Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 19th Jul 2008 19:01 UTC, submitted by cypress
Linux Linux and UNIX-like operating systems in general are regarded as being more secure for the common user, in contrast with operating systems that have "Windows" as part of their name. Why is that? When entering a dispute on the subject with a Windows user, the most common argument he tries to feed me is that Windows is more widespread, and therefore, more vulnerable. Apart from amusing myths like "Linux is only for servers" or "does it have a word processor?", the issue of Linux desktop security is still seriously misunderstood.
Thread beginning with comment 323728
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not the design of Windows that is at fault, it is the defaults. They should have been changed a long time ago, and UAC is the first step. It's not going to happen over night, because MS unfortunately values backward compatibility too much.

I've been running Windows as a normal user since NT, and it may be tricky sometimes, some times it can be a real PITA, but there hasn't been too much I haven't been able to get working.


Unfortunately that isn't helped by the fact that even Microsoft's own software isn't written well as to allow the smooth running in a limited user capacity. Run Office 2003 on Windows Vista and you'll see what I mean.

At the end of the day, software companies will take leadership from the operating system vendor; if the operating system vendor isn't interested in making their own software use the new API's or update their software to the new security model - why should other vendors go through all the hoops?

It reminds me very much of the complaints that no big names are using the new API's in Windows like WPF and WCF. When Microsoft's own operating system has applications bundled with it, which don't use WPF/WCF (which CAN be called from native code - they DON'T need to re-write it in managed code) then how can they expect third parties to make that investment if they're not willing to do it themselves?

Reply Parent Score: 6

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

At the end of the day, software companies will take leadership from the operating system vendor; if the operating system vendor isn't interested in making their own software use the new API's or update their software to the new security model - why should other vendors go through all the hoops?


Please don't encourage other vendors to take their lead from the OS vendor in this instance, particularly in respsect of security.

This particular OS vendor has a back-door into the OS such that it can be changed ("updated" is the euphemism they use) regardless of the settings or wishes of the owners of the machine on which it is running.

This OS vendor also makes an add-on after thought scanner product in the hopes of detecting breaches after they have already got in, but the scanner provided by the vendor is amongst the worst products available.

Reply Parent Score: 5

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Please don't encourage other vendors to take their lead from the OS vendor in this instance, particularly in respsect of security.


As I said, when Microsoft can't be bothered getting Office 2003 running flawlessly on Windows Vista by releasing an update - why should any other vendor do the same? Why spend the extra money when the operating system vendor and the largest office suite vendor can't be bothered putting in the extra investment?

They way the operating system conducts itself demonstrates how much confidence (or there lack of) they have in their own operating system. If they don't use the features in their new operating system, its telling the software ecosystem, "we have no confidence in our new operating system".

Yes, security is important, but like I said, when Microsoft can't even get their own software using the security features within the operating system - what does that tell the rest of the marketplace?

This particular OS vendor has a back-door into the OS such that it can be changed ("updated" is the euphemism they use) regardless of the settings or wishes of the owners of the machine on which it is running.

This OS vendor also makes an add-on after thought scanner product in the hopes of detecting breaches after they have already got in, but the scanner provided by the vendor is amongst the worst products available.


True, but it is the old story of appearing to do something rather than actually doing something - and when the excrement hits the fan - the blame game is of greater interest than addressing the short comings of their products.

Edited 2008-07-20 08:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

"Run Office 2003 on Windows Vista and you'll see what I mean."

Ummm..........I know several people doing that without any problems. Can to give some details on what you're referring to?

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"Run Office 2003 on Windows Vista and you'll see what I mean."

Ummm..........I know several people doing that without any problems. Can to give some details on what you're referring to?


Try the fact that everytime one loads it up it keeps asking whether I accept the EULA; here is the original post I made on the Windows Vista newsgroup:

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?...

Reply Parent Score: 2