New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
lol @somik
he's not your "bro", guy!
VPS: Linux or Windows?More important Question:
Bro or not bro?
Learning here:
Colloquial terms do not work well with all geographies, and ages.
Noted sir Mr. @uptime Sir!
Ah, the age old, "To bro or not to bro, that is the question".
You seem to be a highbrow person [linky link to freedictionary] !
No wonder you asked,
"You high bro?"
Ahahaha, good one! Seems like I should have omitted the space when I asked the question!
even better if the highbrow person introduces themselves by omitting the space, no?
"I-am-a-high, bro"
Why not:
"hi-bro, I-m-highbro, you high-too-bro?"
Anyway, back on topic, windows servers: Unless they are on your local network, I don't see any way to use windows hello feature. Unless, wait, you don't mean though the super insecure RDP? I would rather keep my SSH password as "toor" then use RDP.
Why u should pick Windows OS if microsoft itself use linux?
I'm not highbrow. About the most highbrow thing with me is that I'm sometimes enjoying classical music (at home, not at the opera house).
But neither am I acutely lowbrow so I'm not used to address or to be addressed by strangers as "bro", "pal", "mate", or the like (but neither am I expecting or desiring to be addressed as "sir").
Re the thread topic I'm convinced that Windows machines should be remotely accessible ONLY in a tightly controlled environment (if at all) - which the internet is not.
On my personal computer, I mostly access Windows with a VM. Indeed, Windows should be kept in a controlled environment. Once I manage to do a proper GPU pass through to a windows VM on Linux (seen some tutorials, haven't tried), I will never boot Windows directly.
I'm a bit less harsh than you (although your position is well defendable). Ithink there are use cases for Windows, gaming being one, some GPU stuff probably too, and of course lots of business software.
I see no major problem in running them with Windows on hardware (or VM). Where i do see a problem is when those systems are on a carelessly managed network or even connected to the internet.
Re servers there might be valid reasons to run a Windows server on the internet but I personally know of none (that's acceptable). And I'd bet that most Windows VPS are used by people who simply don't know or care about security and just want the same they know from their desktop. When those systems are hacked I'm not even shrugging my shoulders; they simply get what they've asked for.
Virtualization technology is pretty good now, and if one can get GPU passthrough into the windows VM, probably the windows VM will perform very close to bare metal for gaming. That's the best of both worlds outcome in my view.
Wow, this conversation got deep
But, i now learned. Just get Linux bro
Objectively, that's not proven because there's no set standards all OS' can follow. Are you comparing out of box defaults or capabilities that could be turned on? CVE's? Pwn2own hacks?
On low end stuff. It can lag Windows due to shared target environment and take months or years to get certain features in the kernel. You can see performance across different OS's vary greatly across different metrics.
The misunderstanding here is that Linux lacks the ability to know when it needs to be rebooted. And when it does know it needs to reboot, it doesn't automatically or make it really apparent. Having nothing to tell you you need to reboot is not the same as being told you don't need to reboot. Many people don't reboot after upgrading kernels or security libraries and unaware they are not in fact patched. This happened several times over the years for shared libraries like openssl. I also need to logout and login again after certain changes on Linux, it's not immune to reboots or needing to reload low level stuff.
@TimboJones
I don't like it but I have to agree with you. Most of what @Cloudware said is a mixture of belief and opinion.
Except for a few exotic OSs that are commercial and have been designed explicitly to be secure (and even that is questionable) I know of only one OS that can justifiably claim at least some security: OpenBSD - and that largely not due to its design but due to its implementation.
If pressed to name a second halfway secure OS I'd say Windows rather than linux - but with a really big "but": the drivers and most software because those are of very much lower quality. I'll also say why I'd name Windows (to be precise, its core). It is because Microsoft began quite some years ago to learn from its mistakes and they invested big money into software safety, usually in cooperation with some of the best universities (like INRIA). One relatively well know result of all that work is the Z3 SAT/SMT solver that is considered to be among the best if not even the first choice for static verification.
If I look objectively and professionally at it I can't but note that Microsoft has a much better "factory" than the linux project which, if at all, still uses rather primitive tools for verification (if at all. usually they do just bug hunting and some testing and better linting).
I'd strongly suggest to let go the simplistic assumption that foss equals secure and good but closed source equals to insecure and bad. That's simply not tenable.
Linux is a nice and useful OS and I myself use it for much of my work but it's not "better" than Windows. I (and many others) personally happen to like it more as it matches my requirements much better than Windows - but that doesn't mean that it's better.
Btw. one reason for that is that "better" means different things to different people. I myself avoid using Windows whenever possible but I can understand and see valid reasons for other people preferring Windows.
Windows is good, if you want to ddos.
And Linux is good, if you want to start your hosting offer in here
Security aside, it is really much easier to bend Linux to your will with shell. I am not much of a Windows powershell exp, but I don't think Windows comes close in this aspect
Careful now, some people who's username starts stats with J, contains S and ends with G don't like being spoken in a friendly manner. Lol.
It's just a neutral and friendly way of speaking. Get used to it.
Let the flame war WINDOWS VS LINUX begin
No. Maybe you should get used to address strangers politely and to develop a richer understanding of how to be friendly.
Btw, I'm in no way against you, neither do I dislike you. I simply reject to be torn into a "cultural" stratum and habits that are certainly not mine.
@poisson
If that is the case then not for the shell itself but rather for reasons of "accessability" of "tuning screws". In Unix/Linux almost everything is configured by some kind of plain text file while in Windows things are splattered all over the place, diverse files at diverse locations plus the registry. And, of course, with Unices one can even configure and build a kernel while with Windows that's off limits. One should see however that being able to touch or change the kernel is both, negative and a blessing; in the case of Windows probably more a blessing.
I don't think that this will turn into a war. Simple reason: We are not fighting against one or the other but we are looking quite calmly and objectively at both.
Gotta agree with this whole-heartedly. The average Windows user should not have the ability to touch the kernel.
Why should there be one? I use both, just that I prefer to keep one on a much tighter leash.
Windows is always a sensitive topic on LET as of what I have seen.
What if, we were to grind regular beans, instead of coffee beans?
What if Paradoxurus hermaphroditus stopped eating coffee cherries?
that is surely some (decaffeinated) food for thought as this year of the shitweasel lurches towards its logical conclusion
Linux should be more stable in the long run. If you are able to run all the applications you need on Linux, you should stick with Linux, it has a smaller footprint though a bit of a learning curve as compared to Linux.
Windows is also quite stable these days but constantly requires restarts due to updates. But this would not be an issue if you run a cluster instead of a single Windows instance.