Windows XP is still king of the desktop computers, Windows 7 passes Vista
- Thread starter Lord Nemesis
- Start date
XTechManiac
Level E
Anyways, I just want to add that the ONLY reason why antivirus company still exist is because of Windows being the leading OS. :-/
Secondly, as most of the PC games are unplayable at Linux, it has further became one of the strongest positive point for M$ company.
Believe me, if you're not a hardcore gamer then Linux is more than enough for you. Not to mention WINE rocks.
Secondly, as most of the PC games are unplayable at Linux, it has further became one of the strongest positive point for M$ company.
Believe me, if you're not a hardcore gamer then Linux is more than enough for you. Not to mention WINE rocks.
XTechManiac said:
I don't think so. Worms and viruses existed even before Windows came in being. If Linux or Mac OS is the leading platform, then hackers and virus/worm developers would target those instead. There is no such thing as a 100% secure OS. Any OS made by man has vulnerabilities that can be exploited by another. Its just a matter of putting enough time and that won't happen for platforms that have a minority market share.
If any other OS have such market share,then viruses will be written for those and games will be developed too.Why dont we understand that every company want to make products for masses. and there are viruses for Apple and Linux too and anti viruses also.XTechManiac said:Anyways, I just want to add that the ONLY reason why antivirus company still exist is because of Windows being the leading OS. :-/
Secondly, as most of the PC games are unplayable at Linux, it has further became one of the strongest positive point for M$ company.
Believe me, if you're not a hardcore gamer then Linux is more than enough for you. Not to mention WINE rocks.
XTechManiac
Level E
Lord Nemesis said:
chooza said:
Hmm gotcha! :ashamed:
malhotraraul
Level F
my download rig has xp sp3 & i just love it
panzer008
Disciple
The only reason viruses r made for Windows is bcoz of its 93% markets share......... its not like Linux is not virus proof.... if linux had 90% markets it would hav the same virus problems...... nd Windows would hav been left alone by hackers.......XTechManiac said:
Why should hackers make viruses for Linux which has only <1% markets share......
linuxtechie
Level D
Lord Nemesis said:
Do you both think considering that gnu/linux os is open source, its that easy to introduce worms/viruses?chooza said:
+LT
XTechManiac
Level E
linuxtechie said:
Exactly. Open Source means more eyes to check the code. Everyone can have a look and report/solve security flaws. On the other hand, Windows source code can be seen only by the people working for Microsoft. So its like millions vs. few thousands. :ashamed:
On the other hand if we take into account that how fast a security flaw is solved once it has been discovered then in case of Linux any open source community can have a look and solve it. The update usually appears within a few days/few hours. Microsoft usually releases security patches around after a month and that is more than enough for pirates/hackers to do their job.
krishnandu
Level F
Thanks...!! I was always curious about how can Linux being a Open Source be more secure than Windows?? I think I got my answer.XTechManiac said:Exactly. Open Source means more eyes to check the code. Everyone can have a look and report/solve security flaws. On the other hand, Windows source code can be seen only by the people working for Microsoft. So its like millions vs. few thousands. :ashamed:
On the other hand if we take into account that how fast a security flaw is solved once it has been discovered then in case of Linux any open source community can have a look and solve it. The update usually appears within a few days/few hours. Microsoft usually releases security patches around after a month and that is more than enough for pirates/hackers to do their job.
XTechManiac
Level E
krishnandu said:Thanks...!! I was always curious about how can Linux being a Open Source be more secure than Windows?? I think I got my answer.
I'm glad that my view/opinion sounds correct.. 
@XTechManiac
I think you understood linuxtechie post wrong, I believe (and he will correct me If I am wrong), he was asking other posters that what is the base of their thinking? do they think like this because linux is open source.
>>Open Source means more eyes to check the code. Everyone can have a look and report/solve security flaws. On the other hand, Windows source code can be seen only by the people working for Microsoft. So its like millions vs. few thousands.
Not true, see it from another point, Malware/Virus writer can also see OS code much clearly than windows, so according to that there should be a lot more viruses and a lot quicker fixes. But obviously this is not the case.
Windows does have holes and so does other OS (few more, few less) but all those flaws are utilized a lot by malware writer in windows for obvious reasons already stated. (targeting it means targeting a much wider audience, hence higher success rate)
Earlier they said that firefox is much safer, I remember a recent article, it took few minutes to find exploit in both IE8 and latest firefox, they took some time with chrome though. Now firefox is open source but as widely used as IE, so its a prominent target for security issues. Sooner when some other browser will gain market, we'll see holes in that as well. So its pretty much about targeting wider audience.
I think you understood linuxtechie post wrong, I believe (and he will correct me If I am wrong), he was asking other posters that what is the base of their thinking? do they think like this because linux is open source.
>>Open Source means more eyes to check the code. Everyone can have a look and report/solve security flaws. On the other hand, Windows source code can be seen only by the people working for Microsoft. So its like millions vs. few thousands.
Not true
, see it from another point, Malware/Virus writer can also see OS code much clearly than windows, so according to that there should be a lot more viruses and a lot quicker fixes. But obviously this is not the case. Windows does have holes and so does other OS (few more, few less) but all those flaws are utilized a lot by malware writer in windows for obvious reasons already stated. (targeting it means targeting a much wider audience, hence higher success rate)
Earlier they said that firefox is much safer, I remember a recent article, it took few minutes to find exploit in both IE8 and latest firefox, they took some time with chrome though. Now firefox is open source but as widely used as IE, so its a prominent target for security issues. Sooner when some other browser will gain market, we'll see holes in that as well. So its pretty much about targeting wider audience.
XTechManiac
Level E
^^ Hmmm gotcha. Thanks. :ashamed:
I m confused how would Microsoft let any other OS (wine in particular) to use its own file system that is .exe.XTechManiac said:Anyways, I just want to add that the ONLY reason why antivirus company still exist is because of Windows being the leading OS. :-/
Secondly, as most of the PC games are unplayable at Linux, it has further became one of the strongest positive point for M$ company.
Believe me, if you're not a hardcore gamer then Linux is more than enough for you. Not to mention WINE rocks.
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
Completely disagree one of my freind using a complete pirated windows 7 .Moreover He recently upgraded security patches and other necessary installed from Microsoft's site.salluks said:
I dont want to promote the piracy but to let other know Window is still vulnerable enough .
I think they made it like that to maintain its user friendliness .What say?:hap2::hap2:
XTechManiac
Level E
pinga123 said:
Hmm nice question indeed.
BTW how can Linux being a Open Source be more secure than Windows?? Whats the advantage of being Open Source if both of them are equally vulnerable as suggested by other members? :ashamed:
linuxtechie
Level D
adi_vastava said:@XTechManiac
I think you understood linuxtechie post wrong, I believe (and he will correct me If I am wrong), he was asking other posters that what is the base of their thinking? do they think like this because linux is open source.
>>Open Source means more eyes to check the code. Everyone can have a look and report/solve security flaws. On the other hand, Windows source code can be seen only by the people working for Microsoft. So its like millions vs. few thousands.
Not true
Rogue hackers don't see the OS code (per se.), they are basically aware of the api's having problem with injected bytes in the os libs. These folks have there own team wherein they try to break apart the security of the lib/exe. Once they succeed they share within there confined groups for other (money) purpose. So it's not the same as the Open source. In windows, I can't go beyond api description, I can't fix problems with the api itself (at the most I can notify M$ and they would decided whats to be done with it, they won't let me look into it and even suggest about it). On the other hand in Open source, the patching mechanism is so brilliant ("Read about GIT"), even if I manage to push my code changes to the kernel, the discrepancy would be noted very fast and my "pushed" code removed from it. Ofcourse along with that the folks at kernel.org would also identify the vulnerability through which I tried succeeding my code changes into the kernel.
In Windows world, once a vulnerability is exposed, the rogue hackers have plenty of time to play with it, however not in case if linux. In fact I had seen kernel being pushed twice in a two day span in my system.
If you really look closely at the problem of Firefox, the problem arise more due to the plugins (The plugins is the reason why firefox is so popular). Mozilla can't think of removing / disabling plugins, however they recently they moved the plugin in there own container, thereby making firefox more safer.adi_vastava said:
XTechManiac said:
Folks, request to all, call it GNU/linux and not linux, its justice not done to GNU. What basis do you have to call linux that vulnerable? Don't go by members here, not all of them are security expert (including me). For rest, read above.
+LT
>>If you really look closely at the problem of Firefox, the problem arise more due to the plugins (The plugins is the reason why firefox is so popular). Mozilla can't think of removing / disabling plugins, however they recently they moved the plugin in there own container, thereby making firefox more safer.
When I say they hacked it, it meant vanilla Firefox and IE, nothing related to plugins.
>>In Windows world, once a vulnerability is exposed, the rogue hackers have plenty of time to play with it, however not in case if linux. In fact I had seen kernel being pushed twice in a two day span in my system.
IMHO we are going no-where,
I can accept your answer (not a linux pro), but it never was the topic of discussion, the issue was few users claiming windows got more security problem than Linux. For which few users(including me), replied it is because Malware writers target windows a lot due to its wide user base. Additionally your answer itself states that even Linux got issues, which as you stated got fixed faster than windows, that is it. BUT if there is an OS, there are holes.
When I say they hacked it, it meant vanilla Firefox and IE, nothing related to plugins.
>>In Windows world, once a vulnerability is exposed, the rogue hackers have plenty of time to play with it, however not in case if linux. In fact I had seen kernel being pushed twice in a two day span in my system.
IMHO we are going no-where,
I can accept your answer (not a linux pro), but it never was the topic of discussion, the issue was few users claiming windows got more security problem than Linux. For which few users(including me), replied it is because Malware writers target windows a lot due to its wide user base. Additionally your answer itself states that even Linux got issues, which as you stated got fixed faster than windows, that is it. BUT if there is an OS, there are holes.