Techworld just released an updated version of their Report on Windows vs. Linux. This report tries to separate myth from reality… In particular, we have looked at new technological developments since the last survey. We offer no blanket conclusion that Linux is better than Windows, or vice versa, but point out the technological areas where one scores highly and the other less well.
Despite an impressive CV, the author is just a journalist with no academic or practical technical background.
And it shows in how the report is written and how superficial it remains. There is nothing new that other journalists have not written recently.
There are however so many points which the author overlooked in that document that this thread promises to be fun (?) to read…
This document is only worth to those who know nothing about the subject, but only worth as an introduction. Not more. Definitively not a source of learning or a reference!
There is very little of value in this article. It basically says “neither os is better then the other…why can’t we all just get along?” It totally skips over the technical difficulty aspects of deploying either OS. Basically assume that linux deployments are costless becasue the OS is free. Huge points from my stand point.
Maybe you guys forgot to click on the link to the pdf file?
Mostly it seems that author was trying to justify that Linux is there, its as good as windows. Wireless was one example so as other devices support.
Linux clearly has a big advantage over windows because its more developer oriented. e.g Visual Source Safe sucks. On the other hand, i still feel that Linux is no where near windows as a desktop. The smooth operation of windows, much better graphics and 1000s of utilities makes windows the best choice for desktop.
For me its the best, because i can keep Windows on my desktop and linux on my server and from windows X into Linux whenever i need.
I read the full PDF 😉 ….. unfortunately 🙁
So what changed compared to previous issue?
Linux isn’t more secure then windows out of the box.But it can be made more secure that’s the difference.
blahblah … “you could use wine” blahblah “Because you’re running an emulator, performance will also be slower”…
Ok, I stop reading at that point, clearly the author has no background to even try to write such an article. He refers to http://www.winehq.com, perhaps he also could pay a visit, more specifically, read Myth #1 regarding wine:
http://www.winehq.com/site/myths#slow
Or more simply, try to find out what the name “wine” means…
not that I’m advocating using wine will solve all your problems, but it certainly isn’t an emulator…
Linux isn’t more secure then windows out of the box.But it can be made more secure that’s the difference.
Linux can be nearly 100% secure out of the box, by using Gentoo, you start with _no_ networking at all, absolutely no listening ports, and you are building your system by downloading the latest software from a clean slate.
(The challenge is to build it secure all the way from here…) 😉
Compare that to installing a Windows XP, is there anyone that want to do that with a network cable attached? In a couple of minutes after enabling network, because you have to download upgrades, your fresh installation is quite rotten due to certain windows viruses…
Despite an impressive CV, the author is just a journalist with no academic or practical technical background.
What if it’d be vice versa? If a journalist is transparant on his/her sources that raises his/her credibility. Nevermind wether he/she does not have ‘academic or practical technical background’.
By Omega (IP: 82.152.72.—) – Posted on 2004-11-01 16:31:32
You read a 31 page PDF, thought about it and wrote about it here in just 20 minutes? I’m proud of you.
“There are several Windows emulators/replacements that will run under Linux (perhaps the most popular being Wine –
http://www.winehq.com/) often without the need for a copy of Windows to run the actual code (otherwise
it’d be a bit pointless).”
As my company need a well functioning Windows environment, we use Win4Lin as it tend to be significantly more stable, utilizes the security of Linux and save time. Not some of the most obvious points, but they are still there – I guess you just need to experience them to appreciate them.
You read a 31 page PDF, thought about it and wrote about it here in just 20 minutes? I’m proud of you.
I didn’t even bother to read it all.The fact that the author stated that security isn’t a factor too when implementing an OS is a disgrace.
I’m not a complete expert on Windows XP vulns, but I believe installing XP/SP1 (as new copies of XP are these days) behind a hardware firewall and immediately updating to SP2+latest patches without doing *anything* else should be safe. Anyone know if I’m wrong?
I’m not a complete expert on Windows XP vulns, but I believe installing XP/SP1 (as new copies of XP are these days) behind a hardware firewall and immediately updating to SP2+latest patches without doing *anything* else should be safe. Anyone know if I’m wrong?
No… don’t you read OS News? there’s an article they posted just recently about new versions of bagle being able to disable it’s firewall (and presumably attack on other vulnerabilities — I’ve not actually read it yet, but that’s not what I call safe.)
Because the two operating system’s come in such a wide variety of layouts.
I follow this kind of banter religously, ( I have to , I’m a zealot!!) , and I must say that it can get boring sometimes. I’m starting to think that every os has it’s own strong point, and any of them can be made to be uber secure , if you are wise in thier ways( yes , even windows!). As has been reported, they can all be hacked, mostly through simple tricks to the average operator!! To me it’s like this, what is it that you plan to do with it?
I recently helped out a lady friend of mine, who owns her own buisness, and owns 3 windows xp boxes, and 2 laptops. They are all slow, the result of spyware, malware, and several virus’s. I pleaded with her to at least look at a mac, or linux box, and maybe they would go unmolested online a little while longer. Her reply? Not a chance ” I don’t want to learn a new system” End of discussion. So for her, there is nothing to discuss, doesn’t matter at all. She’ll pay whatever it cost’s , for however long it takes, no matter what i charge(within reason, of course) to keep working. No problem, just don’t complain about it.
And that’s the windows advantage, familiarity. I’ve met alot of people in very abusive relationships, who continue to “take it”, because they are more afraid of the “unknown” than the known.
What do you do?
I guess, under linux this is largely non-issue. Am i wrong??
I think you need to read the front page again 🙂
There are ready three viruses than can disable the firewall if you give them a chance.
There are too many flaws in that article for it to be taken seriously. Eg. stating that Windows is as secure as Linux is nonsense. Some time ago I watched my friend install XP three times in one single day just because he didn’t download security patches fast enough. And he did re-install the system couple of times after the security patches too, but that was on another day.
And yes. Linux desktop indeed copies Windows. Did this guy ever try something else than KDE or Gnome? I think it’s a waste of time to write over 30 pages of total crap. Or is this one of those jokes I don’t get?
I’ve met alot of people in very abusive relationships, who continue to “take it”, because they are more afraid of the “unknown” than the known.
It’s their good right.I once installed an OS and the guy
insited on not having a password.What do you do?
What do you do?
Let them have it the way they want or find a other job.
Anonymous (IP: —.dd.nextgentel.com)
Compare that to installing a Windows XP, is there anyone that want to do that with a network cable attached? In a couple of minutes after enabling network, because you have to download upgrades, your fresh installation is quite rotten due to certain windows viruses…
AdamW
I’m not a complete expert on Windows XP vulns, but I believe installing XP/SP1 (as new copies of XP are these days) behind a hardware firewall and immediately updating to SP2+latest patches without doing *anything* else should be safe. Anyone know if I’m wrong?
Well, you can always slipstream SP2 (really a braindead operation, check Autostreamer), which turns the firewall on by default. Either that, or use a hardware router which can be had for about $30.
Security is important when considering an OS implementation, but it’s not the most important thing, so long as an OS can be made secure. And Windows can most certainly be made secure with very little effort. (Of course, the pundits out there who are only interested in spreading their religion don’t want you to know that).
Gent
No… don’t you read OS News? there’s an article they posted just recently about new versions of bagle being able to disable it’s firewall (and presumably attack on other vulnerabilities — I’ve not actually read it yet, but that’s not what I call safe.)
Just to be fair and balanced, why don’t you explain to the audience how Bagle gets on the system with no user interaction?
In a couple of minutes after enabling network, because you have to download upgrades, your fresh installation is quite rotten due to certain windows
I’ve heard that argument before, but it has never happened to me.
>>> David Cartwright currently earns a crust as a Norfolk-based technology consultant, …, since 2001. <<<
*** Despite an impressive CV, the author is just a journalist with no academic or practical technical background. ***
Contrary to popular belief, one does not need to be a CIS or CS major to be a computer professional, especially, in the respective environments they work in. I would prefer an individual that has a degree – and – knows how to adapt to the given technology to a situation to accomplish the task at hand. Be it the redmond platform or Linux.
>> Under Windows you can download all the patches you wish and roll them out using computer-based “policies” via the Windows domain service. <<
Ever watch an amateur do this? Heh. The best solution is to avoid the constant patching cycle to begin with. As a minimum it should only involve the servers and not the client units. But, then again, who am I to be cynical and debate the collective wisdom of a corporation.
>> Linux and Windows are both, from a usability and management point of view, suited to desktop operations. … For a basic office desktop, Linux will save you money; if you can’t get the applications you want, though, don’t bother with Windows emulation, just buy Windows.<<
Hmm. Nice to read this. I personally agree with this opinion too. There are some individuals and businesses, e.g. Ernie Ball of “Rockin’ on without Microsoft” fame, who will never use the redmond platform again. Then again there are users who may never touch Linux for whatever reason. Maybe this was a lesson learned by all parties involved.
>> Windows file sharing is native to Windows and in high-end applications will always beat Linux for performance. <<
On what did he compare this? What study and who funded it? I have noticed that Linux with SAMBA running faster than my Server 2003 machines with 2003 showing at least a noticable speed improvement over NT4.
>> Exchange has become the clear leader for non-Linux servers. <<
The new redmond mail server ‘requires’ active directory services. To have active directory services one must have all servers running it within your domain(s). Any sysadmin thinking about purchasing the mail server should consider this and think how this will effect other servers in the network structure. Also, at least in an educational environment, the horizontal communication that will be needed with department heads.
>> Exchange is an overgrown behemoth that’s a pain to resurrect if its data gets corrupted (though admittedly, Exchange 2000 and 2003 are much better in this respect than Exchnage 5.5). <<
I have seen this happen to another sysadmin as the migration process was nearing total completion. The problem was the actually in the addressing. from a *.nm.us to a *.edu. The mail platform took it upon itself, in ultra simple terms, to start deleting. Thank goodness for great disaster recovery backups.
>> There are also plenty of free databases on Linux (MySQL, PostgreSQL), though one shouldn’t forget MSDE on Windows (a cut-down version of SQL Server that ships with MS Office Professional and is free to use) as the budget option. <<
Unless, you count the money involved purchasing proprietary licensing costs on servers and clients for small organizations. Even with a 75 percent reduction for non-profits and other like organizations the costs can be prohibitive.
>> …(the de facto standard is Amanda http://www.amanda.org which is an excellent package and costs nothing)…<<
Tar with cron works well without fault.
>> There’s a excellent chance of all but the weirdest network adaptors running with Linux. If you have a WinModem, it won’t work with Linux but it’ll only cost you £30 for a proper one that will. <<
I have one server that came with a single dual-homed NIC. Needless-to-say, the new redmond platform barfed up issues and would not clear itself when trying to purge data. So, it does happen that Linux is not the only platform that has issues with cards.
>> … (Note that if you’re using the versions of Windows for IA-64 processors, the Enterprise Edition can take up to 64GB RAM and the Datacenter Edition up to 512GB) …. <<
Wow. Can you imagine a small educational institution in rural communities across the U.S. with that kind of hardware? Maybe in ultra-large school districts but out in the boonies?
>> Windows is ahead of Linux on IPv6 support, but quite frankly, who really cares? <<
Hey. I like using : instead of .
>> However, this relies on a reasonably fast link existing between the two endpoints as it’s a GUI-based system thus a lot of traffic flows to and fro with screen refresh data. <<
Yes. It is slow. This is especially true if there is a demand on the server or upon the network. I remember back in the early Mac days they had this problem as well. Visual refresh was a pain.
>> Hardware support isn’t a reason for choosing an operating system. <<
Not unless an organization purchased equipment from now-defunct companies ot fly-by-night operations. Zenith Data Systems and Tandy come to mind. I have sent many a ZDS to auction.
>> When you’re considering migrating from one platform to the other, there are a number of extra issues to consider on top of the decisions you’d make if installing from scratch. In short, the question to ask yourself is: “Does the benefit I’ll gain offset the hassle of making the change?” <<
Amen. This is true even when migrating from NT4 to 2003. Backup your data when migrating from one version of redmond to another.
>> These approaches appeal to different people: the wizard-based approach is great for newcomers but becomes tedious when you’re used to the system; the functional approach is more cryptic for a start but makes life quicker when you’ve got the hang of things. <<
I like the functional. Maybe its because I like BSD as well and CLI. Who knows.
All-in-all the article was as good as many I see posted. Hope to see more out there.
You simply charge her $100/hour and keep on charging her. Or refuse to support her – it’s like a drug addict – if you keep giving it to them (support) they’ll keep doing it. Refuse support. Local IT guys refuse supporting her, soon enough she’ll either fix it herself, or she’ll come back and say I need to change…
I have no pity for people like her – they deserve what they get and I won’t lift a finger to help them. Period.
Dave
Some time ago I watched my friend install XP three times in one single day just because he didn’t download security patches fast enough.
He was too slow to enable Windows firewall before connecting computer to the Internet?
I initially thought that SP2 is just waste of time because people either know what to do before connecting computer to the Net, or have friends helping them who know what to do.
Why, in the name of humanity, I do not have to reinstall Windows three times? Why can’t my boring life of supporting Windows for my friends and family be made more exciting by the urgent need to defrag NTFS drive every weekend, by reinstalling Windows XP every month?
What did I deserve to have stable virus-free worm-free spyware-free Windows on all computers in my household?
Why the heck it just runs without need to “wipe it out and strart clean” every season of the year?
I may be doing something wrong. Everyone else, if you trust OSNews forums, has their hands busy with just trying to make Windows boot at the morning, not talking about making it survive trough the day without having BSOD, twenty viruses, one hundred worms and one gigabyte of spyware.
Why am I the only unlucky one?
Just to be fair and balanced, why don’t you explain to the audience how Bagle gets on the system with no user interaction?
Apparently you didn’t read what I said… I don’t know how or even if it does, because as I mentioned I didn’t read the article. But to presume Windows XP is safe so long as SP2 is on seems like a rather naive thing to do when already on the front page of OS News we have an article talking about something that disables that firewall.
Apparently you didn’t read what I said… I don’t know how or even if it does, because as I mentioned I didn’t read the article. But to presume Windows XP is safe so long as SP2 is on seems like a rather naive thing to do when already on the front page of OS News we have an article talking about something that disables that firewall.
The guy you responded to was responding to this:
Compare that to installing a Windows XP, is there anyone that want to do that with a network cable attached? In a couple of minutes after enabling network, because you have to download upgrades, your fresh installation is quite rotten due to certain windows viruses…
He wasn’t asking whether SP2 would keep you safe forever, he was simply asking if SP2 would prevent worms from infecting the machine without any user interraction until the user could install the updates+patches. You replied stating that Bagle could disable the Windows firewall, so that is why I asked you to explain to us how Bagle could infect a system (being that Bagle is an email worm) in the context of hitting an unprotected Windows box at random.
Eg. stating that Windows is as secure as Linux is nonsense.
It is (assuming reasonably similar configurations, that is).
Some time ago I watched my friend install XP three times in one single day just because he didn’t download security patches fast enough. And he did re-install the system couple of times after the security patches too, but that was on another day.
More fool him. Simply turning on the built-in firewall before connecting it to a network would have avoided those problems.
What do you do?
Have you considered telling her about basic safe computing practices – running as a regular user, turning on automatic updates, using a firewall, running a virus scanner, not randomly running email attachments, etc ?
I realise it’d be bad for business, but it would certainly stop 95% of the nasties cold.
“Simply turning on the built-in firewall before connecting it to a network would have avoided those problems.”
Didn’t help much. And he had a hardware firewall as well. I don’t really know what was wrong, but it was real fun to watch.
Didn’t help much. And he had a hardware firewall as well. I don’t really know what was wrong, but it was real fun to watch.
Then there was something else going on you either didn’t know about or aren’t telling us. Viruses, worms and trojans don’t just appear on computers out of the ether.