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

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
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

---

Erm ... Isn't Solaris a version of Unix rather than Linux? LOL

I never understood how *nix included linux it's illogical! To my *pedantic* mind it should be *n?x ... Can someone explain this anomoly?

As for mainframes ... I remember reading somewhere that VMS / open VMS was described at DefCon 9 as "Cool," and "Unhackable." now that to me sounds pretty secure. Anyone able to add weight to that one?

Hmm...Well, Linux was derived from Unix, wasn't it? *Trying to remember my Linux history* Creator Linus was trying to break away from Unix with his own flavor of it if I recall correctly...Someone more knowledgeable may need to step in on that one.

As far as unhackable -- nothing is unhackable. But coming from Defcon, it makes me curious, doesn't sound like something you'd hear someone say there.

Quote:

---

Erm ... Isn't Solaris a version of Unix rather than Linux? LOL

---

erm isn't Linux based on Unix too ?

Quote:

---

Linux is a UNIX-Like Operating System, written from Scratch, based on the POSIX Standard, that defines the Way a UNIX-Like OS must work.

All Unixes must be POSIX Compliant, no matter if it's Linux, BSD-s, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, IRIX, etc, etc....

After All, UNIX is a Trademark that originally belonged to Bell Laboratories (AT&T), and has been sold to one company to another with the years... (UNIX is what the owner wants it to be)

So, POSIX is the Standard, but for Tradition, all this POSIX-Compliant Operating Systems are called UNIXES, or UNIX-Like.

---

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Oper..._20154245.html

Linus wanted to make a free OS that was better than the free minix and had the power of the expensive unix.

BTW, why did caco and whiz get negged in this thread?

I just recently read "Just for Fun" linus' story of how Linux came to be. It was based off of Minix. (sp?)

edit
Looks like I got beaten to the punch.
/edit

As for Open VMS / VMS being unhackable, mentioning that at Defcon will only bring more attention to it.....Its like a wounded animal in a shark tank. Once people's interest is sparked, VMS will be doing some security updates.

My whole point with my previous thread was to say to those companies "before you lecture me on how Windows is so much better than Nix" make sure YOU are using Windows and not something else. Show that using Windows is good by example.

Personally at work I am with Cheyenne (Windows is a good solution because I know more about it), but I use Linux at home and eventually would like to run some servers with nix to learn. However at the moment, if I put a nix server out on the net in a production enviroment, it might get rooted because of my lack of knowledge. I feel more comfortable with Windows, because currently I know more about the Windows OS. However, I am always trying to learn more so this might change someday soon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Simple Simon
Erm ... Isn't Solaris a version of Unix rather than Linux? LOL

I never understood how *nix included linux it's illogical! To my *pedantic* mind it should be *n?x ... Can someone explain this anomoly?

As for mainframes ... I remember reading somewhere that VMS / open VMS was described at DefCon 9 as "Cool," and "Unhackable." now that to me sounds pretty secure. Anyone able to add weight to that one?

---

Linus wasn't happy with how Minix worked, and he wanted something like he had used at his university, which was Sun OS. He says that was his main inspiration for doing Linux, and I think he's done a good job.

Open VMS.... Pffft. Like a bunch of 14 year olds in "Hack the Planet" shirts have any right saying a damned thing is unhackable.

That's a load. I read the same story, and then me and TheHorse pissed ourselves laughing. Open VMS is NOT un-hackable. It is however in smaller use, and not usually targeted like Linux or Windows.

What I liked was "Open VMS can have clusters with uptime in the years"....Super, I can do that with Windows, DOS, Linux, BSD, and hell, if I had enough computers, Windows ME. All you have to do is keep ONE box up while the others are down.

If I had some good cooling for my boxes, I could easy have my network up for years at a time. Security updates would be installed on one box, then that one rebooted. And then when it came back on, I would update and reboot the others. That is how easy it would be to have a cluster up for years. It still counts as "up" as long as one box stays on while the others get rebooted.

Clusters have shared resources that can fail, otherwise they are not clusters, just mirrors or copies of one another. :) Oh you can have redundant resources but there is usually some common ground, otherwise the other cluster couln't take over normally without interuption.

TCO of Linux is often more than Windows in the long run. I have a dozen real world speadsheets to show ya (if I could). Some who show a huge cost savings. Depends on the environment. For instance, you have a larger operation who only does a single order entry program on 99 percent of the computers. Linux is cheaper by the dozens. Take another operation full of people who work on 10 different applications at one time and need a lot of support, Windows will kill at TCO. Remember that is TOTAL cost not just licensing and hardware. lol, What would we expect Microsoft to post on their site?

"Damn you know, you came here looking for Windows but Linux is free, here is a link, knock yourself out - yo. If you want, maybe later you can come and try our office Suite, or better yet - here is a link to Sun where you can get a full on office hard on without spending a dime. Peace all" - Billy (goat) Gates

gore, maybe the appropriate question is "Maybe the computer is only as secure as the idiot running it." The thing is, you can have the most stable and secure box in the world, but it is only as good as the person configuring it.

I personally use and like Slackware and Windows, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people bash Windows when a lot still use Windows while bashing it. I have been to many IRC channels where somebody is saying "M$ SUCKS BALLS" or whatever and you or somebody else does a /ver... "Hey, wait a second, are you using mIRC on Windows XP Home? That's fine and dandy, but if you hate Windows so much, shut the **** up, uninstall windows and use something you are yapping about." I am sure you have seen that yourself. It's sad and funny at the same time.

Another thing is, pooh was saying when people bash Windows if they gave that OS a chance. Sure, a lot give it a chance but too many want to pretend to be "1337" and toot Linux is the best thing since pussy was invented.

The next question is, what are you tying to protect? Personally, I do not give two shits if somebody uses my box. Go ahead, grab any pr0n, lame code or software you want. I am not really protecting anything and do not have anything that is worth grabbing. Yeah, some may argue my box may be used as a go between for other shite, but why use a little box with a shitty pipe when there are others that can do a much better job? Oh well.

Now, is Windows really more secure than Linux, BSD, OS/2, OSX, or other OS? I have no idea. It really depends on what you want to do with it, what your expertise is, and you are smart enough to update it if in fact you are running anything that mission critical or are simply paranoid and want a fortress to your readme files. That's all nice too I suppose.

1. Windows has a reputation it wants to uphold and wants to rule the world. Now that other OS's are taking a little of the action, they are not very happy because they do not have the 95%+ of users depending on them to deliver ****. I am still wiating for SP2. Windows however is looking to make the product better by looking on what the competition is doing and apply it. But no matter what you do, Windows is still Windows and *NIX is still *NIX. I guess that is why Microsoft is going to bed with SCO to hinder the growth of Linux and free software. I doubt it will happen, but nobody said trying is a bad thing.

2. Linux is there for those who want something they can customize and have something that is alternate to the age old proprietary software that hinders them from just getting **** done. The downfall to that is, many people want another operating system but expect Windows or have the support Windows has on something they downloaded. Now there are plenty of docs, patches, newsgroups, BBs and other places to get info, but the OS is not tard ready.

That is changing with SuSE, IBM, Red Hat and others that are offering support with the "flagship" products for enterprise customers which is a good idea. Hey is it just me or is "solution" or "enterprise" used way too much?