What can Linux do that Windows cannot?

[notfred]

grep "regex goes here"

things like that.

 

[Russ]

n0cmonkey,

No doubt Linux has a high FUD factor. It just irritates me when people make ridiculous claims such as there are no Linux viruses.

Russ, NCNE

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< n0cmonkey,

No doubt Linux has a high FUD factor. It just irritates me when people make ridiculous claims such as there are no Linux viruses.

Russ, NCNE >>



And Windows has its share of FUD. But there are definitely plenty of viruses out there for linux, they just arent publicized as well. The Linux/UNIX worms dont seem to do as much damage as Windows worms either.

 

[singh]

<< For a programmer, unix-derived operating systems are simply more fun, more flexible, etc. >>



I disagree. The Win32 API is probably the richest out there. And as far as the *tools* go, I write whatever I can't find. How exactly is *nix better for the programmer? I believe that Windows is so popular because of the hoards of programmers out there that develop for it.

 

[Platypus]

As a desktop, I enjoy the fact that I can change anything about it that I want to. I can download awesome programs for free, and I don't ever have to reboot.

 

[UberNeuman]

<< To be a viable desktop OS (for the concumer market - >>



What's a "concumer"?

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< To be a viable desktop OS (for the concumer market - >>



What's a "concumer"? >>



Its similar to a cucumber, but less intelligent.

 

[Descartes]

<< I disagree. The Win32 API is probably the richest out there. >>



The win32 api is rich, but also dirty. If you deny this, then you need to explain a new motive for .NET for the developer.



<< And as far as the *tools* go, I write whatever I can't find. >>



So, you want vi, you simply rewrite vi? I don't think so. Yes, I know there are vi'esque solutions for win32, but you get my point. Also, some of the (not necessarily developer related) tools are *always* written for *nix first. The security community is obviously very big on *nix, and the majority of tools developed are *nix only, and at most provide a watered-down version of the tool for win32.



<< How exactly is *nix better for the programmer? I believe that Windows is so popular because of the hoards of programmers out there that develop for it. >>



I absolutely agree. I love programming for windows, it's my primary environment. I meant to say that *nix can be more fun at times simply because of the granular level of control you have. If you want to know how to write a console i/o driver, just look at the code. If you want to see how anything works, just look at the code. Perhaps I'm a masochist, but I find that type of research to be fun.

 

[ultimatebob]

Besides being able to edit the source code and recompile the kernel, I can't think of anything that Linux can do that Windows can't. It's more of a personal prefrence thing.

 

[glenn1]

<< <<What can Linux do that Windows cannot?

Unlike Windows, provide no viable business model or profitability for the companies selling it? >>

Isnt that the fault of the companies and not the OS? Or are you one of the people that thinks buzz words are cool? >>



Business model and profitability are buzzwords? What color is the sky in your world? Let me spell it out for you:

No eventual profitability in Linux = no more Linux.

No matter how "cool" an OS, or any product for that matter, something which doesn't make those who produce it money, gets sh!tcanned. Or do you think that Red Hat and Co. is doing it for the love of the Linux operating system? Infrastructure and support, be it a bridge or an OS, requires capital. To invest capital, businesses need to see a return on that investment. I don't care how damn good Linux is or isn't, if it isn't eventually profitable and self-supporting, it will go the way of the Amiga and BeOS.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< <<What can Linux do that Windows cannot?

Unlike Windows, provide no viable business model or profitability for the companies selling it? >>

Isnt that the fault of the companies and not the OS? Or are you one of the people that thinks buzz words are cool? >>



Business model and profitability are buzzwords? >>



No, I never even hinted at that. You just sounded like an uninformed "venture capitalist" that invested in companies with no business model. Much like many of the "linux companies" that did not make it.



<< What color is the sky in your world? Let me spell it out for you: >>



Blue, usually.



<< No eventual profitability in Linux = no more Linux. >>



Wrong. Sorry. Linus never thought about making money when it started. People will continue on without backing. Many other projects have so far and will continue to do so.



<< No matter how "cool" an OS, or any product for that matter, something which doesn't make those who produce it money, gets sh!tcanned. >>



Legos never made me money as a kid, but I sure as heck played with them a lot.



<< Or do you think that Red Hat and Co. is doing it for the love of the Linux operating system? >>



RedHat is not Linux.



<< Infrastructure and support, be it a bridge or an OS, requires capital. To invest capital, businesses need to see a return on that investment. I don't care how damn good Linux is or isn't, if it isn't eventually profitable and self-supporting, it will go the way of the Amiga and BeOS. >>



Blah blah blah. Buy another license.

 

[Descartes]

<< No eventual profitability in Linux = no more Linux.

No matter how "cool" an OS, or any product for that matter, something which doesn't make those who produce it money, gets sh!tcanned. Or do you think that Red Hat and Co. is doing it for the love of the Linux operating system? Infrastructure and support, be it a bridge or an OS, requires capital. To invest capital, businesses need to see a return on that investment. I don't care how damn good Linux is or isn't, if it isn't eventually profitable and self-supporting, it will go the way of the Amiga and BeOS. >>



Umm, that may be true for the total crap distros (RedHat), but Linux was very much a free and non-capitalistic solution in the mid-90s. The quality distros like Debian, and Slackware are still maintained by volunteers, as they were back in the mid-90s. RedHat may eventually founder, but Linux is here to stay in one form or another.

 

[AdamDuritz99]

<<

<< To be a viable desktop OS (for the concumer market - >>



What's a "concumer"? >>



You don't want to know...




<< At the moment there are no know viruses that can affect a linux machine... >>



huh? I'm a supporter of linux and all. But how in the world can you say that?


How I personally see it is, Windows and Linux are two seperate things for what they are best for. No doubt, Windows is far superior to a regular user. It's easy to use, NT 5.x + are good and stable. Linux is more on the edge when it comes to servers and security(but only as secure as the admin knows). Both OSes are great in their own aspects.

peace
sean

 

[Jerboy]

Have peace of mind knowing that you're not vulnerable to Microsoft accessible backdoor.

 

[xirtam]

Um... Xbill, anyone?

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Um... Xbill, anyone? >>

 

[Russ]

<< not vulnerable to Microsoft accessible backdoor. >>



Jerboy,

You just had to work the term "backdoor" in to this thread, didn't you?

Russ, NCNE

 

[Descartes]

<< Have peace of mind knowing that you're not vulnerable to Microsoft accessible backdoor. >>



"backdoor" ? Surely you mean vulnerability, as a "backdoor" would suggest that MS created some of the more recent vulnerabilities on purpose. NO platform has been immune to the proverbial buffer overflow. It's a fundamental flaw in how the x86 architecture implements a stack, and the complacence of some programmers. Also note, that unix-derived platforms have been the victim of COUNTLESS exploits of these very vulnerabilities. Why spend hours trying to overflow the buffers of some win32 application when you can simply grep for vulnerable code (gets(0, strcpy(), scanf(), etc.) on linux? Couple this with the fact that many linux installs give up the owner of processes through reverse ident scans and you have a horrible combination.

Both OS' can be exploited almost pathetically easy and I have no doubt that your machine is probably also highly vulnerable.

[edit]I noted the buffer overflow because the last several vulnerabilities on Microsoft products have been buffer overflows.[/edit]

 

[ToBeMe]

<< What can Linux do that Windows cannot? >>


Not much! Especially in the hands of people whom do not know how to use it, which is basicly most of those whom use computers casually!

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< Have peace of mind knowing that you're not vulnerable to Microsoft accessible backdoor. >>



"backdoor" ? Surely you mean vulnerability, as a "backdoor" would suggest that MS created some of the more recent vulnerabilities on purpose. NO platform has been immune to the proverbial buffer overflow. It's a fundamental flaw in how the x86 architecture implements a stack, and the complacence of some programmers. Also note, that unix-derived platforms have been the victim of COUNTLESS exploits of these very vulnerabilities. Why spend hours trying to overflow the buffers of some win32 application when you can simply grep for vulnerable code (gets(0, strcpy(), scanf(), etc.) on linux? Couple this with the fact that many linux installs give up the owner of processes through reverse ident scans and you have a horrible combination.

Both OS' can be exploited almost pathetically easy and I have no doubt that your machine is probably also highly vulnerable. >>



Bull. Its apparent in most architectures. Its sloppy programming.

 

[Platypus]

<<

<< What can Linux do that Windows cannot? >>


Not much! Especially in the hands of people whom do not know how to use it, which is basicly most of those whom use computers casually! >>



Lol, ok mate.

 

[Descartes]

<< Bull. Its apparent in most architectures. Its sloppy programming. >>



Did you not see my and condition there? I said, "AND the complacence of some programmers."

And yes, it IS a flaw in the architecture, specifically the fact that x86 implements the stack using two registers, ESP and EBP, and the return address used by a procedures epilog is stores in a 4-byte offset from EBP. The fact that local variables (the buffers) in a routine are stored at negative offsets from EBP means that all one has to do is "spill" the buffer so that it overwrites the return address (EBP+4) with the location of the beginning of the buffer overflowed (EBP-sizeof(buffer)). Sloppy programming? Absolutely. That doesn't mean it's still not dependent on the "flaw" of the architecture.

[edit]I called you a jackass, in an endearing way though! I took it out to eliminate the perception of an attack on you.[/edit]

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< Bull. Its apparent in most architectures. Its sloppy programming. >>



Did you not see my and condition there? I said, "AND the complacence of some programmers."

And yes, it IS a flaw in the architecture, specifically the fact that x86 implements the stack using two registers, ESP and EBP, and the return address used by a procedures epilog is stores in a 4-byte offset from EBP. The fact that local variables (the buffers) in a routine are stored at negative offsets from EBP means that all one has to do is "spill" the buffer so that it overwrites the return address (EBP+4) with the location of the beginning of the buffer overflowed (EBP-sizeof(buffer)). Sloppy programming? Absolutely. That doesn't mean it's still not dependent on the "flaw" of the architecture.

[edit]I called you a jackass, in an endearing way though! I took it out to eliminate the perception of an attack on you.[/edit] >>



Im a jackass, I cant deal

Anyhow, its not just a flaw in x86. There have been plenty of buffer overflows on other architectures.

 

[ToBeMe]

<<

<<

<< What can Linux do that Windows cannot? >>


Not much! Especially in the hands of people whom do not know how to use it, which is basicly most of those whom use computers cassually! >>



Lol, ok mate. >>


Well, sorry, mate, but it's the truth! DOJ reported around 88% of the market uses Windows of some type as their main O/S (BTW, MS claims 91%) so yeah, Linux could do very little for the majority of these people because they have no desire or reason to learn a new O/S! Besides that, IMHO, Free BSD, and BeOS were/are much better alternatives in the desktop market for amny reasons, functionality and ease of use topping the list. Don't get me wrong though, Linux is great in the server market, and perhaps, in years to come, with more refinement or a blending of the two (Lindows) Linux may enjoy a larger portion of the market but, many people will not make a change until it is absolutely neccessary or required! Linux is great for us "geeks" whom take the time to learn it and use it, but, face it, the majority has no desire or reason to do so....................

 

[yakko]

<<
You're either luckey, using a flavor of Windows 2000, or you turn on your box once a week. I have two wintel 98 boxes that crash atleast three times a day they even crash when they're not doing anything. >>

If you can't figure out how to run a Windows 98 machine without it crashing how the hell did you figure out Linux? I run Windows 98 first editon and it almost never crashes unless I do something stupid and even then it is not more than once a month unless there is a hardware issue. Damn hard drive.:|:|


As far as viruses and Linux you have to remember that most people who write viruses want them to infect as many machines as possible. So why waste time writing a Linux virus to infect a handful of machines when you can spend the same amount of time and infect millions?