Should window vista be given a chance

[BLiZZaRD]

I agree with Twey on the anti-Other OS than Windows. I have been to some of the Windows "only" forums, and those people are ruthless! If you don't run Windows everything, you are a traitor and you WILL burn in Hell.

I would like to find out how many of those ruthless vagabonds actually paid for everything on their PCs themselves... heh

[jscheuer1]

I would agree that there are Windows snobs out there. But, I would disagree that this sentiment is easily, if at all translatable into an army of folks out to hack and crack Mac and 'nix boxes.

[djr33]

I'd agree there.

In fact, Windows lovers probably generally hack windows, in order to 'rule' their territory. They're good at windows, so why would they hack macs or linux?
And there's always the popularity thing... if you write a virus, you want to be noticed, and not just by the random few people who use macs (or linux, with the exception of servers, as has been explained before).

[Twey]

But, I would disagree that this sentiment is easily, if at all translatable into an army of folks out to hack and crack Mac and 'nix boxes.

As would I -- see your previous comment applying this logic against Linux/Mac.

In fact, Windows lovers probably generally hack windows, in order to 'rule' their territory. They're good at windows, so why would they hack macs or linux?

This is an interesting argument -- I've never seen it used before. I think it may be a good point. By this reasoning, though, the Mac- and Linux-users wouldn't want to bother attacking Windows systems, so we can discard the whole issue of Windows' unpopularity entirely.

And there's always the popularity thing... if you write a virus, you want to be noticed, and not just by the random few people who use macs (or linux, with the exception of servers, as has been explained before).

In some cases. Most vira (pick a plural, any plural) nowadays tend to be for profit, though, it's sad to say, rather than recognition. This argument does, however, as you noted, ignore the use of Linux on servers: cracking one server and defacing a website can get the attacker considerably more fame (or infamy) than cracking one desktop.

[djr33]

Well, fame can be applied to business just as easily. If it's for a profit, the more people it hits, the better, right? So windows would be the target in that sense as well.


As for why Linux and Mac users would attack windows, that could be seen as a minority syndrome type thing... windows is the evil majority, so it must be attacked.

[Twey]

Well, fame can be applied to business just as easily. If it's for a profit, the more people it hits, the better, right? So windows would be the target in that sense as well.

Servers again, I'm afraid. It would be much more profitable (I would suspect) to secretly take control of the server of a single popular company and insert a discrete link to the cracker's site (thus dramatically increasing its search-engine rating), especially when taking into account the strong likelihood of detection by banks or governments of the latter.

As for why Linux and Mac users would attack windows, that could be seen as a minority syndrome type thing... windows is the evil majority, so it must be attacked.

But there will be as many Windows users who feel that way about non-Windows operating systems as well, even if they are proportionally fewer.

There's a large and detailed treatise on the subject here, although it doesn't include Vista-specific features.

[jscheuer1]

there will be as many Windows users who feel that way about non-Windows operating systems as well, even if they are proportionally fewer.

This makes little sense and I would wager isn't based upon any hard data. Be it for profit, fame or just 'rage against the machine', if you are going to hack a PC OS, it would be Windows, regardless of what you run on your machine(s).

As for servers, it probably is documented that windows servers suffer a disproportionate number of serious and successful attacks than do their more numerous 'nix counterparts. This is probably partly due to the desire to go after windows spilling over into this market but also a result of the fact that usually only folks unfamiliar with server security go for a windows server to begin with. To them it seems like less of a challenge than setting up a 'nix server. However, if the admin knows his/her stuff, they probably could be made just as secure.

[djr33]

That's a good point. Another reason that hackers go after IE, not FF. Though FF might be able to be exploited, IE users don't know what they are doing much of the time, so they are easier targets.

[Twey]

This makes little sense and I would wager isn't based upon any hard data.

You're right, it's merely a stab in the dark (how many people are going to put down "obnoxious UNIX-hater" on a survey?) but it seems to be a fair assumption to me. The number of Windows users is so much greater than the number of UNIX users that it's almost certainly the case.

As for servers, it probably is documented that windows servers suffer a disproportionate number of serious and successful attacks than do their more numerous 'nix counterparts. This is probably partly due to the desire to go after windows spilling over into this market

Hm. This is just as dubious a claim, if not moreso.

but also a result of the fact that usually only folks unfamiliar with server security go for a windows server to begin with. To them it seems like less of a challenge than setting up a 'nix server.

The principles of security are essentially the same on a desktop or a server; the only difference is that a server is more exposed.

However, if the admin knows his/her stuff, they probably could be made just as secure.

Not so. The OS is only as good as the admin, but the admin is only as good as the OS. Talking security holes, one must also consider the fact that Linux is open-source: it's expected that more security holes will be found, although hopefully mostly by benevolent researchers.

[jscheuer1]

Even a good 'nix admin might not be all that familiar with security on a Windows server if required by an employer to set one up.

If the OS is lacking in security features though, someone who knows the problems and is willing to investigate third party solutions will be able to set up a secure server with it.

Conversely, if a server software is selected only for its familiar appearance, the result isn't likely to be very secure.