PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu Vs. Windows 7 benefits



meathdeath
June 22nd, 2012, 12:29 AM
What are the pros and cons of both OS's?

darkomano
June 22nd, 2012, 12:59 AM
Ubuntu is $0, Windows is $$$.
(but 90% of world is running Windows and BillG. is very, very rich)

W7 pros: there is plenty of freeware for Windows too.
W7 cons: professional software tools cost $$$.

You can always dual boot and have Ubuntu and W7.

fballem
June 22nd, 2012, 01:11 AM
Some that I have learned over the years:

Ubuntu
Pros:

Regular updates - if you stick to LTS, then you get updates every three years - five years for 12.04.
Single source for most software - the majority of the software that users require is located in the Repository. Before software gets into the repository, it has been extensively tested.
Source is open - the code can be, and is, examined by many eyes to verify that it does not contain Trojans, Viruses, and all that other nasty stuff.
Inherently more secure. Windows started on the basis that the user was in full control of their computer and they have been trying to put security on top of that ever since. Linux started with the assumption that the user was one of many and they did not have full control of their computer.

Cons:

There is simply some software that cannot be replaced. Visio comes to mind - there is currently no Linux program that is as full-featured or flexible.
If you are a gamer (I am not), then up until recently it has been difficult to find good games that run natively in Linux. That is changing.

For Windows, the major pro is the size of the distribution. If you are a commercial software maker, then Windows is a huge market. There are tools now that are getting closer to allowing single source creation for multiple platforms. The major cons are cost, security, and the fact that vendors directly supply their software, with the result that there is very little verified testing of software in the real world.

I hope this helps,

Ravi5kumar
June 22nd, 2012, 06:59 AM
Ubuntu is much secure than Windows 7 but if you are a (heavy)gamer than you should stick to windows 7 otherwise use ubuntu!

coffeecat
June 22nd, 2012, 08:43 AM
Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.

haqking
June 22nd, 2012, 10:30 AM
Ubuntu is much secure than Windows 7 but if you are a (heavy)gamer than you should stick to windows 7 otherwise use ubuntu!

Another linux is more secure blah blah blah.

Not true.

Security is a process not a product, apart from AV (where viruses are usually a nusiance rather than a security concern) then similar steps are required in Linux as they are in Windows for security and is ongoing.

As for OP.

Pros = if it works for you then use it

Cons = If it dont work for you then use something else..

They are both tools, equally secure over all if you know what you are doing, equally productive and functional and easy to use if you know what you are doing.

Pros and Cons are pretty subjective in my experience.

Peace

Dr. C
June 22nd, 2012, 06:45 PM
One can have the benefits of both. Install Ubuntu as your base OS (host) and run Windows 7 in a Virtual Machine (guest) using VirtualBox or VMWare.

QIII
June 22nd, 2012, 06:54 PM
+1 to haqking re: security.

Tired of hearing that myth as a "pro" about Linux.

kurt18947
June 22nd, 2012, 08:17 PM
+1 to haqking re: security.

Tired of hearing that myth as a "pro" about Linux.

Is that statement true about machines with fresh installs as well? I'm certain it's true once someone knowledgeable has gone over machines with both O.S.s and enabled-disabled/installed-uninstalled as required. Is it equally true about a machine 'fresh out of the box' with Windows or with a fresh install of Linux?

not found
June 22nd, 2012, 08:20 PM
+1 to haqking re: security.

Tired of hearing that myth as a "pro" about Linux.

Odd, it says right on the website that it is secure:



Secure

You can surf in safety with Ubuntu – confident that your files and data will stay protected. A built-in firewall and virus protection are available. And if a potential threat appears, we provide automatic updates which you can install in a single click. You get added security with AppArmor, which protects your important applications so attackers can’t access your system. And thanks to Firefox and gnome-keyring, Ubuntu helps you keep your private information private. So whether it’s accessing your bank account or sharing sensitive data with friends or colleagues, you’ll have peace of mind when you need it the most.

Automatic security updates
Defence against viruses
Anti-phishing

File encryption
Password protection
Built with security in mind



Source (http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/features)

Linux based distro's sure seem more secure to me...


404

haqking
June 22nd, 2012, 08:24 PM
Is that statement true about machines with fresh installs as well? I'm certain it's true once someone knowledgeable has gone over machines with both O.S.s and enabled-disabled/installed-uninstalled as required. Is it equally true about a machine 'fresh out of the box' with Windows or with a fresh install of Linux?

They can both be compromised so YES.

It only takes one open window (excuse the pun) to break into a house.

The "more secure" thing is such a ridiculous argument, because there are so many versions vs versions. If you are specific about say Ubuntu 12.04 vs Windows 7 say, then yes they both have vulnerabiliies.

If you dont do anything to either and open a browser and visit a site and run exploited code then who cares what box it came out of ;-)

and before anyone spouts the no ports open blah blah in linux argument, then learn about reverse connections and arbitrary port binding

Peace

haqking
June 22nd, 2012, 08:25 PM
Odd, it says right on the website that it is secure:



Source (http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/features)

Linux based distro's sure seem more secure to me...


404

Oh they said so....my bad......LOL

According to that, firewall (not enabled by default and if it was it has no controlled outgoing policy), apparmor needs to be configured.....etc.etc so what that advert says is...if you configure your system to be secure then it will be...REALLY ? go figure....LOL

QIII
June 22nd, 2012, 08:51 PM
Marketing always beats more than 35 years of experience.

In the Army, we had a little joke: If you're walking across the street, about ready to get hit by a bus, turn your left shoulder to it and let your Ranger Tab protect you.

AnotherMuggle
June 22nd, 2012, 09:10 PM
My job pretty much revolves around Windows, without it I wouldn't have my job. But Windows is work for me. Linux is for play time :) So to me it looks like this:

Windows Pro: It keeps me in a decent job.
Linux Pro: It keeps me entertained.

Windows Con: It's so normal and bland.
Linux Con: Less support from hardware vendors (not really Linux fault).

haqking
June 22nd, 2012, 09:15 PM
Marketing always beats more than 35 years of experience.

In the Army, we had a little joke: If you're walking across the street, about ready to get hit by a bus, turn your left shoulder to it and let your Ranger Tab protect you.


Yeah im familiar with it and similar.

But its all yin and yang, without bad there is no good, without idiots there is no high paid security consultants.

If all was gold then gold would lose its value ;-)

jockyburns
June 22nd, 2012, 11:32 PM
They can both be compromised so YES.

It only takes one open window (excuse the pun) to break into a house.

The "more secure" thing is such a ridiculous argument, because there are so many versions vs versions. If you are specific about say Ubuntu 12.04 vs Windows 7 say, then yes they both have vulnerabiliies.

If you dont do anything to either and open a browser and visit a site and run exploited code then who cares what box it came out of ;-)

and before anyone spouts the no ports open blah blah in linux argument, then learn about reverse connections and arbitrary port binding




Just wondering there Haqking,,, What sites run exploited code that would work on Linux? And have you come across any such sites that would affect a Linux user? (as opposed to a Win xxx user)

haqking
June 22nd, 2012, 11:54 PM
Just wondering there Haqking,,, What sites run exploited code that would work on Linux? And have you come across any such sites that would affect a Linux user? (as opposed to a Win xxx user)

The top ten security vulnerabilities via the web are platform independent.

The OWASP top ten are



A1: Injection (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A1)
A2: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A2)
A3: Broken Authentication and Session Management (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A3)
A4: Insecure Direct Object References (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A4)
A5: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A5)
A6: Security Misconfiguration (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A6)
A7: Insecure Cryptographic Storage (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A7)
A8: Failure to Restrict URL Access (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A8)
A9: Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A9)
A10: Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2010-A10)

They can all effect you whatever OS you run.

Security is a process not a product.

Linux and Windows have various EAL ratings across versions, they all equal out at around EAL 4.

craig10x
June 23rd, 2012, 01:21 AM
That's funny because i have been running linux since 8.04 version and never once had a single virus, trojan, malware, hi-jacking or any other of the goodies you can get on windows...

And all with just the firewall turned on (gufw) and absolutely nothing else...and i do a LOT of surfing on the web...

But running windows (and even with virus scanners) managed to get some of that nice stuff on my computer...

sammiev
June 23rd, 2012, 01:35 AM
Dual both and have the best of both. :)

AnotherMuggle
June 23rd, 2012, 11:26 AM
Dual both and have the best of both. :)

Exactly.

Dual boot gives me what I NEED as well as what I WANT :D

nec207
June 24th, 2012, 08:06 PM
Just wondering there Haqking,,, What sites run exploited code that would work on Linux? And have you come across any such sites that would affect a Linux user? (as opposed to a Win xxx user)

Just because Linux ,Unix or OS X need authentication out side your home group and well not case with people running windows has administrator account does not mean malware can do damage to your home group.

And he was talking about the browser running code and having no sandbox . Things like JAVA , flash and javascript can give you malware has the OS does know if the code is safe or not and if the code does not run in sanbox can do damage to your OS.

Thus say spyware or keylogger on system do web site running bad code.

nec207
June 24th, 2012, 08:22 PM
Inherently more secure. Windows started on the basis that the user was in full control of their computer and they have been trying to put security on top of that ever since. Linux started with the assumption that the user was one of many and they did not have full control of their computer.

You thinking of DOS and OS like windows 9.x base on DOS where software , user level ran in administrator mode.

All windows 2000, XP,Vista and 7 are base on NT .

The only difference of NT and Unix /Linux /OS X is permission authentication. Where in Unix /Linux /OS X permission authentication is base on folders ,files and home group where windows permission authentication is base on user group what that group has read and write access to.

So first thing IT guy will do on windows is set up user group and what that group has read and write access to.

One can set up permission authentication base on user group too in Unix /Linux /OS X .