Linux for an Operating System

[billbenson]

I've used Linux instead of Windows or Apple's operating system for quite a few years now. For those not familiar with Linux, most web servers run on it and it is a very powerful and secure operating system. Secure enough that I don't use anti virus / spyware software for example.

I've never really recommended it to people in the past unless you have someone who knows it well in the cubicle next to you as it has a pretty big learning curve. The advantage Windows has always had is its pretty close to a one click install and works right out of the box with very little setup.

I use the Open Suse version of Linux. I just installed the latest version of it 11.4. I thought I'd mention it since its getting closer to an out of the box software package for the average user. If you are tired of paying for all your software, and updates and want a quality free solution I would recommend playing with it. The only thing it doesn't do is run windows programs (actually there is a way to do that). Unless you use something like Illustrator or DreamWeaver that you need windows for (or particular games for exmple), it will do everything you need for free.

I'm not necessarily recommending it as its not for everyone. It is worth considering though if you don't mind spending a bit of time learning it though.

[Spider]

I'm sure it is an excellent system - in fact, I've heard quite a few people praise it highly. There just doesn't to be enough hours in the day for me to take it on. One-click wins, I'm afraid.

One day, though!

[vangogh]

There just doesn't to be enough hours in the day for me to take it on.

I think Bill's point is you don't need all those hours in the day anymore. Linux had matured a lot over the years to the point where most people can simply start using it without too much of a learning curve. It'll be different than what you currently use, but not necessarily harder to use.

Bill I had it installed on an older computer, which was set up to dual boot into Debian Linux and Windows. I played around with it and thought it pretty good. Unfortunately I still needed to be logged into Windows most of the time and didn't play around as often as I should.

It's certainly a viable 3rd option for people.

For people who want to test it without installing it you can get Linux installed on a usb drive and run it from the usb when you want to play around with. It won't change anything on your system that way. I think knoppix is a version you can put on a usb drive.

[seolman]

I highly recommend you don't throw away your old PC - toss any flavor of Linux on it and watch it fly. We use Ubuntu quite a bit around our offices - combine that with Open Office and you really start saving some money on licenses ;)

[billbenson]

VG, there is a way to run windows applications via wine on Open Suse anyway. Also there is a way to directly install IE although I never played with it.

[MyITGuy]

Secure enough that I don't use anti virus / spyware software for example.

I would not say that security through obscurity is not a good plan/idea.

While viruses are less prevalent for *NIX based systems, they are still out there and can infect your machine just as easily as a Windows OS. You should still have a firewall in place (Hardware or software) combined with an Antivirus scanner and the occasional review of log files.

In regards to using *NIX in a business environment...many studies have been performed that indicate a Windows based OS is still cost effective as the end user/employee already knows these systems, versus having to spend time/money to bring these same people up to speed on the new platform before you can begin training them on their job roles.

In regards to using *NIX in a home environment, the biggest thing working against this environment is video card support as most people are into various games that require good/excellent video card driver support, which last time I checked wasn't there.

[seolman]

In regards to using *NIX in a home environment, the biggest thing working against this environment is video card support as most people are into various games that require good/excellent video card driver support, which last time I checked wasn't there.

You make a good point. One of our Sr Programmers is a big-time gamer (using Wine to run a few Windows games). He was able to find a number of very good video cards that are *nix compatible. Even when he purchased the card it was a challenge to get the right drivers etc. Linux is not for the technically faint hearted.

[vangogh]

there is a way to run windows applications via wine on Open Suse anyway

Oh I know. I had set up the dual boot so I could work in Windows while learning Linux. A better approach for me would have been running Linux under virtual software. Now I'm a Mac person so it's somewhat irrelevant, though I do have virtualization software and can now run any operating system I want.

@MyITGuy - nothing is ever 100% secure. I agree with you that security by obscurity isn't a real security solution, though I would suggest it's better than being both insecure and popular. Usually the weakest link in security is us. More security breaches probably happen due to poor or no passwords, opening suspicious files, visiting suspicious sites, and giving away more information than we should when a stranger asks.

[MyITGuy]

Usually the weakest link in security is us.

Agreed! Almost every piece of equipment I service, the user accounts that are used for your normal day to day tasks are a member of the administrators group. I can see it already, non-technical users who move to the *NIX Platform because "its more secure" will run under the root account or something similar so they don't have to deal with that "annoying message" telling them they can't do something they want.

[billbenson]

Its also more secure by design. You have to go to super user mode to be able to install anything. I'm sure there are applications out there that install spyware, but if you stick to known repositories its pretty hard for them to get into your system. Its not just a click and oops thing. I've never run into a post where a Linux for personal use or small business had spyware.

Hardware and drivers are the biggest pain in the butt. They have a long list of compatible components. If you stick to those you shouldn't have any problems.

[MyITGuy]

Its also more secure by design. You have to go to super user mode to be able to install anything.
Assuming the user installing the OS heeds the warnings not to run as root...


I'm sure there are applications out there that install spyware, but if you stick to known repositories its pretty hard for them to get into your system. Its not just a click and oops thing. I've never run into a post where a Linux for personal use or small business had spyware.
It would be a safe assumption that they may not even know they are infected. People don't bring their computer to me and say they have spyware or a virus...they complain of other problems such as their computer is running slow, shuts down unexpectedly or etc, and usually they've been putting up with these issues for weeks/months/years before they bring it into the shop.

Additionally, these symptoms may not be as prevalent in the *NIX environment due to its architecture (If *NIX can run better than an MS OS on older hardware, why can't it have better performance when infected with viruses/spyware?)

Finally why can't it be a click and oops thing? Windows implemented user account control to let end users know when system changes were being made and end users still ignore these warnings and install the item, I don't see this as being any different from having to su in a *NIX environment if they are not logged into root, or going through steps that may be displayed on screen to install an RPM package.

[MyITGuy]

Hardware and drivers are the biggest pain in the butt. They have a long list of compatible components. If you stick to those you shouldn't have any problems.

And this is why I think Windows has the vulnerabilities it has. They make it too easy for the end users to install hardware, and they try and stay compatible with as many pieces of current/legacy hardware as they can so they do not inconvenience their users. I think there changing this mentality though with the introduction of vista/7 with driver signing....but who knows how far they will take it.

And while *NIX does have a list of "compatible" hardware...do you think the average end user will know what chipset they have on their computer to know if their onboard video/network card is supported. Or while their hardware may be "compatible", that it won't have the expected functionality to perform to its peak potential (I.E. seolman's comment on the video card)


Don't get me wrong, I like the *NIX platforms and they are showing some positive movement into the enterprise/consumer desktop market...it just isn't there yet for me to recommend to the user base that I work with on a consistent basis (Which is residential to large corporations)

[vangogh]

People don't bring their computer to me and say they have spyware or a virus...they complain of other problems such as their computer is running slow, shuts down unexpectedly or etc, and usually they've been putting up with these issues for weeks/months/years before they bring it into the shop.

Yep. There's a flip side too. I see plenty of people now blaming a virus for anything computer related. I've had plenty of people tell me the reason they didn't reply to my email in a timely manner was because they had a virus. More likely they just didn't reply, but blaming things on a computer virus is apparently now a common excuse for things.

Have you seen what Apple is doing with their latest version of OSX (lion)? They're pushing toward every application running in a sandbox and only allowing them to run with least privilege. Starting in November(?) any app that wants to be part of the Mac App store will need to use Apple's APIs for least privilege to be included in the store. I think it'll prove to be a good approach to security.

[MyITGuy]

Have you seen what Apple is doing with their latest version of OSX (lion)? They're pushing toward every application running in a sandbox and only allowing them to run with least privilege. Starting in November(?) any app that wants to be part of the Mac App store will need to use Apple's APIs for least privilege to be included in the store. I think it'll prove to be a good approach to security.

I haven't yet...but one of my next expenses will be to acquire some Apple hardware so I can research their OS/Hardware more in-depth. It's definitely a good approach as long as they follow up with timely security updates (I.E. iPhone Users have a PDF exploit that has gone un-patched for quite some time now...)

[vangogh]

There's an iOS update that was just released today or maybe yesterday which I think addresses some security issues, perhaps the PDF issue. Apple tends to make quiet security updates. They generally don't publicize it much, but they do send security updates. They've been getting more serious about security these last few months too.

I think the sandboxing idea a good one. It should minimize the damage any malware can cause given it will have limited access to most of the OS. It should also improve performance since one application shouldn't be able to take down other applications.

[billbenson]

And this is why I think Windows has the vulnerabilities it has. They make it too easy for the end users to install hardware, and they try and stay compatible with as many pieces of current/legacy hardware as they can so they do not inconvenience their users. I think there changing this mentality though with the introduction of vista/7 with driver signing....but who knows how far they will take it.

MS is in the business of selling software. They quit supporting older versions if they can to force you to buy newer versions. Hardware manufacturers tend to drop support for older hardware for use with the newest windows os. Both windows software and hardware become obsolete fairly quickly and that’s what the hardware and software manufacturers want. So I really see Windows going the opposite direction as you do.


Assuming the user installing the OS heeds the warnings not to run as root...

It certainly doesn't default to a root installation and I don't see a new user trying to defeat this. There are so many repositories in the installation now (my install dvd was 4.6G or thereabouts) that I don't see new users going outside of the packages that come with the install. That means the only time you enter a password is in Yast. I think you are way to worried about people running from root.

If you are worried about virus's the standard install comes with some. They don't come installed though. Seems Suse doesn't think they are necessary either.


I'm not necessarily recommending it as its not for everyone. It is worth considering though if you don't mind spending a bit of time learning it though.

The above is from my original post. I think people should put it in the mix of OS's to consider. I don't see why you seem to think that everyone is going to try to defeat the built in security and are to incompetent to use it anyway. Its a great, secure, product and its free!

[MyITGuy]

MS is in the business of selling software. They quit supporting older versions if they can to force you to buy newer versions. Hardware manufacturers tend to drop support for older hardware for use with the newest windows os. Both windows software and hardware become obsolete fairly quickly and that’s what the hardware and software manufacturers want. So I really see Windows going the opposite direction as you do.
Yes, MS and hardware vendors do drop support...however they do not force you to upgrade to a new OS/Hardware...this is a choice the end user makes if they want to take advantage of new features or want to ensure they have the latest security patches. And when these users do upgrade, they don't want to replace every piece of tech they have which is what Microsoft was trying to accommodate up until recently. Did you miss the end user outrage when Vista/7 broke so many applications and hardware due to the changes MS implemented?


It certainly doesn't default to a root installation and I don't see a new user trying to defeat this. There are so many repositories in the installation now (my install dvd was 4.6G or thereabouts) that I don't see new users going outside of the packages that come with the install. That means the only time you enter a password is in Yast. I think you are way to worried about people running from root.

I haven't dealt with a desktop installation recently, but last time I did there were several items that couldn't be installed via repositories. Please feel free to share, how do you install Skype now? Last time I checked it needed to be downloaded and installed as an RPM.


If you are worried about virus's the standard install comes with some. They don't come installed though. Seems Suse doesn't think they are necessary either.
I would think differently, they are making it available to you but are not forcing you into any specific platform.


I don't see why you seem to think that everyone is going to try to defeat the built in security
I have several years worth of experience supporting both residential and corporate customers and this experience tells me that most end users will ignore/disable/click through the security features in order to make their computing experience better for them without understanding the implications of these changes.

Additionally, its not just people trying to defeat the built in security but also outside forces trying to compromise that persons system via systems connected directly to the net (Up until recently users of cable modems/internet were directly connected to the net with no hardware firewall/router), taking advantages of exploits found via PDF Readers, Flash Games, Browsers, JPG files and etc...


and its free!
Last time I checked, as a business owner/operator my time was very valuable and is not free. As you mentioned in your original post, "if you don't mind spending a bit of time learning it though". Please feel free to provide how much time you've spent learning the new system/applications. I'd think that you have more invested in education/research and etc than what it would have cost you for a license of an MS OS...Additionally since I believe I saw a post were you fix/repair computers I would assume your pretty tech savvy...try and think how much time your average person might spend trying to learn the new system and the differences in all of the applications they want/must use.


I think people should put it in the mix of OS's to consider.
I would agree, however they need to ensure that they are properly informed. Stating that it's "free", and is so secure that you don't need anti-virus is extremely misleading.

[Dan Furman]

The whole free thing I find silly - it's not like OS's are thousands of dollars. I can spend $200 every few years to stay current on such an important tool - any business should be able to. Free really isn't an advantage worth touting.

More secure is misleading too. The security, as mentioned, is mostly due to obscurity. The ability to block installs/etc was ridiculed when windows introduced it. That's not user-friendly.

I like windows a lot - always have. It brought the computer out of the basement, and into the office.

[vangogh]

The free is in freedom as in you can do whatever you want with the software because it's open. It's never been about free as in cost, though that seems to be how most people interpret it.

True about security not being the most user friendly, but that's part of why it's more secure. The weak link in security is usually us. People still use things like 1234 or 'password' as passwords. I felt sorry for Microsoft. Everyone complained for years how insecure Windows was so Windows made it more secure and everyone complained about how annoying security was.


It brought the computer out of the basement, and into the office.

Actually the Mac did that. Apple let the ball slip and let IBM take over the personal computer market and since IBM had chosen DOS they later got Windows. Macs brought the computer out of the basement, though perhaps didn't penetrate the office.

[billbenson]

MyITGuy, you seem to be trying to come up with every reason you can to tell people not to use it. My only point in my OP was that the distributions are getting better and more people may want to consider using it. You say "I haven't dealt with a desktop installation recently" but you discourage the use of it. What gives??

@Dan - VG covered security but your statement "The security, as mentioned, is mostly due to obscurity" is completely inaccurate. Its more secure by design unless you are one of MyITGuy's customers who are always trying to defeat it.

[Dan Furman]

Actually the Mac did that. Apple let the ball slip and let IBM take over the personal computer market and since IBM had chosen DOS they later got Windows. Macs brought the computer out of the basement, though perhaps didn't penetrate the office.

Yea, I don't give Mac real credit for this because they kind of still kept it a closed club. The thing that really made the PC so useful for business was that everyone could use one, regardless of what brand hardware they bought (save for apple :) )

[Dan Furman]

@Dan - VG covered security but your statement "The security, as mentioned, is mostly due to obscurity" is completely inaccurate. Its more secure by design unless you are one of MyITGuy's customers who are always trying to defeat it.

I really don't think it's more secure, though. It's not apples to apples. I personally feel that if linux had the market penetration that windows does, it'd be targeted by hackers / virus writers / etc just as much, with prettymuch the same results we have now (I've done enough programming to know there's always a solution, always a bug, and always a hole). But it would never get that market penetration, because of the current "idiot proof" security.

[billbenson]

I really don't think it's more secure, though.

Which is an opinion based on zero facts.

Lets ask someone who has an in depth knowledge of both.

@MyITGuy which archetecture is more inherently secure $NIX or Windows (assuming no antivirus is added and no security features are defeated such as running from root in Linux)?

[MyITGuy]

MyITGuy, you seem to be trying to come up with every reason you can to tell people not to use it.
I'm not telling people not to use it...by all means give it a whirl if they like (They do have live CD's that you can boot from without changing your existing system if you want to experiment)...I'm just responding to what I feel are inaccurate statements being made.


Its more secure by design unless you are one of MyITGuy's customers who are always trying to defeat it.

Let me ask, since you've mentioned you have/do repair computers...how many of them do you encounter that are running with their user accounts as a part of the administrators group?

Finally, you state that Linux is more secure than Windows "by design". Please feel free to post a reference to a study or etc.
For comparison, here's a quote I took from bixniz.org. Yes, they are talking about Windows NT which was the basis for later versions of MS operating systems (With even more improvements to security)...but I don't think the *nix kernels have really changed much since then...


Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT
Reality: Linux Security Model Is Weak

All systems are vulnerable to security issues, however it's important to note that Linux uses the same security model as the original UNIX implementations--a model that was not designed from the ground up to be secure.

Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate.

Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices. In contrast, Windows NT allows an administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level. Linux has not supported key security accreditation standards. Every member of the Windows NT family since Windows NT 3.5 has been evaluated at either a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or at a C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process. In contrast, no Linux products are listed on the U.S. Government's evaluated product list.

Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues. Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.

[MyITGuy]

@MyITGuy which archetecture is more inherently secure $NIX or Windows (assuming no antivirus is added and no security features are defeated such as running from root in Linux)?

Windows. See my post above that contains a quoted reference.

[billbenson]

Windows. See my post above that contains a quoted reference.

Ok, I'll accept that and thanks for the link. I did look for other security references, but they all are so slanted one way or the other that they had little value.

[Dan Furman]

Which is an opinion based on zero facts.

Lets ask someone who has an in depth knowledge of both.

@MyITGuy which archetecture is more inherently secure $NIX or Windows (assuming no antivirus is added and no security features are defeated such as running from root in Linux)?

Of course it's an opinion. I think I was pretty clear about that (the inclusion of the word "think" should have tipped you off. Or maybe the "I personally feel" part?)

If you bothered to read the rest of my post, you'd also have surmised why I have this opinion. But you just want to argue about Linux being better. Whatever.

[vangogh]

Dan I definitely don't want to have an argument about which operating system is better or which deserves credit for what. Macs were definitely there first in making computers easier for anyone to use. IBM opened up things by sharing how they built computers which led to everyone copying their process and since they used DOS and then Windows that's what most computers ended up using. All deserve credit (as do many other companies who came before) for bringing the computer to the mainstream.


Let me ask, since you've mentioned you have/do repair computers...how many of them do you encounter that are running with their user accounts as a part of the administrators group?

That's a human thing. It has nothing to do with the actual architecture of the operating system. A door with a lock is more secure than one that doesn't have a lock. If the person with the first door never locks it, it doesn't make the second door just as secure as the first. I do agree with you that Windows machines are more targeted, but it's more secure to limit the privileges applications have. I think *nix machines have more built in to limit those privileges when used properly.

Also I just want to point out that Bill only started this thread to let people know that Linux has caught up a lot in terms of usability and is a viable operating system for people who'd like to give it a try. Personally I think all 3 operating systems we're talking about here are pretty good at what they do. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but all 3 do what they're supposed to do very well. I always find it somewhat silly when people fight about which is best, since most of what makes one better for you is personal choice more than anything else.

I've used all 3 operating systems and was able to do all the things I wanted to do on each of them, though sometimes in slightly different ways. All 3 worked. All 3 crashed. All 3 did certain things better than the other 2. And all 3 had little annoyances to deal with.

[Dan Furman]

Dan I definitely don't want to have an argument about which operating system is better or which deserves credit for what. Macs were definitely there first in making computers easier for anyone to use. IBM opened up things by sharing how they built computers which led to everyone copying their process and since they used DOS and then Windows that's what most computers ended up using. All deserve credit (as do many other companies who came before) for bringing the computer to the mainstream.


Oh, no argument (that was directed at Bill, because of his whole "zero facts" comment, which I felt was a little much for the discussion.)

Agreed - I just give MS more credit than Apple for the big mainstream push (although I like Apple products, and do acknowledge they were first - I just wish they played ball with everyone else.)

[jbarnett]

Personally, very fond of Linux - I've used quite a few, including Ubuntu, Red Hat and a few others. It tends to be quite a nice, slick system, depending on the build and is largely compatible - but like billbenson mentioned, it is a pain having to download a load of hardware drivers for it!

I still have Windows on all machines, regardless - it's still the market leader and the most compatible OS out there.

[vangogh]

I just wish they played ball with everyone else.

Just curious, but how does Microsoft play ball with everyone else where Apple doesn't?


most compatible OS out there.

Most compatible with what?

[Dan Furman]

Just curious, but how does Microsoft play ball with everyone else where Apple doesn't?


They don't, but they went the licensing route w/ the software, which created a standard for the masses, which led to the computer becoming an invaluable business tool.

To comment on Jbarnett's statement and your question - most compatable with everyone else ;)

[jbarnett]

Most compatible with PC computer software... some nice free Linux applications out there but, let's face it, it's not the same thing. Personally I still prefer MS office and Adobe Dreamweaver over a lot of the alternatives Linux offers. But hey - each to their own I suppose.

[vangogh]

Dan the thing is it wasn't Microsoft that's responsible for the spread of Microsoft. It was really more IBM who opened up things. The released their plans for how to build a computer and that included using DOS. Had IBM chosen another company it would be that company's operating system you'd probably be using now. Microsoft was a nice beneficiary and they certainly knew how to hold on to their market share. I don't think it was their licensing that helped them spread.


Most compatible with PC computer software

Linux is most compatible with Linux software and OSX is most compatible with Apple software. I assume you just mean there's more software available for Windows than the other operating systems. That might not even be true. I wouldn't be surprised if more software has been written for Linux than anything else. Also today most programs on any of the 3 can easily read and write formats that are more common on the other 2.

I agree with to each his own. Like I said before all 3 operating systems work well and do what they're supposed to do. And you can find similar software on all of them. You prefer MS Office. I prefer iWorks. Both offer a WordProcessing, Spreadsheet, and Presentation tools. Of all 3 I've still used Windows the most. A few years ago when I switched to OSX it took maybe 2 days top to find equivalent programs for everything I had been using.

To me the whole point of this thread is really that Linux is a viable option for most people. Maybe instead of debating which is better we could all list a few reasons we personally like the operating system we use. I'll go first.

I use Macs and my main computer is currently a Macbook Air running OSX Snow Leopard. I like it because of

1. The design. I love the way both the hardware and software are designed. An example of the hardware is the power chord which connects to my laptop magnetically. When I accidentally trip over the chord as I'm prone to do it pulls out easily without any damage. On the software side every application I open looks better to me than it's Windows or Linus counterpart. Since I'm staring at a computer all day that's important to me.

2. Stability. I'm not saying my Macs have never crashed or run slow, but they seem to do so less frequently than any of my Windows machines. I used to have to shut down Windows every night or the OS would be useless by the morning and I often had to restart multiple times a day. About the only time I restart the Mac is for a software update that requires it. I might have a program freeze on me, but when it does it doesn't take down the OS. Do note that Windows 7 wasn't out when I last had a Windows machine so perhaps the situation is better now.

3. It just works. It really does. It's not as though I'm not tech savvy and it's not like I ever had a hard time getting things to work on Windows, but there seems to be a lot less effort getting things to work on the Mac side.

Who's next?

[seolman]

I started doing CAD in 1978 on a Digital VAX 1170, moved to a PC and used dBase I to write inventory programs for my small business. Kept moving along through the 286's 386's 486's etc., learning new software and on to today's core duos etc. I started SEO and web development in 1998 using a PC. I now use a MAC for one very simple reason: PC is based on DOS and MAC is based on Unix. I have far fewer virus issues with my MAC. As VG says - it just works.

Having said that I have friends that I recommend stay with Windows because it suits their needs better.

I also use Linux (Ubuntu) mostly because I'm too cheap to throw away old computers and Linux is so much lighter than Windows my old PC's that are crushed under the weight of Windows seem to go at light speed with Linux.

I am not anti-Microsoft - it is a very user-friendly software. I just prefer *nix based systems because I think they run faster and have less virus issues.

[billbenson]

I switched from Windows to Linux in the Win XP era. I frequently have a ton of tabs and programs that are memory intensive open. I'd have to reboot twice a day at times and had crashes which were a pain. I tried Linux on the recommendation of someone on a webmaster forum. It was a pain to set up knowing nothing about it, but then really not that bad. I set it up in a second partition and got it running and then cut over to it. Setting it up was a lot more difficult back then.

I could and still can go weeks now without a reboot on Linux, although I usually do a reboot once a week. I have no idea how windows of today reacts to having a ton of windows and tabs open. Once and a while, Firefox will have a coronary, but like the Apple comments, it doesn't crash the OS.

I also run Apache, MySQL, PHP on my system. All of my quote generation, accounting etc is done via scripts I have written and use all day long locally. I ran it for years on Windows as well. When I was using it in Windows Global arrays didn't work because of path issues. Other little things didn't work well. I don't have those issues on Linux. But then that’s an example of programs that were written around *NIX.

My wife has a Dell Vista laptop. When I replace it I'll get another Windows laptop for her. Having said that she has no preference between my pc and her laptop as a user. By "as a user" I mean she doesn't install or configure my pc.

[vangogh]

Oddly enough I'll be spending part of the weekend installing Windows XP on a Macbook Pro. It's my old laptop that I recently fixed and want to set up as a backup just in case, but mainly to use as a dedicated testing machine for Internet Explorer. I'll likely install one of the Linux distros on it as well so I'll have all operating systems on the one laptop.

One other thing I can mention about Macs, though it's not an OS issue so not a comparison to either Windows or *nix. The laptop doesn't feel cheap at all. My last two laptops both came from Dell and they never felt solid. One I picked up and the monitor flipped back to fast breaking the hinge. I couldn't even imagine that happening with either Mac. The construction feels so solid.


because I'm too cheap to throw away old computers

I still have every laptop I've owned for the last 10+ years. One isn't in working condition, the one with the hinge does still work, and one is so old and so lacking in every spec (it has a wonderful 6GB hard drive), but I think it's still working.


Setting it up was a lot more difficult back then.

Sometimes that's part of the fun too. I like configuring a new machine and correcting all the silly things I did with the last one.

[kerrylinux]

Linux not only is more secure by design, it also replaces a Microsoft server in the network. Running the excellent SAMBA software your Linux machine acts as a Windows file server and primary domain controller. No need for a Microsoft server anymore.

And you can scan all those viruses the Windows clients store in the shared folders on the Linux server with the CLAM AV anti virus scanner.

[MyITGuy]

Linux not only is more secure by design, it also replaces a Microsoft server in the network. Running the excellent SAMBA software your Linux machine acts as a Windows file server and primary domain controller. No need for a Microsoft server anymore.

And you can scan all those viruses the Windows clients store in the shared folders on the Linux server with the CLAM AV anti virus scanner.

I think I already addressed the statement of "more secure by design" in post 24 (http://www.small-business-forum.net/managing-your-business/5300-linux-operating-system-3.html#post51463) please feel free to reference any current information that stipulates otherwise.

While you can setup a SAMBA Server for a microsoft network, it has been my experience that managing permissions is more difficult, and there have been little nuances with files closing properly or being opened by more than one person. I believe functionality named OPLOCKS attempts to resolve this, but it still occurs frequent enough to not set this up for my clients on NAS Units that I install (Running a version of *NIX).

Please feel free to share more information on *NIX as a domain controller...I haven't seen this implemented and I would be curious in learning more. Can you still maintain the granularity of permissions and group policy objects? This is a big part of a server/domain controller so if it cant (Which is my assumption), then it cannot replace Windows in a business network yet...

[billbenson]

Actually not MyITGuy. Your post supports your position, but their are tons of results in a search supporting both sides.

[MyITGuy]

Actually not MyITGuy. Your post supports your position, but their are tons of results in a search supporting both sides.

Yes, my post supports my position and in case you didnt notice is that it was take from a site that focuses/centers on the *NIX environment...I think that says something about my opinion. Additionally, it seems that I'm the only one that has been willing to reference a third party site/opinion that discusses this subject without their own opinions or those of the referenced quote/post clouding their judgement. You're more than welcome to post a reference that supports your opinion if you like.

If you stand by your "more secure by design" statement, then please enlighten me by answering these questions:
Is the *NIX environment still an all or nothing approach to user ID's? (I.E. Your a user or your an admin with nothing in between).
In the *NIX environment, can you delegate access to another user (I.E. They can install/remove software, but they cant change drivers or other system settings)?
In the *NIX Environment, is there anything that has the equivalent of Windows Local/Group Policies?
Can you reference any current government or other equivalent organization that posts security standards/rankings where a *NIX system maintains an equal, or preferably a better rank (Since they are "more secure by design" as people are stating) than a windows OS?

I'll leave you with a quote from Kerelthread.com:

Nevertheless, Windows NT was designed to be a secure system, with provisions for even more security than initially implemented. It provides an impressive set of security mechanisms (Windows 2000 Security Services, Windows Server 2003 Security Services), with more being worked on (Windows XP Service Pack 2, Next-Generation Secure Computing Base).

Current Windows systems have some of the highest security ratings (as compared to other systems). Note that this is factual information, regardless of how much sectarian laughter it induces.

[vangogh]

In *nix every file comes with a set of permissions about who can read, write, and execute a file. Permissions are given to the owner of the file, groups, and everyone. You can set a file then to be readable by all, but only writable to a group, etc. Naturally people can set more or less secure permissions (again it's us that's the weak link in security), but the basic idea would be to allow the least amount of permissions necessary.

[billbenson]

Aside from the fact that the domain name you mentioned bixniz.org isn't valid, when there are a ton of posts on both sides of the fence, no quote you mention has any validity. You are just quoting references that support your case.

I have no side on this issue other than *NIX is a secure platform so I'm not going to play your quote game!

[MyITGuy]

In *nix every file comes with a set of permissions about who can read, write, and execute a file. Permissions are given to the owner of the file, groups, and everyone. You can set a file then to be readable by all, but only writable to a group, etc. Naturally people can set more or less secure permissions (again it's us that's the weak link in security), but the basic idea would be to allow the least amount of permissions necessary.

Yes, and that's one of the the points that I'm trying to drive home...what other security features does *nix provide other than file permissions and all (root) or nothing (user) account levels?

[billbenson]

Yes, and that's one of the the points that I'm trying to drive home...what other security features does *nix provide other than file permissions and all (root) or nothing (user) account levels?

And what does that have to do with security on a personal PC?

[MyITGuy]

Aside from the fact that the domain name you mentioned bixniz.org isn't valid, when there are a ton of posts on both sides of the fence, no quote you mention has any validity. You are just quoting references that support your case.

I have no side on this issue other than *NIX is a secure platform so I'm not going to play your quote game!

Sorry, its biznix.org...I must of transposed it in my post.

I'm not playing any game, I'm just looking for anyone to backup the opinion/statement that *nix is "more secure by design" in comparison to a windows NT based OS (I.E. XP, Vista, 7 and Server 2000, 2003 and 2008) when that is so far from the truth.

You don't want to cite any references/quotes.
You have continuously avoided answering any questions I posed that might help you back up your statement
This only leads me to assume that you can't find any and your statements are just opinions without any facts to back them up!

[MyITGuy]

And what does that have to do with security on a personal PC?

It addresses a statement you made previously that was not limited to the desktop/personal PC environment:

Its also more secure by design. You have to go to super user mode to be able to install anything.

[vangogh]

MyITGuy I'm certainly not a security expert and I've tried to mostly stay away from debating which OS is more secure. However I'll point to 2 things that suggest to me *nix systems are more secure.

1. Privileges - I think Windows generally allows more access to the OS than it should. One being how users are set up by default and the other being programs having more access beyond what they need. I'm not sure if the 2nd is actually true, but it's my understanding how both OS' work. Also Vista and Windows 7 may have changed #1. This point may be moot.

2. Open Source - Because *nix code is open if means lots more eyeballs are able to find and fix holes. You might argue that it also means more eyeballs can spot and exploit those holes too, which is true, but the former trumps the latter. Since Windows will only be patched by one company according to that one company's schedule it leads to longer periods of time where security holes remain unpatched.

Here's an article (from PC World no less) suggesting Linux more secure than Windows (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/202452/why_linux_is_more_secure_than_windows.html). I'm ignoring the security by obscurity arguments.

Here's an article suggesting it depends (http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/is-linux-really-more-secure-than-windows.html), however does suggest Linux more secure by design given how bugs in programs usually won't take down the OS while they often do in Windows. It's an older article though (2007) and like I said above this may not be as true as it once was.

Here's a study presented by The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/). It's long and I didn't read the whole thing (though I will when I have more time). The study looks at the amount of critical flaws in both OS' over a period of time.

[kerrylinux]

Of course SAMBA on Linux can act as the primary domain controller in a business network.

Firstly the SAMBA server could check user passwords as easily as a Windows server and provide a domain, clients can join, including all necessary user's logon directories.
On the other hand file permissions are ruled by the underlying UNIX permissions, so that some Windows concepts cannot directly be applied. But using fully configurable write lists and read lists for access control to folders, "group policies" of any complexity can be configured.

[kerrylinux]

If you stand by your "more secure by design" statement, then please enlighten me by answering these questions:
Is the *NIX environment still an all or nothing approach to user ID's? (I.E. Your a user or your an admin with nothing in between).


I cannot see why having something in between will improve security.

It's a well known principle to perform tasks using a minimalist set of file permissions and only use higher degree of access permission if the task cannot be done without it. So running everything as a normal user who can only manipulate data objects he owns is one of the most secure ways of doing things you can imagine.

For privilege escalation Linux has a number of mechanisms, that make sure that additional permissions are at hand, normally secured by a password, if need arises.

And there is the kernel module SELINUX developed by the National Security Agency that helps even to restrict root permissions by introducing specific contexts in which processes have fine grained access permissions.

Once you'll need administration tasks to be done, the person should be knowing what he does, whether it is a normal user, gaining permission to change the IP address (via permission escalation), or a professional systems admin having full root access to the system.

[kerrylinux]

In the *NIX Environment, is there anything that has the equivalent of Windows Local/Group Policies?


Most of what you're saying is "show me that Linux is like Windows"

Thank God (or all those numerous kernel developers and open source supporters for that matter) it isn't.

[SimpleKindOfMan]

I'm sure it is an excellent system - in fact, I've heard quite a few people praise it highly. There just doesn't to be enough hours in the day for me to take it on. One-click wins, I'm afraid.

One day, though!

Ah! Consider Linux Mint if you want to try Linux. It's an even simpler version of Ubuntu! It's very much like Windows.

My mother's computer crashed, and I couldn't find her Windows restore discs. I tried Ubuntu at first but it was a little too complicated for her, unfortunately.

Linux Mint was much more to her liking. Try a live CD of it before you decide to install it though. You can download it at Main Page - Linux Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/).
Linux has come a long way in the past few years.

[kerrylinux]

Linux has come a long way in the past few years.

This is very true. As Linux is 20 years old today, it may be interesting to compare the reliable, powerful operating system we have today with the "small project" Linus envisaged 20 years ago.

Congratulations, Linux.




From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT

Organization: University of Helsinki
<p>Hello everybody out there using minix -
<p>I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I’d like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things)

I’ve currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I’ll get something practical within a few months, and
I’d like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won’t promise I’ll implement them :-)

Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)

PS. Yes – it’s free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that’s all I have :-(.

[vangogh]

Happy Birthday Linux! (a day late).

I wonder where Linus Torvalds thought Linux would end up. It doesn't sound like he expected it would be used as widely as it has, but did he expect to to make it off campus? Was he thinking it would be a niche player in operating systems? Did he not think about it at all and was mainly having some fun creating something he personally found useful?