what system?

[owenowen]

Gday all, I've got myself a celeron 733 with128mb of ram to solely run irc and so my 'real' computer isn't always choggin way and was wondering what system to load on, for speed and security. would 98 do?

cheers

 

[FunkStar]

Linux would be the best choice if its just IRC , its faster and more secure than XP.

98 is a tad dodge(but still my fav windows for fun), 2000 with service packs is good, but the most secure windows is XP, that said XP is pretty shite. Just do a few hours reading and use linux, worth it in the long run.

 

[lomn75]

I agree that Linux would make for a good learning experience, but I feel a need to at another "Windows is a hopeless security nightmare" cheap shot.

Leaving aside the number of exploits found in the two systems (roughly the same!), which is easier to patch -- Windows or Linux? The answer will amaze you!

System security is about number of unpatched exploits.

But yeah -- the system you've described will run any desktop OS currently or previously on the market. Take your pick.

 

[owenowen]

yeah i thought about running linux, looked up a couple of sites and thought..... to hard. i just wanted to fire it up, and leave it run, i suppose linux would have less chance of spontaneously freezing after being on for 24 hours would it?

 

[arkamw]

Oh, not necessarily. The same type of things that cause windows to hard lock (at least, from a hardware standpoint) are going to cause problems in windows.

And you might look around at some of the latest distros. They're getting pretty amazing in the "ease of install" and use category. And, they're free. Can't beat that. Especially as it's nice to know a little linux these days.

That said, if you have an older version of windows sitting around, it couldn't hurt either.

 

[lomn75]

arkamw means the hardware issues that cause Windows to lock will also mess with Linux
But yeah -- even 98 has no stability problems in a limited-use environment. Given that you're setting up IRC and then leaving the config alone, it really doesn't matter what you run.

 

[Phoenix86]

Linux would be the best choice if its just IRC , its faster and more secure than XP.

FUD. Security is based on the user not the OS. If you want to prove what's more secure start a thread and see where it goes... I have seen a report that lists OC vunerabilites and dates for the fixes. Windows had more security bugs, but they are fixed quicker than most linux distros. The overall result is there were more holes/day with linux because of the faster patching. Anyways, this is kinda moot since it's really up to the user. No OS is secure if the user doesn't update it...

To the OP, I would probably look for a GUIlesss linux distro, or perhaps W2K. A little more RAM wouldn't hurt either.

Are you even familiar with linux? If not I wouldn't look at securing a box on an OS that's new to you.

 

[arkamw]

arkamw means the hardware issues that cause Windows to lock will also mess with Linux

I even ran a spell check on it! Teach me to proof all my posts before I hit submit.

 

[ameoba]

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

It's an pretty sweet distro. Great for the desktop & pretty secure out of the box. More importantly, easy to keep updated ("apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" is all you really need to know). Good stuff. Easy to install.

...of course I still run vanilla Debian on my desktop and use TWM as my window manager, so my idea of "easy" might differ from yours.

 

[HHunt]

I agree that Linux would make for a good learning experience, but I feel a need to at another "Windows is a hopeless security nightmare" cheap shot.

Leaving aside the number of exploits found in the two systems (roughly the same!), which is easier to patch -- Windows or Linux? The answer will amaze you!

System security is about number of unpatched exploits.

If you want to be really pragmatic:
With the same care (or lack of such) , which OS is the most likely to be infected with something after a given amount of time?

And yes, ubuntu, and linux in general, is worth a try. You might even learn something.
(I'd run FreeBSD on it, but that's my answer to anything.)
And do add some ram, if you find some for a decent price. It'll help a lot.

 

[Phoenix86]

Leaving aside the number of exploits found in the two systems (roughly the same!), which is easier to patch -- Windows or Linux? The answer will amaze you!

System security is about number of unpatched exploits.

Well, I don't know the answer to linux but *I* haven't run an update in eons, but my machine is fully patched (autoupdates)... How is it done in linux? Is there an autoupdat in linux?

 

[lomn75]

It varies by config and distro. Some are close to what MS provides, but I don't think any have quite matched yet. The variable nature of the OS makes it tougher to do everything automatically.

 

[Phoenix86]

It varies by config and distro. Some are close to what MS provides, but I don't think any have quite matched yet. The variable nature of the OS makes it tougher to do everything automatically.

I kinda figured that was the answer, not to mention what SUS sever can do...

 

[Wolf31o2]

I kinda figured that was the answer, not to mention what SUS sever can do...

Yeah, because scheduling an "emerge --sync && emerge -vuD world" or an "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y && apt-get autoclean" or an "up2date -u" every so often is so much harder than updating Windows.

I always love people who know little to nothing about security trying to take the number of bugs/vulnerabilities, as if that has any correlation to security whatsoever. There's also the simple fact that people tend to forget that Linux distributions come with complete working environments and things like office suites, database servers, and development environments, all of which could possibly have vulnerabilities. If one were to strip down the number of vulnerabilities to only those that deal with the core packages, such as what is provided by a Windows installation, they would see that the number is dramatically smaller.

Also, I'm sure you're not on any of the closed security lists, such as vendor-sec, so you really have no idea how long something takes from being reported to being fixed. There are tons of pages, such as this one, that go to show just how serious Microsoft is about security. After all, being able to execute unsigned ActiveX controls without any user intervention is a sure-fire security method.

I won't even go into the fact that SUS is nothing more than a local copy of Windows Update downloads. It doesn't magically close bugs for you. In fact, if you don't spend time keeping up with what SUS downloads and approving patches after testing them, then your machines will not be patched with those new downloads, and you will still be as vulnerable as if you had no SUS on your network.

While I do agree with you that the security of a computer can be influenced heavily by the person using it, there are simply some systems that are just designed poorly from the start and do not implement good security practices. Windows is one of them.

 

[Phoenix86]

Yeah, because scheduling an "emerge --sync && emerge -vuD world" or an "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y && apt-get autoclean" or an "up2date -u" every so often is so much harder than updating Windows.

Wow, where the hell did that come from?

First, running no commands, which is what I have to do with autoupdates enable *IS* easier than running a command. However, I never said linux was hard. It is harder then an automated solution, though.

I always love people who know little to nothing about security trying to take the number of bugs/vulnerabilities, as if that has any correlation to security whatsoever. There's also the simple fact that people tend to forget that Linux distributions come with complete working environments and things like office suites, database servers, and development environments, all of which could possibly have vulnerabilities. If one were to strip down the number of vulnerabilities to only those that deal with the core packages, such as what is provided by a Windows installation, they would see that the number is dramatically smaller.

Second, I wasn't throwing out # of bugs as the end of the discussion. Actually if you read my posts again you'll see how I feel about security. Since you missed it the first time.

Security is based on the user not the OS

Next, you will see I was countering someone who *WAS* using # of bugs as a measure with a *DIFFERENT* measure. Again, since you missed it the frist time.

I have seen a report that lists OC vunerabilites and dates for the fixes. Windows had more security bugs, but they are fixed quicker than most linux distros. The overall result is there were more holes/day with linux because of the faster patching.

Even then I said it wasn't the end of the discussion because:

Anyways, this is kinda moot since it's really up to the user. No OS is secure if the user doesn't update it...

Also, I'm sure you're not on any of the closed security lists, such as vendor-sec, so you really have no idea how long something takes from being reported to being fixed. There are tons of pages, such as this one, that go to show just how serious Microsoft is about security. After all, being able to execute unsigned ActiveX controls without any user intervention is a sure-fire security method.

Nice straw man. I wasn't arguing windows is the most secure, or that MS is the god of security. Nice try.

I won't even go into the fact that SUS is nothing more than a local copy of Windows Update downloads. It doesn't magically close bugs for you. In fact, if you don't spend time keeping up with what SUS downloads and approving patches after testing them, then your machines will not be patched with those new downloads, and you will still be as vulnerable as if you had no SUS on your network.

SUS is for networked machines (read a lot of PCs). The fact you don't appreciate approving updates to MASS computers in a PRODUCTION network is telling. Also, I never said SUS was anything more than a local windows update, so I'm not sure WTF your talking about... It is what it is, and that's much better than the alternatives which is: do all machines by hand, or have all machines d/l their own updates. Neither is really acceptable in a production environment.

I won't bother replying to your last comment, it lacks substance.

edit: Is there something comparable in lunix to SUS, that will deploy patches to all networked linux machines?