Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Linux vs Windows a real life comparison
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: toadlife ---Macs don't have to be tweaked because there is no software written for it to cause them to have to be tweaked.
--- End quote ---
After installing Mac OS X you get mostly-sane defaults (services disabled and a user account setup). After installing Windows you get completely braindead defaults (even muzzy said so himself), and the user needs to setup a non-root account and a firewall to be half-safe (this, I think, is the kinda tweaking themacuser was talking about).
--- Quote ---
Insinuating that linux never needs to be tweaked is just hilarious.
--- End quote ---
Like I said, it depends on the distribution and what you want to do. I wouldn't ever say that any distribution "never" needs to be tweaked, but you don't have to do any tweaking to be safe.
--- Quote ---
Linux needs to be updated just like Windows does. Macs need to be updated too.
--- End quote ---
I don't think updating would be tweaking, I hinted that in my post.
--- Quote ---
The only downside to Windows, security-wise is that it is not protected by herd immunity, like linux, Mac and other obscure OS's.
--- End quote ---
That may be arguably true except for the "the only..." bit. That's just completely retarded and ignorant of the discussion at hand.
toadlife:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---After installing Mac OS X you get mostly-sane defaults (services disabled and a user account setup). After installing Windows you get completely braindead defaults (even muzzy said so himself), and the user needs to setup a non-root account and a firewall to be half-safe (this, I think, is the kinda tweaking themacuser was talking about).
--- End quote ---
Okay setting up an account is tweaking. Fine. XP comes with the firewall turned on by defult now, so that argument is down the tube.
--- Quote ---That may be arguably true except for the "the only..." bit. That's just completely retarded and ignorant of the discussion at hand.
--- End quote ---
I totally agree, the default user privledge is bad. But what else? PLease tell me.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: toadlife ---XP comes with the firewall turned on by defult now, so that argument is down the tube.
--- End quote ---
Yea I guess casual users won't have to do a thing. What does one do, though, if they wanna allow connections in only through port 80 (while blocking all other ports) and are unlucky enough to be using Windows? Unless there's something I'm missing it's not even possible with the Windows firewall, but there could well be something I'm missing (we're talking about very basic and quite-popular firewall configurability here.). The poor ass would have to use a different firewall.
--- Quote ---I totally agree, the default user privledge is bad. But what else? PLease tell me.
--- End quote ---
Internet Explorer (insecure ActiveX and apparently insecure Javascript enabled by default. And then the fact that it's shit.). Also, I remember getting MSN messenger to fuck off back in the day was a challenge not for the faint of heart.
toadlife:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Yea I guess casual users won't have to do a thing. What does one do, though, if they wanna allow connections in only through port 80 (while blocking all other ports) and are unlucky enough to be using Windows? Unless there's something I'm missing it's not even possible with the Windows firewall,
--- End quote ---
Of course that's posbbile with Windows firewall. When opening ports you can also specificy which addreses can access that port.
--- Quote ---Internet Explorer (insecure ActiveX and apparently insecure Javascript enabled by default. And then the fact that it's shit.).
--- End quote ---
But, ActiveX flaws cannot be exploited if the user isn't running as admin. Admin access is required to install ActiveX controls. See what I was saying when I said the only problem with Windows is the default security level. ActiveX flaws become nonexistrent when you browse as a regular user. As for javascript sploits, the've been discovered for pretty much all browsers, so I don't see the why you would single out MS on that one.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: toadlife ---Of course that's posbbile with Windows firewall. When opening ports you can also specificy which addreses can access that port.
--- End quote ---
Interesting, I never knew that, but I never used the Windows firewall much. Whenever I saw it I thought it was either on or off and that's it.
And I thought the Windows firewall was completely crap ;)
(can't beat iptables)
--- Quote ---
But, ActiveX flaws cannot be exploited if the user isn't running as admin. Admin access is required to install ActiveX controls. See what I was saying when I said the only problem with Windows is the default security level. ActiveX flaws become nonexistrent when you browse as a regular user.
--- End quote ---
Maybe, maybe. But it's still more tweaking than required on most GNU/Linux distributions and Mac OS X.
EDIT: Why does muzzy and Aloone_Jonez disable ActiveX if it's not a security issue with their limited accounts?
--- Quote ---
As for javascript sploits, the've been discovered for pretty much all browsers, so I don't see the why you would single out MS on that one.
--- End quote ---
Well muzzy has stated (IIRC, this was a long time ago) that he's disabled Javascipt in IE and anytime he absolutely must view a Javascripted page he goes to the bother of starting up Firefox. That's why.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version