Vista Vs Linux

[-(Xyphox)-]

What would your choice be and why? Based on Security and Authentication

[HHunt]

Oh, dear.

Anyway: In the short term, FreeBSD, and occationally XP.
If I can get my hands on vista free through school, it might some day end up in a dual boot (with FreeBSD) on one of my machines. Having a reasonably recent windows makes things more convenient, and that's reason enough. I'm throughly unexcited about it, but sooner or later it'll be useful to have it installed.

On the other hand, I'm enthusiastic about the things coming to FreeBSD now. :)

edit: Security and Authentication? Odd choice. Anyway.
FreeBSD. I know how it works, it's clean, simple, and can be built on to support almost anything, while also having a good track record and a trustworthy development process.
And of course, better a known good than an unknown entity.
If it was for something especially suitable I might get around to learning openBSD. Shouldn't be too hard, I just haven't felt a need so far.

[brucedeluxe169]

if i HAD to pick one, I'd pick Vista

it has better hardware compatability, way more available software, games, ease of use, rock solid stability, excellent multimedia support.

in reality, I will be dual booting with Linux, simply because it is an interesting operating system, and I do want to be one of the few ppl that can use it *well*

[-(Xyphox)-]

Edited Main Post

[brucedeluxe169]

based on security, I'd guess that Linux comes out ahead... but honestly, Vista probably wont be too shabby either...

I dont get the whole "authentication" thing, but somehow I feel like Linux would win out again, with Vista not being too shabby

[protias]

When it's finally time for me to get rid of XP, I'll be moving to Linux (not sure which one though).

[doh]

Linux, without a doubt.

Why? The community has a very good history of dealing with bugs and security violations, Microsoft simply does not.

[Zinn]

In terms of security? Linux, hands down (running a SUSE machine right now and haven't had any issues)
Authentication? Linux again. The user / group permissions system is a lot more elegant and wieldy. Windows is needlessly complicated and obviously not even as secure.

Vista claims to be the be-all-end-all of Windows security, but hasn't every new release of Windows claimed that since Windows 98? I'm not convinced, especially since there are already workarounds for the kernel "lockdown" feature, which Microsoft isn't going to address before release.

Windows Vista will definitely have a better variety of commercial software available, but in terms of security, *NIX and BSD can't be beat!

[eeyrjmr]

if i HAD to pick one, I'd pick Vista

it has better hardware compatability, way more available software, games, ease of use, rock solid stability, excellent multimedia support.

in reality, I will be dual booting with Linux, simply because it is an interesting operating system, and I do want to be one of the few ppl that can use it *well*


Just to defunct something here, Linux actually has more compatible hardware then any single version of Windows

XP relegated a load of hardware (as H/W manu would not release XP-drivers for their old hardware) Linux's keeps supporting these H/W, and thus keeping otherwise "dead" computers useable

With more upto date hardware there is only two field's where linux is lacking
1) Creative X-fi snd card (atm)
2) some WiFi cards (quiet a few a natively supported and those that arn't quite a few can work with the wrapper).

Not ideal but to say that Vista (which isn't even out yet) as better hardware support is a out-right lie, Creative doesn't even support the X-fi proporly either, thus Linux wins

And equally is the the responsiblity of the hardware manufactures (or hackers) to support an Operating system, Windows actually has very few drivers out of the box that they have written


But anyway, I am more then happy with Linux (well have been for 7years) and with more and more games coming to Linux...
Still dual-boot with XP for those odd couple of games

But hey if Vista (which ever one was most suitable) was a reasonable price (say £50) I might pick it up, but NOT for the price it will be going at

[As I Lay Dying]

Security and authentication without a doubt linux, both have been better for me in my experience. Hardware can be tricky on linux, and sometimes setting things up. However once you get used to it, you are laughing to the bank.

Also linux offers the best desktop environment out of all the other operating systems, and if you wanna try beta software, xgl and compiz/beryl offer the best eye candy out of all operating systems.

[ameoba]

It's tough to say, really...

The Windows security model is far more flexible in assigning ACLs to file system objects.

Linux, OTOH, has an excellent track record of having security that actually works.

If you're really concerned about security, then Vista's a complete no-go. A brand new OS hasn't had time to mature.

[Hornswoggler]

I'll admit, I don't know the answer to this off top of my head, but I find it VERY amusing how many people are just picking one based on hearsay, gut instinct, or from an overdose of propaganda. It seems like anybody can make a blanket statement that product "x" is more secure than Microsoft's offering (be it OS or web browser or whatever).

Lets try this: make it a group exercise to find the answers and compare notes. We can make a chart or matrix of the authentication protocols and security features/holes that each OS supports and maybe see which one is better for which situations.

Before we get started, here are a few of my thoughts:

1. Your authentication protocol can sometimes be limited to what you authenticate to. For example, either OS will support a basic FTP client, but if the password is sent over plain text (http://security.sdsc.edu/self-help/no-plaintext/), they both lose. This is a limitation by the server-side authentication and what you are connecting to.

2. Security and usability are a tug-of-war. The more you secure something, the more difficult it is to use it and vice versa.

3. Just because a product is less targeted does not win an argument that it is more secure. Security through obscurity is not a real solution. Suppose Linux had 99% market share... guess which OS would be the target for hackers and exploits? Why would anybody target Windows if nobody used it? (and vice versa)

4. Even if one choice is more secure than the other, will the OS do everything you need it to do? I know there are quite a few things I can do on Windows that I can't do (atleast not near as easily or have as many well refined options) on Linux. Some examples would be movie creation using Adobe Premiere Pro, DVD recompression/burning with Clone DVD, playing games at the same performance level as a WinXP box, and countless small apps and utilities that really make the difference. There could be a trade-off between security and usability.

5. I am going to guess that Vista will have a more secure wireless authentication... but we will find out with research!! (guesses are only so good when dealing with security)


With that said, lets find some answers!

For the Linux example, I will standardize on RedHat Enterprise Linux 4 Desktop

The easiest one to tackle is authentication security because we can probably find that out with some quick searching. We may not know the answer right now, but with the right approach, we can figure it out. Here are the two operating systems in question and their supported authentication protocols:

Vista:
Kerberos 5
PEAP (wireless)
IPSec
Smart Card support
SMB 2.0
NTLM v2
WPA2 (wireless)
WEP
EAP-TLS (Extensible Authentication Protocol - Transport Layer Security)
MS-CHAP
MS-CHAP v2


RedHat EL 4 desktop:
Kerberos 5
IPSec
NIS
LDAP
Hesiod
SMB
Winbind
IPSec
ssh
sftp
WPA (wireless)

Now, with our authentication protocols listed, we need to determine which of these are the most secure, and which will be most commonly used (probably defined by the system to which you are connecting). Let's make this a group activity... hopefully I have helped steer this conversation into something productive rather than the usual "my favorite zdnet blogger always says that open source is more secure than anything MS, blah blah blah...". :D


References:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/feat/secfeat.mspx
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/security-guide/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerberos_(protocol)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/security/kerberos/default.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/network/evaluate/new_network.mspx

[TheRapture]

For entertainment and gaming uses, Windows wins, hands down. Try playing most modern games under Linux...oh wait, you can't. Well, maybe you can with SOME but the speed suffers terribly due to the additional layering occuring...

[HHunt]

Vista:
Kerberos 5
PEAP (wireless)
IPSec
Smart Card support
SMB 2.0
NTLM v2
WPA2 (wireless)
WEP
EAP-TLS (Extensible Authentication Protocol - Transport Layer Security)
MS-CHAP
MS-CHAP v2


RedHat EL 4 desktop:
Kerberos 5
IPSec
NIS
LDAP
Hesiod
SMB
Winbind
IPSec
ssh
sftp
WPA (wireless)


Actually, there is a a lot of overlap in what they support. If we skip the ones I'm reasonably sure both can do, we're left with:
Vista: Smart cards? Not sure.
RHEL: Hesiod, possibly?

And by then, other factors become more important. :)

[eeyrjmr]

For entertainment and gaming uses, Windows wins, hands down. Try playing most modern games under Linux...oh wait, you can't. Well, maybe you can with SOME but the speed suffers terribly due to the additional layering occuring...

well actually you can (so please stop spreading FUD)

UT2004 is playable as a linux-native binary (in 64bit as well) (so is most of the other UT)
Doom3 is native
Quake4 is native (so is most of the other quakes)

as to new games there is UT2007 due out and QuakeWars going native. There are quite a few other modern native games for linux (there is that cold war espiange game)

THESE are native and actually out-perform the windows binary versions



Sure the numbers might be low (but growning) but there still is some so your statement "You cant" is wrong.

You then get into the "Compatablity layer" games where quite a few games can run in WINE. I personally play CSS via WINE as well as "Dawn of War".

[Hornswoggler]

THESE are native and actually out-perform the windows binary versions

Can you provide some benchmarks for reference? I know anandtech has done a few windows vs linux gaming articles, and even for the native games (doom3, ut2004), Windows was faster. Chalk it up to drivers, maybe? I have not seen any game benchmarks (from a controlled test) where linux outperformed.


You then get into the "Compatablity layer" games where quite a few games can run in WINE. I personally play CSS via WINE as well as "Dawn of War".

I would expect there to also be a performance penalty with WINE or other emulators (I know, wine is NOT an emulator, haha). If you think WINE is just as fast, please provide some benchmarks or references.

References:
Doom3 Linux and Windows Battlegrounds (http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2241) (Would love to see something more current as things could have changed?)
Benchmark results between Wine and Windows XP (http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5)

[brighton]

my Ati driver didnt load under Vista but it does work in Linux so im giving Linux the thumbs up over Vista until that's fixed.

think its something with the AGP controller or something like that, and another thing i noticed is turning off one of my cpu cores fixed the ati issue but id rather not do that.

[Ghettobox]

And what precisely have you seen that makes you think anything you have said in this post isnt smoke form your ass? maybe you can exdplain the stability from a product that hasnt even been released? Or better yet stop being a MS ballwasher and lets wait and see how 'stable' vista will be.,.as far as hardware compatibility..Linux blows vista so far out of the water it isnt even funny. Get a clue will you? Just seriously consider what your saying..clearly you enjoy talking out your ass..which is fine..just dont waste your time here. Too many people on this board no way to much for you to be tryring to pull this stuff.

Ghettobox




if i HAD to pick one, I'd pick Vista

it has better hardware compatability, way more available software, games, ease of use, rock solid stability, excellent multimedia support.

in reality, I will be dual booting with Linux, simply because it is an interesting operating system, and I do want to be one of the few ppl that can use it *well*

[hokatichenci]

Stack smashing, MAC where art thou?

Linux ftw, though when it comes down to it OpenBSD is obviously the better choice for security (though at a huge performance loss). I've yet to encounter a problem on my Gentoo Hardened machines.

[pigster]

Too many people on this board no way to much for you to be tryring to pull this stuff.

Oh, the irony.... :p

[brucedeluxe169]

And what precisely have you seen that makes you think anything you have said in this post isnt smoke form your ass? maybe you can exdplain the stability from a product that hasnt even been released? Or better yet stop being a MS ballwasher and lets wait and see how 'stable' vista will be.,.as far as hardware compatibility..Linux blows vista so far out of the water it isnt even funny. Get a clue will you? Just seriously consider what your saying..clearly you enjoy talking out your ass..which is fine..just dont waste your time here. Too many people on this board no way to much for you to be tryring to pull this stuff.

Ghettobox

sheesh, *somebody* has a lot of sand in their vagina today!

haha, calm down dude, just because someone doesnt agree with your point of view doesnt mean they are talking out of their ass or anything like that....

Anyway, I've run Vista since RC1 and havent had a single crash... so if these RCs are rock solid.... Vista final will surely be even better.... just like the rest of the NT family since 2000... rock solid....

and in terms of hardware compatability, mayb Vista isn't so great on older hardware... but who cares, it wont be running on older hardware anyway, and everyone knows damn well that it will run on 100% of the new hardware that comes out from here on out... there are windows drivers for *everything* that is indisputable....

so yea... if anyone here is talking out of their ass, its you

[brucedeluxe169]

Oh, the irony.... :p

lol indeed

[tesfaye]

I think Hornswoggler made some really good points. I share the same opinion but I'm too lazy to do all that typing while at work. I don't get paid to post on HardForum. But anyway, I pick Vista over Linux. Why? It runs the applications that I use on a daily basis. I can play my games without any tinkering. All of my hardware devices work with it and work well. Linux will need to install as easily as Vista, run applications and install hardware as easily as Vista and look better than Vista before I can consider switching to it for my desktop OS. Free doesn't mean much to me when the tradeoff is useability.

I'd write more but I have to tend to some work related stuff. But that's part of my opinion on this matter.

[TheRapture]

well actually you can (so please stop spreading FUD)

UT2004 is playable as a linux-native binary (in 64bit as well) (so is most of the other UT)
Doom3 is native
Quake4 is native (so is most of the other quakes)

as to new games there is UT2007 due out and QuakeWars going native. There are quite a few other modern native games for linux (there is that cold war espiange game)

THESE are native and actually out-perform the windows binary versions



Sure the numbers might be low (but growning) but there still is some so your statement "You cant" is wrong.

You then get into the "Compatablity layer" games where quite a few games can run in WINE. I personally play CSS via WINE as well as "Dawn of War".


Yes, please prove credible sources showing that those games are faster under linux than under windows...oh wait, I bet you can't. Wow, a whole 4 modern games you can play under linux, what choices!!! :eek: :p Try playing Far Cry, Oblivion, Flight Simulator 2004, CoD2, etc., under linux, you can't.

Dude, I am no linux basher, it has it's uses and can be a great OS for the right person, but alas, for serious gamer types, it's a joke, period.

[TheRapture]

I think Hornswoggler made some really good points. I share the same opinion but I'm too lazy to do all that typing while at work. I don't get paid to post on HardForum. But anyway, I pick Vista over Linux. Why? It runs the applications that I use on a daily basis. I can play my games without any tinkering. All of my hardware devices work with it and work well. Linux will need to install as easily as Vista, run applications and install hardware as easily as Vista and look better than Vista before I can consider switching to it for my desktop OS. Free doesn't mean much to me when the tradeoff is useability.

I'd write more but I have to tend to some work related stuff. But that's part of my opinion on this matter.



Bam! Simple and straight forward answer. And very true.

[bbz_Ghost]

To the person that said Linux has more hardware compatibility than any Windows version ever made, I say this:

Linux is a kernel, it's not an operating system. Windows is an operating system. You can't compare the two.

Now, if you'd said "<insert distro name here> Linux has more hardware compatibility than any Windows version ever," you might have some ground to start running on, but then you'd trip over your own two feet and that entire statement would come tumbling down like the proverbial house of cards because it's ridiculous.

[Whatsisname]

Too bad that the linux kernel is what is responsible for all hardware interfaces. The rest of the operating system matters little to none in terms of hardware compatibility.

To the person that said Linux has more hardware compatibility than any Windows version ever made, I say this:

Linux is a kernel, it's not an operating system. Windows is an operating system. You can't compare the two.

Now, if you'd said "<insert distro name here> Linux has more hardware compatibility than any Windows version ever," you might have some ground to start running on, but then you'd trip over your own two feet and that entire statement would come tumbling down like the proverbial house of cards because it's ridiculous.

[tesfaye]

Too bad that the linux (#) kernel is what is responsible for all hardware interfaces. The rest of the operating system matters little to none in terms of hardware compatibility.I thought that you could write a Linux driver for a device like one would for Windows but you get the option of compiling the kernel WITH the driver included. That's what I remember from my days of messing around with Linux.