To get around this, MS can sell a hardware dongle that costs $$$ that happens to come with free Windows, and Windows only runs if that hardware dongle is present. That way they can do the same thing that Apple does.
Kolab charges a license fee.
What about multiuser systems that are used as remote desktops? What about privilege separation? Why should a user logged into a machine be able to read keystrokes of all the others even though they're a normal user and not root? That doesn't happen with Windows.
Linux had and has a string of security issues, including things like this.
Try doing that on a Terminal Server.
What multiuser security again?
Windows 7 is not Windows Server
So now we have "Windows" isn't "Windows" argument? Look, Microsoft has kept the basic features of "windows" including how the user interface operates all the way though from 3.1.1. They have brought along a lot of baggage in the process. People, users, administrators expect that the next version will work much like the current one. I remember the jump to NT, what a mess. But Microsoft had no choice but to break a lot of expected behavior though the years, many times for security reasons, but they bring a lot of the baggage along and are forced into compromises in security in the effort to keep their user base. They couldn't just make the changes they needed to, or a lot of folks would have bailed to Linux, which had the security, and wasn't in need of change.
Yes, "Windows XP" wasn't the next version of the "Windows ME" codebase and doesn't have it.
Similar UI != same code base
React OS != Windows XP
Server OS != Desktop OS
Server use cases and audience != Desktop use cases and audience
Compare CentOS with Windows Server.
If you want a further locked down machine and featureless default install, there's Windows Server Core.
Compare Ubuntu(not Ubuntu Server) with Windows 8.
Where do you think the designers of NT came up with that idea? Hmmmmm? Wouldn't have been Unix now would it?
Wrong again, it was designed by someone who quite hated Unix.
Windows NT's primary inspiration was VMS.
Windows NT did not start less secure.
Do you remember DOS? Windows 3.1.1? Security was woefully lacking, it wasn't even a concern. At the same time, Linux was being developed, with the security model it has today, mostly unchanged. Windows has gong though many revisions and changes in the security design from ZERO security and no such thing as having separate user accounts to where we are now. Linux started out, very similar to what it is now.
Please stop repeating that, it stopped being true as of 10 years ago since Windows ME was the last OS based on DOS/Win 3.1.1 code.
XP, Vista, 7 and 8 are all based on the Windows NT family which was developed with security in mind and separate user accounts etc.
So when Linux gets infected, it's the users fault but when Windows gets infected, it's Microsoft's fault?
Gotta love Slashdot logic.
The applications you mention are all Open Source, which people on here keep insisting are secure.
Windows boxes? They come out of the install process wide open with a whole raft of dangerous services turned on.
Can you list what dangerous services are turned on by default on a Windows Server install? If you don't it's a pretty sign that you have no clue about what you're talking about and last used Windows about 15 years ago.
So this isn't a really fair comparison you are making. Linux is BY DEFAULT more secure than Windows, mainly by design. Microsoft has made great strides of late, but fundamentally they are starting from a weak position (remember Windows 3.1?) and you have to install components to make it more secure, where Linux starts secure and gets security downgrades when you install and configure stuff. Either way, if you don't manage your server, you will have problems.
The point of comparison should be between the server OSes. So, do you really think Linux on the server is more secure than Windows Server 2012R2 ?
Mozilla is the only hope left in the browser market. The rest are controlled by mega corps. Witness the recent ramrodding of video DRM into W3C standards by Google, Microsoft and Apple, all of which have their own DRM implementations.
Not to mention Firefox being forced to support H.264 playback, after Google promised and backtracked on removing support from Chrome. Based on the above two cases, I guess it's already too late, corporate control has taken over the web.
They won't fix it. They make a ton of money from those ads, make Windows slow down and look bad so they can push heavily locked down Chromebooks that techies seem to sing the praise of.
I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.
I guess it's more about Microsoft hate and the desire to bring them down than software freedom.
Content creation? You mean only English essays, right? Can the students even install and use a proper compiler or something like AutoCAD? Photoshop?
A heavily DRM'ed up "laptop" that no one can do anything except be forced to Google cloudservices to even login and a browser is a rational choice now? Not to mention Google Apps and email which helpfully uploads everything to the Google Cloud.
It pulls Palladium to shame since you can't install any apps except those provided by the Google overlords.
This proves that all the Slashdot talk about software freedom is thinly disguised Microsoft hate since everyone here seems to be pumping up heavily locked down iDevices and Chromebooks.