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.

[Scott M.]

> I said a Linux *webserver*, not desktop. Whether or not the OS that, that

webserver happens to use is widely-used is irrelevant here.
I know what you said and the OS is relevant. Again, I'll say that if a
hacker has a chance to take down a few web sites or 95% of the worlds pc's,
they generally choose 95% of the worlds pc's.

Anyway, the subject was cracking a single box, not a huge mass of boxen.
Please specify that you're changing the argument in future.
??? They issue has not been about a single box...that has been my whole
point!!! I have been saying from the start that the reason people say that
a "single" window's box is more vulnerable that other "single" boxes is
because windows boxes run on 95% of the worlds pc's. Please try to
comprehend this.

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. ;-)

Uh, yes you did. ("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread."). Come on now, you are just trying to
wiggle out of your own comments at this 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*

OMG! What drugs are you on?! Read what you just wrote, would you?

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.

You are right there. Have a nice day.

[Scott M.]

But those Linux boxes are still a small percentage of the entire market.
That's what I said. Hackers hack where they can do the most damage. They
will do more damage by taking down (or trying to take down) 95% of the
machines out there.
"C-Services Holland b.v." <cs*@REMOVEcsh4 u.nl> wrote in message
news:9_******** ************@ze elandnet.nl...

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.

[Scott M.]

- - - 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.

But, we're not talking servers.

[C-Services Holland b.v.]

Scott M. wrote:

But those Linux boxes are still a small percentage of the entire market.
That's what I said. Hackers hack where they can do the most damage. They
will do more damage by taking down (or trying to take down) 95% of the
machines out there.

What better way to hack into a webserver and use that as a platform to
distribute your virus by changing the websites there to exploit a
loophole in IE. You're overlooking the fact that one webserver come into
contact with thousands of desktops. And don't underestimate the number
of servers in the world.
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.

[billwg]

"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.

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).

Well, it is a PERSONAL computer now, isn't it. How many people share your
linux desktop? It's easy to throw stones if you don't live in a glass
house, but one of the main reasons that PCs are so popular is the ease of
use of Windows. If everyone had to know how to administer linux or else
hire someone to do it for them, 99% of the PC sales would never happen.

[Scott M.]

> What better way to hack into a webserver and use that as a platform to

distribute your virus by changing the websites there to exploit a loophole
in IE.
The better way would be to go after those platforms directly.
You're overlooking the fact that one webserver come into contact with
thousands of desktops. And don't underestimate the number of servers in the
world.
No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that there are FAR more Windows machines
than any other platform in use and that is why they are targetted more than
others. I never said others weren't targetted.


--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.

[C# Learner]

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

I said a Linux *webserver*, not desktop. Whether or not the OS that, that
webserver happens to use is widely-used is irrelevant here.
I know what you said and the OS is relevant. Again, I'll say that if a
hacker has a chance to take down a few web sites or 95% of the worlds pc's,
they generally choose 95% of the worlds pc's.

So apparently you've misunderstood the context (see below).

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

??? They issue has not been about a single box...

Yes, it has. Here is the context:

"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."

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. ;-)

Uh, yes you did.

Where?
("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread.").

I asked, "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.'"

[Scott M.]

> ??? They issue has not been about a single box...

Yes, it has. Here is the context:

"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."
Actually, this is YOU quoting YOU when YOU were changing the subject away
from what was already being discussed....Si ngle Boxes.

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. ;-)

Uh, yes you did.

Where?

Right here, when you said:

("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread.").

Sounds very much like you stating that what I've said was my opinion...
I asked, "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.'"

....And, I responded. Go back and READ what was written instead of just
looking for a way to post a snide response. You've contradicted yourself
and ignored what I've said here.

I really don't have any more time for you. Have a nice day.

[C# Learner]

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

??? They issue has not been about a single box...

Yes, it has. Here is the context:

"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."

Actually, this is YOU quoting YOU when YOU were changing the subject away
from what was already being discussed....Si ngle Boxes.

I was quoting myself there because it was I who created that context.

> 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. ;-)

Uh, yes you did.

Where?

Right here, when you said:

("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread.").
Sounds very much like you stating that what I've said was my opinion...

I meant that in general, of course. I certainly didn't mean that every
single thing that you've said in this thread is your opinion only.

I didn't state that it was your opinion that "Windows is on approx. 95% of
the worlds desktop computers." I didn't address that point at all.
I asked, "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.'"

...And, I responded.

....with no proof, just general statements about being able to find some
data somewhere on some website. Provide direct links if you're confident.

I would've given you the benefit of the doubt of having the last reply
here, but your "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude irks me enough to
reply again.

[B Gruff]

billwg wrote:

IfÂ*everyoneÂ*h adÂ*toÂ*knowÂ*h owÂ*toÂ*adminis terÂ*linuxÂ*or *else
hire someone to do it for them, 99% of the PC sales would never
happen.

Nonesense.

Bill