Linux - the highest security problems

was part of "I am MS free"

[backus]

Linux still has the highest number of security problems and still cannot offer a database system as good as MS SQL Server 7. Just because MS has a hard marketing strategy, it doesn't mean it has bad products. 2000 is the best OS at the moment, and Office is still the best....office. Go on at MS all you like, but I am still not convinced by Linux, it is still, after all, free and when things are free, they are free for a reason!

I'm not trashing Linux; I am using fact.

(edited by: littleman at 1:32 pm (gmt) on July 24, 2001

[theperlyking]

Its not as simple as facts (if only it were, we would all be using the same os, the same graphics package etc.. and life would be easier).

In reality different people need varying things in their software depending on their level of knowledge, objective, financial means and x number of other factors. As such this thread seems to be a communal discussion about an OS that people have for whatever reason found suits their needs and arguing about it wont change that.

(I am far from MS free... so far :) )

[knighty]

I just switched from Linux to MS and much happier :)

[backus]

I like you knighty.

[littleman]

Good points Perly. This forum should be a place of information regarding *nix issues. We really should avoid the "My OS is better than your's" rhetoric, if not the noise will overwhelm this forum and bring it down.

The anti MS post I made at the top of this thread was made before this forum existed and is actually not in the spirit of this forum's charter.

[backus]

Littleman, that's easily corrected....delete the post. I can think of a thousand reasons why MS is better than Linux. I'm not going to list them, cause I've had enough of arguing with the Czechs about it.

[littleman]

Ok backus, back up what you are saying. Every day I am hearing about a new MS exploits. Take a look at:
[webmasterworld.com...]
So if you think MS is more secure than Unix, please back up your opinion with some statistics.

[ggrot]

What does Oracle run on? Cant it run on *nix?

[littleman]

Yeah, there are *nix and windows ports.

[backus]

As posted by Sceem magazine, and Underground.cz official magazine and site for Linux in the Czech Republic. They are both very biased against MS, however, they write that Suse Linux (the best version of Linux) has 1829 known serious major (not talking about minor) security holes, whereas Microsoft Windows 2000 SP1 has a little under 900. Suse claim that this is because Linux is open source and there too much you can do with it. However, if something does go wrong with your Linux servers and you've lost your administrator, who wrote all you system, who do you call? This happened in my old company. They called in another administrator who said he didn't understand the other guys system, but could rebuild the whole thing from scratch. My foolish ex-boss listened to him. If something goes wrong with a MS server, at least MS is always there for you, and they are always really professional when I contact them; called me back to save my bill and everything. Linux is still free with no-one to blame if it all goes to pot.

[littleman]

backus, that is still rhetorical, please give me some statistical data about *actual* security breaches to back up your claim.

[backus]

Well this is pretty old. I don't have it to hand now, darn it!

[theperlyking]

Do the suse details include all the software packages included in the distribution? When you consider the vast amount of software SuSE include (something like 6 CD's worth?) this makes a big difference and is like installing a truck load of windows software on a windows PC and then rating windows security on the bases of the third party software running.

I'd look for myself but the proxy here wont let me look at security material :(

[backus]

No, without the software. I know this, that SuSe is meant to be the best Linux, and RedHat the worst...

[theperlyking]

Without the software? Linux is a kernel, if there was no extra software it would be mega secure unless anyone could find an exploit in the actual kernel, it must have had some software or it would have won hands down with zero security holes :)

So what was installed, was it the default install, server install, desktop install? Was it tweaked? Was it plugged into a network? Have you got some urls we can look at, or even better (as littleman says) some hard data.

[ggrot]

For web server usage, Apache running on Linux seems to me to be far more secure than IIS or any other common MS web server software on Windows.

Open Source is designed to resolve problems, not create them. It allows all those who use the software to look and evaluate security weaknesses themselves. And in most cases, the open source community is available to fix and redistribute the software quickly.

Windows is a black box. Nobody knows all the weaknesses, and the only way to find out is the hard way.

This Code Red Worm for example is a big deal for (old version) IIS boxes.

From what I hear, Windows is more secure "out of the box" with a default installation, but Linux is far more secure in the hands of administrators that understand it.

Linux also runs with far less overhead in hardware resources, helping to keep costs low.

As far as databases, I have to admit MS SQL 7+ is a superb database system, but there is Oracle, which is still #1(last time I c