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

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
And yet, if the head of the company is used to Windows, he/she will prefer to see Windows on their desktop. They'll give you a free raign on the server side of business, but on their personal computers. When they here things like "Crossover Office" many of them just "scream and run" . I'm glad they you were allowed to make trial runs of Linux in the companies. It show that poeple are geting more educated in that matter. I'm sure that one of your bosses kids has got Linux on their PC and keeps on telling how good it is and that it's free .

---

Free what in the server? Have you ever even talked to a Manager type form IT? If they see Windows they are good, but even on Servers, they want Windows if they aren't sure of anything else. A Hospital here in town, the manager of the IT department allowed nothing but Windows on Servers and Desktops. He also worked at my college teaching intro to computers. When I took this class, he was a *****.

If you were smarter than him, he would call you out every day and try proving you wrong. Starting arguements, and me, I win a lot, so he would take it out on my grades. I've made him look like the moron he is in front of the whole class more than noce and usually it was his fault because he would call on me, say something, I'd say "No, actually that's not true" and he would turn it into something huge and I'd prove him wrong.

He has never used anything but Windows, and the thing is, un- known to him, half the servers under him, were Linux or BSD or UNIX, and no one told him. There was no reason to because he was happy they never needed to be taken down, and the staff were happy because they had an easier time at work workign on UNIX boxes.

IT Managers are nothing more than morons with a high pay check.

I may be getting hired full time at my college as a Computer technician. I know half the Servers run Windows, but even though right now I'm still just a student, I'm allowed in most rooms no one else is allowed in, and I help install Linux for the admin, who is a good guy.

I help out for free and now hopefully I'll get my job. First thing I'm doing is working on a replacement for those Windows Server 2003 machines with SUSE Enterprise Server 9. Ain't no way in Bloody Hell I'm goign to work on Windows all day.

I wanted to point out something;:

I just did a complete fresh nistallation of SUSE Linux 9.1 Professional, and like a good security concious person, I did the update BEFORE it even booted up, now, I just looked at the available updates, and just to prove my elitist points:

Out of ALL those security updates, only 7 were core Linux. The rest were add on applications you have to install yourself from YAST2, or do a custom installation to get, they aren't even needed and are mostly Graphical programs that Linux doesn't even NEED to run. That was it.

So out of all those updates, only 7 were actually things you have to update if you use a minimal installation. Windows XP on the other hand, all updates are core OS updates. Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Outlook express are part of a Windows installation and STILL there are more updates. And don't get me started on hot fixes for other parts of Windows.

Linux has less bugs and security flaws of the basic install than Windows, and you're not even allowed to see the code for it, you'd think something like Linux, where you can see the sources and find holes easier would have more. This just adds to my point that Linux has a better security advantage in that you for one don't NEED a GUI, therefore using less RAM if it's a headless server where how pretty it looks doesn't matter, and out of ALL of these security bugs for SUSE, all 7 of them that are core Linux, ONLY ONE NEEDS A REBOOT AND THAT WAS THE KERNEL UPDATE.

I wrote a small paper which I've added to my OS paper I've been working on about uptime that I'll add later on today after I look it over which isn't a Windows rant, but more of a UNIX OS plug for why Windows shouldn't be on a server in the frist place. I have no problem with Windows being on a desktop, it has great support from hardware vendors and allows a lot of games and things like that, but for a server, I'm totally against Windows being used for it.








Uptime:


A lot of people say uptime is not important. A lot of hackers love having a huge uptime, because keeping a machine from rebooting for a long period of time, is like a badge of honor. Think of it like a Dr who has performed a lot of successfull sergurys. It is a bragging right.

But it is more than that. From a company perspective, uptime is very important. If a machine is rebooted, or turned off for any reason, that costs money. If a file server, for example, goes down for some reason, people can't do work.

This also costs money. Now, with Windows, everyone has probably seen a blue screen of death. Something happens, and Windows crashes. This in itself is bad enough, but think what happens when that machine is a server.

A server machine crashing, or needing a reboot, does cost money. I am completly against running Windows as a server OS. For one thing, when a new security flaw is found in Windows, which is quite often, you have to download the update, and always have to reboot for the settings to take effect.

This is unacceptable. And when their is more than one update, you have to download each one separatly. That means after rebooting, you have to take more time to download another patch, to fix what they broke with the last fix, when they tried fixing what they broke. This process can take over an hour easily.

I run Windows on one of my home machines, and you have to download a patch, install, reboot, download another, install, reboot, and it goes on and on.

In Linux and BSD, when you install a security patch, you never have to reboot unless it is a patch for the kernel itself. Which rarely happens. Also, Windows usually takes longer to come out with a patch that works.

Now in their defence, they have a lot more of a user base to make the patch for, but for some reason, the Linux community has one ready that works in a few hours, not months like Windows.

For example, a few months ago, a hole was found in Internet Explorer. It didn't matter if you even used it, the fact that it was on your system made you have to update it. Internet explorer comes bundled with Windows, and can't be taken off.

It took them a couple months to even get a patch ready for it. Linux and BSD also allow you to install multiple updates at the same time, and not even need a reboot after you're done. Like I said, the only time Linux or BSD need a reboot, is when you update the kernel, or install hardware.

This is much better for a server environment, where downtime costs money, because you don't need to reboot as often. Microsoft will try getting you to believe that Windows is a better environment than anything UNIX based, but after you have had the 30th Worm/Virus outbreak of the year, you probably will start not liking Windows.

But again, in the defence of Microsoft, they can't be like UNIX, they try sometimes, but the customer base for Microsoft do not want to actually learn. They want to sit down, and have something work.

Linux and UNIX do this, but require a small amount more in knowledge, which is why Windows still dominates with the flith they put out. Microsoft products are nice, and may not actually be filth, but the company is.

Also, Microsoft are still the only company to have an OS that gets affected by Worms as often as they do. But again, to be fair about this, most people use Windows, so Virus writers target Windows so that the infection spreads as fast as possible.

Well, the malicious coders do any
way. Linux, although not the epitome of security, is still more secure than Windows. People will tell you that security is made by the admin, not the OS, and I agree with this, except for one thing:

Viruses.

Linux has had about 4 Worms that actually were big enough to realise they were there. All of them targeted RedHat Linux, and for the most part, did nothing more than install a patch for the worm, and go to another machine....Users really didn't need to install the patch that allowed this to happen, as the person who coded the Worm obviously had a sence of humor about security.

Viruses can cause downtime just like any other pain in the neck security flaw. This is another reason I won't use Windows for a server.

If you need to use Windows for a Desktop, I would recommend adhering to the fallowing:

When you turn the machine on, use Windows update to make sure you have all patches installed.

After you have finished updating, check Windows update again. Sometimes when you install an update, you will notice there are now more updates than when you didn't have a certain update installed. This goes back to my complaint about fixing what they broke with the last patch they released to fix what they broke before.

After you have this all competed, update your anti virus software to make sure you have all bug fixes, and the newest .DAT files to check for viruses.

After you have done this, update your firewall software to make sure you are protected against new attacks.

At this point you should have Windows completly updated, your anti virus updated, and your firewall updated. Now it's time to make sure you have Windows Media Player updated. Windows Media Player, although nice, is not exactly secure either.

What I am trying to say, is when you turn your machine on, check for updates for the software you have. After you have finished updates and reboots, do a scan with your anti virus products.

Another thing you should be doing after you have scanned everything, is to open up AdAware; Which any self respecting computer user would have installed.After you have it open, update the reference file, and do a scan with that.


UNIX hardware may cost a bit more, but it's worth it. Also, Linux and BSD do NOT need expensive hardware. The Newest version of Linux, will still run on a 386. A 386 was what people who ran DOS used. The newest versions of Windows need a lot more than that.

Also, Linux and BSD can be ran on 8 MB of RAM. Windows XP needs at least 128. If you are about to toss out that 486 you don't use anymore, how about you instead install Linux or BSD on it? Learning UNIX is a joy, and that 386 will actually make a great router or firewall.

You can take a 386 and turn it into a router or firewall with Linux or BSD. They both come with the programs needed to make it act as a router with very good firewall capabilities.


So how stable is Linux and BSD?


Well, I for one had 53 days of uptime on my machine, before a power outtage took it down. The top 50 uptimes of web servers on the internet as of yesterday, are all running BSD. These machines have uptimes of over 1,780 days. That is about 5 years in case you want to know.

Those machines have been running for 5 years without a reboot, as a server.

A Windows 2000 machine was ONCE on the list with 900 days uptime. I will give Windows 2000 it's do, as it is fairly stable, but that machine probably had NO patches installed on it at all, as patches need a reboot.

I would rather reboot because I am installing a security patch, than be rebooting because my machine got owned and I have to take it down.

All in all, you would most likely have better success keeping a UNIX based Operating system up for long periods of time. DOS is another stable OS, but it is still very limited in capabilities.

So, when it comes down to it, Linux and BSD are MUCH better at being a server OS than most anything else.

It's a tiny part of a paper I've been doing for a while now, and this is a section fo it. Not really a rant.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by chsh
Have you really honestly ever tried ANY linux distribution? The amount of open source software that comes with your average Linux distribution puts what is available on Windows to shame, not to mention it's all free. :)
As for people buying PCs to play games, IME that's highly incorrect. The large majority of PCs are productivity (Word, Excel, etc), e-mail & web surfing terminals, with gaming as a minor concern to the home market only. Again, you seem to be comparing Linux as a home OS vs Windows as a home OS, I'm saying if it's making inroads anywhere, it will be in business first.


I don't really see how either OS is more "internet dependant" than the other.

Except Apple isn't dead...


It's generally the same or easier on linux, depending on your distribution.


As with all things some do some don't.

---

OK, a few questions.

What influenced an uptake of PCs in the wider public?

Why is there such a huge increase in computer power in the last years?

Wasn't it easier just to stick to mainframes?

Why do you think Apple has got only around 1% market share in OS part of business?

Have you seen any drivers for Linux suplied with the hardware? I sure as hell didn't.

How long ago did Linux get it's GUI? ( I don't know the answer for that, vut try to be honest)

How many operations in Linux can still be better done, if done at all, through the comand line?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
Free what in the server? Have you ever even talked to a Manager type form IT? If they see Windows they are good, but even on Servers, they want Windows if they aren't sure of anything else. A Hospital here in town, the manager of the IT department allowed nothing but Windows on Servers and Desktops. He also worked at my college teaching intro to computers. When I took this class, he was a *****.

If you were smarter than him, he would call you out every day and try proving you wrong. Starting arguements, and me, I win a lot, so he would take it out on my grades. I've made him look like the moron he is in front of the whole class more than noce and usually it was his fault because he would call on me, say something, I'd say "No, actually that's not true" and he would turn it into something huge and I'd prove him wrong.

He has never used anything but Windows, and the thing is, un- known to him, half the servers under him, were Linux or BSD or UNIX, and no one told him. There was no reason to because he was happy they never needed to be taken down, and the staff were happy because they had an easier time at work workign on UNIX boxes.

IT Managers are nothing more than morons with a high pay check.

I may be getting hired full time at my college as a Computer technician. I know half the Servers run Windows, but even though right now I'm still just a student, I'm allowed in most rooms no one else is allowed in, and I help install Linux for the admin, who is a good guy.

I help out for free and now hopefully I'll get my job. First thing I'm doing is working on a replacement for those Windows Server 2003 machines with SUSE Enterprise Server 9. Ain't no way in Bloody Hell I'm goign to work on Windows all day.

---

Gore I don't want to lecture you as I'm not much older then you are. But through my life I learned to take a small step back and try and look at the question from another point of view.

You say : "IT Managers are nothing more than morons with a high pay check."

But that's the job you want to do yourself, what does it going to make YOU then?

I can also run a install of Windows which is not going to have lot's of the crap that comes with OS, and it will also have a minimum number of updates. This is true for any OS. Yet any software you run on your system makes it more vulnarable, and any of us has to deal with it.

Another backlash of the free software, is that it doesn't have such a support base as a proprietory one.

Your story about your teacher, only proved my point. Even if he is an "ashole", he is responcible for peoples lifes. He will prefer the system he knows, even if it is 95% stable, but he can bring it back online quickly, to the system which is 99% stable, but if it crashes he won't know what to do. On his place I hope you would do the same thing.

As I already mentioned in one of my posts, it's much harder to learn Linux, if you are already used to Windows.

Linux is a Greate OS once you learned and mastered it. There is no doubt about it. But still, something keeps Windows on top. If it was as bad as you say, people wouldn't of used it so much.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
OK, a few questions.

What influenced an uptake of PCs in the wider public?

---

the fact they could have their own HD on their desks without having too share it with everyone else, with a command line based OS called DOS without a GUI

Quote:

---

Why is there such a huge increase in computer power in the last years?

---

Because processor technology and RAM have come down in price and people want to do more with their computers.

Quote:

---

Wasn't it easier just to stick to mainframes?

---

No one can afford them outside of big companies, and do YOU want to work on a machine the size of a house?

Quote:

---

Why do you think Apple has got only around 1% market share in OS part of business?

---

Because Windows 1.0 ripped Mac OS off and then Microsoft screwed half the other computer companies over in one way or another, and no one can compete with a company who is willing to screw everyone for money. They now have the money to sit on any industry they want until the people who created those industries run low on money.

Quote:

---

Have you seen any drivers for Linux suplied with the hardware? I sure as hell didn't.

---

Because you don't need it. It comes with the drivers you need, and when you use SUSE online update, it downloads the true Nvidia drivers and drivers for wireless cards, etc..

Quote:

---

How long ago did Linux get it's GUI? ( I don't know the answer for that, vut try to be honest)

---

X has been around since the 80s. So Linux could have had one when it was first created. When did Microsoft actually make an OS that wasn't just as hell on top of DOS? ;) A lot later.

Quote:

---

How many operations in Linux can still be better done, if done at all, through the comand line?

---

SUSE has YAST2 which can be used in a pretty X window or in a text mode run level, so either way. Tar, installpkg, nmap, ping, links, lynx, MC,....Did you have a point in that question or are you just ignorant?

When is this stupid linux/windows "which is more secure" debate going to just die? Any system, no matter what OS, is only as strong as it's weakest link. Period. Get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
Gore I don't want to lecture you as I'm not much older then you are. But through my life I learned to take a small step back and try and look at the question from another point of view.

You say : "IT Managers are nothing more than morons with a high pay check."

But that's the job you want to do yourself, what does it going to make YOU then?

---

Uhhh, no it isn't, a BOFH isn't management, and neither am I. Quit assuming things you don't know anything about.

Quote:

---

I can also run a install of Windows which is not going to have lot's of the crap that comes with OS, and it will also have a minimum number of updates.

---

So install XP without Internet Explorer which is one of the most insecure POS I've ever seen.... Hmm, you can't, ah well, nice try. Windows itself and whatever else is updated in SPs, could be damn near anything. Format a HD and install XP freshly, and tell me it's more secure. You wouldn't even have time to update it before you were infected. You've got 4 minutes to do that before the average home PC has at least an attempt.

Quote:

---

This is true for any OS.

---

No it isn't.

Quote:

---

Yet any software you run on your system makes it more vulnarable, and any of us has to deal with it.

---

Again, you're an idiot. SUSE Linux comes with how many services running? Oh that's right, I can update them and patch them and shut them all down before the damn thing has ever even booted up for the first time. Shut down RPC, a vulnerable service, and get back to me.

Quote:

---

Another backlash of the free software, is that it doesn't have such a support base as a proprietory one.

---

Yea, what do IBM, Novell and HP and Cygnus know about support? Moron.

Quote:

---

Your story about your teacher, only proved my point. Even if he is an "ashole", he is responcible for peoples lifes.

---

Not anymore, he got fired. Can't imagine why, he was so intelligent!

Quote:

---

He will prefer the system he knows, even if it is 95% stable, but he can bring it back online quickly, to the system which is 99% stable, but if it crashes he won't know what to do. On his place I hope you would do the same thing.

---

If I was him I'd shoot myself.

Quote:

---

As I already mentioned in one of my posts, it's much harder to learn Linux, if you are already used to Windows.

---

and it's harder and sometimes depressing to learn Windows if you've come from any other OS in the world where you don't need Anti Virus, and updates every day because they break something with every patch.

Quote:

---

Linux is a Greate OS once you learned and mastered it. There is no doubt about it. But still, something keeps Windows on top. If it was as bad as you say, people wouldn't of used it so much.

---

I've only been using it two years and I get a long fine in it. And it isn't on top because it's good, it's on top because Microsoft won't allow a hardware company to sell Desktops with anything else so most don't even know they have a choice. I installoed Linux on my Mom's machine, she is NOT a computer person, but not only did she do fine using it without me havign to tell her a thing, ti was easier for me to keep it updated because I didn't have to sit at the damn thing clicking Windows update, I remotely logged in and did everything from my room.

Gore, the only thing I disagree with you on is that windows should never be run on a server. If you had my knowledge of linux, and were asked to set up a server tomorrow, you would use windows. Why? Because you can have 95% security, because you would know what the hell you are doing. I can configure and secure a windows server very easily, Linux I would be lost as hell and would leave 30 million holes, even with all updates, from misconfiguration.

Well, that's all I have to say.

p.s., nightcat, you are a n00b. INTEL and IBM and AMD are the reasons hardware and processors are so cheap today. Not microsoft. M$ has NEVER been interested in hardware, which is made obvious by the fact they have never realeased any. And seriously, how many games does the average home windows user play? Solitaire. Freecell. All which are default installed on most *nix installations

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by The Grunt
p.s., nightcat, you are a n00b. INTEL and IBM and AMD are the reasons hardware and processors are so cheap today. Not microsoft. M$ has NEVER been interested in hardware, which is made obvious by the fact they have never realeased any. And seriously, how many games does the average home windows user play? Solitaire. Freecell. All which are default installed on most *nix installations

---

I'm a new person to Linux, yes,but not to PCs. I agree about the price bit. But my question was, about what drives the power increase. In any business course they will give you a definite answer "Demand". If there were no people wanting there PCs to be more powerful, we would still run the porcessors under 1GHz. That's what you need to use the latest Office aplications or browse the net. :D

Who want's PC's to be more powerful? Who make you THINK you need your PC to be more powerful? The answer to question 1 is gamers, and businesses who run servers. The answer to #2 is M$. They push new products and don't make spyware remover sorts of things because people "think" they need a new PC, when all they need is a reformat. They do this because they get more money. Annoys the hell out of me that they jip their end users like this.