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

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by poohsuntzu
There comes a point in time... when a thread just needs to be locked ;)

---

Indeed, and when mudslinging like this thread has turned into occurs, IMO it's better to just delete the offending posts rather than kill the discussion entirely, but to each his own.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
What influenced an uptake of PCs in the wider public?

---

Availability and features offered.

Quote:

---

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

---

Because manufacturers have made more and more powerful processors, faster RAM, bigger/faster Hard Drives, etc...

Quote:

---

Wasn't it easier just to stick to mainframes?

---

For several reasons, no. Mainframes are not portable, they do not offer localized indiviudal security.

Quote:

---

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

---

Two reasons: Their machines got left behind in the DDR race, and PCs have become viable in poorer nations. Those who had macs by and large have stayed with them, though they are more expensive so this drives some of the people away. Additionally, overall more cheap computers are built, this means X86, which in turn means Linux, Windows, etc...

Quote:

---

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

---

Then you didn't look close enough. EVERY piece of hardware in my machine came with Linux drivers supplied, as well as for EVERY dell workstation I've used since they picked up Linux as a distribution option. Additionally, almost every major NIC manufacturer offers them on the CD/Diskette. This is true of 3COM, DLINK, Cisco, and Netgear at the very minimum.
FYI, My MSI GeForce FX5700U came with the NVidia Linux drivers.

Quote:

---

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

---

As soon as Xwindows was capable of running on it.

Quote:

---

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

---

This is a matter of preference. To me, all of them. This is because I prefer working from command-lines.

[and in another post]

Quote:

---

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

---

What you fail to realize is that demand doesn't have to come from the public. Clustering is a big thing right now, and servers are being relied upon more and more. Both of these sectors mean that processors need to get faster and faster. The AMD/Intel pricewar had a lot to do with it too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by chsh
Availability and features offered.


Because manufacturers have made more and more powerful processors, faster RAM, bigger/faster Hard Drives, etc...


For several reasons, no. Mainframes are not portable, they do not offer localized indiviudal security.


Two reasons: Their machines got left behind in the DDR race, and PCs have become viable in poorer nations. Those who had macs by and large have stayed with them, though they are more expensive so this drives some of the people away. Additionally, overall more cheap computers are built, this means X86, which in turn means Linux, Windows, etc...


Then you didn't look close enough. EVERY piece of hardware in my machine came with Linux drivers supplied, as well as for EVERY dell workstation I've used since they picked up Linux as a distribution option. Additionally, almost every major NIC manufacturer offers them on the CD/Diskette. This is true of 3COM, DLINK, Cisco, and Netgear at the very minimum.
FYI, My MSI GeForce FX5700U came with the NVidia Linux drivers.


As soon as Xwindows was capable of running on it.


This is a matter of preference. To me, all of them. This is because I prefer working from command-lines.

[and in another post]

What you fail to realize is that demand doesn't have to come from the public. Clustering is a big thing right now, and servers are being relied upon more and more. Both of these sectors mean that processors need to get faster and faster. The AMD/Intel pricewar had a lot to do with it too.

---

My system is in general around a year old. Most of the hardware didn't come with Linux drivers. I'm sure, that as big companies will catter more for Linux, its uptake is going to increase even more.

At the moment I'm using Fedora Core2. The problem I found is that things like instals had to be done through comand line. Core2 simply doesn't have any grafical tools to do it, or they don't work.

As I heard Core3 is just double click like Windows. Again much userfriendlier :).

Some other setting like mounting Windows partition can be also done Only through Comand Line. Mind you, Windows doesn't seem to mount Linux filesystem at all ;)

And Mainframes :D

From the business point of view, mainframe is more reliable and more secure option. It has only one point of control, making it easier to maintain. Clustering, as I understand it, is a sort of a return to the mainframe infrastructure, where there is One BIG Computer and many satelites. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And now another big point. Demand

I can still remember the times when 56K modem seemed like a bliss to me. And that wasn't so long ago, just around 3 years back. And also remember the time when a few minutes wait for the webpage with "flush" graphics seemed like a short time. Computers in my school, never saw Windows, and I finished my school in 1999. Having started to learn computers more seriously only around 4 years ago, when I moved to UK, I can still remember all those things. And I remember that poeple were happy with them, as they did the job. But as it went on, people want biger and better thing, for a chiper price. As more people were ready to buy more stuff, the companies started to make their profits not through higher prices, but through higher sales volumes.

How long are any of you prepared to wait for a webpage? I bet half a minute tops. Many people now have bradband. The companies need biger computers, so that they could cope with demand, out demand Ladies and Gentlemen.

Of course I will not miss out a rightful statement of chsh and others about competition.

Apple Macs have lost out a competition race. And not so much on the hardware, but on Software side. But that's my personal opinion, although I am partly agreing with the other version as well.

And a mainframe is more secure how?

Quote:

---

My system is in general around a year old. Most of the hardware didn't come with Linux drivers. I'm sure, that as big companies will catter more for Linux, its uptake is going to increase even more.

---

This is because the majority (99%) of linux drivers are not something you install on the side. They are modules that are part of the Linux kernel or compiled directly into the kernel on default. This is how Linux LiveCds can detect massive amounts of hardware, because their kernels are compiled to have the drivers built in. The majority of Linux distros now have default kernels that focus on massive hardware compatability. You can't think of Linux drivers in the same way you think of Windows dll and .inf driver files. The system just doesn't work that same way.

And since, by default in most distros, the kernel is already setup to detect and activate hardware (both old and new hardware) driver issues are rarley a problem unless you borked the kernel and didn't include the drivers you needed in the kernel build options. The only driver I ever need, for my entire system, is the 3rd party NVIDIA driver for my 5900 card. Cdrom, hard drives, DMA, joysticks, sound card, and so forth all detected perfectly and have on every computer I've ever touched Linux with.

What I am trying to say, is that while it is an option for manufacturers to include Linux based drivers, the fact is that drivers (most) simply aren't that difficult to program and thus already exist without the manufacturers having to worry about it. Driver distribution in Linux isn't nearly as large an issue as it is in windows, because the drivers for everything are already capable of being in your Operating system on bootup.

hey nightcat think of it this way... with a mainfrae in theory it is easier to protect becasue it is only one computer...but on the flip side if a person misses one whole and a hacker gets to it the thing is toast.

Do us all a favor and stop posting to this thread. You have proven your self to know very little, and the little you do know, you dont know much about. its like you read something somewhere and try to repeat it but cant back it up.

poohsuntzu

I completely agree with you. Linux does have a wide hardware support. Only one question.

Do you think that I realy want to be compiling myself the latest kernel or getting the latest Linux distro, if in the years time I decide to change my graphics card?
But being perfectly honest, I don't think I'll be changing my hardware in the near couple of years. What should I do then?

XTC46
What you said about mainframe is tru for any system, only with the Server Client structure, after compromising the server an attacker has access to the whole network. This means he/she can leave the backdor on one of the "clients", resulting in network staying wide open even if the Server is patched.

And I believe this is true for both Windows and Linux based servers.

Which gives us once again the answer to the original question.

"The system is only as good as the people who run it."

And this has been said here not only by me, but by others, I hope we can accept them as being smarter then me and to have enough knowlege to be able to make obvious conclusions.

Am I wrong here?

Quote:

---

Do you think that I realy want to be compiling myself the latest kernel or getting the latest Linux distro, if in the years time I decide to change my graphics card?

---

Well, I would hope so. Are you honestly saying that in the future if you purchase a new video card you wouldn't download the newer drivers for it, but istead insist that the ones from 4 years ago should still work? No, of course not. You would download the newer drivers, just like someone would recompile their kernel to include a newer set of configurations for their hardware.

A very common misconception is that compiling a kernel is something uberleet and requires massive amounts of time and skill. When in fact, it's incredibly simple, easy, and quick. It just requires reading the screen.

However, still you are thinking of drivers in terms of how Windows handles it. That simply isn't how a *Nix system handles hardware management.


While I agree that a system is only as good as the people who run it, we can't deny certain underlying features/aspects of an Operating system. In my case example, how hardware is handled. Unix detects and manages it (as well as installs it) very differently than how Windows does. This is a clear difference between OSes. Now, expand upon that. There are certain features within both Unix and Windows that grant them security(or lack thereof) in certain aspects because of how they function on a core level. Thus, somethings.. no matter how talented the admin.. are left in the hands of the OS itself. Windows requiring RCP while Unix does not, for example.

poohsuntzu

For the hardware my argument is simple. I simply might not have the internet conection to download a new kernel. This is why I'd prefer to see some sort of linux support on Driver Disks, even if it's just a small file with the code which I need to add to the existing kernel.

All these small things do make a lot of difference. They are the reason why people will or will not use something.
I already gave an example of Fedora Core2. What, for me, was an interesting task, for a general user might be a reason to stop using Linux.


Now what's to the services that are run within OS. Linux is also runing them, as well as Windows, and if someone realy wanted, they could find and exploit a hole in Linux. But people seem to forget about that.

Now if someone wanted, they might be able to fix the RCP problem and set it up on some website free of charge, but instead these people prefer to use what they find by themselves. Often for personal gain or just to cause haos and to prove that "they can". So, instead of complaining try improving both systems, I'm sure many people will be gratefull.

May be I don't know as much as some of you guys, but at least I'm trying to look at things from every prospective and don't try to make out that something's perfect when it's not.

Quote:

---

All these small things do make a lot of difference. They are the reason why people will or will not use something.
I already gave an example of Fedora Core2. What, for me, was an interesting task, for a general user might be a reason to stop using Linux.

---

That's why "general users" don't use Linux... It might require learning something outside of clicking "install"...

Quote:

---

May be I don't know as much as some of you guys, but at least I'm trying to look at things from every prospective and don't try to make out that something's perfect when it's not.

---

I didn't see a single post in this thread that said Linux was perfect...

-Wiski

[EDIT]

Quote:

---

At the moment I'm using Fedora Core2. The problem I found is that things like instals had to be done through comand line. Core2 simply doesn't have any grafical tools to do it, or they don't work.

As I heard Core3 is just double click like Windows. Again much userfriendlier .

---

The "problem" you found isn't a problem at all... and, if I'm not mistaken, RHFC2 comes equipped w/ a package manager (similar to Debian's, isn't it?) I may be wrong on this, though - I dumped RHFC2 soon after I installed it because it shared too many characteristics of Windows - the very OS I was trying to find an alternative for!...

If you want a more "userfriendlier" environment, perhaps you should just stick with Windows... ?
[/EDIT]

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by wiskic10_4
That's why "general users" don't use Linux... It might require learning something outside of clicking "install"...

---

Well then people should stop complaining that Windows has got such a big market share. Don't you think so?

Not everyone in the world is a computer proffecional. And not even all the profecionals can use Linux. Some of my Uni profesors can't even use Windows properly, and they are considered among the top in their field of IT. Beat that:D

Quote:

---

I didn't see a single post in this thread that said Linux was perfect...

-Wiski

---

OK. I appologize. Wrong wording :)