Ok, so what is the most secure and useable OS. I am speaking from a view of what is the more secure and user friendly OS. Including the privacy, spyware and any other problems that a user could encounter with normal use. No FUD allowed, back up arguements with facts. I am genuinely interested. After all the talk and bluster, what is the on OS that gets the job done without compromising user data and secuity, yet maintains the useability factor?
Which OS
- Thread starter scttgrd
- Start date
Depends on what the "job" is to be done. Most people consider things like access to email, web browsing, and reading / editing documents as core functions of a PC. If that's what you're going to do, I'd guess that by far your major vulnerabilities are going to be faults in:
#1 the web browser,
#2 email client software, and
#3 office / document programs
#4 (in a VERY distant last place) the operating system itself.
So if you ran OpenBSD as an OS, a simple X window manager, then something like Thunderbird email,
Firefox browser, and OpenOffice for document reading / composition you'd be pretty secure if you took some
appropriate configuration precautions to limit the vulnerabilities of the OS and applications in use. Of course
you'd want a firewall, anti-virus s/w, spam filtering s/w, and ad / script blocking type software for the browser.
If you want something more secure, run the web browser in a VM that's initialized "clean" every time you start
and which doesn't share programs or data with the main OS / filesystem at all. Perfectly usable for browsing,
only a bit inconvenient if you want to download things, but you can make exceptions to allow that under desired
circumstances. Needless to say if you *intentionally* download and run something that is malware, you can't expect
your PC to stay secure no matter what you're running. Running relatively less trusted / unknown and
relatively temporary programs and plug-ins in a VM will help, of course.
If you want a lot of media capabilities like DVR capabilities, audio/video media libraries, et. al. then of course
you'll need special software for that stuff. I'd think running MythBuntu in a VM would be a pretty secure choice
there for the DVR. Running your favorite stored media server s/w in another VM would be a good choice.
Running media client software in either a VM or where necessary for performance (e.g. HDTV) in the host OS
would be a compromise.
If you want to be even more secure against local buffer overflow / trojan attacks, move your email and office /
document software into the cloud and use webmail and web based office applications and so of; less insecure
programs running locally = more security in a sense, and less attack surface for local vulnerabilities.
You can do most any of this stuff under any reasonably secure OS -- OpenBSD / FreeBSD, Solaris,
any enterprise LINUX distribution, even Windows Server 2008 if desired.
Properly configured the OS is VERY unlikely to be a major direct insecurity factor. The OS would be expected to
be an indirect insecurity problem that becomes a platform for further compromise / privilege escalation problems /
rootkits / spyware because of a preexisting primary security breach due to user error (intentionally running malware)
or application program (email/web/office/media) program compromise.
So run the risky applications in very locked down and isolated environments which are audited / reinitialized / kept
secure by the host environment like well configured VMs or a Solaris Zone and you'll probably never have insecurity
beyond the mild inconvenience of having to restart your web browser 'session' or email 'session' or whatever in
a virtual "reboot" of that application domain / VM / zone / whatever.
Using a fairly secure platform like SPARC Solaris and even if you DID get your applications crashed / buffer
overflowed, the chances would be vanishingly small that you'd actually suffer system level compromise just
because of the OS level protections and the small probability that most malware could even run to effectively
infiltrate that platform. Same deal with BSD/Sparc or whatever.
Usability is just an issue for application compatibility with your platform, not the OS itself; sit someone down in
front of Firefox / Thunderbird / OpenOffice on a Mac or Windows PC or UNIX PC or SPARC station and chances
are they'd scarcely be able to tell the difference in user interface and usability from one to the other.
The most OS / platform specific thing I can think of that is commonly done these days is video gaming; everything
else could virtually be done on any OS or even as a web application running over the internet.
Microsoft's making a new MS Office that will run over the internet rather than as a program running on your PC.
Adobe has a photoshop like site that runs as a web application too. Of course things like google mail and google
earth and so on are really basically just web applications. So usability really just means for the most part
having a good secure web browser and a stable OS.
#1 the web browser,
#2 email client software, and
#3 office / document programs
#4 (in a VERY distant last place) the operating system itself.
So if you ran OpenBSD as an OS, a simple X window manager, then something like Thunderbird email,
Firefox browser, and OpenOffice for document reading / composition you'd be pretty secure if you took some
appropriate configuration precautions to limit the vulnerabilities of the OS and applications in use. Of course
you'd want a firewall, anti-virus s/w, spam filtering s/w, and ad / script blocking type software for the browser.
If you want something more secure, run the web browser in a VM that's initialized "clean" every time you start
and which doesn't share programs or data with the main OS / filesystem at all. Perfectly usable for browsing,
only a bit inconvenient if you want to download things, but you can make exceptions to allow that under desired
circumstances. Needless to say if you *intentionally* download and run something that is malware, you can't expect
your PC to stay secure no matter what you're running. Running relatively less trusted / unknown and
relatively temporary programs and plug-ins in a VM will help, of course.
If you want a lot of media capabilities like DVR capabilities, audio/video media libraries, et. al. then of course
you'll need special software for that stuff. I'd think running MythBuntu in a VM would be a pretty secure choice
there for the DVR. Running your favorite stored media server s/w in another VM would be a good choice.
Running media client software in either a VM or where necessary for performance (e.g. HDTV) in the host OS
would be a compromise.
If you want to be even more secure against local buffer overflow / trojan attacks, move your email and office /
document software into the cloud and use webmail and web based office applications and so of; less insecure
programs running locally = more security in a sense, and less attack surface for local vulnerabilities.
You can do most any of this stuff under any reasonably secure OS -- OpenBSD / FreeBSD, Solaris,
any enterprise LINUX distribution, even Windows Server 2008 if desired.
Properly configured the OS is VERY unlikely to be a major direct insecurity factor. The OS would be expected to
be an indirect insecurity problem that becomes a platform for further compromise / privilege escalation problems /
rootkits / spyware because of a preexisting primary security breach due to user error (intentionally running malware)
or application program (email/web/office/media) program compromise.
So run the risky applications in very locked down and isolated environments which are audited / reinitialized / kept
secure by the host environment like well configured VMs or a Solaris Zone and you'll probably never have insecurity
beyond the mild inconvenience of having to restart your web browser 'session' or email 'session' or whatever in
a virtual "reboot" of that application domain / VM / zone / whatever.
Using a fairly secure platform like SPARC Solaris and even if you DID get your applications crashed / buffer
overflowed, the chances would be vanishingly small that you'd actually suffer system level compromise just
because of the OS level protections and the small probability that most malware could even run to effectively
infiltrate that platform. Same deal with BSD/Sparc or whatever.
Usability is just an issue for application compatibility with your platform, not the OS itself; sit someone down in
front of Firefox / Thunderbird / OpenOffice on a Mac or Windows PC or UNIX PC or SPARC station and chances
are they'd scarcely be able to tell the difference in user interface and usability from one to the other.
The most OS / platform specific thing I can think of that is commonly done these days is video gaming; everything
else could virtually be done on any OS or even as a web application running over the internet.
Microsoft's making a new MS Office that will run over the internet rather than as a program running on your PC.
Adobe has a photoshop like site that runs as a web application too. Of course things like google mail and google
earth and so on are really basically just web applications. So usability really just means for the most part
having a good secure web browser and a stable OS.
Sylvanas
Diamond Member
- Jan 20, 2004
- 3,752
- 0
- 0
This is one of those questions that either cannot be answered or you will get a multitude of different answers based on individual user experiences- I will share my thoughts on the latter. Arguably it can be said that Linux is among the most 'secure' OS's as it has inherently very few vulnerabilities by design. A few issues back Linux format did an article concerning just this and is a good source of information on this topic, this is a magazine so I can't point you to any area specifically but perhaps you should checkout this and more recently this and the corresponding discussion . As for usability, that's debatable, personally I find Linux very user friendly- but that doesn't mean Windows and OS X are not. I have never used OS X but I hear one of it's major selling points is a good UI, perhaps more users on this can weigh in. It also depends on what you want to do, do you want to run office applications, Video/graphical editing or enterprise applications? My vote will go to Linux, but ultimately- it would probably best to look around first before deciding.
Define what "get the job done" means for you. Getting the job done could be anything from internet and email to heavy gaming or 3d rendering of sorts.
I'd say Vista 64-bit, but I can't say for sure unless you answer the above question. It's not as secure as Linux, but I prefer using it. Generally, viruses and security all depends on how the user protects and uses the machine (and how often they "clean" out their system).
I'd say Vista 64-bit, but I can't say for sure unless you answer the above question. It's not as secure as Linux, but I prefer using it. Generally, viruses and security all depends on how the user protects and uses the machine (and how often they "clean" out their system).
Run vista on a limited account with UAC, DEP, and a solid anti-virus program enabled. The anti-virus keeps malware off your computer, while UAC, DEP, and a limited account keep malware from doing any damage in the event it slips past your anti-virus.
In terms of user friendliness, Vista is great. In most cases you can just set it up and it will do all the work for you.
In terms of user friendliness, Vista is great. In most cases you can just set it up and it will do all the work for you.
For ease-of-use, stability, security, and speed, I would say Ubuntu wins on all counts. Fedora would also be good, with slight differences. However for low-powered systems (in my case a laptop with only 128MB of RAM and an old P4M), a default Debian Lenny install is surprisingly responsive.
I would only use Windows if you had some specific need that was only compatible with Windows (if it's a program, in most cases there is an open source alternative for linux). On the Windows side though, Vista is definately more secure, but IMO XP is definately more user-friendly ( and tech friendly). As far as performance, it varies. On a P4 with 1GB of RAM XP ran great, but Vista was unbearably slow (probably equivalent or worse than my Debian install with 128M RAM), however on my new Core 2 Duo system with 2G of RAM, Vista certainly "feels" much faster than XP (though I still use XP on it).
I would only use Windows if you had some specific need that was only compatible with Windows (if it's a program, in most cases there is an open source alternative for linux). On the Windows side though, Vista is definately more secure, but IMO XP is definately more user-friendly ( and tech friendly). As far as performance, it varies. On a P4 with 1GB of RAM XP ran great, but Vista was unbearably slow (probably equivalent or worse than my Debian install with 128M RAM), however on my new Core 2 Duo system with 2G of RAM, Vista certainly "feels" much faster than XP (though I still use XP on it).
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
No way XP is more secure then Vista,IMHO would say Vista x64, security features like UAC,improved firewall and security,signed drivers only are all there to improve security.
User friendly its not a big learning curve from XP to Vista.
I'm speaking only about Microsoft operating systems,Linux etc I leave to the experts.
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 60,050
- 10,540
- 126
I don't think any kind of Linux wins on the ease of use category. You have to be able to run the majority of "BestBuy class" hardware and software for that.
Really this question is "What's the best Windows?"
There's 2 answers... Right now I would say XP is the most foolproof for ease of use and compatibility, and Vista64 is the most secure. In a couple of years Vista64 will win on all counts.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
I can't remember the last time I bought a piece of hardware off the shelf and had it not work in Linux. And I'm just going to ignore the point about software because just about all of the software on the shelves of places like BestBuy is utter crap anyway.
Right, because no one ever gets anything done on a Mac or Linux machine...
If you are looking to run off the shelf, commercial applications on common hardware that's easy to use IMHO Vista is your best bet for your requirements.
Linux is a decent OS too, but you just don't have access to the commercial applications and games that a Windows PC has. Unlike OSX, Windows (nor Linux) saddles you with specific hardware.
XP is more secure than it used to be, but Vista is definately more secure than XP and Vista gives Linux a run for it's money in that front as well. Especially when using a non-admin account and UAC.
One thing I find with Linux Distributions is that they do handle the basic tasks extremely well once everything is installed, however, once a user wants to do more than that there is a much more serious learning curve than with competing operating systems.
Ultimately, if you are looking for an OS that supports the widest array of hardware, has the most support in the form of applications and games, is secure and reliable, and easy to use Vista is the winner. Linux and OSX can fill a lot of those rolls, but Windows does all of them.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Try an ASUS P5Q Pro (the non-pro, the deluxe, and the E might use different NICs), if you get the Atheros (AR8121/AR8113) NIC working, let me know how you did it... still waiting for ASUS to return my email about it (they only have drivers for the integrated sound on their website).
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Modems? Who cares? Most wireless cards that I know of work fine, some require a bit of work but the same is true on Windows. Most cameras that I know of just show up like a USB storage device and even most of the crappy ones that require proprietary protocols are supported by gphoto2 these days. MP3 players are similar, most show up as a normal storage device but the ones that do require proprietary crap (i.e. the iPod) work too.
Sure doing some research as to whether something will work well or not is always smart, but I've gotten away with just buying random crap whenever necessary for a while now. In like 99% of cases hardware support is not an issue in Linux any more.
But Bioshock does run on a 360 and PS3 which is what I'd probably run it on if I cared. And with 2s of effort I found out that Bioshock does run in Wine to an extent so I can indeed play it on Linux. Ever heard of CrossOver Office? Of course not. It's a commercial release of Wine that lets you run Office, IE and other Win32 apps on Linux and some versions of AutoCAD look to work too. And while I'm guessing that the 8 people considering running AutoCAD in Linux are happy that progress is being made the rest of the population is happy not caring at all.
I'll preface this again. Linux is a very good OS, but let's be brutally honest. When you put it up against the criteria of the original post, it does not fit well to what he is looking for.
Any time you add something like this, you are adding another layer of complexity that simply makes things less easy to deal with, when they work at all. Of course, in the Windows World, you could accomplish much the same thing by installing VMWARE and then Linux on a virtual machine.
Not true, while many 11b/g cards may work fine, most 11a/n cards do not. And a "bit of work" is a bit of an understatement. I don't know of a single Wireless card that doesn't work under XP, and far more work under Vista than under Linux. Certainly, any wireless board produced in the past year and a half works under Vista.
But often with reduced functionality. My dad's Canon won't be able to use the easy transfer ability of that lets him push a single button on the camera to have it all automatically copy. My Nikon D-SLR under Linux means I can't use my laptop to control my camera. Two, very mainstream cameras that would lose functionality under Linux
It's certainly gotten better, but it's nowhere near ready for mainstream hardware support yet. It fact, I'd say it's drastically better than it was about 3 years ago.
Not all games are on either the 360 or PS3, and of course, we're not talking about consoles. We are talking about computer operating systems. So having Bioshock on a console is in no way a tick mark in the Linux is better column.
Two things here. You can "run it to an extent"... I'm not going to even bother asking what that means. But more importantly, anything requiring Wine to work immediately removes it from the "ease of use" qualification of the original post.
Any time you add something like this, you are adding another layer of complexity that simply makes things less easy to deal with, when they work at all. Of course, in the Windows World, you could accomplish much the same thing by installing VMWARE and then Linux on a virtual machine.
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 60,050
- 10,540
- 126
That's exactly what I'm talking about. If I put Ubuntu on the secretary's machine at work, and gave her a blank check to buy the software she needed to do the job she'd be crying before the day was done. WINE and Cedaga are cheap hacks to run software that wasn't meant to be run. Most people don't know what Linux is, much less how to get it to run non-native software.
As far as hardware goes... I have 4 winmodems, 3 USB wireless adapters, and 1 PCI wireless adapter that couldn't even be hacked to work under Linux, much less plug and play. I never got around to trying my printers or my somewhat obscure scanner.
Ease of use means Windows. Maybe OSX, but even that isn't as friendly. It's a Windows world, and I don't see that changing in the near future.
I was hoping to hear alot of what has been said. What's best is what a person is comfortable with and able to make work fo them. I wish I was competent enough to get the damn poll to work so there would be more of an idea of the consensus. Oh well I guess I'll try to better next time. Point is do your research and and be comfortable with the move.
Installing Wine on Debian or Ubuntu is just "sudo aptitude install wine", much easier than most Windows install routines. After that I can just double click on an exe and go through installations like normal. This is contingent on that programs ability to run on Wine, but I've had success in the few cases I've needed it. But then I'm not a masochist, so I would never subject myself to the crap you find on Best Buy store shelves.
I've never quite understood why WINE didn't merge in some of the QEMU/KVM technology to run the windows
applications in more of a VM / sandbox that has better isolation from the LINUX host.
All I need is typical Windows malware to start messing up my LINUX system too because of no containment.
I'd think it'd do wonders to help debugging and automatic profile / configuration generation too.
applications in more of a VM / sandbox that has better isolation from the LINUX host.
All I need is typical Windows malware to start messing up my LINUX system too because of no containment.
I'd think it'd do wonders to help debugging and automatic profile / configuration generation too.
Installing Wine isn't the hard part. It's getting games and applications to work under Wine that's the problem.
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
My grandma used linux for 3 years before buying a new computer with vista on it. It did everything she ever needed it to do. Unlike the OS it replaced, windows 98, because of me having to drive out constantly to fix viruses (I'm too cheap to buy an OEM copy of XP) it never crashed, she never called me for support. Ok, that is a lie, she called me 3 times. Once to install the dvd codec (I guess I forgot to install that in my setup), and once to ask me why a website she liked would not work (it required java, which I then installed). After that she was happy. She actually likes vista too, but she comments on how hard it is to find software that does what she wants and how her 'old' pc did everything she needed. Of course this is because I knew exactly what software she needed to do what she does on her computer. I delivered it in a working state.
I use a mac, why because it is just as secure as linux imho, is unix (which is a requirement for anything I use), has a nice user interface and consistent feel, can play blizzard games (only pc games I care about anymore) , great looking stable hardware, and has all the software I require.
I have never bought software from a store after I left windows xp. Even with my mac, with the exception of a few blizzard games (which I had already bought for windows) and textmate, the rest of my software either came from apple or is open source. My family has also learned about open source and now calls me before even thinking about looking for software to ask me if there is a 'free' software that does the same thing. They all now run open office, vlc, firefox, thunderbird, you know the drill.
Usability is all in well how you use it, obviously if gaming is your number one concern, it makes sense to own a 360 or a windows pc. If a powerful text shell is a requirement for you, then having a *nix environment is a must.
The requirements listed in this post were secure, easy to use, and gets the job done. That's linux or unix (mac) in a nut shell. It might not be easy to you guys who have never used it, or are trying to use your windows ideals in it, but for us who grew up with it, it is way easier then using windows. My requirements for a computer are a good web browser, a powerful text shell and tools to script and automate tasks, good solid web development tools for php, python, and ruby, a nice music player, a nice video player, multiple desktops, a very powerful gui text editor (goes with solid development tools), a instant messaging client with support for google talk, msn, and icq, a powerful command line text editor, ssh client, openvpn client, music recording software, ability to launch X11 applications via ssh, truecrypt, and because a lot of clients feel the needed to send office documents; a program that can view MS office documents.
Out of the box, I can get this setup with linux or mac. In fact mac comes with most of the software I need out of the box. Windows is a bit tougher because I have to install linux on top of it (essentially) via cygwin to get a good shell and run the X11 apps I need for my job (yes, some of the software we use can only be managed via a X11 application and it is easier to do it remotely then walk to the server room). And really there is no OS out there that can't meet those needs, the question is how much work to get it together and what interface you are most comfortable with.
I use a mac, why because it is just as secure as linux imho, is unix (which is a requirement for anything I use), has a nice user interface and consistent feel, can play blizzard games (only pc games I care about anymore) , great looking stable hardware, and has all the software I require.
I have never bought software from a store after I left windows xp. Even with my mac, with the exception of a few blizzard games (which I had already bought for windows) and textmate, the rest of my software either came from apple or is open source. My family has also learned about open source and now calls me before even thinking about looking for software to ask me if there is a 'free' software that does the same thing. They all now run open office, vlc, firefox, thunderbird, you know the drill.
Usability is all in well how you use it, obviously if gaming is your number one concern, it makes sense to own a 360 or a windows pc. If a powerful text shell is a requirement for you, then having a *nix environment is a must.
The requirements listed in this post were secure, easy to use, and gets the job done. That's linux or unix (mac) in a nut shell. It might not be easy to you guys who have never used it, or are trying to use your windows ideals in it, but for us who grew up with it, it is way easier then using windows. My requirements for a computer are a good web browser, a powerful text shell and tools to script and automate tasks, good solid web development tools for php, python, and ruby, a nice music player, a nice video player, multiple desktops, a very powerful gui text editor (goes with solid development tools), a instant messaging client with support for google talk, msn, and icq, a powerful command line text editor, ssh client, openvpn client, music recording software, ability to launch X11 applications via ssh, truecrypt, and because a lot of clients feel the needed to send office documents; a program that can view MS office documents.
Out of the box, I can get this setup with linux or mac. In fact mac comes with most of the software I need out of the box. Windows is a bit tougher because I have to install linux on top of it (essentially) via cygwin to get a good shell and run the X11 apps I need for my job (yes, some of the software we use can only be managed via a X11 application and it is easier to do it remotely then walk to the server room). And really there is no OS out there that can't meet those needs, the question is how much work to get it together and what interface you are most comfortable with.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter