Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
oddflux

I hate windows.

137 posts in this topic

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

#include <bas.h>

I HATE WINDOWS!

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='duper' post='318549' date='Sep 18 2008, 06:56 PM']Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?[/quote]

OpenBSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ohm' post='318557' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:17 PM'][quote name='duper' post='318549' date='Sep 18 2008, 06:56 PM']Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?[/quote]

OpenBSD.
[/quote]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='L33T_j0sH' post='318559' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:19 PM']If anything, I would say that Vista is the worst of all Windows.[/quote]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='duper' post='318563' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:22 PM'][quote name='Ohm' post='318557' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:17 PM'][quote name='duper' post='318549' date='Sep 18 2008, 06:56 PM']Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?[/quote]

OpenBSD.
[/quote]

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ohm' post='318565' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:27 PM'][quote name='duper' post='318563' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:22 PM'][quote name='Ohm' post='318557' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:17 PM'][quote name='duper' post='318549' date='Sep 18 2008, 06:56 PM']Vista rules.. seriously, what *NIX distro has ASLR+DEP/NX+GS+SafeSEH enabled by default?[/quote]

OpenBSD.
[/quote]

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

Windows is totally lacking tools, daemons and general competence when compared to OpenBSD.
[/quote]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='duper' post='318567' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:33 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.[/quote]

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 [i]entire source tree[/i] 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. [i]Countermeasures are not security.[/i] 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 [i]complete[/i] 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Nowadays, Windows is more secure than Unix. Anybody that says otherwise is behind the times.[/quote]
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm just a dirty Hippie, but I use GNU/Linux because of the GPL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Spyril' post='318591' date='Sep 18 2008, 11:27 PM'][quote]Nowadays, Windows is more secure than Unix. Anybody that says otherwise is behind the times.[/quote]
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)
[/quote]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that most people hate on MS products because they want to look cool and try to be with the in-crowd.

For those of you who are against MS products: Create a complete operating system. Promote it. Make it better than Windows was, is, and ever will be. Make your OS more successful than Windows. Generate more gross yearly income than MS. Once you do that, I will believe you that Windows sucks. Until then, do us all a favor and shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in windows right now. I admit [b]I HATE IT A LOT!!!![/b] I cant wait till next month and the new ubuntu comes out and all. I am 100% excited about this. I ran opensuse 10 for a bit but I had some problems with it. Its ok though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason Windows has better hardware support is that it has a bigger market share. Easier to use, yes, better ... debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to be a Linux fanboy at their age, too, so I can totally understand where they're coming from--I just prefer Windows as my host OS now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='vector' post='318683' date='Sep 19 2008, 02:05 PM'][quote name='Spyril' post='318681' date='Sep 19 2008, 01:52 PM']The only reason Windows has better hardware support is that it has a bigger market share. Easier to use, yes, better ... debatable.[/quote]

who gives a shit what the reason is. thats irrelevant, im not going to not use an operating system that has way better hardware support because it got that way by default. see this is exatly my point, fanbois cant even point out a good thing about windows without trying to spin it into something bad. people need to stop being so narrow minded and one tracked. see i never bash windows or linux. why should i. i realize that they both have thier uses for different people, windows does not suck, linux does not suck, for me personnaly its no comparison, windows gets the things done the way i need them done, so my os of choice is windows. another person might have some things that he can only get done in linux, maybe because the price of a windows program is too expensive or becuase older hardware prevents him from using windows for that task, or a number of different reasons, but i would sound like a compete dipshit if i just came out and said "ZOMG LINUX IS SUX" but from my standpoint i could because i have no use for linux. but that dosnt mean it sucks.
[/quote]
Amen. I use linux as my main os, but I also have windows installed. You're right that it's pointless to argue what OS is better. No OS is really _better_ than another. It all boils down to the user, and what the user needs to use his or her OS for. Whatever gets the job done. However, installing, setting up, and learning to use linux can teach: persistence, patience, where to go for help, and how to get a job done. For some people who don't have those qualities or that knowledge, linux is a great learning experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0