Why linux is better than Windows?

[MemorY]

Ok i have to write a persuasive 5 page paper. Now i need any suggestions that help me make Linux stand out more, and some of the BEST known Windows Secuirty flaws, and basicly why linux is more secure, reliable, and so on... I decided to put this in the Misc Secuirty Disc. Forum because it discusses some of Linux and Windows Security. and other things. If you want MsM, move it to GCC . It's like that i NEED help, i kow what im gonna write, i'll finish it tommorow and post the rest of it. I was just curious what you guys might think are some important issues.

This is what i've got so far.

Why Linux is better than Windows?

In this paper I will explain the infrastructure, security, reliability, and other things about Linux and Windows. My point is to try and prove to you that Linux is better than Windows.

Let’s take a look at the past of Linux and Windows. “It was 1991, and the ruthless agonies of the cold war was gradually coming to an end. There was an air of peace and tranquility that prevailed in the horizon. In the field of computing, a great future seemed to be in the offing, as powerful hardware pushed the limits of the computers beyond what anyone expected.”(Version of Linux, Ragib.) A young student, Linus Torvalds at Computer Science at the University of Helsinki was a self-taught hacker who was impressed by computers and pushed them to their maximum capabilities. All that lacked was an OS (Operating System). At that time MINIX was an OS for teaching purposes. Also at the same time the GNU Project by Richard Stallman was evolving. That’s how free source software came to life. “But Stallman had a different vision. His idea was that unlike other products, software should be free from restrictions against copying or modification in order to make better and efficient computer programs.” (History of Linux, Ragib.) Linus Torvalds at that time started a hobby OS called Linux. He sent out an electronic mail to the GNU Project telling them about his little project. The first Linux version was release in September. Version 0.01 came out and was released onto the net. Programmers around the world downloaded the code, studied and tweaked it and sent it back to Linus, shortly after that version 0.02 came out and so on. About 10 years earlier, IBM hired Bill Gates to make an OS for their new PC. But he did not write the OS; he bought it from a Seattle hacker for 50,000 dollars. Bill Gates was a brilliant businessman but no programmer. He still had the marketing rights to MS-DOS, that’s how he made all the money, he sold it to other companies for high prices. Today Linux has taken over 6% of the computer market. It might no seem much to the compared 94% that Microsoft owns, but every day more and more companies are switching over to Linux, even Microsoft. After a defacement of Microsoft’s website, they deiced to switch to Linux servers because they’re more secure then their own servers running Windows. "Microsoft issued a security alert on March 17 2003 regarding a buffer overflow vulnerability which allows attackers to execute arbitrary code on Windows 2000 machines.” “In a year and 4 month period, between August 1999 and January 4th, 2001, 8071 separate web sites were broken into and subsequently defaced. The OS percentages for these defaced sites were as follows: “56.57% (4566 servers) Ran Microsoft Windows NT 7.76% (626 servers) Ran Red Hat Linux 0.42% (34 servers) Ran Linux (ALZZA), 0.31% (25 servers) Ran Linux (Cobalt)” (OS Statistics. Dickerson & Martin). I think these numbers prove that Linux is way more secure than Windows. Linux also started to take over the PC home user desktop world. More and more versions of linux are released for the home users that want to learn how to use Linux. The easier to use Version of Linux are also more secure than Windows. “LILO lets you set a separate password for each individual boot image, or menu option”,(Warm up to Penguins”.Leblanc,38). Linux is also open-source software which means that you can see the code and find bugs and fix them before someone else uses them to hack your system. “Globsl File System works especially well with Linux, it provides even better secuirty than the Linux file system ext2.) Linux is also more powerfull and space consuming than Windows. “System tools are small and highly specialized. The result is an incredible powerfull system”(Our Linux Top 10 Reasons, Reichel Systems.) Now to the compability and stability of Linux. “

This is like a little bit less that half the paper. Because it's 12 font size, Times New Roman, double spaced, first line idented.

[ShagDevil]

Memory, I searched around for some links you could use for reference(s).
http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html
http://geodsoft.com/opinion/server_comp/
http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html
I checked a bunch out but I liked these the best. Hope this helps you on your way. good luck.

I remember days of long past and how I used to tackle all my college papers.
Research, research more, drink alot of coffee, sleep 2 hours, wake up, research alot more, pass out, convulse, wake up 10 minutes before class, get to class late, tell teacher there was a 78 car pileup that got me stuck in traffic, hand in paper at 9:22am that was due at 9am.

[pooh sun tzu]

-fights the huge urge to counter argue this to no end, proving yet again how both OSes are just as powerful, compatible, secure, and capable-

Why not, instead of spreading falsehoods, show how they are both equal? Why not teach people how Windows can do what Linux can, and Linux can do what windows can?

We have enough linux-haters and Windows-haters as it is, with far too few people realising that there isn't a single thing that one OS can do, that the other can't. I'm not trolling here, not at all, just bringing up a point. It's hard enough to sit down and teach methods to Linux lovers how to run a Windows machine so they know that OS just as well, but to give them incentive and more "This is how Windows sucks" media? The look on Linux being better than Windows is about as true as the term hacker being used to describe someone who uses AOL programs to hack screen names.

Some light needs to be shed that they are both equal, not better than one another. Water is murky enough as it is.

[Lansing_Banda]

By the way, Microsoft runs "Unix" servers, not linux.

deiced to switch to Linux servers

And Bill Gates can program. In fact he programed quite readily all through high school. As for him buying Q-dos and selling it, he did that because he found out that a company in Mexico needed an OS real quick, so he didn't have time to program one. He just bought that one from a local programmer and changed a few things about it.

As for the argument, I am really with pooh sun. But you could add a few things to your paper. A few ideas:

-The growing number of apache web servers
-The Backwards compatiblity of all versions of linux ( aka linux can run on a 100 mhz machine where winXP will have no chance in hell)
-Linux routers
-Linux being designed from ground up to be a multiuser OS
-Germany's plan to go all open source instead of with Windows even though it would have been more expensive to use Linux
-The ability of a small company or single user to make powerful servers with very little hardware or software with linux
-The many different "flavors" of linux which lets someone find the OS of their choice

These are just a few ideas.

[alittlebitnumb]

It should be "Why I like Linux More Than Windows." The thing is, it is a matter of preference.

[pooh sun tzu]

I agree with alittlebitnumb, but wonder if the reasons why they prefer linux (better security, more configuration choice) is only becase they do not understand the Windows OS? That wasn't an insult by any means, but a general question to the majority of people who dislike windows.

Not that I'm saying "your DUMB like whoa", just that it's hard to make a descision and teach the reasoning of that descision to others, if you are not at least as knowledgeable about both topics. If you say "you can configure the firewalls to the smallest degree of packet checking, and that's why I like linux", then you need to remind them that windows can too. If you say "I like linux because I can configure the kernel for what I want", then be sure to let them know that the Windows Registry is the entire configuration area for the Windows kernel and it's modules. Otherwise you still leave people thinking Windows is a crippled OS, when it isn't.

< afternote > I am not a windows advocate, I just respect and use both OSes equally </afternote >

[Tim_axe]

I sorta agree with albn on this, but we can ignore that since the purpose is to make Linux shine... So I'll do my best to toss you some ideas for your paper. Bear with both my information and writing style ideas. I write loonnngggg...


Style:
1) Without line breaks I can't tell where paragraphs begin and end, but make sure to put quotes where they can grab attention. I think the "Microsoft issued a security alert..." is in the wrong place to grab attention, but I can't really make out where it is from your preview.
2) You should work on a tighter compare/contrast. Most of what you say is "here is Linux, here are some statistics". It could be like "Here is Windows...oops. Statistics, and wow, look at Linux there!" Toss in some ironic info... You say "There are more and more versions of Linux for the home user. It is more secure." You could do "To get the most out of a Windows PC, you must have Windows XP, which was sold commercially starting in x years ago. If you want to type anything, you must also get Microsoft Office for XP. Did I mention that this easily costs $x? (MS Online Store) On the other hand, you could go to a friend's house and download any Linux version you want, with MS Office Compatible Office Software, for the small cost of some blank CD-Rs... Of course, if he isn't using Windows XP, you have to hope he paid $x for some CD-Burning software... "

Content ( + = strong/okay, - = weaker):
- ) Infrastructure - Where is this explained? I heard multi-user system somewhere. But what does this mean to the user who probably wants his own personal PC anyways?
+ ) Security - The quote with defacement statistics supports security.
- ) Reliability/Stability - Possibly toss in uptime, reboots after updates, etc.
- ) Compatibility - Wasn't mentioned as main topic, but alluded to when you mentioned the 100MHz PC running Linux. You could make it a main topic, and mention it in your purpose statement. Unfortunately, it might work against your convincing since many smaller hardware manufacturers may only make Windows drivers, etc. But, you could use WINE to say that you can run Windows stuff in Linux...
- ) Versatility (Usefulness) - Wasn't a main topic, or mentioned by you. (Lansing_Banda mentioned) Explain some specalized uses, like router, firewall, webserver, or just plain desktop pc. Something to support your Linux would be mentioning how the versions of Windows "specialized" for this cost a ton of $$$ (think Win2k3 / 2k Enterprise, etc)


I hope this helps a bit. And let us see the final product. Good luck.

-Tim_axe

[pooh sun tzu]

+ ) Security - The quote with defacement statistics supports security.

Good point, but be prepared to counter the question "Then why are there still overflows, exploits, and holes in Linux?". Or refer to my only tutorial.

Reliability/Stability - Possibly toss in uptime, reboots after updates, etc.

This will only work if you bias the statistics, I feel. I had an XP server that had an uptime of 98 days, cut short because I blew the house surge protector (don't ask). Rebooting is only nessessary to allow drivers to unload and to be replaced. All of which can be done manually, thus eliminating the need to reboot. You could argue RAM, but with RAM allcollation tools that you can run once every three weeks, reboots once again are not needed.

Compatibility - Wasn't mentioned as main topic, but alluded to when you mentioned the 100MHz PC running Linux. You could make it a main topic, and mention it in your purpose statement. Unfortunately, it might work against your convincing since many smaller hardware manufacturers may only make Windows drivers, etc. But, you could use WINE to say that you can run Windows stuff in Linux...

I don't know how solid that is. Windows has Cygwin, Linux has Wine. Even statistically speaking, XP has more hardware driver support then Redhat 9 and Fedora Core one combined. It is correct that it takes more hardware for Windows because of the advanced features, but I don't know who is going to be excited when you can say "and yes! on a 100mhz computer you can still run a file server! (besides us geeks, that is)

Versatility (Usefulness) - Wasn't a main topic, or mentioned by you. (Lansing_Banda mentioned) Explain some specalized uses, like router, firewall, webserver, or just plain desktop pc. Something to support your Linux would be mentioning how the versions of Windows "specialized" for this cost a ton of $$$ (think Win2k3 / 2k Enterprise, etc)

I agree. There are a few situations in which the Windows OS can handle, but not as easily configured, such as routing. Make sure to point out that Windows IS as versatile, but requires more (???) configuration.


I'm not trying to destroy the parent conversation, but I would like to see a paper that finally stops comparing two topics when only one is known by the author This paper is going to influence and mold future computer users/admins, and having more in the field that Microsoft and Windows bash without ever learning the OS as much as they learned Linux, clogs up things quite a bit. Not to mention makes network security much more difficult, since a Windoes-hater simply won't know how to secure it as well as their linux box. Balance, balance, balance, balance, and balance.

[MrLinus]

You might also want to look at Monoculture (the paper on CyberInsecurity should help you on that). MS has a large monoculture but so does *nix (60% of all web servers are Apache; 90-95% of DNS servers on the Internet are a variation of BIND; PHP/MySQL, perhaps even the whole LAMP concept; -- if any of those got a really bad worm, kiss your access goodbye).

You might also want to point out the issue of hardware. While MS tries to maintain standards, Linux can be haphazard with some hardware and some hardware won't even work at all with it.

I agree with PZH that balance is more needed. Was this the topic assigned to you or one that you chose? If it's the one assigned, well then not much of a choice you have other than to point out some of the obvious things (default installs of Linux, last I checked, often had many unnecessary services running before you even log in and people are often taught to log in as root -- since it's easier to configure -- These people should be slapped). If you chose the topic, why not turn the tables -- prove why Windows is better than Linux or Mac OS 9 is better than either? (I'm being scarcastic at this point -- I'd probably do why Novell is better than either Windows or Linux).

Everyone talks about how one is better than the other but the information tends to be biased towards one side or the other. It's rare to see papers that say "Hey.. you know they can be just as good as the other. It all depends on how they are managed and secured".

[jdenny]

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
Even statistically speaking, XP has more hardware driver support then Redhat 9 and Fedora Core one combined.

Originally posted here by MsMittens
You might also want to point out the issue of hardware. While MS tries to maintain standards, Linux can be haphazard with some hardware and some hardware won't even work at all with it.

I'm not a Windows fan and I'm not a Linux fan. I use both of them and at work I support another OS (UNIX-based).

I always thought that it's not that MS chooses to support more hardware vendors than Linux. It's the hardware vendors who choose Windows (being the market leader) as their supported platform. We all know that "Linux" doesn't choose to support less hardware. Instead, a few voluntary hackers who have enough spare time choose to add support for a few hardware that they can afford.

Just a thought.

Peace always,
<jdenny>