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

LeeBkr311, you cant compare those like that.

A MAinframe O.S. can run on an Intel machine (Under Linux/Windows in fact). is it better than windows because of it?

Some facts:

1) Windows has a total diferent design from Linux.
2) Windows is a Graphic O.S., so shell is graphic
Linux is command line. so shell is 80 x 24 interface (just like in '70s....)

So shell will expend a lot lot lot more CPU.

Try that: compare KDE and XP. DO everything thru KDE. You will reach ~80-90 percent of WIndows utilization.

3) You dont need 3 GB for Windows. Except if your counting other software, such as Office.
Ive just installed (trying some distro to compare) Slackware complete. 3 GBs.

4) Smoothwall "firewall". it phone home and send info about your config.

5) Memory. Same problem. Compare both at graphic interface. similar memory usage. (except on gaming, that i cant compare since the games that i like to play dont have linux version)

6) My windows XP expend 0% of cpu doing nothing. My Conectiva Linux expend 0% doing nothing. My slackware expend 0% doing nothing.

When it does doing something, it will spend CPU. A/V software perhaps?

Course you can arguee that Linux is better than WIndows xp do run a webserver. Of course, XP wanst designed to do that....


but most of them are not security related. Its (again) a matter of preference.

Lets think about:

if both were free, do you will REALLY recommend to your clients to migrate from a well administred Windows to a well administered Linux?

Quote:

---

FAULT #1: If windows is so great why does it take up nearly 50% of processing power on a 2.8 ghz processor when it isn't doing anything? (That was before services tweak but, should I really have to do that on a fresh install?)

---

Odd, my runs at a steady 2%, just like the rest of my installations before I tweak them. If your installation is taking up 50%, you have spyware/adware/a virus. And yes, on the installation of any OS, you had damn well better be tweaking the system.

Quote:

---

FAULT #2: XP phone home!?! Need I say more (And I know that can be stopped but that's yet another hoop to jump through)

---

This is a tin foil hat comment. Every single time Windows "phones home" you can tell it not to. Turn it off. Windows Media reports what track is being played every so often, and other minor things. Have you ever actually ran a sniffer to see what it was sending? I don't turn any of it off because my copy of XP is legal, and I don't watch pirated movies. Therefore I'm perfectly fine (Since I did sniff to see what was being sent) with the minor amounts of information they need to make the OS better.

Quote:

---

FAULT #3: How about the outrageous hard drive space it takes? RH can fit a full install and two different GUI's in what 1.5 gigs. Or OBSD which is less then 500mb. Windows with updates is about what 2.5 maybe 3gb. And then there's the memory usage. If you let it Windows alone would use a gig of memory. [What I mean is with my original 512 it used half of that now that I'm at 768 it uses half of that... And I know people at 2g of mem and they say windows uses nearly half of that (This is without anything running)]

---

Sounds like someone who didn't learn how to use windows. The Windows core itself takes only 1.3 Gigs (By the way, a full redhat install is 5.4 gigs, not 1.5) but the additional applications (browser, notepad, wordpad, fonts, calculator, and a plethora of other non OS things). Thus, if you did a typical install of Redhat to give you everything Windows installs at the start, they are the same size. Your entire argument doesn't make sense.

OBSD doesn't even come with a calculator for Tao's sake.

And as for memory. My XP takes 79 megs at any given time on it's own, no programs running. Even with Firefox, thunderbird, gaim, and foobar2000 I peak at 90-100. If you are running at 512 or higher then you need to learn how to use the OS. Even at a default, non tweaked installation I hit 100-110 normally. I think your statement is full of crap, because there are herds of people at AO that won't ever see windows use 512(or higher) megs of RAM "without anything running"

Back up "faults" with facts, or you are just another Windows basher that didn't learn it, but only complained instead of tried to solve things.

edit: felt I should expand on this so it doesn't come off as a troll:

1. By learn your OS I mean figure out what makes it work. Figure out why processes may hog your system and how to stop that. Figure out what processrs you need and don't need, and that involves learning what each of them do.

2. Find what programs are the best balance between RAM usage and good quality. Thunderbird uses less of a RAM print than OE and is more secure (In my opinion). Firefox uses more RAM than IE, but less than mozilla. It's like any good system, you have to manage resource usage and allocate proper resources to programs. If one is too bloated, use something else.

3. If you don't like Windows, that's fine. Everyone has their own tastes. But stop complaining and either learn it or drop it.


Below is an attached image of my Windows XP installation, un-tweaked, unenhanced, and unmodified. Firefox 0.9.3 and gaim is running, no services removed yet. Notice my processing usage. 2%. Notice the history of my processor usage, jumping up and down from 1%-5%. Notice the RAM usage, 172 megs in use. Now, that 172 is AFTER eleven days of uptime, no RAM cleaning, no processes modification, no program memory altering, a few games of Morrowind and Homeworld 2, TONs of web browsing, and so forth. If I tweaked my system it would be back down to my comfortable 70-90 megs and even my old 89 days of uptime wouldn't change that.

The point? My processor is not at your 'claimed' 50% when 'unused'. My RAM is not at 512 or HALF of a gig when 'unused'.

Well I am going to be honest here, I haven't read all the posts but I felt that I should post my ideas because well I can... so sit back and listen.

I would like to agree with most people here. It is the computer Admin not the OS that makes a box secure. I believe it was just alittle bit ago I participated in a thread in which we discussed which windows OS was the most secure. After talking with some of the more l33t posters here I realized that some are running on Windows 98 and Window ME OS yet they still have secure boxes. This just proves more of the point that any box can be secure.

Now to the debate that which OS is more secure. You are going to have to look towards linux for this one. Because, although windows CAN be secure it doesn't mean it is MORE secure. I have used linux for about 5 months now and realize that I am still a newb at the linux game but one thing I learned quickly is that with linux you have more control over you OS. So if you know how to you can properly secure it with ease. It seems that, that could be the reason why some people feel that windows is more secure or that linux is more secure because they personally know it.

But let me show you all a different way of looking at OS's look at an OS like an empire. Now there have been alot of secure empires. But it was the King in control of the empire that made is successful or shitty. Now let continue with the empire idea and look at the two different OS's with Windows you have an empire but it is like having an empire with certain boundries saying you can only do this and this. However with Linux you are like supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god. Now, this can be good or bad, if you are a bad supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god then your empire will suck, but if you are a good supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god you will have a long lasting and good empire.

Disclaimer:
I am not trying to debate empires here with anyone it was just an example.

- MilitantEidolon

props to gore! outlook virus spreader express....good one

i think this is funny.....windows does the report itself and claims that it is more secure...at my school a kid got root on the windows server ACCIDENTLY..dont ask me how he did it but he typed something in trying to use netsend and he got root.....

honestly M$ needs to get off of the cloud they are floating on...i have the feeling they are gonna get hit by lightning soon and the Unix community is gonna respond by saying "told ya so"

ps, rambeling

i know any box can be secure but with windows you have to do alot...with linux it is really secure out of the box!...the convience is just easier....but the windows userability is also better.....but with more and more programs being ported and window managers becoming simpler and simpler...i dont think it will be long before linux will be near the same level of windows....yea you still have to know alot in order to install something from source...but with windows you usualy just ran an .exe file and bam u have ur program *with the usual reboot*...with linux you can look at the source code and see what this program does piece by piece.....i think windows is more for lazy ppl who want to "set it and forget it"...linux is for the ppl who want to take the time to install and tweak and test.......and for the ppl who want to know what is going on aswell...

just my thoughts and opnions....

/ps, rambeling

so you know windows ppl im typing this on an xp home machine....its reliable....kinda....

I am rather amazed to see this discussion going so well, without any real flames, or name calling which is something that is far to often what happens when people start to compare OS's. I will have to say a couple things just to clear up a couple facts.

First the size of your install for your system, depends on what your using, if your using Win95 your not going to have a 1.5gig install. I actually think the install is somewhere around 500meg. There are also Linux distros that are friggin huge. If you take a full install of RH9. You are at about 4.5 gig. Which is just ****ing huge.

Though, a linux and Unix distro has a lot more things that come with it, than it's windows conterpart.

As for security, anyone that says straight up, Linux or Unix is more secure, doesn't know there OS. Because, I can pull any Linux Server setup and match it to Win Server 2003, and Win server is out of the box, more secure. Simply because, that Linux and Unix server has a million and one processes running. Everything from SSH, to apache.

Where that Win Server starting services is a lot less. (And those that think I am full of ****. Get a copy of RH9 and Win2003 and see which one is more secure out of the box.) (Best way to do this is to try to hit either box yourself.) I have done this, and I would take Win 2003 over my RH9 if I didn't know how to shutdown services.

Also when debating which is more secure, you have to take into account, something that I don't remember reading in anyone's post so far. The user and company.

If you have User A, which knows nothing about Computers, you don't want to give them a full install of Linux. I would own there box in about 5 mins after they boot up, and connect to the net.

They would be better of full a copy of WinXp, which if I remember correctly gets you to turn the firewall on, in install.

Next when your looking at this from the company ascept, Cheyenne was right, if you take yourself a Windows admin, and change over to Linux. You might as well fire there ass, and get new admins in there. Because unless they are a big hobbyist, and play around with different things, they aren't going to have any ****ing idea how to secure that linux system.

One more thing to think about, when looking at Linux & Unix against Windows. There are hundreads of Linux and Unix distros, there aren't nearly as many Windows releases. So there is bound to be more known about Windows than Linux.

I will say this though, if I had to choose between the 2 and could never use any other computer, to use besides whichever one I choose. It would be Linux or Unix. Only because I hate how the M$ directory setup is. I know this is trivial, but I hate using foreward slash opposed to backslash. That and I love my perl. Can't sleep without perl. (For those of you smartasses that are about to say you can use perl on Windows, I will return with the comment, yeah you can, but just like you can put wheels on a boat, and drive it down the street. It will work, but it's not made to work like that. It was made to be in the water.

With all that said, some of you people need to pick up a ****ing book and read, I am not going to point you out, but there were a couple people that said a couple things that weren't really right, or atleast fully correct.

"Simply because, that Linux and Unix server has a million and one processes running. Everything from SSH, to apache. "

bullsh!t, Very few *nixs have tons of processess running unless you enable them slack,freebsd,openbsd,netbsd....... Redhat is not the only linux/unix. Windowsxp which SHOULD be a secure default install because of its user base. needs plugand play off , netbios off ,dcom off, firewall, antivirus.......)

lumpy take a copy of Free and check and see, along with that try RH, Gentoo, and Suse. Then do the same thing for Win 2003.

Once your done, come back and talk to me.

Quote:

---

any box can be secure but with windows you have to do alot...with linux it is really secure out of the box!

---

If you are depending upon the default configuration of ANY program or Operating System, then that is just bad adminship. I don't care if an OS is running 400 services on default. I don't care if an OS is running 0 servers on default. I don't care if an OS requires a starting password or not on default.

What I care about is the ability the OS has to allow me to fine tune those settings. I care about the final outcome of the OS, what it is capable of. I care about what I can make it do in the long term. And I most certainly care more about how well it can meet my expectations only after I've given it all of my researching abilities.

There is no room to complain about "default settings" in an OS unless you do not know how to remedy those settings. From RedHat Linux and Suse 9 professional, to Windows XP and Longhorn, each will have things that make them insecure by default and make them secure by default.

Don't live your life off of only accepting 'default' settings, because labeling something for it's 'default' settings is as fair and respectful towards an OS as me saying "You won't ever be smart or well learned in security, because you didn't start that way off when you were five years old". In fact, since you want to argue about OS security in default settings, http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=254589


To everyone else :) Thanks for not letting this turn into a huge flame war. There have been a billion mature comments and levelheaded thoughts going on, to which I deeply appreciate. As always, there are one or two things that needed to be covered and old myths/rumors/31337 lies that needed dispelling. But over all, I have been recommending this post to all of my friends because of the brilliance being displayed.

Quote:

---

OBSD doesn't even come with a calculator for Tao's sake.

---

:rofl:
pooh, good one man

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by mohaughn
As I run an extremely large farm of Exchange clusters at my work, and also have a fair bit of MVS experience I can tell you the the uptime of a windows clustered system pails in comparison to an MVS system... With windows clustering if you want to move resources from one node to the other the resource is unavailable while it is switched between nodes.. For exchange on an high powered system this downtime is about 4 minutes for a failover.. Not what I would call great uptime.. Add to that the fact that there are still applications being written that have to be installed on the active node, and not the passive node, you get even more downtime... The cluster may be up, but the resources are not available. That is not up to me.

I'd love to see how you would break into a MVS system running RACF... Everything, and I do mean everything, is segmented... Unhackable??? no... but to say that MVS isn't broken into because it isn't in use is also false.. Almost all major banking, telecommunications, and investing firms still use MVS.

---

Corporate level NT clustering technology is just light years ahead of Linux's if you really want to talk about stability.
*echo*