Is Windows more secure than BSD/Gnu/Linux/UNIX?

[IKnowNot]

Getting back to the origin of this thread I don’t think I can really help, and I am not going to advocate one OS or another. But after reading through it several times I would like to make a few comments:


1st) I do not know or have experience with newer mainframes, but using the old ( early 70's ) mainframes as a reference to today’s “modular” systems is like comparing apples to oranges ( not a reference to Apple computers ). I remember sitting in the basement of a state-of-the-art mainframe at a large college ( now a university ) computer center waiting for a printout of my program that ran on punch cards. Getting tired of waiting I went to another room, played what I recall was some type of “space invaders” on a terminal which my “security level” did not have access to, then, when done, went and retrieved my printouts. I never considered myself a hacker ( there was no AUP, etc. at the time, and “hacker” or “cracker” were not a well known terms; ) I just needed something to do while killing time and ignored the other areas of the system that were opened through my efforts.
Points here?
a) old mainframes were not that secure ( I got in with no trouble or effort, and I was only being taught Fortran at the time; the system ran Unix )
b) Time is relative. When I look back at what I did then, and what I would expect now ....
c) I could have graduated with a 4.0 average instead of dropping out in disgust!! ( head hitting wall several times )

2nd) The Grunt said

The average linux user is smarter than the average windows user. That's why there are more windows virueses. That and market share.

This could change, and appears to have already. When I was first introduced to Linux very few used it and it was not very forgiving. Back then the average Linux user was typically a geek looking for a challenge. Then the Geeks demanded more, and contributed support to it, making it grow. It Became more forgiving and more “ user friendly” and changed to something someone would use to call themselves a geek.

3rd) I’m not going to debate clusters here, but as far as uptime? Windows 98, IMHO was the best OS M$ ever put out, and I challenge GORE to run a stand alone windows 98 box for six months straight without a reboot and have it respond at the end of the time trial!

The debate at this time over which OS is more secure is fruitless yet needed. M$ entered the arena with intent to dominate the market and spread it to homes ( and thus novices i.e. ignorant users ) for financial gains. If it weren’t for such debates M$ would not be sincere in their current efforts to secure their OS. But the “nix” OSes are now trying to move into that same arena and are becoming more “user friendly”, thus including more and more not-so-intelligent users to gain a market share.

I know I missed several points here, but I don’t have the time to spend here that I would like.

The real question here is who is more responsible? What price to pay for convenience? For profit? As far as I know, M$ OSes can be secured ( I hope, I am using one now ) . But if I target a group of people to use an OS that I created shouldn't I ensure that the OS is acceptable as far as the usability, the functionality and the security that the users require dispite their ignorence?

[gore]

Originally posted here by IKnowNot

3rd) I’m not going to debate clusters here, but as far as uptime? Windows 98, IMHO was the best OS M$ ever put out, and I challenge GORE to run a stand alone windows 98 box for six months straight without a reboot and have it respond at the end of the time trial!

You supply the hardware, and you're one.

I'm NOT letting one of my boxes, which could use more cooling, go for 6 months. But you get me like a Pentium, and some good cooling, and I'll take your challenge.

Most uptime on 98 I've seen is about a month. It was shut down so I could install a NIC.

Hell, You never said what I could and couldn't do, so by what you said, I'll reboot it to MS-DOs mode and let it go for a year. Or run just one application. A friend of mine owns a business, he uses Windows 98 machines to run one application for security cams in stores, and those boxes are on all the time, don't get shut down, and do get a decent sized load considering they are recording video 24/7.

[mohaughn]

Originally posted here by MilitantEidolon

Now to the debate that which OS is more secure. You are going to have to look towards linux for this one. Because, although windows CAN be secure it doesn't mean it is MORE secure. I have used linux for about 5 months now and realize that I am still a newb at the linux game but one thing I learned quickly is that with linux you have more control over you OS. So if you know how to you can properly secure it with ease. It seems that, that could be the reason why some people feel that windows is more secure or that linux is more secure because they personally know it.

But let me show you all a different way of looking at OS's look at an OS like an empire. Now there have been alot of secure empires. But it was the King in control of the empire that made is successful or shitty. Now let continue with the empire idea and look at the two different OS's with Windows you have an empire but it is like having an empire with certain boundries saying you can only do this and this. However with Linux you are like supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god. Now, this can be good or bad, if you are a bad supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god then your empire will suck, but if you are a good supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god you will have a long lasting and good empire.

Please give very specific examples of what you feel you can do in linux that you can't do in windows. The best I have seen somebody come up with is that you can mount an entire volume read only or write only... but if you spend the time to set your NTFS permissions properly you can have a file system on windows that is just as secure as the file system on linux... The windows architecture is by it's very nature more secure than the linux architecture... and I can refer you to plenty of government and educational resources to back that claim. And with XP now supporting non-exec processing I don't think your comment that linux has a higher security capability is true at all.. I don't even think the comment about linux being more secure by default is even the case anymore now that XP SP2 is on the scene.

[hexadecimal]

sorry to get side tracked but i want to ask a quick poll

how many ppl here really care alot about security *like me*...but their home networks are the most insecure things you can think of? *also me*

[gore]

Originally posted here by mohaughn
Please give very specific examples of what you feel you can do in linux that you can't do in windows.

Run in less than 128 MBs of RAM ? Use a 386 ? Not have to use a GUI ? Have a development environment without having to pay ?

LOL OK I'm done.

[pooh sun tzu]

Run in less than 128 MBs of RAM ?

79 qualify?

[pwaring]

Originally posted here by mohaughn
Please give very specific examples of what you feel you can do in linux that you can't do in windows.

View the source code.

[DreamDown]

how many ppl here really care alot about security *like me*...but their home networks are the most insecure things you can think of? *also me*

Isn't that plain dumb ? caring about security and giving advice to other how to secure their home machines etc, but not to have any securiity yourself ? That's just dumb !

[MrLinus]

View the source code.

What are you talking about?? We can see the Source Code in Windows. Heck, we ever have a copy of it here at AO. Silly goose.

Seriously, what does this discussion resolve? I mean think about why you choose an OS: reasons vary from that's what the company uses to that's what you need to use (since it's the only platform the application you need runs on) to you think it's just damned "thexy". The real question is: are you man enough to secure it or are you a girlie man?

Isn't that plain dumb ? caring about security and giving advice to other how to secure their home machines etc, but not to have any securiity yourself ? That's just dumb !

More like lazy. Why not secure the home machine? It's a good as any place to practise what you are supposed to be preaching, isn't it?

[pooh sun tzu]

View the source code.

Why is this a large thing? I know it is a difference yes, and this means you can compile to your liking. But I see this as being as valid as "Windows can use the luna theme without gtk2". Basically a "duh" you know?

It doesn't have a major difference impact upon the OS in terms of security or usability. I could understand something like "Windows runs on blah kernel components and linux runs on blah kernel components, which makes A more secure than B".

caring about security and giving advice to other how to secure their home machines etc, but not to have any securiity yourself ?

I can see his point though. Similar to me not wanting to get skin cancer but not knowing how the internal fusion of the sun works.

Seriously, what does this discussion resolve? I mean think about why you choose an OS: reasons vary from that's what the company uses to that's what you need to use (since it's the only platform the application you need runs on) to you think it's just damned "thexy". The real question is: are you man enough to secure it or are you a girlie man?

Moreso to see where people stand on the subject, and quite frankly I'm surprised how well it has gone. A lot of linux vs. windows myths have been destroyed and people are viewing them both in a fair and honest light.