Unix, Windows does it really matter?(security)

[Netwatcher]

My problem is that today, more and more Operation Systems start appearing (OS/X, Windows Vista, Windows 7, BDSM, Linux flavors...) as more and more of these come out, more people switch to them, and why is that? security!
I even know kids from my school saying they switch to a Unix-based system, they say it's more secure, but the fact of the matter is, more people use Windows!
Why Windows has all these harmful-software made just for it? because more people use it!
And if more people were to use Unixes, people will see the potential in infecting these millions of computers and make harmwares for them too.

And as more and more people switch from Microsoft OSs(although i know a large number of kids from my school did return to windows after a while with a Unix) you will see that happening!

[Chris017]

Yes that is how it happens. Im a huge linux fan my self, I droped Microsoft Windows a long time ago though, if find my self wanting to use windows i either use wine or get on a windows computer but there is are few times i need to.

People like to ruin the fun for others by creating these viruses but windows has alot of security problems within it and easy to break. And with the need of a anti virus or a firewall to protect you, you just end up slowing down the system it self.

I dont see why there is such a love with windows anyways from my perspective in programming that linux can operate and execute programs at a much faster rate then Windows. Windows cant even handle memory at the rate linux can.

Like my encryption algorithm ive been working on, I did a test on speeds on encrypting a 19 page file and linux finished at a faster time then windows, and there was a big differents in results.

[Netwatcher]

Yes that is how it happens. Im a huge linux fan my self, I droped Microsoft Windows a long time ago though, if find my self wanting to use windows i either use wine or get on a windows computer but there is are few times i need to.

People like to ruin the fun for others by creating these viruses but windows has alot of security problems within it and easy to break. And with the need of a anti virus or a firewall to protect you, you just end up slowing down the system it self.

I dont see why there is such a love with windows anyways from my perspective in programming that linux can operate and execute programs at a much faster rate then Windows. Windows cant even handle memory at the rate linux can.

Like my encryption algorithm ive been working on, I did a test on speeds on encrypting a 19 page file and linux finished at a faster time then windows, and there was a big differents in results.

I can't live without Visual Studio, seriously.

[programmerinprogress]

I can't live without Visual Studio, seriously.

and I can't live without Code::Blocks, so i'm GOLDEN!

Although i use windows (however I will be trying out a form of linux when I get a blank system to add it too), I would still say, keep your options open, if the OS is free and open-source, install it on a low-end machine, you might as well, means you could compile a project to that OS pretty easily, you could wait till later on to decide which one you want to use as your primary OS.

As for security, more people are going to write bad crap for a more popular OS, but also take into account that open-source software is being constantly changed and updated, by a large volume of programmers which are likely to surpass, microsoft for example in quantity exponentially, however, you do have to take into account all of these changes conflicting and undermining eachother, which could lead to futher risk.

In conclusion, you just have to weigh the pros and cons up, I wouldn't worry about it too much, theres always going to be some bastard writing for some OS that wants to destroy the contents of your computer, why not make it a computer you enjoy using

[Trask]

The way I see it, yes Windows has so many headaches with security that Unix simply doesn't have, but I really don't care.

Now, I've been an IT Technician for 5 years and god knows I've had my battles in and out of work with some piece of security issue be it malware or some hack attempt, but there is so much free/low resource using software to prevent or correct these issues that it's a small price to pay for such a popular platform that has so much software available to it. Compatibility issues aren't nearly as frequent since XP, there's a lot of support for Windows from indie developers, and 3rd party support is so large that the average user doesn't have to really think about how things work and they still can get them to work and that is very important to the average person.

Unix and its variations have many plus sides, I'm not bashing it at all, but for the average user its not that friendly. Sure to get it up and running might be a lot simpler than it has been, but if something isn't working as it should? Well there's no number to call, there's not as many different apps to swap with it, you can more easily get stuck with a few options than in Windows.

So yes, Windows has its issues, but there's a ton of software that can help correct the issues... BSOD? No problem, why? Because it gives you enough reference that an experienced tech should be able to correct the issue or at least know how boned one is. My first tech job, 75 MACS G3-G3's Mac OS 10.2(I think)... the most ambiguous error messages around. I either got a hard drive icon with a question mark or a translucent screen saying that there has been a serious error in 6 different languages without telling me what happened. It forces you to reinstall everything or call Apple, fuck that.

Unix, I'm not so strong with, but I've worked on a MythTV box and I've seen the options people suggested to fix certain issues which is fantastic that they're there... but the beginner to average Unix user is not going to bust open every config file or driver configs and know how to fix an issue or spend hours flipping through documentation, so how can one expect to make Unix a big competitor to Windows? It's not like you can call a Unix tech who will know how or be willing to do this kind of stuff on an hourly basis... though I'm sure one could make a lot of money if they were adept enough... but that wouldn't be practical until products and their OSes were more streamlined.

[Netwatcher]

I can't live without Visual Studio, seriously.

and I can't live without Code::Blocks, so i'm GOLDEN!

Although i use windows (however I will be trying out a form of linux when I get a blank system to add it too), I would still say, keep your options open, if the OS is free and open-source, install it on a low-end machine, you might as well, means you could compile a project to that OS pretty easily, you could wait till later on to decide which one you want to use as your primary OS.

As for security, more people are going to write bad crap for a more popular OS, but also take into account that open-source software is being constantly changed and updated, by a large volume of programmers which are likely to surpass, microsoft for example in quantity exponentially, however, you do have to take into account all of these changes conflicting and undermining eachother, which could lead to futher risk.

In conclusion, you just have to weigh the pros and cons up, I wouldn't worry about it too much, theres always going to be some bastard writing for some OS that wants to destroy the contents of your computer, why not make it a computer you enjoy using

Consider the fact that Open Source software is maintained and supported by hobbiests(unless the company itself is supporting it, which I doubt) and you can't really argue that guys that professional get paid put more effort into their work.(Microsoft is actually paying crackers to find exploits in their programs)

[programmerinprogress]

I wasn't talking about effort, I was talking about skill, experience, and structure.

A million hobbyist programmers of varying skill levels, with different goals, and no planned out structure MAY NOT be able to co-operate with eachother like an experienced, organised team of programmers with a common goal and a salary to boot, scale is nothing unless the people doing the job know what they're doing (and have the motivation to do so)

It's the old story of "could 1 million monkeys typing eventually come up with a masterpiece?"

Don't get me wrong, i'm fully in support of open-source software, I'm just looking at the situation from a critical perspective.

[avansc]

anyone who says windows is less secure than linux should consider that statement very carefully.

i will agree that a win box improperly set up is a train wreak waiting to happen. but you cant just go on a unix box and go install all there services and servers and expect nothing bad to happen purely because its not windows.
when a bug gets found in windows you get a hotfix the same day or after 99 percent of the time. in unix/linux distros im not so sure about it.

a windows box with update anti virus and some form of firewall (baring its setup correctly, sometimes firewalls can just be open doorways) is as secure as any other machine.

the reason i think people have the conception that unix/linux is more secure than windows is not because of the actual os, but because of the people using it.

avarage windows user: does not know anything about security or programming or anything other than watching porn. writing granma a letter in word. and so on.
avarage linux user: security semi savvy. looks for open ports. knows the system architecture. etc etc...


its like if i put Michael shummi in a toyota camery, and my granny in a honda accord. by looking at lap times and so on you would be inclined to say that the toyota is far better.... when infact they are very much alike.

PICNIC

Problem In Chain Not In Computer

[Netwatcher]

You can never know, because Linux doesn't get same viruses windows do...
So fact of the matter is... there is no base to compare Linux and Windows security under the same circumstances

[Innerscope]

Why Windows has all these harmful-software made just for it? because more people use it!

That's not entirely true. Exploits are found in OS' used by fewer than .001% of tech users. Most hackers (i've heard about) work in a meritocracy: If they can, they will do it for merit. Contrary to what most people believe, a majority of hacker attacks are not malicious.
As for Windows, (prior to 7 and Vista as far as my knowledge goes, although Vista had that cursor icon exploit that's the only exploit I remember off the top) it's the structure that's not as secure. The way it handles saving information to the disk, those file allocation tables are a disaster waiting to happen. The way "System" is all powerful and cannot be controlled by admins(I can crack a windows box on my network and become system in less than a half hour and I'm no 1337 haxor , thanks http://milw0rm.org/! ). Even the way files are executed (Windows will try to open anything, that fact does have it's pros and cons). Granted if you are careful and know how to setup a properly configured network you'll be okay.
UNIX is not completely safe either, but it has a lot of advantages do to its structure/file system. It's a lot more difficult for a virus to propagate through a network of UNIX computers. As for Mac OSX, out of the box they aren't bullet proof. Some ssh configuration and using a non-admin account do make them pretty damn secure though.

My first tech job, 75 MACS G3-G3's Mac OS 10.2(I think)... the most ambiguous error messages around.

if those were Mac G3's you probably were on OS 9 (pre-UNIX based) or OSX 10.1 (just starting out, not really meant for the PPC processor). Those were the dark ages for Apple.

[Netwatcher]

Why Windows has all these harmful-software made just for it? because more people use it!

That's not entirely true. Exploits are found in OS' that less than .001% of the population use. Most hackers (i've heard about) work in a meritocracy: If they can, they will do it for merit. Contrary to what most people believe, a majority of hacker attacks are not malicious.
As for Windows, (prior to 7 and Vista as far as my knowledge goes, although Vista had that cursor icon exploit that's the only exploit I remember off the top) it's the structure that's not as secure. The way it handles saving information to the disk, those file allocation tables are a disaster waiting to happen. The way "System" is all powerful and cannot be controlled by admins(I can crack a windows box on my network and become system in less than a half hour and I'm no 1337 haxor , thanks http://milw0rm.org/! ). Even the way files are executed (Windows will try to open anything, that fact does have it's pros and cons). Granted if you are careful and know how to setup a properly configured network you'll be okay.
UNIX is not completely safe either, but it has a lot of advantages do to its structure/file system. It's a lot more difficult for a virus to propagate through a network of UNIX computers. As for Mac OSX, out of the box they aren't bullet proof. Some ssh configuration and using a non-admin account do make them pretty damn secure though.

My first tech job, 75 MACS G3-G3's Mac OS 10.2(I think)... the most ambiguous error messages around.

if those were Mac G3's you probably were on OS 9 (pre-UNIX based) or OSX 10.1 (just starting out, not really meant for the PPC processor). Those were the dark ages for Apple.

Yea, there's a difference(in the field of computer science) between hackesr-people who manipulate code, mostly for enjoyment and/or Internet-security reasons,programming, you name it.. and crackers- people who maliciously manipulate code (hacking can be preformed by both hackers and crackers, the word hack have many definitions... )

[dejai]

Windows is not POSIX compatible, it makes its own standards it loves vendor locks and it has made it so easy for viruses to get onto its system because:
1. It hides all the scary system stuff from the user.
2. It encourages ignorance about your machine.
3. You run as Admin (How dumb can you get?)

Linux: It works, its an interpreation of Unix. It can be PWNED but it gets regular patches depending on your distro. Most distros have poor security settings however the general structure of the system makes it harder to PWN.

FreeBSD is secure by default. It works and its true Unix...

Nothing is secure don't kid yourself. Windows is just less secure than Linux which depending on the distro / config can be secure. I don't run an IDE I probably would if I was writing something important but it would not be Visual Studio with its pseduo C++.

[eatcomics]

Well as far as I'm concerned, most malicious software is downloaded by the user... whether the security stuff says it's okay or not, so I would say PCs are as safe as the user...

[K-Bal]

Well as far as I'm concerned, most malicious software is downloaded by the user... whether the security stuff says it's okay or not, so I would say PCs are as safe as the user...

How about visiting your favorite pron site? They often contain worms that download and install without further notice of the user.

[Netwatcher]

Why Windows has all these harmful-software made just for it? because more people use it!

That's not entirely true. Exploits are found in OS' used by fewer than .001% of tech users. Most hackers (i've heard about) work in a meritocracy: If they can, they will do it for merit. Contrary to what most people believe, a majority of hacker attacks are not malicious.
As for Windows, (prior to 7 and Vista as far as my knowledge goes, although Vista had that cursor icon exploit that's the only exploit I remember off the top) it's the structure that's not as secure. The way it handles saving information to the disk, those file allocation tables are a disaster waiting to happen. The way "System" is all powerful and cannot be controlled by admins(I can crack a windows box on my network and become system in less than a half hour and I'm no 1337 haxor , thanks http://milw0rm.org/! ). Even the way files are executed (Windows will try to open anything, that fact does have it's pros and cons). Granted if you are careful and know how to setup a properly configured network you'll be okay.
UNIX is not completely safe either, but it has a lot of advantages do to its structure/file system. It's a lot more difficult for a virus to propagate through a network of UNIX computers. As for Mac OSX, out of the box they aren't bullet proof. Some ssh configuration and using a non-admin account do make them pretty damn secure though.

My first tech job, 75 MACS G3-G3's Mac OS 10.2(I think)... the most ambiguous error messages around.

if those were Mac G3's you probably were on OS 9 (pre-UNIX based) or OSX 10.1 (just starting out, not really meant for the PPC processor). Those were the dark ages for Apple.

VIsta's Graphical Interface takes so much resources and was a total screwup because it had same code structure(and looked like) as a GAME! instead of an OS GUI.