Windows versus the World: Royal Rumble I

[dduardo]

Ok, since we hijacked wolram's spybot thread with a lot of Windows versus Linux/Unix/OS X bickering, I thought the best way to handle this was to start fresh and try to have a civilized debate on the topic. Personal threats, baseless comments, and whining will not be tolorated. If you think Windows or any other operating system is the best, don't just say it is, support your arguments with facts.

Let the battle begin !

 

[ahrkron]

I wholeheartedly go for Linux. Fact: I have a Linux machine at work and a Windows XP pro at home. Both always connected to the internet, both heavily used. The first one has NEVER had any pop-up ad problems, viruses, or configuration issues. The XP one, at home, is a quite different story.

 

[chroot]

It's hard to say one is "best." Each is better suited for its own sort of task.

Linux is the best all-around bleeding edge server platform. FreeBSD or OpenBSD is the best for mission-critical servers that don't need the latest-and-greatest technologies. MacOS X is best for people who appreciate the combination of a powerful operating system and a very streamlined interface, but don't really feel like compiling kernels to get their sound cards to work. Windows is good for novice users who just need a cheap computer to browse the web and send emails.

I would not suggest using Windows for a mission-critical server, nor would I suggest that granny learn to make bzImage. Each has its own utility.

What do I find myself using most? Either Linux or Windows with about equal frequency. There are a few things (like coding) that are more comfortable under Linux, and there are a few things (like tending to my music collection) that are more comfortable under Windows. I'm not picky about which OS I'm running at any given time. All of the basic functionality -- web browser, music player, chat programs -- exist on both and are equally easy to use on both. Generally, I'll continue use whichever OS happens to be booted until I need to do something under the the other.

I should probably just get VMWare.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

dduardo,

As moderator of this forum, I'd also like you to make sure anyone who makes a specific claim of an operating system's strength or weakness is capable of substantiating the claim with evidence. For example, saying that OpenBSD must have viruses (even though you don't know of any) because anti-virus software exists (even though you don't know of any) is a hollow statement and should not be permitted.

- Warren

 

[wolram]

i started out with win98 and to be honest was quite happy with it,
i upgraded to win XP after reading that win98 will not be supported
after a certain date, now i have XP i find i have problems that i didn't
have with 98, pop ups, spy ware, i know these problems can be
overcome with additional software, but why do i get more problems
from an updated version of windows? i regularly go to MS help and
download critical updates, OK i could set my pc to do this automatically,
but why do i need to do this for XP and not 98?
i can understand that MS can't defend against ever more sophisticated
attacks, but i did expect better "out of the box", protection from
this OS.

 

[Dagenais]

I wholeheartedly go for Linux. Fact: I have a Linux machine at work and a Windows XP pro at home. Both always connected to the internet, both heavily used. The first one has NEVER had any pop-up ad problems, viruses, or configuration issues. The XP one, at home, is a quite different story.

You wholeheartedly go for Linux, eh? Yet, you use Windows XP Professional at home for enjoyment. Usually it's the opposite: Windows @ work, Other OS @ home.

In your case, you use Windows for pleasure.

My XP never has any pop-ups, viruses (I'm hoping never) or config issues. Besides AIM popping-up a news page, I witness none of this. If you mean pop-ups on the internet, then feel free to download a browser with ad-blocking software, nobody is stopping you. But if you want every site on the internet to work with your browser, then keep Microsoft IE and download Google, pretty simple.

What do I find myself using most? Either Linux or Windows with about equal frequency. There are a few things (like coding) that are more comfortable under Linux, and there are a few things (like tending to my music collection) that are more comfortable under Windows.

No, coding is comfortable under Windows. The popular programming languages all work great on Windows. There are tons of languages to choose from. If you want your applications to get exposure, there is no platform better to write it on than Windows with the widest audience.

MacOS X is best for people who appreciate the combination of a powerful operating system and a very streamlined interface

I use OS X everyday. It's a good OS, but don't exagerrate it. The cartoonish interface, dock and spinning beach ball will piss you off more than anything in Windows is no time.

Windows is good for novice users who just need a cheap computer to browse the web and send emails.

No.
For a cheap computer to browse the internet and send Emails, just head to Wal-mart for a $200 computer running Mandrake.
Windows XP Pro is a lot more expensive than most consumer operating systems.

For example, saying that OpenBSD must have viruses (even though you don't know of any) because anti-virus software exists (even though you don't know of any) is a hollow statement and should not be permitted.

ROFL. It was 2 opinions against 1. OpenBSD obviously has viruses and bug issues - they have a mailing list dedicated to it. Subscribe. If it was "virus free" then it wouldn't have one.
Like the other person said, you can't truly believe OpenBSD is completely virus free. Somebody had to have written some virus to attack it.
It's common sense vs a biased opinion. 2 users have noted this, it's just that you're denying it.

i upgraded to win XP after reading that win98 will not be supported
after a certain date, now i have XP i find i have problems that i didn't
have with 98, pop ups, spy ware, i know these problems can be
overcome with additional software, but why do i get more problems
from an updated version of windows? i regularly go to MS help and
download critical updates, OK i could set my pc to do this automatically,
but why do i need to do this for XP and not 98?

When did you upgrade to XP?
Did you have stuff like Kazaa, Morpheus on 98? The differences in the programs you have on each OS make a difference.

 

[chroot]

No, coding is comfortable under Windows.

Well, no, it isn't. Try coding up something that hacks together python, perl, and java with some shell scripts under Windows. Try fighting with Window's lame-ass shell and the horrible 8.3 vestiges still lingering in many of the most basic commands. Try navigating a directory structure with directory names with spaces, or names longer than 8 characters. Try running a real build environment. You have to pay $$$ for tools that can make Windows a decent coding platform, and they're all just rip-offs of free *nix tools.

Windows XP Pro is a lot more expensive than most consumer operating systems.

I don't recall mentioning Windows XP Pro.

It was 2 opinions against 1. OpenBSD obviously has viruses and bug issues - they have a mailing list dedicated to it.

It's not an opinion, professor. No viruses exist for OpenBSD. No anti-virus programs exist for OpenBSD. There certainly are bugs, but I hope you understand the difference. If you're going to continue to say moronic things like Somebody had to have written some virus to attack it, then you need to provide some shred of evidence that it's true. Guess what, Sherlock: it ain't.

- Warren

 

[faust9]

Mmmmm OSX.

I've got a BSD 486 gateway/firewall sitting in my closet (never crashes and is secure).
I have a PII 333 Linux box (X crashes from time to time but the puter rarely encounters a problem drastic enough to shut down--I run Gentoo BTW).
I have a P4 2.4G XP box for my wife. Not too many problems but not as stable as my *nix computers. More games is a plus, but all the nast bugs put together by script kiddies is a major minus.

By far my favorite 'pute is my G4 iBook. Mmmmm OSX--built around BSD with a snazy interface. I dig the silly cartoon poof when you remove something from the dock. I like the dock (I use a similar dock setup on my PII with KDE but it still isn't as nice as OSX). I like the easy software update system. I like the way software is installed. I like xCode. I like all the things Apple does to make a good software/hardeware package. I'd like more software and hopefully someday OSX will have enough market share to stimulate more development.

My $0.02. Mac OSX all the way. Secure, stable, and slick.

 

[Dagenais]

It's not an opinion, professor.

Sure it is. It just so happens that 2 people took an objective view, and just so happened to be right.

Window's lame-ass

Yes...lame-ass. Indeed.

You can't argue with that.

No anti-virus programs exist for OpenBSD.

Sure they do:

http://www.centralcommand.com/openbsd_products.html

http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/bsd/

http://www.johannrain-softwareentwi...us_for_linux_freebsd_openbsd_mail_servers.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.kaspersky.com/de/buyonline.html%3Fchapter%3D944387%26spage%3D3&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAnti-Virus%2B%252BOpenBSD%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

 

[chroot]

*evil grin*

I was waiting for you to find programs like AntiVir. You've done well -- you found the pages. Step two is to read the pages.

Notice that, in each case, the software is not designed to detect viruses that attack OpenBSD (there aren't any), but instead to detect Windows viruses stuck inside files residing on the server, or stuck inside emails passing through the server.

I'll repeat my original challenge. Give me the name of one, just one OpenBSD virus. If you can't do it, shut the hell up.

- Warren

 

[faust9]

Sure it is. It just so happens that 2 people took an objective view, and just so happened to be right.



Yes...lame-ass. Indeed.

You can't argue with that.




Sure they do:

http://www.centralcommand.com/openbsd_products.html

http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/bsd/

http://www.johannrain-softwareentwi...us_for_linux_freebsd_openbsd_mail_servers.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.kaspersky.com/de/buyonline.html%3Fchapter%3D944387%26spage%3D3&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAnti-Virus%2B%252BOpenBSD%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

Ahhhhh, your walking a fine line with the AV software for BSD you posted. The programs in the above links run on OBSD but they are not for preventing OBSD specific critters. They are to filter out virus' and trojans that can affect other OS--specifically M$. The AV software isn't "For" BSD but rather for the benefit of M$ and they just happen to run on BSD.

 

[faust9]

Someday I'll learn to type faster.

 

[chroot]

It's all right, faust9. I was sitting at the ready at my keyboard, waiting for him to fall into the trap I set for him. It's not as good as beer, but it's fun.

- Warren

 

[faust9]

It's all right, faust9. I was sitting at the ready at my keyboard, waiting for him to fall into the trap I set for him. It's not as good as beer, but it's fun.

- Warren

lol too funny.

 

[The_Professional]

And Microsoft used to run BSD on their Hotmail servers.

Linky:http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/23348.html

But a Microsoft spokesperson told Reuters yesterday that Hotmail is the only Microsoft system that runs on U**x, and that the migration is still in progress. A check with Netcraft shows that Hotmail's front edge servers do indeed run Windows 2000, so Microsoft can faithfully claim that the "web site runs Windows", as it did yesterday. But the infrastructure is still stored on BSD kit. How much we're not sure, but when we receive hard numbers, we'll tell you.

 

[ahrkron]

You wholeheartedly go for Linux, eh? Yet, you use Windows XP Professional at home for enjoyment. Usually it's the opposite: Windows @ work, Other OS @ home.

In your case, you use Windows for pleasure.

You're making assumptions.

It is not me who uses the computer at home. I myself rarely use it. For pleasure and work, I go for Linux. Some three years ago, I used to prepare documents on Word and presentations on PP, and that was about it. Now I definitely prefer tex (and Linux) for both.

My XP never has any pop-ups, viruses (I'm hoping never) or config issues. Besides AIM popping-up a news page, I witness none of this. If you mean pop-ups on the internet, then feel free to download...

Good for you. The way I see it, Linux is excelent for serious work, and Windows is ok for entertainment and for people that don't want to spend time maintaing the computer, but it seems to fail even at that, since you need to spend time learning about adware and security anyway (or getting a friend to fix it).

BTW, I stopped getting any ads when I downloaded Mozilla and stopped using IE. I would erase it if I could.

 

[ahrkron]

It's all right, faust9. I was sitting at the ready at my keyboard, waiting for him to fall into the trap I set for him. It's not as good as beer, but it's fun.

- Warren

Beautiful! (Greg, we need that devil smiley!)

 

[dduardo]

Maybe I should change the title of this thread to Dagenais versus the World.

In order to balance this thread out I'll name some positive things about Windows:

Lots of intregated components (Windows Media player with IE, IE with practically everything, CD burning with Explorer)
Consistant looking desktop
Good driver support
Easy network/print sharing setup
Wide range of applications

Windows XP SP2 will include a popup block and a security center that monitors your firewall, antivirus and checks for windows updates.

Later I'll talk about the advantages of Linux, but I want some more feedback on the positive aspects of Windows.

 

[wolram]

DDURADO
Lots of intregated components (Windows Media player with IE, IE with practically everything, CD burning with Explorer)
Consistant looking desktop
Good driver support
Easy network/print sharing setup
Wide range of applications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
to me this is all whistles and bells, a lot of people use a pc primarily
for the internet, as such windows opened up the world to many
people, but then it destroyed it with its leaky security, if it wasn't
for the uniquity of windows it would have been on the scrap heap
years ago, if MS bring out new versions it should be guaranteed to
be more secure, but how does the end user know unless he she
shells out $,£, and will MS refund your money if it isn't? " roll around
laughing", BGs could announce tomorrow that support will be withdrawn
for all present OS, and force many people to spend more of there
hard earned cash, so what consumer protection do we have?

 

[dduardo]

Here is an article that was recently posted on slashdot:

Microsoft Progress Report: Security
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/

 

[Dagenais]

And Microsoft used to run BSD on their Hotmail servers.

Do they now? Or wait, they USED to. The key word.

Was it unworthy so they dumped it?

lol too funny.

Wasn't it you who first fell into the trap I set that proved you didn't even bother to read the explanation on why Windows isn't more unsafe than the competition?

I'll repeat my original challenge. Give me the name of one, just one OpenBSD virus. If you can't do it, shut the hell up.

Just because you've never seen one doesn't mean it is non-existent. That works almost as good as your "Windows lame-ass" defense.

Is Gates also a "lame-ass"?

Show me a non-lame ass article that claims, "No virus can ever be written for OpenBSD"

Maybe I should change the title of this thread to Dagenais versus the World.

Hardly. I got support from that other person, who had the common sense to admit someone had to have written a virus on OpenBSD that didn't spread.

There are plenty of Windows users here that may ***** about Windows, but at the end of the day they're still using it. Enough said. Even the blind supporters here use it - what does that say about them?

Now nobody answered my question. This website was made on a what? The Server is run on...? What does Mr. Bernardt the admin of this site use?

Or did people purpose avoid the question?

 

[chroot]

No viruses exist for OpenBSD, and you're an idiot for ever having opened your mouth on the issue. Learn how to admit your mistakes, it makes you more respectable.

Windows' shell is definitely lame-ass. There is no question that it does quite a bit less than even the most basic *nix shell.

pf runs on Linux. We use apache as our webserver. The database is MySQL, and also runs on Linux. The code for the site was developed on Linux.

What Greg uses on his desktop seems rather irrelevant to me.

- Warren

 

[faust9]

Do they now? Or wait, they USED to. The key word.

Was it unworthy so they dumped it?



Wasn't it you who first fell into the trap I set that proved you didn't even bother to read the explanation on why Windows isn't more unsafe than the competition?




Just because you've never seen one doesn't mean it is non-existent. That works almost as good as your "Windows lame-ass" defense.

Is Gates also a "lame-ass"?

Show me a non-lame ass article that claims, "No virus can ever be written for OpenBSD"




Hardly. I got support from that other person, who had the common sense to admit someone had to have written a virus on OpenBSD that didn't spread.

There are plenty of Windows users here that may ***** about Windows, but at the end of the day they're still using it. Enough said. Even the blind supporters here use it - what does that say about them?

Now nobody answered my question. This website was made on a what? The Server is run on...? What does Mr. Bernardt the admin of this site use?

Or did people purpose avoid the question?

Uhmmm, No. I didn't "fall into the trap." Read my post wherein I state what chroot says (It took me a few minutes longer to type it in though). So, in respons to "...you didn't bother reading..." I did take the time to read what you said. You OTH did not read what I said about virus software being available to run on OBSD not "for" OBSD.

Wow, you get awfully agitated when people speak I'll of big brother don't you?

Can someone write a virus for BSD? probably, but unlikely. BSD kernel has been combed over many many times by dedicated volunteers (like linux) so there is less chance for a BSD virus. There are viruses out there that attack libraries or programs such as sendmail, but those are not BSD specific.

 

[chroot]

Was it unworthy so they dumped it?

You've got to be kidding me. I hope to god no one pays you for your computer knowledge.

- Warren

 

[The_Professional]

Originally posted by Dagenais
Do they now? Or wait, they USED to. The key word.
Was it unworthy so they dumped it?

Irrelevant. You will never know. The point is they have used it and still using it. If you read the article their server infrastructure is still stored on a BSD kit.

Originally posted by Dagenais
There are plenty of Windows users here that may ***** about Windows, but at the end of the day they're still using it. Enough said. Even the blind supporters here use it - what does that say about them?

Hasty Generalization.

It's called playing devil's advocate. Because I'm not coming from a Microsoft is a piece of **** bias. I know the advantages and disadvantages of the OS. To argue that It's a very secure OS is weak and pointless.

 

[Averagesupernova]

*evil grin*

Notice that, in each case, the software is not designed to detect viruses that attack OpenBSD (there aren't any), but instead to detect Windows viruses stuck inside files residing on the server, or stuck inside emails passing through the server.

- Warren

I don't really care to take sides on this, but I want to point something out. Isn't a carrier of the virus just as big of a threat as the virus itself?

I have a good friend who is a network admin. for a university. Although I don't necessarily whole heartedly agree with his opinion on the matter, he says:

A computer can be sitting out on the internet running brand-X operating system with a virus sitting in it. It may not be affected by the virus but that doesn't remove liability from it. If the virus moves from this machine to a machine that IS affected by the virus, the machine that passed the virus is just as guilty as the creator of the virus. KNOWINGLY allowing a virus to sit on your computer is simply irresponsible.

Here is a good example. I am fairly satisfied with my ISP. I never see a virus come through my email, they are just about always screened out. The ISP could be running who knows what for an OS. It may very well be immune. BUT, their virus software catches it, which alleviates ME from dealing with it. A less resonsible ISP would say 'deal with your own virus, it doesn't affect us'.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

use Windows if:
- you don't care or don't want to know how a computer works.
- you are satisfied with pressing install and hope it all goes well
- you don't have to write drivers
- you don't have to do some serious developing
- you want to play the latest games

use some Unix flavor for everything else...

 

[chroot]

I don't really care to take sides on this, but I want to point something out. Isn't a carrier of the virus just as big of a threat as the virus itself?

This is not relevant to the discussion, which concerns whether or not OpenBSD is more secure than WIndows XP.

- Warren

 

[The_Professional]

I don't really care to take sides on this, but I want to point something out. Isn't a carrier of the virus just as big of a threat as the virus itself?

If It's a Windows virii then it should not affect the BSD machine at all.

I have a good friend who is a network admin. for a university. Although I don't necessarily whole heartedly agree with his opinion on the matter, he says:

Here is a good example. I am fairly satisfied with my ISP. I never see a virus come through my email, they are just about always screened out. The ISP could be running who knows what for an OS. It may very well be immune. BUT, their virus software catches it, which alleviates ME from dealing with it. A less resonsible ISP would say 'deal with your own virus, it doesn't affect us'.

I would still use an Anti-Virus program. It's good that your ISP has that feature, most ISP's would charge you for it though.

 

[Dagenais]

A reply to a message I sent about OpenBSD. He is a Mentor at a popular OpenBSD discussion board, with 1865 posts and a member for 2 years.

Personally, I've last seen the former type during my DOS days. People used to give each other programs on floppies, which sometimes were infected by a virus, and thus a virus would be able to spead. On my BSD boxes I very very rarely use binaries from other people. Most of the time I compile them myself, and sometimes I download them from official repositories. I find very little need to run binaries given to me by friends. Some classical DOS viruses used to infect the master boot record of boot floppies; that's kind of difficult these days too, since I assume that most people use CDs for booting when they can't boot from the HD for some reason, and CDs are read-only.

And assuming that I somehow did manage to get myself a virus, since I don't send other people binaries (why should I), it's difficult for the virus to spread.

And then there's the worm-like type. Let's assume that the virus came as a mail attachment. I don't know any unix-mailer that would allow mails to automatically execute any code, so first I'd have to be dumb enough to run the virus. Since lots of people are dumb enough (see the encripted-zipped worms that appeared lately), that's not a big obstacle. So the virus was run on my system, and now it wants to spread to other users. First, it needs some adresses. There's no standard email program on unix, and thus no standard way to store address books. Plus, a lot of mailers that have address books don't have API calls to read them from outside programs. All this makes it more difficult for the virus to spread. On a system like mine, it won't even find any mails from which to read mail addresses, since I use an IMAP server, and sylpheed doesn't have any API hooks to my knowledge.

Now, let's assume that the virus indeed did manage to find some mail addresses on my system and mail itself to those folks. Most people that I converse with have a different system than mine (most run windows), so that cuts the number of possible recipients down quite a bit. From those that run a binary-compatible OS, very few have a similar mail setup to mine.

So, basically, what I'm trying to say: partially because the BSDs are unpopular as desktop OS, and partially because there's no "standard software", the virus finds itself in a very diverse environment that makes accumulating a "critical mass" (by that I mean enough infected users so that the virus keeps on spreading, ie, the infection rate won't reach 0) very difficult. I think it's very likely that some folks have written BSD virii, but they were simply too unsuccessful to be known.

This, coming from someone who has actually used OpenBSD on a consistent basis. Agreeing with the other user in a previous thread and I, a virus was likely discovered but unable to spread.

What now, Dr. Seus? Are you going to make another stupid assumption like, "I've never seen a plane crash so they never happen"?


You're finished.

 

[Dagenais]

You OTH did not read what I said about virus software being available to run on OBSD not "for" OBSD.

Well if that isn't the kettle calling the pot black. You should be the last person telling people what they didn't read. In the last thread, you just linked us to an article that started the whole argument.
You basically just never bother to read links provided.
So tell us, have you actually ever used anything other than Windows for more than a month consistently?

 

[ahrkron]

A reply to a message I sent about OpenBSD. He is a Mentor at a popular OpenBSD discussion board, with 1865 posts and a member for 2 years.

I don't know, Dagenais. The fact that even "a Mentor at a popular OpenBSD discussion board" did only go as far as considering it "very likely" (clearly implying that he has never actually seen one), does strengthen Chroot's case, not yours.

Actually, your post also shows that you have been looking for information on this on (at least) one BSD-specific board, and that so far you have come out without a single name for a virus affecting BSD, which is what chroot challenged you to provide.

I'm no expert on this, but if I had to bet on it, I'd go with Chroot.

 

[faust9]

Well if that isn't the kettle calling the pot black. You should be the last person telling people what they didn't read. In the last thread, you just linked us to an article that started the whole argument.
You basically just never bother to read links provided.
So tell us, have you actually ever used anything other than Windows for more than a month consistently?

What in god's name are you talking about? I NEVER LINKED TO ANY ARTICLES IN MY THREADS[/size]. YOU linked to three propaganda articles to which I QUOTED your post. You can tell a quote because they are shifted to the right, shaded some color (blue in my case), and headed by the word "quote". So, if you REREAD the thread you'll find that I referenced YOUR POST. I did not link to any articles. This just adds more validity to my statement that you did not read my post. Go figure killer. You didn't read it in the first place and your flying off the hande based on ideas pulled from the ether. If you reread my post you'll see that I did read your links and responded that they were programs which run on BSD servers that look for virii associated with other OS's, not BSD. My assertion was exactly the same as what chroot said just a little more diplomatic.

Let me say this again, I NEVER LINKED TO ANY ARTICLES--YOU DID! I know the difference between a program that runs on an OS used to filter virii for other OS's vice a program designed to find and elliminate virii for the OS which the program is running on. You shouldn't make assertions about someones computer proficiency when you seem to be deficient.

Too funny there killer. Keep on beating the dead horse and lashing out with ad-homanum attacks instead of addressing the issues while the rest of us engage in intelligent discussion.

 

[Dagenais]

Actually, your post also shows that you have been looking for information on this on (at least) one BSD-specific board, and that so far you have come out without a single name for a virus affecting BSD, which is what chroot challenged you to provide.

How does that go with him?

If it was for Chroot, it would be, "It's very likely that one DOESN'T exist", not "does." In other words, he is in agreeance with me. He is saying that viruses ARE likely in existence, as opposed to AREN'T in Chroot's case.

It's god damn common sense. You could right a perl script right now to delete files in the HD and call it a virus, then attempt to spread it.

Chroot is going for the "doesn't exist" part - which is untrue since there has to be one out there.

Can he show me a legite article that claims a virus has never been on OpenBSD?

Let me say this again, I NEVER LINKED TO ANY ARTICLES--YOU DID!

Awesome. Wait until Dduardo cleans up the other thread, then claim you never did something.

Are you by any chance American? (Clinton)

while the rest of us engage in intelligent discussion.

Intelligent? That cannot be you.

I NEVER LINKED TO ANY ARTICLES IN MY THREADS.

Go pound your keyboard in Caps lock in another post. This isn't IRC Captain Caps.

 

[chroot]

You could right a perl script right now to delete files in the HD and call it a virus

That's not a virus. That's a script.

- Warren

 

[The_Professional]

Chroot is going for the "doesn't exist" part - which is untrue since there has to be one out there.

I admit, I wrote one because I'm evil 31337 haX0rzz

 

[faust9]

Awesome. Wait until Dduardo cleans up the other thread, then claim you never did something.

To what is this referring to? Are you insinuating my posts here were edited by a moderator to remove a link? Are you insinuating I've participated in other threads where my links were edited or removed by a moderator? If you are, then I think your woefully mistaken.

Talk about a big chip on the shoulder there guy.


Anyway, I'm going to keep singing the praises of OSX (built on BSD). I'm going to keep telling people to give Gentoo a try if they want a good idea what goes on under the linux hood, or try LFS if they want an even better idea. And finally, I'm going to go into my wifes office every day or two and reboot her XP computer. Moreover, I'll probably dig out my old Amiga 2K once a year just for nostalgia.

Oh if you wanted to argue the existence of a BSD virus you would've had a better chance looking into the handful of virii plaguing OSX. OSX is a BSD derivative. Look to see if you find any kernel (the BSD core of OSX) exploits though the existence of an OS X virus doesn't necessarly mean a true BSD virus is out ther stalking you in the file tree of an old solaris server.

 

[Dagenais]

That's not a virus. That's a script.

That's funny, because it was an example given by the OpenBSD mentor.

And it does the job of a virus - terrorize.

Why don't you simply admit you exaggerated? Anyone with common sense can see that.

 

[ShawnD]

Dag, a virus is not something that "terrorizes". A virus is something that replicates its own code. Something that just does destruction is usually called a trojan.

Looks like Windows could use some help here so I'll side with Windows.

Windows is a better OS because it's more usable. Linux is able to do more stuff, but everything it can do is very difficult to do. For example, try networking a bunch of computers in Linux. You'll find yourself reading the manual for hours just trying to figure out how to make it work. With Windows, just go to Control Panel >> Network Connections, then click on "Set up a home or small office network" and boom you're on your way. Do that to every Windows computer in the network and you setup a great network - easily. After that, try to setup a network drive. In Linux, you're back in the manual reading how to do it. With Windows, open Windows Explorer, go to file >> my network places >> map network drive. Just browse to the shared folder you want mapped as a drive then click OK.
Now try to setup a network printer. With Linux you're back reading the manual. With Windows, go to Control Panel >> Printers and Faxes >> add printer, select network printer, and it will display all detected printers on computers in the network.

Windows is better because programs can be installed by just double clicking. I download a file, I double click it, it installs. With Linux, I have to try to compile the program before installing it. Most of the time, compiling it goes smoothly, but sometimes you'll get errors saying you are missing dependencies. So then you go to download the dependency. When you try to compile it, it says you are missing another dependency. You get the other dependency and it needs another one. When I tried to install WINE on Mandrake 8.2, I had to track down 4 different dependencies. The fourth one I got (which was needed by the third one), wouldn't even compile properly saying my version of GNU compiler was wrong. I got an error that said something like "your version of GNU is 2.2, Bison will only compile on version 2.2". Well that's just great, a program that says I have the wrong version but the version I have is the only version it will work with.
That was the same day I formatted and put Windows back on.

Windows is better because each version of Windows is basically the same. If I download a program and try to install it, it will work no matter what version of Windows I have. The problem with Linux is that each distro is slightly different. The Dev folder may be in a different place, some lib folders are here instead of there. It's minor differences between distributions that make it impossible to release program as self-installing files. Some programs are install files such as OpenOffice or Mozilla, but at least 90% of the programs for Linux must be manually compiled. As said before, compiling doesn't always work.

Windows is better because people are more willing to help you when you have a problem.
If you go to a Linux forum like LinuxQuestions.org, you'll notice a lot of people saying "just RTFM" and not offering any real help. When people post questions about Windows, it's very rare that somebody replies RTFM.



I'll post again when I've thought of some other things to say

 

[Dagenais]

A virus is something that replicates its own code. Something that just does destruction is usually called a trojan.

A virus usually is made to terrorize or damage computer systems. I'm focusing on destructive viruses and the fact that they do not just exist on Windows. The simple virus does copy itself over and over, but it is usually dangerous because it quickly takes up memory halting and terrorizing the system. Thanks for clearing it up though, and I meant virus.

Glad to see more than just 2 people take the side of Windows, considering it has around 93% of the OS population, yet so few loyal users and so many haters.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Windows is a better OS because it's more usable. Linux is able to do more stuff, but everything it can do is very difficult to do. For example, try networking a bunch of computers in Linux. You'll find yourself reading the manual for hours just trying to figure out how to make it work. With Windows, just go to Control Panel >> Network Connections, then click on "Set up a home or small office network" and boom you're on your way.

that is the worst argument for windows I have ever heard. Just because you have to write some command lines instead of clicking all over Control Panel does not mean it's easy. not to mention reebooting windows to apply changes. After the first time you can write the commands in a script and execute it so yopu don't have to read the manual pages every time...

Now try to setup a network printer. With Linux you're back reading the manual. With Windows, go to Control Panel >> Printers and Faxes >> add printer, select network printer, and it will display all detected printers on computers in the network.

I got four letters for you - CUPS

Windows is better because programs can be installed by just double clicking. I download a file, I double click it, it installs. With Linux, I have to try to compile the program before installing it. Most of the time, compiling it goes smoothly, but sometimes you'll get errors saying you are missing dependencies. ...

I admit that's true. but there also exists rpms if you want to avoid compiling... although they can be a real pain too sometimes

Windows is better because each version of Windows is basically the same. If I download a program and try to install it, it will work no matter what version of Windows I have.

you are so right here nothing ever changes in windows

Windows is better because people are more willing to help you when you have a problem.
If you go to a Linux forum like LinuxQuestions.org, you'll notice a lot of people saying "just RTFM" and not offering any real help. When people post questions about Windows, it's very rare that somebody replies RTFM.

sadly this is true for both sides. The help from MS sound like: "upgrade to the latest version of..." "please reinstall your ..." while on linux forums there are so many people that came there just to laugh at the guys searching for help...

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Glad to see more than just 2 people take the side of Windows, considering it has around 93% of the OS population, yet so few loyal users and so many haters.

yes remeber those times when 93% of the world population said the Earth was flat. ah, the good old inquisition ...

 

[ShawnD]

Guybrush, when do you ever need to restart Windows? I've only ever had to do that after making critical changes such as updating video drivers or updating windows. New networks can be added, new drives, new printer, new camera can all be added without rebooting.

Even Linux needs to be rebooted when you change video drivers.

 

[dduardo]

ShawnD, no you don't need to reboot your computer when you update your video drivers. All you do is drop into runlevel 3 (command: telinit 3) into the console, run the script that installs the drivers(command: ./NVIDIA_blah_blah_blah), then load the module into the kernel (command: modprobe nvidia). You can check to see if it was added by doing (command: lsmod). Finally go back to runlevel 5 (command: telinit 5) and your done.

Believe it or not, but there is a feature in the new kernel (2.6.x) where you can hot swap processors without rebooting. I want to see Windows do that!

 

[ShawnD]

It takes more time to shut down X, type in those commands, and restart X than it does to simply restart a Windows computer.

 

[faust9]

No it doesn't. A simple startx takes about 15 seconds, on my tired old computer, of which 5 are spent showing the nVidia green eye. How many times have you had to shut down your system after installing a piece of new software? In fact, the only piece of hardware I've had to shut my crappy PII 333 down after installing the module for was the vortex II based soundcard.

As far as installing software goes, I uses gentoo so installing software is fairly easy. The only problem is waiting for the software to compile. I ran Debian prior to Gentoo, and apt-get was easy enough to use. Yast is a little slow but still its easy. Mandrakes software installer from what I understand is pretty straight forward also. A lot of people fault linux for software installation issues, but in all reality software installation has seen big improvements since I first started using Linux. I think eventually all distros except for the truly fring ones will conform to a true standard for program locations or a least a standard repository of simlinks. Heck, maybe will be dumbed down as much as my iBook is.

Personally, I don't hate Windows. I just like *nix a little better. Sure I don't have the huge reposatory of games as the doze fans do, but I don'y play games anyway. I am comfortable in the fact that my financial records won't be spread to every computer terminal from here to Timbucktoo because my wife decided to open an e-mail attachment containing a new virus (my wholesale migration to Linux happened after that very thing happened to me in late 2001).

One thing I will say is that XP starts up quicked from a reboot than my Linux computer. Ahh, oh well. I'm too lazy to rectify that situation and the flip side of the coin is my Linux computer is almost never turned off.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

it may take more time but at least most of the other Linux services keep running.

I think most of the windows fans can't make a simple distinction between operating system and application. The scope of an OS is to allow users and applications to use the hardware underneath (it may seem strange to some people but you actually need the hardware to get a job done ). Also the OS must separate each user and application and not let them step on each other. The scope of an OS IS NOT to have applications bundled in so when an application crash the whole system crashes, or when an application changes some settings the whole system must restart to take effect.

So yes maybe Win can restart more quicly than I can blink but that doesn't prove anything because the OS is not suposed to restart unless maybe the hardware configuration on which is running must be changed...

 

[ShawnD]

it may take more time but at least most of the other Linux services keep running.

That's an excellent point.

The scope of an OS IS NOT to have applications bundled in so when an application crash the whole system crashes

Please stick to current operating systems. I'm not throwing Linux versions from 10 years ago in your face so don't throw 6 year old versions of Windows in my face.

faust, the only programs I've ever seen that require a restart are firewalls. Sygate and Zone Alarm have to tie into the system somehow but they also have to monitor which programs try to access the internet as that program is starting. Other than firewalls, drivers, and anything that changes system files, there are no other programs that require you to restart windows.

I find it funny that nobody has mentioned Mac OS; the system that was once a major player.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Please stick to current operating systems. I'm not throwing Linux versions from 10 years ago in your face so don't throw 6 year old versions of Windows in my face.

what's that supose to mean? aren't IE and WMP so tightly integrated with Windows that they can't be removed? what has a 10 year old linux or windows has to do with the definition of an operating system?

 

[ShawnD]

You said that when a program in Windows crashes, it brings the whole system down. That hasn't been true for a good 4 years.
WMP crashes all the time and it never brings Windows down. When explorer crashes, it boots up again; nothing crashes with it.

Programs bringing the system down only happened in 95, 98, and ME. Those are truly the 3 worst operating systems ever created. 98SE crashed so much that I started to keep a log (pencil and paper of course, the computer could not be trusted). 98SE (with all updates) crashed an average of 3 times PER DAY!
Right Now I have XP on all 4 computers in my house. The only crashes that have happened were caused by a bad motherboard.