Political Crossfire Forums

[George W Bush]

What makes Linux SO superior to Windows?
Certainly, there have been security issues with Windows OS.
But, can Linux stand the test of popularity versus security?
In other words, it can be reasoned that Windows has issues because its use is common and, no matter what you do, there will be ways to exploit security.

So, when you say 'windows s*cks, use Linux' - the least you can do is show the relatively less feature set and lack of support inherent with a less popular OS.

[Kt]

Linux is free

[TheCreepyApostate]

George W Bush wrote: What makes Linux SO superior to Windows?
Certainly, there have been security issues with Windows OS.
But, can Linux stand the test of popularity versus security?
In other words, it can be reasoned that Windows has issues because its use is common and, no matter what you do, there will be ways to exploit security.

So, when you say 'windows s*cks, use Linux' - the least you can do is show the relatively less feature set and lack of support inherent with a less popular OS.

It has nothing to do with how popular it is. Linux is an entirely different structure from the ground up. It is built more secure. It is designed from Unix which is what Macs use, only Linux is free.

It's fully customizable, more secure, 1,000 times more stable, and it's YOURS to do whatever you want with it. There is no activation, you can put it on a million PC's if you want, free office, and you can redesign and recompile any aspect of it.

[Silkheat]

FCTE wrote: George W Bush wrote: What makes Linux SO superior to Windows?
Certainly, there have been security issues with Windows OS.
But, can Linux stand the test of popularity versus security?
In other words, it can be reasoned that Windows has issues because its use is common and, no matter what you do, there will be ways to exploit security.

So, when you say 'windows s*cks, use Linux' - the least you can do is show the relatively less feature set and lack of support inherent with a less popular OS.

It has nothing to do with how popular it is. Linux is an entirely different structure from the ground up. It is built more secure. It is designed from Unix which is what Macs use, only Linux is free.

It's fully customizable, more secure, 1,000 times more stable, and it's YOURS to do whatever you want with it. There is no activation, you can put it on a million PC's if you want, free office, and you can redesign and recompile any aspect of it.


Yeah, but you can't use a lot of software with it right?

[George W Bush]

Silkheat wrote: FCTE wrote: George W Bush wrote: What makes Linux SO superior to Windows?
Certainly, there have been security issues with Windows OS.
But, can Linux stand the test of popularity versus security?
In other words, it can be reasoned that Windows has issues because its use is common and, no matter what you do, there will be ways to exploit security.

So, when you say 'windows s*cks, use Linux' - the least you can do is show the relatively less feature set and lack of support inherent with a less popular OS.

It has nothing to do with how popular it is. Linux is an entirely different structure from the ground up. It is built more secure. It is designed from Unix which is what Macs use, only Linux is free.

It's fully customizable, more secure, 1,000 times more stable, and it's YOURS to do whatever you want with it. There is no activation, you can put it on a million PC's if you want, free office, and you can redesign and recompile any aspect of it.


Yeah, but you can't use a lot of software with it right?

yep. thats the disadvantage in a nutshell.
You trade convenience for, what seems to be, security.

[George W Bush]

FCTE wrote: George W Bush wrote: What makes Linux SO superior to Windows?
Certainly, there have been security issues with Windows OS.
But, can Linux stand the test of popularity versus security?
In other words, it can be reasoned that Windows has issues because its use is common and, no matter what you do, there will be ways to exploit security.

So, when you say 'windows s*cks, use Linux' - the least you can do is show the relatively less feature set and lack of support inherent with a less popular OS.

It has nothing to do with how popular it is. Linux is an entirely different structure from the ground up. It is built more secure. It is designed from Unix which is what Macs use, only Linux is free.

It's fully customizable, more secure, 1,000 times more stable, and it's YOURS to do whatever you want with it. There is no activation, you can put it on a million PC's if you want, free office, and you can redesign and recompile any aspect of it.

the theory is, had Linux been the 'numero uno' OS (as WINDOWS is, at least, with home users)- it, too, would suffer the same level of exploitative desires of bored script kiddies.
However, if its structure is resilient to hacks, then how does it measure to the flexibility/scalability of the Windows OS? What, besides price (or lack thereof) makes it better than Windows? How would you market it?

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Where's enders....

[TheCreepyApostate]

George W Bush wrote: the theory is, had Linux been the 'numero uno' OS (as WINDOWS is, at least, with home users)- it, too, would suffer the same level of exploitative desires of bored script kiddies.
However, if its structure is resilient to hacks, then how does it measure to the flexibility/scalability of the Windows OS? What, besides price (or lack thereof) makes it better than Windows? How would you market it?

Incorrect.

The code itself is more stable and it's structure is more secure. Even if Linux was as popular as Windows it is still 1,000 more secure. There is a reason Unix servers dominate the market, not Windows. Supercomputers run on Unix not Windows and have since the 40's or earlier.

Linux is tried and true. Linux is not trying to be number one because it's developers and users don't give a crap about the common masses. If people have an IQ above a carrot when it comes to computers they use Linux. If people need idiot bubbles, full automation, and an OS to tell you "job well done" after you do any typical task than Windows is the way to go.

Macs are also based on Unix and just as secure. Playstation 2 and 3 are also Unix based. They will not crash like Xbox and Xbox 360.

[endersshadow]

Silkheat wrote: Yeah, but you can't use a lot of software with it right?

For most tasks, there are Linux equivalents that are often better than the Windows programs or at least come pretty close. I've been running Windows free for quite a while now, and haven't had any problems about not having software.

http://www.sourceforge.net - the home of open source projects.

This is a myth that there's not a lot of software out there for it. If you're brave enough, try making a dual boot system (it really isn't too difficult, from what I've heard...haven't tried it myself) and see what you can do with Linux. You'll probably be plenty surprised at the amount of things that are available for Linux. Besides, you always have people like me--people that can't find exactly what they're looking for so make their own :-D

George W Bush wrote: the theory is, had Linux been the 'numero uno' OS (as WINDOWS is, at least, with home users)- it, too, would suffer the same level of exploitative desires of bored script kiddies.
However, if its structure is resilient to hacks, then how does it measure to the flexibility/scalability of the Windows OS? What, besides price (or lack thereof) makes it better than Windows? How would you market it?

It may suffer those desires, but the security on Linux systems is better because of its modular architecture. In this way, different parts of the OS operate separate from each other, which blocks malicious behavior by protecting against systemwide takeovers and the like. In fact, with Vista, Microsoft has modularized the kernel and is taking more security measures with regards to permissions, and is even starting to head over to a POSIX permissions system.

Moreover, the extent to which the Explorer rendering engine is used in Windows poses a serious risk, for obvious reasons. Believe it or not, most of the internet runs on POSIX based systems, specifically Linux. Trust me, as a sysadmin, it's much easier to protect a Linux box than a Windows box. I've had to do both.

Plus, Linux viruses would not be able to spread very far, due to the way Linux handles permissions and security clearances within the system. I've tried to leave this in layman's terms, but if you would like me to delve in further, or explain to a greater degree, I can.

As per how I'd market Linux, free as in freedom is one of the main sticking points of the GPL, but also that it is free as in cost. Linux is much easier to install than Windows (well, okay, not Slackware or Gentoo...but those are the exceptions...and don't try Gentoo unless you have a week free). Quite simply, I like Linux more because it's a transparent OS in which you are completely in control, and can automate what you want to automate and can control what you want to control rather easily. Moreover, I like it because it's modular--if a program crashes, it never takes down the whole system, just that program. I like it because it's customizable...you can make it look any way you want, as there are many desktop environments, themes, and the like for Linux. Remember, Linux is just the underlying kernel. Plus, it's more secure...but you can secure a Windows box if you know what you're doing...sadly, most people don't.

What truly hurts Windows is not the amount of vulnerabilities--those things happen--it's the severity of those vulnerabilities. In Linux, you may be able to buffer overflow a program w/ a vulnerability and get into that program, but in Windows, getting into that program can potentially lead to systemwide control, as we saw rather infamously with the WMF debacle.

However, it must be understood that Linux is not for everyone, just as Windows is not for everyone, just as Macs are not for everyone. Make the best decision for you. Ultimately, what makes Linux great is that people who use it want to use it, and give back to the Linux community. The thing about Linux is that nobody who uses Linux particularly cares how popular it is, just that they use it, that it works for them, and that they're happy. And if they aren't, they fix it :wink:

[TheCreepyApostate]

Silkheat wrote: Yeah, but you can't use a lot of software with it right?

There are equivalents for almost everything in Windows and they are free and usually much better.

[Protostar]

Well enders and FCTE have said what I was going to say and much more. I would like to add that you can leave apps running overnight in Linux and when you resume computing they will run just as quick as they did before. In Windows if you do this, everything becomes incredibly slow.

[endersshadow]

Protostar wrote: Well enders and FCTE have said what I was going to say and much more. I would like to add that you can leave apps running overnight in Linux and when you resume computing they will run just as quick as they did before. In Windows if you do this, everything becomes incredibly slow.

Good point. This is a direct result of the modularity that I was talking about. :-D

[johnz]

I'm not convinced windows is better than linux, the only part where windows is better is in the gaming area and that accounts for about 2% of what an OS can be used for.

Linux is built within many layers and each layer is the equivilant of a brick wall thus none of the sh1te that windows goes thru.

and endersshadow has said it all.

[DavidXV]

My Documents
My Pictures
My Music
My Computer
My Iso Files
My Control Panel

:roll:


Am I the only one that thinks windows seems like it was made by someone who has the mind of a five year old child?

My Virus, My Worms, My Ugly Icons, My Desktop Crashing! :P

[TheCreepyApostate]

I hate the recycle bin. It's not a f#cking recycle bin, it's a trash can.

If you need one reason to love Linux.

>>>>> Streamtuner <<<<<<

That's all I have to say.

[George W Bush]

Speaking of modularity, MS windows modularity must be fictionally exposed through API's?
I wonder, then, how Linux orchestrates the various device drivers.
Or, ithere is no central orchestration (a kernal) making Linux device drivers independent?
Again, I always thought windows modularizes their OS through exposure of the various functions through API's (or, what is now know as the NET framework).
WHat does Linux 'expose'?

[George W Bush]

endersshadow wrote: Silkheat wrote: Yeah, but you can't use a lot of software with it right?

For most tasks, there are Linux equivalents that are often better than the Windows programs or at least come pretty close. I've been running Windows free for quite a while now, and haven't had any problems about not having software.

http://www.sourceforge.net - the home of open source projects.

This is a myth that there's not a lot of software out there for it. If you're brave enough, try making a dual boot system (it really isn't too difficult, from what I've heard...haven't tried it myself) and see what you can do with Linux. You'll probably be plenty surprised at the amount of things that are available for Linux. Besides, you always have people like me--people that can't find exactly what they're looking for so make their own :-D

George W Bush wrote: the theory is, had Linux been the 'numero uno' OS (as WINDOWS is, at least, with home users)- it, too, would suffer the same level of exploitative desires of bored script kiddies.
However, if its structure is resilient to hacks, then how does it measure to the flexibility/scalability of the Windows OS? What, besides price (or lack thereof) makes it better than Windows? How would you market it?

It may suffer those desires, but the security on Linux systems is better because of its modular architecture. In this way, different parts of the OS operate separate from each other, which blocks malicious behavior by protecting against systemwide takeovers and the like. In fact, with Vista, Microsoft has modularized the kernel and is taking more security measures with regards to permissions, and is even starting to head over to a POSIX permissions system.

Moreover, the extent to which the Explorer rendering engine is used in Windows poses a serious risk, for obvious reasons. Believe it or not, most of the internet runs on POSIX based systems, specifically Linux. Trust me, as a sysadmin, it's much easier to protect a Linux box than a Windows box. I've had to do both.

Plus, Linux viruses would not be able to spread very far, due to the way Linux handles permissions and security clearances within the system. I've tried to leave this in layman's terms, but if you would like me to delve in further, or explain to a greater degree, I can.

As per how I'd market Linux, free as in freedom is one of the main sticking points of the GPL, but also that it is free as in cost. Linux is much easier to install than Windows (well, okay, not Slackware or Gentoo...but those are the exceptions...and don't try Gentoo unless you have a week free). Quite simply, I like Linux more because it's a transparent OS in which you are completely in control, and can automate what you want to automate and can control what you want to control rather easily. Moreover, I like it because it's modular--if a program crashes, it never takes down the whole system, just that program. I like it because it's customizable...you can make it look any way you want, as there are many desktop environments, themes, and the like for Linux. Remember, Linux is just the underlying kernel. Plus, it's more secure...but you can secure a Windows box if you know what you're doing...sadly, most people don't.

What truly hurts Windows is not the amount of vulnerabilities--those things happen--it's the severity of those vulnerabilities. In Linux, you may be able to buffer overflow a program w/ a vulnerability and get into that program, but in Windows, getting into that program can potentially lead to systemwide control, as we saw rather infamously with the WMF debacle.

However, it must be understood that Linux is not for everyone, just as Windows is not for everyone, just as Macs are not for everyone. Make the best decision for you. Ultimately, what makes Linux great is that people who use it want to use it, and give back to the Linux community. The thing about Linux is that nobody who uses Linux particularly cares how popular it is, just that they use it, that it works for them, and that they're happy. And if they aren't, they fix it :wink:

modularation of the kernal. that may be where understanding between OS is not resolved. thanks. you be knowledgeable.

[Protostar]

FCTE wrote: I hate the recycle bin. It's not a f#cking recycle bin, it's a trash can.

If you need one reason to love Linux.

>>>>> Streamtuner <<<<<<

That's all I have to say.

Agreed. I love that little app. There is no equivalent for Windows OR OS X.

[David]

TIVO also runs on Linux

[leftneckredwing]

George W Bush wrote: Silkheat wrote: FCTE wrote: George W Bush wrote: What makes Linux SO superior to Windows?
Certainly, there have been security issues with Windows OS.
But, can Linux stand the test of popularity versus security?
In other words, it can be reasoned that Windows has issues because its use is common and, no matter what you do, there will be ways to exploit security.

So, when you say 'windows s*cks, use Linux' - the least you can do is show the relatively less feature set and lack of support inherent with a less popular OS.

It has nothing to do with how popular it is. Linux is an entirely different structure from the ground up. It is built more secure. It is designed from Unix which is what Macs use, only Linux is free.

It's fully customizable, more secure, 1,000 times more stable, and it's YOURS to do whatever you want with it. There is no activation, you can put it on a million PC's if you want, free office, and you can redesign and recompile any aspect of it.


Yeah, but you can't use a lot of software with it right?

yep. thats the disadvantage in a nutshell.
You trade convenience for, what seems to be, security.

It depends what you consider as convenience. If it's convenient to have to constatnly be on guard against some cyber punk that has nothing better in life to do than mess up other people's lives and computers, then I guess Linux is less convenient.

But I have found it to be limited only in how much time I'm willing to put in.

It does not have all the software that windoze has but I don't do anything very fancy. I can't stand games. So Linux works great for me and didn't cost anything. Windows is expensive, prohibitively expensive for a lot of people. And it's a pain in the ass.

I only need it to prepare estimates and invoices. Linux fills that need completely and I have no worries about viruses or being hacked.