Even More Windows FUD

I received this comment that someone posted online. In case anyone is wondering, I try to keep the authors’ names and/or usernames of different comments, articles, blog posts, etc. I respond to anonymous.

The comment was riddled with misinformation and untruths about Windows. I will place the comment author’s comments below in red. My responses are in black. Please note that I mean no disrespect to the comment’s author in anything I say.

It is funny because if you walk into any major company, even Microsoft, you will find a majority of the servers running Linux.

While there are a lot of companies that make use of Linux (and probably have several Linux servers), I highly doubt that Microsoft uses many (if any) Linux servers themselves. Do you have a source to verify this?

It is also funny that they think Windows is more secure.

What makes you think Linux is any more secure than Windows? You did not provide any technical arguments.

Windows has not fixed any major security holes in years because it is impossible to do so. The software runs in the operating system instead of a sort of run time container.

  1. To say that Windows “has not fixed any major security holes in years” would mean that Microsoft does not give security patches to Windows. This is, of course, a false statement.
  2. Why would it be “impossible” to fix major security issues in Windows? You gave no technical arguments to backup your statement.

Open Source ensures that any security holes found can be fixed within minutes of finding them. Windows has to officially release patches for every fix and those fixes can only be made by Microsoft.

Not true! The Bash ShellShock vulnerability took days to get all the official patches out.

“Initial solutions for Shellshock do not completely resolve the vulnerability. It is advised to install existing patches and pay attention for updated patches to address CVE-2014-6271, CVE-2014-7169, CVE-2014-7186, CVE-2014-7187, CVE-2014-6277, and CVE-2014-6278. Red Hat has provided a support article with updated information.”   —   Source:  https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA14-268A

In other words, the current patches are not a 100% guarantee that the ShellShock vulnerability has been completely patched.

I don’t think you understand fundamentally how the Windows operating system works from the perspective of a low level developer. If you look at the Windows source you will see that it has almost not been touched since XP.

Not true!  Windows 7 alone had the following features added to the OS such as:

Final point is that Ubuntu, which in the Linux community is considered Windows with a custom theme, has that title for a reason. Besides being pure Linux on the backend, the front end is basically the same as Windows.

Ubuntu Linux is not a complete replacement for Windows. There are many programs (such as:  Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Word, Visual Studio)  that either have no Linux equivalent, or the “equivalent” software program is not up to par.

It is also one of the biggest Linux communities in the world. If you have a problem, you can find a solution normally within a few minutes by asking online in any Linux community weather it is programming or general usage. I should know because I use Linux as my main OS.

You can usually find quick answers to Windows questions online.

You have the question as well, infrequent tested patching or ultra frequent fixes that can quickly be refined by a large userbase that puts it through actual non-simulated testing. The answer is obvious.

Community testing of patching (a.k.a fixes) is a good way to know if what you fixed is actually fixed! However, this does not mean that professional testers are “worse” than community testers. In other words, don’t assume community software testers are “better” than professional software testers.

————————————-

Of course I use both Windows and Linux myself and am not a Windows fanboy, but it is a pet peeve of mine to hear incorrect Linux statements made from people as well as Windows FUD spread by people who do not know what they are talking about.


Posted in Computers, Operating Systems

More Windows FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt)

Today I received a notification containing a comment someone posted to one of the OS talk websites I have visited before.

This person commented with an obvious bias against Windows and really did not make good arguments for Linux. By the way, this is in no way a “Windows is better than Linux” blog post (I use both Windows and Linux myself), nor do I mean any disrespect to the comment’s author.

Here is the comment (word for word) posted in red:

“on hardware support, you may think Windows is better, but it’s not. Windows is worse, MUCH worse. it does have ok hardware support, and there are a lot of devices that support it, but it’s not the manufacturers writing the drivers, it’s the community, and it’s built in to the kernel. Linux does support more hardware and supports them better. a good example is the graphics driver. on Windows, the default graphics driver is pretty bad, 3D Acceleration is not supported, OpenGL doesent work and, Colors on some chipsets are terrible (Like 4 or 8 Colors), and the resolution is low. the worst you will get with most linux distro’s is a low resolution, but most distro’s work pretty good out of the box.”

I am going to respond to this a little bit at a time. My responses will of course be in black.

————

“on hardware support, you may think Windows is better, but it’s not. Windows is worse, MUCH worse.”

How is Windows “much worse” in regard to hardware support? Almost all consumer-grade hardware (from the last 20+ years) have / still work with Windows. You need to give a source for what you claimed. I suspect this argument is FUD.

“it does have ok hardware support, and there are a lot of devices that support it, but it’s not the manufacturers writing the drivers, it’s the community, and it’s built in to the kernel.”

Pretty much to get the optimum performance out of your hardware, you need to use the manufacturer’s drivers for your hardware (that goes for Windows, Linux, UNIX, etc.)   Community reverse-engineered drivers probably will not cut it.

“Linux does support more hardware and supports them better.”

While Linux does support more hardware on paper, realistically most of the hardware everyday people and businesses use will work with Windows. Windows is not limited to x86 hardware. Both Windows Phone and Windows Embedded Compact work with ARM processors. Also, Windows Embedded Compact works with MIPS and SuperH architectures as well.

Saying that Linux “supports them better” is a blanket statement that should not be made without credible proof. I suspect this argument is FUD.

“a good example is the graphics driver. on Windows, the default graphics driver is pretty bad, 3D Acceleration is not supported, OpenGL doesent work and, Colors on some chipsets are terrible (Like 4 or 8 Colors), and the resolution is low.”

While 3D acceleration is not supported out of the box on Windows (referring to Microsoft’s Basic Windows Display Driver), you should be going ahead and installing the video card’s manufacture’s drivers anyway.

Yes, I know about nouveau on Linux (nouveau is an attempt to build an open-source Nvidia compatible video driver, by reverse engineering Nvidia’s proprietary Linux drivers), but this does not work as well as Nvidia’s proprietary video drivers.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by “Colors on some chipsets are terrible (Like 4 or 8 Colors)”. Most modern hardware (even back 10 years ago) would not be that bad out-of-the-box on Windows. I suspect this argument is FUD.

“the worst you will get with most linux distro’s is a low resolution, but most distro’s work pretty good out of the box.”

Same goes for Windows.


Posted in Computers, Operating Systems

Response to “Why Arguing That Windows is Better Than Linux Makes You Look Silly”

This is a response to the web article entitled “Why Arguing That Windows is Better Than Linux Makes You Look Silly” found at (https://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/768257-why-arguing-that-windows-is-better-than-linux-makes-you-look-silly).  Please note that I mean no disrespect to the article’s author in anything I say.

Update 02-27-2020  :  It appears the author of the article I responded to – a few years back – has deleted his article.

Author’s words in red and my responses are in black.

1. “Reason #1: As soon as you mention one distro, all the fanboys go insane claiming you’ve made the wrong choice.”

You didn’t just hallucinate.

The #1 reason to not use Linux, stated by a technology writer for both ZDNet and CNN, is that other people use Linux also. Some of those people have opinions. And you, with your obvious inability to exist within a universe with other people in it, will simply collapse into a fetal position and give up using computers altogether.

Bottom of the barrel reasoning. Heck. Not even in the barrel. In a box next to the barrel with the words “just some fish or something” scribbled on the top with a sharpie. But let’s jump past that relatively catastrophic level of goobery-ness and tackle some of the more reasonable (at first glance) points that are made in many of these sorts of articles.

While I agree that not every Linux user goes “nuts” when you mention a distribution they do not prefer, having several Linux distributions is really not the best way to gain support for desktop users.

Linux has so many different distributions that it is virtually impossible for any one software company to support their software on Linux (a few try though).

One Linux distribution (e.g., Ubuntu 15.04) might have different software libraries than say CentOS 7 or even Debian. That is why you find software companies that have Linux software only supporting a limited selection of Linux distributions. In other words, you may not be able to use your “favorite” Linux distribution, since the software you need to use is not supported on it.

If you don’t mind Linux having 80+ different distributions, that is fine. However, please do not expect the rest of the world to not see all of those 80+ distributions as confusing and intimidating (I don’t, but other less technical users will).

2. “Windows has more software.”

One of the common mantras in making the case against Linux, particularly on the Desktop, is that Windows simply has more software available than Linux. In fact, I don’t even think you can use the phrase “Windows is better than Linux” in an article without trotting out this tired old argument.

This is usually backed up by an example of an important piece of software that doesn’t run on Linux, such as Adobe Photoshop.

There’s just one problem with that argument: It’s not at all true. Want to run Adobe Photoshop (or the vast majority of software often used to make this argument)… you can. With Wine.

Sure, you could make the argument that not all Windows software runs perfectly using Wine on Linux. Then again… I could make that same argument about Windows software not always running well on Windows itself. Which would be a far more damning point to make. And, because I’m not the type to kick a guy when he’s down, I’m just going to move on…

Actually the majority of software available to the everyday user out-there is Windows only. Using “wine” for Linux is not the go-to solution for everything.

Contrary to what you stated, most Windows software either does not run correctly or at all on “wine”. Why would someone go to Linux, if they have software that requires Windows in the first place?

Software companies probably would not give you support for their software, if they found out that you were using their Windows-only software via “wine” on Linux.

“Sure, you could make the argument that not all Windows software runs perfectly using Wine on Linux. Then again… I could make that same argument about Windows software not always running well on Windows itself.”

You are comparing apples to oranges here.  What does Windows-only software running on Windows itself have to do with Windows software running under “wine” on Linux?  These are two separate topics altogether!

3. “Windows has more commercial support.”

This one gets pulled out fairly often.

The idea here is that people and companies want professional support – the ability to pick up the phone and call someone when they have a problem. This is, obviously, super critical. Especially for big businesses who have mission-critical work happening on their computers.

When this gets written, I feel like the writer wasn’t even trying. This argument is immediately disproven by a quick Google search for “linux enterprise support” and checking out the number of options on that first page of results alone. Multiple high profile companies offering various support options for both Linux servers and desktops.

In other words, “Lots and lots of commercial support for Linux”.

In this case, it really is a matter of what a company is currently using in its infrastructure. If they use Windows software to run their business, they are going to want to use Windows. If they use Linux software, then they are going to pick a professional Linux distribution that they can get support with.

4. “Windows is pre-installed.”

Ah, now here’s a valid point. At least it would be, if installing operating systems were difficult at this point in human history. It also assumes nobody has ever had to re-install Windows which, I am pretty sure, is a task that has been done at least 50 times by every man, woman and child on planet Earth (on average).

Also… the logic here is “You already have this thing… so don’t worry about that other thing that might be better. Also buy some new versions of the thing you have. But, seriously. Don’t think about other, better things.”

People are not looking to install a completely different OS (that they probably are not familiar with) when they buy a new computer. Sure tech savvy guys might wipe Windows off a new system and put Linux on, but don’t expect the “everyday” person to want to do that.

Also, if you are just installing Linux “just because it is not Windows” then that is a silly reason to begin with. I use whatever OS best suits my needs. If that happens to be Linux, then its Linux. If Windows, then it’s Windows.

5. “Windows is easier to use.”

The core of the argument here usually revolves around how it is impossible to use Linux without spending all day hunched over the terminal and typing archaic commands into Emacs. Which is both completely wrong (Linux desktop distros tend to be astoundingly easy to use nowadays), and also a wee bit insulting for the reader.

If a person is reading a technology article comparing two different operating systems… my guess is they don’t have a panic attack the moment they need to type two words on their keyboard. I know, call me crazy.

I could go on and on with this but I think the point has been made. It sort of feels like all of these “X Reasons Windows is Better than Linux” articles are regurgitated versions of similar articles written in 1998. And, in the end, simply make the writers look uninformed about Linux.

Also goobery. It makes them look a bit goobery.

I have used Linux for over a decade. Both desktop and server distributions still require the user to be somewhat knowledgeable about the terminal.

Saying “Which is both completely wrong (Linux desktop distros tend to be astoundingly easy to use nowadays), and also a wee bit insulting for the reader.” is not entirely correct. However you are entitled to your opinion.

“It sort of feels like all of these “X Reasons Windows is Better than Linux” articles are regurgitated versions of similar articles written in 1998. And, in the end, simply make the writers look uninformed about Linux.”

Linux has many advocates involved with its use and development. I have talked with several myself on the Internet. In my experience, roughly 90% of the time, Linux advocates trash Windows and parade Linux, but never really give any factual or technical reasons beyond “Linux is more secure than Windows…” or “Linux is more stable than Windows…”.

Both of those statements are nonsense, and would not make an individual or company want to switch to Linux (no technical arguments in those statements), nor do they make the Linux advocate saying them look smart.

I actually had one Linux advocate who implied that open-source software cannot be backdoor-ed by the NSA.  How could he know that the NSA hasn’t and / or cannot have people working undercover to infiltrate open-source software? He cannot. He is just making an assumption (and a dangerous one at that!).

In the end, it’s usually the Linux advocates who talk uninformed about both Linux and Windows. They even will go as far as to insult people who have a differing opinion. I am not saying this to be mean, but that has been my experience.


Posted in Computers, Internet and Servers, Operating Systems

hMailServer – Free Open Source E-mail Server for Microsoft Windows

As a server administrator, I have to make sure that I use software that is both sound (security wise) and performs optimally for my users (doesn’t randomly crash, not slow to work, etc.)

Now I know many people have their own ideas of what software to use and what works for them, but in this blog post I am going to give a quick, brief overview of a e-mail server software that I have been using for a long time…called hMailServer.

Now hMailServer is not your “answer to everything” in regards to e-mail hosting, but it is a light-weight, secure (I have never known to be hacked; also, it has almost no security problems to speak of), and performs adequately.

Some of the features of hMailServer are as follows:

  •  1)  Easy Installation and Configuration

Installing hMailServer (with the SQL-Lite database option *) takes almost no time at all. Total install time for me is under one minute. Configuring hMailServer takes a little bit of time, but with a GUI (Graphical User Interface) available for server administrators to take advantage of, configuration is a snap! (think:  no manual editing of text files on a computer terminal!)

* If you are configuring hMailServer to use a MySQL or Microsoft SQL database, it will take a little bit more time to setup this configuration. However, the MySQL / Microsoft SQL database configuration is accomplished using a GUI for ease of setup.

  • 2) Great Security

hMailServer provides great security for the server administrator.

This includes:

  • A)  Virtual E-mail Addresses

This is good since the e-mail users don’t have actual user accounts on the server. They just have “pretend” (virtual) user accounts. This helps with keeping the server safe from intruders since the e-mail users don’t really have access to the server. They just have access to their own e-mail account(s).

  • B)  SMTP Relay Protection

Prevents people from using your server as a e-mail relay without prior authorization.

  • C)  Built-in “firewall”

You can control what the outside would can or cannot do with your e-mail server. This helps especially when you have backup mail servers that need direct access to your main e-mail server without having to bother authenticating first, or you have computers in your network or VPN that need direct access without first authenticating.

  • D)  Anti-Virus Scanner Integration

You can have hMailServer transfer received e-mails to an anti-virus scanner to check for viruses in the e-mail.

  • E)  Built-in Blacklist

You can access blacklist DNS servers to help with combating SPAM. This helps catch a lot of SPAM!

  • 3)  Integration with OS and other Software

hMailServer has a COM library which gives server administrators the ability to write scripts and integrate hMailServer into their current IT infrastructure.

  • 4)  Other Interesting Features
    • Includes a POP3, IMAP, and SMTP server all in the same program (saves time setting up by having all three servers in one software program)
    • Built-in backup and restore system
    • SSL  /  TLS  support
    • Integration support for SpamAssassin (a very popular anti-spam software program)
    • Built-in routing support
    • Built-in MX (mail server) backup support
    • Built-in Multi-homing support

As you can see, hMailServer is a very good e-mail software that has the potential to work for many people in many different environments.

Now am I saying that hMailServer is the best e-mail server to use, and that you should get rid of the software you are using in production and switch to hMailServer? Of course not! However, I would recommend for you to at least try out hMailServer (e.g., on a Windows virtual machine that is *not* being used for production) and see if it meets your needs.

hMailServer Homepage:  https://www.hmailserver.com/


Posted in Internet and Servers, Software

‹ Older Posts Newer Posts ›