So many Opinions and so little knowledge...

To debate the relative security based upon raw numbers or fanboy loyalty is akin to re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic (read: futile).

By far the biggest factor in security is the motivation, ability, and care of the one doing the setup and how the machine is used. Then too, the network environment has a HUGE affect.

The OS used is really secondary insofar as it does not affect the ability of the one that installs it (windows should be relatively easier for a person of limited intellect or knowlege to setup safely) to securely set it up.

So many folks get tunnel vision and lock into a single product or technique that supposedly is the silver bullet of security. It is far more than that. If you take the time and care to inform yourself and take the needed steps to secure yourself you should be fine no matter which OS you use.

There, now i should get flamed by both sides of the issue.

Don't forget that it says "from UNIX and LINUX". So this would involve every OS that is derived from UNIX - that would include even workstation OSs, and, as is mentioned too, MacOS or even some washing machine embedded system . . .

:-)

Linux = Open Source
I am very disappointed that still vulnerabilities are present in it. Booooooo

Everything has bugs. Linux has the least, because everyone is working on it, where WIndows is closed bloody source (****en Microsoft)

Linux has more right now, just to let you know incase you didn't read the article.

You just wanted to take a swing didn't you? Just because it's open source means everyone is working on it?

Well sure, but it doesn't mean they are all working for the benefit of the OS and not looking for a hole.

Open Source is less secure, how does something that anyone can work on be more secure than something developed in-house and kept on lock down?

i agree

"how does something that anyone can work on be more secure than something developed in-house and kept on lock down?"

Pretty easily.

Can you say disassembler, or injection scripts?

Anything that's open is available for all to see. Being closed doesn't by any means make it more difficult to attack.

*nods*

Open source means I (if I knew the language :( :P) could search the code, find a bug, submit a patch. I can't do that with Windows. Microsoft are on the wrong path with closed source IMO.

Ignorance.

An open source is just like a building of MS campus, you can't just walk in and do a smash-n-grab. Even though anybody can possibly review and edit the code, there are certain sign-up procedures prior to that to happen.

Ok, take this and do with it what you want. But, here's a little more accurate set of statistics (IMHO). Be forewarned that it's based on 2003 through 2005/6, not just 2005. It comes from Secunia's website listed by product.

http://secunia.com/product/#os_M

For Windows XP Home, there are 109 Security Advisories and 25 of them are unpatched (2003-2005).

For Windows XP Professional, there are 124 Security Advisories and 29 of them are unpatched (2003-2005) Some of these are the same as XP Home, I'm pretty sure.

For Windows 2000 (I'm combining all of the Server and also Professional for this one to conserve space), there are 425 Security Advisories and 76 are unpatched. Granted, some of these probably overlap between the various versions of Windows 2000. The best that Windows 2000 did, was 91 Security Advisories, where 15 are unpatched (Windows 2000 Advanced
Server).

For Windows 95, there are 7 Security Advisories between 2003 and 2005, and 3 are still unpatched.

For Windows 98 SE, there are 30 Security Advisories, and 3 are still unpatched.

For Windows ME, there are 33 Security Advisories and 3 are still unpatched.

For Linux Kernel 2.0.x, there is 1 Security Advisory, which is patched.

For Linux Kernel 2.2.x, there are 8 Security Advisories, where 1 is unpatched.

For Linux Kernel 2.4.x, there are 54 Security Advisories, where 12 are unpatched.

For Linux Kernel 2.5.x, there are 2 Security Advisories, where none are unpatched.

For Linux Kernel 2.6.x (which is the latest version), there are 64 Security Advisories, where 14 are unpatched.

Adding Gnome 2.x to the Linux part, there are 4 Security Advisories, and all 4 are unpatched.

KDE 2.x, there are 11 Security Advisories, where 1 is unpatched.

KDE 3.x, there are 35 Security Advisories, where 2 are unpatched.

I didn't look into the average time that it took to patch the security advisories. And, this is taken at face value. Secunia even says you shouldn't do a 'face value' comparison, because there are a lot of other factors that need to be taken into account.

Patrick.

Thanks "Always Icey" Those look like better stats then the published ones.

"For Windows XP Home, there are 109 Security Advisories and 25 of them are unpatched (2003-2005).

For Windows XP Professional, there are 124 Security Advisories and 29 of them are unpatched (2003-2005) Some of these are the same as XP Home, I'm pretty sure."

"For Linux Kernel 2.6.x (which is the latest version), there are 64 Security Advisories, where 14 are unpatched."

I'm surprised to see KDE with soo many holes through :(

Thanx for this addition!

But, I think, one has to also take into this account the numerous program-related security flaws - like related to PHP, WebServers, KDE this and that program etc etc etc.

At least, with Linux, there is still the question: where starts the pure LINUX and where does it end. What is considered to be part of the OS and what not?

The kernel is the pure OS part. X Server, KDE, Etc, are just shells.The X servers problems are the OSes problems (there are 2 diff X servers AFAIK too :P)

You shouldn't be surprised. So many hands in the pot writing code, there are bound to be mistakes, especially considering that it's becoming a much more complex platform and as it becomes more targeted to all users rather than a technical fanbase. That's not a criticism of Linux, it's just a reality that all software experiences. That is why it is futile to bash a product.

I would almost say that I'm going back to Windows 95 or 98, except for the fact that probably the only reason there's so few flaws with them is, no one is looking at them anymore....

Truth be known, when I posted that list to the other (private) newsgroup, and consequently here, I never even considered X-Server or any other shell. I probably should have posted those stats also.

In the end, it's like quite a few have said. It really doesn't matter who's got more security holes (or bugs in general). It's that if there is one, it's one too many.

And, if you bury your head in the sand and say "My OS, be it Windows or Linux, is more secure then your OS." and you don't make sure you get the patches or workarounds set up, you're in for a world of hurt.

Basically, in the end, regardless of what OS you use, it's not 100% secure. So quit whining about who's system is better, and make sure YOUR system is as secure as YOU can make it.

Patrick.

"Basically, in the end, regardless of what OS you use, it's not 100% secure. So quit whining about who's system is better, and make sure YOUR system is as secure as YOU can"
I agree, but the thing is... Windows, can't be made totally secure due to the way it's done. There are still flaws in it that allow a limited user to have system level control. I suppose it's possible the flaw is in other OSes, but I haven't heard of it.

The thing that turns me away from Windows, believe it or not, is not the security of the OS. It's the stupidity of it. Yesterday, for no known reason, every program started gave me an error. "Failed to instize property" or something, and media player classic is still giving me "kernal32.dll" errors. I had to reboot. I don't want to reboot. Ever.

[/endofrant]

Anyway, you are 100% correct that an OS/Program is only as good as it's user/computer.

Makes Linux look even more of a joke seeing as most of the flaws are in Open Source items especially as I seem to recall the Loonix fcktards telling me Linux was more secure cos it was open source. Not looking that way from here.

I find it offensive how this is worded. there are many flavors of linux, some (under default installs) are more secure than others, some less, and under advanced installs the security is raised even more. this joke of a report should have broken the linux aspect down as follows:

distro ; version ; kernel revision ; install type (default or advanced) ; user preferred security settings that users themselves leave open

comparing linux in general to windows in general is like saying the 13 versions of windows (windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 95b, 95c, 98, 98se, nt 4, 2000, ME, xp, xp sp1, xpsp2) had xxxxxx amount of security flaws, whereas the 200 + distros of linux/unix over that same time period had xxxxxx amount of security flaws, then take the number of security flaws and divide it by the number of distros/versions and I would venture to say that the averages will show windows has a much higher security risk than linux/unix

The government is wrong.

Linux is more secure due to it's open source nature.

But I suppose Windows is more controled due to it's closed source nature... but bugs escape the public too

Anyone know how to vote stuff down?

I think the score thing is mods only. I've been looking to vote down a couple that is just anti-linux or anti-windows or anti-mac

personally I think advocators of either OS are exagerating loudmouths. I just use my OS, I don't go worrying about vulnerabilities, I also don't go exposing valuable info, in almost 20 years I've not had any problems at all with either Windows or Linux in regard to being attacked with the exception of the OOB exploit in Win98 back in the day.

People get too worked up, and too opinionated, and way way way too territorial "windows iz teh uber zomgwtfbbw" "L1nuX wll h4x0r j00 zomgwtfbbq", lol personally I don't give a damn, as long as I can play my games, watch my DVD's, IM people and browse the www.

ZOMFGROTFLMFAOLOL

T H A T ' S I T !

Exactly my point of view. Thanx for expressing it.

D B D D H K P U K S P ...

W T F ?

;-)

All software has bugs. Why argue over who has more. Linux could have 10,396 and it wouldn't increase my risk of being attacked. The Unixes have a far better design and when set up properly are very secure. That being said, my windows machines hum along relatively secure. I keep them on the local network with very little internet contact. I surf the web on a linux box and never check my e-mail in windows. You needn't fear the unknown. Give linux an honest try and you will find things to like.

You have a valid point... Since Unix and Linux have been developed with more technically experienced users in mind, it has been better built as a workhorse operating system.

Unfortunately, I still assert that Linux is not for the non-techincal... yet. I'm sure that fact will change over time. Of course, at that time I assure you we will see the most intuitive, idiot-proof things in Linux be shattered by better idiots.

Windows, on the other hand, was built for common users. With the needs of users comes functionality, and Microsoft has- until recent years- been very forthcoming with function over form. That's biting them in the butt now, but that too will change over time.

It comes down to using the right tool for the right job.
The internet and email are too interactive for using Windows for my liking. But the very least that you can do is use Firefox for web browsing and Thunderbird for email. If your into playing games its hard to replace windows. The only thing that I keep it around for is my tax software and TurboCad.
My six year old and eight year old navigate it (linux) just fine and play many a game on it. It just goes to show that it comes down to getting familiar with something a little different.
Installing software used to the hardest thing but I rarely have difficulties anymore. Probably less than getting certain drivers to work in Windows.
I like using SuSE and Mandriva.
The thing that I miss the most when using Windows is copy and pasting with the middle mouse button.(I know you can remap the buttons but I use a lot of other peoples PC's.)

My Parents are common users and use Mandriva 2006

"Unfortunately, I still assert that Linux is not for the non-techincal... yet."

So it is!

What makes me mad is that nearly all distributions give exactly those "non-technical" persons the illusion that it's sooooo easy.

"Linux is not for the non-techincal"

No doubt. The only way Linux can make it on an end users desktop today is if they have someone there to get it started and then maintain it for them.

Linux is for everyone. Ignorance.

My parents are complete idiots with computers. But they use Mandriva 2006 (and mum enjoys the games on it :P)

In fact, I've had to reinstall Windows about 10 to 20 times due to dad some how getting viruses, where I haven't had to with linux

Whom to believe?

I got several computers with dual OS (Suse and XP) Last year stadistics, 2 Windows crashes, 0 problem with Linux. By the way, since I was in a hurry to recover my data; I saved my data from the XP part with Knoppix (another Linux distro).

Thats the beauty of Linux :P... Whenever my Windows computers crash and can't boot, I use Mandriva Move to boot from a CD and use Konqueror to back up anything I wanna keep.

Too bad Windows doesn't use a similar configuration to Linux. Then I can just edit a config file to fix the problem. But instead, theres that ****en registery.

A good Windows Administrator has suitable tools such as BartPE and others to accomplish the same tasks in Windows... when other user's systems crash, because a good Windows Administrator configures things right in the first place instead of sitting around crying about a problem.

Ultimate Boot CD.

:-)

BartPE?

Besides, that wasn't my point. My point is, AFAIK, there is no mobile Windows. And that registry annoys me.

http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/

There's the information for BartPE... which is a fully customizable pre-installed CD-bootable version of Windows XP (licensing is up to you, meaning you have to already have a licensed copy of XP).

I have commented elsewhere that the registry is annoying, but that is irrelevant.

There are linux distros that can edit the windows registry. I know that there is at least one anyways. BartPE stands for Bart's Preinstallation Environment and creates basically a working windows install that boots from a live cd. I believe it can load the registry files from the hard drive and is able to modify then to fix any issues. That is if you know what to fix.

There are linux distros that can edit the registry? Can I get a link to that one you mentioned? I've never heard about it and am interested.

wine comes with a regedit.exe. (heh)

The only issue I have with BartPE is that it doesn't work with different raid vendors unless you build it on that device.

It's good stuff otherwise.

But Wine's regedit is really for Wine's Registry :P

Yes, I know that.

LOL

I beleive the most important take-away from this story is that regardless of what O/S you choose if you think that the O/S selection is some magic panacea against being hacked, then get out the butter and bend over.

Responcible computing means keeping on on vulnerabilities and expoits for whatever O/S you think is best.

But as has been proved once again, the zealots rule. Freaking computer fundamentalist!

I don't know... Mac OS X came out pretty well.... Hey, just saying. I don't even use mac, lol.

Windows vulnerabilities make news because people use it. The folks that want to cause problems want to hear the results too. If you create a virus that attacks a Linux vulnerability who would know except for a few on an obscure web site. Windows provides more bang for the buck.

Wait and see what happens to the intel version of OS X. Virialbois will have a field day.

My suggestion - put the OS in ROM (or cartrage)

Id rather have to replace a few ROMs than have the OS infested

Also... make the OS and program completely seperate... like each program has its own folder which contains ALL its files, to install a program just need to copy the folder... then just a shortcut to the folder/program

No Windows registry

If a program/application isnt actually running it not know by the system/OS... so filetypes (etc) are only 'live' while the actual program 'owning' them is running - and all associations are forgotten when the program exits

Common file formats for text, spreadsheets, pictures (etc) - so embedding of into another program can be done by the OS - NOT the other application

if two programs wish to communicate - they send a message via the OS - the OS verifys before passing it on... for example... user wants to cut and paste text from Notepad into drawing program, Notepad says to OS 'here is some text, put it on the clipboard' OS says 'ok'... OS says to drawing program 'I have text for you', drawing program says 'I can except text, ok' (or I cant except that file format)

think about all the ways these changes would solve security holes in any OS (current or future)

BTW this is based on a OS called Risc OS which was on Archimedes and Risc PC - Acorn Computers, England - and I feel was the most secure and user friendly OS Ive ever used

SteveJohnSteele, I certainly agree with a few of your thoughts.

I have said for a long time that the registry needs to go away. And, with the advent of affordable large disk-drives, there is absolutely no need for programs to "share" DLL and such between directories. So, total agreement about having each program have its own folder which contains ALL files it uses. Would make managing a system so much easier. I personally love applications that are just one EXE file (like Delphi for Win32 lets you create) when possible -- vs. tons of DLLs and such.

I don't know enough about the other things you mention, but they sure sound worthy of further consideration.

I think a ROM module would cost a lot for this purpose due to a larger capacity.

It has been done before with a Linux, so it's do-able.

"Also... make the OS and program completely seperate... like each program has its own folder which contains ALL its files, to install a program just need to copy the folder... then just a shortcut to the folder/program"

Thats what annoys me about an OS..
Windows, programs could be in /Windows, /Windows/system, /program files, etc.
Linux it usually in /usr/bin, /usr/lib, etc, depending on the files. I HATE IT :P

"No Windows registry"
Agreed

"If a program/application isnt actually running it not know by the system/OS... so filetypes (etc) are only 'live' while the actual program 'owning' them is running - and all associations are forgotten when the program exits"
I don't agree, but I think the OS should protect against association stealing

BTW, Associations are handled by "Explorer" not Windows :P

"if two programs wish to communicate - they send a message via the OS - the OS verifys before passing it on... for example... user wants to cut and paste text from Notepad into drawing program, Notepad says to OS 'here is some text, put it on the clipboard' OS says 'ok'... OS says to drawing program 'I have text for you', drawing program says 'I can except text, ok' (or I cant except that file format)"
This is one downfall of Linux. It has no clipboard, and it's hard to communicate between programs. I think Windows is pretty spot on with how programs communicate (Praise for windows? I mustn't be feeling well :P)

"think about all the ways these changes would solve security holes in any OS (current or future)"
It needs some work, but yeah :P

tons of .dll or .so files have their advantages.

If I'm a programer and I find a bug in my program, in "something.dll (200kb)" then all I need to do is release that file with the patch, and it fixes the bug.

If its a single EXE (25mb), then... see?

also, many programs use dll plugins to add funtions. Look at Gaim (my fav example) or Trillian. Almost everything is plugins.

Just to be a stickler for technical accuracy since you're making it a point to correct people...

Explorer is the (default) Windows Shell... therefore, in a sense, it is what people know as Windows. To be completely accurate, Windows is a GUI system based on the complete fileset that comprises the Windows directory (and a certain subset of files and diretories in the Program Files directory), but the common element that controls it is Explorer. That being said, file associations are handled by a DLL that recalls registration details from the Classes Registry hive that is called by Windows and utilized by Explorer.

I think this is your most competent post to date.

You make a lot of good ideas... but I don't think it will happen unless the security of Vista is compromised in a way that forces them to such an approach. Doing them now would break thousands of applications that depend on specific file locations and the registry. Most customers don't tend to take kindly to breaking applications-- regardless of merit and benefit.

Still... eliminating the registry and forcing applications to maintain INI/XML configuration files and keeping all their files in their own programs is the most sound idea from a security standpoint. I've been a firm believer for years that no application should be permitted to make critical changes to the OS itself. It's a fundamental reason why I had to forsake AOL years ago. It's also a reason why I only trust certain vendors to install system shell hooks.

On the idea of app-communication... your clipboard idea... it's an interesting idea. I like it. It would require a LOT of buffer checking from both sides of the matter, but then again... buffer checking is good. No application should be capable of accepting buffer data that it shouldn't be dealing with. Buffer issues are probably the most common security issue.

DLL's are not bad... Jacen is actually right when he says that building a giant EXE would be a horrible idea from a technical perspective. Modular code is very good for maintaining improvements and fixing issues... not to mention performance would suffer building one giant executable.

The problem with DLL's is that too many companies version mismatch their products with older DLL's rather than rely on their own code. The result is that App-A depends on DLL-A and so does App-B. However, while App-A is not version dependent, and App-B wants version 1.1. OS-A replaces the DLL with 1.2 because of a security issue that App-B inconveniently took advantage of. Suddenly the app breaks. This is precisely why Microsoft has to do all the testing they do before releasing a patch, and it's why they sometimes have to recall or replace patches after release.

A solution is that application vendors need to stop using version-specific DLL's and depend on published API's. That way, the OS vendor can notify more promptly when API changes will be made giving the application vendor time to issue their own updates.

dlls are fine, but with 100GB drives being the "low end" standard now I think we can afford to have dlls put in the program directory instead of system32.

Windows should take a play from the Linux book here and figure out how to build compatability library versions.

I agree. It does get annoying how some set up programs try to over write DLL files in the system32 directory

So far I haven't had that problem in Linux, but I'm sure it's only a matte of time. :P

And to think... I was dead tired when I posted that :P Almost asleep at the keyboard :P

I think I have an answer for breaking apps.

For a few versions in the future, Windows should have a Windows registry emulator, that emulates the XP reg, but writes to c:/windows/registry/key.ini or something.

Anyway, I don't think MS is likely to do that.

" I've been a firm believer for years that no application should be permitted to make critical changes to the OS itself."
Except drivers, and even them should be limited :)

I agree with you about this also. And, I read somewhere a couple of years ago, that software companies should be putting their dll files in a subfolder inside of their folder in Program Files. That way, they don't need to register the dll file, and if one is version dependent, then another one won't break it, when they use a newer version of the dll.

Windows\System and Windows\System32 should be ONLY for Windows related files. Then, it's up to each software company to fix the dll file, if it's insecure. Of course, it means that Microsoft would have to release the source code of the dll file to them (if Microsoft created it), so they can update it.

Patrick.

LMAO... you obviously don't spend much time in the registry. Consider that most applications write hundreds of registry keys. That's an awful lot of .ini files to keep track of.

Not necessarily... it means that they'd have to keep their published API's up-to-date, and they'd have to post redistributable versions of the new DLL's.

True... I try to avoid the registry where I can :P

Lies

The Linux kernal is secure. The rest of Linux's vulnerabilies come from the installed programs (apache, Firefox, etc) so they can not be counted.

Windows, however, installs IE and WMP by default, forcing their vulnerabilties onto the user.

I wonder which distro was used in this test.

EDIT: I just flicked through this and found eXeem listed in Windows part. eXeem is a third party program, and doesn't count for Windows vulnerabilities. NEXT!

Yeah, try reading the article and posts...

Whatever, you are living in a dream land and in denial if you think Linux is absolved from any weakness. Its just not realistic.

the linux kernel is not as secure as you'd think.
i think you're just eating what people feed you,
because you're a linux zealot.

prime example for people who trust the kernel,
http://lxr.linux.no/source/fs/binfmt_aout.c#L459
there's a classic integer bug in a loader.
how long as this bug been here? i'm sure other
people have noticed this and probably reported
it. it's in a system that nobody uses [or some kern newbs compile in for no valid reason].

http://lxr.linux.no/source/fs/proc/proc_misc.c#L70
how bout that one? that was disclosed on a
public mailing list, but no exploit or PoC was
given out. i guess it mustn't be exploitable?
hmmm.....

also look at some of the posts in the past from spender@grsec related to copy_from_user.
i mean seriously, isn't that obvious stuff?

secure? think again.

the only thing that'll make the windows kernel
more secure than linux is that they're less
(non-professional) people that're knowledgeable
about binary auditting but that is changing soon.

oh, and i'm a linux nerd too btw. ;)

Uhh... the linux KERNEL (for someone who is such a supporter of Linux, I'm surprised you spelled this wrong) is NOT secure. It has its own share of vulnerabilities. Ever read LinuxDevCenter.com? I've seen a bunch of vulnerabilities mentioned on there.

And if you have such a problem with IE and WMP, have you ever heard of a program by the name of nLite? It's a pretty interesting tool. Dump the /i386/ folder to your HDD (from an XP/2000/2003 cd), then load it up in nLite and proceed to modify the crap out of it. Compile into bootable ISO, burn, voila. You know what you can do with nLite? Remove IE and WMP (along with plenty of other s***)! Simple as putting two checkmarks next to their names. Wow that was difficult! Plus it's not like you are FORCED to use IE or WMP. Ever hear of file associations? Associate all movie/audio files with another media player (Winamp, for example) and then tell Firefox (again, an example) to be your default browser (automatically associates itself with html/htm/shtml/etc files). Wow, problem solved. No more IE or WMP bulls***.

****in crybabies out there, I tell ya. I've used plenty of different versions of Linux, but for my day to day use of a computer, Windows is just a lot more practical and has a lot more software I like (plus the ease of point and click beats having to ./configure and s*** all the time). Okay I'm done.

What cracks me up is the constant rambling about how rock solid and secure Linux is. Then I check out the changelog for the latest kernel (2.6.14 to 2.6.15) that weighs in at a hefty 2600 KB. LOL!
Check it out at http://kernel.org/pub/li...l/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.15

Who cares how it's spelt? Point is, I've only ever had ONE problem with Linux, and that was due to a driver that didn't install correctly.

With Windows, I've had Spyware, Adware, virus's, tojens, non-functional drivers, lousy boot times, etc.

"****in crybabies out there, I tell ya. I've used plenty of different versions of Linux, but for my day to day use of a computer, Windows is just a lot more practical and has a lot more software I like (plus the ease of point and click beats having to ./configure and s*** all the time). Okay I'm done."
I don't compile. All I do is double click the RPM file and Mandriva takes over.

Your just a Windows fanboy.

EDIT: BTW, Linux has every type of software out there, so... thats not an excuse.

It's not more practical either, as KDE and Gnome are advanced and intergrated as explorer.

Ever noticed how Windows lovers believe that their OS is problem free?

I admit that Linux has problems, but it's far more stable then Windows.

The Windows Change log is probably a few meg too. SP1 to SP2.

The two examples you gave occasionally don't work based on your windows version.

Internet Explorer will always be your default browser under Win98x, for the purpose of some launches.

Windows Media Player(Win2k) adds an undeletable Media Player link to the context menu when you clear all file associations from it and assign them to a different program.

The solution?...nLite. Still, it's kinda sad than nLiting breaks stuff. MS really did integrate those things in there nice.

You really don't want me to link to specific Windows bugs, do you? This could go on for years :P

I know Linux has bugs (but only one virus, last I checked... could be more, but who knows? :P), but not as many as Windows. Microsoft doesn't disclose the bug information (Retards!)

I'm sure it is but Microsoft doesn't release a service pack every month :)

They should release it every week :( :P

I have yet to find a Linux equivalent to Dreamweaver. And also How is that support for Games coming along. . . Oh yes you still need a wine powered app to play most of the games out there.

Why don't you try to compile a list of linux bugs and a seperate one of windows bugs and see which one is actually longer.

I don't know much about Dreamweaver, but would this work?

http://www.nvu.com/

There's a portable version aswell.

Nvu is a very decent open source editor for those who don't want to go to the expense of licensing a product like Dreamweaver. As the web master at my college, I tested it extensively and have recently gained the support of the department in using Nvu as our official replacement of Adobe GoLive which we had previously been paying a small fortune in licensing.

But make no mistake about my praise for it... calling Nvu a Dreamweaver replacement is a very extensive stretch. It gets the job done and does it well, but it's not Dreamwever by any means.

He made no claim that Windows is perfect or problem free, but I could quote several of yours that state Linux is problem-free.

No, I'm not a fanboy. I hate on MS all the ****ing time, but its simplicity outweighs the faults. I would happily switch to Linux full time if I saw a reason to. Windows is fine for now. I'm not into the computer as much as I used to be anyway. Mainly just a tool for reading the news and listening to music.

As for the software aspect, I am much more accustomed to using software on Windows. Let's see.. the school I went to used Windows, home computer has Windows, all work computers use Windows, all my friends' computers use Windows, family members' computers with Windows, plus all of the clients' computers I have worked on have been using Windows. The relative ease of Windows makes it far superior to Linux in the day to day world.

I know theres plenty of software alternatives for Linux to what is on Windows, but the alternatives just don't cut it. Features, ease of use, speed, etc.. many factors caused me to not adopt Linux full-time.

As for virii, I've only ever contracted two virii in my computer life (10 years). I had the CIH virus back on Windows 95 and then some retarded worm through OE on Windows ME. Haven't had an AV program installed since Windows ME and it's been like 4 or 5 years since then and I'm still going strong. The free AV websites (trendmicro's housecall and panda's activescan) do the trick just fine and have yet to find anything. Plus the firewall I am using now includes an Anti-Spyware plugin built-in to it so that also helps. Just because I haven't experienced virii (or much spyware/adware/etc) doesn't mean anything. Friends of mine (who I helped set up with the same kind of software as me) would end up with hundreds (in a couple of cases, thousands) of adware/spyware/malware/junk/etc and virii. It's all on the part of the end-user how well the computer experience goes.

I had a wonderful time using Linux, but it needs to become a LOT more user-friendly (for the masses, the techies out there know what they are doing regardless) before it will ever be adopted mainstream. What about installation? Most distros of Linux (or Unix) require a fair bit of knowledge in order to get the bas**** up and running. With Windows all you have to enter is the cd key (one benefit of open source is no cd keys), user name(s), owner name, and your area code. Nothing really technical, such as the DNS servers or anything that a "normal" (non-techie) person would know.

Hell, I'm all for open source and saying **** MS. I just find it retarded to complain about this on here because it isn't going to make a lick of difference in the end unless some of the people who are so adamant about changes actually shut the **** up and get out there and do something about it! If you're sick of the way s*** is progressing with the pile known as Windows, how about you take some programming courses, apply down in Redmond, and then fix the g** d*** problems.

I've had far more problems with Windows than Linux, but Windows beats the pants off Linux with its software lineup (in my opinion). Hell, last time I went for a dual-boot setup on here, I couldn't get the monitor to work at all.. now it might have been the distro I was trying out (I think I was testing out ubuntu.. or damn small linux.. one of the two) but you'd think something that was made within the past few years would be able to handle the hardware of a 5-year-old s***box of a machine (p3 1ghz, 256mb, 15" vga).

I'm not trying to start a war with you or anything, but simply because YOU have had only one problem with Linux doesn't mean Joe Average is going to only have one problem. He could end up having a million problems. Same goes for people with Windows. One user may have zero problems while another has hundreds. I know a couple of people who switched from XP to Gentoo (Linux) because of the whole DCOM issue, but I only knew them through IRC when I used to hang out on there.

If I seemed hostile towards you, it was not meant to be. Today has not been a good day, to say the least. Emotions getting the better of me. And to repeat, I AM NO MS FANBOY!$#@ Okay I think that about wraps this rant up for now.

Here, here! Wow... well said.

I'm very impressed with NVU, I've used it multiple times now and I've found the controls are very easy to get used to.

Doubt it's close to Dreamweaver though.

So, who cares if you have to put a Windows compatibility framework on your computer ro play games. Your games use directx right? Do you know what that is?

'nuff said.

I got a question. Why use an equivalent when Dreamweaver MX 4 (dunno about later versions) works fine on Crossover office.

You know that ID released a Linux version of Doom3?

"As for the software aspect, I am much more accustomed to using software on Windows. Let's see.. the school I went to used Windows, home computer has Windows, all work computers use Windows, all my friends' computers use Windows, family members' computers with Windows, plus all of the clients' computers I have worked on have been using Windows. The relative ease of Windows makes it far superior to Linux in the day to day world."
You see, thats the problem of the main arguement for Windows. People say it's easier. Those people haven't tried Mandriva, nor KDE.

"As for virii, I've only ever contracted two virii in my computer life (10 years). I had the CIH virus back on Windows 95 and then some retarded worm through OE on Windows ME. Haven't had an AV program installed since Windows ME and it's been like 4 or 5 years since then and I'm still going strong. The free AV websites (trendmicro's housecall and panda's activescan) do the trick just fine and have yet to find anything. Plus the firewall I am using now includes an Anti-Spyware plugin built-in to it so that also helps. Just because I haven't experienced virii (or much spyware/adware/etc) doesn't mean anything. Friends of mine (who I helped set up with the same kind of software as me) would end up with hundreds (in a couple of cases, thousands) of adware/spyware/malware/junk/etc and virii. It's all on the part of the end-user how well the computer experience goes."
You pretty lucky then... I get it all the time, Dunno why :(

"I had a wonderful time using Linux, but it needs to become a LOT more user-friendly (for the masses, the techies out there know what they are doing regardless) before it will ever be adopted mainstream. What about installation? Most distros of Linux (or Unix) require a fair bit of knowledge in order to get the bas**** up and running. With Windows all you have to enter is the cd key (one benefit of open source is no cd keys), user name(s), owner name, and your area code. Nothing really technical, such as the DNS servers or anything that a "normal" (non-techie) person would know."
Mandriva (non-expert mode) install asks for partition information (AND CAN DO IT ITSELF), then asks you the select the packages, installs, asks for username and bootloader info, then gives one last screen that allows advanced users to configure the OS... I find it's okay to click next anyway :)... Tell me how hard that is :) and it gives plenty of information about each step.

"I've had far more problems with Windows than Linux, but Windows beats the pants off Linux with its software lineup (in my opinion). Hell, last time I went for a dual-boot setup on here, I couldn't get the monitor to work at all.. now it might have been the distro I was trying out (I think I was testing out ubuntu.. or damn small linux.. one of the two) but you'd think something that was made within the past few years would be able to handle the hardware of a 5-year-old s***box of a machine (p3 1ghz, 256mb, 15" vga)"
I think ubuntu and damn small linux are smaller distros with not nearly as many drivers are Mandriva or Fedora.

"I'm not trying to start a war with you or anything, but simply because YOU have had only one problem with Linux doesn't mean Joe Average is going to only have one problem. He could end up having a million problems. Same goes for people with Windows. One user may have zero problems while another has hundreds. I know a couple of people who switched from XP to Gentoo (Linux) because of the whole DCOM issue, but I only knew them through IRC when I used to hang out on there."
Hehe, you have a point.
I remember a number of problems with Fedora, Suse, Slackware, etc.... too many that if I listed them all... my post would take three or four printer pages worth of paper. Thats why my prefered OS is Mandriva. I've had little problems with that, and the only problem I had was with ATI for making their install too damn hard :P

"If I seemed hostile towards you, it was not meant to be. Today has not been a good day, to say the least. Emotions getting the better of me. And to repeat, I AM NO MS FANBOY!$#@ Okay I think that about wraps this rant up for now."
Wow... :P

Okay, I get the hint :P

I just took a look at that site, and I must say the screen shot shows promise (I only looked at the portable one :P)

I'm going to try that :P

Good grief, what is this... a contest for longest post on BetaNews? lol

I think so... lol

Like Linux?

Yes

Everytime a bug is fixed, the patch should be released AT once. :-S

Gee... it's so hard to be objective these days... there are so many variables to take care of. I wish they would say where the problem is, be it in a specific program or in the kernel itself. These folks need to categorize their security vulnerabilities like Secunia does.

Get the Facts? *confused look*

this whole thing is incomplete, lame, and quite overrated.

Sadly, I'm sorry to say there are no hackers trying to steal my government secrets via any security flaw in my OS whether I run Linux or Windows, and if they do steal my government secrets, then, who cares ;-p

You're right... they don't want your secrets, just your money and time.

100,000flaws - 812flaws/yr = 123yr

100,000flaws - 2328flaws/yr = 43yr

Yay, we can look forward to secure and bug-free linux distros in 4 decades! :P

I bet this will make all of those MS fanboys happy. Now they have more fodder for their useless rants on here over which OS is better. It reminds me of little children arguing over who has the smarter/faster/stronger dad hahaha.

Facts:
a) People will continue using Windows regardless of the flaws
b) People will continue using Linux regardless of the flaws (albeit the flaws are fixed a LOT sooner)

Conclusion: Lame article.

Conclusion #2: More flame wars on comments pages (yay...)

To summarize what I am trying to say here people, can't we all just hit the bong? Lighten up!

Agree with lost of what you said. PLus I agree linux does fix problems alot faster.(but then again they don't have the marketshare to test) :)

Oh come on here's proof about unix and the great open source of linux and your still going to defend them, you deserve to have them,WOW!

Indeed.... I use both Linux and Windows and Like both. I'm honestly getting tire of the people on either side of the argument. All this "my OS can beat up your OS" crap gets old real quick and this is just more fuel to the fire. The way I see it they should just shut up and let people use what OS they will. It's a freaking OS not a religion.

Open Source problems are usually fixed in days. Microsoft, it takes months... or years...

It's taken them 10 to 12 years to remove IE, and they still haven't done it... (IE was bundled with Windows about 10 years ago, I think... can't remember :P)

Microsoft used to issue security patches as often as Linux distribution companies do, but the IT departments at certain companies complained that Microsoft was issuing too many security patches too often. Microsoft responded by only releasing patches once per month.

Indeed... there's something to be said for listening to customers expectations. Specifically, that most customers don't have a clue what they really need or want.

only if you're providing can we hit the bong :D

That sucks. I want updates as soon as their availible, not once a month.

What happens between this discovery and the release? What if a virus takes advantage?

but I've noticed that most open source is always ahead of Microsoft (Mozilla, Open Office, Linux, etc)

If you're educating competent users rather than idiots and protect your system appropriately, you don't need the updates *right now*.

Most Windows users are "idiots" in the way that, they are just "adverage joes" and don't know that a website could give them a virus that could steal their credit card info.

I know there are many "competent" Windows users to, so don't flame me over this post. It's just facts.

Do you really think the majority of computer users care how things work. they simply want a tool that does the job they need to have done.

WOAH! HOLD THE PHONE!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!

Are you suggesting that users tend to use products that allow them to accomplish the task they want to do? Wow! What a concept! :)

Hmm, I wonder if the real reason people use Windows is somehow because it, despite its shortcomings, allows users to accomplish what they want to do easier than alternatives. That would be an amazing alternative to my previous theory that Microsoft is a fascist, nazi regime attempting a hostile takeover of world governments.

Thanks for your enlightening post! :)

They were right to do so.

I know I sleep more often now because of it.

"Linux fixes problems faster! Der-Huh!"

I am a windows user and don't like open source. But they do fix stuff faster, but they don't have the user base Windows does.
Vista all the way :)

Just look at the summary. There are many duplicate entries (containing the word "updated"). If you remove them, you have:

Windows
Without dupes : 699
With dupes : 813

Linux/Unix
Without dupes : 1227
With dupes : 2329

Any
Without dupes : 1640
With dupes : 2058

It seems the the person who made the report didn't know these usefull Unix tools named sed and awk ;)
By the way :
- there are many more Unices variants than Windows variants.
- the number of flaws is not sufficient to tell wich OS is more secure (severity, time to fix, etc)

Who gives a %$^$^. It all comes down to what your comfortable with, If I'm worried about Security, I'm not going to make my OS decision on some article from betanews, nor the us-cert. However, for the average joe that just wants to listen to mp3's, playing some games, and chat online, they could carless, and Windows is default, Windows is comfort.

My point is, this article applies to abour 3% of the online community out there.

For all the criticisms of the report that people use to justify their OS preference, the simple fact remains that there were 5200 security vulnerabilities found and fixed this year. Based on the petty rants I've read here and on the various postings on Slashdot and other sites on the matter, I must be among the minority that realize how incredible this is.

The fact that 5200 flaws have been identified indicates all of the following points of interest:

1) IT/IS researchers, hackers, and cyber-criminals alike are discovering a wide variety of issues regardless of OS or application.

2) IT/IS personnel are working their butts off to protect systems and users by fixing those flaws.

3) Hackers and cyber-criminals no longer care who you are or what you use-- you are a target of their interests.

4) It is ultimately up to the users to install updates when available and educate themselves and others on safe computing practices.

5) The results list all flaws for the OS and applications running on that OS in each section. Meaning that there were 812 Windows-and-Windows-Application-based flaws... not 812 Windows flaws. There were 2328 *nix flaws including the distributions, Mac, and their respective applications. Failure to acknowledge that demonstrates incompetence through inability to read the comments of the report and examining the lists of flaws.

Now... you can all continue to sit around ranting about how the results are skewed to one OS's favor, or crying about how nothing is being done (contrary to the evidence of 5200 flaws being found and fixed), OR... you can get off your butts and be part of the solution by updating systems and teaching other users safe computing practices.

This is the best post I've read this year. ;-)

LOL, you aren't reading enough! :)

The thing is, Linux and Mac are the most securer operating systems, cause most visu's are Windows viruses.

Excellent post! As a user of all the mentioned operating systems, I completely agree. Bashing any of them is fruitless. Instead we should all be helping everyone, from the best programmer all the way down to Grandma opening email attachments, learn better security practices.

OK, fewt, I agree... I really wish BetaNews had a Block/Ignore User option.

Your analysis is the most logical, least fanboy-ish, and most refreshingly honest I have seen. Thank you.

I think you need to say this about 100 more times, we didn't get your point that last 25 posts you said the same thing. You *love* Linux and Mac, fine they can do no wrong, they are perfect. OK, can you quit beating the dead horse now? Are you happy?

how much more do you have to keep reiterating your point about Linux is more secure and Mac is better than Windows? I just want to know, because you should be on a Linux/Mac Board or Newsgroup and quit reminding us how much you *love* Linux.

Wow! Painfully honest and something that needed to be said.

no they're less likely to be attacked because fewer people use them ... fewer people using an os or app doesn't make it more secure.

Nope, that would take at least half the fun out of reading this stuff.

I hate Apple, what's your point?

This has nothing to do with love. If it was up to me, there would be one OS that every body worked on.

But it's not. Linux is more secure and faster, and some how, Windows is easier. Mac fits in somewhere in between.

I know, but I only want it for one person.

Based on What? Are they more secure because less people use them or they had more bugs last year/

For someone who likes to call Windows users idiots, you sure have horrible grammer.

Well yeah, I see your point.

Thanks guys... but you'll notice that it has since been "buried" by the rantings of people who just don't seem to get it, or else don't bother reading.

;-)

I've never had perfect spelling OR Grammer. but thats not the point.

If you compile a list of Linux and Windows bugs that only apply to the OS, then you'll find Windows has more, fair and square.

Excellent post again....

I would like to add a point of my opinion, and maybe a clarification to this also.

6) The fact that 5200 flaws have been identified (and I'll add that more are yet to be identified) demonstrates that the concept of good code writing has been lost. Now, it's get the code out quickly because we can't sell the product if it's not finished, and we'll fix the bugs later.

A LONG (10 years) time ago, I was a Computer Science major in a small college. We were taught OOP (Object Oriented Programming), structured code, and we were taught to bug-check our code until it was as perfect as we knew how to make it.

A clarification, if you will allow me to. Because Linux is based on Unix, if you go into the 2,328 flaws that Linux/Unix has, and remove the ones that are applicable to Unix, how many does it leave?

It's like someone else pointed out, you're comparing Windows, which is one product with Linux, Unix, Mac OS, AND probably BSD as well (although I'm probably wrong about BSD).

Isn't that like saying that Los Angeles is better then the entire United States, because LA had 200 murders last year, but the rest of the United States had 2,000?

On an off-topic note, are you the same GoodThings2Life that used to host in Wizards Room? If so, it's been a long time.. (I was AlwaysSmilingGuy in there for a while).

Patrick.

Also, I should note that I'm typing this on Windows in Internet Explorer. I dabble in Linux, and am going to play with Solaris soon. But, I like Windows, as much as I like Linux. In fact, I have on occasion, beta tested for Microsoft on some of their products (and will continue to as long as they ask me).

Well well well! Howdy stranger! :) Yes, that's me.

An excellent point indeed regarding the comparison of LA vs. the US. No doubt the article is skewed, although I'm not really sure they're intention was to necessarily show one was better or worse. The site appeared to me to simply be a compiled list. I just take it for what it is as information about what has been done... not a comparison.

Good stuff, need more posters like this.

I feel your pain brotha'

Ya, right, you must be joking right?
We know that Linux is not a major US Corp.
Keep the good work your new year pay check from Microsoft should be arriving soon. :)
What a Lame post.

ya....Linux and Unix are not a major part of US Corperations.....let alone world Corperations...Apple with their BeOS, IBM, Sun, the majority of the servers out there....Hell having to hack a unix or linux server before being able to access a windows computer is nothing.

Thats also why they have to relase fixes so often, security is a bigger issue in the server/network market. Unix and Linux outfits make money because of their security, not because of mass sales.

Vulnerabilities are vulnerabilities. Doesn't matter whether its coming from a major company or not. However, the common misconception is that Linux is more secure, yet the amount of flaws discovered this year far outpaced Microsoft flaws.

That was the point of the story, not some bias towards MS.

Ed, thanks for the report, but as I mention in my other post... the report is not exclusive to OS flaws.

It is all-encompassing of the OSes AND their applications. For example, the Windows Vulnerability lists includes flaws found in 3Com products and 7Zip for Windows. Likewise, the Linux list includes flaws found in Apple, Adobe, and BZip products.

I can't argue that the list is a little more than misleading in how it groups the flaws, however, it does demonstrate exactly the point you make here in your post. The number of flaws found in a *nix environment are higher than that of a Windows system. I won't dispute, however, that the severity of those flaws is debatable.

As I will always "preach"-- it is up to the environment that the end-users (administrators and users alike) create that puts them at risk. Updating and configuring their systems appropriately is the most reliable means of securing ourselves.

"ya....Linux and Unix are not a major part of US Corperations"

HAHAHAHAHA

This one deserves a 6.0

Great use of your imagination.

;-)

That may be so, but nobody ever exploits flaws in *nix. *nix patches are released immediatly, however Windoze users always have to wait until the second Tuesday of the month. By the way, a lot of those Unix/Linux vulnerabilities were for Apple Mac OSX instead, and Unix and Linux are different operating systems--A lot of these vulnerabilities are distro-specific. This summary doesn't seems pretty crappy, stupid US government.

Well, the vunerabilities might be for different distro's but the windows ones are not all for the same version of windows. Good US government.

Anyone that uses "Windoze" to refer to "Windows" immediately loses credit in my book. Taking a mature topic or opinion and immediately ruining it by using such a childish term.

Oh my god, there are two versions of Windows (In the US, I know there are foreign versions) and hundreds of Linux distributions. Besides, anything that applies to Professional applies to Home as well, the differences aren't enough to make a difference.

Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000 (Pro, Server, Advanced Server, Data Center), Windows XP (Home, Pro, Media Center, Tablet), Windows Server 2003 (Web, Standard, Advanced, etc)... I do believe that is more than "2". It is not automatically true that what affects Pro affects Home. Flaws in Remote Desktop or Backup do not affect Home since those components do not exist. Therefore, differences do, in fact, make a difference. Think and research before you post.

Indeed... in my view, use of-- Windoze, Winblowze, M$, etc etc-- are immediately discredited as "hater rants".

the fact remains if everyone keeps their systems up to date these flaws would not be an issue...windows get such a heat because the average joe uses windows whereas linux the user is more advanced and knows what he/she should or should not do...
I troubleshoot pcs on a day to day basis some work some for friends and whatnot and the majority of these people have no clue what windows update is and why they need to do it...
or also what a firewall is, antivirus etcetc
Its in my opinion people should have to get some kind of license before they are allowed on the internet the only problem with this is then the pc market and internet market would lose millions of dollars...
I hope in Vista its manditory that windows update is on and of course if you dont like it you can turn it off but lets be honest the people that dont know when you switch to a high speed internet such as comcast, time warner, verizon...internet explorer is your browser not the icon that says comcast, verizon, or time warner.
It is also in my opinion if everyone had windows update on(because lots of people have it on but keep asking why is there a yellow shield with an exclamation point at the bottom) and it automatically d/led the updates and forced the user to restart (should they need to) I believe there would be less issues.

Right up there with the standard "Linux Sucks" intro, eh?

Yeah, that and calling people fanboys.

Awwwwwww....still sore about that. LOL!

No, sir... just a general sentiment is all. :)

NTbackup is in Pro by default? I thought you had to install it from the MS extras (whatever) dir on the CD like you can with Home.

I've never looked for it. Hrm!

What about NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51 and NT 4.0? Or for that matter Windows 1.01 through 3.11 even. The point is most of those systems are obsolete so it doesn't matter, and many of them basically the same version with minor updates (98, 98SE, etc).

Oh god...I know the type. Recently someone that labelled themselves 'computer illiterate' came to me and asked me "What's so great about Firefox?"

Then someone that labelled themselves as 'able to surf the web, run programs, and do all my financial stuff online' came to me and asked me why CD burning didn't work on their computer. I asked them if they had any burning software(or knew what theirs was), and when they didn't know, I asked them what browser they used.

"I open it through Telus..."

Uhh....yeah.

Point being - never trust what anyone says about their knowledge base. There's good odds that they're off in one direction or the other.

Funny, I thought it was a rather fitting mis-spelling.

If Wikipedia wasn't down, I wouldn't be reading this bullsh*t.

Being obsolete in no way implies that it is not still in use.

Yep... not really sure why they took it out of Home in the first place aside from the fact that it's completely worthless compared to other backup utilities.

I recommend www.i-am-bored.com

you forgot "original" ... oh wait, no you didn't.

At some point though support must end and users must use the version at their own risk.

Yeah, like wikipedia is a reliable source of info! Then again, it might be at least as entertaining.

They also left it out of Millenium

Backup does exist on the Home CD. However installation is not supported by Microsoft.

Yep, correct. As such, it's not part of a default installation.

i dunno, i know people who don't even know how to update or bother to update programs. i really need to make a small job out of this

fanBOIEEEEEEEEEE

;-)

w00t! my w|nd0z3 s3v3r r0x0rz!!!!!!!!!11 it powns j00r l|nux box0rz!

l|nsuX r0X0rz j00r b0X0rz!

heh

Oh, no doubt. I've had need for it now and again though.

I would have expected it the other way around. NTBackup installed by default for Home, and Data Protector / Backup Exec / Netbackup recommended for Pro.

I've had to use NTBackup a few times over the years, and as long as you don't need to do a full system restore with it it's "ok". LOL

You are on the money about it being worthless compared to any other backup product, but hey it's free. :-)

My Microsoft rep said it was NTbackup or the bugs, and well you know the rest.

(joke)

*os sucks

It's all about the moment.

;-)

"That may be so, but nobody ever exploits flaws in *nix."

You for real? With shedloads of webservers running *nix, you can sure as hell be sure that the flaws DO get exploited.

"Oh my god, there are two versions of Windows"

Yet another pigs*** thick Yank sticks his head above the parapet.

(commonly used)
Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP , Windows XP SP1, Windows XP SP1a, Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003...

Agreed...

If you had a life you woudn't be on the internet either!