Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 77
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710

  2. #27
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,426
    to each his own I guess. I got too much important stuff on my pc to even think of using windows. And yeah I like the hacking tools on linux as some may call them.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    47
    I never hoiught it sucked, I just never thought it got the right attention.
    And yes i use both, but for different reasons. Like most im sure.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    1,815
    There is no replacement for Adobe Photoshop. If you're going to be working with graphics and media, then linux is a big no-no. Go for Mac or Windows.

    Linux only has the edge in servers since it's stable.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    chica go go
    Posts
    11,876
    Quote Originally Posted by WHTer
    There is no replacement for Adobe Photoshop. If you're going to be working with graphics and media, then linux is a big no-no. Go for Mac or Windows.

    Linux only has the edge in servers since it's stable.
    What about program development?

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    1,815
    Yea Linux is good for program development too, but it would depend in which language your writing in. For example, You can code java just fine on all three windows, mac, and Linux I think. I'm not a program developer though, so I'm just guessing here.

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by IceCreamMan
    I hate when people say "it just hasnt evolved" and everything like that... Linux IS NOT windows.. It's different, and that's why it tends to work better.
    Quote something I never said why don't ya.

    That's what I said, Linux isn't good for desktops unless you're an ultra nerd, and most people aren't.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    560
    Quote Originally Posted by joshcrick
    Quote something I never said why don't ya.

    That's what I said, Linux isn't good for desktops unless you're an ultra nerd, and most people aren't.
    Ugh.. "Ultra nerd" I am no "ultra nerd"... I think you have to be some computer genious to get windows to work the way you want...

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Surrey BC
    Posts
    1,343
    I tried a few destop distros. Vector linux and Xandros. Xandor was pretty nice but lacked Firefox. So i decided to see how to install Firefox. Well there were 10 pages back then on their forums on how to install Firefox. I put Win 2K back onto my computer after that ordeal.

    I''ve ran Slackware as a server and Im running FreeBSD 6 as one right now. Both worked awesome. I've also ran a W2KAMP server and that also work great for me.

    One of the reason I really havent gone to Linux desktop is Photoshop. Really GIMP/GIMPSHOP is not a substitue. So I have no reason to switch.

    I think there are too many distros out there and this scares most new users away from choosing one. Unless you are the type of person who doesn't mind wasting days installing and reading about Linux distros you probably wont stick withone for too long.

    There other thing I see is the stupid names people choose for Linux distros and opensource software. GIMP? yah yah its an acronym but so what. GIMP? Most potential users will think its a pice of useless gimped software.

    What would be used more if it was free, GIMP or PHOTOSHOP?
    What would you buy. Software called GIMP or PHOTOSHOP


    + NOW WE'RE MAKING RECORDS, NOW WE'RE MAKING TAPES

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    71
    There's nothing wrong with linux. It just doesn't have the amount of users and developers as windows. It's evolved, just around a different type of user than windows users.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    560
    Quote Originally Posted by kubel
    There's nothing wrong with linux. It just doesn't have the amount of users and developers as windows. It's evolved, just around a different type of user than windows users.
    Linux as a whole has WAY more developers than poor closed source windows.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,128
    Linux is superior for development, at least in my experience (being a java programmer). Personally, if Linux had the same level of desktop applications as Windows, I'd use it full time. But the fact is it doesn't... Linux isn't built for casual PC users, and its designed to be different from Windows, so trying to compare the 2 with pro's and con's is pointless.

    And Linux does have far far more developers than Windows...

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Under Your Skin
    Posts
    5,904
    I love the title of this thread...

    No, linux does not suck, though. I've played around with it over the years and it has a long way to go before grandma can get a hold of it.

    Windows XP is great, and has all the great software for the general public. For example, my sister is a computer newbie, but she was able to purchase a program and install it... both a cooking program and a yard layout program... both not avail on linux (far as I know, but I highly doubt it).

    Personally, I would love to see the entire linux crowd get behind one distro and work the hell out of it....

    For anyone looking for another OS, I would say Mac is the way to go.

    The time for linux is slowly ticking... if vista is as smooth and stable as XP, I don't know if the linux distros will ever be able to catch up.....
    Windows 10 to Linux and Mac OSX: I'm PARSECs better than you. Eat my dust!!!

  14. #39
    I have tried to convert many times from Windows to Linux. The attempt fails every time as I use Outlook 2003 + Exchange Server, and I have a >10gb mailbox. Result of this is that Evolution chokes, and using Outlook over terminal server is impossibly lame for many reasons.

    So, back to Windows. If it wasn't for the e-mail situation I would use SuSE 24/7. Oh, and the iPaq sync.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    14,135
    Quote Originally Posted by EuroVPS/Director
    I have tried to convert many times from Windows to Linux. The attempt fails every time as I use Outlook 2003 + Exchange Server, and I have a >10gb mailbox. Result of this is that Evolution chokes,
    So , continue using office in Crossover. This has been supported for years

    The bottom line is ( and the linux lovers will probably argue this ) Linux is a great server O/S but it's simply not matured enough on the workstation side.
    It's NOT a maturity issue, but you're correct.
    Firstly, for nwe(er) hardware, you're going to run into a crapshoot as to whether or not linux will work and install properly. With my own setup, I've tested numerous distros and every time run into kernel panics. Of course, I haven't tried Suse or Fedora (yet), but every other distro I've tried (gentoo, ubuntu, mandrake, slackware) can't handle my setup enough to install, and that's just not good.

    When I DO get things installed (once a year or so I go back and emerse myself in Linux for a month as a home OS), I find that so much is lacking that I'm just begging to get back to windows. From WoW not loading (properly) to various other things (trillian, Ultraedit, SecureCRT) which I've paid decent money for because they're good apps not loading to not being able to burn dvds properly, to a number of things.

    The problem isn't maturity, but development. Individuals develop for Windows, NOT Linux, and they use too much of the proprietary crap in there. When it comes time to port it to Linux, there really is no choice, it can't be done.

    When individuals stop developing applications using proprietary stuff, and start looking towards the FUTURE of applications, building them for ALL systems, then things will change, and we'll see more individuals moving towards Linux, but I don't think that'll happen any time soon.
    Tom Whiting, WHMCS Guru extraordinaire
    Linux problems? WHMCS Problems? Give me a shout
    Check out my WHMCS Addons

  16. #41
    I don't know for a fact, but I'm almost certain that this website we are looking at right now is getting served by Apache running on Linux. Probably over 90% of the hosters here are using strictly Linux or BSD platforms for hosting.

    I have OpenOffice and Gimp installed on my Windows box right now, as well as firefox and thunderbird. There is plenty of open source software available free of charge for Windows as well.

    I have had desktop installs of Linux from time to time over the past 5 years. Linux has come a long way. There always seems to be some hangup for me with Linux though. Like, my printer is not supported, videocard not supported, trouble with sound, act of congress to get shockwave to work in firefox. Not saying that all of these things are current issues, just saying that I've always seemed to find an issue that ended up being a dealbreaker for me.

    Linux has come a long way, like I said, but i also believe Windows has too. XP is much more stable than any other release MS has had. 95 and 98 were absolutely horrible, and I've heard even worse things about ME. Apple, by all accounts, is the best OS available that will "just work" for you. There's something about my computer "just working" that I find appealing.

    Server side - I will go with Linux. I really don't like paying OS licensing fees on a server, and Linux seems to "just work" in this application, especially when combined with WHM/Cpanel. I have never used IIS, but I hear it can also be an excellent server OS when managed correctly.

  17. #42
    One more thing I thought of:

    Webservers - Do more Linux servers or Windows servers get hacked everyday? Why is that?

    Desktops - Do more Linux desktops or Windows desktops get hacked everyday? Why is that?

    I'm talking sheer numbers here, not per capita.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,426
    I dont think anyone can dispute UNIX type systems in the server market but here are some interesting stats that can be verified on netcraft and zone-h.
    70% of the Internet is made of UNIX type systems.
    On zone-h.org per capita windows is 7-10 times more likely to be hacked then Linux servers. The average defacements per day are usually 60-70% *nix and 20-40% windows. Now factor up that there are 70% UNIX type systems on the net.
    Its definitely pretty safe to say that Linux servers are generally more secure. Anything can be hacked and there are lots of both being hacked but windows servers seems to be much easier.

    meanpc, I just seen your post after I submitted this one go to www.zone-h.org and look at the attacks archive for all stats

    Look for yourself, you will see some hacking groups that hack nothing but windows servers and I know these are NOT all unpatched servers ran by idiots.

    I think this topic is more about desktops anyway. I use my Linux for desktop 24/7 because Ive grown used to it and I like it. That doesnt mean I for sure say windows sucks, I just choose not to use it.

    I think the entire design of windows is flawed from running admin as default and allowing applications unrestricted access to all system files. Some will say run windows as a limited user, anyone who has tried this knows its a pain.

    I think if windows simply came up with a sudo design like ubuntu it cut down a lot on infections and the botnets windows is almost entirely responsible for. There are millions of drone computers out there, not everyone of those are unpatched boxes that the user executed a worm on. Most were infected by mass scanning.

    Linux needs improvement to make it more user friendly for idiots and housewives, windows needs improvements in security. Maybe one day windows will line out and the number of botnets and spam will decline. Dont think its coming anytime soon though, reports show both is on the rise.

    Im not saying widows is entirely responsible for botnets and spam but is responsible for a huge majority of it.
    Last edited by jon-f; 11-02-2006 at 05:59 AM.

  19. #44
    70% of the Internet is made of UNIX type systems.
    On zone-h.org per capita windows is 7-10 times more likely to be hacked then Linux servers. The average defacements per day are usually 60-70% *nix and 20-40% windows. Now factor up that there are 70% UNIX type systems on the net.
    Its definitely pretty safe to say that Linux servers are generally more secure. Anything can be hacked and there are lots of both being hacked but windows servers seems to be much easier.
    Maybe I'm not getting it. It seems to me like you are saying that ~70% of the servers are nix and 70% of defacements are nix. ~30% are Windows servers and ~30% of defacement happens on Windows servers? Maybe I am dense or missing something, but these numbers seems to say that you stand an equal chance of getting hacked on either platform. I'll go to the links later.

    My point was that there are more Linux servers getting hacked everyday primarily because there are more Linux servers out there. There are more Windows desktops getting hacked everyday because that is what they vast majority of desktops are.

    Windows should definitely be hardened out of the box. No excuse for that.

    One more thing I forgot. A lot of my Windows headaches went away when i turned my automatic updates on. For years I was running a pirated copy of Windows with a registration crack. I didn't do updates or service packs because I didn't want my OS to get disabled. Wonder how many people are still in that boat? I now have a legit copy, and am having much fewer problems.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by meanpc
    Maybe I'm not getting it. It seems to me like you are saying that ~70% of the servers are nix and 70% of defacements are nix. ~30% are Windows servers and ~30% of defacement happens on Windows servers? Maybe I am dense or missing something, but these numbers seems to say that you stand an equal chance of getting hacked on either platform. I'll go to the links later.

    My point was that there are more Linux servers getting hacked everyday primarily because there are more Linux servers out there. There are more Windows desktops getting hacked everyday because that is what they vast majority of desktops are.

    Windows should definitely be hardened out of the box. No excuse for that.

    One more thing I forgot. A lot of my Windows headaches went away when i turned my automatic updates on. For years I was running a pirated copy of Windows with a registration crack. I didn't do updates or service packs because I didn't want my OS to get disabled. Wonder how many people are still in that boat? I now have a legit copy, and am having much fewer problems.
    you are right on the numbers, I will go back and find the article I did on it where I have the math all figured up. That is more of a guesstimate. Yeah I guess no matter if you have some super duper turbotron 2000 secure system if you are an idiot then you will most likely get hacked.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    14,135
    My point was that there are more Linux servers getting hacked everyday primarily because there are more Linux servers out there. There are more Windows desktops getting hacked everyday because that is what they vast majority of desktops are.
    This is incorrect
    From a windows (desktop) standpoint:
    There are more desktops getting hacked out there because the OS itself is insecure, unpatched and buggy at best. Even XP has it's issues like this. It has nothing to do with the number of desktops running Windows, though that might help slightly. It has EVERYTHING to do with the OS, and the insecurities involved.

    From a server (linux) standpoint:
    There are more linux servers getting hacked, not due to popularity as much as insecurities in user applications, such as phpbb, *nuke, etc. Granted, sometimes these can't be easily updated, but should (at minimum) be patched to prevent issues.

    The difference here is night and day. Linux gets hacked because of users and their inability to keep their web software secure. Windows gets hacked because of Microsoft and their inability to secure their own OS.


    Apple, by all accounts, is the best OS available that will "just work" for you.
    Macs will hardly "just work". Try playing any number of games on a mac, it can't be done. Try running any number of pc apps on a mac. Again, can't be done.
    Yes there are (a few) emulators which barely work, but they aren't as good as the real thing, never have been, never will be.
    Tom Whiting, WHMCS Guru extraordinaire
    Linux problems? WHMCS Problems? Give me a shout
    Check out my WHMCS Addons

  22. #47
    It has nothing to do with the number of desktops running Windows
    Actually it has everything to do with the number of desktops running Windows.

    There are more desktops getting hacked out there because the OS itself is insecure, unpatched and buggy at best.
    I will agree with this to a point. When you say unpatched, what do you mean exactly? MS issues patches all the time. If you have automatic updates turned on, it patches your OS and MS apps automatically. Out of the box, the OS is definitely insecure (or is it unsecure ) Buggy - yes, at times.

    There are more linux servers getting hacked, not due to popularity as much as insecurities in user applications, such as phpbb, *nuke, etc. Granted, sometimes these can't be easily updated, but should (at minimum) be patched to prevent issues.
    I think you are discounting the fact that there are more Linux servers getting hacked because there are more Linux servers out there. Aren't a lot of the problems with Windows due to user apps, like MS IE and Outlook?

    The difference here is night and day. Linux gets hacked because of users and their inability to keep their web software secure. Windows gets hacked because of Microsoft and their inability to secure their own OS.
    Spoken like a true fanboy! If a Linux user gets hacked, it was due to their failure to secure their box. If a Windows user gets hacked, it was the OS's fault. Cmon, you can secure a Windows box and apps too you know.

    MS should do more to make their OS more secure out of the box, but I do think that proper security measures taken by the user can make a Windows box very secure.

  23. #48
    Macs will hardly "just work". Try playing any number of games on a mac, it can't be done. Try running any number of pc apps on a mac. Again, can't be done.
    Yes there are (a few) emulators which barely work, but they aren't as good as the real thing, never have been, never will be.
    Ummm..when I said just work, I pretty much meant when using it as a Mac. There are lots of things a Mac can't do well, but by all account, a Mac can be a Mac very well. No personal experience here with that.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    14,135
    Aren't a lot of the problems with Windows due to user apps, like MS IE and Outlook?
    A user app is anything that is installed by the user. These aren't user applications, these are OS applications, installed by the OS itself. Yes, you can tweak the hell out of the install, and remove these (I do, at least Outlook), but that doesn't mean that they're USER apps.

    I think you are discounting the fact that there are more Linux servers getting hacked because there are more Linux servers out there.
    To a slight degree, yes, but not in the respect that you'd think. They are getting hacked because users don't patch their software. The same hack would go through on a Windows server, maybe slightly different, with the same application. To THIS respect it doesn't have anything to do with volume, more with applications being insecure, and those applications being USER applications (installed and maintained by the user).

    Spoken like a true fanboy!
    Hardly. If you'll read through my first statement or post, it made the point very clear that as a DESKTOP OS, windows has the market ruled. As a SERVER OS, Linux does.

    If a Linux user gets hacked, it was due to their failure to secure their box. If a Windows user gets hacked, it was the OS's fault.
    I never said that, though in most cases, this is the truth.
    In most cases, if a Windows box is hacked, it got hacked through IE, or Outlook, or some windows vulnerability.
    In the same respect, in most cases, if a linux box is hacked or defaced, it is through a web script (php/cgi/whatever) that is improperly designed, setup or secured, and allows the user to gain access to the core of the server. Hence, yes, this is a user not patching their script thing.

    Cmon, you can secure a Windows box and apps too you know.
    Sure, and I never said you can't. You can start by using something like n-lite to completely trash the install and doing it properly (taking out Outlook, Messenger, etc), tweaking things that make the box insecure, patching sp2 in by default. It's NOT that hard to do, providing you have a firewall and antivirus.

    The problem comes in when individuals utilize the core MS tools and refuse to use anything else, assuming MS knows everything about security. Well, they don't. That's not to say Linux does, because there are plenty of Linux issues out there, but not as many as MS.

    At the end of the day, if you're going with a home desktop, use Windows (patched/updated/firewalled/virus protected). If you're going for a server, use Linux, but you have to do the very same thing, patch your software, update it, keep a firewall on it, and screw the virus protection because Linux doesn't need it
    Tom Whiting, WHMCS Guru extraordinaire
    Linux problems? WHMCS Problems? Give me a shout
    Check out my WHMCS Addons

  25. #50
    You don't use Linux for Desktops unless you're crazy.

    Desktop: Windows
    Server : Linux

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •