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

Quote:

---

This might scare you, but there are plenty of boxes out there running 2.2 still.

---

Why would this scare anyone? I'd be more concerned about the 2.4.x or 2.6.x boxes that are being run without understanding just as much as the XP boxes being run without understanding. We have a 2.2 box here at the college that the students use to abuse. This thing is so locked down that nothing works -- and even when it is compromised, as the 3-4 times I did last year, the admin fixes it within minutes so the vulnerability isn't effective anymore.

Quote:

---

That's a load of crap. No professor needs to know Windows inside out unless they are teaching it. Do they need to know how to get things going? Certainly.

---

So u quote me and said "a load of crap", and said the same idea, re-wording it? I didnt get your point. Can you see a professor on IT area that cant use Windows (Not an expert, just know how to use it basically - as a regular user)? Sorry, but i cant.

You said:

Quote:

---

Besides i cant see a professor that is "on top" on IT but cant use windows -- a professor must know windows to be a "professor", i know a lot of ppl that is "on top" and dont know windows, dont use windows, etc.

---

So basically you said you can't see a professor who is on top of IT but doesn't understand windows claim that they are on top of IT. How is that the same? Perhaps you meant you "can see a professor who is on top of IT but can't use windows".

I know that some feel that being nitpicky on grammar is anal but to be honest, if people don't pay attention to it, miscommunication can happen.

Quote:

---

So basically you said you can't see a professor who is on top of IT but doesn't understand windows claim that they are on top of IT. How is that the same? Perhaps you meant you "can see a professor who is on top of IT but can't use windows".

I know that some feel that being nitpicky on grammar is anal but to be honest, if people don't pay attention to it, miscommunication can happen.

---

Now im lost :) . Since it seems that my crap english had caused the confusion i will try to re-word (but still a bad english):

Im my opinion, A professor on IT area cant claim to be called as it (professor) if he/she can't use windows at a user level. Although he/she can be an expert in the several areas of IT (e.g. in Artificial Inteligence) windows is a basic tool nowadays (dont even dare gore!) and everyone must know the basic about it (as a user, not a professor).

Looks better? :) My best try.

Man I wake up and see STILL someone who has used Windows forever blamed Linux for drivers they know nothing about :( And I'm half asleep.

IF you're following other threads I'm in, I got Tiger Shark, a pure Windows only admin, to install Linux finally, DAMN is it entertaining. IT's been so long it seems, and he is goign through his right of passage.... Well not yet, he hasn't un-linked the file system yet or deleted his home dor, but I'm sure that will come with time.

If he can learn anyone can, hell I did.

Quote:

---

Im my opinion, A professor on IT area cant claim to be called as it (professor) if he/she can't use windows at a user level. Although he/she can be an expert in the several areas of IT (e.g. in Artificial Inteligence) windows is a basic tool nowadays (dont even dare gore!) and everyone must know the basic about it (as a user, not a professor)

---

That's crap then. You're saying I can't be called a professor because I'm not an expert in Windows, even at a user level. If I'm in an environment that is entirely Unix/Linux (which is pretty close to truth here at this college) and have little to no interaction with windows, you're saying I should still know how to use it and if I don't then I'm not a professor? Not accurate. A professor is someone who is an EXPERT in their field. That's the point. You learn from them about their specific area.

What I'm saying is that it's not surprising that they do not know this. If someone is a specialist in their area (say, AI) I would not expect them to understand Windows even at a user level because all they do is AI (live it, breath it, eat it, sleep it).

So why is it that out of all the OS on Earth, Linux was the only one to have a totally RFC complient TCP stack? If Microsoft is going to say it's a low quality OS to the press, then in the background send out memos about how it's very good, can't they at least make Widnows run without RPC?

Not sure where it was I read about it but Linux was the first OS ever to have a fully RFC complient TCP stack, that should mean at least something about it's quality.

As for the Drivers, I already said that I'll explore this question more indepth. If people couldn't read it first time. Well, now I said it again .

I'm very grateful to poohsuntzu for the heads up though.

Quote:

---

Nobody has forgotton about it at all, the fact is it just doesn't happen anywhere near as often on Linux as it does Windows.

---

But how many people actualy look for the holes in Linux aiming to exploit them? As Linux will become more popular, and I'm sure it will, the number of these people will increase exponentialy. Up to this as one of the reports said, most of the attacks now are not on the operating system level, but rather aimed on the vulnarablities provided by other applications. The link to this report is on on of the first pages of this tread.


Out of the hardware I had issues I can name a Netgear Wireless USB Network Card. It needed a separate download to run on Linux. I'm not sure about now, Hope theyv'e got it sorted by now.


And the most secure way of runing your system is not to go online at all :D, but then you don't realy need to update your system at all. Of course you won't be able to get much software for Linux, as it's all distributed through the internet, but that's the backlash of being completely secure ;). This also doesn't stop anyone from crashing their own Windows far better then if they had 100 hackers and viruses on the system either:D.


Personaly I think this discussion's over. Many people here seem to know "everything" about PCs, but to forget that an "average Joe" will go with the system which is Stable to write letters and play games and Easy to use and Big Choice of software he can get old style, in the shop.
That's what made me buy Windows when I first started with PCs.

You have no right / authority to say my thread is closed.

As for Linux exploits, SUSE Linux has a team of people who do nothing BUT look for holes, so don't assume anything there either tough guy.

Quote:

---

This might scare you, but there are plenty of boxes out there running 2.2 still.

---

No, that's fine. I'm on 2.4 still because of it's stability :) However he was talking in terms of features rather than security related. There are some things 2.6 has that 2.4 doesn't(even if you can patch them into the 2.4 by hand) that would require a kernel upgrade.

I agree that the level of importance isn't the same, was just trying to explain the kernel upgrades for required newer features rather than security.