Windows beats Linux - Unix on vulnerabilities

[prathapml]

Originally posted by St0le@Jan 11 2006, 11:07 AM
i feel its coz they are open source...hacker can just watch source codes and say...[snapback]38883[/snapback]

[/quote]Many more developers can edit source-codes and actually do something about fixing it - which is not the case with windows.

Originally posted by netfreak@Jan 14 2006, 10:36 AM
Most of fortune 1000 companies use Windows for their web servers.  (Well true reason is .NET, ASPX makes web development real easy). [snapback]39171[/snapback]

[/quote]You're right in that ASPX makes web-dev easy. Thats from a web-server stand-point.
There are many other reasons as well, to choose a Windows server - active directory, for example.

Originally posted by max@Jan 15 2006, 12:44 AM
Linux is inherently safer out of the box.[snapback]39286[/snapback]

[/quote]And is inherently USELESS out of the box, till you configure it for something. (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your stand-point)
In any case, that attitude's simply not right. Like netfreak said, attitude of web hosts that they are safe JUST BECAUSE they are running Linux, makes them careless & blind to risks.

Originally posted by max@Jan 17 2006, 06:14 PM
And yes, M$ provides RADs but PHP/Perl developement aint that bad! 🙂[snapback]39510[/snapback]

[/quote]Boils down to a choice between free-polishable-by-user or expensive-polished. 😉 Both are powerful in their own right.

 

[max]

Originally posted by prathapml@Jan 18 2006, 03:29 AM
And is inherently USELESS out of the box, till you configure it for something. (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your stand-point)
In any case, that attitude's simply not right. Like netfreak said, attitude of web hosts that they are safe JUST BECAUSE they are running Linux, makes them careless & blind to risks.
I said "safer". I never said its unbreakable. Any system needs to be secured but Linux is inherently secure out of the box while Windows (even Server systems) need a lot of securing...

 

[prathapml]

Its safer than windows out of the box.Also, Its totally useless out of the box (unlike windows).(the linux distros that are NOT useless out-of-the-box, have a lot of poor policy decisions leading to security holes & enuf vulns, as to make a grown man cry).

 

[max]

debian is perfectly safe and useful out of the box and so is fedora.

 

[netfreak]

http://secunia.com/search/?search=debian

4 Vulns this week itself. One of them (http://secunia.com/advisories/18561/) allows remote execution of code.

So if you downloaded debian last week it is not longer secure wihtout patches.

Fedora released a patch today.

No distro is safe out of box. You have to apply patches to make it secure.

 

[prathapml]

Originally posted by max@Jan 25 2006, 12:04 AM
debian is perfectly safe and useful out of the box and so is fedora.[snapback]40356[/snapback]

[/quote]I meant its useless, as in, not functional right away (which is good - you dont want an apache or sendmail running without your knowledge....
and it can be a bad thing as well - for example, mp3 decoding is not available by default - you need to get the codec separately).

As for the "safe" theory, netfreak proved my point 😉

 

---

[max]

i give up! believe whatever you like!

 

[prathapml]

muahahaha! :lol:

 

[Sushubh]

losers. switch to mac os x.

 

[prathapml]

Ya right.And lose compatibility with 99% of whats out there.

 

[Sushubh]

so what is so cool about linux? mac os x has more recognised applications than linux... ms office, macromedia and adobe applications, and a whole range of applications from Apple itself which are way better than products from microsoft themselves. safari, iworks, itunes, apperture, blah blah?

 

[prathapml]

The cool thing about linux is its relatively unpolluted unix heritage.OSX will struggle a hell lot, to port over *nix binaries to run natively. (unless you're talking of installing linux on a mac box 😛)And all the apps you mention above, is consumer apps that mean ZILCH to the office user.If MSoffice/macromedia/adobe is what you want, you might as well get a PC & cut down on costs - mac is irrelevant.And if enterprise-class reliability on servers is what you want, again mac is irrelevant.Now thats enough, let me go to sleep.... 🙁

 

[netfreak]

Originally posted by Sushubh@Jan 27 2006, 03:39 AM
so what is so cool about linux? mac os x has more recognised applications than linux... ms office, macromedia and adobe applications, and a whole range of applications from Apple itself
[snapback]40600[/snapback]

[/quote]


Mac OS does not support VB Apps. And quie a lot of corporate Apps are done in VB. There is no point in buying a comp for an accoutant if that comp can not run his accouting app.

 

[popcorn]

its question of ease of linux softwares availability and ease of linux installation.ms has captured the market because its easy to install os and applicationsms also is not free!!on other hand linux is difficult to install and applications installation on linux is pain!linux is free!!point is that if linux is made easier to install and linux applications are easily compatible will all distros of linux ... linux will lead ms any day.but as u all know linux is open source and hence every one is trying to popularise its own distro which makes it weaker against ms.

 

[Sushubh]

Originally posted by netfreak@Jan 27 2006, 02:54 PM
Mac OS does not support VB Apps. And quie a lot of corporate Apps are done in VB. There is no point in buying a comp for an accoutant if that comp can not run his accouting app.
[snapback]40629[/snapback]

[/quote]

that applies for linux as well.