Why Windows Lost The Battle for the Desktop

[John Bailo]

The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.

Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.

Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.

In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.

But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.

Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.

And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.

[UAError]

C# Learner <cs****@learner .here> wrote:

IMO, it's a question of: if you were so inclined, whom would you try to
take candy from -- the big, tough guy sitting in the corner (Linux) or the
neigh on defenseless baby standing right in front or you (Windows)?

If you are truly inclined to know whats going on on both
sides of the fence check out:

http://www.sans.org/top20/

[C# Learner]

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner .here> wrote in message
news:mv******** *******@csharp. learner...

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted,
that's
all.
There are a huge number of Linux boxen running Apache as web servers.
Consider the reward of 'hacking' a web server -- potential access to
sensitive website-related data. Why aren't we seeing a lot of news of
'hackings' of such Linux boxen?

For the same reason I wrote in my earlier post. Hackers hack MS products
because they are the big boy on the block.

That's one single factor, but that's not the whole picture, IMV. There are
other factors such as MS having a reputation for releasing exploitable
software, for example.
Your "huge" number of Linux
boxes running Apache is still a small percentage of the boxes out there.

Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general.

Pre-SP2, 'hacking' the average Joe's Windows desktop was a walk in the
park
for anyone with even the slightest clue about Windows and networking.
This
has never been the case with a decent Linux distro. I have yet to
evaluate
SP2 so I can't speak about that.

IMO, it's a question of: if you were so inclined, whom would you try to
take candy from -- the big, tough guy sitting in the corner (Linux) or the
neigh on defenseless baby standing right in front or you (Windows)?

What you've said here has no basis in fact, it is simply your experience and
your opinion.

Well, duh -- I said "IMO" (in my opinion).

In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread. Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
"*misconception * that MS software is "less-secure" than other software."

[Thomas J Shea]

I'll give my 2 cents.

Windows in all it's forms has problems, so does *nix.

Windows in all it's forms has security problems, so does *nix.

Windows is easy to use, *nix isn't.

Windows has more commercially available software available, *nix has little.

Windows has a blue screen of death, *nix doesn't.

I could go on an on but I think you get the idea. This is like comparing
apples and oranges. Sure they are all platforms, but weather one is better
than the other is purely a matter of preference and the willingness to learn.
If you like Microsoft's stuff... use it and be quiet. If you like *nix or
mac or any of the others..... use it and be quiet. Last time i checked we
were all out there to make technology across the globe better. If we waste
all this time fighting against each other we'll never get anywhere. Go
competitive spirit, but please... think of the future for all not just
yourself.

[Scott M.]

> Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will

probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general.
How can you say that? The rewards of cracking the software that a small
percentage of users use is not nearly as enticing as bringing 95% of the
computer using market to its knees. Come on, get real.
Well, duh -- I said "IMO" (in my opinion).

In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread. Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
"*misconception * that MS software is "less-secure" than other software."

It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds desktop
computers. I have stated (in this thread) that research groups (like
Gartner) and hardware manufacturers (like Dell, HP, IBM and others) as well
as MS itself keep track of these things.

It is not my opinion that the vast majority of viruses are written to take
down MS software. McAfee, Symantec and others have provided overwhelming
data to prove that point.

It is not a misconception that Windows is more vulnerable than other
platforms because other platforms have never had to have had to withstand
the volume of hacking attempts that Windows has.

These are not my opinions, they are facts that are easily verified via the
sources I've mentioned.

[Thomas J Shea]

P.S. I've used both windows and Linux/BSD extensively and my security
training has included both systems in equal detail. The only diffrence I see
between them is the relative patience it takes to operate/maintain both and
NOT crash them. Other than that they both rock in my eyes. Sometimes I like
orange sherbet, sometimes I dig apple pie.

"Thomas J Shea" wrote:

I'll give my 2 cents.

Windows in all it's forms has problems, so does *nix.

Windows in all it's forms has security problems, so does *nix.

Windows is easy to use, *nix isn't.

Windows has more commercially available software available, *nix has little.

Windows has a blue screen of death, *nix doesn't.

I could go on an on but I think you get the idea. This is like comparing
apples and oranges. Sure they are all platforms, but weather one is better
than the other is purely a matter of preference and the willingness to learn.
If you like Microsoft's stuff... use it and be quiet. If you like *nix or
mac or any of the others..... use it and be quiet. Last time i checked we
were all out there to make technology across the globe better. If we waste
all this time fighting against each other we'll never get anywhere. Go
competitive spirit, but please... think of the future for all not just
yourself.

[C# Learner]

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general.
How can you say that? The rewards of cracking the software that a small
percentage of users use is not nearly as enticing as bringing 95% of the
computer using market to its knees. Come on, get real.

I said a Linux *webserver*, not desktop. Whether or not the OS that, that
webserver happens to use is widely-used is irrelevant here.

Anyway, the subject was cracking a single box, not a huge mass of boxen.
Please specify that you're changing the argument in future.

Well, duh -- I said "IMO" (in my opinion).

In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread. Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
"*misconception * that MS software is "less-secure" than other software."

It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds desktop
computers.

....and I didn't state that it was -- nice strawman. ;-)
I have stated (in this thread) that research groups (like
Gartner) and hardware manufacturers (like Dell, HP, IBM and others) as well
as MS itself keep track of these things.

It is not my opinion that the vast majority of viruses are written to take
down MS software. McAfee, Symantec and others have provided overwhelming
data to prove that point.
That the vast majority of viruses are written to take down MS software
doesn't prove that there are armies attempting to take down Windows boxen.
*sigh*
It is not a misconception that Windows is more vulnerable than other
platforms because other platforms have never had to have had to withstand
the volume of hacking attempts that Windows has.

Again, either provide *proof* of this or admit this is your opinion. I'd
be of this opinion too but I don't *know* that this is a fact.

I've got a feeling that this thread'll just turn out to be a waste of both
or our time.

[C# Learner]

Thomas J Shea <Thomas J Sh**@discussion s.microsoft.com> wrote:

I've used both windows and Linux/BSD extensively and my security
training has included both systems in equal detail. The only diffrence I see
between them is the relative patience it takes to operate/maintain both and
NOT crash them.

I disagree.

Here's a simple example of how I believe Windows is less secure than *nix:
you can download an executable in Windows and then run it simply by
double-clicking its icon. In *nix, you're required to take the extra step
of making that file executable, during which time you'll think twice about
whether or not you actually want to execute it.

Another example: Windows user accounts are created with full administrator
privileges by default (I don't know if this is still the case with SP2,
though I assume so).

[John Saunders]

"C# Learner" <cs****@learner .here> wrote in message
news:1j******** *******@csharp. learner...

Thomas J Shea <Thomas J Sh**@discussion s.microsoft.com> wrote:

I've used both windows and Linux/BSD extensively and my security
training has included both systems in equal detail. The only diffrence I
see
between them is the relative patience it takes to operate/maintain both
and
NOT crash them.
I disagree.

Here's a simple example of how I believe Windows is less secure than *nix:
you can download an executable in Windows and then run it simply by
double-clicking its icon. In *nix, you're required to take the extra step
of making that file executable, during which time you'll think twice about
whether or not you actually want to execute it.

This is bullshit and it has always been bullshit. If the person downloading
the file plans to execute it, then he will set the execute bit and then
execute it. That is, of course, unless he is too stupid to figure out "chmod
+x" or the GUI equivalent, which is certainly a possibility.

What the hell do you think this person downloaded the file _for_? So they
could sit and look at it?

Another example: Windows user accounts are created with full administrator
privileges by default (I don't know if this is still the case with SP2,
though I assume so).

You should learn what you're talking about. Go create a Windows account and
tell us whether it winds up as an Administrator. Be sure to tell us which
Windows version you're using.
John Saunders

[10wattmindtrip]

Hold on a sec. You said: "Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compared to Linux..."

Now, on what basis do you say that?

- - - Well, if we're talking about servers.. uh.. 95% of the internet is
NOT running a windows server. UNIX systems are hacked constantly. BUT, it is
more difficult to crack into than a windows server. I wasn't targeting
applications on the desktop, I should have made that clear.

"Scott M." wrote:

Hold on a sec. You said: "Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compared to Linux..."

Now, on what basis do you say that? A common misconception is that MS
software is somehow "less secure" than most other software. People believe
that because you are always hearing about a security flaw in IE or in
Windows and you don't hear that about other OS's. Or, how this company is
thinking about switching from Windows because of security vulnerabilities .
You never hear of someone leaving Linux for Windows because of security
vulnerabilities right?

The reason for the *misconception* that MS software is "less-secure" than
other software is that hackers don't spend any time trying to crack the
MacOS since 95% of the worlds PCs run Windows. If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted, that's
all.


"10wattmindtrip " <10************ @discussions.mi crosoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

I'm sorry... But your completely wrong, (imo) about how Linux will be the
desktop choice for users. Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compaired to Linux, or for a better comparison
FreeBSD/OpenBSD. But Linux is FAR from being dominate on the desktop. If
you
really want to poke an opioun on which OS will be the next best desktop..
Take a look over at MacOS X or MacOS tiger. I think MacOS has always been
better.

Users don't want to have to know what ls -F or for the *BSD's, pkg_add
some_really_lon g_name-1.2.343.534.322 is. Users don't want to sit down and
actually read a manual on how to use the OS. So... Linux is pretty much
out
of the question.

MacOS on the other hand.. it just works, with a song playing for you in
the
background while installing.. AND it's got the best GUI out there. It's
flashy (which EVERYONE wants) and its stable. The main reason why MacOS
isn't
as successfull is because it's not on the x86 platform. Many people
believe
that Apple should consider porting OSX over .. I strongly disagree. Users
are
now seeing Mac as being the better choice of the two. Speed, Mulimedia,
and
recently more business apps are starting to catch peoples eyes. We live in
a
tech savy society now. This means people are more aware of what's good,
and
what's not. Linux, crashed more times on my machine than Windows ever has.
I
can tell you though, OSX has never crashed yet. OSX is a UNIX, so your
right
that some form of UNIX will be the next desktop choice. However, i find it
difficult to declair linux as a sort of unix.

Don't get me wrong, Linux is ok.. I used it frequently until i found
FreeBSD
to be more suitable for server side stuff. I just think MacOS is really
starting to take off with convincing speed.

Another OS to look forward to is HaikuOS (OpenBeOS/BeOS).

"John Bailo" wrote:

The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.

Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.

Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.

In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.

But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.

Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.

And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux

[C-Services Holland b.v.]

Scott M. wrote:

For the same reason I wrote in my earlier post. Hackers hack MS products
because they are the big boy on the block. Your "huge" number of Linux
boxes running Apache is still a small percentage of the boxes out there.

Most webservers run on some form of Unix/Linux with Apache. On that
market MS still is the lesser player. So with respect to that, attackers
focus on the bigger player, namely Unix/Linux.
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.