Linux is better at failing!

[Inaris]

(ironically mostly anti-Windows posters) claim it has to do with the xWindows emulation interface dying (basically saying it's Window's fault that Linux deleted itself and caused a mess).

I like that. You got me laughing... cause it's pretty true to what they think...

the actual reason again as I stated above for why windows didn't die was due to the way NTFS works with files. If the system is using a file, even if a thread is open to it as a reference, the system can't do anything to it.
It might have been something built into NTFS, but I don't know. It's nice for it's protection, but a pain when trying to delete stuff that you need to. Process killing, thread killing, reg hacking, DLL un-registration follows and then, you can, but it's a pain.
that is one of the beautiful things about windows. It tried to keep it's root system as protected as possible. It's a nice feature unless, as the scenario offers, you just want to do it...

 

[Qiranworms]

Home users are expected to want control of their machine, and business users don't have enough rights to do anything in the first-place.

a) home user of Linux can have control.

b) the point of Root isn't necessarily so only one user has it's password...it's point is to make sure nothing damaging can happen during everyday computer use. Most linux admins won't use Root for every day tasks

c) With the root system, it's much harder for viruses to be possible simply because they can't do much more then delete your home directory without the Root password. Additionally, hackers will have a harder time doing damage to your system. With no way to access Admin rights in a Limited account by just typing 'su' and the root password in a terminal, people naturally use Admin accounts to do everyday work. That means running a simple batch script can screw your system.

d) In Linux, it's possible to adjust many permissions. If you MUST have it as such, you CAN effectively make a regular user a sort of 'mini-root', with much larger power then users often have by default.

 

[ShoobieRat]

a) home user of Linux can have control.

True. I was pointing more to answer the remarks some people made about Windows not having a lock on its root directory like Linux does, by default. With Windows, Microsoft assumes home users will want access to everything, so they set the default that way. If Windows is being used in a business environment with multiple users, the sys-admin locks things down himself. If he doesn't, that's his own stupidity, not Windows. You could argue that Windows should have its root locked by default, but I think that's splitting hairs.

b) the point of Root isn't necessarily so only one user has it's password...it's point is to make sure nothing damaging can happen during everyday computer use. Most linux admins won't use Root for every day tasks

Most Windows users won't mess with the root, either. How often do you rename the root directory tree on C: ? If you have multiple users on a system (business environment, for example) then usually only one person has access, too.

c) With the root system, it's much harder for viruses to be possible simply because they can't do much more then delete your home directory without the Root password. Additionally, hackers will have a harder time doing damage to your system. With no way to access Admin rights in a Limited account by just typing 'su' and the root password in a terminal, people naturally use Admin accounts to do everyday work. That means running a simple batch script can screw your system.

In one of my other threads, I posted a topic about a research project done that showed Linux was more vulnerable to direct attacks than Windows. Windows is widely linked and on the surface very passive. This makes Windows vulnerable to chain-attacks (like worms and trojans).

d) In Linux, it's possible to adjust many permissions. If you MUST have it as such, you CAN effectively make a regular user a sort of 'mini-root', with much larger power then users often have by default.

True. However, if you know enough about Windows, you can set controls on just about anything there as well. Windows only provides a small, default set of control limits to the interface, but you can handle just about anything from the backend.

 

[Qiranworms]

Most Windows users won't mess with the root, either. How often do you rename the root directory tree on C: ?

Probably more then I should :laughing:

In one of my other threads, I posted a topic about a research project done that showed Linux was more vulnerable to direct attacks than Windows. Windows is widely linked and on the surface very passive. This makes Windows vulnerable to chain-attacks (like worms and trojans).

That definitely sounds interesting. I'll look that up on the search when I have a bit more time and read it.

True. However, if you know enough about Windows, you can set controls on just about anything there as well. Windows only provides a small, default set of control limits to the interface, but you can handle just about anything from the backend.

Windows Home Edition, which most non-corporate people use, does not have as much control as Pro does. Since Linux is built that way, all distros have such control.

 

[derrmc]

Check out this article:
http://hohle.net/scrap_post.php?post=23&m=full

When you're done, be sure to read the user comment: "So Linux beat Windows again, cause it stopped working sooner. "

Gotta love Linux. You can always count on it to spew pink gunk at your screen.

We can always count on you to spew green gunk!

 

[ShoobieRat]

qiranworms - Windows Home Edition, which most non-corporate people use, does not have as much control as Pro does. Since Linux is built that way, all distros have such control.

So Windows sells a stripped-down version of its OS for home users. What's the big deal? Anyone who knows how to do any of the stuff Windows took away, won't be buying the Home edition anyway.

derrmc - We can always count on you to spew green gunk!

Sir, I have never spewed green gunk.

 

[Qiranworms]

So Windows sells a stripped-down version of its OS for home users. What's the big deal? Anyone who knows how to do any of the stuff Windows took away, won't be buying the Home edition anyway.

What's the big deal? Money, that's the big deal. I know how to do pretty much all of the stuff Windows took away. Why did I not get Pro? Because it's too damned expensive! With Linux, I get ALL of that configuration for FREE.

The fact is, most OEMs will sell their computers with Microsoft's "stripped-down" OS. This isn't exactly a "stripped-down" OS...whether it was meant to be such or not, it has in reality become the mainstream version of Windows.

 

[ShoobieRat]

What's the big deal? Money, that's the big deal. I know how to do pretty much all of the stuff Windows took away. Why did I not get Pro? Because it's too damned expensive!

Let's pretend for a second that Microsoft chose to title their stripped-down version of Windows as 'Home' for reasons other than a lack of alternate wording for a home-marketed version of their software...

And let's pretend for a second that the average user is something more realistic (ie - a person who doesn't know, or doesn't want to know, how to play around with the advanced features of their OS)...

And let's pretend for a second that Microsoft isn't the only software company that sells a higher-priced version of their software for fully-featured support (since we all know Microsoft is the only company sells a higher-priced pro-version of their software, right?)...

And let's pretend for a second that Microsoft (being like any other for-profit software company) desires to sell a product at a proportional retail price to the work and support required to issue the product...


...what makes you think Microsoft (in accordance with any other major for-profit software producer) is going to provide a fully-featured and supported product, to hobbyists and non-market-focus individuals...for free? No for-profit software company...in fact, no for-profit company, period...is going to sell their high-end model for the same price as their stripped down model.

The fact is, most OEMs will sell their computers with Microsoft's "stripped-down" OS. This isn't exactly a "stripped-down" OS...whether it was meant to be such or not, it has in reality become the mainstream version of Windows.

When Dell and Gateway and whatever sell an individual desktop computer, where are most of them going? (I'll give you a hint...It's the people who believe Dell when they say "For only $499.99 you'll get this POWERFUL DELL PC!")