Coder Legion - Recent posts tagged operating-system

The Linux journey of a Windows refugee

Sat, 23 May 2026 21:15:48 +0000

A few weeks back, I decided to ditch Windows and migrate my Microsoft Surface Pro 7 tablet to Linux. It was not an experiment - I don't intend to ever install Windows 11 on that brilliant machine. I left myself no backup - I completely wiped off my Windows 10 install. Was I insane? Let's find out.

I need to get a few disclaimers out now, so we can all enjoy this article:

I am going to use term "Linux" to describe the graphical interface. This is a bit misleading because Linux is the underlying kernel and terminal interface, while the GUI is a bit more complicated. I am going to explain this more in the article, but just know I am going to say Linux a lot and I am going to mean Gnome or KDE or Cinnamon, or whatever.
I am not interested in your recommendations of distros.
I am a Windows power user and I am definitely going to apply "it works on Windows" glasses.

Picking the distro

I didn’t go into this blind. I have prior experience with Linux, both server and desktop. Namely, I worked with CentOS 7 and Ubuntu in my previous job. I also have SteamOS on my Steam Deck.

I use my Surface Pro 7 mainly for drawing in Gimp, writing stuff in Obsidian, and coding in C++. It is not a device meant for gaming. I wanted to go with Ubuntu-based distro, simply because my familiarity with it.

I chose Zorin OS, mainly due to its marketing push as “the distro for Windows 11 refugees”. Also because it looked somewhat pretty on screenshots. Note that I am very picky when it comes to aesthetics, Windows 8 was peak for me — bright bold colors, square corners, flat look. Most of of the Linux distros are downright ugly to me.

I also did my due diligence, so I knew there is this surface-linux project, which is a kernel patch aiming at supporting maximum features of Surface devices.

First steps

Installing a Ubuntu-based distro from USB is a braindead effort these days. For Windows runaways, you need to boot into UEFI, disable secure boot (you don't have to, but your life will be easier), and just change the boot order to the USB stick.

Patching the kernel was also super easy, the instructions of surface-linux projectt are very well written and it is mostly just apt install anyway. Even without the custom kernel, the computer booted fine and the attachment "Type Cover" keyboard with touchpad worked just fine. Great start!

The software I used on Windows was already pretty FOSS - LibreOffice suite, Gimp, Audacity, Obsidian, VLC, VS Code, Tiled editor, all of these can be installed right away from the software marketplace on Zorin OS. Just be aware that the marketplace defaults to Flatpak/Snap, which means the software runs sandboxed. There are programs, notably VS Code and Tiled editor, that most users need unsandboxed, so they can invoke other programs from them (such as compiler). For those, don't forget to switch the package source to APT, or ask your local chatbot for how to unsandbox the Flatpak/Snap installation.

Fun fact: Gimp installed from APT was unable to start. Gimp installed from Snap ran fine. I tried APT because my custom plug-ins were not registering - I had to chmod +x them. I kinda expected Gimp to run them explicitly in Python interpreter, but it seems not to be the case.

Fun fact 2: Browsers run sandboxed too. If you open a local .html file from disc, it opens fine under file:/// protocol, but any associated CSS or JavaScript files won't. Not particularly practical.

In the end, I only struggled with three programs. First was GitHub Desktop, which luckily has unofficial Linux port. Second was Microsoft To-Do, hands down the best task management app out there. The closest free equivalent is Super Productivity, but that app is more interested in implementing project management features than basic QoL like multiselect, so I kinda bounced off it. Finally I found Kuro, a WebView wrapper around Microsoft To-Do web app. It is laggy as hell, but suffices.

Third program was OneDrive. While Nautilus has a built-in OneDrive client, it is only good for browsing, downloading a backing up files. If you try to open a Gimp project file or load an Obsidian vault, something times out and these programs will never load. The better option is onedriver, which also acts like a native filesystem, but it is much faster. It is also 90% less stable, so I had to log in at least once a day and half of the time Obsidian loaded, but failed to save any edits.

The Gnome Shell experience

On first glance, Gnome Shell is pretty. It is a bit of a case of "millenial grey", but other than that, it looks like slick and modern.

Unfortunately, the UX is atrocious. For a while, I am not going to yap about the lack of customization - that is baked in Gnome philosophy. However, the Nautilus file manager drove me mad:

It doesn't have a Desktop shortcut next to Home, Documents, and Downloads. You can add it to favorites, but that is down on the bottom of the side panel.
Programs like VS Code and VLC don't have their context menu shortcuts like they have in Windows. Instead, you need to click Open with > Choose program > scroll down a list and pick it. You can write a Python script that will add a record to the context menu, but that is not something a common user would be able to do.
Desktop seems to be governed by a different process than Nautilus, because the context menu is different on the Desktop. WTF.
Later on, I installed Thunar file manager which is miles better than Nautilus, but it only integrates for file browsing. Desktop is still governed by a different process, same as the file picker dialog when saving stuff.

I also lacked the ability to group icons on the right side of the sidebar into collapsible menu. I don't understand why certain Zorin desktop open Start Menu with the Super key, while the "Windows 11-esque" one opens the menu with Super+A, while Super is for swapping workspaces. These shortcuts couldn't be edited.

The whole stuff works, and it even looks decent, but the experience as a whole is inconsistent.

A little detour into KDE

I complained about Nautilus to my friend who told me to switch to KDE, because Dolphin is much better. They kinda failed to told me that I can just install an alternative file manager and remain on Gnome.

Switching to KDE was easy, but since it was very ugly and DPI scaling was completely broken, I nuked it and went back to Gnome. Except... if you nuke KDE, it has the tendency of removing APT packages that are also used by Gnome! I don't understand how this can happen, but it did and I lost my desktop environment altogether. In the end I managed to bring Gnome back, and installed Thunar. Just a little FYI - if you're not ready to reinstall your whole system, don't switch between desktop environments.

What is a desktop environment?

This section might be valuable for people who are considering switching to Linux. Desktop environment is many things. Under the hood, it deals with how the stuff is rendered. Then it is about what you see - the icons, the visual identity of system apps and the systray. It also bundles the recommended software - SteamOS runs KDE and has Discover as its software marketplace. ZorinOS runs Gnome and has "Software". Linux Mint runs Cinnamon and has "Software Manager". These programs have the same purpose, but completely different UX. Same goes for settings and other system apps.

The desktop environment also comes with a "philosophy". This philosophy usually revolves around how many things you can configure in GUI. With KDE, you have toggles for everything. Gnome prevents you from configuring even the most basic things. Even then, you can always hand-edit config files. Good luck.

Theme hell

Using Gnome for some time exposed how much is the Linux desktop environment inconsistent. This is not only about the context menu on desktop. When you try to theme your desktop environment, because "linux is so darn customizable", you'll find out that the "desktop environment" (aka the systray and maybe bunch of system apps) are controlled by one theme (in this case gnome-shell), while most of the other apps are controlled by a different theme (usually GTK 2, 3, or 4). And even if you find a theme online that supports both your desktop environment AND your legacy applications, there will be applications that are not affected by either of these - like System Monitor or the fucking Nautilus, which doesn't feature a traditional window title bar.

Note that I dived into this rabbit hole solely because I hated the "millenial gray" vibes of the default Gnome themes. I also hated the round corners (which you can configure for systray but not for windows). Ultimately, I used Claude Code to make most corners square and window titlebars colored. The best use for Claude ever.

Cracks start to appear

My first major problem was the keyboard layout. Even though I am a programmer, I taught myself to program on a Czech keyboard. We have a lot of weird accent symbols that you need in common writing and I was never a fan of switching between keyboard layouts. So I learned the Czech one and I really struggle whenever I have to write anything on the English one.

Quite recently, my Type Cover keyboard stopped working, so I needed a replacement. But it is so old that Microsoft no longers manufactures it, and the only one I could find has French labels. I don't really mind because I can type on it blindfolded, but only with the Windows Czech QWERTZ layout. And I am not learning anything new since my other laptop and work computer both run Windows 11.

Now Linux has something that is called Czech Windows QWERTZ layout, except it is no different from the base Czech QWERTZ layout and nowhere near the layout used by Windows. It would be nice if the system settings allowed me to rebind keys but no luck there. I had to create a custom XKB layout and register it (with the help of a chatbot). Again, not something a common user could do:

// File: /usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols/cz_custom
// Czech QWERTZ with custom AltGr mappings
// AltGr+-  => *
// AltGr+ý  => `
// AltGr+š  => ^
// AltGr+ů  => $

default partial alphanumeric_keys
xkb_symbols "qwertz_custom" {
    include "cz(basic)"
    name[Group1]= "Czech (QWERTZ, custom AltGr)";

    key <TLDE> { [ semicolon, asciitilde, dead_abovering, asciitilde ]};
    key <AB10> { [ minus,   underscore, asterisk,    asterisk    ] };
    key <AE07> { [ yacute,  7,          grave,       grave       ] };
    key <AE03> { [ scaron,  3,          asciicircum, asciicircum ] };
    key <AC10> { [ uring,   quotedbl,   dollar,      dollar      ] };
};

/usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/evdev.xml:

...
<layout>
    <configItem>
<name>cz_custom</name>
<description>Czech True Windows QWERTZ</description>
<countryList>
  <iso3166Id>CZ</iso3166Id>
</countryList>
<languageList>
  <iso639Id>ces</iso639Id>
</languageList>
</configItem>
<variantList>        
<variant>
  <configItem>
<name>qwertz_custom</name>
<description>Custom Czech Windows</description>
  </configItem>
</variant>
</variantList>
</layout>
...

But worse things happen. For example when sometimes when I closed the lid and reopened it later, the computer was not registering keyboard or mouse. Or any part of USB HID stack for that matter. I could plug the tablet into a USB-C hub and while the monitor worked, USB keyboard did not. Chatbot helped me to create a custom service that resets the HID stack after a wake up. Somehow the issue eventually vanished.

Instead, the computer developed another reason for me to hard reset it daily. When I opened YouTube in browser, started Code, GitHub Desktop, and triggered a C++ compiler, the computer often froze. I suspect it ran out of RAM, and the default 2GBs of swap were usually all eaten up. When I worked in Gimp on a bigger canvas, it was also incredibly laggy.

Here's the thing - on Windows 10, I had none of these issues. Once a month, I had to hard-reset the computer, because it went into a weird boot loop after a wakeup. But it never struggled in Gimp and it never froze while programming with a YouTube on background. A common user using the device as a drawing tablet would be unable to troubleshoot memory issues. It would be nice if the system issued some pop-up saying "Hey, we noticed that you are running out of RAM often, do you want to increase swap so your computer is snappier?".

The last nail to the coffin was configuring the behavior when lid is closed. When my computer is plugged in, I always let it running with the lid closed. You cannot configure this under Gnome, once again you need to touch config files. However, a weird thing happened to me. When I plugged the PC into a USB-C hud with external monitor (with lid closed) and left the PC for a while, it somehow suspended itself (even though it was also plugged in), and it was impossible to wake it up again without hard reset.

This was about the time I got fed up. Hard resetting a computer daily is not normal. Shit all you want on Windows, it is thousand times stabler system than this is.

Linux Mint

But there is no going back. Two days back, I dumped Zorin and replaced it with Linux Mint with Cinnamon desktop. It is still based off Ubuntu, but it is more customizable. It is also very ugly, as Cinnamon is closer to KDE than Gnome. Fortunately, I managed to find a Windows 8.1 theme which works well and in combination with Cinnamenu applet creates a relatively pleasant desktop experience.

So far it looks more visually consistent, the only program still resilient to theming is the System Monitor. Desktop has the same context menu as any other folder. I can configure the lid behavior in GUI. OneDriver is still unstable - I had to reboot Obsidian twice while writing this article.

Software manager

One thing I have to mention is the Software manager, which comes preinstalled with way fewer repos than Zorin did. For example, it couldn't find VS Code out of the box.

It is incredibly funny to me that the Linux crowd always mocked Windows users for having to download installers manually from the web, then Windows adopted the software manager from Linux, and now I have to download Linux installers manually from the web, because I can't find them in the local Software manager. The irony...

But yeah. While Mint is much uglier than Zorin, it doesn't seem to freeze while docked, it has a dedicated systray button for opening on-screen keyboard, has lower HW requirements, and hopefully I'll manage to configure touch inputs so I can actually control the system using them.

C++ programmer perspective

This could be a topic for a separate article, but C++ programming on Linux is hell. First of all, using system package manager like APT for package management of C++ dependencies is a decision that made sense 30 years ago, but not today. How many applications, especially games, share the same libraries and library versions these days? With just rendering, you might use Raylib, SDL2, SDL3, SFML2, or SFML3 - there is no point installing them system-wide if each is going to be used in a single app on the whole system.

On Windows, many libraries lying on GitHub bring their dependencies automagically through CMake (which also makes them sandboxed). On Linux, the same library might require you to use a CMake switch to enable this, or it will require you to figure what to manually install through APT.

Also, C++ has versions that are enabled through compile switch, like --std=c++23 . This is sort of a feature flag for activating new features. However, you need to use extra flags on Linux to link those features. If you ever did something with C/C++, you might remember having to specify -lm to bring in the math library. Similar stuff applies to let’s say stack traces.

This exists so people shipping on embedded don’t have to pay for features they don’t use. I think these flags should be ON by default, allowing the user to opt out. Not the other way around. This bullshit doesn’t exist on Windows ports of the same compilers (and thanks to PlatformIO, you can do embedded equally well on Windows).

Lastly, using the latest C++ features on Ubuntu LTS 22/24 requires you to either force-update GCC (the default compiler), or bring in newer Clang. The trouble is that Clang, while shipping its own implementation of the standard library, uses by default the GCC standard library, which doesn't have some C++23 features! There is -stdlib=libc++ flag to fix this.

However, I had to learn all of these the hard way. For C++ developer, Windows is the easy mode — install MSVC, clone repo, configure CMake, compile. For Linux developer — clone repo, figure what you need to install in APT (possibly deal with conflicts or older versions of APT packages), install correct version of the compiler, figure out why it still doesn’t work, figure what extra flags to use to enable newest features… This really sucks.

Conclusion

The Linux experience definitely got better over the years and it definitely could suffice a common user with some normal hardware out of the box.

But there is still so much the user needs to know to effectively configure the computer. And if you choose some more "user-friendly" and prettier distro, you will paradoxically have to delve more into config files, which is the opposite of user-friendly.

For me, the experience was harsh - inferior UX, general instability, and UI inconsistency. I hope that Mint alleviates the freezes for me. After that, the final frontier is OneDrive. Yes, it would be better to switch to GDrive, that would negatively impact my workflows elsewhere. Vendor-lock is a bitch.

If you are considering a switch: Do your due diligence. I don't think you need to install dozens of distros to figure out what you need. Watch some videos on YouTube - Linus Tech Tips currently runs a series where they try out various distros for a month and point out their wins and loses. Look up what an immutable distro is and whether it could make sense for you. Try to think about the settings that you are using on Windows (like action for closing the lid) and ask ChatGPT if that option is configurable under Gnome/Cinnamon/XFCE/KDE.

Oh and if you are a gamer and decide to go for Cachy OS, because it is optimized for games, know two things:

It really is optimized. I deployed it on a old friend's device and PS2 emulation worked fine. Then they nuked the system, installed Mint instead and PS2 runs like shit.
It is based of Arch, which is very DYI. The default system, especially the software center, is ugly, barebones and a polar opposite of user-friendly.

Surviving a Kernel Panic: My Ubuntu War Story

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:08:36 +0000

When your backlog is full of data science models and software engineering tasks, the last thing you need is your OS failing to boot because of a kernel panic, no?

Well, this happened to me. I was given the option to reboot, did it the first time, and I was back in after choosing an older kernel version from the menu. It happened a second time, a third time... and I was just okay with it, saying, "I'll fix it later."
This worked like a charm right up until Linux decided it had had enough. It finally threw an Input/output error, locked the root filesystem / into Read-only mode, and locked me out completely.

I couldn't even poweroff via the terminal.

The silver lining came when I realized I had a Kali Linux installer ISO sitting on a flash drive nearby. In case you find yourself in this,let's call it "very specific" situation, here is how to perform open-heart surgery on your system before you do anything rash like wiping your drive.

Step 1: The Hard Reset & The USB Boot

Since the terminal was completely frozen, a graceful shutdown was out of the question. Long-press the power button to force the PC to power off. Turn it back on and immediately open your startup menu (usually by spamming Esc, F12, or F9 depending on your laptop model). From there, boot directly into your rescue USB.

Step 2: Dropping into the Underworld (The BusyBox Shell)

Because I was using a Kali Linux installer ISO (not a Live Desktop), there was no beautiful graphical interface to save me. I had to navigate the installer menu and select "Execute a shell".

This drops you into a raw, stripped-down BusyBox ash shell. From here, we need to find exactly where the broken Ubuntu system lives on the hard drive.

Run this command to list your partitions:

fdisk -l

Scan the output for your main Linux filesystem. In my case, Ubuntu was sitting on /dev/sda2.

Step 3: Find and repair

Because I was forced to hard-reset the machine multiple times while the OS was locked up, the filesystem metadata was corrupted. Files were left hanging in memory, creating "orphaned inodes." If you try to boot with a corrupted filesystem, Linux will panic to protect your data.

NOTE: Make sure your broken partition is not mounted.
Quick check just to be safe:

umount /dev/sda2/

It's time to repair the drive. Run the ext4 filesystem check tool on your specific partition:

e2fsck -y /dev/sda2

(Tip: The -y flag is crucial here. It automatically answers "yes" to the hundreds of prompts asking if you want to fix individual corrupted sectors. Without it, you will be holding down the 'Y' key for an eternity).

Once the screen stops scrolling, you are looking for the holy grail: a message declaring your drive /dev/sda2: clean.

With the filesystem repaired, type reboot (or hard reset again if the shell is stubborn) and unplug the USB.

Do not let it boot normally. As soon as the PC turns on, spam esc to bring up the GRUB boot menu. Go to Advanced options for Ubuntu and manually select an older kernel version (e.g., 6.14.x instead of the newest one).

Once you are successfully booted into your desktop, open a terminal. It is time to find the killer. List all installed kernels:

dpkg --list | grep linux-image

If you read the output carefully, you'll likely spot the culprit. Look at the two letters on the far left of the list:

ii means Installed and Intact (This is your stable, older kernel).

it means Installed, Triggers pending (This is a half-baked, broken kernel).

In my case, the system had tried to automatically update to the 6.17 kernel in the background. But a third-party module, specifically VirtualBox DKMS, failed to compile for the new kernel architecture. VirtualBox crashed, which halted the entire kernel installation halfway through, leaving my machine with an unbootable OS.

Step 5: The Execution(Purging the Rot)

Now we just need to clean up the mess and permanently delete the broken kernel so the system stops trying to default to it.

First, get the blocking software out of the way (you can reinstall it later):

sudo apt remove --purge virtualbox-dkms

Next, tell the package manager to unjam itself and fix any half-installed dependencies:

sudo apt --fix-broken install

Now, drop the hammer on the broken kernel (replace the version numbers with the broken one from your dpkg list):

sudo apt purge linux-image-6.17.0-19-generic linux-headers-6.17.0-19-generic

Finally, sweep up the orphaned packages and update your boot menu to lock in your stable kernel as the new default:

sudo apt autoremove
sudo update-grub

All good ✨

A little note...

Isn't it funny how things completely falling apart is usually the best way to figure out how they actually work?

But hey, in case you found yourself in this situation, found your way here, and this still doesn't work... you should probably just delete that OS or contact your local AI agent.

When Safety Systems Become Attack Paths

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 20:32:14 +0000

Introduction: The Illusion of Inviolable Safety

For decades, industrial safety systems were treated as sacred ground. They were engineered to be deterministic, isolated, and uncompromisingly conservative. Their sole purpose was to protect human life, physical assets, and the environment when control systems failed or operations drifted into dangerous territory. In traditional industrial thinking, safety systems were not only separate from control systems, but they were also conceptually untouchable from the outside world. That assumption no longer holds.

IT/OT Convergence and the Erosion of Isolation

As IT and OT environments converge, safety systems are increasingly becoming part of the same digital ecosystem they were designed to guard against.
This convergence has quietly transformed safety instrumented systems from the last line of defense into potential attack paths. Modern industrial operations demand visibility, remote access, centralized monitoring, and data-driven optimization. Safety systems that were once configured locally and left untouched for years are now integrated into engineering workstations, historian platforms, asset management systems, and sometimes enterprise-level dashboards. Every new integration weakens isolation and expands the attack surface.

Connectivity as the New Threat Multiplier

Connectivity is the fundamental enabler of this shift. Firmware updates, diagnostics, compliance reporting, and lifecycle management all require digital access. Once a safety system shares a network, credentials, or trust relationship with non-safety systems, it becomes reachable in ways its original designers never anticipated. In converged environments, attackers rarely target safety systems directly. Instead, they move laterally through trusted pathways created for operational convenience, using legitimate engineering access as their entry point.

Triton: A Turning Point for Safety System Security

The Triton or Trisis malware incident in 2017 fundamentally changed how the industry perceives safety risk. Attackers deliberately targeted Schneider Electric Triconex safety controllers at a petrochemical facility, demonstrating an unprecedented understanding of safety logic, controller firmware, and engineering workflows. The intent was not disruption for its own sake, but the manipulation of safety behavior itself. The attack failed only due to a fault that caused an unexpected shutdown, exposing the presence of the malware. Triton proved that safety systems are not only attackable but strategically valuable to advanced adversaries.

Legacy Design Assumptions Under Modern Threats

Many safety systems in operation today were never designed with hostile cyber environments in mind. Authentication mechanisms are often weak, cryptographic protections may be limited or absent, and patching is constrained by operational risk. When these legacy systems are pulled into modern IT/OT architectures, the gap between assumed trust and actual threat becomes dangerous. IT teams expect rapid updates and centralized monitoring. OT teams prioritize stability and uptime. Safety engineers assume intentional manipulation is unlikely. Attackers exploit these mismatched assumptions.

Standards Warned Us, Adoption Lagged Behind

Frameworks such as IEC 62443 and NIST SP 800-82 have long emphasized segregation, secure zones and conduits, defense-in-depth, and explicit consideration of safety impacts in cybersecurity design. However, real-world implementations often fall short. Temporary network exceptions become permanent. Vendor remote access pathways are poorly governed. Monitoring tools prioritize visibility without enforcing architectural boundaries. In practice, safety systems are frequently connected in ways that technically comply with operational needs but violate the spirit of secure-by-design principles.

When Safety Systems Fail Quietly

A particularly dangerous misconception is that the primary risk to safety systems is shutdown. In reality, subtle manipulation is far more dangerous. An attacker who alters logic conditions, timing behavior, or response thresholds can leave a system operational while silently removing its protective function. Unlike a shutdown, this type of compromise can persist undetected, eroding layers of protection until a physical incident occurs. From a cyber perspective, safety systems become ideal targets precisely because their failure modes are not immediately visible.

Operational and Incident Response Consequences

When safety systems are part of the cyber attack surface, incident response changes fundamentally. A cybersecurity event becomes a potential safety event. Decisions that would normally remain within a SOC now require involvement from operations, safety engineering, and executive leadership. Containment actions must consider physical risk, not just digital impact. In converged environments, even isolating a system can have safety implications, making response slower and more complex at precisely the moment speed matters most.

Vendor Ecosystems and Transitive Risk

The growing reliance on vendors for remote diagnostics, centralized safety management, and cloud-based analytics introduces another layer of risk. A compromised vendor environment, stolen support credentials, or vulnerable update mechanisms can provide indirect access to safety systems across multiple sites. In converged architectures, safety systems may not be internet-facing, but they are often one trusted connection away from something that is. This transitive trust significantly amplifies systemic risk.

Rethinking Safety in a Converged World

The reality of IT/OT convergence is that safety and cybersecurity can no longer be managed as separate disciplines. Safety systems must be threat-modeled with the same rigor as control systems, and cybersecurity architectures must be evaluated against worst-case physical outcomes. This requires changes in governance, engineering culture, and accountability. Safety engineers must understand cyber threat models. Cybersecurity teams must understand process hazards. Architectural decisions must be judged not only by efficiency and uptime, but by their impact on resilience.

Conclusion: Defending Systems That Were Never Meant to Be Defended This Way

When safety systems become attack paths, the failure is rarely a single misconfiguration or vulnerability. It is the cumulative result of small compromises made in the name of efficiency, visibility, and modernization, without fully accounting for how trust propagates across converged environments. Safety systems do not lose their value when they are connected, but they do lose their innocence. In a world where attackers understand industrial safety as well as engineers do, defending safety systems as isolated relics is no longer realistic. Defending them as ordinary OT assets is even more dangerous.

Why Vendor Security Questionnaires Fail in OT

Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:53:18 +0000

In OT and ICS (Industrial Control Systems) environments, vendor risk management is a foundational pillar of cybersecurity. Yet, despite best intentions, vendor security questionnaires, the most common tool for supply-chain risk assessment, routinely fail to deliver meaningful, actionable insight. The result is a false sense of security that jeopardizes the availability, integrity, and safety of industrial operations. To understand why, we must examine both the unique realities of OT and the inherent limitations of the questionnaire approach.

1. OT Is Not IT: The Wrong Paradigm

Traditional security questionnaires are built on IT assumptions:

Patching cadence exists.
Standard encryption and authentication are always feasible.
Network segmentation and endpoint controls behave predictably.

In OT, these assumptions are invalid. Many ICS components:

Cannot be patched without operational risk.
May rely on proprietary protocols (e.g., Modbus, DNP3) with no native
security.
Operate legacy firmware that cannot be updated.
Must run 24/7 with zero downtime tolerance

.A questionnaire that asks whether a vendor supports quarterly patching or endpoint agents ignores these contextual constraints. The result: the answers reflect an IT scorecard, not actual OT risk.

2. The Illusion of Compliance Over Actual Risk

Vendor questionnaires are inherently checkbox-driven:

✔ Do you have MFA?
✔ Are logs retained for 90 days?
✔ Do you encrypt data in transit?

These controls are meaningful in IT, but in OT:

MFA may be non-existent due to device limitations.
Logging may not be possible without disrupting real-time control
loops.
Encryption might conflict with latency tolerances or deterministic
communication requirements.

A vendor may respond “Yes” because they interpret the question generously, or because they append compensating controls. But compliance ≠ security, especially in OT where the impact of misconfiguration can be safety-critical.

3. Lack of Domain-Specific Understanding

Many questionnaires are written by GRC or procurement teams with minimal OT expertise. Typical questions assume:

Standardized hardware and software lifecycles.
Homogeneous environments.
Cloud-native architectures.

OT environments, by contrast, are:

Highly heterogeneous (PLCs, RTUs, HMIs, DCS, legacy devices).
Often air-gapped or connected via unidirectional gateways.
Embedded with custom logic that cannot be abstracted into simple
metrics.

Without OT domain fluency, the questionnaire becomes a collection of buzzwords, not a risk instrument.

4. Self-Assessment Bias and Lack of Verifiability

Vendor responses to security questionnaires are self-reported. There is no inherent mechanism to verify:

Whether the vendor actually performs network segmentation.
Whether their cryptographic keys are properly managed.
Whether their development lifecycle includes threat modeling for ICS
threats.

In OT, where process safety and functional safety intersect with cybersecurity, unverified claims are toxic. A vendor might claim “secure by design” while their product still exposes unfiltered Ethernet traffic or default credentials.

5. Static Questionnaires in a Dynamic Threat Landscape

Threat actors targeting OT are sophisticated and constantly evolving their Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs). Questionnaires rarely update at the pace of threats like:

Supply-chain compromise
Firmware tampering
Protocol-aware manipulation
Insider threats targeting engineering workstations

Static questionnaires cannot anticipate emerging attack vectors. As a result, they become obsolete as soon as they’re signed off.

6. False Equivalence of Controls Across Domains

A question like “Do you use TLS 1.2+?” assumes that encryption technology universally improves security. In OT:

Some protocols cannot be encapsulated in TLS without redesign.
Adding encryption may introduce timing variances that destabilize
process control.

Thus, vendors may answer “Yes” based on IT practices, but such controls may be impractical or even harmful in an OT context.

7. Lack of Risk Context and Impact Modeling

OT environments are uniquely about safety, continuity, and physical effects. A typical questionnaire does not quantify:

The impact of a compromised remote access channel on plant shutdown.
The safety implications of a manipulated PLC output.
The operational cost of a false positive intrusion detection alert.

Without a risk context, vendors can satisfy requirements without actually reducing enterprise risk.

8. Organizational Misalignment

Vendor questionnaires often originate in procurement or compliance, not in OT cybersecurity leadership. This creates:

Misaligned priorities (contract obligations over operational risk).
Abstract questions divorced from engineering realities.
Acceptance of generic answers due to a lack of technical challenge.

The consequence: Organizations believe they “checked the box” while their assets remain exposed.

9. The Rise of Connected Supply Chains Without Commensurate Controls

Digital transformation has connected OT systems with enterprise and cloud environments. Vendors increasingly integrate:

Remote diagnostics
Telemetry and analytics
Over-the-air updates

Yet questionnaires rarely evaluate:

Third-party access controls
Segmentation of engineering networks
Secure update pipelines

This blind spot is a driver of high-impact incidents like supply-chain breaches that propagate into OT.

10. The Need for Evolution: Beyond Questionnaires

To genuinely assess OT vendor risk, organizations must move toward adaptive, evidence-based assessments:

Technical Assessments

On-site network traffic analysis
Firmware and binary analysis
Active probing with OT-safe techniques

Threat-Informed Risk Modeling

Mapping vendor components to MITRE ATT&CK for ICS
Prioritizing controls based on likelihood and consequence

Continuous Monitoring

Telemetry from vendor interfaces
Behavioral anomaly detection
Validation of vendor claims against actual performance

Conclusion: Questionnaires Are Not Enough

Vendor security questionnaires in OT fail not because they are poorly written, but because they apply the wrong paradigm to the wrong domain. OT environments demand contextualized, evidence-backed, and risk-centric evaluation. Unless we evolve our approach from tick-the-box compliance to domain-specific risk intelligence, industrial enterprises will continue to suffer breaches that start with a confident “Yes” on a form and end with an unexpected outage, or worse, a safety incident with real-world consequences.

The False Promise of Unified SOCs for IT/OT

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:59:18 +0000

Why One SOC to Rule Them All Isn’t the Panacea the Industry Believes It Is

The concept of a single, centralized Security Operations Center (SOC) responsible for both IT and Operational Technology (OT) environments has become something of an industry rallying cry. Vendors, consultants, and even some CISOs champion the “Unified SOC” as a strategic evolution, promising consolidated tooling, streamlined workflows, and an end to silos. Yet for many industrial organizations, particularly those managing critical infrastructure, this promise is fundamentally flawed.
A unified SOC, in theory, dissolves the distinction between IT and OT security functions. It brings together one set of analysts, one SIEM, one alerting platform, and one escalation chain. In marketing slides, it looks efficient, modern, and cost-effective. But hiding underneath are profound operational, technical, and risk management gaps that can degrade security posture, increase risk, and put production safety at stake.

This article explains why a truly unified IT/OT SOC is an unrealistic goal for most industrial environments, the structural gaps that persist today, and what realistic alternatives security leaders should pursue.

1. IT and OT Are Fundamentally Different Domains

At the highest level, IT and OT share a security goal—protect data, systems, and people, but the realities of how they operate differ radically.

Key Distinctions
Objectives:

IT prioritizes data confidentiality and integrity. OT prioritizes safety and availability above all else.
Risk Tolerance:

An IT outage is inconvenient. An OT outage can cause plant shutdowns, public safety events, or environmental disasters.

Engineering Culture:
IT is software-centric and resilient to patch cycles. OT often runs legacy hardware, proprietary protocols, and real-time control loops that cannot tolerate disruption.

Lifecycle and Change Models:
OT equipment may operate for decades; IT refresh cycles are far shorter and more agile.

These differences mean that security tools and processes that work in IT rarely translate directly into OT without significant adaptation.

2. The Myth of a Single SIEM for IT and OT

A centerpiece of many unified SOCs is the idea of a single SIEM or XDR ingesting logs from both enterprise and industrial control systems.

Why This Fails in Practice

Telemetry Limitations:
Most OT devices don’t produce logs in the same way IT systems do. PLCs, RTUs, and DCS components may generate limited telemetry, or none at all.

Protocol Blind Spots:
Standard SIEMs lack deep decoding for industrial protocols like Modbus, DNP3, IEC 60870-5-104, BACnet, OPC UA, etc. Without protocol-aware parsers, alerts are meaningless noise.

Volume/Noise Mismatch:
OT environments generate extremely low signal yet extremely critical events. Standard IT SIEM thresholds cannot distinguish between normal cyclic PLC behavior and malicious manipulation without OT-specific analytics.

Resulting Gaps

False negatives: Critical OT attacks go undetected.
False positives: Normal OT behavior triggers alerts that overwhelm analysts unfamiliar with industrial systems.

3. Skills Gaps: “One Team to Understand Both Worlds” Is Unrealistic

Unified SOCs often assume that analysts can be trained to monitor both IT and OT effectively. Yet:

IT Analysts

Are trained in Windows, Linux, Active Directory, cloud-based threats, phishing, malware, and lateral movement.
Have little to no real exposure to industrial protocols, control loops, deterministic network behavior, or safety impacts.

OT Security Engineers

Understand PLC logic, control operations, safety instrumented systems (SIS), and process physics.

May not be fluent in IT attacker TTPs like adversary frameworks (MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise), malware families, or network pivoting.

Expecting one team to become experts in both domains introduces skills dilution—not synergy.

4. Incident Response Differences: One Playbook ≠ Fit-All

IT Incident Response

Common IR actions: isolate endpoint, kill process, reimage host, restore from backups.
Downtime is tolerable; systems can be taken offline for investigation.

OT Incident Response

Taking a PLC offline could stop production or cause unsafe states.
Investigators can’t just pull a drive or reflash firmware without understanding the sequence of operations and safety consequences.
Forensic imaging is often impossible on embedded controllers.

A unified playbook risks causing more harm than good if OT events are handled using IT-centric procedures.

5. Regulatory and Compliance Divergence

Industrial sectors like energy, water, transportation, and manufacturing are subject to specialized compliance requirements:

NERC CIP
ISA/IEC 62443
CFATS
OSHA/NEP safety regulations

These regulations often require domain-specific controls, segmentation, and risk assessments that don’t map neatly into enterprise security frameworks.

A unified SOC strategy that ignores these regulatory nuances may expose operators to compliance violations or audit failures.

6. The Technology Illusion: “One Pane of Glass” Is Not Enough

Unified SOC advocates push dashboards showing all alerts in one place. But visibility does not equal situational understanding in OT.

Real OT Requirements

Network flow visibility that understands deterministic industrial traffic cycles.
Process context: What does this state change mean in the actual control logic?
Safety alarms and process thresholds, beyond IT security events.

Without this deep context, analysts see numbers, not meaning.

7. Cultural Tensions: IT Rules ≠ OT Rules

Unified SOCs often reflect IT governance priorities:

Patch quickly
Enforce strict access controls
Prioritize rapid incident containment

These can conflict with OT needs:

Patch only during scheduled maintenance windows
Preserve uptime even under investigation
Maintain safe state ahead of all else

Without collaboration and domain-specific governance, unified SOCs can produce costly friction or poor decisions.

8. The False Economy of Consolidation

Unified SOCs promise cost savings by reducing headcount or tool duplication. But:

The cost of a missed OT attack far exceeds staff or license savings.
Training IT analysts on OT context is expensive and slow.
Deploying improper tooling generates more work and risk.

Often organizations realize they need dual capability anyway, an OT-centric team plus an enterprise team, erasing the supposed savings.

9. What Should Organizations Do Instead?

1. Complementary SOCs with Clear Integration

Maintain specialized IT and OT security teams.
Enable controlled information sharing where meaningful (e.g., threat intelligence, attacker TTPs).
Ensure senior leadership aligns risk criteria across domains.

2. OT-Aware Tooling

Protocol-aware IDS/ICS monitoring
Asset inventory built for OT
Process modeling and anomaly detection tailored to control environments

3. Domain-Appropriate Playbooks

Separate IR playbooks with escalation cues between IT and OT responders
Joint tabletop exercises to refine coordination without forcing a single script

4. Skill Investment
Develop dedicated OT security staff
Cross-training programs, but not to turn every analyst into a full IT+OT expert

5. Governance That Recognizes Differences

Risk management frameworks that respect the unique value and safety imperatives of OT
Service-level definitions for detection, response, and restoration that differ between domains

Conclusion: Unified in Theory, Divided in Practice

The idea of a unified SOC for IT and OT stems from good intentions: break silos, reduce complexity, and gain holistic visibility. But in the real world of industrial operations, this goal is often a false promise. Without acknowledging and architecting for the fundamental differences between IT and OT, unified SOCs can expose organizations to gaps in detection, response, compliance, and safety.

Real security leadership doesn’t chase a simplistic consolidation; it designs complementary capabilities that respect domain distinctions, drive meaningful communication, and ensure that both environments are protected according to their intrinsic risks.

Why IT Identity Models Break on the Plant Floor

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:43:47 +0000

Different Worlds

Identity works beautifully in IT. Users log in. Accounts are provisioned. Access is reviewed. Logs are audited. On paper, the same model should apply everywhere.

Then you step onto a plant floor.

What IT calls an identity is usually a human with a keyboard. What OT calls an identity might be a PLC rung, a historian service, a maintenance laptop, a vendor dial-in session, or a controller that has been running since before Active Directory existed.

Trying to force IT identity models into OT environments without adaptation is one of the fastest ways to create operational risk, safety exposure, and unplanned downtime.

This article explains why traditional IT identity models fail in industrial environments, and what practitioners must understand before attempting to “modernize” identity on the plant floor.

1. IT Identity Assumes People. OT Identity Assumes Processes.

IT identity models are human-centric by design.
They revolve around named users, roles, job functions, and employment status.
OT environments do not work that way.

On the plant floor:

Machines authenticate to machines
Processes run continuously, not per login session
Access is tied to operational states, not job titles

A PLC does not “log in” at 8 a.m. and log out at 5 p.m. A DCS service account cannot be rotated every 90 days without risking a plant trip. A maintenance engineer may need elevated access for 20 minutes, not permanently.

When identity is tied to who someone is instead of what the process needs, the model breaks.

2. Availability Beats Confidentiality Every Time

IT identity models are designed to protect data:

Prevent unauthorized access
Enforce least privilege
Expire credentials aggressively

In OT, the primary mission is different, To keep the process running safely.

If identity controls:

Delay access during an incident
Lock out an operator during a fault
Break an automation dependency

Then identity itself becomes a safety risk.

On the plant floor:

A failed login can mean a stopped process
An expired certificate can halt production
A misconfigured role can trip a safety system

This is why OT teams often bypass identity controls entirely rather than risk downtime.

3. Legacy Systems Were Never Designed for Modern Identity

Many industrial systems:

Predate Active Directory
Do not support MFA
Use shared accounts by design
Embed credentials directly in firmware or logic

You cannot simply “add IAM” to:

A 20-year-old PLC
A serial-connected RTU
A vendor HMI with hardcoded passwords

IT models assume:

Software updates are routine
Authentication libraries can be replaced
Identity standards are supported

OT systems assume:

Stability over change
Certification over updates
“If it works, don’t touch it.”

Forcing modern identity onto legacy control systems often introduces more risk than it removes.

4. Shared Accounts Exist for Operational Reasons

Shared identities exist because:

Shift handovers must be instantaneous
Emergency access cannot wait for account provisioning
Some systems support only one or two accounts
Accountability is enforced through procedures, not logins

Replacing shared accounts without redesigning workflows leads to:

Credential sharing anyway
Passwords written on cabinets
MFA tokens taped to HMIs

The problem is not shared accounts. The problem is ignoring why they exist.

5. Identity Lifecycles Do Not Match OT Reality

In IT:

Joiner → Mover → Leaver
HR triggers access changes
Roles map neatly to permissions

In OT:

Contractors appear during outages
Vendors need access for one specific asset
Engineers support multiple plants
Access is often episodic, not continuous

A technician may need:

Full access during commissioning
Read-only during steady state
No access for months afterward

Traditional IAM struggles with time-bound, asset-specific, operational access.

6. Authentication Alone Does Not Equal Trust in OT

IT identity assumes:
“If you authenticated successfully, you are trusted.” OT cannot afford that assumption.

On the plant floor:

A valid credential can still cause physical damage
A trusted account can execute unsafe commands
An authenticated session can violate process limits

OT trust is contextual:

What mode is the plant in? "
What is the safety state?
What asset is being accessed?

Identity without process awareness is incomplete and dangerous.

7. Vendor Access Breaks Every IT Identity Rule

Industrial environments depend heavily on vendors:

OEMs
Integrators
Remote support teams

Vendor access often:

Bypasses corporate IAM
Uses jump hosts or modems
Operates during emergencies

IT identity models assume:

Central control
Uniform enforcement
Predictable access patterns

OT reality is:

Access must work at 3 a.m. during a fault
Vendor systems may be outside your IAM
Blocking access can cost millions per hour

Without OT-aware access models, organizations either overexpose systems or block support entirely.

8. Compliance Models Were Written for IT, Not Physical Processes

Most identity compliance requirements were written with IT systems in mind:

SOX
ISO 27001
NIST 800-53

Applying them blindly to OT leads to:

Checkbox security
Operational workarounds
A false sense of control

In OT, compliance must align with:

Safety standards (IEC 61511, IEC 62443)
Operational risk
Engineering constraints

Identity controls that ignore physics will always fail.

What Actually Works on the Plant Floor

Identity in OT must be:

Process-aware
Asset-centric
Time-bound
Fail-safe, not fail-secure

Effective approaches include:

Segmentation before authentication
Role separation at the system level, not user level
Strong monitoring instead of aggressive lockouts
Controlled break-glass access
Vendor access brokers designed for OT

Most importantly, identity must be designed with operations, not imposed on them.

Final Thought: Identity Is a Control System

On the plant floor, identity is not an IT control.
It is part of the control system itself.
If it:

Interrupts operations
Delays response
Overrides engineering intent

Then it has failed its purpose.The goal is not to make OT “look like IT.” The goal is to make identity serve safety, reliability, and resilience.

AI-Driven Threat Detection & Prediction: Why Traditional OT Security Is No Longer Sufficient

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 20:34:49 +0000

For many years, OT security has depended on reactive methods, alarms trigger, operators investigate, and incidents are addressed after they become visible.

In today’s connected industrial environments, this model no longer keeps pace with how fast threats evolve.

Modern OT systems integrate IT networks, cloud services, remote access, and real-time data. This increases efficiency and increases exposure.

To manage this complexity, AI-driven detection and predictive analytics are becoming essential components of OT security programs.

1. The Challenge: OT Threats Rarely Present Clear Signals

Most hostile activity in industrial environments is subtle. Adversaries move slowly, emulate legitimate traffic, and exploit boundaries between IT and OT.

This creates several limitations for traditional OT security tools:

Telemetry volumes beyond human review capacity
Rule-based systems that miss previously unseen attacks
Poor visibility into legacy PLCs, RTUs, and SCADA assets
Fragmented monitoring across IT and OT domains
Delayed escalation due to manual decision processes
Static, signature-driven tools were not designed for today’s adaptive threat landscape.

2. How AI Learns and Interprets Your OT Environment

AI systems establish a baseline of normal operational behavior: command patterns, process timing, historian queries, operator interactions, and equipment states.

This enables them to identify deviations such as:

Irregular control commands
Unusual movement between HMI, engineering workstations, and PLCs
Timing anomalies in industrial processes
Suspicious workstation activity
Early indicators of ransomware staging
These deviations are often too small or complex for traditional monitoring tools to detect.

AI analyzes patterns across millions of data points to highlight behaviors that warrant attention.

3. Predictive Analytics: Moving Beyond Detection

Detection addresses what has already started.
Predictive analytics helps identify what is likely to occur next.

Become a member
In OT environments, AI-based prediction can estimate:

Assets with elevated risk based on behavior trends
Vulnerabilities likely to be exploited within the environment
Systems showing early pre-compromise activity
Supply-chain risks and irregular update patterns
Potential ransomware entry routes
This allows organizations to address issues before they develop into incidents.

4. Reducing Data Noise in Complex OT Networks

Industrial networks generate continuous, high-volume data from:

Modbus, PROFINET, DNP3, and other protocols
Sensor and historian logs
PLC cycles and process data
Engineering workstation operations
AI helps filter and contextualize this data, producing:

Fewer, higher-confidence alerts
Clear explanations of suspicious activity
Identified attack paths
Actionable recommendations
This reduces operational fatigue and provides analysts with focused insights rather than overwhelming noise.

5. Supporting Faster and More Informed Incident Response

During an OT incident, time directly affects safety, reliability, and continuity.

AI supports response teams by:

Mapping affected devices and communication paths
Identifying compromised accounts or workstations
Predicting possible escalation routes
Recommending isolation or containment steps
Estimating operational impact
This enables teams to respond in a structured and informed manner.

6. AI Complements Not Replaces OT Governance

AI is effective when foundational OT security practices are in place.

This includes:

Accurate asset inventories
Segmentation and zoning
Access management
Patch and vulnerability programs
Documented incident response procedures
AI enhances existing controls but cannot compensate for weak or incomplete processes.

7. Conclusion: AI Is Becoming a Standard Requirement in OT Security

As OT environments expand and integrate with modern technologies, traditional reactive security approaches no longer meet operational needs.

AI-driven detection and predictive analytics provide the visibility, speed, and precision required to secure industrial operations.

For most organizations, AI is no longer an advanced option but it is becoming a standard expectation for maintaining resilience.

Windows 10 officially ends on October 14, 2025

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 16:44:09 +0000

Windows 10 officially ends on October 14, 2025

Windows 10 End of Support: On April 27, 2023, Microsoft publicly confirmed that Windows 10 version 22H2 would be its last Windows 10 feature update, and that support for Windows 10 (Home, Pro, Enterprise, Education, etc.) will end on October 14, 2025. Windows 10 marked a major turning point in Microsoft's OS History by unifying the Windows Experience across various devices under a single platform.

Its stability, broad compatibility, and adaptability made it one of the most widely used operating systems in the world, powering over a billion devices at its peak. As the proverb says, “Every good thing comes to an end,” and the same holds for Windows 10, one of Microsoft’s most successful operating systems.

Windows 10 Timeline

What happens to Windows 10 after October 14, 2025?

Microsoft will officially end support for Windows 10, and it will no longer receive security updates, bug fixes, or new features. While computers running Windows 10 will continue to function, they will gradually become more vulnerable to security threats and less compatible with newer software, hardware, and online services. Users who remain on Windows 10 after this date may face increasing risks and limited support from other developers, as most companies will shift their focus to Windows 11 and newer systems. Essentially, Windows 10 will still work, but it will no longer be safe or reliable for long-term use.

Winsides.com strongly advises all users to upgrade to a supported operating system, such as Windows 11, well before the end-of-support date on October 14, 2025, to maintain full security, stability, and access to the latest features. Continuing to use Windows 10 after this date will leave your system exposed to security threats and vulnerabilities, and you do so entirely at your own risk.

Upgrade your Windows 10 to Windows 11

Upgrading to Windows 11 provides users with enhanced security, a modern design, and improved productivity features that Windows 10 cannot fully offer. With hardware-level protections like TPM 2.0, Secure Boot, and advanced ransomware safeguards, Windows 11 keeps your system and data more secure.

Take Away

As we approach the end of support for Windows 10 on October 14, 2025, it’s the perfect moment to reflect on the incredible journey this operating system has given us. Windows 10 transformed the way we work, play, and connect, offering stability, innovation, and a bridge between legacy systems and modern computing. While it will soon retire, its legacy will continue to influence how we interact with technology.

Thank you, Windows 10! Thank you, Microsoft! With a heavy heart, goodbye Windows 10.

For more interesting information, stay tuned to Winsides.com. Happy Computing! Peace Out!

How Load Balancers Keep Websites Fast and Reliable

Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:55:33 +0000

As we discussed Scaling in the last post today, I will try to explain the Load Balancer, so Let's get started

Imagine a scenario You have a bookstore that is getting incredibly popular day by day and as more people start to visit your bookstore you begin to face some issues like:

Overcrowding: Too many people in the store at once.
Long Checkout Lines: Some counters have very long lines, while others are not busy at all.
Customer Frustration: Long waits cause customers to leave without buying.
poor service: If one counter breaks down (the cashier is sick), the remaining counters become even more busy.

Now, How can you overcome these issues

Solving the Problem in a Physical Bookstore

we can use scaling approaches ,Let see how we can use Scaling :

a) Vertical Scaling (Make the Store Bigger)

Add More Counters in the existing store.
Hire more cashiers to handle the increasing load.
Create a Larger space to accommodate more customers.

Problem : When there are multiple counters, some customers still end up waiting in line at just one counter, while other counters stay empty. To solve this, we need a system that can evenly distribute customers across all counters, so no counter stays too busy or too idle.

b) Horizontal Scaling (Open More Branches)

Open multiple stores in different locations.
Customers visit the nearest store instead of overcrowding one.

Problem : If there’s no system guiding customers to the appropriate branch, some stores might be overrun, while others remain underutilized.

Enter the Load Balancer (Physical Context)

The Role of a Load Balancer:

In the physical bookstore, a staff member at the entrance acts as the load balancer:

They send customers to the least busy counter.
If a counter stops working (like if the cashier leaves), they guide customers to the counters that are still open.
This helps spread out the customers evenly, making wait times shorter and reducing frustration.

Example:

Counter 1 has 5 customers, Counter 2 has 2 customers, and Counter 3 is free.
The load balancer sends the next customer to Counter 3.

Now, let's see how this concept applies to an online bookstore with servers.

The Problem: Server Overload
For the online bookstore the website becomes extremely popular. The same problems occur, but in a digital form:

Overcrowding: When too many people try to use the website at the same time, the server gets slow or stops working.
Uneven Load Distribution: If there’s no system to share the work, one server may get all the traffic while others sit unused.
Unreliable Service: If one server fails, users can’t access the website.

To Overcome this issue online we can use load balancer

A load balancer is a tool that helps manage the flow of visitors to a website. It makes sure that the traffic is shared equally between different servers, so no single server gets too crowded.

Why is it used?

To balance traffic: It ensures that no server is overloaded with too many requests at once.
To keep the website running: If one server breaks, the load balancer sends the visitors to another working server.
To handle more visitors: It allows you to add more servers when needed, so the website can handle more users.

Pros of a Load Balancer:

Faster performance: It keeps the website fast by spreading the work across servers.
Keeps the website available: If one server goes down, the load balancer sends traffic to other servers, so the website stays online.
Helps in scaling: You can add more servers as your website grows, and the load balancer will distribute the traffic evenly.
Prevents server crashes: By not overloading any server, it prevents crashes.

Cons of a Load Balancer:

Risk of failure: If the load balancer itself fails, it can affect the whole system unless there's a backup.
Small delays: The load balancer may cause a small delay in sending the request to the right server.

Load Balancing Algorithms
In addition to helping distribute traffic, load balancers use specific algorithms to determine how the incoming requests are distributed to the different servers. Let’s explore the most commonly used load balancing algorithms:

Round Robin Algorithm

This is the most basic and commonly used load balancing algorithm. It simply distributes requests to the servers one by one in a circular fashion, without considering the current load on the servers.

How it works:
Each incoming request is sent to the next server in line. Once the last server in the list is reached, the load balancer starts sending requests to the first server again.
Let me Explain you this by an Example:

Let’s say you have three servers: Server 1, Server 2, and Server 3.
- Request 1 goes to Server 1.
- Request 2 goes to Server 2.
- Request 3 goes to Server 3.
- Request 4 starts again and goes to Server 1.
Least Connections Algorithm

the Least Connections algorithm considers how many active connections are already open on each server. The load balancer sends traffic to the server with the fewest active connections, ensuring that no server is overloaded.
How it works:
The load balancer constantly monitors the number of active connections on each server. When a new request comes in, it sends the request to the server with the least number of active connections, helping to distribute the load evenly.
Let me Explain you this by an Example:
Server 1 has 10 active connections.
Server 2 has 5 active connections.
Server 3 has 2 active connections.
The load balancer will send the next request to Server 3, as it has the least number of active connections.
IP Hashing Algorithm

The IP Hashing algorithm uses the client’s IP address to decide which server should handle their requests. This means a user with the same IP address will always connect to the same server. It’s helpful when a user’s session data (like login details or shopping cart) is stored on a specific server.
How it Works:
The load balancer takes the user’s IP address (e.g., 192.168.1.10).
It runs the IP address through a formula (called "hashing") to pick a specific server.
Every time the user visits, the same IP will map to the same server.

Why Are These Algorithms Important?
These load balancing algorithms are crucial because they allow the load balancer to distribute traffic in the most efficient way possible, ensuring that:

Server Load is Balanced
Faster Response Times
Better Scalability

Choosing the Right Algorithm
The choice of load balancing algorithm largely depends on:

The traffic patterns: Predictable traffic is better suited for Round Robin, while unpredictable traffic may benefit more from Least Connections.
The type of service: Applications needing session consistency should use IP Hashing.

In conclusion, load balancers are essential for ensuring optimal performance and scalability in digital systems. Whether you're just learning or planning to implement one, understanding algorithms like Round Robin and Least Connections is crucial.

Do you Have a favorite algorithm or a question about implementation? Let’s keep the conversation going.

Linux vs Windows Which Operating System is Best?

Wed, 15 Jan 2025 09:20:01 +0000

Linux vs Windows Which Operating System is Best?

Linux vs. Windows has always remained one of the most frequently asked questions related to the operating system. Users often find themselves confused about which one is better for them. There is a clear divide in preference as most users prefer the graphical user interface (GUI) and most command-line interface (CLI). This divide has led to many disagreements and strong opinions among users, and it seems it will continue for their whole lives.

In this section, we will discuss the differences between Linux and Windows by examining various factors such as performance, usability, security, ease of use, and more, providing a clearer picture of each operating system. Moreover, we will see the advantages and disadvantages of both operating systems, which will help you to decide which one is best for you.

What is LINUX?

Linux is an operating system like Windows, iOS, and Mac OS. It is not just restricted to the operating system, but it can also be used to run many platforms like desktops, servers, and, embedded systems. It offers various distributions and variations due to its open-source nature and modular design. The kernel is a basic part of the Linux system.
Linux systems can be used for managing various services such as process scheduling, application scheduling, basic peripheral devices, file systems, and more. Linux offers several advantages over other operating systems like Windows and macOS. That's why it is widely used across every field, from cars to home appliances and smartphones to servers (supercomputers).In this section, we will see some key benefits of the Linux system. Moreover, we will compare Linux with other operating systems to examine why it is better than other operating systems.

You can find more information about Linux bout Linux at the official Linux Foundation website.

Advantages of Linux

1. Open Source

Linux is open-source and its source code is free. Anyone with programming knowledge can modify, customize, and enhance the operating system. Users can contribute, modify, distribute, and enhance the code for various purposes. If you want to learn more about Linux and its open-source nature visit Linux org.
2. Security

Linux security features make it a preferable choice for developers. While it is not completely safe, it is less sensitive than other operating systems. For security, each application must be authorized by the admin user. This ensures that viruses cannot execute without the administrator's permission.

3. Free of cost

One of the biggest advantages of the Linux system is that it is free to use. It can be easily downloaded without any cost, and there is no need to purchase a license. In contrast, other operating systems often require expensive licenses for use.

4. Stability and reliability

Linux is more stable and reliable than others. Unlike other operating systems, it does not require frequent reboots to maintain optimal performance. Linux rarely slows down.

5. High Performance

The Linux system provides excellent performance across various networks. It can handle a large number of users at the same time.

6. Flexibility

The Linux operating system is highly flexible and is suitable for desktop applications, embedded systems, and server environments. It also offers various customization options to users which allow them to install only the essential components needed for a particular system.

7. Various distros/distributions

There are a variety of distributions available, also called distros. It offers several choices and flavors to users. You can select any one of them according to your choice. Some famous bistros of LINUX are Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch Linux, Debian, mint Linux, and many more.

Disadvantages of Linux

1. Hardware drive strong text issue

A common issue faced by many Linux users is the unavailability of some hardware drivers. Because Hardware companies often focus on developing those drivers that are more used by users.

2. Learning curve

Starting with Windows is simple for beginners, but learning Linux can be difficult. For operating Linux systems you have to learn the command-line interface and finding new software is difficult too. Even if you face any problem in the operating system then finding a solution is also difficult as there are fewer experts available for Linux as compared to Windows or Mac.

3. Lack of standard edition

Windows and Macs have various standard versions but there is no standard version for Linux. Even though there are hundreds of editions that are developed by users.it can be difficult to examine which one is better for you, and making the right decision can be challenging for new users.

4. Incompatible software

One of the disadvantages of using Linux is that most of your favorite programs will not run on it. If you are used to a specific software, you will have to search for a comparable Linux option.

5. Lack of Tech support

While there is a large community of Linux users available for helping to answer technical questions in forums and chat rooms, it can be more difficult to get responses. You can ask questions of Linux users, but sometimes it can be difficult to understand their answers due to the lack of technical knowledge.

6. Linux market Dominance

Linux does not dominate
the market like Windows , it is difficult to find the applications to support your needs but most of the programmers are trying to develop applications that are supported by Linux. Many people faced issues while running the printer on Linux and Blu-ray.

What is Windows?

Windows is a graphical operating system developed by Microsoft. It allows users to view and manage files, run software, play games, watch videos, and access the internet. The first version of Windows was Windows 1.0, which was introduced by Microsoft on 10 November 1983.
It was released for both home computing and professional uses. Over the years, many versions of Windows have been released, as well as the current version, Windows 10.
In 1993, Microsoft launched the first business-oriented version of Windows, known as Windows NT 3.1. Then it introduced the next versions, Windows 3.5, 4/0, and Windows 2000. After the release of XP Windows in 2001, the company designed its various versions for a personal and business environment. XP Windows was designed based on standard x86 hardware, like Intel and AMD processors. So, it can run on different brands of hardware, such as HP, Dell, and Sony computers, including home-built PCs.To learn more about Windows visit visit the official Microsoft Windows page.

Advantages of Windows

Like Linux, Windows proposes advantages and disadvantages that may be necessary to you, depending on your requirements. Some commonly experienced ones include the following.

1. User friendly

The user interface provided by the Windows operating system is quite user-friendly, as compared to other operating systems like Linux and Mac. Even all versions of the Windows operating system such as Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10, and Windows 11 have many things in common that make it easy for users to switch from one version to another.

Windows operating systems are Graphical User Interface (GUI) based operating systems, which means anyone with basic knowledge of computer systems can use the computer without facing any problems.

2. Compatible to All Hardware

Because the Windows operating system is the most extensively used computer operating system. It is used by over 95% of users globally. That's why, all the computer hardware manufacturers produce drivers for Windows operating systems.

3. Plug support and Playing Feature

Windows operating systems come with many hardware drivers preinstalled, enabling the plug-and-play feature.

This means that when a new hardware device is connected to a Windows-based system, it is automatically detected and ready to use, so you do not need to install the driver of the device manually.

4. Provides Software Development Support

For software developers, the Windows operating system provides a highly convenient environment. Linux users can not create applications to run on the Windows operating system. So it is a better choice to use the Windows operating system for creating applications. This makes Windows the preferred choice for programmers and software engineers working on games, utilities, and other applications.

5. Supports Both Desktop and Touchscreen Devices

The interface of Windows 10 and Windows 11 operating systems supports both desktop devices and touchscreen devices.

Disadvantages of Windows

1. Security concern

The Windows operating system is generally considered more unsafe to security threats compared to other operating systems. Hackers can easily bypass its security layers. For security, Windows users rely on antivirus software to protect their systems from malicious attacks. To access these antivirus services, users typically need to pay a subscription fee.

2. Paid Software

The application software run on the Windows operating system is paid. For example, if you want to do graphic designing, then you have to purchase Photoshop or any other graphics software. For word processing you also have to purchase MS Word, and so on.

3. Expensive

To use the Windows operating system on the computer, we need to purchase a license from Microsoft, that's why we cannot use the Windows operating system legally free. The cost of buying a copy of a Windows license is very high.
Other than the license fee, users must have to pay software subscription fees as most of the software is paid.

4. Lack of technical support

Windows customer support is very poor for many users. Because it provides technical support services only to some large organizations. Therefore, individual users have to rely on external resources and forums to resolve their technical issues.

5. High-Performance System Requirement

The Windows operating system is known for its advanced graphical user interface. So, a high-performance system is required to run Windows operating systems. For this, the computer system must have a large RAM capacity, a powerful CPU, a large capacity storage disk, a good graphics card, etc.

6. Need for System Reboot

When we load several applications and programs at the same time while operating a Windows-based computer system, the system starts to slow down and may hang up. In such situations, we need to reboot the system.

Linux vs Windows

1. Pricing and license

Linux

The unique feature of the Linux operating system is that it, along with its utilities and libraries, is free and open-source which allows users to use and modify it. Paid versions of Linux OS with extra support are also available in the market at a reasonable price. Linux is distributed under the GPL(GNU General Public License) license.

Windows

The Microsoft Windows operating system is distributed under the Microsoft License, which does not grant users access to the source code. As a result, modifications are not possible at the standard user level. The cost of a Microsoft License for its standard versions ranges from $70 to $200, and it can be installed on several computers as specified in the purchase agreement.

2. Command line

Linux

The command line, commonly known as the Terminal, is one of the most essential tools in the Linux system. It is used for system administration and everyday tasks. For end-users, it may not appear effective.

Windows

Windows also has a command line, but it is not as effective compared to the Linux terminal. Most users tend to prefer the graphical user interface (GUI) for daily tasks.

3. System Update

Linux

Linux operating system offers users full control over when and what updates are installed. It is a quick process and doesn’t require a reboot of the system.

Windows

Microsoft Windows is often criticized for its unpredictable updates, which can appear at inconvenient times.
For novice users who are not aware much about update settings, the only option is to allow the system to automatically download and install updates that require a restart after each update.

4. Ease of Use

Linux

Linux has continually evolved, improving its usability over the years. The release of Linux Mint simplified the installation and setup process.
Users who have less or no technical knowledge can easily install updates and perform everyday tasks such as checking email, playing music and videos, and browsing the internet.

Windows

Windows offers a simple and feature-rich GUI, which makes it easy to use for both technical and non-technical users.
The troubleshooting process is also much easier compared to Linux. The smooth function system of its toolbar and easy installation process make it a favorite among both new and old users.

5. Support

Linux

Linux has strong support due to its large community. It provides extensive online support for Linux users.

Windows

Windows also provides excellent support, which offers both free and paid options. It features easily accessible online forums for user help.

6. Variety

Linux

Linux offers several distributions that are highly customizable, which allows users to customize the system to their needs.

Windows

Windows provides fewer customization options.

7. Speed

Linux

In terms of speed, Linux is much faster than Windows. When running multiple processes, Linux minimizes system slowdowns.

Windows

Windows, on the other hand, requires careful management to avoid performance issues. Even with minimal use, it can slow down to frustrating levels. When running multiple processes memory and disk hogging is a common thing.

8. Security

Linux

Linux OS is considered more secure than Windows, as it is harder for hackers and attackers to exploit vulnerabilities.

Windows

On the other hand, Windows is less secure than Linux and is a common target for malware and viruses. Without antivirus software, Windows systems are particularly vulnerable to attacks.

9. Reliability

Linux

Since its inception, the Linux operating system has been committed to providing strong system security, efficient process management, and excellent uptime. its dedication to security and reliability make it a highly secure and dependable operating system.

Windows

Microsoft has made efforts to improve the reliability of Windows over the years, but there is still much work to be done to match Linux's level.
For the sake of user-friendliness and ease of access, many features have been discontinued, leading to system instability and security vulnerabilities which resulted in the development of system instability and security vulnerabilities. As a result, Windows is often considered "less reliable" when compared to Linux.

10. Gaming

Linux

Linux is gradually making its way into the gaming market, with beta support for many games. However, there is still a long road ahead. Purchasing a Linux operating system means missing out on a large number of games.

Windows

In the gaming arena, Windows is the clear leader compared to Linux. Platforms like Steam, Epic Games, and others are readily available to Windows users, offering access to both AAA titles and indie games. Because of its large user base, many graphic card manufacturers prioritize support for Windows.

Conclusion

In this article on Linux vs. Windows, we have explained many aspects of both operating systems to give you enough knowledge to help you make the right decision whether you're purchasing a new computer or want to switch from an old system.
Both Linux and Windows have their functionalities, purposes, and uses in their respective areas. So choose it according to your specific needs. We hope this article has provided you with a lot of information about both operating systems, which can help you to evaluate them properly and understand the differences between them.

Coder Legion - Recent posts tagged operating-system

The Linux journey of a Windows refugee

Picking the distro

First steps

The Gnome Shell experience

A little detour into KDE

What is a desktop environment?

Theme hell

Cracks start to appear

Linux Mint

Software manager

C++ programmer perspective

Conclusion

Surviving a Kernel Panic: My Ubuntu War Story

Step 1: The Hard Reset & The USB Boot

Step 2: Dropping into the Underworld (The BusyBox Shell)

Step 3: Find and repair

Step 4: The Boot Menu & The Investigation

Step 5: The Execution(Purging the Rot)

A little note...

When Safety Systems Become Attack Paths

Why Vendor Security Questionnaires Fail in OT

The False Promise of Unified SOCs for IT/OT

Why IT Identity Models Break on the Plant Floor

AI-Driven Threat Detection & Prediction: Why Traditional OT Security Is No Longer Sufficient

Windows 10 officially ends on October 14, 2025

Windows 10 officially ends on October 14, 2025

Windows 10 Timeline

What happens to Windows 10 after October 14, 2025?

Upgrade your Windows 10 to Windows 11

Take Away

How Load Balancers Keep Websites Fast and Reliable

Solving the Problem in a Physical Bookstore

Enter the Load Balancer (Physical Context)

Now, let's see how this concept applies to an online bookstore with servers.

Why is it used?

Round Robin Algorithm

Least Connections Algorithm

IP Hashing Algorithm

Linux vs Windows Which Operating System is Best?