Will Unix-based operating systems overtake the M$ Windows monopoly someday?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


One thing about Winblows compared to OS X is that Apple rarely releases any security fixes for it's operating system, while M$ releases security fixes for Winblows just about every day!

That's one thing that scares me about Winblows. OS X is just a safer, more secure operating system. Don't believe me? Try hacking into a Winblows computer remotely and see how easy it is; then try hacking into a Mac OS X computer remotely and see how hard it is!

hi ,

seconded

have a nice day

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
One thing about Winblows compared to OS X is that Apple rarely releases any security fixes for it's operating system, while M$ releases security fixes for Winblows just about every day!

Holy Hyperbole Batman.

There are plenty of security vulnerabilities in OS X

Disproportionately many for how small and insignificant the userbase is, and considering how much less of a target Apple is compared to Microsoft.

That's one thing that scares me about Winblows. OS X is just a safer, more secure operating system. Don't believe me? Try hacking into a Winblows computer remotely and see how easy it is; then try hacking into a Mac OS X computer remotely and see how hard it is!

It's a deal. I'll give you my IP, you give me yours.
Give me 24 hours and I'll add a file to your desktop.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

Holy Hyperbole Batman.

There are plenty of security vulnerabilities in OS X

Disproportionately many for how small and insignificant the userbase is, and considering how much less of a target Apple is compared to Microsoft.


It's a deal. I'll give you my IP, you give me yours.
Give me 24 hours and I'll add a file to your desktop.

hi ,

pffff , that stuff was fixed the day after , meaning june the 7 2002 , .......

have a nice day

[Asher]

"that stuff" I linked to a whole bunch of them, there's tons more too but I believe my point was illustrated.

MacOS's security vulnerabilities aren't nearly as well-published as MS ones because nobody cares. It's the same reason Linux vulnerabilities outnumber Windows ones, but the mainstream press never talks about those either.

It gives Linux and MacOS users a false sense of security, which coupled with fairly insecure operating systems and programs themselves, is a larger risk than running Windows and fearing how insecure it is because of the bad publicity.

[Lord Merciless]

Every tech professionals know that Unix is superior to Windows in both performance and security. That's why all mission critical enterprise systems never, ever use anything like Windows or Linux.

The Unix, however, is too expensive. No private users (even geeks) can hope to buy, install, and maintain such a system on their own. This cost factor alone shuts the door for Unix to mass market.

Microsoft, with all their money and smart/ruthless management, also knows how good Unix is. They will simply buy any Unix developers they can find to write a Windows with Unix Kernel. Finding good and experienced Unix developers is not hard these days: Market is down, Sun is going down the drain, and HP is nuking its R&D.

My prediction is that in a few years when the 64 bit OSes take over, Windows implemented in Unix kernel will be the dominant OS from enterprise servers to desktop PCs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Every tech professionals know that Unix is superior to Windows in both performance and security. That's why all mission critical enterprise systems never, ever use anything like Windows or Linux.

With notable exceptions like the US nuclear aircraft carriers, right?

The reason so many critical enterprise systems still run Unix is because...that's what their code runs on. Chances are it was written 20 years ago in COBOL and still does the job, so why would they change to something else when what they have already has been tweaked and improved for 20 years to the point of being "perfect"? Unix has nothing on any type of OS when it comes to performance and security. Unix tends to scale better than Windows and Linux right now, because that's how it was designed, but Windows and Linux are both improving incredibly fast in the scalability field.

If you look at the marketshare figures, Linux and Windows are both chomping away rapidly at Unix marketshare.

My prediction is that in a few years when the 64 bit OSes take over, Windows implemented in Unix kernel will be the dominant OS from enterprise servers to desktop PCs.

There's no way, ever, MS would use a Unix kernel in Windows. There's no need to.

There's nothing wrong with the NT kernel. In fact, it tends to be a far better design than most Unixes.

The difference is NT has been around 10 years and Unix about 30. Seeing as Unix has 20-odd years of constant use ahead of MS, it's pretty sad how many vulnerabilities it still has.

[Whaleboy]

Here's me thinking Asher was being objective, and not necessarily always batting for MS.

It would appear that the more [b]irrationally[b] extreme one becomes, the less credibility you get! Perhaps instead of considering occurences, you should examine that fabulous question of why windows is being used on aircraft carriers, among other things.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy That's one thing that scares me about Winblows. OS X is just a safer, more secure operating system. Don't believe me? Try hacking into a Winblows computer remotely and see how easy it is; then try hacking into a Mac OS X computer remotely and see how hard it is!

Once again, my point still stands as clear as day. I'm not saying it's impossible to hack into a Mac OS X computer, but it sure does take a lot of effort and knowledge. Once again, just try it.

Oh, and as for viruses. That's a rare occurence on MacOS/MacOSX. Some Mac users have never had a virus, while others may have one or two within a decade. Winblows home users typically have a dozen or so viruses within 10 years and many many more if they have a business. The point: Sometimes a small market share can give a company a competitive advantage.

C9

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
Once again, my point still stands as clear as day. I'm not saying it's impossible to hack into a Mac OS X computer, but it sure does take a lot of effort and knowledge. Once again, just try it.

Once again, this is bull.
I'll show you just how easy it is to break into an OS X system as soon as you give me your IP.

I'll even tell you how I did it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
Here's me thinking Asher was being objective, and not necessarily always batting for MS.

It would appear that the more [b]irrationally[b] extreme one becomes, the less credibility you get! Perhaps instead of considering occurences, you should examine that fabulous question of why windows is being used on aircraft carriers, among other things.

If you're trying to say something, just come out and say it.

I've no idea what you're trying to be snarky about here.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Asher

There's no way, ever, MS would use a Unix kernel in Windows. There's no need to.

There's nothing wrong with the NT kernel. In fact, it tends to be a far better design than most Unixes.

The difference is NT has been around 10 years and Unix about 30. Seeing as Unix has 20-odd years of constant use ahead of MS, it's pretty sad how many vulnerabilities it still has.

Jeez. I could call you a 32-bit Windows Taliban.

Unfortunately for fundamentalists like you, the convergence of Unix of Windows is already happening. Why in the hell would Microsoft hire tons of Unix developers to write a new Win64 kernel?

[Asher]

Hmm. They didn't hire tons of Unix developers to "write a new Win64 kernel".

They hired a bunch of Unix people to run their FreeBSD cluster for Hotmail, etc. a while ago, and recently acquired some software engineers for other companies.

Unix and Windows are not converging, and your argument insisting they are is laughable.

If anything, they're diverging: BSD sockets are deprecated, POSIX compliance is no longer a goal, etc.

[Asher]

Andthe "new Win64 kernel" is simply a modified NT kernel, not Unix-based or even borrowing anything from Unix...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher

With notable exceptions like the US nuclear aircraft carriers, right?

The reason so many critical enterprise systems still run Unix is because...that's what their code runs on. Chances are it was written 20 years ago in COBOL and still does the job, so why would they change to something else when what they have already has been tweaked and improved for 20 years to the point of being "perfect"? Unix has nothing on any type of OS when it comes to performance and security. Unix tends to scale better than Windows and Linux right now, because that's how it was designed, but Windows and Linux are both improving incredibly fast in the scalability field.

If you look at the marketshare figures, Linux and Windows are both chomping away rapidly at Unix marketshare.


There's no way, ever, MS would use a Unix kernel in Windows. There's no need to.

There's nothing wrong with the NT kernel. In fact, it tends to be a far better design than most Unixes.

The difference is NT has been around 10 years and Unix about 30. Seeing as Unix has 20-odd years of constant use ahead of MS, it's pretty sad how many vulnerabilities it still has.

Wait... I thought that XP and NT used a Unix kernel

[Asher]

No.

Unix's kernel designs are actually pretty obsolete. They are, after all, relics from the dark age of computing.

They're all pretty poor with modern applications like gaming and multimedia, as well as basic things like latency to user input.

[Asher]

I should note that the kernel MacOS X uses is really good, and is not a traditional Unix kernel (hence why Linus hates it).

[Whaleboy]

If you're trying to say something, just come out and say it.

I believe I did. You once told me that you have no problem with other people using linux, and that you only use Windows/MS because its a better tool for you. The more extreme, uncompromising and unaccepting your position becomes, the less statement becomes, being replaced by the suspicion that your love of all things MS is less rational than you purport it to be. Just a thought

[Asher]

So because I'm consistent in thinking that Windows is better than Linux, the less valid it is?

I'm "uncompromising" because there's nothing to compromise with -- most of the bullshit *nix advocates spew is patently so, and easily dispensed with.

If you ask any OS design prof, they'll tell you that Linux's monolithic kernel design is obsolete. Hell, Linus' profs at Helsinki University told him the same thing -- he didn't listen.

All of the other modern OSes out now are microkernel designs: Windows NT, MacOS X, BeOS, BSD, etc.

[Wraith]

--"And MS' security isn't "crap"."

Sure it is. 2003 is a step in the right direction, since it isn't shipped with everything turned on, but it's still crap for a server platform. Until MS allows me to install server without all their vulnerability-ridden bloat (like IE; a back-end database server has no need for this) they aren't paying a whole lot of real attention to security.

Of course, the thing they could do that would be the biggest boost to their security isn't a new thing. It's something that's been known as good at least since the Multics days. Keeping the data and the code strictly seperate... Microsoft's "the code is the data is the code!" push with VB, etc, is their single biggest security weakness.

If they change those two things, then I'll believe they're serious about security.

And before you try to attack me, about the only relatively mainstream OS I respect on the security front is OpenBSD.

--"With notable exceptions like the US nuclear aircraft carriers, right?"

Well, there was that one destroyer I think was, where Windows crashed and they had to be towed back to port. You'd think they'd have learned, but military contracts have a lot less to do with technical suitability than lobbying.

--"POSIX compliance is no longer a goal, etc"

Unless the US government has changed their procurement rules, I doubt this. The only reason Windows ever got POSIX compliance was so they could sell to the feds.

--" as well as basic things like latency to user input."

Hehe. Yeah, Windows is a great model there

Wraith
"Computer! Take me to the weasels!"
-- Zim ("Invader Zim")

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wraith
Sure it is. 2003 is a step in the right direction, since it isn't shipped with everything turned on, but it's still crap for a server platform. Until MS allows me to install server without all their vulnerability-ridden bloat (like IE; a back-end database server has no need for this) they aren't paying a whole lot of real attention to security.

IE doesn't install by default. That's why when that IE vuln. was fixed a while ago was "critical" on all OSes but Win2K3, where it was "moderate" since IE is an optional component.

--" as well as basic things like latency to user input."

Hehe. Yeah, Windows is a great model there

It sure as hell is.
Linux doesn't even come close to being a responsive as a GUI, even with the 2.5 kernel.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Asher

If you ask any OS design prof, they'll tell you that Linux's monolithic kernel design is obsolete.

Yo the last time I looked at the source code I was all, "I CANNOT believe they put this much crap in here!" I swear I must have scrolled down through vi for a good 30 minutes reading through all the crap.

Maybe Linus put an ascii picture of his dog in there or some ****. I dunno.

[Asher]

Ted

Somewhat related...what most people don't realize is how flexible and well-designed the NT kernel is. It's very portable (designed to be), and it's very small and efficient.

The entire OS on the Xbox, for example, uses the NT kernel and uses up 500KB, including all of the drivers.

Then all of the variations of the kernel: XP Embedded, XP Pro, Windows 2003 Server, Datacenter, etc. -- MS knows how to make kernels. The NT kernel is a marvel of modern software engineering, even.

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe Windows NT should be a modern Wonder of the World

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
Maybe Windows NT should be a modern Wonder of the World

hi ,

, small wonder hé




have a nice day