Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

I hate windows.


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#1 oddflux

oddflux

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 380 posts
  • Location:cyberspace

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:51 PM

I just feel like bashing on windows, completely ignore this if you aren't up for bashing.

#include <bas.h>

I HATE WINDOWS!

Thanks.

#2 duper

duper

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 816 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:56 PM

Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?

#3 oddflux

oddflux

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 380 posts
  • Location:cyberspace

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:06 PM

That's irrelevant, binary/stack overflow protection schemes don't make an OS better.

That only emancipates its generally realized and demonstrated flaws, that windows is
CRAP.

Thanks.

#4 Ohm

Ohm

    I could have written a book with all of these posts

  • Members
  • 3,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:17 PM

Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?


OpenBSD.

#5 L33T_j0sH

L33T_j0sH

    SUP3R 31337

  • Members
  • 185 posts
  • Location:ALABAMA

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:19 PM

If anything, I would say that Vista is the worst of all Windows. Everyone I know that has Vista, has had nothing but problems with it. Windows XP was decent. But Linux is waaaaayyyyy better. I even have my 13 year old brother loving Linux.

#6 systems_glitch

systems_glitch

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Moderating Team
  • 1,669 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:22 PM

I've been helping a friend try to solve Vista issues lately. He's got a quad-core AMD Phenom machine, and Vista keeps bluescreening, complaining of a missing clock interrupt from a secondary processor. I don't know if it's a hardware problem (Linux runs fine with it) or a Vista problem, or a drivers-for-Vista problem.

Anyway, it pisses me off that his particular install of Vista idles with 1 GB RAM usage...granted, he has 8 GB of dual-channel RAM, so the system is still fast, but why's that necessary?

Also, with over 350,000 drivers, why is there still no support for nForce4 hardware RAID? Does anyone at Microsoft realize how irritating it is to have to install an old IDE DVD reader just to install Vista? Sure, it boots fine from a SATA DVD drive plugged into a RAID controller, but then it can't find any of the installation files, because it can't see the RAID controller.

Speaking of RAID, I understand, of course, that Vista can't very well include drivers for hardware that's not been created by the time of its release. And I'm /very/ glad Microsoft finally realized that requiring /floppy disks/ for RAID/SCSI/etc driver install at setup is impractical, and now allows CD, DVD, and even USB driver installation sources. But make the driver search program a little better! The Vista install checks the root directory of the device you select for the driver, and doesn't descend into any subdirectories. You can, of course, do it manually, but if you knew exactly where it was, auto-find would be pointless anyway.

#7 duper

duper

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 816 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:22 PM

Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?


OpenBSD.


OBSD is totally lacking in apps, games, and general usability when compared to Windows.

#8 Ohm

Ohm

    I could have written a book with all of these posts

  • Members
  • 3,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:24 PM

If anything, I would say that Vista is the worst of all Windows.


Apparently you're not familiar with Windows ME, the Operating System Microsoft refuses to admit they ever created.

#9 Ohm

Ohm

    I could have written a book with all of these posts

  • Members
  • 3,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:27 PM

Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?


OpenBSD.


OBSD is totally lacking in apps, games, and general usability when compared to Windows.


Windows is totally lacking tools, daemons and general competence when compared to OpenBSD.

#10 duper

duper

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 816 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:33 PM

Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?


OpenBSD.


OBSD is totally lacking in apps, games, and general usability when compared to Windows.


Windows is totally lacking tools, daemons and general competence when compared to OpenBSD.


Then why does nobody use OpenBSD? How about Linux? How many Linux distros have those anti-exploitation technologies out-of-the-box? Any that people actually use? Nowadays, Windows is more secure than Unix. Anybody that says otherwise is behind the times. I've been using Vista since it was released-- I have a lot less compatability issues and problems in general with it than I did with Linux.

#11 Ohm

Ohm

    I could have written a book with all of these posts

  • Members
  • 3,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 18 September 2008 - 07:16 PM

Then why does nobody use OpenBSD? How about Linux? How many Linux distros have those anti-exploitation technologies out-of-the-box? Any that people actually use? Nowadays, Windows is more secure than Unix. Anybody that says otherwise is behind the times. I've been using Vista since it was released-- I have a lot less compatability issues and problems in general with it than I did with Linux.


Plenty of people use OpenBSD. It doesn't get the same amount of exposure for a number of reasons. It's not easy to use unless you really know what you're doing (though they have some of the best documentation around). OpenBSD's project leader, Theo de Raadt is quite... abrasive. The OpenBSD community can be elitist or even hostile to people who even appear to be incompetent or didn't read the manual. The project is also caught up in a few political things, including losing government funding due to some anti-war statements made by de Raadt.

People do use OpenBSD, but there's a big difference between OpenBSD users and Linux users. Linux users seem to get caught up in the "cult" aspect of it, and actively try to convert people. OpenBSD people use OpenBSD because it solves some problem and they agree with the way OpenBSD does things. They don't go out and try to convert people, that would be pointless. If you don't already know about it, you probably shouldn't be using it.

Also, all of these security countermeasures you're going on about likely originated from or were first implemented and deployed on OpenBSD. Things like W^X were implemented in OpenBSD long before the NX bit even existed in x86 machines (and OpenBSD supported NX as early as it was available). Address space randomization was implemented early on. So were stack protections, which are enabled by default on every single binary compiled. They even go so far as to implement privilege separation in everything they possibly can. Regular audits (that actually bear fruit in the form of patches) are done in the entire source tree manually, by actual human beings. Apache is installed by default jailed in a chroot. The allocator used by the malloc function is randomized to prevent heap overflows. There are a lot more countermeasures, I can't remember them all! I don't think anything has more countermeasures enabled by default than OpenBSD.

But most of this is irrelevant. Countermeasures are not security. Countermeasures are the things you hope never need to be used. Countermeasures are the last threads of a rope holding you over a bottomless pit. Saying one OS is "more secure" than another is like saying one armored car is more secure than the other because it has shinier hubcaps. The real "security" of any OS comes down to individual situations, policies and processes used to deploy and run programs on these computers and of course the programs themselves. You can have the most secure OS in the world, but if it executes a program from user input without filtering, you just opened your door with million locks wide open.

Of course OpenBSD takes a complete approach to security. Not only are the countermeasures in place, but the services installed by default (which are considerable, but only OpenSSH is enabled by default) are engineered and audited to provide the complete "security package." Daemons and deployed in a safe manner for you, you have to go out of your way to get something insecure in OpenBSD. Though if you start deploying your own daemons, you're on your own as you are in any OS. This goes back to the whole "you'd better know what you're doing" thing.

#12 oddflux

oddflux

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 380 posts
  • Location:cyberspace

Posted 18 September 2008 - 07:28 PM

Who cares about it's security implementations.

I hate it because it's slow, because it's compilers and editors are all grusome looking, because it can't be
beffitting for me, when working.

OpenBSD has always been a pile of dung, not news.

#13 oddflux

oddflux

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 380 posts
  • Location:cyberspace

Posted 18 September 2008 - 09:22 PM

Thanks for your input.

#14 Savax

Savax

    H4x0r

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 18 September 2008 - 09:40 PM

I like windows because I have a job fixing it and the shitty hardware it runs on.

#15 IndexPhinger

IndexPhinger

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 481 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:192.168.0.254

Posted 18 September 2008 - 09:57 PM

I <3 Windows, Its never crashed on me because I tailor each install to exact specs of teh PC I built.

No additional Crap drivers...

Linux is too damn hard to use and usually ends up with me at a bash command prompt in total dumbfoundedness.

#16 Spyril

Spyril

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 588 posts
  • Location:North Dakota

Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:27 PM

Nowadays, Windows is more secure than Unix. Anybody that says otherwise is behind the times.

Do explain. The User Access Control and Mandatory Integrity Control are impovements, but there are still viruses and trojans and exploits written for Vista (and Windows Defender blows)

#17 BSDfan

BSDfan

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Banned
  • 300 posts

Posted 19 September 2008 - 08:00 AM

I dare say duper and oddflux have shit for brains.

#18 Lord Wud

Lord Wud

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 423 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 19 September 2008 - 08:41 AM

Maybe I'm just a dirty Hippie, but I use GNU/Linux because of the GPL.

#19 oblivion

oblivion

    I have the Phreak Phactor

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 19 September 2008 - 08:53 AM

yep linux rules!!

#20 duper

duper

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 816 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 19 September 2008 - 09:41 AM

Nowadays, Windows is more secure than Unix. Anybody that says otherwise is behind the times.

Do explain. The User Access Control and Mandatory Integrity Control are impovements, but there are still viruses and trojans and exploits written for Vista (and Windows Defender blows)


Virii, trojans, and exploits are written for every operating system. :pengydie:

Edited by duper, 19 September 2008 - 12:01 PM.





BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!