Windows Sucks

[muzzy]

No update shit? Then why don't we install a few year old openbsd as well? Oh, but that wouldn't be fair now would it? You can slipstream windows installation cds with patches and hotfixes, so that it installs a patched version right off the CD. Isn't that enough?

"Take the security from any angle you want", and we'll find that security is identical, neither system is vulnerable to known remote attacks. We could check historical remote vulnerabilities, in which case openbsd would probably win (unless I considered w2k3 to be firewall enabled). I still remember when they changed their slogan, though. They used to say "No remote holes in default install for x years", and now it's "Only one". I made that joke on irc, that they could change it like that. Everyone laughed, it was funny. And then they really changed it like that...

Either way, theoretical security only applies against threats you define. If we think of all the real world threats out there, there are script kiddies and then there are the insider kind of ones. If you think a script kiddie can hack w2k3, why don't you go attack http://www.hackiis6.com/ instead. They've only patched the system, that's all. Well, and they installed IIS6 to provide some real attack vectors. When you think of insider attacks, the system doesn't matter so much, only how people have been given access to resources and yaddayadda.

Either way, I'd feel OK running a w2k3 box open to the internet. I'd feel secure sitting on it, watching people portscan me while I sip my ice tea with grin on my face. I wouldn't need any third party security software to do so (well, except a sniffer to see the portscans, but that's just added bonus)

[BobTheHob]

No update shit? Then why don't we install a few year old openbsd as well? Oh, but that wouldn't be fair now would it? You can slipstream windows installation cds with patches and hotfixes, so that it installs a patched version right off the CD. Isn't that enough?

"Take the security from any angle you want", and we'll find that security is identical, neither system is vulnerable to known remote attacks. We could check historical remote vulnerabilities, in which case openbsd would probably win (unless I considered w2k3 to be firewall enabled). I still remember when they changed their slogan, though. They used to say "No remote holes in default install for x years", and now it's "Only one". I made that joke on irc, that they could change it like that. Everyone laughed, it was funny. And then they really changed it like that...

Either way, theoretical security only applies against threats you define. If we think of all the real world threats out there, there are script kiddies and then there are the insider kind of ones. If you think a script kiddie can hack w2k3, why don't you go attack http://www.hackiis6.com/ instead. They've only patched the system, that's all. Well, and they installed IIS6 to provide some real attack vectors. When you think of insider attacks, the system doesn't matter so much, only how people have been given access to resources and yaddayadda.

Either way, I'd feel OK running a w2k3 box open to the internet. I'd feel secure sitting on it, watching people portscan me while I sip my ice tea with grin on my face. I wouldn't need any third party security software to do so (well, except a sniffer to see the portscans, but that's just added bonus)

I find it funny that you choose all the good parts (which are mostly fictious anyway) and ignore all the obvious important stuff.

1.  A script kiddie is just that, a fucking script kiddie, they dont fucking need to know how to hack cuz some lowlife releases tools for them.
2. "(unless I considered w2k3 to be firewall enabled)" your fucking retarded and ignorant. Do you not fucking think most OpenBSD installs have firewalls, I always knew you were stupid.
3. YOU have to worry about local security, cuz you use windows and don't know how to admin it properly, YOU also have to worry about remote security because you use windows. I on the other hand, have all my boxes in lock down, locked cases, passes on the bios's and all user accounts, in the manner of a smart sys-admin.
4. IIS is trash, you should probably use Apache.

[muzzy]

1. Script kiddies are still the biggest remote threat to most people. Those, and worms, which are practically automated script kiddies.
2. Well, if we consider firewalled w2k3 vs any OS, I don't think either one will have ANY remote vulnerabilities if the system is passive to any communication attempts. You'd need to have the system connect somewhere first before you could think of remote vulns, and openbsd doesn't count those as "remote" either.
3. So we're now comparing competent *nix admin to incompetent win* admin? It's obvious which one is better, and it doesn't have anything to do with OS, but the level of competence. Apples to oranges...
4. Apache is trash on windows, as is a lot of other stuff. They've been developed on *nix, without any concern to performance on win32 environment. There are lots of things in windows which allow you to write a high performance web server, and apache isn't using them (afaik). Also, since the developers are so *nix-centric, there have been security holes in apache which only apply to the windows version. For example, a hardcoded '/' directory separators. At least IIS performs fast, it's loathed only because of its history of security holes. Apache has had a lot of security holes as well, yet nobody ever cares to mention about them, even the critical remote code execution holes...

So, I chose "all the good parts" and ignored obvious stuff? If your statements above are the obvious stuff, you're basically saying that windows sucks because windows users suck, among other things.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Anti-virus isn't a software, it's a service. Next you'll be bitching that you can't get network connectivity without paying to third party, either! Boo hoo.

Windows doesn't need antivirus to be secure.
Windows doesn't need third party firewall to be secure.

Windows works just fine out of the box, as long as you're installing a version with latest service pack and so on.

Anyway, if you define "third party" as in "Separate download", we indeed won't be getting anywhere. Even though Redhat and others distribute software, they haven't made it and it's not their software. They just have the right to redistribute it.

Now, if you're trying to make this issue bigger than it is and say it affects Windows negatively, there's nothing to discuss. In my opinion, you just can't compare the two. If you're saying that Microsoft's monopoly on their own OS is a bad thing, we can discuss that. I'd indeed love it if people could make their own Windows installation CDs with loads of software on them. This would put different specific distributions comparable again.

Windows as an operating system kicks ass and wins linux in most tasks severely. The problem here is that you're comparing apples to oranges, comparing GNU system loaded with shitloads of third party software to a Microsoft operating system with no third party software. Obviously, if you choose what to compare to what and under what terms, you can make anything win or lose upon will. What's the point?

So why was it when I first got my PC with a Windows OEM install I got the netsky worm when I went on the Internet?

The supplyier said the anti-virus was up to date but it wasn't.

[muzzy]

So why was it when I first got my PC with a Windows OEM install I got the netsky worm when I went on the Internet?

The supplyier said the anti-virus was up to date but it wasn't.

So, the supplier was clueless and didn't provide you a patched system. Tough luck, that's not Microsoft's fault. You could've just as well bought insanely old red hat, and observed it dying on you when you connected it to the internet, woo-pe-doo.

Either way, the first thing you're supposed to do with a new computer (no matter what OS), is to check that it's patched up to date. This can be hard without connecting it to the internet first, but that's not a Windows-specific problem. Back in the old days, when linux remote crashing bugs got published, a friend of mine had to download patches to his linux system with his windows installation. It simply wasn't possible for him to download them with linux, since he was under constant flood of the attack.

That's just the nature of the problem, deal with it. Has nothing to do with anti-virus.

[toadlife]

4. IIS is trash, you should probably use Apache.

How many high traffic, public webservers do you administer that use IIS?

[skyman8081]

Bitch all you want about IIS, but I don't see Strong Bad getting 0wned left and right, do you?

[WMD]

I'm not using IIS myself because I couldn't get it working.  I found it ironically harder to use than Apache with the .conf file.

I still chuckle about that.

[BobTheHob]

Bitch all you want about IIS, but I don't see Strong Bad getting 0wned left and right, do you?

His uptime is crap

[toadlife]

His uptime is crap

I don't seee what is so bad about that uptime. It's 88 days, which is better than many other sites.

[WMD]

If you click where it says "24 days ago", you'll see they have no graph.  That 24 days could be a long time ago.  Might have something to do with when we switched hosts back in January.

Also, this site used to have great uptime (3 digits) but for some reason last year, someone starting rebooting it every month.

[toadlife]

I've found netcraft to be incredibly unreliable anyway. The only thing I see netcraft being good for is it's web server surveys.

Netcraft reports this server as being up for 59 days....
http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/account.php?op=details&hid=13355
 
And it says this site has been up for 26 days....
http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/account.php?op=details&hid=13356

[skyman8081]

Because, as we all know, uptime is ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.

Maybe if you only have 1 server, otherwise, a monthly reboot never hurts.

[toadlife]

Well, there are several criteria that go into choosing a web platform, that most people here just don't get. Stability and security are actually down on the list of priorities below functionality, cost and support. If times between reboots were so important, then nobody would run Windows/IIS for a webserver.
 
 
One server I run started out on HPUX/Netscape I-Planet server, but the app kept taking down the web server and sometimes the webserver would not restart without rebooting the entire box. The vendor basically threw up their hands at us, saying they didn't know what was wrong, so we switched it over to the other platform they supported - IIS. It has run on IIS for four years now. The app has actually taken down IIS a quite a few times too, but it was much easier to restart if it did, because of access issues. Only two people has access to the HPUX server because of some other sesitive data it contained, while all of the IT staff had to ability to go into the IIS server and restart IIS. On top of that the webserver never had to be restarted because IIS wouldn't restart. The vendor has finally worked out the bugs in this app in the last two years, and it has been stable since then.
 
Another server which we use IIS. We chose IIS over Linux/Apache and SOlaris/Apache because we were already used IIS for the other webserver, and nobody else besides me in the IT department has the ability to support linux/apache. This particlar app is well programed, and the IIS server has never crashed in three years.
 
We are replacing the server soon, and it will be moved from Win2k/IIS5 to Win2k3/IIS6. There is no good reason even consider another platform for this server because the current one we use is absolutely rock solid, and we are better equpped - staff wise to support Windows.
 
As for cost, in the business world, why stress over a $5000 difference in software costs, when it costs $30,000 per year for the software that runs on the web server, $150,000 a year in the salaries of the staff that will support it, and $25,000 every three or four years for the server itself?

[piratePenguin]

As for cost, in the business world, why stress over a $5000 difference in software costs, when it costs $30,000 per year for the software that runs on the web server, $150,000 a year in the salaries of the staff that will support it, and $25,000 every three or four years for the server itself?

I know very, very little about the server/business world. But anyhow, why do you upgrade the server "every three or four years"?
If I bought a $25,000 computer, I would hope it would last forever.