> Ok, let's try to include the word Java(TM) into this little Windows/Linux > discussion > (note the moderator-friendly subject line): > When I was allowed to test S.U.S.E. Linux years ago i tested the included > browser: > NO JAVA - Windows 3.1 and '95 could be resp. already were equipped with > the > integrated JVM. > What appeared to be a standalone Java VM in Linux couldn't convince me.
mind that I was talking about MAILING and SURFING security issues, not JAVA on linux. but, talking of it: I have got one mozilla 1.0 and one opera 6.02 installation with JDK 1.4 running. and for development (especially server side with tomcat and similar) there is - at least for me - no question which OS to use. but as I said: do it to your own gusto. but be aware of security issues involved with Win (mainly 95/98) and especially Outlook (see bugbear et al...) and do not forget that since you tested Linux, SUN introduced an official implementation of their JDK for Linux and there went a lot of development into the Linux desktop. > Besides that : If you buy hardware extensions in the shops , you usually > get Windows+MacOS support on CD/disk. true... but on the one hand this is improving rapidly (tmany companies are turning towards an active linux support) and on the other hand this is no argument *against* better virus security ;o) > Linux drivers/support mostly is referred to via an external website - with > "minutes" of downloading "fun" at usual connection speeds :-( . let's hope for improvement in the future... I admit that it is still difficult for novice users to get all HW to run under Linux. yet ;o) > >if you *have* or want to use windows, take at least Win2000 > I do - it's called "Windows ME" , blame me if there is a major difference > to Win2000. (of course there should be a difference between the standard and more > expensive "professional" version) I do not know the exact differences, but I believe that Win2000 has the better file system, which is a major part of securing systems with privileges. > I don't trust the login system of WindowsME (=2000 ?) much - e.g. that that's my point ;o) on 2000 that's different... it has a "real" privilege system. > "famous" login-dialog box with the "Cancel" button.... > Nevertheless , Windows XP looks quite secure (with its NT components) , > but it is relatively complicated to copy-paste all necessary settings (e.g. > program list in start menu) from administrator user to any test user (with > less privileges). true also. I think the awareness for security is underdeveloped in many Windows-users, because they were using a "single user/single workplace/all access"-OS (Win3.11/95/98) for so long ... > Additionally : who says that the "open source" mail clients included in > Linux (2 different versions that looked not as good as "Outlook Express" > when I tested Linux) are saver than a reported-to-be-insecure Microsoft > version of Outlook (Express) ? of course they are. "exe" and "vb" cannot be executed there (and if they could, you bet that you would get a "sandbox" or at least some "are you sure" dialog... ;o) I do not say there are no viruses for UNIX-like systems, but far less and usually less harmful, because the impact is seldom system-wide or system critical if the virus is introduced by non-admin users. just my 2 cents... if you prefer the more colourful look of Outlook and live with the downside of a new virus every 2 or 3 weeks, that's of course ok. no attempt of religious conversion ;o) I do not want to put up with this, and I happily ignore any "bugbear"-warnings on the list :o) cheers & greetings -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. G�nstige DSL- & Modem/ISDN-Tarife! ____________________________________________________ To change your JDJList options, please visit: http://www.sys-con.com/java/list.cfm Be respectful! Clean up your posts before replying ____________________________________________________
