Windows or Linux Hosting?

[seek1]

Hi All,
We are conducting a survey and we want to find out what Web Masters/Web Developers/Designers prefer to use for their hosting. Do they prefer Windows Hosting or Linux Hosting?

If the Web pages are designed in HTML and you find a Windows and a Linux Host offering their services for the same price (considering the competition in the hosting industry these days). Which one will you choose?

Please share your views.

[Twey]

Linux, no contest. Security, stability, cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and it's open-source. In fact, I'm so much behind this that I run Fedora Core 4 on my desktop. Can't beat OpenSSH for remote access.

[wkenny]

Trouble is if nearly everybody was running Linux then thats the one all the smartasses would be trying (and probably succeeding) to break.

[cr3ative]

What an odd idea.

[Twey]

Trouble is if nearly everybody was running Linux then thats the one all the smartasses would be trying (and probably succeeding) to break.

This is a common conception. It's true, in part; but, even if everyone was to try to break it, it still wouldn't be as insecure as Windows is now. XP and SP2 are big improvements, but still doesn't approach the security of other operating systems. Linux is by no means the most secure OS out there; it is substantially more secure than Windows, however. These points apply to all UNIX-based OSes.

1. Modular design: Microsoft Windows has a "monolithic design;" if malicious code takes over one part of the OS (such as the web browser), it has access to and/or control over most of the rest of it.
2. Advanced permissions system: hypothetically, if I attempt to install a virus using my usual "safe" user account, it could destroy my home directory and no more, unless it managed to find a major security hole that enabled it to gain root. Even then, with the help of the NSA's SELinux, it could be seriously limited. It couldn't even email itself, due to iptables. Running a virus under a normal user account on Windows will give it permission to do just about anything.
3. Open-source model: this (debatably) makes it easier for very clever people like the NSA or other high-profile security agencies to find and correct errors in the code that would allow a breach of security.
4. Platform nonconformity: all Windows desktops are more or less the same. They all run Internet Explorer, they all have the same kernel, they all use the same desktop environment. On top of that, people tend to stick to products like Microsoft Word or Outlook, providing a large target for exploits in one of these pieces of software. *n?x platforms, however, have a lot more variety in software, and even within distributions, each user has his/her own preferences. No software is forced on the user, and even the software s/he chooses is likely to have been compiled differently, posing further diversity.
5. The entire platform has been built with security in mind. I shudder to think that Windows allows anyone and everyone to do anything they like if they just persuade the user to execute a program. Not even an admin password.

As I said, Linux isn't the most secure platform even then, though it's enough to discourage most crackers. If you're really paranoid, see Adamantix or OpenBSD, which prides itself (in big bold letters) on having had only one hole in the default install in eight years.

[lmf33]

Linux Hosting

[mwinter]

Advanced permissions system:

It should be noted, I suppose that NT-based systems like XP do have better security (relatively speaking ). Both the file system and memory space utilise a permissions system. The difference, at least from an administration perspective, is that Windows users need to make an effort to benefit from file system security.

Most default installations will only have a single user, and that user will have full administrative rights. By comparison, Linux installers do (in my experience, at least) make a big deal about creating separate root and user accounts.

It doesn't need to be that way, but most home users will have no idea how to secure a Windows installation, nor that they even should.

Mike

[Twey]

It should be noted, I suppose that NT-based systems like XP do have better security (relatively speaking ). Both the file system and memory space utilise a permissions system. The difference, at least from an administration perspective, is that Windows users need to make an effort to benefit from file system security.

Hence "Advanced" It could be that I just don't know enough about it, but from my point of view, the WinNT permissions system is still far less powerful and flexible than the tried-and-tested UNIX permissions system.

By comparison, Linux installers do (in my experience, at least) make a big deal about creating separate root and user accounts.

Unfortunately, several Linux distributions (notably Xandros) have gone the "Windows" way here, putting useability before security, and not prompting to create another user, or even not prompting to set a root password. If they ever go the whole way, I'm moving to BSD.

It doesn't need to be that way, but most home users will have no idea how to secure a Windows installation, nor that they even should.

Of course, all the security in the world is no good if the user goes around creating weak passwords or even (gods forbid) giving out administrative privileges to untrusted parties.

[mwinter]

Hence "Advanced" It could be that I just don't know enough about it, but from my point of view, the WinNT permissions system is still far less powerful and flexible than the tried-and-tested UNIX permissions system.

As far as I can see, the only thing that can't be replicated is the sticky bit on directories, however I might be missing something myself.

Mike

[Twey]

I believe the read and execute bits are oddly tied together, though I don't have a machine here to test it on.