Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Hi people,
I am doing a term paper on Linux OS.It is supposed to be an argumentative paper and for the moment I would like to hear something about the linux security anmd reliability.Why is Linux more secure compared to Win and how come it is that reliable.Thank you in advance.
To do a paper, you have to first understand that there is no such OS as "Linux". You can get "Linux" at http://www.kernel.org and its _NOT_ what you can call an OS. Most of the security issues are solved by user-mode programs, like the ones from GNU (http://www.gnu.org), projects like KDE provide an easy to use GUI, and projects like XFree86 provide the means to run the GUI. They all have their own "security".
Everything is not secure though, someone may release code which is buggy (and not know about it). Its the job of the distributor to test the packages, and provide only tested and stable packages in the distro. Why is reliable? Same thing, it depends on what system you are using. Normally, the "hackers" take care not to release buggy code though.You should browse around a bit before doing a paper:
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.kde.org
http://fedora.redhat.com
http://www.debian.org
http://www.kernel.org
http://www.freebsd.org (not based on Linux)
http://www.netbsd.org
0 
WOW, I read this right before I read your post.
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Linux_Security_on_the_Ropes&story_id=23156
In my own opinion the user makes all the difference in both security and stability.
Sandman
0
The user can make a difference in security and stability, but some OSs are more secure and stable by default than others. I think it would take Jesus as a user to make Windows as stable as FreeBSD or as secure as OpenBSD, for example.
Green_Dragon, the main reasons for both the stability and security of Linux are the open-source development model and the UNIX structure.
Microsoft focuses and marketable features and being user-friendly rather than security. They often release products too early because they set deadlines and if they fall too far behind, they lose money. While some Linux distributions are commercial, most of the software is released by developers from all over the world "when it's ready". With open source, both security and stability bugs are fixed by people from all over the world.
0
Stability in Windows isn't really a problem any more. I know your probably thinking "WHAT he's crazy!!" lol but Windows has become extremely reliable. I'm talking solely about Windows Server 2003. Xp is decent but it can't touch 2003 in stability. If it wasn't for system updates I would very rarely ever need to reboot. This is a problem that Microsoft is thankfully working on.
The biggest problem with Windows stability is the crap people install on their systems. It never ceases to amaze me the stuff I remove from other people’s computers. They're also amazed at how much better their system runs once I've cleaned and tweaked it a bit.
Granted Windows security isn't prefect but it is getting better. The admin/user still makes the difference here as well.
Most average Windows users don't even now what the different file extensions mean or that they even exist. This is a big problem in itself. A lot of viruses spread because users don't know the difference between a file that is executable and one that is not.
In my opinion user ignorance is a very large part of the Windows security problem. Microsoft of course is not without blame. They will eventually get it right but they have to account for this ignorance along with actual bugs. This undoubtedly has to be a very difficult task but service pack 2 for Xp looks to be a step in the right direction.
"They often release products too early because they set deadlines and if they fall too far behind, they lose money."
This definitely used to be very true but things are changing here as well. I hope (and believe) that Microsoft has realized they will lose more money in the long run if they continue rushing products out.
Longhorn (the next version of Windows) was first slated for release late in 2004 or early 2005 but has been pushed back until 2006.
"With open source, both security and stability bugs are fixed by people from all over the world."
No way around it, this is a good thing :)
Sandman
0
linux is more secure than windows mostly because it is less of a target. bill gates and the windows world has made lots and lots of people mad with their attitude and greed.
so lots of people with the know how are trying really hard to break windows any way they can. (just for fun, to get even, whatever. the latest mydoom virus attack an example.)
linux does not have that problem, the only people trying to break linux are those that are mearly curious, like the above repeadly mentioned user groups, etc.,
and actual theives trying to get credit card info from all those linux web servers in the world.
as to stablity, it's a coin toss for me, a proplely installed and configed windows system works just as well and long as a linux one.
i have several of both and almost never crash/reboot either. i do have to restart the tomcat/linux web server way more than the win2k/iss web box i must say. but that is prolly the tomcat programs fault and not linux.
0
I have an XP Pro PC . My peeve with windoz is that you have to reboot to do anything every update a reboot. Every new driver a reboot.
Part of what makes windows so bad is the fact that everyone runs as root. You can run as user in windows You just cant do anything useful like play games etc. I know you can setup a superuser account but still.
In Linux You run as user and sudo or su to do adminastrative tasks. A virus in Linux would more than likely only wipe out your user account. The files you have write permissions on etc..
As Far as XP being stable it is so so. I get Not responding quit often in XP. Sometimes X will lockup and I cant kill it for anything and have to shut down my GNU/Linux box at times but they are few and far between.
As for the crap people put on thier windoz PCs that is true put the Gator or Hot bar etc.. on it and it slows to a crawl.The user is about half the problem with windoz.
I find that games are still better on windoz.
Manufacturers have better support for windoz as far as scanners and such. But I have no problem printing with my Linux box or editing Photos or using my USB Flash devices.
For everyday computing Linux is far better in my opinion. For games windoz is better for now anyway.
Good Luck on Your Paper
Ron
0
"a proplely installed and configed windows system works just as well and long as a linux one"
No it doesn't. My boss reboots his desktop every few days because Windows (XP) manages memory poorly. He's a Microsoft guy, so he knows what he's doing in Windows. He runs a p2p program that leaks memory, but Windows doesn't recover the memory when he kills the program.
0
The simple fact is that DOS wansn't designed for networking and unix was. For all the graphics MS is still withstrained by backward compatibiltiy.
one of the best things about linux/unix is file permissions - things can't just run themselfs like in windows. YOu can't write something to do really nasty thins unless the root user where to run it. And hopefully they shouldnt (which is definately about ingnorance as above).
Windoze is built on soft foundations
0
"...In Linux You run as user and sudo or su to do adminastrative tasks..."
Surely that is the same as logging on as a regular user and using "run as" in windoze 2000/XP etc? NB there are distros of GNU/linux that automatically log you on as root (think knoppix, lindows etc)
"...one of the best things about linux/unix is file permissions..."
Personally I find windoze NTFS file permissions much more flexable than unix ones. In *nix how can I give one user the ability to modify a file, another user the ability to delete the same file, someone else to modify and delete the file, a group of users to execute the file and any user from a particular machine to have read only permissions? Can I do that with rwx and owner, group and world?Now it is very unlike me to play advocate for M$ (gave up on using windoze myself quite a while ago, still have to manage it though) but I've got a couple of win2k servers (file & print and an exchange box) here at work and I've just checked their uptime, both more than 70 days....that's getting towards a quarter of a year. OK that's nothing like the 4 years+ that a certain BSD box that I know of has been running for, but still pretty good.
As has been said before in this thread, it's really down to the administrators and users (or how the administrator rules the users with an iron fist!) to make a system stable and secure. The only real way to secure a computer is to never attach it to a network, never turn it on and lock it in a strongroom and throw away the key!=o)
0
3Dave, ACLs give similar functionality in Linux to NT's permissions which, as I understand, are simply a different ACL implementation. XFS, EXT3, JFS, and Reiser4 support ACLs by default. ReiserFS can be patched with support.
0
Hmmm...I stand corrected. Must say that I haven't played around with setfacl or smbcacls before, haven't really had the need to.
0
3Dave,
I respect what you're saying. But Still think that *ux is inherently more secure than windoze because of the basic architecture. But as you say, User incompetance is the main failing. Not to mention slack adminstrators. The things users do is unreal! And they lie to you about what they've done as well. Grrr. Oh, but i guess i wouldnt have a job if they were all saints.
A point about windoze tho - it takes 4 people to adminster unix servers for over 2000 users at my work (very reliably) and about 3 to adminster the intranet portal. And that doesnt work half the time. Enough said!
Keep up the good work
0
"But Still think that *ux is inherently more secure than windoze"
I agree. I was just sitting on the other side of the fence for a change to spice up the thread!=o)"And they lie to you about what they've done as well"
Too damned right. Time to bring out the LART (Luser Attention Retention Tool....aka Lamer Attitude Re-adjustment Tool....aka a hammer!=o)
0
,,,,,,"
"a proplely installed and configed windows system works just as well and long as a linux one"
No it doesn't. My boss reboots his desktop every few days because Windows (XP) manages memory poorly. He's a Microsoft guy, so he knows what he's doing in Windows. He runs a p2p program that leaks memory, but Windows doesn't recover the memory when he kills the program.,,,,"
if he has a p2p program running then it's not properly configured, anyone who does that file sharing thing takes their pc into unknown territory.
the mem leak is prolly the p2p program, they are notorious for being spyware, backdoor trojans, etc. etc.
antime a user complains to me about their pc running slow, haveing to reboot, etc. the first thing i do is look for hot bar, gator, weather bug, kazza, etc, etc.
once i remove that crap, the pc works just like new.
no os is going to recover from a badly written program that a user is dumb enuff to keep on their system, esp. after they know what it's really doing to their system, like leaking mem and leaving a hole for someone to use to hack in.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
