Linux vs Windows Security

[penpenguin]

I am sorry if this has been posted previously but I am new and did a little searching and could not find anything.

Well I was looking for a GUI dektop environment, and as an old Windows user was looking for other options. I found the security in Mac OSX is incredible (much better than windows from what I hear) and since it is a UNIX based Operating System I was wondering if Linux was as security friendly for home computing. What are your opinions on the situation? Does it make a difference now that there are lots of free anti-virus, anti-spyware, and registry cleaner software available all over the internet?

[daacon]

Linux can be out of the box safer than windows in that Linux has no registry and the vast majority of malware / virus are written to attack windows and IE.

I think overall Linux can be made tighter than Windows. Securiry in Unix / Linux is a core coponent. (but again if the vast majority of hackers changed their focus on Linux holes would be found make no mistake)

I also think with due dillegence , virus protection / firewalls / spyware removers and generally praticing 'safe hex' Windows can also be a very secure platfom. I ahve 4 windows machines I keep clean and secure - It just takes more effort and attention

[pt9386]

It is really in all that you do. If your safe and don't go vicariously to any websites you want and install anything you want, without due research, or you just don't have any anti-virus apps installed for windows, then of courseit is less safe. Linux/Unix on the other hand is just safer by the innate nature that it is not popular and might I add harder to write viruses for, so it would be of course not targeted as much as the wide user base that is windows.

[ivar]

If you want a comprehensive comparison, check the Cyber Security Bulletin 2005 a link to which I posted in the off-topic forum here.

[Sidicas]

Linux security depends on what distro you're running. If you run Debian stable with auto-updates, your system will be WAAY more secure than any Windows machine. Many many ftp, web, SQL, Quake III, Enemy Territory, etc. etc. servers run Debian stable because of this. The problem though is that "new" software is not available for Debian stable. There is a period of about 1-2 years of testing before software will appear in Debian stable. You're not going to find any ATI drivers that support anything later than a Radeon Mobility 9600 for Debian stable. The reason being that the drivers are "too new" and have not been proven to be "stable and secure enough" to make it into Debian (stable). Same thing applies to everything.. The new version of apache, is certainly not in Debian stable, and won't be any time soon. It hasn't been tested in the field long enough.. Heck, just checking now it looks like Debian (stable) is about 4 or 5 versions behind on the Apache package. Security updates in newer versions are back-ported to the version of Apache in Debian stable by the Debian security team. These back-ports are made as patches to Debian stable. The old versions are patched so now they have the security of the new versions without the poorly tested, buggy, and unstable new features of the new versions.
I just switched partially to Debian testing, so that I could have a desktop with my ATI Mobility X700. But still, most of the stuff I have installed is from Debian stable. The reason being that the Debian security team releases patches for software in Debian stable, and it is automatically downloaded and installed. This is much faster (by 12 to 24 hours) than having to wait for a new version of apache to be released and propigate to the mirrors with the security patches built in.

Gentoo has this same problem, only much worse. If you run Gentoo, and a security update comes out for package X. Then you download the source-code for package X, and recompile package X. You darn well better pray that while recompiling package X, your system doesn't get compromised. Because until that's done recompiling (sometimes 2 to 3 days for big things like KDE), you're still running the version with the security hole.

[ccbr01]

Im building a linux gaming server and wanted to know if Debian is a good choice for that? I've been running Knoppix for quite awhile on live dvd, and I love it!!

[penpenguin]

So basically if I choose to run as just a home processing computer (not as a server), most likely the safest operating system (or one of the most) would be debian stable and some reliable software to add to it. This means that although ATI cards and graphics will not be supported, I will still have support for different such things such as maybe 64 bit processors such as the amd turion or if I go pentium m then I can configure it with intel integrated accelerated graphics and be safe, as well as holding a quality integrated wireless card. The only drawback is being without support for new graphics cards, sound cards, and slightly behind on new features, but I will have no trouble with the processor or my system as long as my hardware holds up.

I think I am catching the bulk of this. Let me know if this is true and I may have to set my sights on buying a laptop and configuring it with debian stable. There are also other distrobutions that are derived from debian stable, are these as well configured as the normal debian stable?

[BigV]

debian isn't exactly a "user-friendly" distro from what I understand. You will probably have to do significant manual configuration to get things to work properly with new hardware. Going to a more user-focused distro would probably be a better choice if this is going to be your main system.

another thing is that debian stable is intended to give "five nines" uptime capability. 99.999% system uptime. Basically it is intended to be used in so-called "mission critical" systems where stability of the system is paramount. There is support for hardware (such as wireless networking) that will not be very good compared to other distributions, and most definitely not right out of the box.

[penpenguin]

So what would your suggestion be for a user friendly, fast, and stable operating system with a good GUI environment, and easy to set up, with support for the latest hardware.

I want to try to find a basic linux also, not as graphical as others. I do not mean more console and command prompt based (I enjoy doing a bit of command prompting, but not too much), but I mean I am the guy who will scratch off lots of graphical features of operating systems, I actually used windows xp with a windows classic type of toolbar with all the settings meant for programs rather than graphics. I do not mean I do not want graphics, I would just prefer quality performance to start with.

[lowlymarine]

Ubuntu is probably the simplest, easiest-to-use distro. Jsut click teh link in my sig to find out more. It is also completely free and has a terriffic support community. If you want more control from the GUI than GNOME offers, try kubuntu (KDE based) instead. Personally I just use the CLI for anything GNOME can't easily do.

For the ultimate in speed, simplicity, and customization, go with a Gentoo-based distribution. The problem is that Gentoo uses no GUI at all unless you install it yourself, which can be a hassle.