstation, Cloud, and Server all lumped together as well.
That a single release of Windows Server has even 2% the vulnerabilities of the entire Fedora ecosystem collectives would be something. But that it has twice as many, lol. With some perspective, it's downright staggering how many more vulnerabilities Windows has per line of code.
Well, you said vulnerabilities doesn't mean it less secure! Awesome! And you don't know how many lines of code there is in Windows. Or do you have access to the source? Some Windows customers do.
As far as I know there is NO research that shows that open source products are more or less secure than close source products. The only research I've seen shows that there is no advantage to either system over the other.
So the correct answer to the OPs question is "No, there is no evidence that suggests open source is more or less secure by nature".
And before you start hammering on the keyboard - arguments and opinion is not proof.
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
What is being listed here is known vulnerabilities, I for one am rather happy to know that these systems have these many known vulnerabilities.
For every known issue, there could be an additional 100 or 1000 or more (for Windows, OSX and Linux)
Well, I'm not happy about it because it would suggests a lack of quality control.
I don't see OpenBSD on the list for instance.
This is also interesting.
