Which is better, Linux or Windows NT?

[chuckie999]

hello all. Im conducting a survey on which is better. can you help? i just need to know which do you think is better and why.

 

[iSeriesCodePoet]

Better for what? Security? Configurability? Usablity? Stability?

Both operating systems have their pluses and minuses.

I will go into more detail when I get time...I am at work right now! ;-) Mike Wills
RPG Programmer

"I am bad at math because God forgot to include math.h into my programming!"

Please let us (Tek-Tips members) know if the solutions I provide are helpful to you. Not only do my posts help you but they may help others.

 

[johnhoke]

Uh-oh...

Now you've done it....

(looking at all the worms on the floor since chuckie opened that can...)

Ok, all BS aside:
each have their strong and weak points.
Out of the box, most Linux Distro's are as insecure as WinNT/2K. This is because they have been configured so that any old schmuck can install and run linux... so the vendors have preinstalled and preconfigured just about every bloody service and protocol. The more services the less secure the box will be... simple end of statement.

NOW... that said...

*IF* linux is properly configured, it will be IMO much more secure (and SOoooOo much more stable) than any NT/2000 box setup by anyone providing a similar function/service.

That is to say, a Linux box running qmail will be oh so more secure than NT/Exchange, Linux/Apache vs NT/IIS, etc

Additionally, due to the fact you can recomplie the kernel to include ONLY WHAT IS NEEDED and that kernel patches are VERY quick on the rurnaround, keeping a Linux box secure in the long haul is much easier...

remember, security is not a product, it is not static, it is an on going process of patching, testing, fixing and tweaking. Anyone who says box "x" is secure, may be right for that moment in time... until the next exploit is found, and then you want to be able to patch it FAST... that is linux's strenth, quick turnaround for fixes.

Microsloth's turnaround is pitiful, and their security commitment is legendary for its all but non-existence.

-John ---
John Hoke

 

[sthamilton]

Ohhhh no, here we go.....I really am not sure that I want to get involved in the eternal debate, however I am going to have to disagree with John Hoke.

I would have to say that for the most part linux is more secure, however that is swaying slightly to Microsoft's favor. Historicly, Linux has always been a computer geeks OS. Now that the Linux community is trying to shake this image and open the market up to the average desktop it's going to lose hold of that (in my opinion).

Microsoft caters to the masses, and the reality is that when it comes to high level administration the masses simply don't know. I mean what does the average person care about ACLs, SIDs, SAM, etc... So you have inexperienced people deciding that it would be cool to throw up a web and e-mail server. Now you have a ton of boxes out there that are never updated and where never secured to begin with and all of a sudden Microsoft products have a bad name. I would put any properly administered NT/2000 box up against any equally administered Linux box.

Now that was the server end. Now on the desktop, each platform has it's own pluses and minuses. However, Windows has the distinct advantages of user base, brand recognition, and corporate accountability. Linux and the open source community can't offer that.

I can't say that one is better than the other, but the bottom line to me is that Windows is the standard that the business world follows. And it's not just Windows either, it's MS Office, Exchange, Word Perfect, and about a million other products that have a corporation standing behind them. People know how to use these products, have the features that they know and use. That may change in coming years, but it doesn't change where we are at right now. Linux needs to develop some solutions for the business end user and then the heat may be turned up a bit. Right now, Microsoft has the advantage and so sorry to tell you but they are not going to lie down and go away.

 

[iSeriesCodePoet]

You would put your Win 2k box up against a Linux box? What kind of uptime do you have with your sever. A *nix box is known for its uptime, usually months to years...assuming you never bring it down for upgrades. Can 2000 do that?

As far as security goes...how long does it take Microsoft to put out a patch for a security hole that it finds? It can take the linux community only hours (or less) not a couple days.

I agree that in most cases security is pretty even, but with developers around the world working on Linux, and only on company working on Windows, the chances of bugs being fix are better because the linux developers don't have to prioritize as much (get the major holes fixed first, then fix the bugs).

I do agree though that both have their places. I use it as a WS and it is one of the most stable Windows operating systems I have ever touched, next to DOS ;-). Mike Wills
RPG Programmer

"I am bad at math because God forgot to include math.h into my programming!"

Please let us (Tek-Tips members) know if the solutions I provide are helpful to you. Not only do my posts help you but they may help others.

 

[iSeriesCodePoet]

Then visit this link
thread760-132338 Mike Wills
RPG Programmer

"I am bad at math because God forgot to include math.h into my programming!"

Please let us (Tek-Tips members) know if the solutions I provide are helpful to you. Not only do my posts help you but they may help others.

 

[sthamilton]

I reiterate that I would indeed put my Windows 2000 box up against Linux. I can agree that there are more developers and a quicker response to Linux bugs, however the corporate world looks for accountability which a single point of support (i.e. Microsoft) offers. I'm never going to say that Windows is better than Linux, however I simply want to state that the playing field is pretty level once you remove some of the distortion around the issues. My prefrences are swayed simply by the products available for my use, the biggest one being Microsoft Exchange which as far as I know is still has many features not available as an integrates package on *nix. As for uptime I don't get years, however I do have three 2000 boxes that tend to go 3-4 months between reboots.

 

[sthamilton]

I forgot to address the second post by Koldark. My contention on these issues is still that it all boils down to user base. Linux has vulnerabilities that could also be exploited by malicous code. The facts remain thought that if you wanted to create a virus that attacked the largest number of machines possible go for the one with the largest total base. The exploits that these viruses are using target well known vulnerabilities that have been addressed by Microsoft and there is nothing further that can be done to get the unsecure boxes patches. Microsoft has also demonstrated that a properly secured box was not vulnerable to the Traversal or ISAPI buffer overflow problems. I patch my servers and keep them properly secured, and have not had any problems with the Code Red variants.

 

[iSeriesCodePoet]

I don't disagree that the support and many of the other things you mentioned in your first message is wrong. But I think the corporations, in this time of toubles, should look for alternatives to spending huge amounts of money for a file server, or web server. By using a unix base for those kind of applications could save companies huge amounts of time and money (this is assuming that someone in the company knows unix/linux enough to not need much training).

However, you should get you facts straight when you talk about which OS is being used more for internet severs. Roughly 25% of the internet is IIS based. The rest is a mix or Unix, Linux, AS400, etc (about 50% is running apache, which is usually a *nix box). If a "script kiddie" wanted to effect the most computers, he would write a *nix virus, not a Windows virus. The facts are shown by netcraft (

http://www.netcraft.com/survey/).

I am not saying that this site is accurate, but I guess this is quite close. Mike Wills
RPG Programmer

"I am bad at math because God forgot to include math.h into my programming!"

Please let us (Tek-Tips members) know if the solutions I provide are helpful to you. Not only do my posts help you but they may help others.

 

[sthamilton]

You got me there, I did mis-state myself. I guess the point I was trying to get accross was a continuation of my earlier one, which is that many people who setup e-mail and web servers for their own personal use will opt for the point and click ease of Windows. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that it is that much easier to PROPERLY setup a Web server using IIS. Just that most ametuers doing it for fun don't do it PROPERLY. I don't think that there will ever be an end to this debate. Linux has Windows on stability, but Windows has the user base and products that just aren't available on the Linux platform. They're about the same when everything is done right on security. Linux is less expensive and can turn out patches quicker when bugs are found, but Microsoft does turn out patches in a reasonable time frame and offers accountibility for it's products. I don't know that one is better than the other, just that Microsoft in my mind has the hand up with some of the additional products that you can use with it.

 

[iSeriesCodePoet]

This agument just proves one thing... The best is whatever you think you need to get what you want done, and what you feel comfortable using the most.

Whatever sever you decide to use (*nix, NT, Novell, etc.) you have to taylor it to what you are comfortable with.

No one will _ever_ win this arguement, and no one ever will. That is why there is a such thing as competition. Mike Wills
RPG Programmer

"I am bad at math because God forgot to include math.h into my programming!"

Please let us (Tek-Tips members) know if the solutions I provide are helpful to you. Not only do my posts help you but they may help others.

 

[sthamilton]

Well stated

 

[jornk]

You're just being a troll, and you know it.

 

[rycamor]

And I would put my FreeBSD box against either OS ;-).

 

[iSeriesCodePoet]

...but you see...I haven't figured out how to even install FreeBSD, much less use it. Unless they have changed the install process, it looked confusing to me. Mike Wills
RPG Programmer (but learning Java)

"I am bad at math because God forgot to include math.h into my program!"

 

[rycamor]

I'll be glad to help you through an installation. Just start a thread in the FreeBSD forum, and we'll get started.

FreeBSD may seem a little intimidating the first time, but once install it a couple times, you can just about do an install in your sleep.