This may seem stupid, but I've always shut my pc off at the end of the day. I've decided to try leaving in running non-stop, and was curious about a few things. First off, which OS would be the safest from attacks? I have SUSE Linux 9.1, and Windows XP Pro installed. I am behind a hardware firewall, and keep the Windows side of things pretty tight (in the last 6 months I've gotten no spyware detected in adaware 6.0, or spybot S&D). I run antivirus software as well, and have never picked up a virus. Am I equally safe with either OS? Next is performance. Are there any performance hits from leaving a system running 24/7?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Safest options for leaving my pc on all the time
- Thread starter ZenPirate
- Start date
First off, it doesn't matter in the slightest between the operating systems in the matter of internet security so long as you put up a firewall and block all the incoming ports. However, Linux is safer on the virus side because all the script kiddies write their gay-ass viruses to target Windows. Very few viruses/trojans/worms specifically target Linux.
If you are going to run Windows, you will want to reboot every week or two or your system will eventually run out of resources as many programs leak RAM and hang info up in the page file. If you never reboot Windows, you will receive a huge performance hit within a few weeks.
If you are going to run Windows, you will want to reboot every week or two or your system will eventually run out of resources as many programs leak RAM and hang info up in the page file. If you never reboot Windows, you will receive a huge performance hit within a few weeks.
Really. You have proof for that statement? 
Windows 2000 and Windows XP have protected memory, you can run for months at a time without a reboot. If a program is misbehaving kill it with taskmgr, the XP/2K kernel will reclaim all resources, and if it doesn't log off and log back on. On Logoff, all user space is reclaimed.
You should be fine leaving your box on all the time, espically since you have a hardware firewall.
Windows 2000 and Windows XP have protected memory, you can run for months at a time without a reboot. If a program is misbehaving kill it with taskmgr, the XP/2K kernel will reclaim all resources, and if it doesn't log off and log back on. On Logoff, all user space is reclaimed.
You should be fine leaving your box on all the time, espically since you have a hardware firewall.
Either one would work if you are behind a decent firewall AND you keep both OSes up to date.
While the steps are essentially the same to keeping an OS secure, that doesn't mean that one OS won't give you more headaches than another. Suse, fedora, redhat, debian, mandrake ( I think ), gentoo are easier to maintain than win2k/xp.
While the steps are essentially the same to keeping an OS secure, that doesn't mean that one OS won't give you more headaches than another. Suse, fedora, redhat, debian, mandrake ( I think ), gentoo are easier to maintain than win2k/xp.
I'm just going to ignore the issue with SPs breaking stuff. Keeping the system up to date is still easier under most linux distros than windows. Why? How often do you have to reboot the system after an update with linux? How about with windows?Zlash said:
Further, what if I want to install something? Well, with most distros, with most of the popular packages, it's usually a simple command ( yum install samba, for example ). That's something that windows will likely never have, due to legal restrictions.
So yes, most distros are easier to maintain than windows.