Printable View
Wow, I was expecting a flame war when I woke up. And there isn't one! Wow!
I think most have figured out that even I have said before "You can secure an OS, but you can't patch stupidity" but I'm sure most of you realised this was just to get something other than "Help me do something" on the front page tech support stuff I see daily.
Keep it going :)
There are more Windows viruses and vulnerabilities, it's true. Why ? Because Windows has billions of users, so it is a larger audience, if a virus writer wanted to do much damage, why would he do it with a Linux Virus ? He can't be sure if it's gonna spread from the infected computer to another linux machine ! Windows has more users and therefore is more targeted. If as much people are exploiting linux as there are windows, it would turn up to be that Linux is just as much vulnerable as windows, it's just that most people use windows, therefore we have more people attacking, searching for holes and doing damage to windows. If Linux becomes worldwide used by every person in 20 years, we'll see the number of windows infection decrease and linux increase.
Also, Linux is harder to spread viruses with since no two linux distros are the same, a plus over Windows. On the flipside of that coin, however, virus writers are smart enough to figure out a way around that, eventually. Viruses can indeed spread through Linux, just not at such a widespread rate as Windows, for now.Quote:
if a virus writer wanted to do much damage, why would he do it with a Linux Virus ?
The average linux user is smarter than the average windows user. That's why there are more windows virueses. That and market share. Most Linux users also run windows and have a nice clean patched box, whereas most windows users know how to click on outlook and word on the desktop and how to play games and that's it.
I just had to say one thing...the first report from Management Insight Technologies. (Those guys were running FreeBSD and IRIX on their webservers until late July)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?...mgtinsight.com
Seems like Microsoft might of paid them off... And it also seems that until recently they did not believe their own report about "concentrating on Windows Platforms leads to financial health. ;)
"You can secure an OS, but you can't patch stupidity"
LOL. This is why my parents need Windows. Very unsavy computer users. ;)
Edit: Even better!
"The Costs and Risks of Open Source""
Julie Giera with Adam Brown
Forrester Research
An independent analysis of long-term Linux deployments concludes that operating expenses for some companies can overcome initial purchase savings, making Linux's total cost of ownership greater than that of Windows. In particular:
Linux planning costs were 5% to 25% higher.
Linux training costs were 15% higher on average. "
Seems their IT department does not agree as they are running Solaris!
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....forrester.com
Most assuredly. Businesses always pay their "researchers", which is what motivates the results.Quote:
Seems like Microsoft might of paid them off
On Viruses:
The latest libpng vulnerability has "Linux worm" written all over it.
>edit> Forgot to mention. This comment is just an observation within the current discussion and not an attempt to hammer Linux. Windows rules the roost where exploitable virus code is the topic.Quote:
A stack-based buffer overflow in libpng which can be triggered to run
arbitrary code by a malicious png file. The Common Vulnerabilities
and Exposures (CVE) project assigned the id CAN-2004-0597 [2] to the
problem.
The discussion of which OS is more secure is definately an interesting discussion. I always find that the smartest Windows user over the dumbest Linux user is more likely to get hit by something, sheerly because there are more people trying to hit, that persons box, along with more open exploits on that system. I am not saying that one is more secure than the other.
I am saying if you have 10 people working on exploiting something, they will get it, but not as soon as 1000 people working on exploiting. It tends to be, what I notice. People that write exploits for *nix just got bored with writing for windows.
Now as for a look at intelliegence level of each user. You tend to have a more intellegent *nix user, because just to find out about linux you have to read some kind of book tutorial. (I can't remember the last time I was at football practice and we got into an arguement over which linux distro was best.) So for the majority linux is going to have more intelliegent, or atleast computer savy people.
Now the interesting thing is, M$ is so scared of linux, that they are doing everything that they can think of to try to hurt the OS, and community, instead of being intelligent enough to help it grow. Do you know what it would do if M$ decided that it was going to help the *nix community. No one could hate M$ anymore. Yeah you could hate it's OS, but now you are getting funding from that company.
I would personally like to see M$ put more of a foot forward trying to help out *nix than try to distro it. I mean ****, just release a good *nix distro (Key word good.) and sell the damn thing. That way they make money off of it and get to be the good guys.
Just to add examples here:
My current (today) home network:
adsl connection
1) linux box (p233) runnning Netfilter --> planning to move to smoothwall interface soon. gateway for internal network
2)linux box (pii 400) running my website (apache and mysql) - protect also by netfilter rules
3)Windows XP box (Xp1800) - D/L manager, backup and other stuff, pretty lame folder sharing (guest allowed and other bad security manners) -running NIS 2002 & Mcaffee A/V, Spysweeper
4) Windows XP box (xp2600) - professional + gaming station - very strong security (one account for each user, no access from network, etc) - running NIS & A/V 2004
why that?
its a piece of cake (for me) config a netfilter based fw. And for website its easier with *nix tools, :)
Windows - so easy to do things :) burn cds, donwload, even schedulle tasks..... and, be serious, graphic tools rocks! (MS-OFFICE, Visio, Visual Studio,, MacroMEdia MX)
its a matter of preference. I like both, but i use each one on a specific place.
That one has my gears turning. Look at it from a business perspective though. If you start producing software down the lines of your key competition, you've given off the image of "giving in", and that could perhaps further convince people that MS is one the way down and Linux on the way up, bringing even more consumers over to Linux competitors instead of away. From a business angle, MS must 1) figure out how to best Linux or 2) get ready to close there doors sooner or later.