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

Tyfon, your view is horribly misguided I fear. Some points to consider:

1) You don't have to pay for AV, spyware detectors, etc., as there are plenty of freeware alternatives out there. I run an AV, firewall, and four different spyware-detecting programs and haven't spent a dime. The only real issue is the ridiculous price of Windows.

2) A true expert can harden any OS by mastering it. A Windows expert can harden his OS as well as any Linux distro; conversely, a Linux user with no understanding of his OS can render it far weaker than Windows. In the end, security is defined by the man behind the machine, not the kind of OS he's running.

3) Gore as an MS advocate...Now that's just darn funny. Perhaps you should pay a little closer attention to what you're reading.

I do think linux is more stable,They are less bugs in linux.

I just read a quick tip on AO "lock your door by all mean but remember never to open windows".
To me linux is much better then windows by far and by all means just with one exception(may be coz they still have to discover it) all windows bugs that are discovered are patched within a week of discovery(may be funny to many of you, sure i didn't read it on microsoft.com i was discussing the same topic with a hacker on zone-h irc chat).
the bottom line is: "Security and microsoft don't go hand in hand".

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gauravjulka
No doubt *Nix OSes are more secure as compared to the WIdows because of the Open source factor.

---

*nix generally refers to Linux, BSD, and all unix derivatives (Solaris, AIX, et. al.). Only two of those bases are open sourced. Open Sourced software also does not necessarily corrolate to security, though it is conducive to catching severe mistakes.

Quote:

---

It is harder to hide viruses in the code for *nix OSes. Windows is provided by a single party Microsoft, the so called giant inthe software biz. It is its own sole responsiblity to fix the bugs which remain in their software. But for *nix there is no one responsible out there for bug fixing issues. If there is someone out there, Then do drop a message about it.

---

Actually there are. The various linux distributors take on that responsibility when they charge you for the operating system.

Quote:

---

But administration in Windows 2000 is more sophisticated because of Windows Active Directory Services. Does any *nix system has any equivalent to this thing.

---

NIS+. Or now, Netware on Linux I suppose. :)

Quote:

---

The beauty that this costly OS has in it its marvellous support over the network. Integration of various security mechanisms in one wonderful framework called Windows Active DIrectory Services.

---

Yes, they've almost managed to catch up to 10 year old Netware technology.

Quote:

---

No. of applications don't count for the usefulness of an Operating System. Consider them when it comes to ease of use, user friendliness, sole responsibily for the professional creators for any bugs. So windows provides all that. Keep in mind that upto this point Windows is many step ahead of other OSs. The need is there to make it a bit open sourced so that even the amateur programmers can also tweak the bugs for themselves

---

There isn't a need to open the source of Windows, I don't know on what basis you think this is the case. Amateur programmers are part of the problem with software in general, and that discussion is better left for a software development discussion targeting bad development practices in general. Check the General Programming Questions and Programming Security forums' histories for such discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by AngelicKnight
A true expert can harden any OS by mastering it. A Windows expert can harden his OS as well as any Linux distro; conversely, a Linux user with no understanding of his OS can render it far weaker than Windows. In the end, security is defined by the man behind the machine, not the kind of OS he's running.

---

This applies up to a point, but falls apart when you consider that after a certain point, there is more security capability on Linux than there is on Windows. To my knowledge there is no included in the OS method of jailing a process using chroot-style wrappers/technology.
Windows also opens itself to vulnerabilities by tying so many extraneous applications into the OS. How many IE vulns have to be classified as an operating system vulnerability because of its ties to the OS? The same is not true of most other OSes.

At a baseline the statement is correct, but you will eventually hit a wall where Linux can do many security-related things that Windows can't.

Hehe, don't forget the "Firewall" features. XP has a Firewall Built in, and Linux has had them with IPChains, and then with the 2.4 Kernels, IPTables, and they can do more than block just inbound traffic. I'd love too see IE done away with. That and well, I STILL wonder why Windows Server 2003 comes with Windows Media Player. I can't think of many reasons why a Server OS would have that Media player. Too me that would add in on security threats.

Now, I'm no guru of FTP Servers, far from it, but I do think my server here at home (Heh, OK, it's a PC with PureFTPD running but hey it works!) I think it's quite secure. You have too log in too use it, and not only that it has to be with a valid username and password on the local system, meaning I have too give accounts.

And then you're jailed in a way that you can't do anything outside of /home/you because it doesn't allow that either. I also keep it updated, and X isn't running, but sometimes does when I need too do something with an X application but I try not having X loaded all the time because that not only wastes system resources, but it opens up a security flaw, because X is another application running in RAM, and in theory could make the machine less secure and less stable. I'm not a "purist" in computing but well, a little elitist I guess.

Current uptime on that box:

15:12:15 up 49 days 21:47, 3 users

I have 3 processes running:

Fetchmail, Mutt, and IRSSI. IRSSI has an uptime of:

15:13 Irssi uptime: 23d 13h 58m 28s

Heh, my IRC client has a better uptime than my XP and 2000 Professional boxes have. And I'm on like 7 channels. :) Just proves what everyone already knows: Irssi is the best IRC client ever.

Quote:

---

Yes, they've almost managed to catch up to 10 year old Netware technology.

---

Altough Im not a *nix lover (neither a Windows lover - both are weak O.S.) i disagree of you about above statement.

MS even reached the NDS of Netware 4.1 :D

MS must go thru a very very very very long development path to deploy that OLD nds structure. That i couldnt never understand why.

and why they kept that crap domain strucuture hidden on AD.

But backing to Gore "reborn" ideas, i think that a stripped *nix is stilll weaker than a full crap load *nix with a correct iptables config.

BTW, lets another question to you Gore: if i strip a Windows XP workstation, removing all services (but not activating MS firewall) that can be accessed from outside, do you think that this windows station will be stronger or weaker (standing for outside attacks) than your stripped *nix?

Quote:

---

This applies up to a point, but falls apart when you consider that after a certain point, there is more security capability on Linux than there is on Windows. To my knowledge there is no included in the OS method of jailing a process using chroot-style wrappers/technology.
Windows also opens itself to vulnerabilities by tying so many extraneous applications into the OS. How many IE vulns have to be classified as an operating system vulnerability because of its ties to the OS? The same is not true of most other OSes.

---

And who says we don't have good quality content on AO anymore? ;) Learned something new!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by cacosapo
BTW, lets another question to you Gore: if i strip a Windows XP workstation, removing all services (but not activating MS firewall) that can be accessed from outside, do you think that this windows station will be stronger or weaker (standing for outside attacks) than your stripped *nix?

---

Hahahahahahahahaha! It wouldn't even boot up! RPC ;) You HAVE too have that. That's one of the things with Windows, there are services that are insecure that it has too have too be used. This box right now, has SSH and Sendmail running. Sendmail isn't allowed too be touched or accept requests, and SSH, well, heh, a little configuration in /etc/securetty makes it so only tty 1 and tty2 can take a Root log in. You have too use "su" for anything else.

One simple step you can use for Free BSD and Linux too make it harder for someone too get Root access. If someone can somehow break my 38 character password for user accounts and then get through to the 42 character password for root, which looks like it's already Encrypted, then hell, I've failed lol.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by cacosapo
Altough Im not a *nix lover (neither a Windows lover - both are weak O.S.) i disagree of you about above statement.

---

*nix is not an OS...

Quote:

---

MS even reached the NDS of Netware 4.1 :D
MS must go thru a very very very very long development path to deploy that OLD nds structure. That i couldnt never understand why.

---

Patent infringement and copyright violation in all likelihood. Remember, Microsoft is really a newbie when it comes to the server game. They've had serious server products for about 10 years. Compare that to IBM, Sun, HP, etc., who all have unixes with multiple decades of experience behind them, and it's kind of an unfair comparison, though it does smack of them not learning from others.

Quote:

---

and why they kept that crap domain strucuture hidden on AD.

---

For the same reason AMD's Athlon-64 has 8 bit and 16 bit processing instruction sets: Backwards compatibility.

Thought I'd post this update and bump the thread. This page might generate some discussion:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...dows_vs_linux/

IMO a pretty good read, and although the guy is somewhat biased in his approach, it's pretty darned accurate if you are looking just at security.

Quote:

---

The study also reveals that Linux has become the most breached 24/7
online computing environment in terms of manual hacker attacks overall
and accounts for 65.64% of all breaches recorded, with 154,846
successfully compromised Linux 24/7 online computers of all flavours.

---

http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/framese...ess/021104.php

That's a bit misleading if you ask me. Let's look at what kinds of servers are in *typical* 24/7 operations.

Web Servers
ftp servers
dns servers
Database servers

3 of those 4 are typically in a DMZ or punched through people's firewalls for public access. It's natural that they would get attacked and compromised more often than anything else because they have no real protection other than the system itself being hardened. The database server...well since the web server and dbase server communicate regularly...it's just a hop skip and a jump away.
Look at a typical windows domain controller(in a 24/7) however, and you'll find that it is typically behind a sturdy firewall, on a vlan, with an IDS watching it....and then some.
That's still a good study..too bad it costs so damn much.

Windows can't do 24/7 servers. :D

has anybody read the top of the openbsd banner? www.openbsd.org may i say more?????

Free, Functional, & Secure Since 1995
Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!


and netbsd, you have to go in manually to enable services, quite alot of services are enabled by default in windows installations.

And you seem too have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Open BSD comes in a way that ANY OS could brag that same ****. They have Code Audits.... So does SUSE Linux. They come with less Services enabled.... Well that's idiotic as it's damn near an un-useable system untill you open things up.

SUSE Linux allows you too download ALL updates before it even boots up for the first time. That options mkaes it higher in my list. Mandrake says you can doo the same thing, but it doesn't work as well as SUSE does. SUSE Linux 8.2 and up all have the option. You get done installing, and start downloading updates soo the system is totally up too date becayse it even boots up, and you can configure it with YAST2 right away.

SUSE Has the same Code Audits as Open BSD and better ability too have the system boot up into a secured state than Open BSD.

Any moron could take Slackware, and make it so nothing is running when it installs and pop in on a CD and starting bragging "Never had a security hole in the remote installation ever".

Free BSD has taken strides too. Net BSD is a toy OS for people with exotic hardware that want too run a BSD OS. IT's a TOY. Open BSD is made and based on NetBSD as that jack ass Theodor or however he spells it, was on the Net BSD team but argued about how he wanted things too be, so he started Open BSD and started doing code audits. And as I said, SUSE does security code audits too.

SUSE Has the biggest team of any Linux distro, and they have a whole part of that team for nothing more than auditing code for security.That is one reason why SUSE gets MAYBE 2 security flaws in a month for things like YAST and core SUSE things. And Gentoo gets 3 a day ;)

SUSE has a very good amount done with security, and they work at it very well, making it solid and secure.

SUSE and Slackware are the way too go.

Adding to gore's post, Suse is also backed by a large, rich, OSS loving company (novell). This gives them more opportunities than a lot of the other Linux OSes because quite a few of them don't have that kind of money backing them. This is also the reason they can afford having so many security EXPERTS (not people who can read code and couldn't see a vuln if their life depended on it, like most programmers) looking over code on a day to day basis finding stuff...

I personally think that Novell is going the way of the future. They take the best of both worlds (worlds being Big corp [M$], OSS [slack, debian, gentoo etc.]) and put it all together... I think they are going to see quite a big amount of succes in the next few years... Especially if they manage to break the home market open... That would rock... More $$ for me in the long run... (working on computers, most people haven't the slightest clue of linux)

Jesus! Not this again.... :)

Okay, I'll bite. Can't refuse an opportunity to plug for UNIX.

We don't see much here on AO in the *nix forums about Sun. That is probably for understandable reasons since most members are probably thinking in terms of Home computers rather than production computing environments. Breaking from tradition, allow me to explain why Solaris
is more secure than Windows... Caveat: Note that *none* of these things are install defaults.

1) We can connect to the machine and control the entire session over serial null modem (console).
This gives us the ability to do the entire install remotely, without the box needing to be on the networrk.

2) Select the leanest install, for example 'Core' and further remove any unnecessary packages.

3) With the install complete, we disable root logins anywhere but the console. Enable blowfish password encryption, disable all other algorithms.

4) Proceed to removing all users and groups not requierd for the tasks to be performed on the box.

5) Enable all available logging.

6) Apply all patches (via tip hardwire).

7) Yadda.. yadda. do more security stuff including turning all but mission critical serivces off....

8) Create a flash archive of the running system. Poof! viola! You now have an installable secure image that you can place on every other machine on the DMZ complete with patches and all the security modifications you have made.

Best of all, you are likely to have uptime measured in months, quarters, etc. instead of days. In real life, in a real production environment that is what counts when management discusses their I.T./I.S. staff.

Heh, you just named off what I do on a SUSE install. Except my security patches are installed before the machine has ever even booted for the first time. My Encryption is Blowfish usually, but I do like having 4096 bit encryption so generally I use that.

It's only overkill if you don't know how too use it. And for servers, which you were talking about:

SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9, if you have at least 256 MBs RAM, you can do a fully GUI installation over SSH or VPN, I'd consider that fairly secure for the "I don't want too get off my ass" group.

YAST2 is included, which is the best Management tool ever created. And for the record I do own Solaris, and have used it once, but I'd much rather get a Sun box with Trusted Solaris on it.

Anyone who'd like to donate too the cause is welcome lol. We can call it "Gore wants too play in the Sun". ;)

SuSE is a fantastic distro, and Sun is steadily falling behind the curve compared to Linux. For large installations I really prefer Sun hardware over PC's because of OpenBoot and LightsOut and the flexibility it gives you for remote administration. Having said that, Debian running on a couple of racks of SunFire v100's has worked out great for us so far (each box has been up for about 300 days now).

TrustedSolaris is just Solaris 8 with the wealth of Sun security stuff turned on, unsecure services removed and a very *very* hefty price tag. I am pretty confident that I can get Solaris 9 going for my customers with SunScreen and the other security toolkit stuff that Sun provides at no extra cost with the media and have a machine that is at least as secure as TrustedSolaris.

Solaris 10 for those who have even a marginal interest is well worth the look. The ability to compartmentalize processes into groups and assign each group maximum and minimum system resources has proved itself on a test box running a very unfriendly Oracle test server on a Sun v1280 over the past couple of months.

The downside to Sun of course is that it is largely proprietary, and to make any Sun workstation or development box very worthwhile you really need to install a bunch of the GNU software. Proof positive that Open Source wins in the UNIX world.

-- spurious

P.S. Don't waste your time on any of the Sun Blade server stuff (e.g. Sun Blade B1600). They are a neat idea, but what a piece of sh*t. We have replaced every blade in the three units we have at least once; thank god we didn't eat the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by spurious_inode
SuSE is a fantastic distro, and Sun is steadily falling behind the curve compared to Linux. For large installations I really prefer Sun hardware over PC's because of OpenBoot and LightsOut and the flexibility it gives you for remote administration. Having said that, Debian running on a couple of racks of SunFire v100's has worked out great for us so far (each box has been up for about 300 days now).

TrustedSolaris is just Solaris 8 with the wealth of Sun security stuff turned on, unsecure services removed and a very *very* hefty price tag. I am pretty confident that I can get Solaris 9 going for my customers with SunScreen and the other security toolkit stuff that Sun provides at no extra cost with the media and have a machine that is at least as secure as TrustedSolaris.

Solaris 10 for those who have even a marginal interest is well worth the look. The ability to compartmentalize processes into groups and assign each group maximum and minimum system resources has proved itself on a test box running a very unfriendly Oracle test server on a Sun v1280 over the past couple of months.

The downside to Sun of course is that it is largely proprietary, and to make any Sun workstation or development box very worthwhile you really need to install a bunch of the GNU software. Proof positive that Open Source wins in the UNIX world.

-- spurious

P.S. Don't waste your time on any of the Sun Blade server stuff (e.g. Sun Blade B1600). They are a neat idea, but what a piece of sh*t. We have replaced every blade in the three units we have at least once; thank god we didn't eat the cost.

---

Oh man Sun Screen looked AWESME when I was reading up on it. It has more than I need of course, being it was emant as a REAL firewall for a high end environment, but I still liked it.

You're post is post 138 :) That's awesome !! http://www.onethirtyeight.net



The blades looked pretty good but after reading your post, heh wow. Then again a lot of things look great on paper heh.

I would love a Sun box. I need the experience working with them for when I move. I've got an ad here for a Sun V250 Server which was a little more affordable for me at 3 Grand. So Maybe I'll try that out.

BLAH, microsoft just dont like the fact that people are switching because linux is more stable and getting more popular. IMO, i think its exactly like a presidential campaign......slander the other over and over blah blah blah because you want to be #1, or should i say in microsofts case The only one.

Personaly, I'm using Microsoft far more then Linux. For me, it is more secure as well, simply because I know far more things about making Windows secure. I should also say, that Linux does need a bit more work on the options available for user interface.

I'm sure that's what most of the users will say.

Many people want a clear cut solution. I think that Microsoft managed to give the solution from the very start, this is why they are so damn popular. There are may in here that will start hurling stones at me, but I repeat:

"Windows is more secure, simply because I know how to secure it."

And it doesn't matter what an average "gik" like any of us would say, what matters is what an average user, like my flatmates, prefers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MrCoffee

Has anyone here read Cliff Stoll's The Cuckcoo's Egg?
Or Underground by Suelette Dreyfus ?

---

Is there anywhere I could download this books from. I'll check the library tomorrow :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
Personaly, I'm using Microsoft far more then Linux. For me, it is more secure as well, simply because I know far more things about making Windows secure.

---

Always the first thing I tell people when they ask me if linux is for them.

Quote:

---

I should also say, that Linux does need a bit more work on the options available for user interface.

---

You should try SuSE. To be honest, I more often find myself aggravated at the lack of UI stuff in Windows than I do Linux.

Quote:

---

Many people want a clear cut solution. I think that Microsoft managed to give the solution from the very start, this is why they are so damn popular.

---

You're mistaken, Microsoft did not manage to give a clear cut solution until 1990, almost a decade after Apple had introduced the GUI and the Mouse. Even then it was buggy as hell and still relied on DOS. It wasn't until 95 that they started making actual progress, and even then the only reason they exist today is industry support from IBM, who is ironically getting outta the PC biz. What is clear to me based on recent use statistics is that Linux is growing in popularity. If Microsoft was offering the perfect-to-everyone system you suggest, this wouldn't be the case, would it? ;)

Quote:

---

And it doesn't matter what an average "gik" like any of us would say, what matters is what an average user, like my flatmates, prefers.

---

'Average' users do not run hundreds to thousands of computers for enterprise businesses, "average geeks" like us do, so yes, it DOES matter. Last I read corporations still purchase more computers than end users.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by chsh
Always the first thing I tell people when they ask me if linux is for them.


You should try SuSE. To be honest, I more often find myself aggravated at the lack of UI stuff in Windows than I do Linux.


You're mistaken, Microsoft did not manage to give a clear cut solution until 1990, almost a decade after Apple had introduced the GUI and the Mouse. Even then it was buggy as hell and still relied on DOS. It wasn't until 95 that they started making actual progress, and even then the only reason they exist today is industry support from IBM, who is ironically getting outta the PC biz. What is clear to me based on recent use statistics is that Linux is growing in popularity. If Microsoft was offering the perfect-to-everyone system you suggest, this wouldn't be the case, would it? ;)


'Average' users do not run hundreds to thousands of computers for enterprise businesses, "average geeks" like us do, so yes, it DOES matter. Last I read corporations still purchase more computers than end users.

---

Actualy, I still think that the best OS I ever used, was "Volkov comander" also known as "Norton comander" It also relyed on DOS havily, but was stable as hell :D.
I bet that having it on my PC today would have it flying and making me cups of trea if I was bothered to give Computer hands and legs.

I'll try SuSE as you advise.

Unfortunately for the "giks" they often still have to consider their average user, when instaling the computers. If you don't do it, well....... you might know the result without me :(.

The solution Microsoft gave, could be installed on any hardware and didn't have to have to be bought with the whole system. This allowed an average "Joe" to become a PC engineer. They also had a gaming support, which in the end made people buy Windows for their kids. Once they had Windows, it was very hard for them to move to another way of thinking. Especialy going on to Linux which had prety much no GUI or MAC, which had no games running on it and a different way of storing files. And we'll have to agree, that people prefer to use Windows at work, simply because they use it at home.

Although, Microsoft doesn't have a perfect for all system, people just used to it.

I think that the Linux will become more popular once there are more games for it. I understand that it sound funny, but I strongly believe that it's true. And even then, neither of the OSs will become more or less supirrior, they are just different, that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
Unfortunately for the "giks" they often still have to consider their average user, when instaling the computers. If you don't do it, well....... you might know the result without me :(.

---

This is where the idea all falls apart in my estimation. On the one hand you say that everything should cater to the average user, and on the other you define what the average user will accept. Most people have 0 issues with using linux. I've done trial runs before in work environments and ironically Linux with WINE or Crossover Office was better at legacy Windows application support than Windows 2000/XP were.

Quote:

---

The solution Microsoft gave, could be installed on any hardware and didn't have to have to be bought with the whole system. This allowed an average "Joe" to become a PC engineer.

---

Again, you are mistaken. The solution Microsoft gave way back then was wholly developed by someone else, then ported to IBM's architecture by Microsoft. At the time, it wouldn't run on "any hardware", it just simply ran on the hardware that happened to be pushed by the largest PC manufacturer at the time. Windows 95 had no TCP/IP support initially, it had to be added via patches. It has never been true that Windows is capable of running on "any hardware", there have always been stability issues. Linux, while not offering hardware support when it isn't provided by the manufacturer, still does an infinitely superior job of stability IME.

Quote:

---

They also had a gaming support, which in the end made people buy Windows for their kids.

---

Ummm, the Apple II had games that FAR outclassed what was available on Windows boxes. And let us not speak of the Amiga or C64/128.

Quote:

---

Once they had Windows, it was very hard for them to move to another way of thinking. Especialy going on to Linux which had prety much no GUI or MAC, which had no games running on it and a different way of storing files.

---

I'm not sure how experienced you are or knowledgeable you are about history, but at the time hardly anyone knew about linux, and the history doesn't matter. People will transition easily to Linux if they invested even HALF as much time as they did in learning Windows. The learning curve of Linux is nowhere near as steep as everyone seems to make it out to be.

Quote:

---

And we'll have to agree, that people prefer to use Windows at work, simply because they use it at home.

---

I don't agree. People as a whole haven't been exposed to the alternatives.

Quote:

---

I think that the Linux will become more popular once there are more games for it. I understand that it sound funny, but I strongly believe that it's true. And even then, neither of the OSs will become more or less supirrior, they are just different, that's it.

---

Businesses generally don't like their employees wasting away the time playing Warcraft III (which by the way, works perfectly well under Linux :D). I think the markets need to learn that they can separate office work from home use. If Linux is to make inroads into the desktop, it will come in Business first IMO, apart from the growing portion of developers who are already using it over Windows.

Quote:

---

Has anyone here read Cliff Stoll's The Cuckcoo's Egg?
Or Underground by Suelette Dreyfus ?

---

Quote:

---

Is there anywhere I could download this books from. I'll check the library tomorrow

---

The 'underground' book is released for free online:
Download it: http://www.underground-book.com/download.php3
or visit the main page http://www.underground-book.com/

The other book (cuckoo's egg) you would have to buy/get from library.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by chsh
This is where the idea all falls apart in my estimation. On the one hand you say that everything should cater to the average user, and on the other you define what the average user will accept. Most people have 0 issues with using linux. I've done trial runs before in work environments and ironically Linux with WINE or Crossover Office was better at legacy Windows application support than Windows 2000/XP were.

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Again, you are mistaken. The solution Microsoft gave way back then was wholly developed by someone else, then ported to IBM's architecture by Microsoft. At the time, it wouldn't run on "any hardware", it just simply ran on the hardware that happened to be pushed by the largest PC manufacturer at the time. Windows 95 had no TCP/IP support initially, it had to be added via patches. It has never been true that Windows is capable of running on "any hardware", there have always been stability issues. Linux, while not offering hardware support when it isn't provided by the manufacturer, still does an infinitely superior job of stability IME.

---

I do agree with these facts. But when I was building my PC, I had a choice of Windows or Linux. And Windows was far novice friendlier. As I said having tons of of the shelf software for Windows, made it more usable. And mostly people are bought PCs to play games, for kids. Windows was not depebdant on internet so much and the hardware could be upgraded far easier then in MAC. You don't get many of the shelf games for Linux even now, and you need to know enough about Linux and internet when upgrading your hardware, to get the right drivers and instal them.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Ummm, the Apple II had games that FAR outclassed what was available on Windows boxes. And let us not speak of the Amiga or C64/128.

---

Apple killed itself by producing most of the software for their OS and taking away big market share from other developers. Although they produced a greate soft, people started moving to Windows simply because they had greater choice there.

I won't say anything about Amigas, I never worked with them

Quote:

---

I'm not sure how experienced you are or knowledgeable you are about history, but at the time hardly anyone knew about linux, and the history doesn't matter. People will transition easily to Linux if they invested even HALF as much time as they did in learning Windows. The learning curve of Linux is nowhere near as steep as everyone seems to make it out to be.

---

I never had to learn much about using Windows as a simple user. It was mostly point and click, maybe double click, job for me. I still can not completely work out how to install things on Linux. Although I do manage to do it sometimes, more by luck then by knowlege. Linux is far easier to learn as a power user though. Once you've mastered the basics.

That's my personal opinion.

Quote:

---

I don't agree. People as a whole haven't been exposed to the alternatives.

---

Question.

Do they want to be?

Quote:

---

Businesses generally don't like their employees wasting away the time playing Warcraft III (which by the way, works perfectly well under Linux :D). I think the markets need to learn that they can separate office work from home use. If Linux is to make inroads into the desktop, it will come in Business first IMO, apart from the growing portion of developers who are already using it over Windows.

---

I agree with you on everything, but how many employees like to have a little game at home? :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by |gridley|
The 'underground' book is released for free online:
Download it: http://www.underground-book.com/download.php3
or visit the main page http://www.underground-book.com/

The other book (cuckoo's egg) you would have to buy/get from library.

---

Thanks. It's a good read :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
I do agree with these facts. But when I was building my PC, I had a choice of Windows or Linux. And Windows was far novice friendlier. As I said having tons of of the shelf software for Windows, made it more usable. And mostly people are bought PCs to play games, for kids.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Windows was not depebdant on internet so much and the hardware could be upgraded far easier then in MAC. You don't get many of the shelf games for Linux even now, and you need to know enough about Linux and internet when upgrading your hardware, to get the right drivers and instal them.

---

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

[quot]e]Apple killed itself by producing most of the software for their OS and taking away big market share from other developers. Although they produced a greate soft, people started moving to Windows simply because they had greater choice there.[/quote]
Except Apple isn't dead...

Quote:

---

I never had to learn much about using Windows as a simple user. It was mostly point and click, maybe double click, job for me. I still can not completely work out how to install things on Linux.

---

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

Quote:

---

Question.
Do they want to be?

---

As with all things some do some don't.

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.