 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Windows vs Linux
 |
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by camelNotation
Linux is for die-hard ,thick-skinned , hardcore , geeky , intelligent people where windoze is for anyone with a little bit of knowledge about what's happening behind the screen.My opinion is that Linux is the best in its own area , windoze is the best in its own area.
***************************************************
It has been found by a secret survery that anti-social and introverted people using Linux amounts to 77% whereas the same type of people windoze amounts to 20%
If a person wants to take a learning curve and really learn linux they should go with Slackware 9.1. I provided a step by step tutorial(written entirely by gore). Or freeBSD which must be the quickest install of all (10-12 minutes)/opedBSD might be a little quicker.
Now I agree with you on the first part in the quote. Windows is a gamers platform end of story the games were built/developed for windows. Linux however is for people who want to get away from viruses.addaware,spyware.backware,trojans.......ect
Now with that said any OS can be compromised. "User error can be fatal" If anything people should have linux on a old box for simple task. Like browsing the internet talking on AIM/Gaim and scanning there windows box with NMAP
Oh, and I wouldnt mind seeing the source of that survey!
Last edited by )BIG"B"Affleck; Jan 7th, 2004 at 3:24 pm.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 93
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 1
Junior Poster in Training
I am all for Linux being the desktop solution for individuals everywhere. However, right now it lacks the marketing and a few features that Windows has.
The world would be great if everyone ran Linux. It would also be great if everyone knew how to run a console and create a shell script. However, try teaching many of the elderly how to recompile a kernel.
I used to be on the side of the argument that said "Linux everything, it should just be that way". However, for a desktop solution Windows is the answer for many people and will be for a while. Please refrain from saying "Wow, running a console is so easy.. compiling a program is so easy". Sure, its easy for you - its easy for me. For the average MS Office user? It's just not efficient, and they don't want to switch.
Why should they? If a secretary uses Microsoft Office at the expense of her company, and does not have a need for anything that Linux offers, then it's reasonable to say that the benefits for that individual are in favor of Windows. Keep in mind there is a reason Windows troubleshooting has become a joke in the tech support industry, and to many people there is an upside to that ease of use.
Now for the company itself? The only way a workstation will be using Linux over Windows is if it saves money, which it does (that is one ray of hope). Keep in mind many companies already have pre-existing support contracts and licenses with Microsoft and associates to use their software.
So what do we have:
Linux for the home user - lack of marketing, less efficient for the 'basic' home user, and obviously not a solution for any serious gamer
Linux for the company - lack of marketing, trapped within license agreements, many companies feel anxious about support issues with Linux
Linux for the server environment - Linux wins hands down, and is increasing because of this.
I like the idea of Linux ruling the planet. However, if we insert a little honesty and reality into the possibility of it taking over Windows for basic desktop users everywhere, we can see it just isn't going to happen any time soon.
Just a note. I have heard things like "People should just learn to use it because it's better", when they (not everyone) really mean "I like it so people should use it". Sorry, thats not how a product like an OS gets marketed. Do you (who follow this theory) think that people who drive suburbans are not enlightened to the fact that there are cars that get 30MPG more than their SUV? Even when people know everything that is out there, they will still choose what they like and prefer, not what you want them to like. Yes, this is true even if it's not the best thing for them (fast food anyone?).
The world would be great if everyone ran Linux. It would also be great if everyone knew how to run a console and create a shell script. However, try teaching many of the elderly how to recompile a kernel.
I used to be on the side of the argument that said "Linux everything, it should just be that way". However, for a desktop solution Windows is the answer for many people and will be for a while. Please refrain from saying "Wow, running a console is so easy.. compiling a program is so easy". Sure, its easy for you - its easy for me. For the average MS Office user? It's just not efficient, and they don't want to switch.
Why should they? If a secretary uses Microsoft Office at the expense of her company, and does not have a need for anything that Linux offers, then it's reasonable to say that the benefits for that individual are in favor of Windows. Keep in mind there is a reason Windows troubleshooting has become a joke in the tech support industry, and to many people there is an upside to that ease of use.
Now for the company itself? The only way a workstation will be using Linux over Windows is if it saves money, which it does (that is one ray of hope). Keep in mind many companies already have pre-existing support contracts and licenses with Microsoft and associates to use their software.
So what do we have:
Linux for the home user - lack of marketing, less efficient for the 'basic' home user, and obviously not a solution for any serious gamer
Linux for the company - lack of marketing, trapped within license agreements, many companies feel anxious about support issues with Linux
Linux for the server environment - Linux wins hands down, and is increasing because of this.
I like the idea of Linux ruling the planet. However, if we insert a little honesty and reality into the possibility of it taking over Windows for basic desktop users everywhere, we can see it just isn't going to happen any time soon.
Just a note. I have heard things like "People should just learn to use it because it's better", when they (not everyone) really mean "I like it so people should use it". Sorry, thats not how a product like an OS gets marketed. Do you (who follow this theory) think that people who drive suburbans are not enlightened to the fact that there are cars that get 30MPG more than their SUV? Even when people know everything that is out there, they will still choose what they like and prefer, not what you want them to like. Yes, this is true even if it's not the best thing for them (fast food anyone?).
Last edited by fsn812; Jan 7th, 2004 at 11:02 pm.
I do agree with linux for server aspects on some levels, but with windows 2k3 its a very powerfull rock solid edition of windows, 
i even know some heavy duty linux users who are rather impressed
i even know some heavy duty linux users who are rather impressed •
•
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 59
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 1
Junior Poster in Training
quote:
Linux is not for the average person, it requires abit of programming skills and alot of time if your going to make it run right
I had no programming skills when I first installed linux. With the installers improving on alot of the distros, this is getting easier. I have had just as many problems installing windows as I have had with linux. It took me about an hour to install RH7.3 the first time, and yes it was running right. :cheesy:
That said, use what works best for you and what you want to do with it. I think it is a good time for people who want to learn more about computers, with all of the choices that are out there. Pick an OS and try it out, if you don't like it, move on to the next one.
Linux is not for the average person, it requires abit of programming skills and alot of time if your going to make it run right
I had no programming skills when I first installed linux. With the installers improving on alot of the distros, this is getting easier. I have had just as many problems installing windows as I have had with linux. It took me about an hour to install RH7.3 the first time, and yes it was running right. :cheesy:
That said, use what works best for you and what you want to do with it. I think it is a good time for people who want to learn more about computers, with all of the choices that are out there. Pick an OS and try it out, if you don't like it, move on to the next one.
http://dsl.org/cookbook/
http://linux.org.mt/article/terminal
http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/cats/commands_shells.html
http://linux.org.mt/article/terminal
http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/cats/commands_shells.html
Lets just lay it out all on the table now all of it!!!!
quote: JOE SCHMOE
"the administrator account isn't a superuser account?"
I think this is an important issue to clear up as many peopel are unclear
The Super User issue is a very imporant architecutal difference beteween UN*X and NT. In UN*X the root account is the super user account and it is so named because it actually exists _outside_ the operating system's security policy. If you don't believe me, try opening a file that you do not have permissions on as root. It will open just fine. Try the same thing in NT. You will be denied access. NT's admin account only has the privleges assigned to it in the security policy. For example, you can revoke its "Take Ownership" abilities and this makes it much more like a normal user.
NT features what is known as the segregation of Administrators and Operators and this is why its audit trail meets TCSEC audit trail B2 requirements. (the system as a whole is not B2 of cause due to it's lack of MAC among other things) It is possible withing the security policy alone to deny the Admin account access to various things, eg. logs. The same limitations cannot be achived in UN*X via the security policy alone and frequently special file system settings or atypical kernel configurations need to be used.
Security All OS's let's just lay it out all on the table now!
system security does _NOT_ depend on the admin. This is a silly myth fabricated by people who do not understand OS security well enough to discuss it objectively.
More secure operating systems have clearly defined security guidelines which enable an organization a greater level of assurance that the system is secure correctly, and not on the whim of the admin. Even more secure systems use mandatory controls that begin completely removing security from the admin/user's hands altogether. Even more secure systems not only ensure that the system is in a secure state but that it is not possible for the system to migrate to a less secure state, all information in these systems migrate only up (if at all) ensuring that as the system migrates toward entropy (as all systems do without intervention) it gets more secure not less secure as standard operating systems.
So what does all of this mean for you? Officially speaking, the most secure OS currently is STOP by WGS. AITS by AII is more secure, but has yet to complete formal evaluation, so statements about its security are assuming that AII made a rather large error. Below that we have Trusted XENIX, which is a hybrid of UN*X (user interface, etc. Looks like UN*X but is not actually UN*X), TOS (MAC, etc), and NT (Audit trails were borrowed as XENIX was a MS product) Though XENIX was an MS product, Trusted XENIX was actually put out by TIS, the same company that created FWTK, though the were purchased and broken apart. Below this we have all the more standard trusted operating systems, HP-UX BLS, TRIX, Trusted Solaris, etc. It is important to note that although these systems share UN*X system names, they are not in fact UN*X systems. They are trusted operating systems that are built to work like their untrusted counterparts.
FreeBSD has attempted to become a trusted operating system with the inclusion of the TrustedBSD project into FBSD 5.x. It is my opinion that the MAC and ACL implementations in FBSD 5.x are some of the worst I have ever seen and this coupled with the poor documentation and their optional nature leads me to believe their inclusion is short term.
Recently several flavors of TOSes based off of Linux have surfaced including Pitbull LX, SE Linux, LIDS, Trusted Linux, and a MAC enabled Linux for the dreamcast no less. Of these I would say that Pitbull LX is likely the best implementation, however it is worth noting that none of these are genuine trusted operating systems on account of their being monolithic kernels, which is a strict no, no in the world of good, secure OS design.
Even more recently kernel drivers for NT have surfaced which provide it with various types of mandatory access controls. Considering NT's better audit trail, separation of admins and operators, as well as it's more finely grained discretionary access controls with single action commands... if you wish to have a standard high security system this might be your best choice.
If you are looking for completely free, SE Linux is for you. Its Flask security architecture is both powerful and simple to adjust to.
If you wish to use Linux and cost isn't a concern, Pitbull LX is the best choice in my opinion, its domain based access controls are very powerful, simple to administer, and document. Plus it works in a manner that will be very logical to those new to this type of system as they simply place various services in their own compartments. Pitbull also features several other standard and not so standard security mechanisms like least privilege and networks flags. (a personal favorite item of mine)
If money is no object and check out trusted Solaris, all the power of Solaris. Stick that in the pipe and smoke it.
- NT lacks a super user account.
- NT has a completely different authentication subsystem.
- NT features a seperation an administrators and operators (this is part of the first item but is important in and of itself)
- NT has a completely different audit trail.
quote: JOE SCHMOE
"the administrator account isn't a superuser account?"
I think this is an important issue to clear up as many peopel are unclear
The Super User issue is a very imporant architecutal difference beteween UN*X and NT. In UN*X the root account is the super user account and it is so named because it actually exists _outside_ the operating system's security policy. If you don't believe me, try opening a file that you do not have permissions on as root. It will open just fine. Try the same thing in NT. You will be denied access. NT's admin account only has the privleges assigned to it in the security policy. For example, you can revoke its "Take Ownership" abilities and this makes it much more like a normal user.
NT features what is known as the segregation of Administrators and Operators and this is why its audit trail meets TCSEC audit trail B2 requirements. (the system as a whole is not B2 of cause due to it's lack of MAC among other things) It is possible withing the security policy alone to deny the Admin account access to various things, eg. logs. The same limitations cannot be achived in UN*X via the security policy alone and frequently special file system settings or atypical kernel configurations need to be used.
- 1.Linux is under an open-source lisense.
- 2.Linux is more stable.
- 3.File systems are completely different.
- 4.Drivers are different.
- 5.it's free.
Security All OS's let's just lay it out all on the table now!
system security does _NOT_ depend on the admin. This is a silly myth fabricated by people who do not understand OS security well enough to discuss it objectively.
More secure operating systems have clearly defined security guidelines which enable an organization a greater level of assurance that the system is secure correctly, and not on the whim of the admin. Even more secure systems use mandatory controls that begin completely removing security from the admin/user's hands altogether. Even more secure systems not only ensure that the system is in a secure state but that it is not possible for the system to migrate to a less secure state, all information in these systems migrate only up (if at all) ensuring that as the system migrates toward entropy (as all systems do without intervention) it gets more secure not less secure as standard operating systems.
So what does all of this mean for you? Officially speaking, the most secure OS currently is STOP by WGS. AITS by AII is more secure, but has yet to complete formal evaluation, so statements about its security are assuming that AII made a rather large error. Below that we have Trusted XENIX, which is a hybrid of UN*X (user interface, etc. Looks like UN*X but is not actually UN*X), TOS (MAC, etc), and NT (Audit trails were borrowed as XENIX was a MS product) Though XENIX was an MS product, Trusted XENIX was actually put out by TIS, the same company that created FWTK, though the were purchased and broken apart. Below this we have all the more standard trusted operating systems, HP-UX BLS, TRIX, Trusted Solaris, etc. It is important to note that although these systems share UN*X system names, they are not in fact UN*X systems. They are trusted operating systems that are built to work like their untrusted counterparts.
FreeBSD has attempted to become a trusted operating system with the inclusion of the TrustedBSD project into FBSD 5.x. It is my opinion that the MAC and ACL implementations in FBSD 5.x are some of the worst I have ever seen and this coupled with the poor documentation and their optional nature leads me to believe their inclusion is short term.
Recently several flavors of TOSes based off of Linux have surfaced including Pitbull LX, SE Linux, LIDS, Trusted Linux, and a MAC enabled Linux for the dreamcast no less. Of these I would say that Pitbull LX is likely the best implementation, however it is worth noting that none of these are genuine trusted operating systems on account of their being monolithic kernels, which is a strict no, no in the world of good, secure OS design.
Even more recently kernel drivers for NT have surfaced which provide it with various types of mandatory access controls. Considering NT's better audit trail, separation of admins and operators, as well as it's more finely grained discretionary access controls with single action commands... if you wish to have a standard high security system this might be your best choice.
If you are looking for completely free, SE Linux is for you. Its Flask security architecture is both powerful and simple to adjust to.
If you wish to use Linux and cost isn't a concern, Pitbull LX is the best choice in my opinion, its domain based access controls are very powerful, simple to administer, and document. Plus it works in a manner that will be very logical to those new to this type of system as they simply place various services in their own compartments. Pitbull also features several other standard and not so standard security mechanisms like least privilege and networks flags. (a personal favorite item of mine)
If money is no object and check out trusted Solaris, all the power of Solaris. Stick that in the pipe and smoke it.
Last edited by )BIG"B"Affleck; Jan 8th, 2004 at 1:09 am.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 93
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 1
Junior Poster in Training
I favor BSD and would recommend it for security over Linux, although I am not privy to security I don't need (not being sarcastic, I just don't do that much on an open network and I am happy with my firewall/updates/encryption software)... but thats just my opinion.
So... why would a user who just uses Windows 2000 or XP for basic office functions such as word processing or spreadsheets even care about the superuser - admin account battle? I would think their primary goal would be to have the most efficient software that gets their needs (word processing, calanders, blah blah blah) done. I'm talking about people who go to work outside of the CS industry. Those who have practical uses for it outside of what you and I would do, but rather using only a small percentage of either Windows or Linux's capabilities either way. I understand you are just listing the pros and cons, and hey, Im on your boat ;-) But really, why would they care about MAC, ACL, Kernel Code or else? I mean ask one of those individuals individual what blowfish is and they will probably ask you 'why did you put fish in the computer?'.
Honestly, they only use a small percentage of what either OS is capable of.. so what would motivate them to switch?
So... why would a user who just uses Windows 2000 or XP for basic office functions such as word processing or spreadsheets even care about the superuser - admin account battle? I would think their primary goal would be to have the most efficient software that gets their needs (word processing, calanders, blah blah blah) done. I'm talking about people who go to work outside of the CS industry. Those who have practical uses for it outside of what you and I would do, but rather using only a small percentage of either Windows or Linux's capabilities either way. I understand you are just listing the pros and cons, and hey, Im on your boat ;-) But really, why would they care about MAC, ACL, Kernel Code or else? I mean ask one of those individuals individual what blowfish is and they will probably ask you 'why did you put fish in the computer?'.
Honestly, they only use a small percentage of what either OS is capable of.. so what would motivate them to switch?
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 93
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 1
Junior Poster in Training
At my hosting company I have a BSD server and a Fedora (previously Red Hat 9) server. Both run fine, and have had about the same uptime. So personally I have not noticed too much of a difference in the server environment. The Fedora server has management software installed, so it has an advantage. Management software aside, I would probably go with BSD if it where fresh install vs. fresh install and left to their own devices.
The ultimate set-up would be to have a linux box and an Xp machine on a network. Like the one guy said you could use nmap to scan the windows machine, and you could game on xp. Also programming is really easy on linux, and it comes with a free c++ compiler....
There are different aspects to consider when asking this question. From a server point of view? From a usability point of view? Price? Difficulty? There is no winner if you simply say "Windows vs Linux" because how one uses an OS is always dependent on the user's needs/ability/pocket.
http://www.livetolearn.net/images/thecheat1.jpg
http://www.livetolearn.net/images/thecheat1.jpg
Check out my blog at http://www.shinylight.com for more stuff about web dev.
Wow.
I'm reading this thread and thinking to myself "Why didn't he write like that when we were bantering back and forth?" The diction and mysterious near-perfect spelling are just a little too out of place contrasted to his previous posts. I'm sorry, but BigB's posts in this thread just scream copy/paste from another site.
Run whatever OS you want to run. It doesn't really matter. It's no skin off my back if people just want to use linux or a combination of that and Windows.
I'm reading this thread and thinking to myself "Why didn't he write like that when we were bantering back and forth?" The diction and mysterious near-perfect spelling are just a little too out of place contrasted to his previous posts. I'm sorry, but BigB's posts in this thread just scream copy/paste from another site.
Run whatever OS you want to run. It doesn't really matter. It's no skin off my back if people just want to use linux or a combination of that and Windows.
Champagne ambition on a beer budget.
|
Similar Threads
- Windows vs. Linux (IT Professionals' Lounge)
- Windows to Linux Migration (Getting Started and Choosing a Distro)
Other Threads in the IT Professionals' Lounge Forum
- Previous Thread: MikeRoweSoft.com?
- Next Thread: Happy Birthday Macintosh!
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
You need to join our community in order to build your list of favorite forums. You can visit the forum index for a listing of all forums.
Related Forum Features
Latest IT Professionals' Lounge Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
1gbit advertising advice amazon answers archive british broadband business businessprocesses career carrier censorship cern china cio collectiveintelligence connectivity consumer consumers corporateearnings datatransfer debtcollectors dictionary digg digital ebay ecommerce email employment environment facebook food government grid high-definition hottub infodelivery infotech intel internet interview ipod isp japan kindle lhc library malware marketing mit moonfruit news onlineshopping piracy piratebay pope porn program questions r&d religion remoteworking research retail security sex shopping simple skype smallbusiness smb sms socialmedia socialnetworking software softwareengineer spam speed spending startrek statistics stocks study stumbleupon survey tabletpc technology touch-screen touchscreen twitter uk videoinprint voips web webdeveloper windows words
