The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.
And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.
Jul 21 '05
383  11720 
C# Learner <cs****@learner.here> wrote:
IMO, it's a question of: if you were so inclined, whom would you try to
take candy from -- the big, tough guy sitting in the corner (Linux) or the
neigh on defenseless baby standing right in front or you (Windows)?
If you are truly inclined to know whats going on on both
sides of the fence check out: http://www.sans.org/top20/
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote: "C# Learner" <cs****@learner.here> wrote in message
news:mv***************@csharp.learner... "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted,
that's
all.
There are a huge number of Linux boxen running Apache as web servers.
Consider the reward of 'hacking' a web server -- potential access to
sensitive website-related data. Why aren't we seeing a lot of news of
'hackings' of such Linux boxen?
For the same reason I wrote in my earlier post. Hackers hack MS products
because they are the big boy on the block.
That's one single factor, but that's not the whole picture, IMV. There are
other factors such as MS having a reputation for releasing exploitable
software, for example.
Your "huge" number of Linux
boxes running Apache is still a small percentage of the boxes out there.
Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general. Pre-SP2, 'hacking' the average Joe's Windows desktop was a walk in the
park
for anyone with even the slightest clue about Windows and networking.
This
has never been the case with a decent Linux distro. I have yet to
evaluate
SP2 so I can't speak about that.
IMO, it's a question of: if you were so inclined, whom would you try to
take candy from -- the big, tough guy sitting in the corner (Linux) or the
neigh on defenseless baby standing right in front or you (Windows)?
What you've said here has no basis in fact, it is simply your experience and
your opinion.
Well, duh -- I said "IMO" (in my opinion).
In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread. Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
"*misconception* that MS software is "less-secure" than other software."
I'll give my 2 cents.
Windows in all it's forms has problems, so does *nix.
Windows in all it's forms has security problems, so does *nix.
Windows is easy to use, *nix isn't.
Windows has more commercially available software available, *nix has little.
Windows has a blue screen of death, *nix doesn't.
I could go on an on but I think you get the idea. This is like comparing
apples and oranges. Sure they are all platforms, but weather one is better
than the other is purely a matter of preference and the willingness to learn.
If you like Microsoft's stuff... use it and be quiet. If you like *nix or
mac or any of the others..... use it and be quiet. Last time i checked we
were all out there to make technology across the globe better. If we waste
all this time fighting against each other we'll never get anywhere. Go
competitive spirit, but please... think of the future for all not just
yourself.
> Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general.
How can you say that? The rewards of cracking the software that a small
percentage of users use is not nearly as enticing as bringing 95% of the
computer using market to its knees. Come on, get real.
Well, duh -- I said "IMO" (in my opinion).
In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread. Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
"*misconception* that MS software is "less-secure" than other software."
It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds desktop
computers. I have stated (in this thread) that research groups (like
Gartner) and hardware manufacturers (like Dell, HP, IBM and others) as well
as MS itself keep track of these things.
It is not my opinion that the vast majority of viruses are written to take
down MS software. McAfee, Symantec and others have provided overwhelming
data to prove that point.
It is not a misconception that Windows is more vulnerable than other
platforms because other platforms have never had to have had to withstand
the volume of hacking attempts that Windows has.
These are not my opinions, they are facts that are easily verified via the
sources I've mentioned.
P.S. I've used both windows and Linux/BSD extensively and my security
training has included both systems in equal detail. The only diffrence I see
between them is the relative patience it takes to operate/maintain both and
NOT crash them. Other than that they both rock in my eyes. Sometimes I like
orange sherbet, sometimes I dig apple pie.
"Thomas J Shea" wrote: I'll give my 2 cents.
Windows in all it's forms has problems, so does *nix.
Windows in all it's forms has security problems, so does *nix.
Windows is easy to use, *nix isn't.
Windows has more commercially available software available, *nix has little.
Windows has a blue screen of death, *nix doesn't.
I could go on an on but I think you get the idea. This is like comparing
apples and oranges. Sure they are all platforms, but weather one is better
than the other is purely a matter of preference and the willingness to learn.
If you like Microsoft's stuff... use it and be quiet. If you like *nix or
mac or any of the others..... use it and be quiet. Last time i checked we
were all out there to make technology across the globe better. If we waste
all this time fighting against each other we'll never get anywhere. Go
competitive spirit, but please... think of the future for all not just
yourself.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote: Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general.
How can you say that? The rewards of cracking the software that a small
percentage of users use is not nearly as enticing as bringing 95% of the
computer using market to its knees. Come on, get real.
I said a Linux *webserver*, not desktop. Whether or not the OS that, that
webserver happens to use is widely-used is irrelevant here.
Anyway, the subject was cracking a single box, not a huge mass of boxen.
Please specify that you're changing the argument in future.
Well, duh -- I said "IMO" (in my opinion).
In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread. Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
"*misconception* that MS software is "less-secure" than other software."
It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds desktop
computers.
....and I didn't state that it was -- nice strawman. ;-)
I have stated (in this thread) that research groups (like
Gartner) and hardware manufacturers (like Dell, HP, IBM and others) as well
as MS itself keep track of these things.
It is not my opinion that the vast majority of viruses are written to take
down MS software. McAfee, Symantec and others have provided overwhelming
data to prove that point.
That the vast majority of viruses are written to take down MS software
doesn't prove that there are armies attempting to take down Windows boxen.
*sigh*
It is not a misconception that Windows is more vulnerable than other
platforms because other platforms have never had to have had to withstand
the volume of hacking attempts that Windows has.
Again, either provide *proof* of this or admit this is your opinion. I'd
be of this opinion too but I don't *know* that this is a fact.
I've got a feeling that this thread'll just turn out to be a waste of both
or our time.
Thomas J Shea <Thomas J Sh**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: I've used both windows and Linux/BSD extensively and my security
training has included both systems in equal detail. The only diffrence I see
between them is the relative patience it takes to operate/maintain both and
NOT crash them.
I disagree.
Here's a simple example of how I believe Windows is less secure than *nix:
you can download an executable in Windows and then run it simply by
double-clicking its icon. In *nix, you're required to take the extra step
of making that file executable, during which time you'll think twice about
whether or not you actually want to execute it.
Another example: Windows user accounts are created with full administrator
privileges by default (I don't know if this is still the case with SP2,
though I assume so).
"C# Learner" <cs****@learner.here> wrote in message
news:1j***************@csharp.learner... Thomas J Shea <Thomas J Sh**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
I've used both windows and Linux/BSD extensively and my security
training has included both systems in equal detail. The only diffrence I
see
between them is the relative patience it takes to operate/maintain both
and
NOT crash them.
I disagree.
Here's a simple example of how I believe Windows is less secure than *nix:
you can download an executable in Windows and then run it simply by
double-clicking its icon. In *nix, you're required to take the extra step
of making that file executable, during which time you'll think twice about
whether or not you actually want to execute it.
This is bullshit and it has always been bullshit. If the person downloading
the file plans to execute it, then he will set the execute bit and then
execute it. That is, of course, unless he is too stupid to figure out "chmod
+x" or the GUI equivalent, which is certainly a possibility.
What the hell do you think this person downloaded the file _for_? So they
could sit and look at it?
Another example: Windows user accounts are created with full administrator
privileges by default (I don't know if this is still the case with SP2,
though I assume so).
You should learn what you're talking about. Go create a Windows account and
tell us whether it winds up as an Administrator. Be sure to tell us which
Windows version you're using.
John Saunders
Hold on a sec. You said: "Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compared to Linux..."
Now, on what basis do you say that?
- - - Well, if we're talking about servers.. uh.. 95% of the internet is
NOT running a windows server. UNIX systems are hacked constantly. BUT, it is
more difficult to crack into than a windows server. I wasn't targeting
applications on the desktop, I should have made that clear.
"Scott M." wrote: Hold on a sec. You said: "Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compared to Linux..."
Now, on what basis do you say that? A common misconception is that MS
software is somehow "less secure" than most other software. People believe
that because you are always hearing about a security flaw in IE or in
Windows and you don't hear that about other OS's. Or, how this company is
thinking about switching from Windows because of security vulnerabilities.
You never hear of someone leaving Linux for Windows because of security
vulnerabilities right?
The reason for the *misconception* that MS software is "less-secure" than
other software is that hackers don't spend any time trying to crack the
MacOS since 95% of the worlds PCs run Windows. If hackers and virus writers
spent the same amount of time hacking and writing viruses for other
platforms instead of Windows, you'd see the Windows is not "less secure"
than any other platform out there. It's just the one most targeted, that's
all.
"10wattmindtrip" <10************@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C**********************************@microsof t.com... I'm sorry... But your completely wrong, (imo) about how Linux will be the
desktop choice for users. Granted, Windows has it's flaws and yes, windows
isn't at all secure compaired to Linux, or for a better comparison
FreeBSD/OpenBSD. But Linux is FAR from being dominate on the desktop. If
you
really want to poke an opioun on which OS will be the next best desktop..
Take a look over at MacOS X or MacOS tiger. I think MacOS has always been
better.
Users don't want to have to know what ls -F or for the *BSD's, pkg_add
some_really_long_name-1.2.343.534.322 is. Users don't want to sit down and
actually read a manual on how to use the OS. So... Linux is pretty much
out
of the question.
MacOS on the other hand.. it just works, with a song playing for you in
the
background while installing.. AND it's got the best GUI out there. It's
flashy (which EVERYONE wants) and its stable. The main reason why MacOS
isn't
as successfull is because it's not on the x86 platform. Many people
believe
that Apple should consider porting OSX over .. I strongly disagree. Users
are
now seeing Mac as being the better choice of the two. Speed, Mulimedia,
and
recently more business apps are starting to catch peoples eyes. We live in
a
tech savy society now. This means people are more aware of what's good,
and
what's not. Linux, crashed more times on my machine than Windows ever has.
I
can tell you though, OSX has never crashed yet. OSX is a UNIX, so your
right
that some form of UNIX will be the next desktop choice. However, i find it
difficult to declair linux as a sort of unix.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is ok.. I used it frequently until i found
FreeBSD
to be more suitable for server side stuff. I just think MacOS is really
starting to take off with convincing speed.
Another OS to look forward to is HaikuOS (OpenBeOS/BeOS).
"John Bailo" wrote:
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.
And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux
Scott M. wrote: For the same reason I wrote in my earlier post. Hackers hack MS products
because they are the big boy on the block. Your "huge" number of Linux
boxes running Apache is still a small percentage of the boxes out there.
Most webservers run on some form of Unix/Linux with Apache. On that
market MS still is the lesser player. So with respect to that, attackers
focus on the bigger player, namely Unix/Linux.
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
> I said a Linux *webserver*, not desktop. Whether or not the OS that, that webserver happens to use is widely-used is irrelevant here.
I know what you said and the OS is relevant. Again, I'll say that if a
hacker has a chance to take down a few web sites or 95% of the worlds pc's,
they generally choose 95% of the worlds pc's.
Anyway, the subject was cracking a single box, not a huge mass of boxen.
Please specify that you're changing the argument in future.
??? They issue has not been about a single box...that has been my whole
point!!! I have been saying from the start that the reason people say that
a "single" window's box is more vulnerable that other "single" boxes is
because windows boxes run on 95% of the worlds pc's. Please try to
comprehend this.
It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds desktop
computers.
...and I didn't state that it was -- nice strawman. ;-)
Uh, yes you did. ("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread."). Come on now, you are just trying to
wiggle out of your own comments at this point.
That the vast majority of viruses are written to take down MS software
doesn't prove that there are armies attempting to take down Windows boxen.
*sigh*
OMG! What drugs are you on?! Read what you just wrote, would you? It is not a misconception that Windows is more vulnerable than other
platforms because other platforms have never had to have had to withstand
the volume of hacking attempts that Windows has.
Again, either provide *proof* of this or admit this is your opinion. I'd
be of this opinion too but I don't *know* that this is a fact.
I've got a feeling that this thread'll just turn out to be a waste of both
or our time.
You are right there. Have a nice day.
But those Linux boxes are still a small percentage of the entire market.
That's what I said. Hackers hack where they can do the most damage. They
will do more damage by taking down (or trying to take down) 95% of the
machines out there.
"C-Services Holland b.v." <cs*@REMOVEcsh4u.nl> wrote in message
news:9_********************@zeelandnet.nl... Scott M. wrote:
For the same reason I wrote in my earlier post. Hackers hack MS products
because they are the big boy on the block. Your "huge" number of Linux
boxes running Apache is still a small percentage of the boxes out there.
Most webservers run on some form of Unix/Linux with Apache. On that market
MS still is the lesser player. So with respect to that, attackers focus on
the bigger player, namely Unix/Linux.
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v. - - - Well, if we're talking about servers.. uh.. 95% of the internet is
NOT running a windows server. UNIX systems are hacked constantly. BUT, it
is
more difficult to crack into than a windows server. I wasn't targeting
applications on the desktop, I should have made that clear.
But, we're not talking servers.
Scott M. wrote: But those Linux boxes are still a small percentage of the entire market.
That's what I said. Hackers hack where they can do the most damage. They
will do more damage by taking down (or trying to take down) 95% of the
machines out there.
What better way to hack into a webserver and use that as a platform to
distribute your virus by changing the websites there to exploit a
loophole in IE. You're overlooking the fact that one webserver come into
contact with thousands of desktops. And don't underestimate the number
of servers in the world.
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
"C# Learner" <cs****@learner.here> wrote in message
news:1j***************@csharp.learner... Thomas J Shea <Thomas J Sh**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
I've used both windows and Linux/BSD extensively and my security
training has included both systems in equal detail. The only diffrence I
see
between them is the relative patience it takes to operate/maintain both
and
NOT crash them.
I disagree.
Here's a simple example of how I believe Windows is less secure than *nix:
you can download an executable in Windows and then run it simply by
double-clicking its icon. In *nix, you're required to take the extra step
of making that file executable, during which time you'll think twice about
whether or not you actually want to execute it.
Another example: Windows user accounts are created with full administrator
privileges by default (I don't know if this is still the case with SP2,
though I assume so).
Well, it is a PERSONAL computer now, isn't it. How many people share your
linux desktop? It's easy to throw stones if you don't live in a glass
house, but one of the main reasons that PCs are so popular is the ease of
use of Windows. If everyone had to know how to administer linux or else
hire someone to do it for them, 99% of the PC sales would never happen.
> What better way to hack into a webserver and use that as a platform to distribute your virus by changing the websites there to exploit a loophole
in IE.
The better way would be to go after those platforms directly.
You're overlooking the fact that one webserver come into contact with
thousands of desktops. And don't underestimate the number of servers in the
world.
No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that there are FAR more Windows machines
than any other platform in use and that is why they are targetted more than
others. I never said others weren't targetted.
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote: I said a Linux *webserver*, not desktop. Whether or not the OS that, that
webserver happens to use is widely-used is irrelevant here.
I know what you said and the OS is relevant. Again, I'll say that if a
hacker has a chance to take down a few web sites or 95% of the worlds pc's,
they generally choose 95% of the worlds pc's.
So apparently you've misunderstood the context (see below).
Anyway, the subject was cracking a single box, not a huge mass of boxen.
Please specify that you're changing the argument in future.
??? They issue has not been about a single box...
Yes, it has. Here is the context:
"Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general."
It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds desktop
computers.
...and I didn't state that it was -- nice strawman. ;-)
Uh, yes you did.
Where?
("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread.").
I asked, "Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
'*misconception* that MS software is 'less-secure' than other software.'"
> ??? They issue has not been about a single box...
Yes, it has. Here is the context:
"Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general."
Actually, this is YOU quoting YOU when YOU were changing the subject away
from what was already being discussed....Single Boxes.
It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds
desktop
computers.
...and I didn't state that it was -- nice strawman. ;-)
Uh, yes you did.
Where?
Right here, when you said:
("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread.").
Sounds very much like you stating that what I've said was my opinion...
I asked, "Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
'*misconception* that MS software is 'less-secure' than other software.'"
....And, I responded. Go back and READ what was written instead of just
looking for a way to post a snide response. You've contradicted yourself
and ignored what I've said here.
I really don't have any more time for you. Have a nice day.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote: ??? They issue has not been about a single box...
Yes, it has. Here is the context:
"Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general."
Actually, this is YOU quoting YOU when YOU were changing the subject away
from what was already being discussed....Single Boxes.
I was quoting myself there because it was I who created that context. > It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds
> desktop
> computers.
...and I didn't state that it was -- nice strawman. ;-)
Uh, yes you did.
Where?
Right here, when you said:
("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread.").
Sounds very much like you stating that what I've said was my opinion...
I meant that in general, of course. I certainly didn't mean that every
single thing that you've said in this thread is your opinion only.
I didn't state that it was your opinion that "Windows is on approx. 95% of
the worlds desktop computers." I didn't address that point at all.
I asked, "Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
'*misconception* that MS software is 'less-secure' than other software.'"
...And, I responded.
....with no proof, just general statements about being able to find some
data somewhere on some website. Provide direct links if you're confident.
I would've given you the benefit of the doubt of having the last reply
here, but your "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude irks me enough to
reply again.
billwg wrote: IfÂ*everyoneÂ*hadÂ*toÂ*knowÂ*howÂ*toÂ*administerÂ* linuxÂ*orÂ*else
hire someone to do it for them, 99% of the PC sales would never
happen.
Nonesense.
Bill
I'm sorry, what is the point again?
Maybe you should go to http://www.cert.org and search for Linux to see the
record of this OS shipping with vulnerabilities. You might be surprised.
"C# Learner" wrote: "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
??? They issue has not been about a single box...
Yes, it has. Here is the context:
"Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general."
Actually, this is YOU quoting YOU when YOU were changing the subject away
from what was already being discussed....Single Boxes.
I was quoting myself there because it was I who created that context.
>> It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds
>> desktop
>> computers.
>
> ...and I didn't state that it was -- nice strawman. ;-)
Uh, yes you did.
Where?
Right here, when you said:
("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread.").
Sounds very much like you stating that what I've said was my opinion...
I meant that in general, of course. I certainly didn't mean that every
single thing that you've said in this thread is your opinion only.
I didn't state that it was your opinion that "Windows is on approx. 95% of
the worlds desktop computers." I didn't address that point at all.
I asked, "Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
'*misconception* that MS software is 'less-secure' than other software.'"
...And, I responded.
....with no proof, just general statements about being able to find some
data somewhere on some website. Provide direct links if you're confident.
I would've given you the benefit of the doubt of having the last reply
here, but your "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude irks me enough to
reply again.
Regarding searching cert.org for vulnerability reports.
525 vulnerabiltiy results for Windows XP
923 vulnerabiltiy results for Linux
"C# Learner" wrote: "Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
??? They issue has not been about a single box...
Yes, it has. Here is the context:
"Maybe, but, like I said, the rewards of cracking a Linux webserver will
probably be much more enticing than those of cracking Joe Average's
desktop, in general."
Actually, this is YOU quoting YOU when YOU were changing the subject away
from what was already being discussed....Single Boxes.
I was quoting myself there because it was I who created that context.
>> It is not my opinion that Windows is on approx. 95% of the worlds
>> desktop
>> computers.
>
> ...and I didn't state that it was -- nice strawman. ;-)
Uh, yes you did.
Where?
Right here, when you said:
("In fact, it seems to me that *you* instead have
attempted to pose your
opinions as facts, in this thread.").
Sounds very much like you stating that what I've said was my opinion...
I meant that in general, of course. I certainly didn't mean that every
single thing that you've said in this thread is your opinion only.
I didn't state that it was your opinion that "Windows is on approx. 95% of
the worlds desktop computers." I didn't address that point at all.
I asked, "Can you prove that there are armies
attempting to take down Windows boxen, for example? Or that it's a
'*misconception* that MS software is 'less-secure' than other software.'"
...And, I responded.
....with no proof, just general statements about being able to find some
data somewhere on some website. Provide direct links if you're confident.
I would've given you the benefit of the doubt of having the last reply
here, but your "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude irks me enough to
reply again.
Fact from fiction
Unix and Linux is rubbish operating system that falls over on any server and
any person who say that you can not get a virus or worm on unix or linux are
full of themselfs,
Unix is was never a desktop operating system and neither was linux until
around 1998,
This crap that unix or linux is this wonderful operating system that is
stable has never put it through its paces and the truth of the matter is this
any software can be comprised by a simple binary test and all operating
system can crash by a simple power failure or hardware fault.
there is nothing great about Linux or Unix to me it is just another piece of
software for some person to sell and make money off wether it is by actually
selling the operating system or by running it in a company,
And all these virus, trojans, and worm writers are really programmers who
have nothing better to do than cause head aches for every person who is
trying to get there job's dun and stay in a job.
Microsoft may not have a good track record but at least there operating
system is straight forward no bull crap and gets your job dun in the least
amount of time with having to go through countless of webpages just to find
and update something linux and unix are hopeless at.
and the claims that billions of companies are using linuxs are exaggerated
because the truth is they are use upto three different operatings systems
just to prevent attacks to there servers which are ussually run by a linux
server that can not stop a hacker in the first place.
most companies will not install linuxs becuase of the long hours of
installing and the complex training involved which cost money and profits and
time learning the language while the alterative is windows which is easy to
install managable easy to fix and widely available information on how to use
it and updates,
Windows can be backup and running without lost of data if managed correctly
after virus and worm attacks also most windows only involves one cd disk
instead of the linux two to three disk installation.
Microsoft may not be the favour of people because of the cost but when you
put linux on the same platform cost wise or free windows is far greater
accepted in the community because of its ease of use and relability to get
the job dun,
Unix and linux are over rated software and only mandrake came close to
windows for desktop environment competiveness
"John Bailo" wrote:
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.
And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux
Again another linux and unix idiot that does not know a thing about how close
the internet was to collapsing in the 1980's to the world first computer worm
and it stumble all types of server including linux, windows and unix servers
alike yet again nobody has really look at the real facts and blabbed there
face like a druggie,
All software falls over and it is not alway the software vender but some
stupid hardware fault or a hacker using a simple binary code that can bring
any software down when writtern badly any fool can do it it take common sense
not to.
Wake up everybody cause one day your computer will fall over and it does not
matter what operating system you use linux or unix windows 95 or windows
longhorn, firewall or anti-virus software and what every body does not
realises is that most software already contains a viruse like bug upon sales
design by the company to prevent privating of software,
Linux and unix makers do it and virus software creators do it to there own
software this is there way of saying we own it and we can destory it.
Don't be fooled into beleiving your linux or unix servers are protected from
prying eyes the military knows what everyone is doing across the internet in
every country and so too the police forces of every countries it is only a
matter of when police or military acts linux creators are probably already
inside your home servers prying your information to use illegally to bring
ovther server down cause that what linux and unix was design to do,
It is a code breaking software only people don't realise what the full
extent of what all operating system can do and it all comes back to the zero
and ones of the binary code.
There is a old saying you can lead a horse to water but you can make it
drink it well it is the same for operating systems once a person is set in
there ways give them something new and they are relucted to change that why
so many users stay with linuxs or windows it has nothing really to do with
money or crashes.
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote: In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<ja*****@earthlink.net>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:03:04 GMT
<sr*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>: This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000204050405010705030903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Proclaim victory not until victory is achieved. Windows still
owns over 80% of the desktops. Businesses will have to jump
into the fray (and presumably they'd like to, as Linux proves
that it has the capability of saving them money).
Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.
Unix and Linux have little to do with each other beyond general
design issues (e.g., fork()). Or did SCO win an actual legal
lawsuit when no one was looking? :-)
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
I will agree that Windows lost the war in the server arena;
the classical Unix systems have more to fear from Linux
than Windows NT derivatives. However, this doesn't give
Linux an automatic "gimme" on the desktops; Linux will have
to earn it, and that earning may be hard-fought, as Windows
has an edge on convenience. (A slim edge, and getting slimmer
all the time. With the viruses, the landscape may be mutating
as well; there's no point in being convenient if it means having
to coexist with Netsky as well.)
In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.
And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux.
But it has not yet fallen, and efforts such as Samba may very well
stymie the effort -- or at least confuse it. If Samba on the
Linux server allows businesses to continue using their Windows
desktops out of comfort, they may very well do so. Firewalls,
screeners, and cleaners may also butress a sagging market.
It's an interesting mess. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ew****@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Fact corrector <Fact co*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: Fact from fiction
"My opinions, whether or not factual," would, to me, more accurately
describe your diatribe.
Unix and Linux is rubbish operating system that falls over on any server
If this were the case, a huge percentage of Internet servers /wouldn't/ be
running on *nix. Google's a big example of a company running on Linux.
and any person who say that you can not get a virus or worm on unix or linux are
full of themselfs,
Of course it's possible, but the chances of such infections are much less
likely on *nix, IMO, due to its secure-from-the-ground-up design.
Unix is was never a desktop operating system and neither was linux until
around 1998,
How did you determine this?
This crap that unix or linux is this wonderful operating system that is
stable has never put it through its paces
I'm pretty sure that's not true (I don't have any data to hand, however)
and the truth of the matter is this
any software can be comprised by a simple binary test
What do you mean by "a simple binary test"?
and all operating
system can crash by a simple power failure or hardware fault.
So first, you say that *nix is "rubbish" and that it "falls over on any
serve", and now you're saying that it doesn't matter anyway because all
OSes can crash. You're contradicting yourself. What, exactly, is your
argument?
Anyway, an analogy: since my house could be broken into by having my door
kicked in with sufficient force, perhaps I shouldn't bother closing and
locking the door when I leave, then?
there is nothing great about Linux or Unix to me it is just another piece of
software for some person to sell and make money off wether it is by actually
selling the operating system or by running it in a company,
Well, Linux (an OS kernel) itself is free in terms of payment and in terms
of what you can do with it. Most (all? I don't know...) distributions of
Linux are free in terms of payment, but if you decide to go the paying
route, you might get added support, for example -- and you won't have to
wait for the download.
And all these virus, trojans, and worm writers are really programmers who
have nothing better to do than cause head aches for every person who is
trying to get there job's dun and stay in a job.
I can't comment on why they do what they do, since I'm not one of them.
Microsoft may not have a good track record but at least there operating
system is straight forward no bull crap and gets your job dun in the least
amount of time with having to go through countless of webpages just to find
and update something linux and unix are hopeless at.
What are you saying here? That you have to go through web pages to find
and update software for *nix? That's not necessarily the case.
Or are you saying that you have to do so to learn how to use some software
that runs on *nix? This isn't necessarily the case either.
It seems that you don't really know much about *nix, but perhaps you had a
bad experience with it, hence your uninformed rant.
and the claims that billions of companies are using linuxs are exaggerated
because the truth is they are use upto three different operatings systems
just to prevent attacks to there servers which are ussually run by a linux
server that can not stop a hacker in the first place.
Got any evidence of this? I imagine that you just made this up off the top
of your head.
Here's evidence of Microsoft's DNS being handled by Linux:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20..._a_point_.html
Make of that what you will.
most companies will not install linuxs becuase of the long hours of
installing
I'd say that some Linux distros install faster than XP. I can't prove
that, though -- just observations from installing both on the same box.
Add to that, that most Linux distros come with a huge amount of
applications software - which isn't the case with XP - which takes extra
time to install (the default will be to install some applications, though
you'll have a choice with any good distro).
Even so, OS installation time isn't very important to me. I rarely install
OSes. Not sure how important it is to people in general.
and the complex training involved which cost money and profits and
time learning
Of course it takes all that -- just like it would if you were to switch to
Macs, for example. Or if you were running on *nix right now and you were
to switch to Windows (not knowing anything about Windows yet). Though I
feel Windows may take less time to learn in general due to less complexity
and more consistency between applications.
the language while the alterative is windows which is easy to
install
Mandrake, for example, is just as easy, or perhaps even easier, to install,
IMO.
managable
*nix is managable unless you haven't taken the time to learn it. Windows
wouldn't be managable if you hadn't taken the time to learn it, all the
same. Though I agree that Linux might take slighter more effort and time
to learn. But I feel that extra effort will pay off in the end -- you'll
be more knowledgable about computer OSes.
easy to fix
Same as above.
and widely available information on how to use it and updates,
I could say the same about Linux.
[...] also most windows only involves one cd disk
instead of the linux two to three disk installation.
That, of course, depends on the distro.
However, that's not important to me. I doubt that would be a sufficiently
important issue to people in general considering Linux.
Microsoft may not be the favour of people because of the cost
They have a bad reputation for releasing exploitable software and for dodgy
business practices, in particular.
but when you
put linux on the same platform cost wise or free windows is far greater
accepted in the community because of its ease of use and relability to get
the job dun,
Got any data on this? Curious...
[...]
*nix ain't the be-all and end-all of OSes, but I don't feel it's as bad as
you try to make it out to look. I'd bet that you've been burned with it
after trying it and expecting it to be just like Windows, hence your rant.
Truth of the matter is: it's not very Windows-like. It's unique. Expect
it to be another Windows and you'll be surprised. Don't take the time to
learn it and you'll get burnt.
"Fact corrector" <Fa***********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7B**********************************@microsof t.com... Again another linux and unix idiot that does not know a thing about how
close
the internet was to collapsing in the 1980's to the world first computer
worm
and it stumble all types of server including linux, windows and unix
servers
alike yet again nobody has really look at the real facts and blabbed there
face like a druggie,
That's very interesting seeing that the "Internet" didn't come into being
until 1990-91, when Tim Bereners-Lee created the WWW (HTML, web server, web
browser) and congress de-regulated use of DARPA Net infrastructure. DARPA
Net (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) was private to the millitary
until the 80's when the stewardship of it was given to the NSF (National
Science Foundation) so that parts (not all) of the acedemic world could use
it. It still, however was off limits to the general public before 1990.
Also, while viruses have been around since 1986 (the first was "The Brain
Virus"), they were not distributed via the Internet (it didn't exist yet),
they were distributed via physical media (diskettes). One of the first
Internet viruses was "Micaelangelo" and that was in 1992.
( http://www.exn.ca/nerds/20000504-55.cfm)
Also, in the 80's the concept of a "server" was just that, a concept.
"Servers", in those days were called main-frames. There were no such things
as mainstream Windows and Linux servers. WFW (Windows For Workgroups) 3.1
wasn't even released until 1992.
You clearly don't have your facts straight on this.
Scott M. wrote: Also, in the 80's the concept of a "server" was just that, a concept.
"Servers", in those days were called main-frames. There were no such
things as mainstream Windows and Linux servers. WFW (Windows For
Workgroups) 3.1 wasn't even released until 1992.
Well...that's not quite right. There were file servers. The idea of
client-server architecture was Microsoft's mainstay during the 1980's.
That was a connected client server.
The web, and http, drove us into connectionless architectures.
You see this in web services today, when, rather than holding open a port to
SQL server to make TDS calls, we send and receive SOAP messages.
You clearly don't have your facts straight on this.
-- http://www.texeme.com
"John Bailo" <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tY***************@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net... Scott M. wrote:
Also, in the 80's the concept of a "server" was just that, a concept.
"Servers", in those days were called main-frames. There were no such
things as mainstream Windows and Linux servers. WFW (Windows For
Workgroups) 3.1 wasn't even released until 1992.
Well...that's not quite right. There were file servers.
The idea of client-server architecture was Microsoft's mainstay during
the 1980's.
That was a connected client server.
We are talking about web and domain type servers here (notice I said
"mainstream Windows and Linux servers"). Hooking up a box and connecting to
it for file sharing access was not really what I was talking about. MS had
not even introduced WFW until. 1992, so I can't agree that client/server was
MS's mainstay during the 80's. MS's mainstay during the 80's was most
definately the OS and Office. At any rate, this is all besides the point.
The point was that there was no Internet in the 80's and it most certainly
didn't almost collapse because of a virus then.
The web, and http, drove us into connectionless architectures.
You see this in web services today, when, rather than holding open a port
to
SQL server to make TDS calls, we send and receive SOAP messages.
Thanks for the lesson. I think we all know that the web is a stateless
environment, however I find it odd that you include SQL Server in your
description since the use of SQL server is hardly intrinsic to the WWW
architecture. For that matter, neither are web services. I think what you
are trying to describe is TCP/IP, DNS and HTTP request and responses. You clearly don't have your facts straight on this.
--
http://www.texeme.com
Do you realize that the web site listed above consists of 2 frames, one of
which consists of an oddly positioned piece of text and a second frame that
points to a non-existent file?
Thank you for the history lesson. I ussed to use coherent on a 486sx. Good
OS.
"mlw" wrote: 7 wrote:
John Bailo wrote:
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.
Bailo you total dumbfsck!
Linux has nothing to do with Unix other than its modelled on it.
Which, in itself, means a lot. It is fair to ponder "what is unix?" There is
the official "UNIX(tm)" which has been passed around so much, no one is
really sure who actually *owns* it anymore. SCO and Novell are fighting
over it, an the OpenGroup are said to own the trademark and specs.
Even UNIX isn't really UNIX, as much of the very foundation of what is
currently called "UNIX" came from BSD, and this was made clear in USL vs
BSD. On top of that, it isn't even clear that, under copyright law prior to
1990, that UNIX actually retains any copyright, thus can be owned at all.
Linux is an independant implementation of a unix-like OS, as were efforts
like coherent unix, minux, and others. All of these things can be called
"unix" in a generic sense.
There is "UNIX(tm)" and "unix" which is a sort of a short hand for "Posix"
based OS. Posix was coined by Richard Stallman to describe various
unix-like systems.
I think that it is pretty clear to all that Linux is unix-like, and that
most unix software will run on Linux.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, one is forced to consider
the possibility, no matter how remote or absurd, that the subject just may
be an avian of the family Anatidae.
Fact corrector wrote: Fact from fiction
LOL.. your 'facts' are more your opinion than anything else..
<snip useless dribble>
Microsoft may not have a good track record but at least there operating
system is straight forward no bull crap and gets your job dun in the least
amount of time with having to go through countless of webpages just to find
and update something linux and unix are hopeless at.
Have you even use linux? I have a process running that checks for update
regularly and updates when nescesarry. I don't have to do a thing about
it (just check the logs to see if and what got updated). You can do it
manually, but you don't need to. Just like you can go to windows update
and go through 'countless' webpages to update your system manually.
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
I use windows. I use Linux.
I use the tool that allows me to do what I need to with the least
amount of fuss. If anyone from either side feels the need to pull the
other apart, that's fine by me, but (IMHO) the competition element of
this discussion is fairly pointless.
Get over yourselves. It is not the end of the world.
> The war of the OSes was won a long time ago. SNIP<
I hate wars, especially these Jihads between Windows vs Linux vs BSD vs AIX
vs MacOS X vs Tru64 etc... At the end of the day, they are all tools. Each
tool generally has its strengths and its weaknesses as well as being
particularly suited to a specific task.
I am a Linux user. I use it for my servers and for my desktop as it does
everything I need it to while being, on the whole, generally immune from the
nasties that tend to swirl around on the 'net. I get on well with it, it does
what I ask and has the suite of tools I need to do my job.
What did get for my Mum and Dad? MacOS X. Why? Because it's big and
colourful and bouncy and does what it says on the tin without having any
serious worries about internet nasties whilst being able to browse the web,
send e-mail and download and print pictures from their digital camera.
What did I use for the desktops at work? Windows XP. Why? Because the
Microsoft business solution is one of the more scalable and coherent ones
available. Linux desktops are great if you're a mad techie who doesn't mind
delving around with shell scripts from time to time, but at present, as good
as KDE, Gnome etc. are, they're just not as mature or coherent as the
Microsoft one.
Being an engineer, I'm a great believer in using the right tool for the
right job. It's idiotic and self-defeating if you stand on ceremony and end
up being a martyr just to prove a point. Use whatever solution is going to
provide the most cost effective solution to as many of your problems as you
can find. Every camp is going to have their evangelists, martyrs, critics
and, of course, users. At the end of the day, make up your own mind and use
whatever tool best fits the job.
As I said, I hate wars :-)
ATB,
--Harry
> The war of the OSes was won a long time ago. SNIP<
I hate wars, especially these Jihads between Windows vs Linux vs BSD vs AIX
vs MacOS X vs Tru64 etc... At the end of the day, they are all tools. Each
tool generally has its strengths and its weaknesses as well as being
particularly suited to a specific task.
I am a Linux user. I use it for my servers and for my desktop as it does
everything I need it to while being, on the whole, generally immune from the
nasties that tend to swirl around on the 'net. I get on well with it, it does
what I ask and has the suite of tools I need to do my job.
What did get for my Mum and Dad? MacOS X. Why? Because it's big and
colourful and bouncy and does what it says on the tin without having any
serious worries about internet nasties whilst being able to browse the web,
send e-mail and download and print pictures from their digital camera.
What did I use for the desktops at work? Windows XP. Why? Because the
Microsoft business solution is one of the more scalable and coherent ones
available. Linux desktops are great if you're a mad techie who doesn't mind
delving around with shell scripts from time to time, but at present, as good
as KDE, Gnome etc. are, they're just not as mature or coherent as the
Microsoft one.
Being an engineer, I'm a great believer in using the right tool for the
right job. It's idiotic and self-defeating if you stand on ceremony and end
up being a martyr just to prove a point. Use whatever solution is going to
provide the most cost effective solution to as many of your problems as you
can find. Every camp is going to have their evangelists, martyrs, critics
and, of course, users. At the end of the day, make up your own mind and use
whatever tool best fits the job.
As I said, I hate wars :-)
ATB,
--Harry
"Harry S." wrote: The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
SNIP<
I hate wars, especially these Jihads between Windows vs Linux vs BSD vs AIX
vs MacOS X vs Tru64 etc... At the end of the day, they are all tools. Each
tool generally has its strengths and its weaknesses as well as being
particularly suited to a specific task.
I am a Linux user. I use it for my servers and for my desktop as it does
everything I need it to while being, on the whole, generally immune from the
nasties that tend to swirl around on the 'net. I get on well with it, it does
what I ask and has the suite of tools I need to do my job.
What did get for my Mum and Dad? MacOS X. Why? Because it's big and
colourful and bouncy and does what it says on the tin without having any
serious worries about internet nasties whilst being able to browse the web,
send e-mail and download and print pictures from their digital camera.
What did I use for the desktops at work? Windows XP. Why? Because the
Microsoft business solution is one of the more scalable and coherent ones
available. Linux desktops are great if you're a mad techie who doesn't mind
delving around with shell scripts from time to time, but at present, as good
as KDE, Gnome etc. are, they're just not as mature or coherent as the
Microsoft one.
Being an engineer, I'm a great believer in using the right tool for the
right job. It's idiotic and self-defeating if you stand on ceremony and end
up being a martyr just to prove a point. Use whatever solution is going to
provide the most cost effective solution to as many of your problems as you
can find. Every camp is going to have their evangelists, martyrs, critics
and, of course, users. At the end of the day, make up your own mind and use
whatever tool best fits the job.
As I said, I hate wars :-)
ATB,
--Harry
You all have a unique opportunity to learn the opinion of the man who started
the programming carrer over 30 years ago and survived all those "revolutions"
and have not become just an administrator or moved out or just is keep low
profile at.
It need to look at the root of the problem. The job of a programmer have
been being obscure and as result the bosses typically can not control
programmers. As you know if even a skilled programmer becomes a boss first
thing he does is stop coding. There are exceptions like me, but as the
exceptions only underline the rule.
So as everybody who have done something significant in programming if we are
awarded it is never for the real best achievements. So the normal system of
awarding/ punishment does not work. All those titles like software
engineer/architect/analist/teste/ computer scientist/designer are just
nonsence that anybody who happened to get good education outside of CS and
work close with engineers/scientists/technologists/architects etc. in other
areas will agree instantly.
Since begining to current days the job of programmers is similar to dark
ages locksmiths and builders. And even such external features like use of
paintings
covering the applications at modern time are similar to those that were used
on products at dark ages. The primitive features of products, were
"compensated" by rich ornamenting etc.
What changed for 30 years it is great power and resources of hardware
complimented by degrading skills of programmers and enforcement on users the
toleration of existing flaws in the software products. It was time when I had
problems to explain to boss why the codes include errors and we need so many
time to correct them, when my subordinate has title seniorsoftware engineer.
No we already read that the vendor has absolutely no responsibility for the
result of using the software product. Something like you buy a comic book
where mistyping makes it even more funny.
So in such an environment surely the market forces stop working and just a
well connected and agressive salesmen become leaders in software IT.
As the hardware developers are true engineers etc, (I am forced to use such
term)
so eventually the war with programmers/artsmen actually at the best started
and have been continued as the matter is responcibility toward users.(Can you
image a hardware vendor makes such declarations as software developers do)
As contrasting comic books software used for more significant purposes, so
the top management of IT is assigned from the most trusted. As to be in the
middle of such disorder and preasure is not much pleasure, so the top
management of IT are the people who have no skills in any area. It does not
deserve to continue as the proffecionals know what is going in the offices.
Now about the Lunix and Unix. Considering all written, naturally since
begining are attempts to eliminate programmers as the occupation, reduce
expenses etc.
So history of programming is history of wiping generations of programmers on
base inventing next magic tools that has to solve the mentioned problems. As
result the skills of programmers are losing and again and again all circle
starts. Actually on logical level the software innovations are mostly on
level inventing new terms for the old objects and really advanced features
are lost for simplicity of new gurus developing new tools and imposing
without any engineering/scientific foundation new prohibitions. I have many
examples, but just one I will provide.
IBM mainframes OSes have requirement that before a program start, it must
declare all it input and output (JCL for an instance) that is very strong
tool for preventing many troubles viruses included. Considering the history
of UNIX it was not needed for initial scientific reasearch users. Window as
simplifyed UNIX and
developed uncoordinated group of new generation of Gurus surely did not used
the ideas of mainframes and surely did not worry about considering the each
Window interface to be declared and have to be persistently identifyed. It is
even worse.
The window structure includes the ID property, but it is not required to be
filled
when it would be the key feature for security control of. Actually the
Windows is not finished at main features development just for the reason,
that as internal job is not understood and awarded, so creating news visible
colorly blinking funny features continued. Surely many people get good
profits at support etc.
Surely smart businessman have no skills for writting logically clear
description
of structure of windows and redoing the already done things without any
central management. It gives so many fun for new generation. Everybody hoping
to get monopoly at support of those monstrous dinosauer size "free software".
That the result will be absence of standards and many versions flawed
software
that can not be integrated nobody care. The idea having access to source
codes is allusion as when it get into mass use it will be imposible for the
reasonable time
to make researches in those number of lines developed by various people
without common plan, standards and surelly interested to monopolize the
support. So it should be done the way difficult to get in. Second way is
created commercial version where the codes again are secret. So just again
wiping the developers.
I have survived so many "revolutions" and will survive next one. Will you?
"Harry S." wrote: The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
SNIP<
I hate wars, especially these Jihads between Windows vs Linux vs BSD vs AIX
vs MacOS X vs Tru64 etc... At the end of the day, they are all tools. Each
tool generally has its strengths and its weaknesses as well as being
particularly suited to a specific task.
I am a Linux user. I use it for my servers and for my desktop as it does
everything I need it to while being, on the whole, generally immune from the
nasties that tend to swirl around on the 'net. I get on well with it, it does
what I ask and has the suite of tools I need to do my job.
What did get for my Mum and Dad? MacOS X. Why? Because it's big and
colourful and bouncy and does what it says on the tin without having any
serious worries about internet nasties whilst being able to browse the web,
send e-mail and download and print pictures from their digital camera.
What did I use for the desktops at work? Windows XP. Why? Because the
Microsoft business solution is one of the more scalable and coherent ones
available. Linux desktops are great if you're a mad techie who doesn't mind
delving around with shell scripts from time to time, but at present, as good
as KDE, Gnome etc. are, they're just not as mature or coherent as the
Microsoft one.
Being an engineer, I'm a great believer in using the right tool for the
right job. It's idiotic and self-defeating if you stand on ceremony and end
up being a martyr just to prove a point. Use whatever solution is going to
provide the most cost effective solution to as many of your problems as you
can find. Every camp is going to have their evangelists, martyrs, critics
and, of course, users. At the end of the day, make up your own mind and use
whatever tool best fits the job.
As I said, I hate wars :-)
ATB,
--Harry
Hi John, You wrote: <<
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be,
the Server OS in the form of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money
to get companies to install servers, they failed miserably,
and the 1 Billion per quarter Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know,
is that the only reason they wanted to dominate the server,
is to protect their desktop and office applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe;
cede the server, and the desktop will fall.
And so it is... falling into the hands of Linux. >>
Meanwhile, Bill buys anther Jumbo Yacht with twin helicopters,
....Why ? Because his competition thinks like you John.
The desktop is the net.
Jeff,
As you seems is well informed about Bill Gates answer my question.
Has Bill got a Jumbo Jet already?
As about Net on desctops it seems exists only in dreams. I do not see any
demand for. Even VC++ which is in decline now has more demand for. Some
companies make ocasional experiments not more.
"Jeff_Relf" wrote:
Hi John, You wrote: <<
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be,
the Server OS in the form of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money
to get companies to install servers, they failed miserably,
and the 1 Billion per quarter Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know,
is that the only reason they wanted to dominate the server,
is to protect their desktop and office applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe;
cede the server, and the desktop will fall.
And so it is... falling into the hands of Linux. >>
Meanwhile, Bill buys anther Jumbo Yacht with twin helicopters,
....Why ? Because his competition thinks like you John.
The desktop is the net.
thanks, troll.
You've provided so much new and enlightening information in this post!
go away.
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Je***********************@Cotse.NET...
Hi John, You wrote: <<
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be,
the Server OS in the form of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money
to get companies to install servers, they failed miserably,
and the 1 Billion per quarter Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know,
is that the only reason they wanted to dominate the server,
is to protect their desktop and office applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe;
cede the server, and the desktop will fall.
And so it is... falling into the hands of Linux. >>
Meanwhile, Bill buys anther Jumbo Yacht with twin helicopters,
...Why ? Because his competition thinks like you John.
The desktop is the net.
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Je***********************@Cotse.NET...
Hi John, You wrote: <<
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be,
the Server OS in the form of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money
to get companies to install servers, they failed miserably,
and the 1 Billion per quarter Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know,
is that the only reason they wanted to dominate the server,
is to protect their desktop and office applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe;
cede the server, and the desktop will fall.
And so it is... falling into the hands of Linux. >>
Meanwhile, Bill buys anther Jumbo Yacht with twin helicopters,
...Why ? Because his competition thinks like you John.
The desktop is the net.
Linux advocates are quick to claim victory in the server market and
gleefully cite reaching the $1B mark in server sales, but Mr. Softee has
been increasing its market share, too, and if you combine the linux and
traditional unix shares you find that Windows is gaining on the pair of
them. Linux is cannibalizing traditional unix at a rapid rate, but some of
that business is obviously going to Microsoft as well. When unix is as dead
as Novell, linux is not going to be as healthy as unix was when the whole
thing started. And linux will be the next to lose.
Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget, he owns
billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for. The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.
Bezu
People you need to understand what is going on.
Take for instance the phenomen of Sun/Java. It is relatively small company,
but I suggest you to learn what industries are behind it. You will be
surprized I assure.
All this mess just express dissatisfaction of big business community by the
state in software development. The problem is that noone having significant
money wants to invest them in such stupid things as software for OS etc. And
reason is that those investment can not be secured or controlled. Just one
example from relatively resent past. I sorry that it can be rather painful
for somebody, but it just reality.
Former USSR back 1970 stopped production of own line of Mainframes and just
started production of exact copies of IBM mainframes. Surely the idea was to
get free all software and it was stollen completely. It was not even
translated into Russian. The only problem was that Russians were not able to
make production quality as needed so those mainframes typically went down
after 5 hours.
At relation to PC, the technology is simplified and open to the extent that
seems any country is able to produce the needed quality hardware. But even
without such extremes you know that tipycally owners can not control their
software property and rather happy if nobody asserts that he/she has
copyrights at and demand pay for. I do not want to continue about all those
dirt. Combined with MS inability to
provide clear description of the system that caused that insteed competion
among
programmers on level of skills, it became a kind ugly first in history of
programming competion just to know how the system work. It might be funny
that such an situation happened in former USSR, when some well connected
people got ownership of origional manuals of IBM and tryied to play Gurus.
Surely those hopes were broken like happened in the USA, when the experts on
Windows programming became the citizens of other countries. I assure you that
such way of things can not be tolerated by business so the changes will
happens.
"billwg" wrote:
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Je***********************@Cotse.NET...
Hi John, You wrote: <<
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be,
the Server OS in the form of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money
to get companies to install servers, they failed miserably,
and the 1 Billion per quarter Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know,
is that the only reason they wanted to dominate the server,
is to protect their desktop and office applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe;
cede the server, and the desktop will fall.
And so it is... falling into the hands of Linux. >>
Meanwhile, Bill buys anther Jumbo Yacht with twin helicopters,
...Why ? Because his competition thinks like you John.
The desktop is the net.
Linux advocates are quick to claim victory in the server market and
gleefully cite reaching the $1B mark in server sales, but Mr. Softee has
been increasing its market share, too, and if you combine the linux and
traditional unix shares you find that Windows is gaining on the pair of
them. Linux is cannibalizing traditional unix at a rapid rate, but some of
that business is obviously going to Microsoft as well. When unix is as dead
as Novell, linux is not going to be as healthy as unix was when the whole
thing started. And linux will be the next to lose.
Be*******@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said: Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
1. That's more like his entire worth. So he donated everything and now
walks around in burlap garb like St. Francis of Assissi?
2. A good portion of what Bill and Melinda donates is Microsoft Funny
Money. That is, Microsoft software overvalued for charitable
purchases.
he owns billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for.
No thanks. I would not want to work for Microsoft.
The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.
The desktop is actually a small portion of the net. Microsoft does not own
the net.
And the desktop is starting to shift.
Bezu
Gesundheit.
--
Tux: "If you bought a computer with Windows, sorry, you paid too much!"
Ballmer: "We need to get paid!" Be*******@hotmail.com wrote: Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
Liar. He's done no such thing. Stamping-out a copy of Office and
giving that disc to a school is not the same is giving $400 (or
whatever) in cash money or equivalent.
he owns
billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for. The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.
Idiot.
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:48:18 -0600, chrisv wrote: Be*******@hotmail.com wrote:
Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
Liar. He's done no such thing. Stamping-out a copy of Office and
giving that disc to a school is not the same is giving $400 (or
whatever) in cash money or equivalent.
They give out money quite often. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Globa...?showYear=2004
and that's just for Global Health.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
2:00PM up 15 days, 19:22, 0 users, load averages: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
Hi billwg, You wrote: <<
Linux is cannibalizing traditional unix at a rapid rate,
but some of that business is obviously going to Microsoft as well.
When unix is as dead as Novell, linux is not going to be
as healthy as unix was when the whole thing started.
And linux will be the next to lose. >>
No one currently owns the cellphone/hand-held market,
Same for the server market, both markets are very custom,
and that's where Linux shines the most.
Will those two markets ever become standardized like the desktop ?
And will Micro-Soft own that standard ?
I doubt it, I think those markets will remain splintered.
But if you want to take on Bill,
you can't dismiss the importance of WinXP like Bailo does.
Just look at Wireless LANs ( WiFi ), they're everywhere these days
....that's where the revolution is, the guy next door.
Corrections to your post:
Um, in 2003, the UW donated just under 4 billion, so try more than 10 years
of the United Way's annual budget.
Bill has donated over 50 billion, not 42.
The desktop is most certainly NOT the net. Internet standards are not
created with a specific platform in mind.
<Be*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget, he owns
billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for. The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.
Bezu
"Linønut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
news:CK********************@comcast.com... Be*******@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and
said:
Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
1. That's more like his entire worth. So he donated everything and now
walks around in burlap garb like St. Francis of Assissi?
That is less than half is net worth. He has pledged nearly 50% of his net
worth to the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.
2. A good portion of what Bill and Melinda donates is Microsoft Funny
Money. That is, Microsoft software overvalued for charitable
purchases.
No, you are confusing what Microsoft donates with what the Bill & Melinda
Gates foundation donates.
he owns billions in MS stocks, a company every human being on earth would
$love$ to work for.
No thanks. I would not want to work for Microsoft.
Agreed that many do not want to work for MS.
The desktop is the computer, the desktop is the
net, and Windows owns the desktop.
The desktop is actually a small portion of the net. Microsoft does not
own
the net.
The desktop is not a portion of the net at all.
And the desktop is starting to shift.
What in the world makes you say that? That's not true at all.
"chrisv" <ch****@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2h********************************@4ax.com... Be*******@hotmail.com wrote:
Bill Gates has also donated over 42 Billion dollars (with a "B") to
charity, more than the entire United Way's annual budget,
Liar. He's done no such thing. Stamping-out a copy of Office and
giving that disc to a school is not the same is giving $400 (or
whatever) in cash money or equivalent.
You are entirely misinformed. You confuse what MS donates with what the
Bill & Melinda Gates foundation donates. He has, in fact, pledged over 50%
of his net worth (over 50B) to charity. That is a FACT.
Last week, as MS shareholders (like me) got our $3 per share dividend, Bill
donated all 3 billion of his!
From http://www.businessweek.com/magazine.../b3910401.htm:
"The year's other billion-dollar-club members include No. 1 givers Bill and
Melinda Gates, the world's largest international donors, who made history
this year by giving their estimated $3 billion Microsoft Corp. (MSFT )
dividend to their foundation. It's one of the largest donations in history
by a living donor. To put it into perspective, that one gift is three times
bigger than the amount that America's richest family, the descendants of
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT ) founder Sam Walton, has given during their
entire lifetimes, according to our ranking."
It is so easy to make Bill out to be the devil, isn't it? Why don't you
invest some of that energy into learning the facts instead of calling others
liars and spreading myths yourself?
Now, I won't stoop to your level and call you a derogatory name. But, it
would be nice if you closed your mouth and opened your ears a little more.
"Fact corrector" wrote:
Fact from fiction
Unix and Linux is rubbish operating system that falls over on any server and
any person who say that you can not get a virus or worm on unix or linux are
full of themselfs,
You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about Unix when you rubbish Unix's stability.
Unix is was never a desktop operating system and neither was linux until
around 1998,
This crap that unix or linux is this wonderful operating system that is
stable has never put it through its paces and the truth of the matter is this
any software can be comprised by a simple binary test and all operating
system can crash by a simple power failure or hardware fault.
there is nothing great about Linux or Unix to me it is just another piece of
software for some person to sell and make money off wether it is by actually
selling the operating system or by running it in a company,
And all these virus, trojans, and worm writers are really programmers who
have nothing better to do than cause head aches for every person who is
trying to get there job's dun and stay in a job.
Microsoft may not have a good track record but at least there operating
system is straight forward no bull crap and gets your job dun in the least
amount of time with having to go through countless of webpages just to find
and update something linux and unix are hopeless at.
Straight forward? Check (if you know how to) the # of known bugs in Server
2000 & how many of them will never be resolved.
and the claims that billions of companies are using linuxs are exaggerated
because the truth is they are use upto three different operatings systems
just to prevent attacks to there servers which are ussually run by a linux
server that can not stop a hacker in the first place.
most companies will not install linuxs becuase of the long hours of
installing and the complex training involved which cost money and profits and
time learning the language while the alterative is windows which is easy to
install managable easy to fix and widely available information on how to use
it and updates,
Windows can be backup and running without lost of data if managed correctly
after virus and worm attacks also most windows only involves one cd disk
instead of the linux two to three disk installation.
Microsoft may not be the favour of people because of the cost but when you
put linux on the same platform cost wise or free windows is far greater
accepted in the community because of its ease of use and relability to get
the job dun,
Unix and linux are over rated software and only mandrake came close to
windows for desktop environment competiveness
"John Bailo" wrote:
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a poor man's
DBMS, a broken email server and various other /application/ servers to
try and crack the Internet and IS markets.
In the case where they didn't spend their own money to get companies to
install servers, they failed miserably, and the 1 Billion per quarter
Linux market is testament to that.
But, what M$ didn't want you to know, is that the only reason they
wanted to dominate the server, is to protect their desktop and office
applications market.
Seal up the server, and the desktop is safe; cede the server, and the
desktop will fall.
And so it is...falling into the hands of Linux
Hi Scott, You told Linønut: <<
The desktop is not a portion of the net at all. >>
Anything can be used to connect PCs... Don't believe me ?
Just look at rising surge of USB Flash devices
and wireless LANs ( WiFi ).
WinXP _ Is _ the net,
....the particular connection choosen is quite irrelevant in comparison.
You added: << many do not want to work for MS. >>
That is the Fucking understatement of the year !
Micro-Soft's labor problems are almost as bad as Wal-Mart's.
Take a look at their call center workers,
by law, these sub-sub-contractors ( working for temp agencies )
have to be either hired or fired after working 12 months,
....they're usually fired.
And that's when the work isn't totally exported.
Sam Walton didn't create a bunch of spoiled brats ( billionaires )
by overpaying his employees... neither did Bill Gates.
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Boris Bulit |
last post by:
Does anyone know how to create a Windows Forms Application Desktop
Toolbar in VB.NET?
Something like this:...
|
by: John Bailo |
last post by:
The war of the OSes was won a long time ago.
Unix has always been, and will continue to be, the Server OS in the form
of Linux.
Microsoft struggled mightily to win that battle -- creating a...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
| |
