I’ve used Windows XP Pro for about 5-1/2 years. During that time I have had to reinstall at least twice a year, more likely 3 to 4 times on average.

About the same time, a friend built a computer for his wife and installed a then-current version of Linux (I don’t recall, but think it was Debian).

On my Windows machine, and on others I am familiar with, some were turned off after using, others were left on. All required a complete reinstallation at least once per year.

My friend’s Linux machine was never turned off. It ran for well over a year without crashing, eating itself, or whatever description you prefer.

What finally brought it down? He lives out in the country. Someone in a car wrecked near his house, knocking the power pole down. They were without power for about 4 hours. Battery backup was meaningless.

Maybe some of the current Windows versions will run for a year without problems, but they certainly wouldn’t 5 years ago.

RTA. There are technical issues in it. Application settings, customization, updates and so on.

:)

Not to forget mentioning the incredible input from readers, including your mention of moving a data file while a process is open!

How about the technical merits? For example, try removing a data file while it is opened by a process. This simple trick cannot be done on Windows (and is a necessary component of secure temporary files on Unix, where the file is deleted immediately after it is opened, but the handle stays valid until all handles pointing to the file have been closed).

How about the technical superiority of the software development tools on Linux? Yes, they’re Free, but they also run circles around the Windows equivalents when it comes to supporting the latest standards (e.g. C++0x).

Speaking of standards compliance, how about all of the tools which use standard formats? DOZENS of email clients which inter-operate using the various mailbox standards/RFCs, whereas MS Outlook doesn’t inter-operate with anything other than other versions of MS Outlook.

Price and freedom are not the only benefits of Linux.

The radsoft link isn’t the best, but it’s one that struck me the most long ago.

Exaggerated? Probably.
Contributing to FUD? I wouldn’t think so, but I wouldn’t rule it out either.

There are better articles that point out what MS do with updates and restrictions imposed by the EULA. =P
Admittedly, I haven’t used Windows for nearly 10 years so I only keep track of really drastic issues that strike the OS.

@EatsWombats

I already know all that, but that isn’t what my point is. I don’t care what Microsoft, the NSA or whichever government department want to do, they aren’t the threat I am talking about.
Perhaps I’m not making myself clear o_0
and if that’s the case then I’d better point out the obvious ^_^.

When point #2 in the article I commented on stated “And, in reality, the Firewall on my Windows system is to stop suspicious software from calling out!” there are a few technicalities that made me raise an eyebrow.

1) Microsoft have access to/from just about every PC with Windows running on it–LEGITIMATELY–according to the EULA. I’m not going to be overly specific with how or what with, I’m just pointing out that they do, and usually via updates *WITH* the user’s knowledge.

2) The “tooleaky” test by Zensoft shows that all a program needs to do is masquerade as a legitimate one to bypass outgoing firewall filtering.

So by now if it’s not obvious, filtering outgoing connections is no easy job. All a virus/trojan/spyware needs to do is identify itself to the firewall as a permitted programme (for example, windows update) to gain outgoing network access.

Granted, Windows /is/ more secure with antivirus, firewall, spyware and adware protection installed, so I wouldn’t expect a black Friday or Armageddon with Windows computers if there was an outbreak of viruses. But in the case with Windows, more secure does not equate as secure.

:wq

While I don’t doubt that some companies have released software that contains questionable code, that perhaps skirts ethical issues, at the end of the day Caveat emptor prevails. It’s up to people to educate themselves. With regards to Operating Systems, we do have a choice. My network contains mainly Linux boxes and one Windows box.

Yes there are things I can do in Linux that I cannot in Windows. And while I favour (and prefer) Linux, the Windows box has not caused me any problems for about 4 months now.

Is any code in that Windows box accessing my system and reporting what it finds to another server? I don’t know. While I think such things are an invasion of privacy, in my case I’m not worried because my files are on a file server (Linux based). While I don’t think the average home user keeps a file server, I do think that if they are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

I suspect that the post at Radsoft might be exacerbatory in the way it’s phrased, possibly contributing to an environment of FUD. I don’t share the perspective of the writer, but I do agree that people should make themselves aware of the activities of their computers, stealthy or otherwise.

Sapere aude!

1. You are running pirated Microsoft software and the company has decided that you should no longer be able to do so with impunity. It has done this in the case of XBox recently. However, Microsoft is well aware of the advantages of piracy in establishing its products as market standards so it is relatively unlikely to take comparable actions on the desktop, but it reserves the right. Unless you assert that you have a right to pirate intellectual property this is not entirely unreasonable.

2. At the behest of the National Security Agency. In this case, Microsoft is likely to be able to compromise a specific system at the government’s request. Microsoft itself has neither the time nor the resources to take any interest in what you keep on your computer. (It’s business is making money).

3. Taking out security-compromised computers that represent a threat to Microsoft or to the US government–machines infected with malware. If MS has any such capability we may only know about it during a cyberwar. It is unlikely to be deployed in any way that reveals the capability ahead of time.

I don’t have a problem with any of that.

OMG Microsoft can delete software on my computer!! The sky is falling!!

Puhleaze.

a) Yes I know that, since the EULA refers to end users rather than developers/vendors. Also, (re: remote access would likely be locally initiated via an update function–which Microsoft probably has backdoors in) was pointed out by the link to radsoft. I posted the same link again below.

b) That was what I was exactly referring to when I mentioned the “tooleaky” test in my above post.

@UbuntuLinuxHelp

Hi again. The part I was referring to was in the EULA itself, and was pointed out by a group of hackers a couple of years ago called “Radsoft”. The proper link is:

http://www.radsoft.net/news/20.....5,00.shtml

I remember reading it when XP was about to be released and stuck to Win2K SP2 ever since then…

…that is until I switched to GNU/Linux.

I removed the link in your post as it was redirected to some sales page, it didn’t have the relevant content alluded to.
I did a Google search and could not find any relevant documentation that Microsoft has the right to access computers with Windows installed.
So… I’m not too sure that this is true. Does anyone else know? (Maybe I’m just using the wrong search terms?)

a) The violator would be the user not the vendor. However, the remote access would likely be locally initiated via an update function–which Microsoft probably has backdoors in, placed with the cooperation and knowledge of the NSA on an as needed basis (targeted machines rather than all).

b) Very unlikely since this could permit all kinds of security problems by compromising an upstream DNS. Although DNS is not likely to be the only means of authenticating incoming traffic as genuinely from Microsoft, a commercial firewall would not know about and reject traffic on the basis of many other criteria.

These are conjectures, but more plausible ones I think.

Yes in theory, however this is Windows. The EULA for later generations of Windows’ gives Microsoft the right to access the computer it is installed on, which means one of 2 things:

a) Firewall vendors are violating the Windows EULA by blocking Microsoft, or

b) Firewalls have been programmed to *NOT* block access to/from Redmond.

Zonealarm blocks outgoing connections for Windows. :) It can deny all outgoing connections if you configure it that way (which would also mean no web access).

For more information about how malware can get outbound connections, check out http://tooleaky.zensoft.com/

Example: on my work PC, there is an Office integration tool that has an “Install on demand” setting. At various times I’ll do something and it pops up the dialog to “insert the CD”. I have to hit Cancel 6 or 8 times, and while the dialog box is up, Explorer is not responding _at all_.

Other MS apps talk to each other, and if one is running a long task, all the others stop responding as well.

It’s not CPU limits; every non-MS app on the system is running just fine.

Linux ‘just works’ and Windows doesn’t, using the criteria that ‘just works means’ ‘does what I tell it to do’