www.nliteos.com

"According to Microsoft, Novell's solution also required 4.79 times the number of patches, and only one of three Linux administrators met all of the requirements."

This is certainly not a bad thing. It simply means that Novell is more concerned than Microsoft with keeping Linux secure and as bug free as possible. The only reason Microsoft doesn't release patches on a daily basis is because 99% of the time you have to reboot Windows when you install a patch. The only time you have to reboot Linux is if you update the kernel itself.

Out of this thread - by FAR too difficult to read and track at this point.

Bye y'all.

number of viruses on windows is directly related to windows popularity and marketshare.

If linux would have had the upper hand i can guarantee that linux would have equally number of virus problems and other security issues.

Though i do think microsoft need to clamp down even more on security than they are doing now.

But they are working on it and imo improving on it all the time.

hackers and virusmakers hacks/infest the system that are more popular there for guarantees maximum spread of there work.

Has very little with how hard or how easy it is to break a system.

Most impact will yield the most excitement for the hacker or virusmaker.

" number of viruses on windows is directly related to windows popularity and marketshare."

You have no evidence of that.

"hackers and virusmakers hacks/infest the system that are more popular there for guarantees maximum spread of there work."

http://news.netcraft.com.../web_server_survey.html

Apache has the marketshare, where are the apache worms and viruses?

Have fun trying to prove yourself right, because you can't.

Yes, Indeed ,, if linux is wildly used as Windows it will be the Number one target to all type of hackers …. Less secure? Yes…BUT when you have a large networkssssssss , few IT professionals, you will appreciate windows (Client or Server), My self Im a DB admin, OS admin Network assistants and programmer all at once….(24 × 7 ) job,
If there were sufficient number of ITs. You should look for the best not easy

"You have no evidence of that."
...and of course you fewt have evidence to the contray? No I didn't think so! It seems pretty obvious IMO. But you are probably a life member of the Flat Earth Society, am I right?

No, I'm a member of the realist society. Funny though, there is tons of evidence to support it but well you just need to go look for it.

How many Linux machines are on the internet today?

Where's all the viruses and worms?

'nuff said

Home users are ignorant about protection against viruses and malware. Home users don't use Linux--they use Windows (a handful may use Mac). Linux is designed for enterprise apps, while Microsoft is mostly small business and such, though they are trying for enterprise too now.

Apache runs on Windows too. It's not a kernel or OS in the least. Good try though.

Due to Linux's Chmod and chown system, Virus' have a much harder time then they do on windows, where everyone is an admin by default (BIG mistake).

On Linux, you only have one "admin", root. If you log in as a normal user, viruses have NO effect for those places they can't write (like the system config files)

Can you trythat again? I'm a home user and I just love Mandriva Linux.

"The report by Security Innovation was funded by Microsoft.."
That says it all :)

"The report by Security Innovation was funded by Microsoft.."
That says it all :)

Most of us ARE using Microsoft. I guess that says something!

My biggest beef with MS is the simple fact that instead of rebuilding the wheel every 3-5 years just make the O/S's that we already have more stable and stop coming up with new problems by creating new O/S's and forcing everyone to upgrade to a new O/S with new problems!

And that is why there is still a command prompt in Windows XP, why WoW.exe is still included with XP (thats the "Windows on Windows" that allows 16-bit Windows 3.1 programs to load assuming you still have a 32 bit cpu), why progman.exe is still there...heck even fileman.exe is included in the system32 folder. Ever noticed that Windows 2000 is "built on NT" and XP is "built on Windows 2000"?

"creating new O/S's and forcing everyone to upgrade to a new O/S"

It's all to do with making a profit. They are a shareholder business after all. It doesn't mean YOU HAVE TO UPGRADE! W2K is still secure enough for most of us. But we still upgrade. MS's shareholders certainly love us! ;-)

*opens konsole window*

yum install windows-destroyer

Windows may be "easier" but it's less secure. Just look at the number of viruses. Sorry Windows, but you lose the fight again.

When Windows gets rid of that bulky registery, I might give it a point ;) :P

And Suse is known to be total crap anyway. Try Red Hat or Mandriva server packages.

Hiding behind the bird is nothing to be proud of. The only reason you do no have to deal with "modern" day problems like viruses and a bulky registry is maybe because nobody uses that platform? And if enough people did you know you would have just as many if not more problems because it's open source.

But I am beating a dead horse here...time will tell with this one.

All the rubbish spouted about Windows not being secure is ebing done by people who simply don't understand what they're talking about.

I remember a bet I made with a colleage who was an ardent Linux afficionado. He said I couldn't make NT (yup - NT4) secure. He said, he'd own it in less than half an hour. I hardended the box and turned it over to him. Two hours later he handed it back to me and bought me a rum (I don't do beer),

The point is that any modern OS can be made secure - and any modern OS can also be broken. Some are more secure out of the box than others but all can be made VERY secure. To those Linux weenies who claim otherwise, I have only the following to say:

"Dry the water behind your ears, learn something aobut the OS before you open your mouths and I drink Appleton Estate 151 (I am Jamaican, after all) thank you very much".

"The only reason you do no have to deal with "modern" day problems like viruses and a bulky registry is maybe because nobody uses that platform? "

Wrong

"And if enough people did you know you would have just as many if not more problems because it's open source."

Wrong

"But I am beating a dead horse here...time will tell with this one."

Right

1 for 3 - to bad it's not baseball

If he had physicall access to the box and couldn't access it "own" - he simply had no clue what he was doing - ALL OSes I've ever used can be quickly taken over if you have physicall access to the box. NO EXCEPTIONS.

"All the rubbish spouted about Windows not being secure is ebing done by people who simply don't understand what they're talking about."

No they are talking about old Windows (3x,9x), they are talking about IE, ...

"Some are more secure out of the box than others but all can be made VERY secure."

Exactly. An average linux box is more secure than an average windows box because the average is the default.

"ALL OSes I've ever used can be quickly taken over if you have physicall access to the box."

Not if you use an encrypted filesystem. You can take over the box, not the OS.

Haha... As usual a Linux fanboy says "Wrong" without explaining WHY someone is wrong.

Laughable.

Not if the OS is linux, where only root's password can grant complete access. (Presuming you don't reinstall :P)

Windows has a lower Total Cost of 0wnership, sorry all you 'nix fans. OSX gives microsoft some good competition, but microsoft leads the way in this catagory. This white paper clearly spells this out.

http://www.immunitysec.com/downloads/tc0.pdf

Has anybody read this report? Not I. Not intrested.

Linux (*nix) and MS server do things differently - each has it's advantages. In general, MS is easier and ghas a wider range of apps while linux OS and associated apps are generally more secure, more flexible, and frequently free. Btw OSX is based on OpenBSD (BSD was the original Unix alternative).

For file servers I use MS - Samba is great but the cost difference doesn't justify the extra aggrivation.

For Mail and Groupware - I use MS Exchange for those willing to pay for it - but many clients and I personally am using Postfix. I have a 10 user version of SBS 2K3 and have been meaning to install it in my office but I'll still use postfix (w/ Amavis, spamassassin, postgrey, and Clamav) as the mail gateway.

For a webserver - no contest Apache (on *nix)
SQL - this is usually decided by the application - many apps require a specific SQL server such as Oracle, DB2, or MS SQL - If given a choice I use MySQL (either MS or *nix) enviroment - and for web based MySQL on *nix.

This could go on forever.
My linux of choice - Debian
try to find the MS equivelent of

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade

My windows of choice - XP pro
Server 2k3 is OK but servers are boring
Vista is neat but today it broke Jedi Knight II - a definate no no in my office.

Desktop OS of Choice - OS X
If you don't agree - you've never tried it :)

"try to find the MS equivelent of

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade"

Here speaks someone with ZERO corporate experience. You cannot just stick updates on all the computers without testing them first.

eh?

then test it on one computer and update the rest when you feel like it....

what was your point again?

Which is why you test it first, then throw it on the server that all your other servers point to in sources.list.

I totaly agree. At Home, XP is probably the best choice, especialy for games. But at work or for servers, you need something reliable, secure, fast and easy to maintain. WinXP is just good for
http://www.milliondollarscreenshot.com/

No "probably" about it - it *IS* the best and only choice on the desktop for a general purpose consumer OS. The OS supports the greatest amount of hardware, the industry is behind it vis a vis games and applications and it's easy to install and use. The out-of-box experience is quantum leaps ahead of any *Nix variant with any relevance.

This is not rocket science - it's just plain obvious fact.

It's also not going to change within the lifetinme of any of us barring an Apple-style blunder by MS.

Those kinds of blunders they do not make - they cost money.

You didn't get the irony, did you? I have used Win3.11, Win95, Win98 and WinXPHE and they all crash at least once a day. WinXP is difficult to configure, has no decent CLI, limited GUI, unability to use or communicate with non-win systems, ... OTOH, it has good hardware support (not because of MS) and acceptable multimedia capabilities. Just put two beginners in front of an empty computer. Give WinXP to one, Mandriva to the other. And you will see what the out-of-box experience is.

And here speaks someone with NO Debian experience.
Debian has two main features: it's more stable than the earth itself, and official Debian packages have to meet strict guidelines.
In a corporate environment, you should use the 'stable' tree of debian. This means you CAN just do the commands mentioned. They already have been tested - otherwise they wouldn't be in stable.
An alternative is to use testing, and to update one machine, test things, then update the rest.

The closest windows can do to these commands is windows update - but this only updates windows itself (and more recently microsoft update allows you to update office and one or two other apps). Far more restricted than apt-get.

His point was that those 3 commands update ALL the software installed through debians package management, not just the core OS and maybe the office suite.
It does _everything_

apt > *

If you think Windows is harder to configure then any flavor of Linux, Unix or anything else you have lost your marbles.

Has anybody read this long a** post/report? Not I. Not intrested.

If XP is crashing on you on a daily basis, not to put too fine a point on it but it's either flaky hardware or flaky drivers. As to being difficult to configure, the OS largely configures itself (it's designed to) and there is such a thing as a CMD box although it lacks the arcane *Nix commands certain personality types seem to have orgasms over. :)

Additional configurability is eminently simple as all functions are accessible from at least two locations in the GUI - any "difficulties" generally arise between the keyboard and the chair.

My lineage with Windows goes back to Windows 286. I was on the orginal technical (not marketing)_ beta of NT 3.1 and many a MS OS since. From a usability standpoint, XP has by far and away the best out-of-box experience of ANY consumer OS and all *Nix variants - again because it's deisgned to. Communication with non-Windows systems at the desktop level is not much of an issue since it's the default consumer OS - period. On a corporate level, it has no difficulty communicating with any of the IBM AIX boxes in our organization, nor any of the Sun Enterprise class boxes.

That's just the way it is - no fuss, no mess.

You're quibbling aobut a patch management scheme?

Get a life!

Try Mepis

It's at least as easy to install as Windows.

I think it's easier - no activation key needed.

"If XP is crashing on you on a daily basis, not to put too fine a point on it but it's either flaky hardware or flaky drivers."

No I just run Noddy and Teletubbies. Enough to crash XP. I also can not remove an icon on a non-admin user (that crashes explorer), inability to kill a process and other stuff like that. This is a plain WinXP HE with auto-update. The problem is not that some old (or recent) programs can't run but that they crash the kernel. CMD is a joke. No serious completion.

"configurability is eminently simple as all functions are accessible from at least two locations in the GUI"

Configurability is very limited (how to put the taskbar at the top of the screen?) and not always easy (regedit anyone?)

"the best out-of-box experience of ANY consumer OS and all *Nix variants - again because it's deisgned to."

I just said the same. Good for gamers, children a few other things. Acceptable for music, video, ...

"Communication with non-Windows systems at the desktop level is not much of an issue since it's the default consumer OS"

This is imperialistic. Anyway in my family it is not the default consumer OS. And that is what counts.

"On a corporate level, it has no difficulty communicating with any of the IBM AIX boxes in our organization, nor any of the Sun Enterprise class boxes."

How do you launch sshd? How to mount a NFS volume? How can I read a Mac floppy disk?

Try Mandriva or another user-friendly linux distribution.
Install user time: Madriva: 10mn, WinXP: 2h
System ready: Mandriva: 30mn*, WinXP: 2h
* minimal install (OS, desktop, utils)
Programs: Mandriva: 4363, WinXP: 14
Language available: Mandriva: 61, WinXP: 1
etc

"No I just run Noddy and Teletubbies. Enough to crash XP. I also can not remove an icon on a non-admin user (that crashes explorer), inability to kill a process and other stuff like that. This is a plain WinXP HE with auto-update. The problem is not that some old (or recent) programs can't run but that they crash the kernel. CMD is a joke. No serious completion."

Autocompletion? Just turn it on. As for removing icons, anything owned by you can be removed. If your copy of explorer is crashing it's probably because something is making it crash. I have no problem with this at all...

"Configurability is very limited (how to put the taskbar at the top of the screen?) and not always easy (regedit anyone?)"

To put the taskbar at the top of the screen you just right click on it, "unlock taskbar" and drag it there. Simple. And as for regedit, why is that any harder to use than editing scripts in /etc?

"How do you launch sshd?"

Install it. Try googling "windows sshd"

"How to mount a NFS volume?"

Install the NFS drivers. Try googling "windows NFS driver"

"How can I read a Mac floppy disk?"

hurhurhur.
*ahem*

Again, install the fricken drivers. It's not rocket science. Google it too...

An OS is what you make it. It is the interface between hard and software. It's not meant to come packaged with shedloads of random stuff, if it does then that's a distro not an OS.

(Scott, who uses both linux and XP on the desktop and has only one issue with both. Crappy drivers ;)

How come when I shutdown my XP notebook for the night and close the lid before it completes it hangs there until morning when I have to hold power for 7 seconds to get it to shut off?

It doesn't suspend, or hibernate the thing just runs in that state for as many hours as I let it.

Because you broke it ;) The only problem I have with shutdown and closing the lid, is when it is set to standby when the lid closes. Then when you open it, it shuts down :P

It only takes me 30 minutes to install my WinXP, I dunno what kind of software you're installing. My system is ready on install, since all my software is installed during Windows setup as well :)

I sure as well wouldn't want 4363 programs either, nor do I want my menus in 61 languages.

Unicode in Windows: All languages supported by unicode.

Unicode in Linux: Last time I mounted my NTFS partition, I got a bunch of ????????????s. Never figured out how to input different languages on it either. At least I'm given an option during Windows setup.

And seriously, where's the unicode support in linux if people are going to claim it has better language support. All that crappy linux software ported to Windows and only works with ASCII.

If Windows's GUI breaks, is it possible to boot to text mode, use a text based editor to fix the registery? No.

The registry isn't a text file, it's a binary database. It is however possible to either boot into the last known good configuration, boot into a text mode and replace the registry with a correct backup or boot into text mode and run an utility to fix it

My view is... I dual boot linux and windows. I use linux for most personal things and essays but then I use windows for video editing, playing games, editing video/audio. Linux is a hobbyist OS. Its users are people who are smart. People who aren't afraid to find problems in scripts or change config I personally like linux more than windows. People dont't use linux because it is too hard. People don't write amazing programs for linux because there isn't a high demand. I think Mac OS X has Windows and Linux beat overall. Mac OS X is almost perfect. Why don't people us OS X? Look at how expensive it is! You can go buy a $400 Emachine and slap an x86 OS on it and your good to go but if you buy a mac its $1,200 to get a decent system. Maybe Mac OS X x86 will bring us a good platform... only time will tell......

I've used a lot of OSes in day including Many Unixes, Linuxes, Windowssss, NetWare and even OS/2. The most stable for a long time were AIX and OS/2 by IBM. Linux is very stable IF you have solid drivers. However, I have been most impressed with Windows Server 2003. This is the first OS I have ever used that is safe, fast, stable, and a joy to use. I am not a MS fan, but I will admit that Server 2003 is top-notch!!

If this is truly the basis for Windows Vista, than I will be going back to Windows on my home PC.

I'd have to agree with you. Linux isn't so hot for a production envirenment. I'd have to say numer one is BSD, 2 Windows, 3 MacOSX, and lastly Linux. I really don't see what all the hype is about Linux, when you've got BSD, which is what Linux is copying. I have yet to find a Linux distro that doesn't have all sorts of stupid problems. Only reason to use Linux over BSD is for gamers, Cedega doesn't run on BSD. :(

Out of curiosity, you mentioned aix and os/2... have you kept up with os/2 at all? the latest version (yes, there is STILL OS/2 development going on :) ) - eCommStation? IBM sold the rights to develop and market the os to serenity systems a while back and I hear great leaps have been made on many aspects of the OS. I ordered my copy yesterday and am waiting to see if it's still as good as it used to be. I LOVED the ability to run natively all os/2 apps, 99% os *nix apps and a crapload of windows apps :) plus there was the stability and security it offered and I hope they didnt recode the kernel... it was bulletproof :)

It's not.
At least, not exactly.

They threw away the majority of the existing code and started from scratch.
This is why Vista is behind the original schedule and why features like WinFS have been left out.

However, the way they have been writing Vista should mean that it is vastly better than all existing versions of Windows in terms of stability.

That said, I'd still much rather use linux.
I have a single Windows box at home, out of 7 PC's I currently have running, and that's only for gaming.
Even that is slowly becoming less necessary - cedega, by transgaming, is improving vastly.. Failing that, there's VMWare which now supports 3d acceleration.

Depends on the linux distro.
Redhat, Suse and Mandrake are not suitable on grounds of stupidity in my opinion. (I still remember gcc 2.96....)
Fedora isn't bad, and at last check I heard RH were changing RHEL to be based on Fedora.
Slackware is good, but very complex.
Then you have Debian.
Rock solid. Easy to install and configure. Even easier to install new software.

Leaves it as being between Debian and FreeBSD in my opinion.
And as an FYI, cedega sort of runs on BSD now - they are working on it. IIRC you need some patches atm, and it's obviously not the same as the binary packages they provide, but they are working on improving the BSD compatability.

You have SO got to be kidding aobut oS/2. Trap errors up to ying yang with out Lotus Notes mail servers under load. We went to Windows 2000 and all was sweetness and light - on the same Compaq hardware. the same story with our SMTP gateways.

There is no earthly possible way I could say what you did. The deadlock kludge alone precludes that.

That Windows embedded subsystem was the worst piece of garbage ever envisioned. Slow and limited as hell. I remember trying to run a PowerBuilder SQL front end app on it and how the damned thing hard a hard limit of named pipes no matter what you did while the same app SAILED under Windows 3.1. How embarassing is THAT?

A single threaded input queue which eventually had to be modified to have a timer set on it so it wouldn't deadlock the OS? This is architecture? From a MAINFRAME oriented company which should have known better?

Right.

Glad it's gone for all intents and purposes. That company couldn't build a desktop OS anyway if its life dependined on it. It just doesn't get the concept.

fyi: trap errors are caused by hardware issues. Memory hard drives, video cards and sound cards. The most typical trap error is trap error 00d which is a trap error generated by a memoryu incompatibility and trap error 00e which is caused by an application mishandling memory allocation. Neither of these can be blamed on the operating system.

Yeah, who uses SUSE as a server ??

And sure, Win may be easier, but more stable ?
Um No.

Try Win Vs. FreeBSD !

Just M$ Doing their own study again without the REAL facts & their own version of what they have conjured up as "Facts".

I don't usually repeat myself, but this is a long thread:

"This is comparing Windows 2003 Server to SUSE Linux, not comparing MS Windows in general to Linux in general."

FreeBSD isn't Linux. FreeBSD is a fork of 4.4 BSD - 7 files that were copywritten by AT&T. FreeBSD comes with it's own set of headaches the first of which is finding more than 2 people that have heard of it, and the second is finding 1 person that's actually installed it. LOL

True. True.

But you knew this was going to happen.. may as well get that macro ready :)

I bet my script is still in the fileforum. I bet I could make it work in Cygwin in just a few mins. :-P

Finding people who have used it. 90% of it is the same stuff that comes with Linux, any Linux user can pick it up in a snap.

It was humor.

:-P

"And sure, Win may be easier, but more stable ?"

We're talking about Windows 2003, not 98SE.

In that case, figure out the application (not as in "code" but as in "business requirement") and then apply the appropriate OS. Budgets and needs are the only real issues - not speed and stability. Those have long since evaporated at all but extreme levels.

Also, at extreme levels, I'm *definitely* not using Linux.

"FreeBSD isn't Linux."

Quite correct and thankfully it's not. One was designed as a server with speed, networking, security and stability under a multiple application load as primary ciriteria from the ground up and the other had them grafted on as propellerhead time permitted.

And as to the second,m it ain't that bad. I'm a Windows geek and I've heard of it while I will readily admit that installing it is like pulling hen's teeth.

Who uses SUSE on servers? O_o

Don't most linux gurus prefer to build their own 100% optimized Gentoo servers or something?

No, Gentoo is great but when you need some custom kernel code to fix a bug and you need it yesterday then you need to use a version of Linux that you can get supported instantly (IE: Redhat / SUSE)

I understand your comment; but Novell bought SuSe with the express purpose of marketing it as Server ready, with a server version and migrating Netware toward it.

Ahh, k. I don't keep up on linux news much...the stability of linux with the ease of use of windows? :P

I can see why they might try to do that, but I think building your own optimized server from scratch has benefits - in both speed and stability.

I understand your comment; but Novell bought SuSe with the express purpose of marketing it as Server ready, with a server version and migrating Netware toward it.

Yah and well they need it. That ancient doddering old-style file server NOS was dead on its feet at least five years ago. Also, I well recall all the old guard propellerheads in the company loftily stating that it "would never be as good an OS as Netware". Such arrogance and BS - SuSe was better going in that Novell ever was in its heyday (lest we forget the retoractive abortions that were NLMs and the NOS that took forever to acknowlege the existance of REAL SMP capabilities and virtual memory).

The only thing NetWare has going for it today is eDirectory - and that ain't much. Slap that directory service on SuSe and things markedly improve over the old junk. I don't think oit's enough to save the company from its inevitable extinction though.

I'm not familiar with Windows Server or Linux, so no comment there. As far as it being Microsoft funded, it can still be unbiased. However, if the study had concluded that Linux is better, you wouldn't have heard about it. Likewise, if any Linux supplier had funded the study and concluded the Windows was better, you wouldn't have heard about it.

But I conclude that the study was done unbiased and the only difference was whether or not we would have heard about it.

would you consider the people used a bias? I'll bet they used people that weren't as familiar with linux as they were with windows. Just my thoughts.

Oops, I rigged the study again... I hired incompetent sysops... used old versions again... oh, baby baby!

I've used SUSE 10 for a while now, and yes, it was a pain in the butt trying to:
1. Get networking as seamless as being able to pull my network and the computer will switch automatically to wireless
2. Get 3D acceleration to work on a widescreen laptop with an ATI card (nVidia's drivers are a whole lot easier to configure)

So Windows defintely wins when it comes to just working. Why, then, am I using Linux for my everyday tasks? It's because it gives me the challenge I want.

As far as Linux patches are concerned, how many of those patches were prompted by the presence of an exploit? A few -- most are bugfixes or someone found a bug before someone else found an exploit. I say the number of patches just means that the open-source community is more committed to weed out as many bugs as they could find.

So in conclusion, remember that Linux has had half the time as Windows to mature, but you gotta give kudos to the developers for their quick growth and commitment.

See this site:
http://geodsoft.com/opin...reliability/summary.htm
You may have to copy/paste the URL parts.
TCO? See:
http://www.michaelhorowi...m/Linux.vs.Windows.html
In which you will find this:
"After the initial cost (or lack thereof) of obtaining software, there is the ongoing cost of its care and feeding. In October 2002, ComputerWorld magazine quoted the chief technology architect at Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York as saying that "the cost of running Linux is typically a tenth of the cost of Unix and Microsoft alternatives." The head technician at oil company Amerada Hess manages 400 Linux servers by himself. He was quoted as saying "It takes fewer people to manage the Linux machines than Windows machines"

October of 2002, eh? Was Windows 2003 Server out then? This is comparing Windows 2003 Server to SUSE Linux, not comparing MS Windows in general to Linux in general.

bour, I think you should make an automatic post everyday, you are going to be repeating yourself A LOT! hehe..

Just come in, post this same thing, whether something new was posted or not... Maybe then they will get the point.

Cray XD1 Supercomputer
* Linux, 32 and 64-bit x86 compatible — runs a wide variety of ISV applications and open source codes

My Netware servers have been up for well over one year. Same for my Linux servers. I just rebooted one of my Windows servers.

Each NOS serves a purpose here. I don't like when Linux users bash MS and vice versa.

It's not a p*ssing contest. Windows and Linux are tools, no more - no less.

Everything needs patches, so just chill. Cisco routers, Tuesday patches with MS, YAST with SUSE Linux.

Rather than complain, we should encourage companies to be more forthcoming with fixes/patches.

I'd be curious how the tests would fair if other Linux OSs were used. BTW, Gentoo rules - but it's not for the faint of heart .

Yeah, I reboot my Windows box too, its called "windows updates".

This isn't a necessity UNLESS one of the drivers is required to install, which subsequently requires a reboot, you can't help that.

Maybe you don't run maintenance on the Linux or Netware servers, or maybe they don't feel the need to update as frequently.

The other thing you are forgetting is you don't actually DO anything on a NETWARE box. It sits in the corner and does PURe fileserver/printer server. You never touch the graphical desktop. I could do that on a windows 2003 machine as well, but its a waste of a good machine. Again, the reasons why people use Windows its versatile. Netware, you can remote into it, make some configuration changes, but you can't run apps, or use it as a workstation, now can you? Unix servers are built the same way for preference reasons, but Windows boxes people actually use, so you have people milling around a Desktop, whether its 2003 server or XP, you are going to NEED a reboot occasionally. If you buy a nice vehicle and you never drive it, and keep it in the garage, you probably need to wash it what, once a year if that? Just dust it off. Some of us don't have that luxury and we have to get new tires, brakes, and wash it.. yeah its called Maintenance.

Everyone makes it seem as though rebooting a machine is BAD! How so? Is it rebooting on its own? NO! YOU are rebooting it! Why? Because you felt the need to reboot, because you use it.

That in a nutshell is the main difference between Windows and Linux right there. The apps and drivers don't get updated as frequently and don't require as much maintenance..

I have servers in the field I have built for various companies, they have over 450 days with NO reboot, so I don't want to hear this BS about how you reboot Windows and Linux doesn't need a reboot. Horsepucky!

That is the biggest crock of doo doo. Its all in the knowledge. I can make Windows be completely self sufficient too, big whoop. That's not why people spend $5000 on a server box, so it can sit in the corner, its a TOOL!! It gets used. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you can't bring that crap in here.

Very well said, all of it.

1. You generally don't use your server as a desktop. You mentioned XP... are you using that as a server???????
2. You just reboot when you want to with MS? Horsepucky! And it does make a big deal when you have 1,000 Medical Center personnel accessing that server. Mission critical ring a bell?
3. No, a Netware server doesn't just sit there. You'd better be on that server daily. And it does have a GUI.
4. You can make Windows be self-sufficient? Congrats. Just better make sure it's behind a Cisco Pix Firewall, and even then it's gonna be hacked.
5. Having servers you've built for others is great (no kidding). But with their MS server being up 450 days without a reboot... I've got a feeling the Network Admin is not doing his/her job!!! Gimme the ip address and I'll show you why.
Your analogies seriously lack credibility.
Microsoft would never have run this comparison unless they were SERIOUSLY concerned about SUSE Linux and other Linux servers.
Meanwhile, wrap your mind around a global economy and see that China is turning to Linux in a major way (probably not SUSE).
Phew...
Like I said, an OS is just a tool, so chill.

if they have an ms server thats been up for 450 days then they need to seriously do the windows update thing to get the thousands of security patches (most of them requiring a REBOOT! LOL). Poor clooless newbs

Err, how about you actually do some background reading before you make comments like this?
You only need to reboot a linux server/desktop/whatever if you update the kernel.
NOTHING ELSE.
With windows, you need to reboot it as a result of random updates to the OS through WU, be it a server where noone touches it except yourself, or a general access workstation.

You say that apps and drivers don't get updated as frequently in linux as they do in windows.
I say you're talking out your ass, to be blunt.
Linux applications and drivers (typically as kernel modules) get updated more frequently than anything in the windows world.
The only time a windows app sees the same sort of frequent updating and development is when it's a win32 port of an opensource project that exists on linux/bsd as well.

Windows Update does NOT allow you to have a server up for over 450 days w/o a reboot, unless you tell it not to (thus meaning you can't install new updates). It is impossible, no matter what you want to say.

As for saying that a server gets used - yes, it does. AS A SERVER. This means people DO NOT log on to it.
Anyone other than the network admin and his team logging on to servers (be it locally or remotely) IS A BAD THING.
I know most everyone will agree here, but I fully expect the odd person to be stubborn and say that I'm wrong.
Anyway...

"Linux applications and drivers (typically as kernel modules) get updated more frequently than anything in the windows world."

Yeah.

All ten of those drivers.

Now that's a gross generalization but the intent is accurate.

Examples abound:

Any drivers for my Turtle Beach Santa Cruz?

Do they support the VersaJack? 2.1, 4.1 and 5.1 surround sound? The hardware equalizer? The mp3 decoder?

How about my M-Audio Revolution 7.1?

Or perhaps my Hercules Fortissimo III with the optical out?

Linux drivers often do not support the full capabilities of a given piece of hardware as well as their Windows counterparts. They eke by on a subset of functionality because the reference chipset information is the only thing available to the propellerheads. So they get updated more often. Big deal. On a generalization level they STILL don't deliver all the goods.

As to the whole reboot issue - who cares? There's scheduled downtime if it's a server and it's a reboot if it's a workstation. Have a Coke. have a smoke. Get laid (although if you can manage to get laid in the time a workstation reboots, I pity your lover). The point is that it's not a big deal and this whole "567.657 days without a reboot" rubbish is pure "my d**k is bigger than yours" nonsense.

Get over it - most of the planet has.

Hrmph, Linux drivers SUCK. I don't think I have EVER found one that could be considered anything less than CRAP.

Thank vendors for that, the developers of these drivers are doing the best they can but until there is a common driver model that doesn't change between x.x.xxx revisions drivers will continue to suck.

Well I would hope Server 2003 is better than Linux, Open Source VS $1200 OS. I don't have much experience with linux but I do know that linux actually runs faster than Windows 2003, but Windows 2003 is more stable and easier to use.

Stability and speed is the main things you want out of a server. Ease of use is quite nice, but not necessary.

I've yet to find any instance of windows that is more stable than linux.
If you have an unstable linux box, you've done something wrong or you have faulty hardware.
With windows, 9 times out of 10, you shrug and ignore it - windows is to blame. The remaining 1 is your fault or faulty hardware.

No. Windows has to "support" the millions of products released for it, while linux just uses a fraction of that. Linux SEEMS more stable because only so many programs and so many different software vendors are involved.

Count the number of companies that have software installed on a Windows PC out of the box--DOZENS. Not open source--competitors. 9 times out of 10 the issue is with the driver causing issues on a specific program.
Think of the TRILLIONS of configurations possible:

E.g., PhotoSuite having issues with the 66.93 NVIDIA driver but only when using the GeForce FX5700 EVGA branded card.

NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 AGP 4X crashes when refreshing java web scripts because of a driver bug in version 81.85, fixed in latest release 81.94, but the GeForce 4200Ti 128MB does not have the issue, nor the AGP 8x version of the 64MB card (I have ALL of these versions). Windows issue? No! NVIDIA issue. Since Linux doesn't have to deal with these trillions of situations, it SEEMS more stable. I know many other examples but will save those for another time :)

tipsyboy said:
"Today, my Windows runs for a year and longer without even spitting once."
I seriously doubt that any regular computer (any OS) user believes that.

Cybe

Windows 2003 and Windows XP are not equal. They have a similar interface, but they are very different at their core. Have you used Windows Server 2003? XP Pro is actually quite stable itself though--it's those things called Applications that usually screw it up.

Hell yeah.....Haven't had a BSOD yet, and I've been running XP since it came out.

Now...I reformat every 3 months, and am careful about what I run and where I go on the net, but I figure 3 months of average use at a stretch through several iterations of hardware ain't all that bad.

I can BSOD XP on command, just pull the hard drive sled while it's running.

HAHAHAHA

I was able to crash it before finishing installing it. Today I use 2k. :P

It's just as well though - apparently Win2k multithreads less, which means longer boot times, faster program load times(strange), and games like wc3 perform about 20% to 25% better - my AMD Athlon XP @ 1.8ghz actually beat several AMD Athlon X2 4800+'s for game load time, which suits me fine aslong as I don't play the newest stuff. :P

Makes me kinda glad I don't have XP though. :D

Uh.. well.. Gee, can someone help me with this guy?

2K over XP..yeah! I would shocked if this guy didn't drive a moped..

You are doing something wrong, is all I have to say. Maybe you tried to upgrade 2k to XP, and you either don't know what you are doing, or it failed for whatever reason, but 2K and XP are built on the same kernel.

XP has better drivers and optimized for hardware better than 2K. You using 2K is the same as using an oven instead of a microwave.. Yeah an oven works, but it takes an hour vs minutes, and its the OLD way of doing things. This is 2005 dude, XP is the future..

That's true! I do the same thing.. great, I know I am not crazy.

It gets tiresome reinstalling everything, but instead of taking hours to do a complete reinstall I can do my games, drivers, and programs in under 2. And with all my configurations..

No, XP is the past - Vista is the future. I've only had 2k crash once, and that was when I told it to go down to 66mhz FSB. :P

I've managed to crash XP much more, doing simple things like opening notepad(and somehow I broke wordpad too!). I don't consider that stable, although nLiting it down to about 100mb seems to have cured that.

It's been proven XP is better at doing multiple things at once. That means it doesn't give 100% control to a program(like wc3), and then check 10 seconds later if it has given control up once, and if it hasn't just ignores it. It would instead do stuff all the time while the game is running, mostly without affecting it.

If you actually understood one word of what I said, you'd have locked on to the "Older games(pre 2005) run better." part.

I've made it 16 months now without reformatting my computer and haven't had one system failure yet (XP Pro). My computer is on 24/7, and I'm constantly using it during the day too, so it's not like it's been sitting in the closet. I do reboot it at least twice a week though.

You crashed it before you finished installing it? Did you happen to EVER look at the HCL?

Yeah, thought not.

MS is not responsible for crap hardware.

lol

Yup! STOP: 0xED UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_VOLUME could result from that!

$%#^ Windows!

heh

Well curse those nForce2's and BFG videocards! Pieces of s*** that should have never made the market! Seagate harddrives? s*** too - everyone should have a Maxtor or Western Digital!

What? Corsair memory? OMG, who uses that crap?

I must confess though....I have no idea what "HCL" is. Sounds like "Hardware Control Language" or something like that, but that's probably wrong.

And...yes, ofcourse it's crap hardware! Just because XP crashes repeatedly, but Win2k and 98SE are perfectly stable on the same system!...that's definitely a hardware issue!

And then when you nLite most of the s*** software and features from XP and try that, and it fixes all the stability problems, that's even further proof that your hardware is totally farked!

Umm....yeah.

My six computers run 24/7 365 days a year under XP pro.

They don't hiccup or spit or crash.

Ever.

Your point?

These are machines under heavy gaming, application and file sharing use by kids and two adults. They run Office 2003, eMule Azureus and a variety of games and multimedia apps. No one powers down - they just log out. Apps crash? Who cares. The OS chugs on.

The only time I rebuild a system is if there are major hardware changes to it or a service pack release. I don't install service packs - I slipstream them. There is a comprehensive suite of toys and apps on my central "server" box that everyone can install for various reasons, ranging from mp3 ripping / creation, video editing, graphics editing, cd / dvd burning software, internet leeching and you name it. The stuff is tested by me and if someone has a need for something new (quite rare - there is a LARGE array of toys there), I go out, find it and test it before putting it on the server (VMWare is VERY handy for this). The vast majority of the stuff is freeware and everyone queries me *before* they install anything from the web on their machines. This is enforced by a simple rule: "if you install something and your machine ****s up, it will be rebuilt at my liesure - in a month or so when I feel like getting to it during which time I suggest you use those at the public library for your homework". No one has ever called me on it - smart people.

All this to say I run always stable, all the time.

My network of Windows machines runs continuously (they see more action than the back seat of a Volkswagen on Saturday nite) and the last computer I rebuilt was my daughters's when she switched from a PIII 650 to an Athlon XP 2200+ at the beginning of the summer.

Hardware Compatibility List.

Check it out.

Windows XP works on 90% of the hardware out there. Compare that to ANY other OS.

I am hoping so much this is like really sarcastic joking because the things you people expect from software are just plain stupid.

You can't tell?

REALLY?

WOW!

:-P

haha

Yes. Windows XP64 and Server 2003 are much more closely related than XP and Server 2003.

I've *never* had an application crash XP Pro. Slow it down? Oh yes. Cause quirks and grief that required a logout / login? Sure. But a BSOD? Never.

Drivers and hardware though are another matter entirely.

"I was able to crash it before finishing installing it."

Buy better hardware with better drivers.

Like the man said, trouble between the keybaord and the chair. Old very old ATI Radeon drivers - those would crash with Notepad.

Um, the nForce2 *was* a POS.

It took the NF3 and finally NF4 before nVidia finally tabled a decent chipset.

Oh, come on they are NOT that much different.

Ahh, thanks. 2k still crashes less for me though. Yesterday XP froze when trying to hibernate. :/

It may be POS, but Win2k runs 100% perfect for me with it. I was even able to overclock 20%, which is no small amount. :P

XP though?....no, it's not stable at stock speeds.

I wouldn't really trust an NF3...NF4 is the best, but my nForce2 has never failed me.

Actually, windows was loading other things into memory over notepad. I consider that ludicrous. :P

I'd never stick anything ATI in my system. Their drivers are funky. Then again, I wouldn't put Forceware on here anymore, either.

You deny the XP installer is funky?

You sound like a moron. Not because of this post, but because you attack people that do the same things as you.

Edit: To clarify that, I stated below that until I slipstreamed stuff in and gutted stuff out XP was quite unstable.

Might possibly be a hardware component with a generic ID (one of those AC'97 integrated sounds) getting a different driver on XP than on 2K (newer on XP). I've had systems BSOD in setup because of sound drivers. Any AC'97 sound driver will install for ANY AC'97 sound device.

I've had Realtek's AC'97 driver install over my VIA Vinyl (AC'97) drivers just because they had a newer date. Realtek obviously doesn't really like VIA and BAM, BSOD.

Ooh, interesting. Well, I've got a new one too(post install) - XP threw a BSOD when AVG antivirus failed to update due to my ethernet cord being disconnected.

Switched to avast, and no problem.

"The report by Security Innovation was funded by Microsoft"

Stopped reading right there.

Business-speak for "Place ad here."

Cya.

Yeah, and you are saying Linux uses an independent? C'mon man! They are ALL in kahootz with someone.

Besides, it says FUNDED by Microsoft, not ADMINISTERED.

If there was a chance in hell Linux would lose, you think they would front the money for a report that would ultimately make them look bad? I don't think so.

Microsoft has gobs of money, why wouldn't they fund it? This is good marketing for them. Linux is free to run their own test, but if they funded this same orginization to run the same test, the results would be indentical.

Windows is the clear winner. I find it interesting we are arguing over an OS that's what.. 25 years old? Basically.. Not technical, but MS Dos to Win 3.x to Win9x to XP its all the same 640 mem/1024 high mem and + Expanded Intel Memory architecture.. nothing REALLY has changed, but the ability to optimize and make use of better bandwidth and hardware.

windows has survived, OS/2, Apple, Unix, Next OS, a plethora of wannabes, BE OS, Linux, and a bunch of others, yet its still being used today.. WHY?!?! Because we like it! You think people would use something that totally sucked? Well there was the Ford Pinto, but that's unfair! And the Ford Fiesta, but this is about the OS'es..

I think the fact that Windows has survived this long, speaks for itself. Funded by Microsoft or not.. People use what they like, and this product wouldn't be here if it didn't do the job. Is it perfect? Of course not, but what's better.. surely not Linux!

"Not technical, but MS Dos to Win 3.x to Win9x to XP its all the same 640 mem/1024 high mem and + Expanded Intel Memory architecture.."

That's not correct. Dos to WinME was based on 640K base/384k himem (EMS used 64k chunks paged into an area in this 384k, XMS used memory over 1024k)

NT was the first Microsoft OS to address all available memory and not page memory in and out or rely on 640K of base memory.

Wow.

Way to go ballistic on a joke man, but seriously...do you honestly think anyone is going to look at that and think to themselves, "Gee...that's about as unbiased as you can get."?

Yeah, thought so.

Whether this report is true and objective is one thing. I don't think anybody could tell that but those who ran the tests. So - trust them or not.

Experience with either OS is a differnent thing.

From my experience Linux was good when it stuck to it's real self - which is the black login screen. Nowadays they gotta have nice pictures and automatic x startup in nearly every distribution. Mark it: NEARLY. The driver policy of Linux is a tragedy. People gotta have the real entrance into Linux: once they realize the black login screen, they can decide whether to go on with it or to leave it. I won't talk about games - - for those who have games on their top list for any OS, well, to me this criteria is just senseless.

People who need an allround OS I would always recommend Windows XP Professional - and not Linux. Especially on the musical side of softwareland Linux has not much to offer. So here again Windows is the choice. Those people who usually complain and mock about the Windows OS as being unstable I cannot follow in their judgement. From my experience any Windows OS I ran on my various machines throughout 20 years, ran stable, with the exception of some CPU and mainboard issues some years ago. Today, my Windows runs for a year and longer without even spitting once. You gotta have a Windows for work, though, and another one to try out - often badly written - software.

Don't know anything about Apple OS, only that there are some of the finest music production programs running on Apple OS.

Don't have any experience with servers, too.

So I'm just talking from the standpoint of an ordinary user, who, however, wants to know what's going on behind the nice pictures...

And - let'S be honest: in this world you get nothing without paying a price - even not Linux.

Quote tipsyboy "Don't know anything about Apple OS, only that there are some of the finest music production programs running on Apple OS."

Don't forget! The finest graphics and animation software as well.

OK, so the ad changes. Still...

Cybe

The Win box must surely have been running the "PC Booster" that is shilled at the bottom of this page.
Is it indicative of anything that there isn't a Linux version?

Cybe R. Wizard

I wouldn't know. My TRS-80 serves me just fine, thank you.

hahaha.. Wow. You are old! My Adam does the same for me! And I have Coleco vision as backup...

I recall writing a small game years ago in basic that ran on top of TRS-DOS, same code was then ported to run on PRO-DOS on Apple, a C64, and a Kaypro running CP/M.

LOL

No, I'm not old :-P!

VIC20 here.

That and an intellivision + a C64 were my first, got them all within about a month of each other don't remember which first.

i wouldn't really care if windows was "better" so long as i can do what i want with linux ie play games chat using msn or msn messenger via Qemu and just have some fun tweaking the system to run rapidly via different window managers ect. few things i would like to know if anyone feels like answering them though:
were these systems the same?
did they remember to turn off unneeded features?
how many times were these risks leading to hacks?
and what were the features they were trying to add were they windows only software?

Heh, funny. I don't have MSN messenger - I use Trillian, but GAIM might be your best bet since it's open source.

MS is comparing SUSE Linux? Is that even a server OS? When I looked at it a few years ago it seemed the most user friendly.

Liars figure and figures lie. I'm still with Windows on TCO, but Linux definitely has areas where it vastly takes the lead in. Security is starting to become a real 'neck and neck' run.

Linux has Windows beat hands down on security. I could whip up a script in about 10 minutes that would manage patches on a Linux machine for years, and smart enough to know if there's a kernel patch and reboot.

I put a Linux server in for a friend about three years ago. I got a call last week that the server died. No one logged in for *THREE YEARS* it just did it's job, updating itself daily and rebooting on saturday if it installed a kernel patch. Diagnosis? Hard drive failure (small time, whitebox PC acting as a server). The upfront cost of the box was minimal, it was spare hardware re-purposed to serve email. I spent less than 2 hours building a new system to replace it, and I probably won't hear from them again for another 3 years or so.

Windows can't touch that kind of TCO.

uh...what? You can't be serious. Windows update does that.

As far as security, the OS in Windows is solid. What ISN'T solid is the support and the enforcement of policy. If MS wanted to they could make the OS WAY more stringent on drivers, signed activex components, and the like. But when you have shareware programs, millions of developers and thousands of hardware to support, its next to impossible to expect that every developer will stick the policy. Every piece of code would need to be verified and checked by Microsoft, that's the problem.

Would you like that job? I sure wouldn't. That would be pure hell. So they allow some latitude an applications making modifications to the OS. Its either that, or they can lock it down, but it wouldn't NEARLY as user friendly.

Personally, I will take a few issues here and there, and deal with problems as they arise, than to have a bland OS with only very basic features and be boring. Yeah it would work, but the attraction of windows is versatility and diversity. EVERYONE has a differernt desktop, color scheme, sound, drivers, video, hard drive..

IF MS required everyone adhere to the strict policy of what is on the hardware compatbility list, then it would be 100% within reason, but people, don't read the fine print. When you install an activex, what's the FIRST thing it tells you? Installing this driver MAY have adverse affects, and MAY not be compatible with YOUR system. Every software, hardware, driver and component you ALLOW has exceptions. Deal with it. Or don't install ANYTHING. It really is that simple.

So, in a way you validated my argument. :-P

Sure there is Windows update, my point was that TCO for Linux is not higher than TCO for Windows. If course, that varies depending on the service running on the server. If I put up a box running Windows and it did the same task as the other I built (not really possible) there is a possibility it would run as well. The TCO would still be higher because of the Windows license, CALS, and the fact that it would take more than 2 hours to build patch and secure it as tight as my Linux server. (Takes 4-6 hours to build a W2K3 server, patch it, and harden it unless you are using an image where the work is already pre-done). When's the last time you have heard of a Windows server though that ran for 3 years without any intervention? Windows clusters, sure but that's not a single server. Best I've done is 6-12 months and even then I've had to log into them for one reason or another. That Linux machine was in a closet, and when we tried to recover it we didn't even have the password anymore LOL.

Linux has Windows beat hands down on security.

Rubbish. i rmember having a competition with an old Linux adversays with *NT*. You can't possibly secure NT this bozo said. So I sat down and hardned a NT server installation and tunred it over to him. The bet was that he could break it. Two hours later he recanted, and obught me a rum (I don't do beer).

The point is that any modern OS can be secured. Some OSs are less secure out of the box but all can be secured. Also, any OS can be broken - notihing is impregnable. To the linux weenies who sauy that Windows is not secure, all I have to say is "dry the water behind your ears, learn something aobut the OS before you open your mouth and I drink Appleton estate 15

Anyone with 1/2 a brain can lock a Windows machine down. The only problem is that it takes 6 hours if you patch it too.

2nd vote for Windows, Linux doesn't sucks, it is just years behind. It WILL suck when Vista is out thought.

They will still have the horrible X Window System architecture, they will still have anachronous design of OS, they will still have bad drivers, they will still have 1% userbase, and the worse is they will still have this Linux community.

Where Vista will bring so many things, and Leopard from Apple will just show everyone what an OS mean to unix public.

Just wait

I agree on one point.

The Linux driver model is #$%^, why can't they adopt some uniform driver model that doesn't require new drivers every time there is a security patch to the kernel?

It's rediculous.

-> because of SUCH a BAD architecture of whole OS, monolitic kernel(and drivers in it) and some SERVER running on it to provide graphical interface(and some..) and ANOTHER drivers in it (so duplicate drivers for keyboard, mouse, video etc etc), and the 'X' is MUCH MORE complicated that the kernel itself, next we have driver modules not compatible with gazillion of linux distribution etc...The EGO of community is pushing everyone to start another distro or another filesystem...like this was something what Linux needs. Windows and FreeBSD has one FS, and exceptional one in both products. They are not toy OSes.

at the beggining of Linux, a 'wise' proffesor told Linus that his architecture suck. Despite it Linus transfered to 2.6(2.2 wasn't even OS, 2.4 was a good toy), today it is still presented - how foolish the proffesor was - in 'Minix' times. He wasn't foolish, he actually was right, once you get 'big' you need good architecture.
NT's one is actually a very very good one, not looking on whole windows but microkernel(showing more and more with each server release, 2003 simply is much cleaner and faster than XP, 2003 R2(droping another old things) is even better.

Windows have many bad things, and many more comes from heritage or legacy...If windows could do what Linux does, e.g. each half year/3 months some new version, which simply scraps old things and start from beggining(not giving a *s**** about compatibility), we could be somewhere...

You cannot do it once you have 500 000 000 registered windows users and another number of pirates...you simply need support even for SIM CITY 1 or OFFICE97 in system, together with drivers which were written in year 2000 to support your 2005 system. That's it.

"at the beggining of Linux, a 'wise' proffesor told Linus that his architecture suck"

No, Andrew Tanenbaum said "I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design :-)"

That was one mans opinion, which many would argue either way. Linux 2.6 didn't exist in 1992 when he said it either. ;-)

"not giving a *s**** about compatibility"

So what are the *compat* packages for then?

Driver compatibility, it's the only glaring issue.

I cannot even begin to start to argue this post.. there are so many bad pieces of information, its giving me a headache.

One thing I will say, its not even feasible to support something that hasn't been invented. That's just a rediculous assessment. How can you even think about supporting a product 5 years into the future, when the products haven't even been designed. The architecture changes daily.. I don't even want to get into this one.. This makes NO sense.

windows is also monolithic!

LOL!!! He's talking about backward compatibility. And you just come out of nowhere making stuff up about forward compatibility.

LOL yeah...5 years back not 5 years forward! Sounds like something I would post (honest mistake, but I hate it when I do that)

and actually there exist even forward compatibility..to some extent, e.g. control panel in windows. It was written say in 2000 and can understand things from 2005(or you can put things there).

You can design it various ways, in C#(I code in) you have something like Interfaces, you define something 'like' abstract class that the plugin needs to implement. It doesn't matter if your code would be 5 years newer if it will follow the methods defined in the interface.

windows have standard drivers in kernel too, but the other drivers are loaded as .sys and does not reside in the microkernel. And most of times you have 'the other' drivers loaded, and you can even roll-back WITHOUT a problem to previous driver set that was working O.K. etc.

You can told me about modules but we could argue here forever, I just don't like linux on Desktop, on server I can't understand one not to use FreeBSD.

the problem with linux is that if you want a secure and stabile system you have to put drivers into kernel and recompile (and since many commercial companies make living from being on a MARKET, they won't publish open source drivers), you don't have any registry system(althought I admit that registry with current windows gone mad, which Vista should solve(XML configs, fewer COMs entries as we have .NET metadata etc)...

OH here we go, we are squaring off now.. This will unleash the largest comments EVER on Betanews, I'll wager..

Let the battles commence!

1 vote for Windows. Linux Sucks.

Hrm, what do you pick when both OSs suck?

Hrm, +1 Linux though it was a tough call to make.

Uh, well we had a tie breaker for when both OS suck, it was called OS/2 but IBM dropped it!

Everyone can argue Linux, Unix, Windows, Alpha, Apple.. but when it came to stability, OS/2 was definately the winner hands down. There were some apps, even had an excellent interface.. For those of us that knew OS/2 well, we had the best OS, alas IBM wasn't making enough profit, so they scraped it. Had a huge customer base too, IBM sucks at marketing..

OS/2 was decent, but in the end every OS out there is irritating someone right now. haha

IBM's pricing model doesn't help either. I don't recall what OS/2 cost but $1200 comes to mind.

OS/2 is still around :) development has been sold to serenity systems http://www.ecomstation.com/

to quote an old Beastie boys song.... "Ch-Ch-Check it out"

Latest release of the os/2 nameplate is 229 bux full version, 59 bux upgrade from ecomstation 1.1, and 199 bux upgrade from warp.

http://www.bmtmicro.com/...og/os2/ecomstation.html

You are calling an OS/2 iwht a single (not multithreaded) inpu tqueue that came form a MAINFRAME

huh

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here but fyi, os/2 is a multi-user multi-threaded multitasking operationg system, windows is a multi-user, task switching, and I believe currently allows a few threads, but last I heard, single threaded operating environment

Well, you expected MICROSFT'S study to show Linux is better? If Linux had their own "study", it would show Linux is better too. Numbers can say anything you want them to if the wording around them is just right.

"According to Microsoft, Novell's solution also required 4.79 times the number of patches, and only one of three Linux administrators met all of the requirements."

Prime example here. Novell's solution required 4.79 times the number of patches...during what time frame? On which version(s)? Are these critical patches only or Critical and "recommended"? Who decides if they are critical or not? If MS, how can they judge Linux patches as "Critical" or not without being biased? Or vice versa?

Watch Linux spout back that MS uses 8.98% (or whatever) more patches! How much you wanna bet they'll do it?

EDIT: For the record, I vote for Windows, making it the third vote chronologically on this forum.

PS: Betanews, I hope you upgraded your servers that are used for posting comments, because they're fixing to be taxed to the limit!

Microsoft funded the study, they didn't do it. It was an independent research firm.

Still could have bias though. If I paid you a "little extra" for you to run a study, for example, you might manipulate results in my favor for me. I doubt MS would do that of course, but the point is they chose the independant firm that they knew would find the odds in their favor, so there's still a good possibility of bias in the report.

HAH!

The only "independent" study is the one that isn't funded by either parties.

Independent or not..... If Microsoft funded it, can you honestly say you believe it is not biased towards Microsoft? Naivete' is the wave of the future I suppose.

Anytime Microsoft backs a study against anything, my first reaction is to "NOT" believe it. Microsoft has a proven track record of not providing accurate and honest information when it comes to their products.

lets settle this once and for all.... heres what USUALLY tends to happen in "independent studies".. someone funds the study. that same someone hands the study agency the testing criteria (what gets tested, what tests are performed, etc), study happens, study is released based on the funding agency's criteria
That said. MS funded the study, gave the independant agency the testing criteria... 2003 server verses SuSE linux. you willl install and test the fiollowing thinsg over a period of time and report back the results on JUST THOSE things listed on this form.
the test results were honest, the questions themselves were what was "fixed" in this whole scenario

Ooooh, talk about stirring up an ants nest!

For Real!! hahaha.. I am going to bookmark this one.. This will get heated up REAL quick.

Nah....now, if they'd managed to work a bit about pirating in there, or Sony....then we'd have a pissing match.

Didn't we do that already?

About every 3 days, near as I can tell.

When I ran WinXP on my home system I had it up w/o reformatting since approx. 1 month after it released, upgrading it along the way, rebooted to upgrade hardware, and I think once just for the hell of it. I used it daily, never had BSOD, never froze, didn't crash explorer, etc.

I now use Linux because everything I do is just more efficient, faster, etc. I run ALL my games I ran on windows, new and old. I like Linux better, but I completely disagree that the product Windows XP is "bad" or "unstable"

In my experience I tend to notice that stability of mature OS's like these relies solely on the hardware running it. I have a linux box that runs on s***ty hardware that hangs every time I try to download more than 30MB in a single file transfer from it. Reboots randomly, and gives me funky errors. This is on a fresh Gentoo install, then I tried RHEL4, and now it's on Fedora cuz I didn't wanna spend a bunch of time on it anymore.
But my main system runs w/o error or being compromised w/ winXP and linux.

I'd use Win2003 over SUSE, but I'd use Redhat or Gentoo over Win2003. If i personally had a choice I'd have 2 servers and use both just cuz.

Why do 74.2% of the worlds top super computers run Linux and only 0.2% run windows?

http://www.top500.org/stats

Nice study microsoft - well done.