Will Unix-based operating systems overtake the M$ Windows monopoly someday?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


One thing about Winblows compared to OS X is that Apple rarely releases any security fixes for it's operating system, while M$ releases security fixes for Winblows just about every day!

That's one thing that scares me about Winblows. OS X is just a safer, more secure operating system. Don't believe me? Try hacking into a Winblows computer remotely and see how easy it is; then try hacking into a Mac OS X computer remotely and see how hard it is!

hi ,

seconded

have a nice day

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
One thing about Winblows compared to OS X is that Apple rarely releases any security fixes for it's operating system, while M$ releases security fixes for Winblows just about every day!

Holy Hyperbole Batman.

There are plenty of security vulnerabilities in OS X

Disproportionately many for how small and insignificant the userbase is, and considering how much less of a target Apple is compared to Microsoft.

That's one thing that scares me about Winblows. OS X is just a safer, more secure operating system. Don't believe me? Try hacking into a Winblows computer remotely and see how easy it is; then try hacking into a Mac OS X computer remotely and see how hard it is!

It's a deal. I'll give you my IP, you give me yours.
Give me 24 hours and I'll add a file to your desktop.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Asher

Holy Hyperbole Batman.

There are plenty of security vulnerabilities in OS X

Disproportionately many for how small and insignificant the userbase is, and considering how much less of a target Apple is compared to Microsoft.


It's a deal. I'll give you my IP, you give me yours.
Give me 24 hours and I'll add a file to your desktop.

hi ,

pffff , that stuff was fixed the day after , meaning june the 7 2002 , .......

have a nice day

[Asher]

"that stuff" I linked to a whole bunch of them, there's tons more too but I believe my point was illustrated.

MacOS's security vulnerabilities aren't nearly as well-published as MS ones because nobody cares. It's the same reason Linux vulnerabilities outnumber Windows ones, but the mainstream press never talks about those either.

It gives Linux and MacOS users a false sense of security, which coupled with fairly insecure operating systems and programs themselves, is a larger risk than running Windows and fearing how insecure it is because of the bad publicity.

[Lord Merciless]

Every tech professionals know that Unix is superior to Windows in both performance and security. That's why all mission critical enterprise systems never, ever use anything like Windows or Linux.

The Unix, however, is too expensive. No private users (even geeks) can hope to buy, install, and maintain such a system on their own. This cost factor alone shuts the door for Unix to mass market.

Microsoft, with all their money and smart/ruthless management, also knows how good Unix is. They will simply buy any Unix developers they can find to write a Windows with Unix Kernel. Finding good and experienced Unix developers is not hard these days: Market is down, Sun is going down the drain, and HP is nuking its R&D.

My prediction is that in a few years when the 64 bit OSes take over, Windows implemented in Unix kernel will be the dominant OS from enterprise servers to desktop PCs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Every tech professionals know that Unix is superior to Windows in both performance and security. That's why all mission critical enterprise systems never, ever use anything like Windows or Linux.

With notable exceptions like the US nuclear aircraft carriers, right?

The reason so many critical enterprise systems still run Unix is because...that's what their code runs on. Chances are it was written 20 years ago in COBOL and still does the job, so why would they change to something else when what they have already has been tweaked and improved for 20 years to the point of being "perfect"? Unix has nothing on any type of OS when it comes to performance and security. Unix tends to scale better than Windows and Linux right now, because that's how it was designed, but Windows and Linux are both improving incredibly fast in the scalability field.

If you look at the marketshare figures, Linux and Windows are both chomping away rapidly at Unix marketshare.

My prediction is that in a few years when the 64 bit OSes take over, Windows implemented in Unix kernel will be the dominant OS from enterprise servers to desktop PCs.

There's no way, ever, MS would use a Unix kernel in Windows. There's no need to.

There's nothing wrong with the NT kernel. In fact, it tends to be a far better design than most Unixes.

The difference is NT has been around 10 years and Unix about 30. Seeing as Unix has 20-odd years of constant use ahead of MS, it's pretty sad how many vulnerabilities it still has.

[Whaleboy]

Here's me thinking Asher was being objective, and not necessarily always batting for MS.

It would appear that the more [b]irrationally[b] extreme one becomes, the less credibility you get! Perhaps instead of considering occurences, you should examine that fabulous question of why windows is being used on aircraft carriers, among other things.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy That's one thing that scares me about Winblows. OS X is just a safer, more secure operating system. Don't believe me? Try hacking into a Winblows computer remotely and see how easy it is; then try hacking into a Mac OS X computer remotely and see how hard it is!

Once again, my point still stands as clear as day. I'm not saying it's impossible to hack into a Mac OS X computer, but it sure does take a lot of effort and knowledge. Once again, just try it.

Oh, and as for viruses. That's a rare occurence on MacOS/MacOSX. Some Mac users have never had a virus, while others may have one or two within a decade. Winblows home users typically have a dozen or so viruses within 10 years and many many more if they have a business. The point: Sometimes a small market share can give a company a competitive advantage.

C9

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
Once again, my point still stands as clear as day. I'm not saying it's impossible to hack into a Mac OS X computer, but it sure does take a lot of effort and knowledge. Once again, just try it.

Once again, this is bull.
I'll show you just how easy it is to break into an OS X system as soon as you give me your IP.

I'll even tell you how I did it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
Here's me thinking Asher was being objective, and not necessarily always batting for MS.

It would appear that the more [b]irrationally[b] extreme one becomes, the less credibility you get! Perhaps instead of considering occurences, you should examine that fabulous question of why windows is being used on aircraft carriers, among other things.

If you're trying to say something, just come out and say it.

I've no idea what you're trying to be snarky about here.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Asher

There's no way, ever, MS would use a Unix kernel in Windows. There's no need to.

There's nothing wrong with the NT kernel. In fact, it tends to be a far better design than most Unixes.

The difference is NT has been around 10 years and Unix about 30. Seeing as Unix has 20-odd years of constant use ahead of MS, it's pretty sad how many vulnerabilities it still has.

Jeez. I could call you a 32-bit Windows Taliban.

Unfortunately for fundamentalists like you, the convergence of Unix of Windows is already happening. Why in the hell would Microsoft hire tons of Unix developers to write a new Win64 kernel?

[Asher]

Hmm. They didn't hire tons of Unix developers to "write a new Win64 kernel".

They hired a bunch of Unix people to run their FreeBSD cluster for Hotmail, etc. a while ago, and recently acquired some software engineers for other companies.

Unix and Windows are not converging, and your argument insisting they are is laughable.

If anything, they're diverging: BSD sockets are deprecated, POSIX compliance is no longer a goal, etc.

[Asher]

Andthe "new Win64 kernel" is simply a modified NT kernel, not Unix-based or even borrowing anything from Unix...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher

With notable exceptions like the US nuclear aircraft carriers, right?

The reason so many critical enterprise systems still run Unix is because...that's what their code runs on. Chances are it was written 20 years ago in COBOL and still does the job, so why would they change to something else when what they have already has been tweaked and improved for 20 years to the point of being "perfect"? Unix has nothing on any type of OS when it comes to performance and security. Unix tends to scale better than Windows and Linux right now, because that's how it was designed, but Windows and Linux are both improving incredibly fast in the scalability field.

If you look at the marketshare figures, Linux and Windows are both chomping away rapidly at Unix marketshare.


There's no way, ever, MS would use a Unix kernel in Windows. There's no need to.

There's nothing wrong with the NT kernel. In fact, it tends to be a far better design than most Unixes.

The difference is NT has been around 10 years and Unix about 30. Seeing as Unix has 20-odd years of constant use ahead of MS, it's pretty sad how many vulnerabilities it still has.

Wait... I thought that XP and NT used a Unix kernel

[Asher]

No.

Unix's kernel designs are actually pretty obsolete. They are, after all, relics from the dark age of computing.

They're all pretty poor with modern applications like gaming and multimedia, as well as basic things like latency to user input.