Windows Safer Than Linux

[Tex Arcana]

You, sir, are a troll. Furthermore, you seem to have very little actual knowledge of security and OS internals to back up your frothing-mouthed bullshit.

Accusing people who do not share your disdain for Microsoft as being Microsoft employees further discredits any validity you may have had. If you can't make a strong case without relying heavily on your weak-kneed rhetoric and ad hom accusations, then perhaps you should just shut the fuck up and let some people who have actually formed their own opinions on the matter instead of parrotting some paranoid drivel actually discuss the subject.

And I find it extremely ironic that you were posting your venom from a Windows box to begin with. Can talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

You know, I was trying to be fairly decent with this, til you spammed this thread with your diarrhea. Why don't you STFU yourself, because I was expressing my opinion, which the last time I checked, I was still allowed to do, unless some nazi has passed some law outlawing any opinions that contradict yours.

I was at least honest enough to explain where I am, and why. All you've done is attack me.

As far aas this discussion, it's really moot, because the one thing that started it isn't even published, AND it's source is still unknown. And until the particulars are published, this will be nothing but speculation (which, last I checked, was allowed, along with opinions).

Yeah, I dislike WIndows to no end. It pains me to admit that I use it, but that's a fact. I still ahve to spend inordinate amounts of time fixing problems that crop up because of its holes and bugs--my son bought one from BestBuy with XPHome, and it's already down because of some sort of problem I can't troubleshoot over the phone.

If Microsoft were any kind of decent outfit, they'd listen to complaints and fix the problems, and seal the holes BEFORE they publish it, or at least make it more secure out of the box. Ease of use is nice, but at what cost?

 

[ThomasE66]

That is false. OS X is based on the Mach kernel, which is a derivative of BSD. OS X shares some family ties to Linux, but is nowhere near being "based on" Linux.

Almost right. Mach is not a derivative of BSD. OS X uses a NetBSD layer on top of the Mach microkernel. Mach was invented at CMU and has no relation to BSD other than being used as the microkernel underneath Darwin.

 

[HHunt]

Almost right. Mach is not a derivative of BSD. OS X uses a NetBSD layer on top of the Mach microkernel. Mach was invented at CMU and has no relation to BSD other than being used as the microkernel underneath Darwin.

Besides, it's Free-, not NetBSD.
(NetBSD is considered easier to port, so it would have been natural. However, the FreeBSD userland might be a touch more polished, and it might have more developers. I don't know why they chose as they did)

 

[ThomasE66]

Yes, you are correct. I mistype Net and was thinking Free. Regardless, Mach is not BSD either way, nor based upon it.

 

[HHunt]

Ah, right.
Besides, the PPC port of NetBSD is currently much better than the FreeBSD one.

 

[oldpablo]

You know, I was trying to be fairly decent with this, til you spammed this thread with your diarrhea. Why don't you STFU yourself, because I was expressing my opinion, which the last time I checked, I was still allowed to do, unless some nazi has passed some law outlawing any opinions that contradict yours.

I was at least honest enough to explain where I am, and why. All you've done is attack me.

As far aas this discussion, it's really moot, because the one thing that started it isn't even published, AND it's source is still unknown. And until the particulars are published, this will be nothing but speculation (which, last I checked, was allowed, along with opinions).

Yeah, I dislike WIndows to no end. It pains me to admit that I use it, but that's a fact. I still ahve to spend inordinate amounts of time fixing problems that crop up because of its holes and bugs--my son bought one from BestBuy with XPHome, and it's already down because of some sort of problem I can't troubleshoot over the phone.

If Microsoft were any kind of decent outfit, they'd listen to complaints and fix the problems, and seal the holes BEFORE they publish it, or at least make it more secure out of the box. Ease of use is nice, but at what cost?

Fairly decent? Sorry Tex Arpoopoohead, but you sound like you spend more time reading the Enquirer then somewhere you can get a real understanding of reality. You are severly jaded which basically makes you a useless resource for accurate information. GrenME has repeatedly demonstrated a very balanced view of all operating systems and the roles they play in the industry. You however I'm going to paraphrase to make a point. "ARF ARF ARF M$ SUCKY SUCKY BAD POOPOO ARF ARF (pant pant) GRRRROOWWRRRRRR RARRRR!!1!!1! (sniff-sniff)." Conspiracy theorists are always a joy. You argument in a nutshell can be likened to someone saying "Why can't the cows produce more fartz to fix the ozone!" No matter how MS codes their stuff, they have to code it for their entire user base. That INHERENTLY prevents it from being perfect. But they do a pretty damn good job. Its just more fun to be on the beater bandwagon though I guess. Thats my opinion, enjoy it. I could've maybe posted something usefull, but when the rants start early its kinda pointless.

 

[Tex Arcana]

Fairly decent? Sorry Tex Arpoopoohead, but you sound like you spend more time reading the Enquirer then somewhere you can get a real understanding of reality. You are severly jaded which basically makes you a useless resource for accurate information. GrenME has repeatedly demonstrated a very balanced view of all operating systems and the roles they play in the industry. You however I'm going to paraphrase to make a point. "ARF ARF ARF M$ SUCKY SUCKY BAD POOPOO ARF ARF (pant pant) GRRRROOWWRRRRRR RARRRR!!1!!1! (sniff-sniff)." Conspiracy theorists are always a joy. You argument in a nutshell can be likened to someone saying "Why can't the cows produce more fartz to fix the ozone!" No matter how MS codes their stuff, they have to code it for their entire user base. That INHERENTLY prevents it from being perfect. But they do a pretty damn good job. Its just more fun to be on the beater bandwagon though I guess. Thats my opinion, enjoy it. I could've maybe posted something usefull, but when the rants start early its kinda pointless.

I didn't realize they let you out of the General[M]ayhem asylum today...

 

[Phoenix86]

/me grabs lawnchair and a beer.

It's going to be a long 30 days. Damn you Steve!!!

 

[Phoenix86]

I didn't realize they let you out of the General[M]ayhem asylum today...

You came into the thread throwing bombs spreading the FUD pretty thick. It took you three posts to make a coherent point.

Pot, meet kettle.

I barely read what you had to say because of the rhetoric coming out of you (first two posts). That'd be sad as you may actually have good points. No ones going to take you seriously at this rate, and I'm sure the point of you posting, to have us listen to you.

 

[HHunt]

To be fair, the post he was responding to was a bit incoherent.

 

[oldpablo]

I didn't realize they let you out of the General[M]ayhem asylum today...

They do say I might have mad cows disease... Fold to keep them out of my mind!!



Anyway, I'm going to stick with "its the administrator" as well. I've never had a windows network go down from hacking/viruses, and I've admin'd plenty over the years of all shapes and sizes (NT-2K3). The habits and patch release and difficulty to install timeframes weigh in just as much as the technology.

 

[HHunt]

They do say I might have mad cows disease... Fold to keep them out of my mind!!

Who's them?
No, wait. I'm not sure I want to know.

*Check that F@H is still running on the workstation*
*Curses, fixes and consideres writing a boot script*

 

[LyCoS]

Fairly decent? Sorry Tex Arpoopoohead, but you sound like you spend more time reading the Enquirer then somewhere you can get a real understanding of reality. You are severly jaded which basically makes you a useless resource for accurate information. GrenME has repeatedly demonstrated a very balanced view of all operating systems and the roles they play in the industry. You however I'm going to paraphrase to make a point. "ARF ARF ARF M$ SUCKY SUCKY BAD POOPOO ARF ARF (pant pant) GRRRROOWWRRRRRR RARRRR!!1!!1! (sniff-sniff)." Conspiracy theorists are always a joy. You argument in a nutshell can be likened to someone saying "Why can't the cows produce more fartz to fix the ozone!" No matter how MS codes their stuff, they have to code it for their entire user base. That INHERENTLY prevents it from being perfect. But they do a pretty damn good job. Its just more fun to be on the beater bandwagon though I guess. Thats my opinion, enjoy it. I could've maybe posted something usefull, but when the rants start early its kinda pointless.

Now kids, thats why you should stay away from drugs.

this is gonna get funny

anyone wanna play curveball ? -> http://www.ismokecrack.com

 

[GreNME]

Almost right. Mach is not a derivative of BSD. OS X uses a NetBSD layer on top of the Mach microkernel. Mach was invented at CMU and has no relation to BSD other than being used as the microkernel underneath Darwin.

Close enough. Either way, it is not based at all on Linux.

Also:

Actually, it's a far, far stretch to go from this study to that conclusion.
(For every study you'll be able to find two that disagrees. )
Just for the counterweight, I like this one.

I stopped reading that one when the writer tried to say Linux was not a monolithic OS. The dumbass must not realize that just like the NT kernel, the Linux kernel is a monolithic one. Also, both operating systems are modular, Linux just allows the determined user to see more of the make-up in the modules (whereas Windows will let the determined user see the modules themselves).

Not only that, but the Reg always spews bullshit.They also once said that when processors get over 3 Ghz Windows would implode.

As for the TexTroll, I'm not going to bother giving it a response. I'd go toe to toe any day on a test of knowledge, and I'm sure there are plenty here who would back me up on that claim. Using the dollar sign and spreading bullshit FUD about Windows' security is just a sign of the lack of critical thinking skills in TexTroll's posts.

Really, guys, we could go back and forth on the issue of which is more secure, but it really breaks down to the admin, as I said earlier. For as tight as I can make a Windows server, I can do the same for a Linux server. Many others could do the same with one or the other or both. All one has to do is follow the seven P's:

• Prior
• Proper
• Planning
• Prevents
• Piss
• Poor
• Performance

 

[Carlosinfl]

These threads are purely ridiculas...I think some Windows users need to be re-assured in their OS and come up with this non-sense.

I find Windows great for stability and for endusers but Linux will always be a OS built for and by professionals in the sence of security & stability.

 

[ThomasE66]

These threads are purely ridiculas...I think some Windows users need to be re-assured in their OS and come up with this non-sense.

I find Windows great for stability and for endusers but Linux will always be a OS built for and by professionals in the sence of security & stability.

I thought Linux was built by a Finnish college student because he couldn't afford a Unix license?

 

[Carlosinfl]

I thought Linux was built by a Finnish college student because he couldn't afford a Unix license?

Somehow I think you're right...

 

[GreNME]

I thought Linux was built by a Finnish college student because he couldn't afford a Unix license?

This is true, but it is an OS built for programmers by programmers, so he wasn't far off.

 

[ThomasE66]

This is true, but it is an OS built for programmers by programmers, so he wasn't far off.

I know, I was just being silly

 

[Carlosinfl]

I knew you knew. I was being silly too.

 

[GreNME]

I know, I was just being silly

That's all cool, too. I was basically looking for a way to turn it into a positive for Linux.

 

[Carlosinfl]

This thread is so far from being anything close to negative for Linux. Anyone who has anything bad to say about Linux most likely has never even used or understood the basic essentials of Linux. I am not a Windows fan but I really can't say anything bad about them except for that I don't prefer it for me.

 

[GreNME]

This thread is so far from being anything close to negative for Linux. Anyone who has anything bad to say about Linux most likely has never even used or understood the basic essentials of Linux. I am not a Windows fan but I really can't say anything bad about them except for that I don't prefer it for me.

Yeah, that's a pretty fair shake. I mean, I'm more of a Windows guy, but since I like fiddling with OS internals Linux has been a great playground. Definitely no fault there with it.

 

[HHunt]

GrenME: You come of as more than a little bit arrogant here, especially considering some of the statements you make.

Close enough. Either way, it is not based at all on Linux.
Fair enough. (Though Mach is a microkernel, or at least it was until Apple extended it.)

Also:
I stopped reading that one when the writer tried to say Linux was not a monolithic OS. The dumbass must not realize that just like the NT kernel, the Linux kernel is a monolithic one. Also, both operating systems are modular, Linux just allows the determined user to see more of the make-up in the modules (whereas Windows will let the determined user see the modules themselves).

You're right, yet so utterly wrong. He did not, in fact, say that the linux kernel wasn't monolithic. Let's look at the quote:

A monolithic system is one where most features are integrated into a single unit. The antithesis of a monolithic system is one where features are separated out into distinct layers, each layer having limited access to the other layers.

While some of the shortcomings of Windows are due to its ties to its original single-user design, other shortcomings are the direct result of deliberate design decisions, such as its monolithic design (integrating too many features into the core of the operating system)

He then goes on about the integration of IE. While you would have been right if he were speaking about kernels, he wasn't. We can debate the merits of integration vs. modularization for a few decades, but regardless I think it would be fair to say that windows, as a server OS, is a more monolithic system than linux, especially by the definition given in the first line.
He even says this a bit later:

The Linux kernel supports modular drivers, but it is essentially a monolithic kernel where services in the kernel are interdependent.

Not only that, but the Reg always spews bullshit.They also once said that when processors get over 3 Ghz Windows would implode.

If they literaly said "implode", it was a joke article, of the sort they do now and then. If not, well, there's a number of reasons, some good, some bad for writing something like that. Saying that they "always spew bullshit", however, is just silly.

As for the TexTroll, I'm not going to bother giving it a response. I'd go toe to toe any day on a test of knowledge, and I'm sure there are plenty here who would back me up on that claim. Using the dollar sign and spreading bullshit FUD about Windows' security is just a sign of the lack of critical thinking skills in TexTroll's posts.

Ooh, name-calling. I'm not impressed.
He didn't even spell MS with a dollar sign in the post you're railing about, except for saying that he was trying to avoid doing exactly that.
Also, if saying that viruses, spyware and the like are problems on real-life windows machines in the hands of common users (not servers, and not knowledgable users) is "Spreading FUD about Windows' security", you live in a fantasy world.


Really, guys, we could go back and forth on the issue of which is more secure, but it really breaks down to the admin, as I said earlier. For as tight as I can make a Windows server, I can do the same for a Linux server. Many others could do the same with one or the other or both. All one has to do is follow the seven P's:

• Prior
• Proper
• Planning
• Prevents
• Piss
• Poor
• Performance

This, however, I agree with.

 

[GreNME]

I'm sorry, but your prejudices are showing. He did not, in fact, say that the linux kernel wasn't monolithic. Let's look at the quote:

Oh, I get it. You're using the "he didn't say those exact words outright" defense. He calls Windows "monolithic" while calling Linux "modular." What he doesn't point out is that they are both "monolithic" and "modular" at the same time, and the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive as he implies.

Now, if you can prove otherwise about the OSes, feel free to educate me. In fact, you can go tell some developers working for IBM as well as the authors of some very good books on Linux that they had things wrong, and then go ahead and tell the development team behind the NT line of OSes that they are not making what they say they are. If you really feel the need to hash this out any further, I can give you book names and page numbers if you really are going to be pedantic about it.

If they literaly said "implode", it was a joke article, of the sort they do now and then. If not, well, there's a number of reasons, some good, some bad for writing something like that. Saying that they "always spew bullshit", however, is just silly.

Once again, they didn't "say those exact words," they said something to the effect that Windows would not work above 3 Ghz. They quickly retracted their claims as processors got close (and overclocking proved otherwise). The Register has had other faux-pas-moments, though I didn't keep a list compiled for such occassions as this, though perhaps I should. Suffice to say every attempt by the zine to report anything but rumors and speculation has been heavily biased against anything Microsoft, and most articles approach anything Microsoft-related from a pejorative and work backwards.

Ooh, name-calling. I'm not impressed.
Since you've already shown an inability to read a simple paragraph, this could get interesting. He didn't even spell MS with a dollar sign in the article you're railing about, except for saying that he was trying to avoid doing exactly that.

You should really learn to work on the reading comprehension. You responded to a quote of me talking about another poster in this thread, not your link. The poster's name is TexArcana, which I shortened to TexTroll because he did not add to the thread, simply thread-crapped.

So, perhaps the person with the inability to read here is you.

Also, if saying that viruses, spyware and the like are problems on real-life windows machines in the hands of common users (not servers, and not knowledgable users) is "Spreading FUD about Windows' security", you live in a fantasy world.

If you think viruses, spyware, and other security threats are Windows-only problems, you are living in the worst of fantasy worlds. Anyone who argues from such a point of view is spreading bullshit FUD.

 

[Carlosinfl]

Lets just call this thread done...I don't think we as a online community are gaining anything positive from it.

Maybe next we should start a thread called Chevy is better than Ford!

 

[GreNME]

What about Honda?

 

[HHunt]

Sorry for editing my post above while you were writing your response. Anyway:

Oh, I get it. You're using the "he didn't say those exact words outright" defense. He calls Windows "monolithic" while calling Linux "modular." What he doesn't point out is that they are both "monolithic" and "modular" at the same time, and the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive as he implies.

Ah, no. I'm using the classic "He says the opposite of what you attacks him for saying" attack. I don't disagree that they're both modular, but there is a tighter integration in windows that can be a good or bad thing depending on your POV:


Now, if you can prove otherwise about the OSes, feel free to educate me. In fact, you can go tell some developers working for IBM as well as the authors of some very good books on Linux that they had things wrong, and then go ahead and tell the development team behind the NT line of OSes that they are not making what they say they are. If you really feel the need to hash this out any further, I can give you book names and page numbers if you really are going to be pedantic about it.

Well, there's things like kernel integration of various things (Look at the IIS kernel module, or the completely userland X drivers), for instance, or the way you can't completely remove everything you don't use from a windows installation. (Try runnning 2003 server without the GUI and related parts, for instance. Can you unload the IIS part from the kernel?)


Once again, they didn't "say those exact words," they said something to the effect that Windows would not work above 3 Ghz. They quickly retracted their claims as processors got close (and overclocking proved otherwise). The Register has had other faux-pas-moments, though I didn't keep a list compiled for such occassions as this, though perhaps I should. Suffice to say every attempt by the zine to report anything but rumors and speculation has been heavily biased against anything Microsoft, and most articles approach anything Microsoft-related from a pejorative and work backwards.

That way, right. Yes, they're biased. Yes, they make mistakes. So is and does most other places, especially one that tries to get news out as fast as possible. However, they're seldom factually wrong, and when they are, it's usually in articles clearly marked as "unconfirmed" or the like. As for the anti-MS stance, they are critical to everything, even innocuous things, and don't hestitate to consider the worst possible interpretation. Biased, as we've both already said. This doesn't mean that they're not worth reading, though.


You should really learn to work on the reading comprehension. You responded to a quote of me talking about another poster in this thread, not your link. The poster's name is TexArcana, which I shortened to TexTroll because he did not add to the thread, simply thread-crapped.

I assume this was because of my little post/article mistake. (Somewhere in my brain->hands path,it would seem.)
Calling people names is still very immature, though.


So, perhaps the person with the inability to read here is you.

As commented above.

If you think viruses, spyware, and other security threats are Windows-only problems, you are living in the worst of fantasy worlds. Anyone who argues from such a point of view is spreading bullshit FUD.

Did I say so?
However, spyware, trojans and macroviruses do seem to affect windows users to a bigger degree than others. Feel free to attack that, preferrably with statistics not corrected for market share.

 

[HHunt]

Lets just call this thread done...I don't think we as a online community are gaining anything positive from it.

Maybe next we should start a thread called Chevy is better than Ford!

Can we do gun control, communism, "american stupidity" and perhaps the reasons for the Iraq war afterwards?
We could probably drive a small city on the energy output.

 

[Carlosinfl]

We could probably drive a small city on the energy output.

Or just my house...http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=870026

 

[HHunt]

Or just my house...http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=870026

"You do not have permission to access this page."
GenMay?

edit: It's 0544 in the morning. I'm so cold I'm shivering, and severely hungry, but can't turn up the heat (this room keeps warm in the day, so I don't have an usable oven), and can't make food without waking someone who'd like to sleep for quite a while yet. I have to go to bed.

 

[GreNME]

Sorry for editing my post above while you were writing your response. Anyway:

Oh, I get it. You're using the "he didn't say those exact words outright" defense. He calls Windows "monolithic" while calling Linux "modular." What he doesn't point out is that they are both "monolithic" and "modular" at the same time, and the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive as he implies.

Ah, no. I'm using the classic "He says the opposite of what you attacks him for saying" attack. I don't disagree that they're both modular, but there is a tighter integration in windows that can be a good or bad thing depending on your POV:

No, what you are missing is that the only difference deep-down is that Linux is open-source, which allows more of those modules to be removed at will rather than having a company release differently-assembled versions of the same OS for marketing purposes. That's not an OS model, that's a sales model, and still does not change what I already said about Linux and Windows because it does not change that they are both modular and monolithic simultaneously.

Now, if you can prove otherwise about the OSes, feel free to educate me. In fact, you can go tell some developers working for IBM as well as the authors of some very good books on Linux that they had things wrong, and then go ahead and tell the development team behind the NT line of OSes that they are not making what they say they are. If you really feel the need to hash this out any further, I can give you book names and page numbers if you really are going to be pedantic about it.

Well, there's things like kernel integration of various things (Look at the IIS kernel module, or the completely userland X drivers), for instance, or the way you can't completely remove everything you don't use from a windows installation. (Try runnning 2003 server without the GUI and related parts, for instance. Can you unload the IIS part from the kernel?)

Since IIS isn't part of the kernel, absolutely. There are also kernel flags that can be toggled in Windows, the flags are just done differently (through the GUI). Windows is a GUI-interactive OS, so wondering why it isn't the same as Linux—which is a CLI-interactive OS with a GUI front end—then you may as well wonder why a Chevy isn't a Ford or an Intel chip isn't an AMD one.

You're mixing your equations. Yes, with Linux one can add or remove modules more easily to the kernel, with some very specific caveats. That doesn't change anything I have claimed so far.

Once again, they didn't "say those exact words," they said something to the effect that Windows would not work above 3 Ghz. They quickly retracted their claims as processors got close (and overclocking proved otherwise). The Register has had other faux-pas-moments, though I didn't keep a list compiled for such occassions as this, though perhaps I should. Suffice to say every attempt by the zine to report anything but rumors and speculation has been heavily biased against anything Microsoft, and most articles approach anything Microsoft-related from a pejorative and work backwards.

That way, right. Yes, they're biased. Yes, they make mistakes. So is and does most other places, especially one that tries to get news out as fast as possible. However, they're seldom factually wrong, and when they are, it's usually in articles clearly marked as "unconfirmed" or the like. As for the anti-MS stance, they are critical to everything, even innocuous things, and don't hestitate to consider the worst possible interpretation. Biased, as we've both already said. This doesn't mean that they're not worth reading, though.

Actually, they are quite often factually wrong, and I've seen it plenty enough times to know. I recall an article from them discussing security problems in XP, and it got many aspects of services and network components, as well as default XP settings (something that could have been easily checked) that were flat-out incorrect. Before you ask: no, I didn't bookmark it for later. If I made it my job to point out the factual errors of every wannabe "expert" out there, I would get nothing else done.

You should really learn to work on the reading comprehension. You responded to a quote of me talking about another poster in this thread, not your link. The poster's name is TexArcana, which I shortened to TexTroll because he did not add to the thread, simply thread-crapped.

I assume this was because of my little post/article mistake. (Somewhere in my brain->hands path,it would seem.)
Calling people names is still very immature, though.

Um, I called him a troll because he was trolling. Calling a spade a spade is not name-calling.

So, perhaps the person with the inability to read here is you.

As commented above.

And a simple "sorry about that" couldn't be mustered? Nice.

If you think viruses, spyware, and other security threats are Windows-only problems, you are living in the worst of fantasy worlds. Anyone who argues from such a point of view is spreading bullshit FUD.

Did I say so?

No, but the Register often implies as much, and at least one or two writers over there have actually said it outright.

However, spyware, trojans and macroviruses do seem to affect windows users to a bigger degree than others. Feel free to attack that, preferrably with statistics not corrected for market share.

Um, market share is precisely the measure to use. When one percent of a market is claiming superiority because they have fewer examples of said problem, the claims should be taken with a great deal of scrutiny to account for the far lower attack radius.

E-mail trojans?

23rd October 2004
Red Hat has been made aware that emails are being circulated that pretend to come from the Red Hat Security Team. These emails tell users to download and install critical updates, however these updates are fake and contain malicious trojan code designed to compromise the systems they are run on.

Win/Lin Worm?

posted 10:33am EST Wed Mar 28 2001
NEWS
A new virus dubbed W32.Winux is the first to work on both Windows and Linux operating systems.

Linux not a common target?

ZDNet Australia
February 20, 2004, 11:30 GMT

Online servers running Linux were attacked more often in January than those running Windows, according to a security firm

Big reason to avoid Sendmail in Linux?

Internet Security Systems Security Advisory
March 3, 2003

Remote Sendmail Header Processing Vulnerability

Synopsis:

ISS X-Force has discovered a buffer overflow vulnerability in the Sendmail
Mail Transfer Agent (MTA). Sendmail is the most common MTA and has been
documented to handle between 50% and 75% of all Internet email traffic.

Bulletproof?

Published: March 23, 2004, 4:51 PM PST
By Robert Lemos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

The GNOME Project said Tuesday that its servers have apparently been breached, potentially delaying the latest release of its desktop system for Linux.

And so on, and so forth...

Meanwhile, people begin hemming and hawing when things like this pop up, saying that anyone who could actually give Windows a better grade than Linux at any given time are just paid-off flunkies who didn't do any real work. The thing is, as I already pointed out, the problem does not lie in vested interests or conflicts of interest but with the attempt to apply a methodology to cover most situations when any given comparison can only truly cover a few specific situations at best.

To be honest, the most probable answer in the "Lin vs. Win" race is a tie. Depending on the needs and wants of the situation (boss' preferences, favorite programs, etc.), the outcome could sway one way or the other at a given time. If people would stop swinging their dicks and actually work on a methodology to better give scenarios where the different OSes could accentuate each others' strengths instead of making the two OSes armwrestle in a lab environment, then perhaps the computer geek community as a whole could be made far stronger than it currently is and attract more talent to the fray.

Instead, it is a useless series of attempts to crown one victor over all.

 

[BobSutan]

WARNING: This thread is precariously close to being locked.

Now that that's out of the way....

Linux not a common target?

What's funny is that this one inadvertently points out what's been said a million times before: security is directly proportional to the quality of the person administrating the system.

However, the sharp rise in Linux breaches probably reflects a lack of training and deployment expertise rather than inherent security problems within Linux, mi2g officials suggested.

"The swift adoption of Linux last year within the online government and non-government server community, coupled with inadequate training and knowledge on how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third party applications, has contributed to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers," mi2g chairman DK Matai said in a statement.

Since we can all agree that no OS is secure out of the box, and that its really the admin that truly matters, lets just leave it at that.

 

[GreNME]

What's funny is that this one inadvertently points out what's been said a million times before: security is directly proportional to the quality of the person administrating the system.

Which makes it inadvertently close to the truth.

 

[inertiadriftsc]

What's funny is that this one inadvertently points out what's been said a million times before: security is directly proportional to the quality of the person administrating the system.

this qoute is brilliant! I personally prefer linux for liscencing reasons and Eula interpretation legal issues. However, in Microsofts security defense, their only real major security hole is Internet Explorer, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/02/web_security_survey_scansafe/
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,64065,00.html
However, it is a user choice to use it.
:ike it has been said a good administrator can make a system secure. Linux was never designed to be used "basic" it is meant to be customizable and allow the administrator to make the descisions. And a good microsoft administrator can do the same. Microsoft has also become much more usable, many Linux users gripe about instability of Microsoft, but after 42 days up stable on Windows 2000 I am not one of them (my linux machine at 63 stable). Reboots in Windows result mainly from its choice in handling system files and having to reboot after a change, which is not always a bad things but can be an annoyance for a major network. My only gripe about Windows is the fact that in order to do many things, especially programming, I am forced to run with administrator privileges. In linux I can still do compiling and other functions without running in root. I have root logins set up to appear when I need it (Such as installing) and then log out when I am done. Also i enjoy the Journalized file system and never having to defragment. However Windows 2000 and XP cut down on defragmentation drastically with ntfs. The Arguement against linux is that the source code is readily available for people to look at and find exploits, however, it also means that people can find exploits and submit fixes. Both systems have their ups and downs, however Windows is more prevalent and appears to be less secure because more malicious code is written for it. However, they didnt compare Windows with the NSA's SElinux, which is quite amazing, seeing as the have eliminated the nessecity of setuid and setgid, and Eliminates root in the traditional sense of a super user for individual modules allowing them to be locked down if compromised. I am playing around With SE linux and am finding it fascinating, so just a suggestion for all to who just enjoy to play with different operating systems and their features.

 

[Wrench00]

I don't know where you heard WinXP is based off of linux. XP is based off of 2000 which is based off of NT, which MS wrote from the ground up.

With that said, it really isn't suprising that Windows is safer than linux. I always thoguht so and I'm glad that there is proof too.

I believe that NT kernel is based on VMS/VAX, NT kernel was never written from ground up.

 

[Whatsisname]

If i remember correct, VMS was created by HP. While I cannot say that microsoft didnt swipe some ideas from VMS, i do not believe microsoft would have used any VMS code.

I believe that NT kernel is based on VMS/VAX, NT kernel was never written from ground up.

 

[ThomasE66]

If i remember correct, VMS was created by HP. While I cannot say that microsoft didnt swipe some ideas from VMS, i do not believe microsoft would have used any VMS code.

Digital, not HP. The chief architect of VMS for Digital, Dave Cutler, went on to be the chief architect of Windows NT, so there *are* a lot of design similarities.

 

[GreNME]

I believe that NT kernel is based on VMS/VAX, NT kernel was never written from ground up.

You would be wrong on both counts. It was written from the ground up, though the parts in development that may seem very close to, say, OS/2 would be because most of the core development team that created it were brought on board by Microsoft to develop the NT operating system into what was eventually (mostly) fully realized with Windows 2000 (prior versions were close but not "all the way there").

 

[mewannafastpc]

and i though OS X was based off of Unix.......what is all this other mach and microkernel stuff???