Originally Posted by glObalist
If you weren't such a linux fanboy you'd probably know how anti-virus and other malware protection works in Windows. I.e. virtually zero CPU overhead. WTF are you talking about? I demand swift reply with screenshots of this terrible CPU usage you're mentioning.
If anything, my ESET Smart Security is wasting about 45MB of RAM, but zero CPU.
Ok, I'll bite on this one:
I've been a Windows admin (years ago) and a UNIX/Linux Admin for more than 10 years now working for Fortune 500 companies and currently for a VERY large energy company. Now that my credentials are out of the way, let's talk...
1. Zero CPU overhead for ANY program is not possible unless the program is not loaded. It doesn't matter whether its a virus program or any other application. If it's loaded in RAM, it's overhead that is taking away from other programs. The very fact that every email, every document, etc has to be scanned inbound and outbound is overhead. Don't even get me started on the countless loss of productivity I've seen on hundreds to thousands of PC's while the users' virus program does a system sweep/scan or even something as simple as a definition update. Couple this will the anti-spyware and you have a large amount of overhead that you can't get rid of.
2. There are ZERO viruses in the wild for Linux. EVERY virus that is "listed" for Linux was developed as a proof of concept for one app or another, which the developers for that app then addressed. The whole idea that there aren't viruses for Linux like for Windows because of the size of the userbase is unfounded. Depending on which survey you use, UNIX/Linux runs between 50-70=% of the internet websites to the tune of 80-126 million systems. No viruses. Worms? Yes, but they were addressed and they have been very few in number, especially when you compare them to the number of Windows viruses. Trojan horses? Yup-but only a problem if you install software from an unknown or unreliable source. If you do-your fault. Linux/UNIX security model doesn't allow the spread of viruses, either. By DEFAULT, Linux doesn't allow execution of anything. In fact, you have to take steps to MAKE something executable. Contrast that to Windows where not only does the OS try to execute things as the default action, but often has administrator access to do so!
3. Performance is unmatched for high loads between the MS and Linux/UNIX worlds. Benchmarks consistently show UNIX for the last 30 years handling high loads with consistent stability and system response times. Only in recent years has MS made ANY headway into this and do you know how? By moving things into ring 0 (kernel mode). Anyone else see a MAJOR problem with this? This means your application will be running as part of the base kernel and can bring the WHOLE system down if there is a problem or exploit! This is a TERRIBLY insecure and unstable way to do things! Oh, and the improvements MS have made in security come as they make their OS's more like UNIX anyway...They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
4. Do you KNOW how many system calls it takes to simply open terminal on MS vs Linux?
XP (been supposedly stable for 7+ years)=5,000,000+
Tell me which is more efficient? The very fact that users even here are saying that you shouldn't run Vista or Win7 on XP supported hardware is PROOF that the OS has become even more bloated than the last version.
5. UNIX/Linux is more secure than MS products-take a look at the CERT database and see the ratio of MS to Linux exploits that are labeled as Critical. Most of the top 20 are MS. Does Linux have some, sure, but they are far fewer and fixed faster because the open source model works better and more efficiently than closed source. Nevermind the security holes that you are exposed to that they aren't telling you...
6. Linux/UNIX is modular by design. The philosophy of UNIX is: Do one thing and do it well. Rather than trying to incorporate your apps into the kernel, UNIX develops everything separately. The kernel is separate from the system commands, which are separate from your apps, etc. Because of this, you can trim down Linux to next to nothing easily. Long term, this means you can run on hardware for longer periods (generally until the hardware suffers a complete failure) without any forced upgrades thereby gaining the maximum return on your expenditure. Side by side, this also means, when coupled with the information above, that Linux running on the same hardware and MS will run faster. You will also have COMPLETE control over what is running and what isn't running. Yes, you can trim some things down in Windows but only to a point and that point will be far more bloated than where I can take Linux. I can even trim the kernel down to near nothing-try THAT with MS. This modular design and leaner size with optimized design also means I can do more with the system without having to add any additional hardware. Win-win-win.
7. Linux currently has better hardware support than Vista. I'm sure that may change over time, but it's interesting to note that point. With this, you have over 25,000 apps available in the default Ubuntu repositories for FREE and more available by download from various projects. I can make my laptop a router-connecting to nearly every protocol known to man, a server-outperforming even the latest MS server with Samba at their own game, or a desktop with no worries or threats from the before mentioned spyware or viruses.
All this said-if you want to run Windows, that's fine by me. For gaming, I understand but I would ask each of you gamers to contact your favorite vendor and ask them to release games for Linux. You'll find that the system benefits I mentioned above will be true in that environment as well.