Dell: Ubuntu Safer than Windows

[itpro]

guzz46, I would be happy to provide you with links. Regarding the recent hubub over linux repositories serving up malware:

http://www.fewt.com/2010/06/linux-infected.html

This was also reported on ZDNet and other tech sites.

Regarding server market share, the most recent figures I could find were for Q4 of 2009. IDC reports that Windows servers held 73.9% of the market, while linux was at 21.2%. A Netcraft survey of web servers in Jan. of 2009 showed them about even, with Windows at 41.59% and linux at 41.02%. Perhaps you have other data to support your argument?

Regarding your list, I respond:

1-Compatibility, Windows wins hands down. Most of the free open source software for linux is also available for Windows, while Windows has a vast library of software that is Windows only.

2-safer. Arguable. Linux is generally safe, but so are modern versions of Windows.

3-no viruses. Linux does have viruses, but Windows has more for certain. Running either without anti-malware software is irresponsible.

4-no spyware. Much of the malware out there today is targeted at the user, not the OS. Linux users also use services like Facebook and Google, which are rife with spyware.

5-Faster. Arguable. Linux distros like Ubuntu have grown more and more bloated, and now require lots of hardware to make them run effectively. You can use a lite version, but Windows can also be tuned to run faster. Win7 runs very fast on modern hardware.

6-doesn't slow down over time. That was true of Windows up through XP, but not anymore. Vista and 7 actually get faster over time, not slower.

7-don't need to defrag my hdd. Vista and 7 handle that task automatically during idle periods.

8-free. That one is true. You can download most linux versions for free. I work in enterprise IT, and the versions of linux for us is not free, but has professional support. I guess it depends on your perspective.

What this argument boils down to is which OS provides the user with the tools to do what they want/need to do with their computer. I have no doubt that linux meets your needs, and does so very well. For me, it does not, so I use Windows. Isn't it great that we have a choice?

 

[guzz46]

guzz46, I would be happy to provide you with links. Regarding the recent hubub over linux repositories serving up malware:

http://www.fewt.com/2010/06/linux-infected.html

This was also reported on ZDNet and other tech sites.

Regarding server market share, the most recent figures I could find were for Q4 of 2009. IDC reports that Windows servers held 73.9% of the market, while linux was at 21.2%. A Netcraft survey of web servers in Jan. of 2009 showed them about even, with Windows at 41.59% and linux at 41.02%. Perhaps you have other data to support your argument?

Regarding your list, I respond:

1-Compatibility, Windows wins hands down. Most of the free open source software for linux is also available for Windows, while Windows has a vast library of software that is Windows only.

2-safer. Arguable. Linux is generally safe, but so are modern versions of Windows.

3-no viruses. Linux does have viruses, but Windows has more for certain. Running either without anti-malware software is irresponsible.

4-no spyware. Much of the malware out there today is targeted at the user, not the OS. Linux users also use services like Facebook and Google, which are rife with spyware.

5-Faster. Arguable. Linux distros like Ubuntu have grown more and more bloated, and now require lots of hardware to make them run effectively. You can use a lite version, but Windows can also be tuned to run faster. Win7 runs very fast on modern hardware.

6-doesn't slow down over time. That was true of Windows up through XP, but not anymore. Vista and 7 actually get faster over time, not slower.

7-don't need to defrag my hdd. Vista and 7 handle that task automatically during idle periods.

8-free. That one is true. You can download most linux versions for free. I work in enterprise IT, and the versions of linux for us is not free, but has professional support. I guess it depends on your perspective.

What this argument boils down to is which OS provides the user with the tools to do what they want/need to do with their computer. I have no doubt that linux meets your needs, and does so very well. For me, it does not, so I use Windows. Isn't it great that we have a choice?

That is a pretty untrustworthy source, it doesn't even say which distro was infected, regarding the server market no matter what percentage one believes linux has it is enough to counter the "no one uses it so no one writes viruses for it" argument

1-Compatibility. linux is compatible with more hardware than windows

2-safer. windows 7 maybe safer than previous versions but there is no doubt that linux is safer, it was designed better

3-viruses. linux theoretically has viruses but actually getting infected with one is next to nil (infact i would like to try one out to see)

4-spyware. what do you mean? its designed to infect windows OS not the user (show me some linux spyware)

5-faster. no doubt about it, ubuntu takes 27 seconds to boot to a usable desktop, where windows 7 takes over a minute, plenty more evidence on youtube also

6-slowdown. windows 7 still suffers from slow down because its still vista at is core (registry rot)

7-defrag hdd. even if it does it automatically it still has to do it (using resources)

8-free. download the free version then

I have no problem with people using windows, i'm just pointing out the article is correct and linux is safer because it is designed better not because no one uses it

 

[itpro]

guzz46, once again you make assumptions and blanket statements not backed up by facts. I never said that linux is not attacked because "no one uses it", as you attest. Certainly the tiny market share of linux on the desktop is a factor in the low rate of malware targeting it, as is the fact that linux users tend to be more technically savvy. Linux does have a strong presence in the server arena, but servers are a different beast entirely. Servers are generally professionally administered and maintained, and typically sit behind robust firewalls. A bit of research does show that linux servers have been targeted and infected, with even Ubuntu's distribution servers being hacked awhile back. No system is impervious to attack.

1-linux supports more hardware than Windows? When I stop giggling I'll ask you to offer some proof.

2-linux is designed better? I hear that statement a lot, much like the one about linux dominating the server market, but have never seen any concrete evidence to back it up. Linux by its very nature is a kluge of bits and pieces from everywhere. Even Linus Torvalds himself has decried the bloat and complexity that has crept in over the years. Linux does have some security advantages, but that is pretty much lost when you put it in front of average users who by definition will do the wrong thing at the wrong time.

3-viruses do exist on linux, and even Unix. In fact, the very first virus that I ever encountered was on Unix. Yes, they are not as common as on Windows, but having over a billion mostly clueless users on Windows does make it an attractive target.

4-Spyware sometimes does target the OS, but more and more it is designed to target the user through some form of social engineering. Why target increasingly secure OSs when you can target Facebook, MySpace, etc instead. Ever hear of Google? They make their fortune spying on you in exchange for free services, and they could care less what OS you are running.

5-Sure, some versions of linux boot fast, others not so much. Windows 7 takes over a minute to boot? Not any of my systems. Even my Vista machine boots to a usable desktop in under a minute, and I have to log into my AD domain. 7 boots even faster. How often do you boot your machine anyway? A better measure of performance is running common tasks after the machine is up, and Vista and 7 fly in that regard.

6-Registry rot? Do you even know what that means? I ran Vista for over 3 years, and the machine was faster when I retired it than when I built it. I haven't had as much time with 7, but I see no signs of slow down. You do realize that many of the issues you keep bringing up were left behind when we retired XP, don't you?

7-Same with defraging. Vista and 7 defrag automatically, either on schedule or whenever the machine is idle. In other words, no longer an issue regardless of how much you still want it to be.

8-Free. Sometimes you get exactly what you pay for. The paid versions of linux from Novell and Red Hat offer services and support that more than make up for the nominal price. Same with Windows. Free is only a bargain if it does what you need.

 

[guzz46]

itpro The argument is that linux is safer than windows not impervious and the reason being that it was designed better not because of low market share (the server market for eg).

1-linux runs on anything from small embedded devices to the largest super computers
a list of linux supported cpu architectures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_kernels#Supported_CPU_architectures

2-I think you mean GNU-linux is a mixture of different pieces of software (but so is every desktop) not the linux kernel
linus described the bloat regarding the increase in lines of code from when he first wrote it, not bloat in terms of performance, the kernel only loads the modules you need,
so you don't think that having features such as better security, general lack of hdd fragmentation, not having a single point of failure (registry), being less of a resource hog, not being a single user OS as being designed better?
and those average users will be a lot safer sitting in front of linux than windows

3-there is a difference between theoretical viruses and wide spread viruses, show me a wide spread linux virus and i will see if i can get infected, and windows using .exe files while the user is logged in as root helps also

4-there is no escaping that kind of spyware but you can escape the kind that somehow install themselves on your windows pc without your knowledge

5-on the same machine even KDE will boot faster than windows 7, i have a run of the mil dual core laptop and windows 7 takes over a minute while ubuntu takes under 30 seconds, doesn't matter how fast your pc is linux will still boot faster and chromium takes 1 second to load after boot on ubuntu while on windows 7 it takes around 4 seconds, in general the whole ubuntu desktop is a lot faster

6-yes i know what it means and it still has it because it still uses the registry, after my fist install of windows 7 it took about 50 seconds to boot now after a few months it takes on average 1 minute 10 or longer, just google windows 7 registry rot, i'm not the only one

7-the fact that it still needs to defrag is bad, other file systems are faster and don't need to be defraged

8-And sometimes you get ripped off, i like probably most others have never rung up windows support, google usually has most of the answers

 

[itpro]

guzz46, your last response was better, but still a mixture of naive and ill informed.

1-Windows also runs on everything from embedded devices to super computers, but in the bigger picture of desktop PCs supports far more hardware than Linux.

2-I think better design is being able to run virtually every program on the planet, support virtually every piece of hardware, configure with ease, connect to our big iron and AD domain natively, support WIFI flawlessly, and, yes, be very secure even with novice users. Windows does all of that. Linux does not.

3-How can a virus be "wide spread" on an OS that struggles to reach 1% market share? Linux is not wide spread outside of the server room, so nothing is wide spread about it.

4-Spyware can no longer install without your consent on Windows, but it can on Linux when it is distributed by the trusted repositories as was documented in my post above. Besides, you yourself have spyware on your computer, installed with your consent. Just look for anything with the name Google attached. People in glass houses...

5-As I said above, speed is relative. My computers are all very fast, and do what I want when I want. I could boot my computer with DOS in the blink of an eye, but it would not do what I want. Neither does Linux.

6-I have timed my systems booting and doing common tasks over a period of years, and there has been no slowdown. Perhaps you should have someone more knowledgeable take a look at your machine.

7-The fact is that all OSs, including linux, fragment files. I have defraged linux machines before. You haven't, so apparently you are just clueless on this subject. Windows now handles that task silently and unobtrusively, so your point is baseless. Give it a rest.

8-Once again, clueless. We don't pay for enterprise versions of Linux solely for the support, although that is a part of it. Red Hat and Novell produce very stable versions of linux tested and customized for the enterprise market. Those freebie versions that you play with at home do not. The small amount that we pay for our OS, whether linux or Windows, is insignificant compared to the value that our systems provide for us and the money we save on administration costs.

And you can keep your Google. No spyware allowed on my systems.

 

[Tomtompiper]

3-How can a virus be "wide spread" on an OS that struggles to reach 1% market share? Linux is not wide spread outside of the server room, so nothing is wide spread about it.

You calling Steve Ballmer a liar?

http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Competitor_than_Apple

Stop making up figures, if you had a good OS like me you could look them up instead ;-)

 

[itpro]

Tomtompiper, I don't make up numbers. Take a look for your self:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8

 

[guzz46]

itpro lets see who is misinformed this time

1 & 2 did you not read that link? did you not see how many more cpu architectures linux supported than every other OS? so how can windows be more compatiable?
having lots of software written for you has nothing to do with being a better design its to do with making money from the larger desktop market share.
By no means does windows support virtually every piece of hardware (previous link)
Configure with ease? my linux install required no configuration, my windows install did
I have no issues with wifi on linux
Are you sugesting that windows is more secure than linux? now your just making stuff up
None of those examples had anything to do with how the OS was designed

3-even if you believe linux only has 1% percent desktop market share you seem to forget about the server market, why isn't there viruses in the wild infecting servers, once again direct me to one of these viruses and i will see how effective it is

4-you must be joking right, thats the very nature of how windows works, (hmm i don't recall giving that viruses permission to infect my pc) i guess antivirus and antispyware companies must now be out of a job right?
and what distro was that again? arch and gentoo, and how many times did it happen if it was true? once
and how much spyware is infecting your windows pc? download an antispyware program and find out (if you trust it)
no i don't, i have firefox also and i don't have to use google

5-the argument isn't on how fast your pc is, it's that linux is faster than windows (again something to do with design)

6-like i said just google windows registry rot and windows slowdown over time, i'm not the only one

7-if you knew about filesystems you will know how much better the linux filesystems are at handling fragmentation than windows FS (microsoft instead of making their FS better they just decided to schedule a defrag program), your right on one count that i have never defraged a linux filesystem because there has been no need to

8-well a home desktop user doesn't need an enterprise version so the free versions are perfect, where are the windows free versions?

Don't kid yourself if you are running windows you will have spyware on it

 

[Tomtompiper]

That site you linked does not show how they collect data. I suspect it counts the OS and Browser type that hits their websites, this is hardly scientific. I will stick with Microsoft's figures. They have no reason to lie and are in a better position to tell than this mickey mouse outfit. The iPhone figures also look suspiciously low. This also only measures PC's that access the internet via a browser and a lot of Linux machines don't do this, I have three machines and only this one is used to browse the web, the others are only ever used to run Synaptic for auto updates and would not show it this survey. I believe wnen Steve was questioned about the figures he questioned the ability of such sites to distinguish an OS properly and their restricted data gathering, in that they were very English and US Centric and he admitted that Linux and Firefox had greater penetration in Europe and the Third World. But I use Both OS'es and the both have their strengths, I would never surf on Windows though. Steam is my limit on Windows.

 

[Tomtompiper]

I too would like to try a virus, if you can link me one, and I found this interesting link on OS market shares.

http://jeffhoogland.blogspot.com/2010/03/operating-systems-and-market-share.html

The large amount of "Others" on the various different sites would back up what Steve Ballmer said about the ability to record OS's correctly. and like one of the people who replied I Install Linux on old machines to breath new life into them for those less fortunate, and a lot of the time they do not have access to the Internet. My 2009 PCLinuxOS disk was used to install or Dual Boot around 50 machines. When I repair an old Windows set up I offer to Dual Boot for the client as a safe way to surf the Net, for friends and family I insist as I don't mind fixing for mates rates once but the third or forth time is a pain.

 

[itpro]

tomtompiper, marketshare.hitslink.com is perhaps the most widely used and respected research firm of its type in the world. Mickey Mouse? Their data is collected from over 50,000 websites world wide. Next time, try actually reading something before spouting off your nonsense.

guzzy, you keep repeating the same tired old arguments over and over, and I have refuted every single one. Unless you can come up with something new (and valid), we are done. Contrary to popular belief, repeating a lie often enough does not make it true.

 

[guzz46]

itpro and what lies have i said? i have given evidence on linux supporting more hardware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_kernels#Supported_CPU_architectures and here is evidence of spyware on windows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware quote "Nonetheless, spyware remains a costly problem. When a large number of pieces of spyware have infected a Windows computer, the only remedy may involve backing up user data, and fully reinstalling the operating system. For instance, some versions of Vundo cannot be completely removed by Symantec, Microsoft, PC Tools, and others because it infects rootkit, Internet Explorer, and Windows' lsass.exe (Local Security Authority Subsystem Service) with a randomly-filenamed dll (dynamic link library)."
and here is evidence on linux better fragmentation handling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#Defragmentation quote "Modern Linux filesystem(s) keep fragmentation at a minimum by keeping all blocks in a file close together, even if they can't be stored in consecutive sectors. Some filesystems, like ext3, effectively allocate the free block that is nearest to other blocks in a file. Therefore it is not necessary to worry about fragmentation in a Linux system."

You have refuted every single one with no evidence only wild accusations, you only provided evidence that windows has a larger desktop market share, everything else you have said has had no evidence to back it up

Plus you seem to have misunderstood Tomtompiper, he is saying that using website hits is an inaccurate way of measuring an OS's market share as not every pc connects to the internet

are you really an itpro?

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]itpro[/nom]tomtompiper, marketshare.hitslink.com is perhaps the most widely used and respected research firm of its type in the world. Mickey Mouse? Their data is collected from over 50,000 websites world wide. Next time, try actually reading something before spouting off your nonsense.guzzy, you keep repeating the same tired old arguments over and over, and I have refuted every single one. Unless you can come up with something new (and valid), we are done. Contrary to popular belief, repeating a lie often enough does not make it true.[/citation]


50,000 as i say it's a small number and weighted towards English and the USA. Statcounter use 3,000,000 sites but are also heavily English and USA centric as shown by their own hits per country. I am not denying th figures you are quoting I am questioning the methodology as does Steve Ballmers the Head of Microsoft.

* 4.0 billion United States
* 1.2 billion Brazil
* 782 million United Kingdom
* 633 million Germany
* 625 million Thailand
* 539 million Turkey
* 477 million Canada
* 451 million Indonesia
* 426 million India
* 395 million China

The fact that Japan does not even make this list is astonishing. I checked on the complete list and they contributed only 88 million hits per month, which is around .6 of a hit per head of population compared to the US figure which is over 10 hits per head of population. It is an interesting tool, but a flawed one and taking the results as gospel is unwise.

 

[Tomtompiper]

Just as a matter of interest I looked at the data for Japan, it would suggest that nobody in Japan uses Linux. I find this odd that the home of the PS3 and the Wii has not one linux user????

 

[itpro]

OK, guzzy, one more time, and this time I'll use simple language so that you can follow along. Your argument:

"Linux dominates the server market!"
I posted numbers from IDC, which show Windows with almost 74% of the server market and Linux in all of its various flavors at about 21%. Your argument refuted.

"Linux is more compatible!" Compatible has various meanings. Windows runs many times more programs than Linux, which is one meaning of compatibility, but you rejected that definition. You keep harping about chipsets and embedded devices, yet Windows in its many embedded and mobile flavors runs on most of those as well. What you ignore is the 100s of thousands of printers, video cards, NICs, wireless cards, scanners, digitizers, card readers, I/O devices, A/D converters, POS hardware, fabricators, CAM, presses, etc, etc, etc that are supported by Windows, most not by Linux. You aren't even close on this one.

"Linux is safer!" Safer than XP? Yes, no doubt. Safer than Win7? Not according to slashdot and other sites. At best you might argue that this one is a draw, but then again you continue to insist that there are no viruses on Linux, even though it has been widely reported that you are wrong. I posted links in an earlier post, which you ignored of course, so I won't bother again.

"No spyware on Linux!" Sure there is. Ever hear of Chrome? Don't you use Google? What about Facebook? Spyware now has evolved beyond the OS.

"But you have to defrag! I don't!" Also completely false. Every OS fragments files, including Linux. Why else do you think that there are many defrag tools available for Linux? At least my machines defrag automatically.

"But, but, Windows machines are all full of viruses!" Really? I am a network admin, and I do sometimes run across a virus on one of my systems at work, but only on XP. Since Vista came out, that problem has all but been eliminated. Vista and 7 are much improved, and even the black hats are agreeing. Your argument is out of date by a few years.

"Linux is free!" Only the toy versions that you amateurs play with. RHEL is not free. SUSE Enterprise Linux is not free. OSX is not free. Windows is not free, either. You get what you pay for.

"But, but, but...Windows slows down over time!" Once again, your argument is way out of date. Win9x did. So did XP. Vista does not, nor does 7, unless, of course, there is an idiot sitting in front of the machine installing useless crap on the machine. "OOO! Look! A free game! Click"

"But, Linux is faster than Windows!" Really? Faster at what? Does it run MS Office faster? How about a higher frame rate on COD, Crysis, or any modern game? I know, what about rendering an AutoCad drawing? No? Oh, yeah, you claim it boots faster. I boot my machines about once a week, so saving a few seconds there makes no difference to me. It is what I do during the week that is important, and Windows wins that argument hands down.

 

[guzz46]

itpro I'm sure you can find numbers saying windows server market share is up and i could find ones that say other wise, http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/Hosters?orderby=name&tn=may_2010 but the main point is not the exact numbers but to disprove the "linux has no viruses through lack of market share" theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption

I said linux supports more hardware not software, do you have any evidence of these so called hundreds of thousands of devices linux isn't compatiable with or are you just making up numbers again? windows embedded compact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Embedded#Windows_Embedded_Compact quote "Windows Embedded Compact is available for ARM, MIPS, SuperH and x86 processor architectures" still not even close to what linux supports

Linux is safer than any version of windows (i wonder why the department of defence uses linux?), i could show you plenty of sites that agree with me but you will think they are biased, anyone who knows how each OS works knows that linux is safer it was built that way from the ground up, again theoretical viruses have existed but like i said before there is a difference between a theoretical virus and a self-propagating virus, once again put up a link to a one of these viruses and i will try it out, i know i don't need to tell you how many windows viruses there are and how easy is is to get infected, i find it quite humerous you are even arguing this point

Funny, i believe i have a choice to use google, i don't use facebook, and by nature everything you do one the net can be tracked but you are dodging the point again, its completley different quote " Nonetheless, spyware remains a costly problem. When a large number of pieces of spyware have infected a Windows computer, the only remedy may involve backing up user data, and fully reinstalling the operating system. For instance, some versions of Vundo cannot be completely removed by Symantec, Microsoft, PC Tools, and others because it infects rootkit, Internet Explorer, and Windows' lsass.exe" again humerous you are even arguing this point

Once again the argument wasn't that linux FS never fragment it was that they are better at handling fragmentation than windows FS, i have never needed to defrag my linux FS, quote "Therefore it is not necessary to worry about fragmentation in a Linux system" again you have missed the point

You are making up stories again, where is your evidence that windows 7 doesn't get viruses? have they completley redisigned their OS? are they not using .exe files anymore? so you don't need any antivirus software then?

Again sometimes you get ripped off like paying money for windows when you can get a better OS for free

Did you not google windows 7 slow down? its still windows so it still suffers from it, oh i see because the OS is so badly designed i have to tip toe around what programs i want to install? i can install and uninstall as many programs as i want on linux and it doesn't slow down (it doesn't have a registry to get all messed up)

Faster overall, if you know anything about computers you will know that generaly when something requires less memory to run it will be faster, you missed the point again (or side stepped it)

Again you have no evidence to back up your claims besides one websites server market share stats

 

[itpro]

guzzy, you are still being very selective in your arguments. You stated, and I quote, "compatibility, compatibility, compatibility". Funny, you didn't specify that the only compatibility that counted was processors. In the real world, compatibility means that a system will run the software I want and support the hardware that I want. Windows wins this one with ease.

Linux has had a pretty good track record on security, I agree, and I have stated that in my other posts. Windows has had issues, but most of those are gone in the current versions. Windows 7 is very secure, even compared to Linux. Do we still need AV software? Of course! That is the price we pay for using the most popular OS on the planet. The rewards (see compatibility) are more than worth the price. Considering that there are now documented cases of linux repositories distributing malware, there is no excuse for linux users also not running AV software, unless you are as clueless as Mac users.

You keep harping about spyware, but seem to forget (or don't know) that Windows security no longer allows software to install without the user specifically giving permission. How is that different than linux? Some have even pointed out that Microsoft has copied the security model in linux. I do scan my systems regularly out of habit, but since I moved to Vista and then 7 I don't find anything on my systems, and that includes my personal machines and the 300 users on my network at the office. Spyware is still a problem on XP, but was left behind with the newer versions.

Yes, you have the choice to use Google, and many people do. Most don't realize the level of spying that Google engages in. Chrome, Google Toolbar, and every Google service track your every click, every search, every website you visit, every email (for keywords). How you cannot classify that as spyware I simply do not understand. As I stated before, most spyware now is aimed at the user, not the OS, as OSs in general, including Windows, have evolved to the point of making it near impossible to infect. The end user is the soft target, not the OS.

Did I "Google" anything you suggested? Have you even been paying attention? I don't Google. There are far better search engines out there than Google, and most don't "data collect" on me to the degree that Google does.

Is it possible for Windows 7 machines to slow down over time? Of course! Is it Windows fault? Absolutely not! Remember, I support computers and users for a living, and users, on any OS, will click on things they shouldn't, download all kinds of crap, install tons of worthless apps, and screw around with the system settings. At the office we can control that through our security policies, user profiles, and firewalls, but at home people are on their own. Are you going to argue that the same does not exist on linux? I have seen linux versions that had the default user profile logging in with super user privileges. I have had programs, downloaded from the trusted repositories, trash the system to the point of needing total reinstall. I have had Ubuntu lockup on a simple screensaver. Linux has many good qualities, but you must be very naive to argue that it is somehow perfect.

You are right that there are differences in the FS between linux and Windows, but your argument that file fragmentation is not an issue on linux is patently false. Linux is less affected in performance by file fragmentation than Windows, but it exists nonetheless. Windows handles the issue automatically now, so, as I have stated before, it is no longer an issue even worth bringing up.

Once again, you are sidestepping the issue of performance. You may take great pride in having a system that boots quickly, but for those of us in the real world performance is a measure of how quickly we can get our work, or play, done. You claim that your linux machine can boot in a matter of seconds, and that is all fine and dandy, but what good is it if it can't do what I need after it boots? Why do you think that sites like this one include extensive tests on PCs that go into gaming frame rates, time to recalculate large spreadsheets, time to sort large data files, time to render drawings, etc? Because that is what we use our computers for, and REAL performance means that we can get our work done faster, or get a higher frame rate in a game. Sorry, but linux leaves you out of that because you can't run the apps necessary.

I have installed Ubuntu, PC Linux, Red Hat, SUSE, and several other versions. I have experience with Unix on mainframe systems, AIX on IBM machines, and embedded versions as well. I am not a linux hater, and have actually spent considerable time trying to get linux working for my users, and even recommend it to those whom I believe it to be appropriate for. The point that I have been trying to make, so far unsuccessfully with you, is that every system, every OS, has its strengths and weaknesses. You come across as a zealot, a "believer", trying to convert the heathens to your religion. I have not argued that you should use Windows, only poked holes in your arguments that are outdated or false. You have legitimate reasons to use linux, just as I have equally legitimate reasons to use Windows, or someone else might have to run a Mac. For most of us, we use what works for us. It is not a religion.

 

[guzz46]

itpro I believe the quote should have been "Compatibility. linux is compatible with more hardware than windows" just because windows has a specific piece of software that you need doesn't mean this is true for everyone, and lets not forget those old pc's that don't meet windows 7 requirements they run fine on linux

Windows 7 may be more secure than previous versions but its still not as secure as linux, you need AV software because of windows poor design not because its popular (server's and linux adoption links eg..) where are these documented cases? you provided one link that if true wasn't even a viruses (more of a back door) that didn't even say which distro it effected (maybe only 2) you have yet to put up one single link to a linux viruses, and i have never heard of anyone running linux getting infected with one so why should we use AV software (to protect windows users?)

And where is your proof? if that were true then how come you need AV software when all you need to do is deny the viruses permission?

You don't realise that it is a completley different kind of spyware (i am talking about spyware that install's junk on your pc and slow's it down or worst case needs to be reinstalled) linux does not have any of these

So use a different search engine then, again you are dodging the point

No the same doesn't exist on linux as we get our software from official repositories and linux doesn't have a single point of failure (called the registry), no OS is perfect but there are some that are better than others, for your information my windows 7 install has slowed down without even installing anything new on it

Yes it is, the average desktop user will never have to defrag a linux FS, its about efficency why have a defrag program when you don't need to have one

I'm sorry but i don't use my pc for any of that and the average user wouldn't either, i can run all the apps i want, a quote from weta digital on Massive (the software they used to make the lord of the rings) "Massive runs twice as fast on Linux as it does on Windows"

I said i don't have a problem with people using windows all i'm doing is defending linux when people say things such as "the only reason it doesn't get viruses is because of low market share" and "linux is a pain to try and get things to work" it can be a pain on windows too

 

[itpro]

Guzz46, here is the list from Ubuntu's own site about known linux viruses.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus

It also discusses the use of ClamAV, the most widely used AV program for Linux. No viruses, huh?

Here is another take on the Gentoo repository distributing malware:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/linux-infection-proves-windows-malware-monopoly-is-over-gentoo-ships-backdoor-updated/2206?tag=mantle_skin;content

How about a reminder of Ubuntu's own distribution servers getting hacked a while back?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-attack-others/453

Gee, I thought that linux servers were invulnerable. If Ubuntu can't even protect their own servers I must admit to some doubts.

I did not dodge the point you made about searching (not Googling!) for Windows 7 slowdown issues. I answered it. None of my machines experience that, but that does not mean that it doesn't happen. I specifically stated that the issue is not a Windows flaw, but a user issue. I guess reading comprehension is not among your strong suits. I did take you to task for pushing Google, the greatest sponsor of spyware on the planet.

The average desktop user on Windows will never have to defrag again, either. Still having trouble grasping the concept that Windows now defrags automatically, in the background, whenever the machine is idle. You are continuing to grasp at straws with this one.

Yes, Windows still has a registry, but the registry is now controlled and protected far better than in previous versions. Windows creates backups of the registry whenever changes are made, and it is a simple process to restore to a previous point of your choice using System Restore. Do you think that linux does not have a single point of failure? Ever hear of the kernel? Ever have it become corrupted? I have, and it can happen easily. Once again, the systems are different, but each have their issues.

I know that you don't use your PC for the types of tasks that I listed, and I even said that I was certain that Linux meets your needs very well. You, like many others, fall into the trap of thinking that what you use a computer for is indicative of what everyone does. You fail to realize that most computers in the world, by a substantial margin, are not sitting in homes but rather in offices. Most people spend more time in front of a computer at work than at home. I do not minimize how you use your computer, but you seem to imply that because you don't need MS Office, AutoCad, ArcGIS, Real World, or any other of the thousands of programs that keep the business world spinning that they are unimportant. I work in the enterprise, and spend my days keeping our users, network, and applications functioning smoothly. When I get home, I play FPS games, surf the web, write, email, research, download, and pretty much everything else that your typical home user does. Right now, I run Windows for those functions at both locations, but I have used Ubuntu and others as well at times.

You claim that you are only defending Linux, yet you do so by attacking Windows with half truths and out of date arguments. Linux has come a long way the last few years, and is now a fairly robust and refined desktop OS, but Windows has also come a long way, with 7 being tremendously more secure and stable than XP. Isn't that the nature of computers, that they steadily improve and evolve over time?

 

[guzz46]

itpro Thank you for making my point quote "The following is an overview of the entire list of Linux viruses, worms and trojans known at this time" which was what? about 30, how many does windows have? hundreds of thousands? quote "If you are going to trade files in a Windows world, you'll need to scan those fies for viruses. You won't get infected, but you may help infect someone else" they are talking about using ClamAv to protect your windows buddies not linux users, quote "BadBunny.pl. It was written as a cross-platform virus affecting Windows users far more than Linux users because it's easier for programs to grab Root or SuperUser privileges in Windows." yet you claim windows 7 is as secure, did you also notice that on most of those they mentioned you virtually have no chance of getting infected? Show me a self-propagating viruses that i can go and get infected by, not a list of viruses that exist or have existed but i have virtually no chance of getting infected with

Like i said before, it effected how many distros? two? arch and gentoo, not very popular distros, what about ubuntu, fedora, opensuse, debian etc.. and how many times did it happen? once? how many backdoors does windows have? lots

Ubuntu being hacked is a perfect example of how the "linux has no viruses because of low market share" is wrong, arch got hacked not long ago as well but did people get infected somehow by these hacks? no, i never said linux was impervious i just said its safer than windows, there are plenty of windows servers that get hacked, there are even youtube videos on it

So its not windows fault that its OS slows down overtime from people using it, i guess people are probably better moving to an OS that doesn't slow down from use, once again you are dodging the whole spyware issue, that kind of spyware doesn't clog your pc with junk causing one (in a worst case scenario) to reinstall

You are missing the point again, its not that windows defrags your hdd automatically its that it has to do it at all (design etc..)

Windows has a kernel too (so i guess it has two single points of failure) You generally have to mess with the kernel itself to get a kernel panic, it doesn't get messed up by installing and uninstalling a bunch of software like the windows registry does, an average user is not going to mess with the kernel (wouldn't even know what one is) but will install and uninstall a bunch of software

I don't think that at all, thats what the average desktop user uses it for but on the linux adoption link there are plenty of businesses switching to linux, the faa, us navy, banks, governments movie studios etc.. so you can use linux for business also

Your the one that came on here and attacked my reasons for using linux with your own half truths, and you still have no evidence to backup your windows 7 claims on my original list of eight