what is the consensus on hardware longevity between Linux and Windows?

[ardouronerous]

I'm just wondering what is the consensus on hardware longevity between Linux and Windows.
These is what I've heard, don't ask me where I found this information, it's been a long time and I forgot.

HDDs (Hard disk drives) will last longer on Linux due to the ext4 file system being superior to Windows' NTFS file system, and that since the ext4 file system doesn't fragment the drive, the drive will last longer, and ext4 file system is already optimized for SSDs (Solid state drives).

And since most viruses and malware target Windows machines, so hardware running under Linux is generally safe and will last longer.

Are these true or are these myths?

Now about other computer hardware, I'm not sure, that is why I'm asking.

[exploder]

I really don't think hardware longevity is dependent on the OS that is being used. A lot of hardware is rated by hours of use, that is not to say it will not last longer than the rating either. Both Windows and Linux file systems are quite good these days. There are no doubt more virus issues related to Windows but that very rarely impacts hardware life. Linux and Windows machines can have very long hardware life if the systems are well maintained.

[mastablasta]

And since most viruses and malware target Windows machines, so hardware running under Linux is generally safe and will last longer.

Are these true or are these myths?

.

it's a myth. also ZFS4Linux and BTRFS are more advanced than EXT4 or NTFS. Ext4 was a stopgap measure and sort of transition to systems like BTRFS that can create snapshots of file system among others..

[QIII]

And since most viruses and malware target Windows machines, so hardware running under Linux is generally safe and will last longer.

Myth.

Although the concept of the Windows virus is foreign to Linux, that does not mean that other attacks/malware do not exist. As a matter of fact, given that most of the internet runs on Linux, the incentive to target Linux machines is extremely high. Aside from the the web, there are other Linux systems that are popular targets: CNC systems in manufacturing, your car's electronic controls, your cell phone, stock exchanges, your smart TV, many of Microsoft's own servers, government agencies, the US FAA, the USPS, the US Federal Court System, Google, Cisco, Amazon, the Sony Playstation, medical facilities, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, there are, by at least an order of magnitude, more devices running Linux than Microsoft products. "Security by obscurity" was a myth to begin with. Now Linux is not obscure -- except to those whose understanding of "computer" is limited to their experience with desktops running Windows.

Linux is not safe. It is not secure. It is not unassailable. I have been saying that for years, even on the Ubuntu Forums. Anyone who propagates that myth as a selling point for Linux does everyone a disservice. Linux users need to pay every bit as much attention to security as Windows users do. Perhaps more now that the world runs on Linux.

[ardouronerous]

Based of what I've read, it is a myth saying that Linux is safe because of obscurity, Linux is safe because of the permission system, usually in Ubuntu, users are not given root access by default.

[mörgæs]

Is spite of the big incentive to target Linux servers people rarely succeed. On the other hand they succeed in running ransomware over and over again on Windows.

Linux is by design superiour to Windows regarding security. Nothing is completely safe of course but BSD or Linux are good choices.

Anyway, back on track. Regarding hardware you could say that running a light distro adds around ten years of life to the gear after Windows gives up. For the wear and tear good cooling and a clean environment is more important than the operative system.

And by the way, don't expect to find consensus in Ubuntuforum. A lot of different opinions exist and it will probably carry on like this.