Microsoft Windows

[MicroBurn]

Someone wanna translate what he said into English? :s

A) How often do you edit the Linux kernel?
B) You don't download patches for your Linux software? I sure do.
C) My Windows box doesn't crash. Why you ask? Becasue I treat it right, as you should with any product, that means I don't have to "spend loads of time fixing it".

Peace

MB

[HTRegz]

Hey Hey.

Good lord, someone close this god damn thread. I'm sick of all the damn bickering about MS and Linux.. How many of the F@#$ing threads do we have? How many of them have been posted to in the last 2 or 3 days. An OS is an OS. Both Operating systems are reliable and stable. None of my operating systems are ever rebooted unless there's a power outtage. My roommate ran XP for over 200 days without problems. Both operating systems have holes and have vulns. Check bugtraq there are just as many damn exploits, if not more, for nix than there are for Windows. I can put a Windows machine online and get hit with blaster if I haven't patched it, but big deal... there are patches, that's my own stupidity for not treating the machine properly, at the same time I could put a fresh MDK 9.1 install online and have someone root me through samba or ssh, both of which are vulnerable. There are TONS of problems with any OS, however there are many, many more good points. You want something to read.. check this out..http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pcworld/115011 it's a hell of a story and it's got both opinion and points in it. Would you like me to keep going? You have reliable server software on both Operating systems. It's not MS's fault if admins are lazy and don't use IISLockdown and incorporate URLScan into their IIS install. It's not MS's fault for improperly configured frontpage extension. It's the admins fault. Educate the people using them.... that's the primary problem with computers.

I pray that someone closes this thread, because I *WILL* neg every person who posts in this thread bickering or trying to argue that one is better than the other. Even if you are trying to prove your point, if you bicker about the subject... I'll throw some red your way.....

Those of you that are supporting Microsoft, good for you, it's a fine OS.. Those of you who do nothing but bash it.. Grow the **** UP...


Peace,

HT

[MicroBurn]

Apperently, alot of you, or all of you, didn't understand the point of this thread. When did you see me compare to OS' in my first post? I was saying I was sick of people bickering about Microsoft Windows, and doing things such as "M$" because it's the "3j337" thing to do, the product they make is fine, and people don't stop to look at the tools in which they provide to maintain it, and to do big things with it. The point is not that Windows is better than Linux, or Linux or better than Windows.

Hope it clears something up abit.

Peace

MB

[devpon]

MicroBurn, I am not that knowledgable about windows, still learning. Can you list some of the advanced tools that are supplied with XP home and XP pro? I want to maintain and secure it. Thanks

[pooh sun tzu]

Toss me an instant message via AIM, devpon. I'll help you up in depth on the Windows security, that way we don't clog up this thread.

aim: Pooh Sun Tzu

[gore]

Ahhh. I leave for a week and see things in this thread falling to ****.

DEAR GOD!!!!!! WINDOWS DOESN'T SUCK?????????

Well, for some things, no. Every OS ever created has it's use.

Now, before I start an actual discussion, DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 IS COMING OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!



Ok, now that that's done, argue time. At this point pooh is reading this waiting for something, and maybe by now he has stopped reading as he never reads everything I say in a thread. He reads a few parts he doesn't like and calls me a troll when he responds to those parts.

Well, that's fine, be an ass, I don't care.





Is Windows really as good as these hippies say?


Well, now that depends. What are you using your machine for? Windows is fine for a lot of things. If you havn't ever used anythnig else, then you probably can secure Windows better than you could Linux or BSD.

But is Windows more secure? I'll say no. Why? Well, look at it this way:

I have Windows 1.0 - Server 2003, so I have used a lot of versions of it. If anyone has ever installed Windows by itself, not what comes on a computer when you buy one, but installed it from a store bought CD, which there is a difference, because when you buy a PC, it comes with Windows, but also comes with a lot of software the machine man put on it.

Windows by itself comes with:

A Kernel

Outlook express

An MS-DOS prompt

Internet Explorer

Windows Explorer

Notepad

Wordpad

Paint

Games

Windows Media Player

I think that's about it.

Now people say UNIX has more bugs that Windows does, but people only laugh at Windows.... Hmmm, Let's cut out everything from Linux except what Windows comes with:

The Kernel

Mutt

Bash shell

links

Midnight Commander

Vi

Emacs

Some games

And a paint program

Now, why did I pick mostly command line tools? Because anything GUI based has to have X loaded, Windows has the GUI built in, and it is NOT able to run without it. Yes, Windows 9X could, but we are talking about STABLE versions of Windows.

KDE, Gnome, WindowMaker, all of those, they all are separate programs that Windows does not have, so I left them out.

This is called making it fair. If we are going to poke fun at an OS, let's take both OSs, install them with the exact same tools, and go from there.

I'll tell you one thing right now, if Linux came with the few, VERY few tools that Windows comes with; We would only see maybe 10 bug fixes a year. The Kernel, untill recently, had very few holes that needed updated.

Most of the new holes are local exploits anyway, which doesn't make it any better as we are counting bugs, not the seriousness of them, but when was the last time you had to update Vi because of a hole?

So, now We have Windows with the programs it comes installed with, and Linux installed with nothing but the equivilent of what Windows comes with.

See the point here? There would be damn near zero bugs because that isn't much software.



Now, before you go on saying I'm an *******, everytime I run Windows update, the fixes are for Windows Media player, and Windows itself, so that's the kernel, and a media player.

Now run an update on your Linux system..... How many Kernel and media player updates do you see? Maybe a few? That Mremap problem was fixed, but then needed one more fix. Wow, the first time it happened.

Windows:

Install Windows 2000 Professional, run Windows update, I believe there is 11 updates. Install all of those, which all require a reboot. Now run update again.....Hmm, 20 new ones to fix what they ****ed up when they tried fixing a **** up. Say that 5 times fast.

So the next time you point the finger saying Linux has just as many bugs, remember first that Linux comes with AT LEAST 3,000 programs, Windows does not, and still has usually more security holes.

In a server environment, this is unacceptable. It would be a cold day in bloody ****ing hell that I would put up with having to reboot for 9 updates because they can't be installed at the same time, and at least once a month there was a patch untill Microsoft started saying they would only release service packs...

Pooh and I have argued many times before, and even he believes in UNIX for servers, Windows for desktop....Or at least he did last time we talked.

And I KNOW how to secure Windows, it was my first OS, I had to know. I also know how to secure Linux, Linux doesn't need a reboot, and I just like it. I don't hate Windows, I like it, but I also like UNIX, A LOT.

Now, who wants to talk about cost?

Well, Windows costs money by itself, and as for setting up servers, you need to buy those, then you need to reboot. Downtime costs money, guess Microsoft forgot to add that in to that Linux is more expensive thing.

Linux is free, and unless your staff are morons you won't need to retrain them.

So if Windows and how many security holes it has is a basis in your arguement, shut up. All those updates are for Windows and Windows Media Player usually. Oh, and Internet Explorer...Which you might as well say is part of the OS.

Then there is the fact that ANYONE can read the Linux source code, and the code for almost every program it comes with....You'd think people would be able to find more holes, wouldn't you?

Well, guess not.

I'm typing this from a Windows XP box, While checking my mail on my Slackware Linux box that has 29 days uptime.

Generally speaking, Linux IS more reliable. Reliable as in both won't crash, and also, doesn't need rebooted so much. Windows needs a reboot wether you admit it or not. When you install updates, you have to reboot, in Linux, unless it's the kernel, you don't.

Now, leave Windows up for a few days. eventually you will see those lovely lag problems. They weren't as present in Windows server 2003, but they are there....Something I'v never seen in Linux.


Also, for the person who asked about Linux with worms:

Yes, there have been a few. I know of 3. One would patch a hole, and almost all of them targeted RedHat in specific. Either way they don't bother me.It's damn near impossible for a virus to run in Linux, and as long as you have updated **** on your box, you shouldn't have to worry about worms anymore either. Havn't seen on for Linux in a while.

[pooh sun tzu]

Gore, that is the coolest, most mature, most level headed, and completely correct post I have ever seen from you. You have gained a lot more respect in my eyes. Not only did you handle it well and argue on a mature level, but you offered a lot of actual data to backup your statements. Insults were set aside, and you got down to the bone of what I am trying to tell everyone, that both OSes have their flaws, but in the right hands can be just as powerful as one another.

I can't say thanks enough


I only disagree on two points, mind you.

1. Windows can be made as secure as Linux, period. In fact, I'm preforming a case study now to prove it . It may not be as secure by default, but neither is Redhat 9 on a default installation.

2. Uptime, unless critical servers, is never a large thing other than bragging rights. Thus, I don't mind having to spend 15 or more seconds rebooting for major GUI updates. Then again, I would worry about it if I was a mission critical server. But then again, if I was a mission critical server I wouldn't be using Linux or Windows. Time to call in Solaris or BSD since they have the uptime history to always brag about.

[gore]

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
Gore, that is the coolest, most mature, most level headed, and completely correct post I have ever seen from you. You have gained a lot more respect in my eyes. Not only did you handle it well and argue on a mature level, but you offered a lot of actual data to backup your statements. Insults were set aside, and you got down to the bone of what I am trying to tell everyone, that both OSes have their flaws, but in the right hands can be just as powerful as one another.

I can't say thanks enough


I only disagree on two points, mind you.

1. Windows can be made as secure as Linux, period. In fact, I'm preforming a case study now to prove it . It may not be as secure by default, but neither is Redhat 9 on a default installation.

2. Uptime, unless critical servers, is never a large thing other than bragging rights. Thus, I don't mind having to spend 15 or more seconds rebooting for major GUI updates. Then again, I would worry about it if I was a mission critical server. But then again, if I was a mission critical server I wouldn't be using Linux or Windows. Time to call in Solaris or BSD since they have the uptime history to always brag about.

Ok, that is something I was NOT expecting....Pooh to actually agree with me, heh,

Back 2 years ago me and my best friend would set up Windows 98 SE boxes to have a mini war game....You can imagine how well that went. Then we played with NT. Which considering that this came out before Windows 95 did, I don't understand why they even bothered making 95...

NT 4.0 can be locked down HARD. I have seen NT boxes up for YEARS. Now granted yes, it is older technology, but it was the best thing you could get in the world of Windows. I don't think I'd be running to use it as a server, but as a desktop or workstation? Hell yes. I have a lot of tools that will run on Windows NT, and honestly I kind of liked it.

Windows 2000 Professional is running on a box on my network right now. I like that too.


I believe for servers that are mission critical, UNIX is the only way to go, I agree with Pooh on this completly. Now, for desktops, I go for a mix:

I have 5 desktop machines, 3 work, as one of them was stolen by my ex gf (Looooong story), and another is in peices, heh.

My desktops run:

This is Slackware Linux 9.1, this box has had Slackware 3.6, 8.1, 9.0, and of course, the current OS. It's had about 7 versions of Free BSD on it, BeOS, which I think Pooh should try out, because I think he would like it. BeOS is like a mix of Windows, Linux and Mac OS, but built from scratch. I liked it, and it was stable as hell.

This box is a Pentium 3 733 MHz Machine with 384 MBs RAM, and a 43 GB HD. I have PC-DOS installed on here about 3 months ago. The Horse remembers lol. I use DOS still do this day. I'v only had a computer for 4 years, but I know my history, and I have a lot of old OSs.

All my desktops currently run:

XP
2000
Linux......About 40 flavors I own, but SuSE, Slackware, Libranet, Mandrake, and IcePack Linux, and a few others are the ones that stay on.
Solaris
DOS
BeOS
BSD (Free, and Net)
And sometimes I pop Windows 98 on for testing.

Pooh, RedHat is not to secure by default, so have some fun in your research I'v looked through redhat a few times....Not my fav, heh.

I would go as far as saying Redhat, by default, if you installed it right now, and installed Windows 2000 right next to it, they would probably both be insecure as hell, and more than likely equal.

Now, as for LongHorn....Or As I began calling it about 3 days ago "LongWaitHorn" (You heard it here first, smack the first slashdotter who says it =) )

LongHorn is something I will more than likely be using.

I'v seen it, I'v heard about it, and I'm pimp slapping my friend for loosing our access to a Windows FTP server. My friend had access to Windows XP about 4 years ago. He found a site that allowed you to download Windows Neptune, Windows Whistler, and a million others. These code names of course became known as Windows XP, 2000, and I think ME.

I can hardly wait to get my hands on WinFS. I think that is what I am most looking forward to out of all of this.

Amazing how I can bable on like this and stay on topic lol. That's what you get for calling the thread "Microsoft Windows"

WinFS sounds awesome and I'd love to take it for a drive. From what I understand, the GUI is an XP paint job, but I'm certain that will change, as it isn't released yet. But like I said, I am mainly looking forward to WinFS.

[MicroBurn]

I'll tell you one thing right now, if Linux came with the few, VERY few tools that Windows comes with; We would only see maybe 10 bug fixes a year. The Kernel, untill recently, had very few holes that needed updated.

Well, was Linux as widely used as it was until recently? (On a side note: How's the 2.6 kernel? I've yet to install it)

KDE, Gnome, WindowMaker, all of those, they all are separate programs that Windows does not have, so I left them out.

There's Litestep, but it isn't included in Windows. Some WM arn't included in Linux either, it depends how you look at it, really.

Generally speaking, Linux IS more reliable. Reliable as in both won't crash, and also, doesn't need rebooted so much. Windows needs a reboot wether you admit it or not. When you install updates, you have to reboot, in Linux, unless it's the kernel, you don't.

Now, leave Windows up for a few days. eventually you will see those lovely lag problems. They weren't as present in Windows server 2003, but they are there....Something I'v never seen in Linux.

Yeah, Windows 2003 is fine being left on for long amounts of time. I leave mine on for weeks. As well, there are updates that don't need a reboot that I've had with Windows 2003. After auto-matic update, it didn't ask to reboot, it just said it was finished.

Although, for the most part, I agree with your post. (First one, just about to read the second one).

Now, as for LongHorn....Or As I began calling it about 3 days ago "LongWaitHorn" (You heard it here first, smack the first slashdotter who says it =) )

Yes Sir!

Amazing how I can bable on like this and stay on topic lol. That's what you get for calling the thread "Microsoft Windows"

Hey, no picking on my thread name, I thought long and hard on that! :-(

WinFS sounds awesome and I'd love to take it for a drive. From what I understand, the GUI is an XP paint job, but I'm certain that will change, as it isn't released yet. But like I said, I am mainly looking forward to WinFS.

Yeah, Longhorn definatly looks good, WinFS looks neat, and I believe they are making a new cool looking GUI for it, it just looks like XP now becasue it's Alpha.

Peace

MB

[AngelicKnight]

We just need a 3rd trendy OS to come out so we can all start saying "Windows and Linux suck!" and start the cycle aaaalllll over anew.