What are the Main Reasons You Use Windows Instead of Linux?

I agree with that.

I presume that overall Linux is more stable and has fewer problems than Windows, which is definitely a good thing. But, for now I'll stick with Windows because of the software support, despite my long time hatred of both Bill Gates and Windows.

 

This is the same arrogance Mac users had regarding their OS and AVs. "You don't need an AV. Macs don't get infected." Linux isn't bulletproof. The apps that run on definitely aren't. If linux doesn't get past the idea that every security problem can be addressed at the kernel or by updating from infallible repositories, they're in for a very rude shock.

 

@noone_particular: I kind of agree re complacent attitudes among Linux users (c.f. Linux Mint). However, I'd politely point out that all MAC/HIPS software (all of it worth the price tag anyway) operates in the kernel, either compiled in or as a module at the same privilege level. And on both OSes a vulnerability in some other kernel driver will suffice to bypass the MAC driver.

So yes, unsafe kernel == unsafe OS. Obscurity sometimes helps, but it won't if the layer beneath your obscure security software contains a well known vulnerability.

 

@noone,

I think it was Linux Guru NGRhodes who mentioned it once, and that is you can use MAC (AppArmor) to limit how applications can connect to the network. Although a bit more cumbersome to set up, he's right, it can be utilized that way. At the very least with the ufw, a front end for iptables in Debian/Ubuntu-based distros,it is possible to restrict remote port and even remote ip connections, but of course the rules will apply for all apps. AppArmor can be used for further restrictions beyond what the firewall can offer.

 

UFW/iptables outbound restrictions are not useful IMO. They won't help you in any event I can think of.

MAC on Linux is really oriented more towards servers. It works on desktops, but is an utter pain to set up, and IMO not really worth it.

Also...

On Windows you can force a process running at the same privilege level to load e.g. a DLL that gives you a shell. Yes, I've done this using Metasploit; it takes two seconds and no brainpower at all, and automating it is trivial. This is why "pure" outbound firewalls are not useful - an attack can just inject stuff into any or all of the the processes your firewall allows, and get a shell that way.

(On Linux OTOH this doesn't work so easily. You can signal processes on the same privilege level, but injecting code into them is actually nontrivial.)

 

malware attempting connections to ports like 81-82, 8080, etc...

I managed to figure it out well enough to provide considerable additional security to my Linux 'net-facing apps, so I reckon most anyone can

If this is the type of attack someone is subjected to, then admittedly the firewall is bypassed - fair enough - but I guess everything else is, too. For the off-the-shelf stuff, I see the firewall offering offering some protective value.

That's good to know

 

np, it's not arrogance at all, just a bit of common sense, and most notably, a lack of unnecessary paranoia... nothing is bulletproof, never has been, never will be.

 

Prediction: Linux users have nothing to worry about for a great many years. The reality of it is the user base is far too low for it to be considered a viable target.

To use a home analogy, A Windows box is like owning a home in the middle of downtown Detroit. A Linux box is like the same home situated in the top of a mountain in the Canadian wilderness. Thieves don't venture there.

 

Linux desktop users have little to fear, their security is already, at worst, on par with Windows (even Ubuntu comes with a series of Apparmor profiles on by default, and the sandboxing that programs like Chrome can make use of just destroys Windows' implementations).

They won't be attacked for a long long time.

And, if they were, tools already exist that would make attacks very annoying. Basic policies of the operating systems to automatically patch and distribute software through repositories makes exploitation much more tenuous.

While Linux may not be uber secure right now, the tools to make it so already exist, and typically research happens on Linux first. It's just way easier to secure.

@GJ,

I use outbound filtering, but I agree - it's much more useful when it's done strictly through user permissions or MAC because it's really just adding to already placed limitations.

MAC, eh, yes it's more for servers, but because those servers focus on a single service typically and MAC works well there. On desktops it's the same thing - you can take your DHCP and logging services, your DNS resolver, etc, and MAC them - and distros do this. Most of the attack surface on a desktop will require a kernel exploit on top of RCE.

 

@HM, re outbound filtering: each to his/her own I guess. Personally I might want to use CLI tools to connect to arbitrary domains and ports from my user account; outbound iptables rules would make that needlessly difficult.

I guess I can see some programs that would benefit - PDF readers, LibreOffice, other cases where blocking all network access could prevent payload execution - but it would have to be all network access.

 

Well, on top of that, you can use -d / -s to pin a user to specific IP addresses. My DNSCrypt user can *only* connect to 2 IP addresses - that makes an attack very annoying.

In cases where you can get very very restrictive, it's nice. Otherwise, if you're talking about a user where you run many programs (default user) and you're just blocking by ports - not so useful. Certainly not useful when it's done per-application.

Naturally, this isn't the best protection ever - an attacker will still have access locally and they can script around this to an extent. But, if someone has already taken the time to harden their local system, it starts making a bit more sense to focus on MAC/ IPTables at that time (though of course not before then).

 

This is a weird answer. I find myself the last couple years using Windows more often Linux.

I can install Linux get it usable & mildy customize it.

But I'm a tweaker. And I know how to tweak Windows. Recoveries editing the registry the whole shebang.

I fall short in Windows in deployment & networking.

But my knowledge is very limited in Linux. I find myself looking up solutions to self created situations. But in Windows it is rare that I have to look up the solutions, I just know.

Now if you yanked 100 random people off the street who were carrying laptops. I'd say know more about Linux than 90 of them, maybe even 95.
I have maybe 10 or more different distro discs now. And every few months I toss out 6-10 superseded/obsolete discs to tidy up. I've ran over a 100 different distros in live mode. Installed 30-50 different distros.

After all these years I still have to be very careful about partitioning, dicrectories, locations of files etc. For me it's just hard to follow the OS tree in Linux to get to the place I want to edit, check or replace. And backing up Linux other than PCLOS's mylivecd is a chore & complicated in almost all distros. If Linux partitions were labeled more transparently that would make it easier.

Right now I dual boot Win7x64 & PCLOSx64. On my main rig.

 

I try out different distros every so often.

On multiple laptops and desktop machines, I've never had Linux just install and run properly without having to resort to command line. I shouldn't have to search forums to find out how to get it to work with a commonplace wifi card. I've been especially surprised by how buggy Ubuntu is.

Windows just works.

 

There 3 main reason:

1.
End-Users are too lazy to familiar with unfamiliar things it's a xenophobia,
So I'm not surprise why half people in the world
never open their heart to linux.
End-User are born for "buy to use" not "learn to use".
Once you step in Linux you're already a dev users and you'll find
a new activity to tweaks, modding cure off your boredom.

2.
Motherboards providers never create driver for linux or Mac
It'll never be release on their official sites even AMD vga drivers.
You have to find it manually which End-User hate it.
However luckily that linux these day have auto detect for some drivers.

3.
When install programs in linux you have to confirm password everytime.
This is what annoyed End-Users. You've to understand that end-users
hate wasting their time to learn on things.

About game & softwares is not a point anymore I've explore
many freeware, open source for games & softwares.
They already release both installer for Linux & Windows.

 

I was born as Windows user

 

Disagree. I learn if I want to learn, Linux have not to force me: my hobbies are my hobbies, my fun is my fun.

Unfortunately true, for graphic cards too. But often can be solved.

No problem for me. HIPS user.

 

My older laptop uses Windows instead of Linux because Netflix is not officially supported on Linux. My newer laptop used for day to day work runs Linux only.
I think there are several resasons why people use Windows over Linux and i can certainly relate and sympathize with them:

• On Linux machines lot of things still don't work out of the box. In Windows or Macintosh you can just plug in your mp3 player, phone, etc and these will be automatically recognized and work out of the box or the manufacturer will have a CD to install the device. In Linux things either work or they don't and if they don't you need to do some research to get them to work which is A annyoing and B 99.9% of people won't do it.

• Games and Software support is another huge problem. Games was the primary reason why I didn't use Linux for so many years. Now that Im older I don't play games anymore and migration to Linux became possible.

• Bugs Bugs and more Bugs. The first time I installed Ubuntu several months ago I was welcomed by a nice Crash message. I worked with Linux Mint Debian Edition for 2 months or so and I recently dumped it because of Dropbox installation destroying my entire system. Something that would simply not happen on Windows or Macintosh. Linux Mint 16 appears to be stable but I wonder how much longer will I have to wait until a problem happens. Of course these are all solvable but to be honest I simply don't feel like doing all that research. I tried installing CentOS which suppose to be the most stable Linux but I found no easy way to install software. Maybe it is just way over my head, maybe I didn't do enough research but why should I?

Now I was a Windows Fanatic for at least 15 years and I loved Windows just like a lot of users in here but I think there are few things that people who got frustrated with Linux should keep in mind:

• Linux is still not a complete Windows replacement for a Power User unless you are willing to put in some work into troubleshooting and implementing work arounds. If you are a power user and lazy like me you may want to keep Linux on one laptop and Windows on another.

• Linux is faster than Windows, less bloated, runs cooler and the end user doesn't have to worry about looking up for drivers all over the internet. Hardware is automatically recognized and works right out of the box.

• Browsing the Web on Linux is truely a bliss. Firefox and Chromium seem to crash less, work faster and FF has 64 bit support on Linux. And of course you have the peace of mind that you are running Linux and that you don't need to worry about infections anywhere as much as Windows or Macintosh. You are no longer a slave to antivirus or hips or other security software. And of course the peace of mind that nothing gets installed on your laptop without you typing in your password. No registry entry or process is going to sneak through. Truely surfing the web on Linux gives you a peace of mind unlike any other operating system.

• Libre Office, Thunderbird, VLC player and other open source software work flawlessly on Linux. I have never had any of these crash on me. And you can also see how natively to UI works on Linux. It's almost like running iTunes on Macintosh and then running it on Windows. You can see the difference right the way. In addition there are a lot of media players that just seem to work so much better than whatever Windows has right now.

• UI for Linux has a lot of flavors, from Windows 8 like menu of Gnome 3 to Macintosh style menu in XFCE and to classic Windows menu of Linux Mint and others. There is something that will make anybody feel comfortable. I have personally fallen in love with MATE and Cinammon style menus which are just like Windows 7 but with a lot more thought and logic put behind it. You can see how well polished the start menus are in Linux. The work really shows, especially in Linux Mint

• Finally if you are concerned about privacy, Linux and other open source software is a way to go.

So as for me, I don't think I will be using Windows in the near future. The Windows 8 UI was a complete flop. Coming from Windows 7 it was easier for me to adjust to Linux Mint UI than Windows 8 tiles and start menu. My most likely set up will probably always remain Linux as primary laptop for web surfing, office applications and email. And for now Windows 7 on my netbook to support Netflix playback, non-Linux software and hardware that doesn't work out of the box in Linux. I can see my Windows 7 to be my last Windows machine, my next laptop will be a Macintosh to do little gaming, better iphone support and iTunes for media playback.

And on the last note, I would suggest people keep their minds open towards Steam. It might not only bring more games and software support for Linux but also provide the out of the box experiance for power users expect. But it may take awhile for this to happen. Steam is still only in version 1.0.