Your Views: Which Is The Best OS?

Good Call rakedog. I have to admit that windows does have some nice-user friendly features, but I don't believe in security by obscurity. When you type in a url in your address bar, you leave off the :80 because it is accepted, thereby obscruing the port it is using. It is extremly simple to find out what port the server is sending its data on. Just because you obscrure the source of a program doesn't make it any more secure.

Perhaps you have had no such attacks because its not Windows; and not just because its harder to Break into?
How so? Just because it isn't windows, why would that turn away a hacker. If it does, wouldn't that be supporting linux, not windows.

As for a "windows" update, obviously there is not a "windows" update for linux, but all I have to do when I want to update things is "urpmi --auto-select" and then confirm that I want to install the packages.

Is that or is that not a good sign? The faster major updates come out from Microsoft the harder it is for Crackers to get into out PCs. Would you prefer it to be slower?
Really though, if you spent more time on the original code, would you really need Service Packs? Look at windows Me. That was a little before my time, but how long was it in production? How many things are wrong with it? How long did it take before they quit supporting it as their best OS, or did they ever? And how long did it take for Windows XP to be released to take its place?
 
DCHWeb said:
Good Call rakedog. I have to admit that windows does have some nice-user friendly features, but I don't believe in security by obscurity. When you type in a url in your address bar, you leave off the :80 because it is accepted, thereby obscruing the port it is using. It is extremly simple to find out what port the server is sending its data on. Just because you obscrure the source of a program doesn't make it any more secure.

You could always try and fill me in to where that even comes into the discussion? :D

DCHWeb said:
How so? Just because it isn't windows, why would that turn away a hacker. If it does, wouldn't that be supporting linux, not windows.

As for a "windows" update, obviously there is not a "windows" update for linux, but all I have to do when I want to update things is "urpmi --auto-select" and then confirm that I want to install the packages.
You know what; maybe that would be! :p Duh! Lol, nah, that was actually my point. It would be supporting Linux; do you not think that 99% of all crackers support Linux implicitly? And that its likely many of them also use their abilities to write Linux; and possibly even Windows too? Therefore they know a reasonable amount of Windows Code; and a great deal of Linux Code. If they try to hack Linux then Linux slowly gets a bad name; if they try to Hack Windows then their enemy continues to get a bad name? I'm no psycologist; but that makes sense to me.


Learn something everyday! I didn't know there was a Linux update System. Question is; is it as efficient as Windows' System of Updating? Is it as fast?

DCHWeb said:
Really though, if you spent more time on the original code, would you really need Service Packs? Look at windows Me. That was a little before my time, but how long was it in production? How many things are wrong with it? How long did it take before they quit supporting it as their best OS, or did they ever? And how long did it take for Windows XP to be released to take its place?
I have no idea how long it was in production; but no longer than 2 years I'd imagine - because during that process XP was being made too and less resources were being put into it; as it was merely a fill in before XP. They were planning to stop it as their best OS before it was released - as as I said; they were on XP not long after they started Me's Major Alphas.
 
rakedog said:
Ok, it's starting to get harder to argue with Lord Kaltorhn, but us Linux-Supporters don't mind! :) :)

Ok Lord, you made a very stupid comment about how many bugs each OS has. Unlike what you may think, Windows has FAR more bugs. When I was installing Windows XP on my laptop, then installing the Service packs (A fancy name for oops-we-screwed-up-real-badly-'cuz-we-let-crackers-in--heres-a-solution-that-will-screw-up-in-a-year-too), and I looked at their list of "fixes". Trust me I learned of bugs i never even imagined Windows would have. The list took me a long long time to read.
The point of that comment; althought lost on you was a comparative one. The question is; take the number of bugs for Windows and divide that by the number of users. Then take the number of Bugs for Linux and divide that by the number of users. Which do you think would be higher? :D I think its very likely to be Linux isn't it?

These bugs grow up over time; it happens to everything. What would a Linux Version of any Distribution from 2 and a half Years ago do running today? Not very well I'd imagine. Windows gives Service Packs out to face this problem of growing technology and sophistication of crackers.

rakedog said:
Ok for the Windows Media Player. First off it looks HORRIBLE. Even if you adjust the skins, it looks like some 8-year old made it. Second off, if you bring in just one file that it can't read, it immediately freezes up and forced you to exit...like....wtf?? Doesn't even tell us half the time what the problem is.
I can't say much about the Skins' they are terrible! :p Does it? :D Don't know about you but that has never happened to me before nor to anybody I know or have heard of. Wehn theres a file it can't read or doesn't recognise it searches for codecs on the internet and if they're not there it just puts a nice exclamation mark next to the track and moves on.

rakedog said:
""If you can see the Source Code; so can Crackers. If Crackers can see it on an OS so widely used then there is no hope for the users.""

lol, well that's the whole point. If you can see the source code, you can tweak it around and make a whole new "version" of the distrubition you're using, which would most likely NOT be intresting to hackers because they would have to teach themselves how to hack into a whole new security system just to get to ONE computer. On the other hand windows, as I said before, is the same ol' OS, and the cracker communities all share the exploits they find.
no hope for the Users not people whocan tweak the code or work around what problems have happened to them; the Users - the peope who just want to go on the computer to play a game or write a letter. A Normal User. With Linux against these normal users it would be like a 12th Century Army charging a heavily armed Nazi.

rakedog said:
""It is also expensive because its the best""

What kind of statement is that?? Yes maybe the best in terms of number of dumbasses who bought it. But that's a very foolish and premature statement to say.
Hehe, it is on its own but I went on to describe why its the best therefore making it a reasonable comment.

rakedog said:
And I hate to dissapoint you, but almost all linux distributions come with 2X the preinstalled software as WIndows. If you want to I'll make you a huge list to prove it. So you pulled that fact right out of thin air.
I realise this; but aren't most of them crappy games? Are any of them up to the callibre of the Microsoft Products built in to Windows; do they come with as many updates - or indeed any updates? I think not perhaps, eh? Haha! At last somebody else said it!
 
Lord Kalthorn said:
DCHWeb said:
Good Call rakedog. I have to admit that windows does have some nice-user friendly features, but I don't believe in security by obscurity. When you type in a url in your address bar, you leave off the :80 because it is accepted, thereby obscruing the port it is using. It is extremly simple to find out what port the server is sending its data on. Just because you obscrure the source of a program doesn't make it any more secure.

You could always try and fill me in to where that even comes into the discussion?

By hiding the port of the webserver, that does no different than hiding the source of a program, it can still be hacked into. Ask My ISP, he runs a windows server, and he has been hacked into many times, each time, the damage was so great, all he could do was redo the entire system, and yet he refuses to believe it was anyone's fault but one of his users running linux on his network. Now I don't see his point, but if you set it up right, on either OS, you should be able to withstand that.

Anyway, this conversation is getting fairly boring, neither of us is doing anything to convince the other, and we're probibly just confusing the onlookers :p I think it is time i go argue about something I have a little knowledge in...
 
yeah i quite agree....I don't think either sides are gonna convince the otehr side....let's just face it we have different opinions. Both OS's have their ups and downs, and both are very good depending on what you need. :D :D
 
rakedog said:
yeah i quite agree....I don't think either sides are gonna convince the otehr side....let's just face it we have different opinions. Both OS's have their ups and downs, and both are very good depending on what you need. :D :D
I have to agree also! Good Windows vs. Linux Discussions can only go for so long. :D We have had them before and will have them again; I think this one has got about far enough.

Question; what do we talk about now! :cool:
 
We could talk about the horrid colors of this site or why it is soooooooooooooo slooooooooooooooooooooooooooow :p
 
It seems to be speeding up, but i doubt anything will happen about the colors. I don't like the gray on white, it is hard to read. What do you think of the colors of my site? I am working on a redesign, but everyone tells me to keep the colors. What do you think?
 
I dont mind the colors...blue; gray; white seem to more or less represent a computer world....however i would like it to be more "techno" style
 
Back
Top Bottom