Linux vs Windows hollywar

[cdnmatt]

Nevertheless, as a first line of defence, the VPN is the way to go - and let's face it, such a defence is well beyond the Thai government's cyber capabilities

Wow, it's amazing how people can be both, so confident and naive at the same time.

Here's one of many examples to *HELP* keep yourself anonymous. Pidgin with a XMPP (sp) account, OTR (off the record messaging), plus PGP encryption, while tunnelled in via a few different VPNs, with all communication going through the Tor network. Then obviously, purchase the VPN accounts with bitcoin, and ensure the coins are mixed before purchasing, plus use one of the many darknet e-mail providers out there to purchase VPNs as well.

Even that isn't 100% though, and it's always best to use other measures. For example, establish a list of one-time conversation codes beforehand. When you initiate a conversation with each other, you both need to provide the next code in your list, so you know you're actually talking to each other. And loads of other things.

But hey, if it makes you happy, go ahead and continue living in your delusion that you're anonymous on the internet because you use a VPN.

EDIT: Oh, and use LINUX, not shitty Windows. I can recommend http://linuxmind.com/

[justaguy]

shitty windows, another Linux fanboy. The people that actually do the work prefer Windows simply because it comes with stuff that makes life much easier when it comes to central administration. The bollocks that it would be less secure has long been debunked. So is the performance bollocks. In fact the Win NT kernel is more versatile and performs better than the Linux kernel.

When one wants to be 'anonymous" the OS does not matter, people are not tracked on that layer, but on the network layer.

[cdnmatt]

Nobody who works in the industry prefers Windows over LINUX. That's why over 70% of the servers out there are LINUX based.

Won't bother getting into the security aspects, but to suggest Windows is more secure than the majority of LINUX distros out there is laughable. You're seriously going to imply Windows is more secure than say Debian?

Windows is good for, a) people who like to play games, and b) people who don't know or don't care to know abotut how a computer works. That's about it though, and it's horrid for any type of server environment.

[justaguy]

Nobody who works in the industry prefers Windows over LINUX. That's why over 70% of the servers out there are LINUX based.

Won't bother getting into the security aspects, but to suggest Windows is more secure than the majority of LINUX distros out there is laughable. You're seriously going to imply Windows is more secure than say Debian?

Windows is good for, a) people who like to play games, and b) people who don't know or don't care to know abotut how a computer works. That's about it though, and it's horrid for any type of server environment.

555 Did you ever enter a datacenter, I bet they won't let you near the place. Of course that figure of 70% is absolute bollocks. Anyone that ever actually set foot in a datacenter knows that often touted figure is taken from some webserver survey, one that only counts publicly accessible webservers. The grim reality is that the majority of servers are not running Linux.

I spend most of my time in various datacenters, spare me the typical Linux fanboy bollocks.

Oh and yes, of course Windows is more secure than Debian. The level of access permission possible simply dwarfs whatever Debian or any other Linux distro has to offer.

The one thing all those Linux fanboys always ridicule is the registry. What they don't realize, is that this registry not only is a much better idea in terms of automation, it also does not rely on file system security only, as each and every record (it is a DB after all) can have acl's applied. Now try to do that on your typical Linux distro, difficult, error prone and virtually impossible. You only have to look at the mess that is called Android to understand what I mean.

70% of servers running Linux, bollocks absolute bollocks. In fact, I almost wager that apart from webservers, Unix outperforms Linux by quite a margin....

All of that is absolutely inconsequential in relation to the subject at hand. Monitoring internet traffic happens on the transport and IP layer not at the application layer. The OS is pretty much irrelevant to the tracking that is going on.

[cdnmatt]

haha, come on, you can't possibly be serious. You're actually saying Windows is a better OS than LINUX for a server based environment? Where do I even begin?

Let's start easy. What does iPhone use? Oh right, a LINUX derivative. How about Android based devices like Samsung? Oh shit, LINUX again. How's that Windows phone doing? Oh, right....

Or we can go simple, and how about just the internet in and of itself? DNS, e-mail, FTP, SSH, Telnet, SQL, XML, JSON, and the list never ends. All developed on and for LINUX based machines. I guess Microsoft gave us SOAP, which is now obsolete, and thank fuck for that, because that technology is an absolute nightmare.

Or how about the world's most popular database engine, mySQL? Right, LINUX, then subsequently ported to Windows. Same goes for PostgreSQL, Oracle, and more. How about programming languages like Perl, PHP, C/C++, Python, Qt, and so on? Again, all LINUX, then just ported over to Windows for you guys.

Yes, I'll admit many large corporations prefer Windows servers, simply because the execs in the boardroom don't know any better. They like the marketing and commercialization of Microsoft, because it makes them comfortable. By no means does that means Windows is a better OS than LINUX, especially for a server environment. Only a complete fool would think that, hence why the vast majority of both, servers and phones on this planet are running LINUX.

Windows still has the personal PC market, due to its ease of use and ability to play games. That's about all it's good for though.

[colmx]

To chime in on the above Debate, I am with Justaguy and too spend my days in and out of Data Centres

Our blue chip clients would run a mile if we said we were running anything other than Windows or Red Hat Enterprise - with active support contracts and/or Software Assurance

RHEL costs more than Win server and RHEL engineers command much higher salaries... so windows generally wins in the Financial Services and Insurance industries

Similarly MS SQL will trump MySQL or PostgreSQL in those industries. Anyone that submitted an RFP using these open source technologies are generally automatically excluded

And its not the Boardroom Execs that are making these decisions. Its the guys at the coal face that do the due diligences and influence their C level people to make these decisions

[cdnmatt]

Red Hat Enterprise = LINUX. Just with commercial grade support.

That's why LINUX doesn't do as well. It's open source, so there's a lack of support infrastructure there. Again though, by no means does that mean Windows is better.

[colmx]

Red Hat Enterprise = LINUX. Just with commercial grade support.

D'uh I wasn't saying it was anything else but Linux. Just pointing out that Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS etc would not be acceptable in any company that is answerable to a regulator. Its a case of use Windows or RHEL or we find someone else instead of you.

[cdnmatt]

Yep, I can totally understand that in a corporate environment. They want to be comfortable with their choice, and know they have the backing of a large giant like Microsoft. They don't want to go into the open-source world like that without any solid support infrastructure.

Again, by no means does that mean Windows is better. They're not, and saying so is simply factually incorrect. Again, just take the internet as a whole for an example. Without LINUX, maybe we'd still have the internet right now, but it'd probably be a hell of alot different than it is now.

[justaguy]

haha, come on, you can't possibly be serious. You're actually saying Windows is a better OS than LINUX for a server based environment? Where do I even begin?

Let's start easy. What does iPhone use? Oh right, a LINUX derivative. How about Android based devices like Samsung? Oh shit, LINUX again. How's that Windows phone doing? Oh, right....

Or we can go simple, and how about just the internet in and of itself? DNS, e-mail, FTP, SSH, Telnet, SQL, XML, JSON, and the list never ends. All developed on and for LINUX based machines. I guess Microsoft gave us SOAP, which is now obsolete, and thank fuck for that, because that technology is an absolute nightmare.

Or how about the world's most popular database engine, mySQL? Right, LINUX, then subsequently ported to Windows. Same goes for PostgreSQL, Oracle, and more. How about programming languages like Perl, PHP, C/C++, Python, Qt, and so on? Again, all LINUX, then just ported over to Windows for you guys.

Yes, I'll admit many large corporations prefer Windows servers, simply because the execs in the boardroom don't know any better. They like the marketing and commercialization of Microsoft, because it makes them comfortable. By no means does that means Windows is a better OS than LINUX, especially for a server environment. Only a complete fool would think that, hence why the vast majority of both, servers and phones on this planet are running LINUX.

Windows still has the personal PC market, due to its ease of use and ability to play games. That's about all it's good for though.

Windows is the leading server OS period. Anyone claiming otherwise does NOT know what they are talking about. As I said, they don't let you near a datacenter, and for good reason, you think you know what you are talking about, but your posting quite clearly shows you haven't got the slightest clue. PostsgreSQL cannot even tie the shoes of MS SQL and I have been working with both for over a decade. Don't make my bloody laught. How many serious companies are there that run serious workloads on MySQL are you even serious ?

The IPhone isn't using a Linux derivative, it is based on Darwin, which is a UNIX derivative, more than a decade older then Linux. Hell even MS had a UNIX OS long before Linux saw the day of light.

Not sure what you are on about, but long before the Linux kernel saw the day of light all the stuff you mentioned (DNS, Email, FTP, SSH and so on) already existed. Pray tell how any of that stuff was developed on Linux ?

The large corporation actually know what they are doing, they don't choose an operating system that offers no support for their critical workloads, they go Microsoft or SLES or RHEL and of those three, MS is by far the biggest player with a market share of over 60%. Why do you think the by far biggest money earner for Microsoft is the Windows server division ? It's because the vast majority of servers, running critical workloads do so on various version of Windows server. Not on Linux.

And to further clarify, I have over 20 years experience running Windows server, I also run Centos, RHEL, SLES and Debian in the datacenter But for cirtical workloads Windows Server actually is the best choice. In any case, popular server applications like MS Exchange, SharePoint, AD, and MS SQL does not run on anything other than Windows currently.

As I said, the people that actually work in datacenters know the real story. And those decisions, which generally are not made by boardroom execs, but by people that actually have to do the work, are valid. Windows as a server operating system is a rock solid choice.

You don't have to take my word for it, but I CAN say, I have been running Linux from the beginning, and for simple stuff it's adequate, for some other critical workloads, it is not. There is a reason why they trump (publicly accessible) webserver market, they are about the most simple types of servers you can get.

But go ahead and post some more Linux fanboy nonsense, let me guess, you are a developer right ? Those are by far the worst kind.

And before you start, I am fluent in C++ and guess what it's older than Linux.... C++ ported from Linux, that must be the most stupid remark I have ever heard, the language predates Linux by over a decade. In fact large portions of Windows are written in C++ and MS had their first C++ compiler almost a decade before the Linux kernel was released...