assault on linux by windows
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: assault on linux by windows

  1. #1

    assault on linux by windows

    Just in case you guys havent heard check this out
    http://www.techworld.com/news/index....ews&NewsID=643
    Not very unlike microsoft though i must add

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    285
    Microsoft’s aim is to undermine critics and place a question mark over Linux’s security by revealing that, on average, Windows poses less of a security risk. By turning attention away from its own software bugs while at the same time launching several security initiatives,
    Windows secure (good joke)

  3. #3
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Hmmm, Giving it a read:

    Oh! That's nice! They are trying to compare big fixes! When you consider that "redhat had more than Microsoft"....Well, Redhat comes with literally thousands more software packeges than Windows 2000. And they icluded apache I'm sure. Howabout they unclude IIS into that test. IIS has enough holes to qualify as the Moon's surface area, or a form of swiss cheese.

    Wait.....He compared Redhat 6 with Windows server 2003....Redhat six has been around longer than I have even owned a computer... This is nothing but social engineering style marketing to make Windows look like a window is something other than a hole in your house with clear glass covering it.

    Nice name for an OS.

    *Some where in redmond*

    Bill: I have it! We will call our OS Windows! It will have the same amount of security too! People can look right inside your house and see all of your private things, and then break in with nothing but a rock!

    Steve: Yes! Then after you are a billionair and some woman would actually want your geek ass and you get married, we can let your wife be the one behind two TERRIBLE peices of software know an BOB and Windows ME!

    Bill: Let's do it! First things first though. Let's steal the Mac OS look and feel.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Now let's compare the REAL Windows vs. Linux:

    Windows, when defaulted to install comes with:

    The kernel,
    An email reader,
    A command prompt,
    Wordpad,
    Notepad,
    Internet Explorer...Which has more bugs than any *NIX kernel,
    Windows explorer,
    Paint,
    ...Running low, someone help me here.

    Now, Linux comes with, on average, enough to fill 3 GBs of HD space.

    Now, let's strip Linux down to just what Windows comes with:

    The Kernel
    Mutt
    Bash Shell
    Emacs
    Vi
    Links
    Konq
    Kpaint
    Hmm...Yea, can't you just imagine how secure a system would be this way? Just because I'm atill waking up and slightly cranky, I'm going to be a bastard and throw an IRC client into that too.

    Irssi....My absolute favorite client.

    Point being, if Linux came with the same amount as Windows 2000 did, I doubt there would be as many fixes as that article states. And as for cost..... I can download and use Linux or BSD easily. And throw it on as many boxes as I want. How exactly is this less money?

    I know what TCO is, but WIndows costs more just to buy the OS, not including hardware. LLinux is free.

    So far:

    Linux: $0.00
    Windows: About $3,000.00

    Now, hardware:

    Windows server 2003 recommended requirements:

    550 MHz or higher processor speed
    256 MBs RAM
    1.25 -2 GBs space on HD
    Looking at the MINIMUM requirements is like looking at running Windows 98 on a 386.

    Linux:

    I'll be fair here and use SuSe as an example because it is a more GUI intence distro:

    At least Pentium speed processor
    128 MBs RAM
    HD space: Honestly it depends. You can use as little as 500 MBs or so. And since 2003 is a SERVER OS, it would not need X.
    The MINIMUM for SuSE is less than the RAM I stated. It may run a bit slower if you use X but ****, it isn't 256 MBs RAM and a 550 processor either.

    I should have been an ******* and said Slackware. You could damn near run that on a talking wiz kid.

    I think I will stick with Tux while they figure out how to reglass the Windows again.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    681
    on a side note that this made me think of; has anyone seen the linux commercials trying to entice people into linux use? they were pretty decent... this is prolly why microsoft is feeling threatened.
    Learn like you are going to live forever, live like you are going to die tomorrow.

    Propoganda

  5. #5
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Originally posted here by w0lverine
    Windows secure (good joke)
    Now now. Windows CAN be made secure as hell. It's the exploits and buggy code that are hurting them. Windows NT remains as an OS that's old as hell, yet can be locked down like a virgin on a date with her Father as a driver.

  6. #6
    yes, im going to haveto agree with gore on that one. Windows by default is about as secure as my parents whiskey cabinet, but when run by someone who knows Windows and how to secure a computer, it can become a miniature fort knox. i would definently haveto say that achieving that kind of security on windows will probably require at least $200 in software and/or hardware, some real good knowledge of how to work windows, and a lot of time. Meanwhile by default Linux is pretty secure, it doesnt cost hundreds of dollars, doesnt require an absolute Linux guru to be able to make it more secure and it doesnt take tons of time. yes i think it might be because of the recent commercials, but only Windows knows for sure.

  7. #7
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    If you need any good reads about securing Windows, message catch on here. He knows ALOT about securing Windows and so on. And as soon as he gets time we are planning on having a discussion on security with Windows and Open BSD. Should be a good talk

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,004
    Still talking default security and application level bugs?

    *cries*

    Why does no one ever talk about actual system security, always with the default installs or application level bugs. Who cares? I mean honestly.

    There is no truth or deeper understanding to be had talking about how a product's default configuration or what buffer wasn't checked. For some reason there is never any discussion of the actual security mechanisms. The types of access controls, audit trails, etc, etc.

    Default configurations are a dead horse that never had anything to offer in the first place, seriously, leave it alone and talk about something worth while. Does it really matter if a system by default has 0 full compromisable exploits or 1 or 3,000? All that matters is if the system can be configured in a manner offering sufficient assurances as justified by your threats and asset values.
    All the rest of this is just comparing who reads bugtraq more closely.

    catch

  9. #9
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    Default configurations are a dead horse that never had anything to offer in the first place, seriously, leave it alone and talk about something worth while. Does it really matter if a system by default has 0 full compromisable exploits or 1 or 3,000? All that matters is if the system can be configured in a manner offering sufficient assurances as justified by your threats and asset values.
    Considering that most users don't even know that anything other than the
    default configuration exists, yeah, we should take that into consideration.
    If car manufacturer A has a track record of X fatal crashes per year, and Manufacturer B
    has substantially less, it makes no sense to say that car A would be just
    as safe if the stupid driver would just go out and obtain and install his own air bag.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19
    Linux unfortunatly forgot to include the fact that there are literally thousands more viruses written for Windows than the Linux operating system. So even though windows fixes holes faster, Linux has a sustancial less threat to attacks than windows.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •