# Vista SP2 and Windows 7 more Secure than Mac Leopard or Linux



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 13, 2009)

Softpedia said:
			
		

> Windows Vista Service Pack 2 is the absolute apex in security when it comes down to operating systems, Kevin Turner, chief operating officer for Microsoft, has indicated at the Midmarket CIO Summit earlier this week. Turner has had no problems applauding Vista SP2's superiority over rivals open source Linux and Apple's Mac OS X Leopard, although he has failed to offer any details related to the OS security-measuring content besides his perspective. At the same time, the Redmond company's COO has indicated that Windows 7, the software giant's next iteration of Windows will also be more secure than Linux and Leopard.



Continue Reading:
*news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-SP2-...-than-Linux-and-Mac-OS-X-Leopard-109192.shtml

PS: I will eat my hair if Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 turns out to be more secure than Linux


----------



## topgear (Apr 13, 2009)

A very good news for us windows users. TFS 

BTW, I kepp linux in dual booting ( suse & fedora ) with windows vista & xp


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 13, 2009)

I still think MS is going a bit overboard here. While with each service pack Windows definitely gets more secure, it feels stupid comparing it to mac or a Linux Distro which are secure due to their respective architectures (BSD and Linux respectively).

Why can't MS for once say, "Windows 7 is the most secure windows yet and it's nomore vulnerable to common security issues and we are proud of it." Instead of trying to make tall claims about its security ?


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Apr 13, 2009)

Ha ha ha... lol

This will do no more than put Windows users to a false sense of security... 
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
Anyway, saying Windows is more secure than Linux is a very tall and generic statement. Which distribution are they comparing to? The old times of Linspire and Xandros are certainly highly insecure; Ubuntu and OpenSUSE are highly secure whereas well configured installation of Arch, Slackware, and debian; their security is highly dependent on the user setting it up.
Moreover setting up SELinux and AppArmour further enhances the security of the Linux distros as well.

I guess they are comparing Windows 7 + Firewall with a Linux logged in with root.


----------



## gxsaurav (Apr 13, 2009)

MetalheadGautham said:


> I still think MS is going a bit overboard here. While with each service pack Windows definitely gets more secure, it feels stupid comparing it to mac or a Linux Distro which are secure due to their respective architectures (BSD and Linux respectively).



Do you know how the internal architecture of WIndows 7 & Vista SP2 is made? Do you know how many Virus attacks have been there for Vista? DO you know how Vista is coded? How do u know Windows 7 is less secure then Linux? Have u worked on Linux code or Windows Code?

If not, stop speculating & spreading word of mouth. Are you a security analyst yourself who has tested this? Or are you just talking on behalf of what you have heard the Lingeeks talking?

So now seems like you are correct when you know nothing about OS architecture etc while those proper certified security analyst & penetration testers are illiterate.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 13, 2009)

gxsaurav said:


> Do you know how the internal architecture of WIndows 7 & Vista SP2 is made? Do you know how many Virus attacks have been there for Vista? DO you know how Vista is coded? How do u know Windows 7 is less secure then Linux? Have u worked on Linux code or Windows Code?



The fault with windows is the very nature of it, including the way you install apps. Its simply much easier to trick a windows user into letting in a malware than trick a Linux user.

You need to log in as administrator for simple actions. Windows needs something like SUDO to become safer.



> If not, stop speculating & spreading word of mouth. Are you a security analyst yourself who has tested this? Or are you just talking on behalf of what you have heard the Lingeeks talking?
> 
> So now seems like you are correct when you know nothing about OS architecture etc while those proper certified security analyst & penetration testers are illiterate.



For every 1 security analyst who thinks windows is more secure than linux, a hundred have proved otherwise.

As for Vista SP2, I am giving it time. Lets see how it looks when it comes out. As I said before, I will eat my own hair and upload a video to youtube if its more secure than my desktop.


----------



## desiibond (Apr 13, 2009)

MetalheadGautham said:


> The fault with windows is the very nature of it, including the way you install apps. Its simply much easier to trick a windows user into letting in a malware than trick a Linux user.
> 
> You need to log in as administrator for simple actions. Windows needs something like SUDO to become safer.



Dude. ever heard about "restricted mode" login for windows and "Run as administrator" mode in windows. There are 11 different user account types in XP itself and each account has different set of security setup. Most of the users use Administrator type account for their userid and this is where the problem is.

setup your account as "standard user" or "restricted user" and when you try to install app using "run as admin" mode, it asks for admin password.

The reason for virus attacks is purely due to illiteracy on users' part. The last virus attack that my PC had was years ago and that too because of my idiot friend who connected my HDD to his PC (he thought his PC is virus free when it is fully loaded).

I have been using Avast+win7 UAC and I feel totally secure. Not even a single virus attack and now I don't have to worry about scanning external drives that my friends bring as Avast recognizes viruses as soon as I connect the drive.

PS: PC's have never been so much safer. If your PC has virus, it's solely because of you and nothing else.


----------



## SunnyChahal (Apr 13, 2009)

MS gone nuts. Get ready for a new Mac ad pwning MS 

BTW I've been using Vista SP2 Beta for 5 months now and it's very safe but you can't call it more secure than the likes of OS X or Linux. PERIOD!


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 13, 2009)

desiibond said:


> Dude. ever heard about "restricted mode" login for windows and "Run as administrator" mode in windows. There are 11 different user account types in XP itself and each account has different set of security setup. Most of the users use Administrator type account for their userid and this is where the problem is.
> 
> setup your account as "standard user" or "restricted user" and when you try to install app using "run as admin" mode, it asks for admin password.
> 
> ...


11 different user modes ? How ? Give details.

I need to log in as administrator each time I need to alter files which are write protected against normal users.

I need to run several apps only as admin or they fail to run.

Does atleast 1 of those 11 user modes help here ? (non admin)


----------



## desiibond (Apr 13, 2009)

"Standard User"

Users can change many system settings and install programs that don't effect Windows system settings
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
give it a try once. 

Try windows 7 (you can take a copy of it from me if you want), setup up Avast home edition + UAC and see how much secure it is.

PS: when the OS is used by majority of PC user community, when every single hacker/cracker on earth tries to break it and it is still as secure as linux, then of course I would say that it's security is much more powerful than Linux or any other OS.


----------



## desiibond (Apr 13, 2009)

MetalheadGautham said:


> 11 different user modes ? How ? Give details.


 
You need to check for yourself mate 



MetalheadGautham said:


> I need to log in as administrator each time I need to alter files which are write protected against normal users.
> 
> I need to run several apps only as admin or they fail to run.


That's what restriction means. Can you install an app in linux without changing to root. can you change permission on any file in linux for which you are not the owner?

As I said earlier, there is an option to run as admin:

*img24.imageshack.us/img24/3329/runxvl.th.jpg

If it's the same in windows, how does it become a negative point. Be reasonable dude. Be reasonable!!!

Does atleast 1 of those 11 user modes help here ? (non admin)[/quote]


----------



## abhijangda (Apr 13, 2009)

Linux (Fedora) is best ever o.s


----------



## desiibond (Apr 13, 2009)

^^okay.


----------



## demoninside (Apr 13, 2009)

desiibond said:


> You need to check for yourself mate
> 
> 
> That's what restriction means. Can you install an app in linux without changing to root. can you change permission on any file in linux for which you are not the owner?
> ...


[/QUOTE]

You can install app with out having root access in Linux = True without problem, this is the best part with having diffrent set of permission level.

and you can change permission of a file even if you are not owner.

I don't have anything against windows, and even they are trying there best to make it more secure and better looking, yet it yikes me to spend money to get an OS.

But windows is windows and Linux is linux. What and why to compare, if you like Linux then so be it, if u like windows then so be it.


PS :  I still like Linux more, as I can actually own it, develope it, evolve it, bug it and fix it, can do stress testing on it, Can do verious security testing without being worried to pay up again for new installs even if it is 1000 times.

So for ppl like me Linux is more suited.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 13, 2009)

desiibond said:


> You need to check for yourself mate
> 
> 
> That's what restriction means. Can you install an app in linux without changing to root. can you change permission on any file in linux for which you are not the owner?
> ...


There is a difference here in Linux. I just need to fire up the terminal pressing one of the special keys on my keyboard and type a line to install an app using sudo. Basically speaking, I don't enter desktop of root EVER.

That's what I want to do in windows. I am forced to log OUT and log in admin mode. And the run-as option is awesome, but I still can't do things like run filemanager in administrator mode, etc.

And is there something like fakeroot for Windows ? I.E, some old games compulsorily need administrator access though there is nothing in the game justifying its need. So is there an app to execute another app while fooling it that its being run as administrator ?

In a nutshell, I don't ever want to have to look at the desktop of administrator user except in safe mode.


----------



## Cool G5 (Apr 13, 2009)

Guys, stop the bloody Lin vs Win war here. Let discuss the feature which MS says will make Win more secure than Mac and Lin.

P.S : I can't stop Loling on this claim, still I won't spoil tha party/false feeling of Win user's. Rock On


----------



## a_k_s_h_a_y (Apr 13, 2009)

duhh !! even a kid in my college can be a security analyst. 
in fact already is, has given seminars in Singapore, Pairs, LA.. etc. ROFL. 
he had the symantic engineers running to take cover when he was on stage.


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Apr 13, 2009)

abhijangda said:


> Linux (Fedora) is best ever o.s



I know Fedora is good, but that's too much of a generic statement. Fedora may be best for you but Windows 7 may be best for someone else, Arch Linux for me and so on.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 13, 2009)

Cool G5 said:


> Guys, stop the bloody Lin vs Win war here. Let discuss the feature which MS says will make Win more secure than Mac and Lin.
> 
> P.S : I can't stop Loling on this claim, still I won't spoil tha party/false feeling of Win user's. Rock On


Saurav was the only guy warring. I am asking questions here not bashing windows.


----------



## desiibond (Apr 13, 2009)

*www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vi...ortcuts-without-uac-prompts-in-windows-vista/

also, at run window, you can start command prompt in admin mode by using Ctrl+shift+enter key combination. yes, it's inferior to linux's command prompt, but it is there for use. 

PS: It just needs some search to know. Windows that most of us know is user level but there is more to it. 

For all your above needs, there is a simple option. As I said earlier use "standard user" login. It keeps windows safe and at the same time it gives you just the right priviledges. Try it out and let me know if you face any difficulties.

run windows explorer as Admin: *blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/2004/07/07/175488.aspx



Cool G5 said:


> Guys, stop the bloody Lin vs Win war here. Let discuss the feature which MS says will make Win more secure than Mac and Lin.
> 
> P.S : I can't stop Loling on this claim, still I won't spoil tha party/false feeling of Win user's. Rock On



dude. who is fighting here???


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 13, 2009)

What about my question of fooling apps that demand admin access ? Some compilers and games for example do so.


----------



## Cool G5 (Apr 13, 2009)

Some Interesting Links :

*www.windowsvistaplace.com/is-gnulinux-more-secure-than-microsoft-windows/linux/

*forums.fedoraforum.org/archive/index.php/t-216227.html

*answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090305122356AAlzvc2

*www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/Ubun...d-Windows-Vista-/0,339028227,339287864,00.htm

*www.cyberciti.biz/tips/is-linux-really-more-secure-than-windows.html

Some articles are old, but I feel they still can be included here for a satisfying debate.


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Apr 13, 2009)

BTW Has anyone tested SuRun on Windows 7? It worked great in XP and Vista. It Vista it felt less unobtrusive than UAC (except we had to enter password once), I'm unsure how well it works in Windows 7.


----------



## desiibond (Apr 13, 2009)

^^ change your user mode to "Standard user" and try once

If it doesn't work, give me app names and I will try to find out a way to run them.
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
hmm. SuRun seems to be a good tool. let me try it out today after going home. 
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------


> Apple's Leopard OS lasted 30 second, Windows Vista Ultimate lasted until the third day, but Ubuntu's Linux distribution alone was left secure at the end of the "Pwn to Own contest" at CanSecWest security conference held in Vancouver.



LOL. 30 seconds????


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Apr 13, 2009)

desiibond said:


> hmm. SuRun seems to be a good tool. let me try it out today after going home.


You will LOVE it for sure, particularly in XP. It's sad though nobody knows about it though.


----------



## Cool G5 (Apr 13, 2009)

For those who are not aware of Surun,

SuRun eases working with Windows 2000 or Windows XP with limited user rights.

The idea is simple and was taken from SuDown (*SuDown.sourceforge.net).
The user usually works with the pc as standard user. 
If a program needs administrative rights, the user starts "SuRun <app>". 
SuRun then asks the user in a secure desktop if <app> should really be 
run with administrative rights. If the user acknowledges, SuRun will start 
<app> AS THE CURRENT USER but WITH ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS.
SuRun uses the trick from SuDown: 
 * Put the user in the local Administrators user group
 * Start <app>
 * Remove the user from the local Administrators user group

SuRun also installs a hook that appends "Run as admin..." and "Restart as 
admin..." to the system menu of every application that does not run as 
administrator. That makes it possible to accomplish tasks that you otherwise could not, e.g. setting the Windows clock by double clicking it in the task bar notification area would normally display a "Access denied" Message and exit. With SuRun you are able to click "Restart as admin..." and to set the clock.

SuRun integrates with the windows shell and adds "Start as admin..." to the 
Shell context menu of bat, cmd, cpl, exe, lnk and msi files. 			 		

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not use the built in "Run As..." Windows command?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Windows loads the registry and environment for the user that you run as.
 If a software is about to be installed, the installation program will see
 the admins HKEY_CURENT_USER and may create registry entries there.
 Also the software sees "C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator" as the users profile path.

 SuRun uses the current user account, so all registry entries and file system 
 paths are the same as the user would expect.

*Windows asks for the user name and password directly on the users desktop
 Any spy (or even the friendly Autohotkey) could get an administrator password.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not use SuDown?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*SuDown can very easily be used to spy your account password.
SuDowns password dialog runs in the users desktop and the password can be caught by any application that uses Windows hooks, even by autohotkey.
*SuDown puts every SuDoer, after he logged on, into the Administrators group.
 Spying the password and using it in a call to CreateProcessWithLogonW
 would make the spy running as administrator.
*SuDown starts any process as administrator without asking for permission for a couple of minutes after the user entered the correct password.
*SuDown does not work in a plain Windows 2000 because the windows function "LogOnuser" in Windows 2000 requires a privilege that only system processes have.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why use SuRun?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*SuRun uses a secure desktop for sensitive user interaction:
SuRun uses a service to create a secure desktop in the window station of the users logon session. On that desktop it will ask the user for permission or the password. The desktop is not accessible by user applications. Keyboard and mouse hooks will also not work on that desktop.
*SuRun does not leave the user in the administrators group.
After creating the administrative process, SuRun removes the user from the administrators group immediately. So spying even out the password would not increase the chance that the system could be infected by malware.

Source : Another forum

To top it all, Surun is an Open Source Project 8)


----------



## gxsaurav (Apr 13, 2009)

MetalheadGautham said:


> The fault with windows is the very nature of it, including the way you install apps.



What is wrong in it? Care to elaborate.?



> Its simply much easier to trick a windows user into letting in a malware than trick a Linux user.



No it is not unless you are using 8 years old Windows XP SP0. You tell me a such scenario how the user can be fooled?



> You need to log in as administrator for simple actions. Windows needs something like SUDO to become safer.



Its there, call UAC in Vista. And do tell me what simple actions r those for which windows needs Admin access 



> As for Vista SP2, I am giving it time.



It doesn't matter if you give it time or not. You r not an analyst & your opinion hardly matters.



> BTW I've been using Vista SP2 Beta for 5 months now and it's very safe but you can't call it more secure than the likes of OS X or Linux.



Why not, please stop believing in word of mouth, learn something from the Mojave Project & state why u think Windows is not as secure or more secure then Linux.



> I need to log in as administrator each time I need to alter files which are write protected against normal users.



If they are system related files, then it will ask your for admin access which is logical. The same happens in linux so why is Windows wrong when it does the same thing in a better GUI way instead of typing a command.



> I need to run several apps only as admin or they fail to run.



Which apps r they? I am using Vista since it came & no app requires me to use it as admin.



			
				demoninside said:
			
		

> you can change permission of a file even if you are not owner



Then it is a security flow in Linux. This way something can change access of a file without admin rights & make changes to the computer.



> yet it yikes me to spend money to get an OS



It doesn't yikes to use the electricity, water for which you pay Bill so why does it yikes u to pay for a software which you use everyday of your life for many years to come whose return value is tremendous.



> There is a difference here in Linux. I just need to fire up the terminal pressing one of the special keys on my keyboard and type a line to install an app using sudo. Basically speaking, I don't enter desktop of root EVER



Windows makes this task easier for you instead of your pathetic Linux way. Just enter the admin password. its better then typing a command



> That's what I want to do in windows. I am forced to log OUT and log in admin mode.



No u r not, even if u r using XP/



> And the run-as option is awesome, but I still can't do things like run filemanager in administrator mode, etc



You can, right click on teh file, go to compatibility tab in Vista -> Run as admin. Done.



> In a nutshell, I don't ever want to have to look at the desktop of administrator user except in safe mode.



You don't have to. My sister's user in my PC is Standard user, when she tries to install an application UAC blocks her & asks for my user password as I am the admin. Once I enter my password, the software installs fine.


----------



## iMav (Apr 13, 2009)

FUD alert! GX go to Delhi dude! The forums aren't any fun without the ghost of DRM.


----------



## RCuber (Apr 14, 2009)

iMav said:


> FUD alert! GX go to Delhi dude! The forums aren't any fun without the ghost of *DRM*.


lol


----------



## axxo (Apr 14, 2009)

gxsaurav said:


> You don't have to. My sister's user in my PC is Standard user, when she tries to install an application UAC blocks her & asks for my user password as I am the admin. Once I enter my password, the software installs fine.



isn't the fact..you got to share the root password then? In unix sudo you still use your(user) password not the admin password.


----------



## iMav (Apr 14, 2009)

Since I have nothing better to do this morning ....

SOmeone talked abpout going into Terminal with a keyboard shortcut (the way he said it is like its soe magic & can't be done in any other OS) anyhoo... the point being ... go into terminal, type a long a$$ retarded command as if I was hacking into the power grid that was in Die Hard 4.0

I think a lot of people would rather use the mouse ... you see, its much more easier to click than remember & type commands. Plus it gives me that added advantage of choosing the installation directory! How awesome is that! Now I can install the app in a dual-boot environment but not have to waste extra disk space! w00t! Windows #WIN!


----------



## gxsaurav (Apr 14, 2009)

> isn't the fact..you got to share the root password then? In unix sudo you still use your(user) password not the admin password.



This is also the user which my friends use when they come to home & they are techies. There is no password on this user. Now, if it was sudo then my friends could install anything without my permission by just doing SuDo but with UAC no one can install anything unless I enter my password in the UAC prompt or I install the software from my user.

I don't have to share my password with her or anyone. She doesn't have to install anything new as everything is already there. If there is something she needs to install, I am first notified, then I either come physically close to the PC & enter the password manually or over remote desktop.

Like the other day she was installing PDF Plug-in for Office 2007 & UAC prompted her. I told her then that the plug-in is already installed.


----------



## Cool G5 (Apr 14, 2009)

iMav said:


> Since I have nothing better to do this morning ....
> 
> SOmeone talked abpout going into Terminal with a keyboard shortcut (the way he said it is like its soe magic & can't be done in any other OS) anyhoo... the point being ... go into terminal, type a long a$$ retarded command as if I was hacking into the power grid that was in Die Hard 4.0
> 
> I think a lot of people would rather use the mouse ... you see, its much more easier to click than remember & type commands. Plus it gives me that added advantage of choosing the installation directory! How awesome is that! Now I can install the app in a dual-boot environment but not have to waste extra disk space! w00t! Windows #WIN!




Who said Linux requires you to remember long a$$ retarded commands? Everything a normal user requires can be accomplished with a GUI. Gone are the days when users needed to use CLI.
The CLI is only for power users 
#Linux


----------



## desiibond (Apr 14, 2009)

axxo said:


> isn't the fact..you got to share the root password then? In unix sudo you still use your(user) password not the admin password.



What is the advantage of having login restrictions and permissions when the user has priviledge to switch to root (using sudo) at will. What is the need to have restricted login then.

Thanks to windows, if user want to do something that requires access rights, he/she has to beg admin/owner instead of sneaking in with sudo.

Sudo may be useful but it can also be exploited


----------



## axxo (Apr 14, 2009)

desiibond said:


> What is the advantage of having login restrictions and permissions when the user has priviledge to switch to root (using sudo) at will. What is the need to have restricted login then.
> 
> Thanks to windows, if user want to do something that requires access rights, he/she has to beg admin/owner instead of sneaking in with sudo.
> 
> Sudo may be useful but it can also be exploited



you do not how sudo works, it doesn't give as u think every user the privilege to access system commands. There is a file called sudoers which controls the access and whom the access to be given. Also there will be a log file which gets updated whenever sudo is invoked.
oh..well if you want to protect the user from sneaking system areas protection is still available in the form ACL, RBAC, etc..
Now imagine iff 100 users are working on that system to run a program, owner/admin has to reach each of them and share his/her password..does that sounds any good?


----------



## mehra.rakesh (Apr 14, 2009)

HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!! Lolerz ..... Windozzz Pista will be secure only the condition being that it is run in a terminal inside of NSA and to be doubly sure not used AT ALL .....


----------



## iMav (Apr 14, 2009)

Cool G5 said:


> Who said Linux requires you to remember long a$$ retarded commands? Everything a normal user requires can be accomplished with a GUI. Gone are the days when users needed to use CLI.
> The CLI is only for power users
> #Linux


That is why I said that OS wars here are no fun anymore, people just don't read whats a reply to what


----------



## Pat (Apr 14, 2009)

Haha..
@Manan: I miss those days


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 14, 2009)

WTF ? I wasn't here for 1 day and this is a gang war already ?

Anyway, I'm giving SuRun a try. Lemme see how it works.

Ontopic: Lets wait for the 2009 edition of the hacking the PC competition. Lets see how Snow Lepopard and Windows 7 fare compared to Ubuntu 9.04 then.


----------



## ionicsachin (Apr 14, 2009)

Another boring OS war...


----------



## hellknight (Apr 15, 2009)

another thing that matters in Linux is the output of :- 
*tail -f /var/log/messages* command

I was doing ssh session with my friend over the internet and I could see the kernel message which told me that he attempted a wrong root password.. beat that... this is the best security feature on any OS..


----------



## IronManForever (Apr 15, 2009)

Oh... I have learnt enough from OS wars. So unless people are saying something totally wrong, and not just a matter of difference in opinions, I dont join in. 
But then, who am I? No one!

Enjoy homies.


----------



## desiibond (Apr 15, 2009)

axxo said:


> you do not how sudo works, it doesn't give as u think every user the privilege to access system commands. There is a file called sudoers which controls the access and whom the access to be given. Also there will be a log file which gets updated whenever sudo is invoked.
> oh..well if you want to protect the user from sneaking system areas protection is still available in the form ACL, RBAC, etc..
> Now imagine iff 100 users are working on that system to run a program, owner/admin has to reach each of them and share his/her password..does that sounds any good?



1) Which one is easier? setting user account as "standard user" for 100 users or setting ACLs, Sudo, RBACs for each and every user?
2) dude, every single os on earth logs every single error/warning message.
3) yeah. I don't know anything about sudoers. I used to work on 25000 line long sudoers file and I know the headache of maintaining proper sudo. One user gets sudo access and he will be able to modify sudoers file and put whatever he wants for him or for other users or he can just wipe off everything from the file resulting in other users being unable to sudo, which is not the case with windows. If you want to modify system file, you do need admin password.
4) You may think that you know a lot about linux and you may think that you know a lot about windows. but seriously, you do need to learn how these two works. 

Corporates aren't crazy to implement windows for large scale data centers and workstations. With the right amount of tweaking, windows is lot lot lot secure. There are more than 30k workstations in my client company and the number of linux workstations is less than 1%. And even with 99% of windows workstations, I haven't seen any virus attack in 5 years. 

Not just that, I do see what happens when a user is given sudo access to his/her workstation and every user will be the owner with standard user account set for his/her windows workstation. These windows workstations run for months and years without any crashes. But that is not the case with linux hosts. users having sudo access do all kind of junk work on that. They try to install a tool or do some  config changes, which of course is still headache in linux and it breaks the OS.

It is a well known fact that the only place for linux is in those big heavy boxes in data centers.

PS: if linux is so much secure and if linux is so so so easy to use, why is it's market share still less than 5%?


----------



## Krazy Bluez (Apr 15, 2009)

Ha ha ha...nice joke...keep it up..!


----------



## ionicsachin (Apr 15, 2009)

I ve already got bored of OS fights in many forums....final impression i cud get was "My favourite is the best"....thats wat is happening here....
For me I use Windows Vista mostly and Kubuntu.....i enjoy both of them and never compare them....
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
I ve already got bored of OS fights in many forums....final impression i cud get was "My favourite is the best" for everyone....thats wat is happening here....
For me I use Windows Vista mostly and Kubuntu.....i enjoy both of them and never compare them....


----------



## axxo (Apr 15, 2009)

I will summarize before what it looks like thread gonna be locked out very soon.
  I told it would be easier for users to run certain tasks with administrative privilege without admin password. Sudo is just a tool to do this kinda manipulation but every piece of software has its advantages and disadvantages, the cons can be overcome only by proper administration.
  Anyway my statement has nothing to do with this thread discussion. Live in peace.8)


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Apr 15, 2009)

This thread is mad already. I'm having it locked TILL Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 releases.


----------

