0

I've worked with *nix since 1986. Hundreds of servers. Over the same number of years I've experienced 4 successful hacks, all related to poor login/password combinations. (i.e. lucy/lucy123)... arggh...
All 4 hacks were on ssh which was hijacked to provide a clandestine IRC relay - no damage to the systems, just an incredible drain on the resources - and it took 5 or 6 hours each time to remove the hack.
Now I have the systems set to exclude all ip addresses outside the country where the server resides (since the apps aren't intended for that type of use...). The ip list is updated once a month from Geo IP and I've got it auto-blocking any ip with more than X connection attempts/failures in Y amount of time. - No hacks at all after that.
I cannot even think of how to implement that kind of control on our Windows servers...
And it is such a piece of cake to do under *nix...

Edited by lrirwin: spelling

0

I have been using Linux steadily for at least 5 years now. It does almost everything that Windows can do, but everything but the computer hardware is free! I have used LinuxMint, OpenSuSE, Fedora, ArchLinux, Ubuntu, Mythbuntu, Kubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, and others. The best thing I like about Linux is if you have a linux friendly video capture card, you can connect your cable tv, satelite tv, or over the air antenna to the card and with software like MythTV, LinuxMCE, VDR, Boxee, or XBMC, you can turn your pc into a DVR.

0

Before i leave this thread, just saying to anyone who thinks i am a windows fanboy, I am a Linux user, I am just saying that Windows is good at some stuff too.

Thats all from me! :)

0

The only reason I steel keep windows in dual-boot is gaming)) Windows is good for some issues, but I've made my choice...

0

The only reason I steel keep windows in dual-boot is gaming)) Windows is good for some issues, but I've made my choice...

I'm not a massive gamer, so I'm not too bothered about the lack of the latest, greatest games on Linux. But I can see why the more hardcore gamers out there prefer to keep their Windows partitions on their machines.

That said, the gaming situation on Linux seems to be improving. More and more independent games companies are releasing their titles on multiple platforms (including Linux). And after years of rumours and speculation, Valve recently confirmed that they ARE porting Steam and the Source engine to work natively on Linux. Which is something that Linux users have been requesting for years. So I imagine it should do rather well when it is finally launched.

And of course, if Valve do finally release Steam for Linux and it proves to be popular; it might cause more of the major players in the gaming industry to sit up and take Linux more seriously as a gaming platform. Note the emphasis there on might! Heh heh! Even if other games companies aren't attracted to Linux, a native Steam client would still be a major boon to Linux gaming!

Edited by JasonHippy: dotting i's crossing T's!

0

Is really funny how many Linux users bash over Windows, and Windows users doesn't bash over Linux, I used Linux and I admit it is quiet robust under servers environments(no GUI) and omitting the Software Raid by Hardware Raid, not to mention that the latest Windows Server OS are very reliable and robust and support almost any High-End system boards and Hardware Raid Cards, ohh and let me explain the myth that Linux is virus free and that windows is flawed by it's design, the true is clearly visible and only fanboys and\or blind people can't admit it the truth, "Windows is the Main Target all over the World" also Windows has their disasters releases like the past Windows ME and their famous BSOD's, but I saw few distros that has been won the nobel disaster trophys like Windows have theirs too, as for Linux on desktop it is really far from it,

3 Simple Reasons why Linux is far from Desktop Environments:

1: Linux are forgetting the standarization, Eg: I ran to my friend house to install\manage some App's but all my Yum commands and .rpm packages from my flashdrive are useless in his (DEB) Distro, but he have net connection so I can waste some time on it, yeah i'm talking about (RPM, APT-GET, YUM, DEB, BIN, TAR GZ), also many Repos issues because of decentralization. (Business don't like this kind of issues)

2: Latest hardware drivers on Linux lack the most important functionalities for the corresponding Hardware, Eg: High-End Video and Audio processing cards, I really bypass installing Linux on a workstation hardware with 2x multicore CPU's and 2x merged High-End Video GPU's, not to mention the Linux driver issues on latest connectivity hardware, yes I'm screwed because my distro built-in driver packages don't support my Network card(s) (Hollywood studios don't like this kind of issues)

3: Simplicity, Eg: I feel like i'm in the Disk Operating System Era every time I'm using the Terminal for do something that I did with one click in other OS's, and regarding all of the above. (Average users don't like this kind of issues)

As for why the Hardware market\Developers seems non-cooperative to Linux:

OS Platform Statistics: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

PS: All of the above are just my thoughts and examples to Linux on Desktop, I used Linux under some servers environments(with minor Hardware Raid Cards driver\functionalities issues) and Windows\Mac for High-End Video processing Workstations.
Best Regards, and sorry for my Grammar\English :)

Edited by AvidTech

0

Interesting comments! Let me rebute a few things.

Is really funny how many Linux users bash over Windows, and Windows users don't bash over Linux

Maybe it can be explained this way. Some people (I would argue, most) start to use Linux and have such a nice experience with it that they feel very strongly in favor of it, almost stop using Windows, and see nothing but problems whenever they use Windows again. While most Windows users never tried Linux, and those that did without ending up switching permanently, feel the way you expressed it, they find Linux nice in many ways, with a few usability problems and still prefer Windows, but they respect Linux.

ohh and let me explain the myth that Linux is virus free and that windows is flawed by it's design, the true is clearly visible and only fanboys and\or blind people can't admit it the truth, "Windows is the Main Target all over the World"

Obviously, that's a major factor for personal computer viruses and malware. But serious hackers attack servers, and they spend a lot of energy trying to crack them open, and the vast majority of the servers are Linux / Unix / Solaris whose system architectures are the all same for all practical purposes. The truth is, a Windows server can barely stay up a month or two without being cracked open, while Linux servers can stand strong for years (and that's not an exageration) as long as you don't publicly publish your root / superuser passwords.

also Windows has their disasters releases like the past Windows ME and their famous BSOD's

And how is that acceptable when you spend 200-300 or more dollars for a product?

1: Linux are forgetting the standarization, ...., yeah i'm talking about (RPM, APT-GET, YUM, DEB, BIN, TAR GZ),

Standardizing the package management systems is a very hot topic in the Linux world. This is certainly a problem that needs to be settled once and for all. But it isn't so bad, there really are only two systems, deb and rpm (yum and apt-get are just used to fetch the packages, bins and tar-balls are not used to install anything, just archiving, like zip). But can you seriously say, with a straight face, that it is worse than the Windows application installation mayhem? Windows is the only OS without a decent package management system (the "Add/remove Programs" system is pathetic, and installation methods used in practice are all-over-the-place).

2: Latest hardware drivers on Linux lack the most important functionalities for the corresponding Hardware

This has gotten a lot better in the last few years. Now, ATI and Nvidia both produce up-to-date drivers for all Linux distros and for their latest cards. Also, many wireless and network card providers are getting on-board and providing drivers or donating code to kernel developers to make their cards work well (this isn't too hard because most network card manufacturers also make routers (and related things), which are almost universally running on Linux kernels). Problems only remain with special peripherals of some brands.

Also, for the most part, the reason why Windows machines work out-of-the-box is because they are pre-installed with all the correct drivers (try installing a fresh Windows machine, and finding the correct drivers by yourself). Try using Windows' generic drivers for any kind of special peripheral. In Linux, you have to manually select and install the best drivers for the couple of things that don't work or not well enough with kernel drivers. In Windows, if it wasn't pre-installed (or pre-set), you would have to manually select and install the best drivers for just about every single thing that's in your computer. Linux's generic drivers are very impressive in this regard.

Nevertheless, this is still a recurring and annoying problem with Linux distros, but I don't see Linux trailing as far behind as you think.

3: Simplicity, Eg: I feel like i'm in the Disk Operating System Era every time I'm using the Terminal for do something that I did with one click in other OS's, and regarding all of the above. (Average users don't like this kind of issues)

If that is so, why is Microsoft investing so much in their new PowerShell? The truth is, there is a need for both a GUI and a shell. You want the GUI for things that you can do in one click, but you need a terminal to do things that you would need a lot of clicks, options and menu navigation to do. For example, in Linux, I can setup the system to automatically run a script at startup by issuing a single command. See here for another common task. To easily be able to deal with your system and your files, you NEED a powerful shell, because you simply don't have the time to lose navigating menus and clicking "Apply" everywhere, there are things that are just time-consuming, annoying, or even impossible to do through GUI menus or applications. That's the point of the PowerShell and of Linux's tight GUI-and-terminal integration. It is not a relic of the past, but a highly valuable tool.

And, btw, some Linux distros don't even feature a terminal by default (or at all), because it is not necessary for basic users (just like basic Windows users don't need to access the command-prompt or the control panel).

0

I tried to install Ubuntu on a computer that has a wireless network card -- it failed because Ubuntu didn't have a driver for it and AFAIK there isn't one from the manufacturer either. I find *nix just too intimating for home use -- *Inix servers are great in industrial environment, but for home use it stinks. I love the plug-and-play of MS-Windows.

0

(try installing a fresh Windows machine, and finding the correct drivers by yourself).

I do it many times on my hobby PC Rep shop easy(mainly on most HP and Acer stuff), also I used to combine and manipulate drivers architectures to work with some spesific hardware even if they aren't designed for such hardware.

I respect all the other suggestions, but Linux still needs a step forward under Video and Audio processing to take an advantage and\or gain some respect, servers aren't just everything we live in a world were heavy multimedia processing is a must.

0

Everything I do is on Linux. Have yet to use hardware that I can't get working and everything works out of the box most of the time. Video editing, word processing, finances, and so on. Of course I don't care about games at all so I have no idea how good or bad the gaming is.

0

I agree with this, I've used Linux, Windows and OSX for different types of development projects. I've used Windows mainly for games mainly though, most of my coding is done on Linux and my MBP. I just like the simplicity involved with the Linux OS, the hardest part is picking your flavor. Mainly I suggest Fedora, Ubuntu or Kubuntu... especially the last two for Android Open Source development (if you have the 64-bit versions). But if you want to mess with these I suggest using VirtualBox and just creating a series of VMs to test everything out. It's really easy and pretty quick.

Edited by Climber Ty

0

Absolutely! Linux is phenomenal. I recently switched four Win XP desktops in my house to run Debian 6. The amount of control and power you have is in credible. I just installed a debian-based web server as well. It was the simplest job I have ever done... outside of the port fowarding... but that's another story! I run Ubuntu on my laptop and it is amazing. The thing I love the most of Linux is the simple terminal-based software updating/upgrading you can do is also awesome. I just set up ssh servers on all those desktops so that I can access, upgrade, update, and do other such incredible activities all from the comfort of my laptop... Windows does not have that ease. That all being said, Linux is not for someone who does not know how to use google and/or search forums. Things can get confusing and frustrating quickly if you don't know how to do those two things. It all depends on your ability on google! Good luck though. Linux has been incredible for me! (I'm writing this on Joli Cloud OS a ubuntu/linux based OS).

-1

Absolutely! Linux is phenomenal

No.

I recently switched four Win XP desktops in my house to run Debian 6.

Do you regret that? Or are you crazy?

I have come again out of anger*

There are some issues I have found with Linux, and why I stopped using it
First of all, pre-installation - Windows comes pre-installed. Everything is working perfectly at the time of purchase. The user does not have to do anything, but use it - simple enough huh?

Often times new users to Linux face barriers. Little can be overcome. The question is, will these users go to the time and effort? It, of course, depends on the user and the skill of those trying to help them.

These problems could be avoided if Linux came pre-installed.
Windows or Mac OS is pre-installed. You need to search around and go to much trouble to find someone selling Linux computers. It is not worth the effort for many users.

Then, there is the compatability problem: Most hardware is made to work on one of two platforms, Windows or Macs. Equipment often ships with disks for one or both of these two platforms. Seldom, if ever, do you find a Linux disk. This has nothing to do with Linux not being able to run said equipment, but rather speaks to the size of the market. Linux is small time...

Now, games: Most games are written for Windows, because (obviously) Windows is epic at gaming - a reason why most game developers choose Windows.

If you use AutoCAD, QuickBooks, Photoshop or other specialised software then you have likely found that it is made to work specifically for one or two platforms, neither of which is Linux.
Some users also find that there are some barriers to using Linux equivalent software, such as trouble with files or formatting, so you prefer to use applications such as Microsoft Office because you use that at work and know that you will have consistency.

Really? More sensetive to viruses? Even a simple fork bomb?

Think Linux is the most secure operating system in the world? Think again,
Open Source operating systems like the server editions based on Linux Kernel are often called the most secure operating systems. If not better in this regard, Microsoft Windows Server Editions are equally secure and they are constantly being made better day by day. The fact is because Windows is used by most people around the world, malware writers find it more profitable to attack Windows, hence it is hammered at more often. Nevertheless Windows Servers are known to recover faster from Security attacks than Linux. If Linux or Open Source was completely secure, would it have been possible to hack the Linux website itself? One has to understand and accept that, as the popularity of any OS increases, it too tends to come under the radar of malware writers, as we have seen in the case of Apple Mac also in recent times.

Also, its about IMPOSSIBLE to find support for Open Source operating systems as they are not used by majority of the population though some resources are available on the Internet in the form of Discussion Forums, eBooks and Community driven websites. In comparison, Microsoft Windows includes its own help section and there is a vast amount of resources available on the Internet and many books are available in the market for reference.

Still Like Linux? I don't think so.

Edited by HTMLperson5

0

I favor Linux. Although Apple & Microsoft come pre-installed, they don't offer much in terms of choices or customization. Linux comes in many flavors. It also has distros built for particular purposes. There's tons of information available for choosing your distribution (you can even try before you commit using virtual box machines). There's also information for getting it set up, ironing out the kinks, and troubleshooting. More popular distros will have more information & answers available.

For instance, I used Ubuntu 11.04 rather than the newest 12.04 and found an abundance of information for troubleshooting the 3 issues I had. Yes, it did take me a short period to learn what I was doing and to get a few kinks ironed out (since I was new to Linux). However, Ubuntu handles the equivalent software like a dream come true. Windows not only couldn't do it, but the program kept crashing, freezing the system, and I kept losing labs for no reason. I'd have to reboot over and over. Many hours of work lost in Windows.

The work I put into Linux was rewarded greatly. This machine is now as fast as it should be. It handles GNS3 & virtual machines like a dream come true. If I used a more minimal distro, it would be even faster. I can't say that about Windows. They provide fewer options than Linux, less customization, and every time they've come out with a new OS, they make the system less useful and less customizable. People complain and Microsoft doesn't listen. Their OS even hangs just opening a web browser, clicking the start menu, or opening file folder (and all that on a very new Asus i5, 6GB RAM, 750GB hard drive with a small number of crucial programs installed). In Windows, the very few programs I have open frequently hang and crash more often than they should. And yes, I keep the machine clean. These problems rarely happen in Ubuntu.

If you want to use the programs that only work on Windows, get Virtual Box. Having a Windows virtual machine is more useful than having a Windows actual machine. You can take snapshots (an exact image of your machine at that moment in time), jump back and forth in time, backup/copy the entire system with ease, and use it anywhere (on Windows, Apple, or Linux) virtual box is installed. A person who just has Windows is a victim waiting to happen.

Edited by chickenmusket

0

Linux is an open source system and is therefore more cost-effective to operate and maintain than Windows, meaning that Linux hosting will cost you less than Windows hosting. Linux also has a reputation for stability and speed which means that Linux web servers will crash less often than Windows web servers and Linux runs most processes faster than Windows.

0

I gather Microsoft's [modus operandi] is to make any company signing up with them in a patent cross licensing deal sign an NDA, so only Microsoft speaks in public, then they put out a press release which makes claims no one can check or verify, wave their arms about Linux, then go on to the next victim. Unless they show some details, it means absolutely nothing to me, except that Microsoft is very good at marketing FUD.

0

I use Win7 and Linux(Ubuntu) But prefer to use Ubuntu when on line because of its speed and security. I echo what CimmerianX, and FelineHazard said.
Its only a matter of time before hackers start targeting linux users as it gains in popularity.

0

I've followed this post for some time now and thought that everyone would be interested in a little fact. First some background. I abandonded Windows several years ago for a lot of reasons, many of which have been already well expressed by other posters. Right now I'm running several Linux distro's on my machines - Ubuntu, Mint (can't stand Unity), centOS, etc. Windows is not allowed on any of my machines unless it is kept in a VirtualBox jail where it can't damage the host. Now, for that little fact. To all those who say that Linux only appears to be more secure because no-one uses it, then try to explain this little bit: I log as many as 20,000 break in attempts a month (yes, that's 2 followed by 4 zeros). Most are now blocked by the denyhosts program (free, and in the repositories), but that does not change the fact that the forces of evil are out there trying. So, however one may WANT to interpret this, it can not be argued that Linux (at least in my case) is being ignored by the crackers of the world. By the way, these attempts come from all over the world - mostly from China, the Pacific Rim, Eastern Europe and Russia, but plenty enough are coming from everywhere else too. For those who may be offended by what they percieve as "finger pointing" implied by this list of countries, all I can say is that the facts (i.e., the security logs) speak for themselves.

As for virus vulnerability, at least so far (6 years and counting), I remain uncompromised. Now, I do practice "safe" browsing and e-mail. My contention is, and has always been, that the best anti-virus scanner on the planet lies between the ears of the user. Does this mean that "nix" users are smarter? Probably not, but it is a nice thought.

0

Unbuntu is much more powerful and resilient than the offerings Microsoft have. The most stable release of Windows they had was NT4, and that's discontinued. Unbuntu is also flexible with one let-down.....printer drivers

0

I use ubuntu. I like linux a little more then Windows, you dont have to have anti virus software.

0

I like this post. Now, the discussion comes down to the role the OS will play. I have used federated solutions (IFD CRM, Sharepoint, ETC), albeit Microsoft in orgin, and I enjoy working with these environments. I have also run Solaris/Linux/Unix web applications servers as it pertains to various java technologies. Each platform has it's place, and the infrastructure that runs the two are fairly similar (ia64/x86 based chipsets).

I have heard stability as a concern. Stability at an OS level, with both OS variants, is very strong at it's core. If it wasn't, businesses wouldn't have invested in the architecture. The issue comes down to the "IN"stability afforded by bad applications. I've seen horrible Windows and Horrible Unix/Linux applications that would simply bring down a system (you all have experienced this atleast one time). The systems engineers/administrators have all seen this, and if you say no, you haven't been around long enough. Microsoft is big on the COTS side of the street, where Linux has a broad customized realm, but both deliver niche products that fit the enterprise.

From end user adoption, you simply cannot beat the ease of use and application base that Microsoft capitalizes on. For those a little less technically adept, you can go Apple, though because Apple doesn't want to pay for licensing, their MS integration in the past stunk (but they're getting better). The problem arises when you are in a mixed OS enterprise and you are trying to leverage group policies and security. You would see this with the old Novell servers as their security attributes wouldn't work with Apple productions. Because of the Linux base, you only have the r/w/e settings, that doesn't play well with the complexity microsoft offers (meaning I can lock down to pretty much any file/dir attirbute for various groups), which in an enterprise env, will allow you to remove the id10t errors from your end users.

If you are more technically adept, you can use one of the many free and/or paid distro's out in the market place. Ubuntu offers a fantastic end user experience, however, the product isn't as baked in for the std end user yet. From a security standpoint, you fall into the same realm as apple, as it's the same foundation. I know that the end user can lock down a directoy, mask others, and basically provide security by confusion, however, as stated above, it's difficult to manage in a enterprise environment.

All in all, each technology/os offers it's strength and weaknesses, however, if you find that you are not technologically agnostic, you will find yourself in a situation where it'll be painful to become flexible. My two cents.

0

I began to use Linux about six years ago becuase a Windows problem left a system very fragile. I then took Ubuntu upon reccomendation, and I liked what I saw. I have since used just a few more than ten distros, with Arch being one of my current favorites. I am quite the average user.

But, to more specifically answer the question: yes, generally, I do prefer Linux to Windows.

Edited by h(OM)e

0

I think both OS are good in their own way. I like both for their different capablities and features. Microsft is more user friendly and have better graphics for gaming purpose. where Linux is suitable for programming environment and server related work.when I am worling I like to work on linux system because it is more secure and it is easy to handle server with command line. In other hand I don't like to work on windows but when I was in mood to play games I preffer windows.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.