| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Linux vs. Windows: Which Is More Secure? | |
|
||
| Time: 10:01 EST/15:01 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks RMD "In a new report, Is Linux More Secure Than Windows? from Forrester Research Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass., Computing Infrastructures Senior Analyst Laura Koetzle finds that both Windows and Linux can be deployed securely. Microsoft Corp., however, fixes security problems the quickest—which is a good thing, since it also has the most major security holes." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 207 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:57:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/31/2004 11:42:40 AM |
|
montanagrizzly -
On point 1, that's up for some debate and it depends. But yes, having the source does make it slightly easier to identify really poor design implementation. Other the other hand since most security exploits are largely buffer overflows, having the source doesn't make much difference. On point 2, yes. The Linux community is still primarily stuck in the world of "You're on your own, baby." That is, you don't get support. You don't get notification emails. You don't know. There is no MBSA or HFNetChkPro monitoring your servers and letting you know that there are updates available. And if there are, you're stuck in the whole download the source code, do a 'make configure' and then build and install it manually world, where most endusers aren't and don't want to be. Yes, there are companies like Redhat which will sell you the support services that we Windows users receive. The notification emails, the binary patch updates, etc. But at that point, Linux no longer has a cost advantage over Windows. Redhat Linux with these support options is a $200/year subscription. Last I checked I purchased Windows XP in 2001 for $150 and I haven't been hit up since for any support charges. But the thing is, this "you're on your own baby" attitude is what appeals to many Linux zealots. Changing that would make Linux less appealing to them. It's a catch-22. |
| #2 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 3/31/2004 3:38:37 PM |
| yeah, i'm gonna click an installer that i download from a domain named "slackware". No thank you. |
| #3 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 3/31/2004 4:19:28 PM |
| mooresa56, actually in the Linux world Slackware is probably the best. At least in my experience. After that comes SuSE then Gentoo and lastly RedHat. |
| #4 By 11888 (64.230.49.107) at 3/31/2004 7:14:28 PM |
| What would the Bulgarians do? |
| #5 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 4/1/2004 12:02:11 AM |
|
The OS is as secure as the admin is knowledgeable.
As for updates, Microsoft is the leader, hands down. 5 year support lifecycle (often longer). Redhat can't seem to support more than one OS for one year, and users have to pay through the nose for that. That's the problem. A free OS, basically, with paid support for a short amount of time (I think it's a year?). It works surprisingly well, except that it really forces rapid upgrades in order to ensure coverage, and that gets old fast. However Redhat did just turn a profit, so apparently some people are signing on. |
| #6 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 4/1/2004 12:13:25 AM |
|
anglozaxxon - you are hillarious.
"If the user is certifiably retarded, then Windows is your choice" What would a mac user be? Because we all "know" that the mac is far easier to setup than windows. "Here's an analogy: If you're building a car at a factory, don't you think you'd do a worse job than if you were doing it as a hobby?" LOL. That has to be the worse analogy I've ever heard. Even the linux lovers have to agree with me on that. Do I want my car built by a guy in a factory or a guy doing it as a hobby? LOL. I'll take the factory every time. Of course, your zaney analogy works equally as well for other products. Where would I like my TV made? Hell, by a guy in his spare time in his car garage. Where would I like to have my food packaged? Obviously, I would prefer it packaged in the shite-dirty kitchen of some unfortunate unemployed fellow. Hillarious. Please please please comment more. Don't get scared off and change your name, because it won't matter. Your sense of good/bad will be recognizable, no matter how you login. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 207 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:57:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
