Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Linux still seen as most secure

Filed under
Linux

The Linux-Windows 2005 TCO Comparison Survey, to be published in full in June, is based on responses from 509 companies of all sizes in markets such as healthcare, academia, financial services, legal, media, retail and government, Yankee Group said this week.

While respondents rated Windows security much higher than in last year's survey, Linux was still perceived to beat Windows in every security category, the survey found.

The survey largely reflects the attitudes of companies that are already Windows shops. The vast majority of respondents - 73 percent - used Windows 2000 Server or Windows Server 2003 as their dominant operating system, followed by Linux with 15 percent, Unix with 6 percent and Novell's NetWare with 4 percent, and "another open source distribution" at 2 percent.

The open-source operating system now used as a secondary operating system in 60 percent of the companies, compared with Windows NT at 62 percent, Unix at 35 percent, NetWare at 16 percent and Mac OS X at 14 percent.

Customers who have already deployed Windows Server 2003 are unlikely to be seduced by Linux, saying they found the Microsoft operating system's quality, performance and reliability equal to or better than Linux, Yankee Group said.
Linux continued to hold a perceived edge over Windows in all security categories, including user systems and Web, file, application and database servers. Linux scored at least 8 out of 10 in every category, compared with 6 or 7 for Windows. Windows' overall rating of 7.6 on security was nearly double last year's score. Respondents said Microsoft's changes to its patching system were working - they spent an average of 80 percent less time on patch management.

Participants' Linux servers took longer to recover from security attacks than Windows - 17 hours for Linux and 13.2 hours for Windows, respondents said. To put this in perspective, however, 92 percent of Linux developers say their systems have never been infected with a virus, and 78 percent said their systems have never been hacked, according to last summer's Linux Development Survey from Evans Data.

Respondents said their Windows downtime was three to four times more expensive than Linux downtime, reflecting the more critical data stored on their Windows systems, Yankee Group said.

The survey was curiously lacking in hard TCO (total cost of ownership) data. Most respondents lacked specific information on comparative Linux and Windows capital expenditure, even though more than half of those surveyed said they had performed a thorough TCO (total cost of ownership) analysis. Those with specific information indicated that costs affecting TCO tended to occur in applications and services rather than at the operating system level itself, Yankee Group said.

The research firm did not specify how it selected its respondents. Last year's Yankee Group TCO study attracted criticism when it became clear that that the sample group was taken from a mailing list aimed at Windows system administrators.

Last year's Web-based survey was funded and carried out by Sunbelt Software, a vendor of Windows utilities, which publicised the survey solely through a mailing list called W2Knews, billing itself as "the World's first and largest e-zine designed for NT/2000 System Admins and Power Users". In the 16 February edition of W2Knews, which launched the survey, the company said it and Yankee Group were "surveying Windows Sites" to see how they were "responding to the Linux phenomenon and the TCO question".

There is little consistent data comparing Linux and Windows TCO. A 2002 IDC study called "Windows 2000 Versus Linux in Enterprise Computing", for example, found Linux was more expensive than Windows. But this was funded by Microsoft, and more importantly, one of the report's authors later said Microsoft had chosen scenarios for analysis that would be more costly using Linux.

In December Melbourne-based IT services firm CyberSource published an updated version of what it says is one of the few fully transparent studies comparing the costs of running Linux vs. Windows, finding that Linux installations can be up to 36 percent cheaper to install and run over a period of three years than comparable Windows systems, though subscribing to enterprise technical support and buying new hardware and infrastructure can lower the savings to as little as 19 percent. The report is available here [pdf].

Another major independent study contrasting Linux and Windows is a report from Germany's Soreon Research, using data collected from interviews with 50 enterprises. The report found that Linux had up to 30 percent lower TCO than Windows.

Source.

In related news Latest Linux/Windows research reports queried.

Large questions have appeared over the accuracy of two recent reports comparing the relative costs and benefits of the Linux and Windows operating systems in which Windows was painted as being superior to its open-source rival.

The reports, Forrester's "Is Linux more Secure than Windows?" and a Yankee Group survey on the relative costs of running the two operating systems, were both issued in the past few days.
The security study - whose raw data was vetted by Linux distributors Debian, Mandrakesoft, Red Hat and Suse - found that on average, Microsoft patched flaws faster than Linux vendors. The Yankee Group survey reported that, except for small businesses with customised vertical applications, companies deploying Windows enjoyed a lower cost of ownership than those with Linux.

But the Linux distributors involved in the Forrester study today issued a joint statement calling the study's conclusions inaccurate. And the Yankee Group's methodology has been called in question, with critics arguing it could not have possibly delivered objective results.

More in Tux Machines

Scrivener Writing Software has a Linux Version

In some ways, Scrivener is the very embodiment of anti-Linux, philosophically. Scrivener is a writing program, used by authors. In Linux, one strings together well developed and intensely tested tools on data streams to produce a result. So, to author a complex project, create files and edit them in a simple text editor, using some markdown. Keep the files organized in the file system and use file names carefully chosen to keep them in order in their respective directories. when it comes time to make project-wide modifications, use grep and sed to process all of the files at once or selected files. Eventually, run the files through LaTeX to produce beautiful output. Then, put the final product in a directory where people can find it on Gopher.

Gopher? Anyway …

On the other hand, emacs is the ultimate linux program. Emacs is a text editor that is so powerful and has so many community-contributed “modes” (like add-ins) that it can be used as a word processor, an email client, a calendar, a PIM, a web browser, an operating system, to make coffee, or to stop that table with the short leg from rocking back and forth. So, in this sense, a piece of software that does everything is also linux, philosophically.

And so, Scrivener, despite what I said above, is in a way the very embodiment of Linux, philosophically.

I’ve been using Scrivener on a Mac for some time now, and a while back I tried it on Linux. Scrivener for the Mac is a commercial product you must pay money for, though it is not expensive, but the Linux version, being highly experimental and probably unsafe, is free. But then again, this is Linux. We eat unsafe experimental free software for breakfast. So much that we usually skip lunch. Because we’re still fixing breakfast. As it were.

Details with Screen Shots Here

Anyway, here’s what Scrivener does. It does everything. The full blown Mac version has more features than the Linux version, but both are feature rich. To me, the most important things are: A document is organised in “scenes” which can be willy nilly moved around in relation to each other in a linear or hierarchical system. The documents are recursive, so a document can hold other documents, and the default is to have only the text in the lower level document as part of the final product (though this is entirely optional). A document can be defined as a “folder” which is really just a document that has a file folder icon representing it to make you feel like it is a folder.

Associated with the project, and with each separate document, is a note taking area. So, you can jot notes project-wide as you work, like “Don’t forget to write the chapter where everyone dies at the end,” or you can write notes on a given document like “Is this where I should use the joke about the slushy in the bathroom at Target?” Each scene also has a number of attributes such as a “label” and a “status” and keywords. I think keywords may not be implemented in the Linux version yet.

Typically a project has one major folder that has all the actual writing distributed among scenes in it, and one or more additional folders in which you put stuff that is not in the product you are working on, but could be, or was but you pulled it out, or that includes research material.

You can work on one scene at a time. Scenes have meta-data and document notes.

The scenes, folders, and everything are all held together with a binder typically displayed on the left side of the Scrivener application window, showing the hierarchy. A number of templates come with the program to create pre-organized binder paradigms, or you can just create one from scratch. You can change the icons on the folders/scenes to remind you of what they are. When a scene is active in the central editing window, you can display an “inspector” on the right side, showing the card (I’ll get to that later) on top the meta data, and the document or project notes. In the Mac version you can create additional meta-data categories.

An individual scene can be displayed in the editing window. Or, scenes can be shown as a collection of scenes in what is known as “Scrivenings mode.” Scrivenings mode is more or less standard word processing mode where all the text is simply there to scroll through, though scene titles may or may not be shown (optional). A lot of people love the corkboard option. I remember when PZ Myers discovered Scrivener he raved about it. The corkboard is a corkboard (as you may have guessed) with 3 x 5 inch virtual index cards, one per scene, that you can move around and organize as though that was going to help you get your thoughts together. The corkboard has the scene title and some notes on what the scene is, which is yet another form of meta-data. I like the corkboard mode, but really, I don’t think it is the most useful features. Come for the corkboard, stay for the binder and the document and project notes!

Community chest: Storage firms need to pay open-source debts

Linux and *BSD have completely changed the storage market. They are the core of so many storage products, allowing startups and established vendors alike to bring new products to the market more rapidly than previously possible. Almost every vendor I talk to these days has built their system on top of these and then there are the number of vendors who are using Samba implementations for their NAS functionality. Sometimes they move on from Samba but almost all version 1 NAS boxen are built on top of it. Read more

Black Lab SDK 1.8 released

QT Creator - for QT 5 Gambas 3 - Visual Basic for Linux Ubuntu Quickly - Quick and dirty development tool for python emacs and Xemacs - Advanced Text Editor Anjuta and Glade - C++ RAD development tool for GTK Netbeans - Java development environment GNAT-GPS - IDE for the following programming languages. Ada, C, JavaScript, Pascal and Python Idle - IDE for Python Scite - Text Editor Read more

Did Red Hat’s CTO Walk – Or Was He Pushed?

He went on to say that some within Red Hat speculate that tensions between Stevens and Paul Cormier, Red Hat’s president of products and technologies, might be responsible, although there doesn’t appear to have been any current argument between the two. Cormier will take over Stevens’ duties until a replacement is found. Vaughan-Nichols also said that others at Red Hat had opined that Stevens might’ve left because he’d risen as high as he could within the company and with no new advancement opportunities open to him, he’d decided to move on. If this was the case, why did he leave so abruptly? Stevens had been at Red Hat for nearly ten years. If he was leaving merely because “I’ve done all I can here and it’s time to seek my fortune elsewhere,” we’d expect him to work out some kind of notice and stay on the job long enough for Red Hat to find a suitable replacement. Turning in a resignation that’s effective immediately is not the ideal way to walk out the door for the last time. It smells of burning bridges. Read more