Why Linux is Cheap 14

[eman6]

This is for all those who defend Linux.
First: Remember, if there was no MS Windows and MS Office in the market, and if it wasn't so popular, Linux would either never have existed, or it would probably be of higher price than MS products.

Second: What is Linux? Correct me if I am mistaken please. Linux is an attempt to force a Unix-Like product into the very popular Personal Computer, so that we (the volks) can use it at home (or small office) and not only on big systems at big companies.

Now my big question is: Regardless of the price. Do we need Linux? Aren't we re-inventing the wheel?
The brilliant ideas behind MS Windows was to create a user-friendly, easy to understand and use inteface and to be able to run more than one program simultaneously.
Thanks to Microsoft, only few people are still afraid of computers and feel only specialized professionals can use them. Mainly people older than 40 or 50, mostly.

So what we really need, is not a re-invention of what exists already but to have what exists in more appropriate form. In other words to have MS products:
1) Fine tuned for a minimum of bugs rather than a multitude of unnecessary (paid anyway) features.
2) Fine tune the prices so less people have to use illegal copies mostly because they just cannot afford to buy them even if they would love to have them.


Eman_2005
Technical Communicator

http://www.smartistek.com

 

[pmonett]

Allow me to disagree with your second point. Linux is not "forcing" anything on the PC.
Linux started as an experience to see if the 386 CPU was capable of using semaphone technology and real-time interrupts, just like the big iron computers.
And it was.
Everything that happened from that point on was simply an experiment, to see just how far one could go with the idea. It turned out that Linux proves today that the x86-line of CPUs can be used to run a much more professionally stable OS than the one made by Microsoft.

I am sure that someone else (okay, a group of people) could very well make an entirely different and viable OS (like BeOS was), which would work perfectly on a x86 CPU. Of course, that would probably require reinventing a lot of wheels, because what is important in the end-user market is not really the OS used, but the applications that are available.

Linux is not going away any time soon, because it is the newer iteration of the very stable and well-thought-out Unix environment which has amply proved its usefullness.
However, Windows is not going away any time soon either, because there is 999 apps of every kind available for every 1 that can run on Linux.

Do we need Linux ? From a technological point of view : yes. Linux is taking the cake in every niche environment, and in every on-board or mobile technolgy application that counts. Without Linux, we'd have to rely on MS (yikes !) or on some obscure, closed, third-party OS for every different application.
From an economical point of view, the answer is still yes, because a monopoly always becomes complacent and forces users to adapt to the monopoly holder's requirements. Competition is what improves products on the market, because it is the solution that is best adapted to the user's requirements that is adopted. Linux is, bit by bit, forcing Microsoft to react and improve itself. And that is something that benefits everyone.
From a sociological point of view, the answer remains yes because people have the opportunity to experience something different, which is a key element in providing thought-provoking sessions and allowing for the reevaluation of what exists. If Microsoft was the only software provider, there would be very few people to question its ways. Given that there are other products, and other ways of doing things, people have more opportunities to evaluate ways of doing things, which allows for more questioning and searching.

We need diversity. That is what will force MS to fine-tune its products and improve its code, nothing else.

And if it takes a few reinventions of the wheel, so be it.

Pascal.

 

[eman6]

I must admit, I do not entirely disagree with you, at least in principle.
However, I hope you will also agree with me that diversity is not always to the benefit of the end user (you and me).
Take multimedia, for instance. I had to use several different software applications over the years. Every time I downloaded a short video clip, such as those published by newsagencies (interviews, etc), I find that the software I have is either unable to run it or needs the right 'codec' to be downloaded.
I would really be the happiest man if Microsoft, or any other one single software source for that matter, had THE STANDARD media player so that every one of us comfortably downloads any media file from anywhere and feel confident that the one single software s/he has WILL play it.
To keep a long story short, a giant advantage that Microsoft favoured everybody was to establish a STANDARD. Or at least they attempted to do so, and quite succeeded, IMHO. Otherwise we would have needed 10 different softwares for editing or even viewing images, another ten to listen to music, another ten to edit text, and so forth. We would not have spent any LESS money than what we spend for Microsoft products, and no computer technician could ever solve the thousands of conflicts and runtime errors we would have encountered because we had software of hundred different technologies from hundreds of incompatible sources.
Look at IBM, I remember their OS was nicely multitasking with the 386 already. So why did they not care to develop office application packages that work under that OS? Actually why did they create their OS the first place, if they were planning to leave it orphan like they did???
Nobody was stopping any company from developing a good OS and office applications to support its existance. Actually Lotus was a strong provider for some time, when MS passed by and over it like the turtle did the rabbit.
If Linux can provide:
-A complete office package as user-friendly as MS Office.
-Concrete and bug-free Software Development tool.
-Communication applications (email. browser, etc).
-Universal Multimedia application.
All at 'affordable prices' (whatever that may mean), then who would not receive Linux with open arms?
How can all this happen at affordable prices, though? Using volunteer developpers provided by the red-cross, maybe.


Eman_2005
Technical Communicator

http://www.smartistek.com

 

[pmonett]

True, there was a time where getting some help page was a nightmare of trying F1, H, or whatever other curious keystroke combination - when help existed.

That said, I still believe that it is diversity that gave us the environment that we have today. The fact that it is Microsoft that dominates is pure chance. We could have gone OS/2, or whatever else in massive way, and today we'd be complaining about the dominance of the Apple key, or Shift-H, or what have you.

Microsoft got lucky, and obtained, by chance and market acumen, a position from which it could dictate a standard.
Today, a lot of competing codecs are battling for attention. That does not mean it is a bad thing to be confused. It means that it is a good thing to have choice, because the more choice there is, the better chance the the right solution will end up being adopted.
What pleases me most here is that Microsoft is not the dominating player in the media arena - there are quite a few others that are shoving their way through. And that is a sign of a healthy economy.

Microsoft gave us some good standards where they were needed - in the OS and in presentation (but they don't always respect their own standards either).
But I do not want Bill dictating how I should view all my info, be it on the PC or (shudder) on my TV. DRM is not for me, and I want the freedom of playing with my honestly-acquired DVDs as I see fit, without having some lawyer peek over my shoulder and approve.
And for that to continue, I can only count on diversity.

Having to find Yet Another Codec is a price I accept to pay for my freedom.

As far as Linux is concerned, the fact that its application library is not so obviously developed as Microsoft Windows is definitely a hindrance. But you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Is it a bad thing to try and develop another way of computing when there are so few available ? Why blame them for trying ? Linux is gathering steam, and one day we will have a big application library for it.
Meanwhile, Linux is doing a great job as an underdog - an essential one even, by putting MS back in its place on the international market.
Because of Linux, governments are realizing that they have no control over what is happening in their PCs. Companies are growing tired of paying top dollars for average performance every year. Things are changing, for the better.

All because of a group of people who believe that their work will benefit more people if it is free. And that's exactly what they are accomplishing.
I admire that.

Pascal.

 

[BitFuzzy]

You missed the point about Linux.

Linux isn't about pushing anything on anybody (Microsoft does enough of that on its own) it's about Freedom. Mind you not so much Freedom from having to pay, but Freedom as in Free to decide what you want to use, and how you want to use it.

You're speaking about what's better for the end user which is always the best way to think when regarding software, but whom is it pushing the hardest for software patents that will in the long run "hurt" or hinder end users? Linux or Microsoft?
(Hint it's the later)


-A complete office package as user-friendly as MS Office.
Open Office -- FREE
* Not completly there yet for the brain dead but far enough not to have to use Office again 'ever'

-Concrete and bug-free Software Development tool.
GCC, Perl, Python, PHP (need I go on?) -- FREE
For that matter which development tool from MS do you feel is bug free (I've used them all)

-Communication applications (email. browser, etc).
Firefox, Mozilla, Thunderbird, Kmail, Pine, Sendmail, Qmail, postfix, apache -- FREE

-Universal Multimedia application.
Come on, MS doesn't even support that as you still need to download realplayer or quick time when trying to view their files. If you have a problem with codecs not being available stary lobbying the companies in question (real networks, apple, etc)

Linux is much more than a Destop OS, it's a full server in it's own right which is fully capable and in full competition with Windows server os's. (This is a matter of fact supported by the 4 phone calles I get a month my Microsoft inquiring what they can do or provide us to start focusing on Windows Server 2003 instead of Linux *including free copies)

Is Linux the end all?
No, long story short, all that matters is that the user gets what he needs/wants from what ever he/she uses.

Would Linux be around if MS wasn't?
I dont know. Part of Linux came about (or that aided in it's acceptance) was the fact alot (and I mean ALOT) of people of fed up w/ Microsoft, their tactics, and 15+ year old bugs and the excuses (stories) that came with them)

The other part of Linux involved trying to improve upon what was being used (or how things got done)

I'd like to think that no matter what was in the main stream, the "ideals" that inspired Linux would have still evolved.

[Do we need Linux? Aren't we re-inventing the wheel?]
Yes, and Yes. Ony through direct competition will Microsoft clean up there act (I hope). In case you didn't know alot of the vulnerabilities in windows, IE, OE etc arn't newly found, alot of them have been around since the 90's but there wasn't much reason to focus too hard on them (it's not like you could just install a different OS on your computer hint hint)

[The brilliant ideas behind MS Windows was to create a user-friendly, easy to understand and use inteface and to be able to run more than one program simultaneously.]

ROFL, look the brilliant idea behind windows was nothing more than getting what Apple had at the time (which they obtained through xerox).

Actually Microsofts "multitasking" is 1) derived from Unix and 2) is only emulated. 3) If you like that, you'd die over what *NIX can do with it.

One thing you should always remember is to remain humble.

Linux though quite young in the scheme of things is based on an environment that is more mature than any title in Microsofts arsenal (stands to reason since Unix was around since before Microsoft was a idea in Bill Gates head).
It's highly scalable, flexable and extremely secure.

There's also Tens of Thousands of programmers working on it compared to a few thousand at Microsoft.

Do you really think that so many people would devote their free time and experience to a project that wasn't needed?

 

[eman6]

Shall we rename this forum to "Anti-Bill Gates"?
Gentlemen
I am one of the first to criticise Microsoft whenever something goes wrong with one of their many products I use at work or at home, but let us try a little bit to remain objective in our criticism and not just throw attacks Microsoft like they did nothing good at all.

1) Bill Gates did not become rich by dealing with drugs or weapons or anything destructive. He earned his richness by Software Engineering and clever Marketing, to say the least. Now we all know that anyone of us who even tries to put a foot into this direction, he gets burned before he knows it. It a war against big giants and you have to do what it takes, or die very quickly.

2) How many thousands of hackers are making every destructive effort to do nothing useful but seek weak points in Microsoft Internet Browser, email, or other products just to prove how 'bad' it is. When you are at this level like Microsoft, all the eyes are on you and no matter how much good you do, people count your mistakes like crimes.

3) I have not tried how user-friendly Linux products are, admittedly, but even of they were in fact user-friendly, this philosophy itself they learned a big part of it from Microsoft interface designs.

4) Apple? McIntosh? I have used it long time ago, and I have used it again a couple of years ago. The question I am asking is: Do we want computers used by computer specialists only, or by the rest of us? I think Microsoft has made a tremendous effort to make the interface design as obvious and easy to use as possible, and yet, so many people are still scared of touching computers and would not click a button they have not learned about in advance. And why does nobody mention crazy prices when discussion passes by Apple Technology? Why nobody blamed IBM and other giants for selling PCs as if they were made of Gold? Aren't we all using computers because they are IBM compatible, and not IBM authentical? I still remember the first Gateway2000 I bought in 1993 for $3000 something. About the same configuration from IBM costed at that time more than four times higher (except for those who worked at IBM, of course, it was only twice as high as a Gateway 2000 Equivalent).

5) Yes I still believe they ARE pushing their way (Linux guys) in. Proof? They are giving all for free just to try desperately to destroy Microsoft. We will meet one day when half as many millions use Linux products and see how much they can cope up with millions of different PC configurations. We shall see how they will manage to test each and every new software and make sure it will work bug-free under any of the million different circumstances of millions of users.
Only THEN would it be fair to compare and criticise.

Eman_2005
Technical Communicator

http://www.smartistek.com

 

[zutfen]

I think you're missing the point of Linux.
First things first, I use windows. At work.

I use Linux at home for everything. I didn't pay a penny for my OS, and it came with thousands of dollars worth of commercial grade software. Linux hackers don't "make it free to destroy Microsoft", it's free because it's a hobby for most.

Is Windows useful? Quite simply, yes. Linux is too. I can do anything I need to do with Linux, and it doesn't cost me $100-200 US every time I build a new PC/Server/Firewall/DVR just for the Operating System, this appeals to me.

Linux isn't about "bringing down M$" at its core. Sure there are the zealots that spout "M$" "MicroSloth Winblows" et al, but the real drive of linux is far from that. Linux is about having a choice. I enjoy having that choice, and having a broad scope of software to install, tinker with, and change as I see fit.

I get what I need out of Linux, so I use it. It's that simple for me, I would hope it would be the same for others. Use whatever software meets your needs.

 

[ChrisHunt]

Why nobody blamed IBM and other giants for selling PCs as if they were made of Gold? Aren't we all using computers because they are IBM compatible, and not IBM authentical? I still remember the first Gateway2000 I bought in 1993 for $3000 something. About the same configuration from IBM costed at that time more than four times higher

So competition is good in the hardware market, but bad in the software market?

-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd

 

[eman6]

ChrisHunt
Competition can be good or bad, be it in software or in hardware.
In hardware, we are talking about millions of IBM-compatible hardware. The good about it is that there is a good amount of compatibility; a common standard ground. You buy a HD or a graphics card from any manufacturer and fit it in your PC and be sure it will work.
Now in software, I do not mind at all if sombody produces office applications that work under MS Windows or another (user-friendly please) OS in which I could install (if I wish) MS Office. That's why I don't like the multimedia software, for instance. That is BAD competition. Same thing applies for Communication software. If you have some friends who use yahoo messenger because they happened to have a yahoo email, and others who use MSN messenger because they had hotmail account, others use ICQ,... and you end up having to install all of them to be able to communicate with all your friends over the net. This is not only bad competition, this is nonsense, in my humble opinion.
Having said all this, I am not against Linux per se. I just do not agree when people attack Microsoft just because Bill Gates is very rich (remember the title of this forum?). Or those who defend Linux by saying it's free and bug free. This is not an objective discussion.
Comparing Linux with Windows can only be fair when there are as many users with as many different hardwares and installed software along, so you can see if Linux products co-exist flowlessly with all. To guarantee this the best you can, believe me, you need to invest a hell lot of Money, and thus you cannot give software for free anymore.
Finally, if Linux products satisfy your needs, then be my guest. I would even thank you if you knew my needs and advised me to use Linux (or whatever else, for that matter)because you think it suits them better, not because you hate Bill Gates.


Eman_2005
Technical Communicator

http://www.smartistek.com

 

[WombatSound]

Wow, talk about waking the giant, but I just signed onto this forum site and I read this thread ... While there is objective opinion on both sides, the obvious hasn't been stated ... It seems no one knows the history of where the software came from ... You need to do some research ... But I wonder why it even enters your mind to have a concern of this?

Anyway, the reason there's something called Linux out there is because of Richard Stallman ...

http://stallman.org/

... He started the GNU and the FSF ... you'd be good if you read this page:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

...

"Free Software" started in the late 60s early 70s when computer programmers were working at universities and shared software to either run or improve upon ... When the platform they were running on became obsolete, they moved to machines that were running a proprietary Unix that you were told you couldn't share or alter ... This is when Stallman made his split ...

In and around the same time, there was this 19 year old kid in Finland learning how to write an operating system, and he was taught using Minix

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/minix.html

... His name was Linus Torvalds, and he decided to call his kernel Linux ... He wrote most of it wearing his bathrobe with his mother hanging about ... Because of what Stallman was working towards, he had all of these Unix-like programs that he could run for free using his kernel, so he supported the GNU software using his kernel ... Linux distributions today known as "Linux" are a compilation of the Linux kernel and GNU software ...

So you see, most of this happened way before there was Windows ... so there was no decision to plot a mad conspiracy to put Microsoft out of business ... It just happened to be what was being developed in different areas of the world at the same time, and in some cases different times ...

A good movie to buy or rent is called "Revolution OS" ...

http://www.revolution-os.com/

Also, watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/

... Really paints a great picture of Mr. Bill Gates ...

I started running an all Windows shop ... the more I learned and read, I found a great solution in FreeBSD ... All Internet applications that matter (DNS, Mail, HTTP, Firewall, etc) were moved to FreeBSD servers ... So now I am a mixed shop, and if it weren't for proprietary scripting on Microsoft's part, I could see not even using their servers ...

There is no war ... and for the people that are educated about the operating systems available, there are solid reasons for preferring one to another ... For those that you've met or heard about that make it their point to make it a war do so for their own reasons ... The software stands on its own merit ... I think the history of it is amazing ...

I also run an iMac ... I was interested in experiencing OSX which is a mixture of Apple OS, the branch that went off from Apple which the name escapes me right now and FreeBSD itself ...

An interesting point that I have read around the 'net ... The FreeBSD TCP/IP stack has been a part of Windows since it was released ... The BSD license is such that Microsoft was in their full rights to do this and not give them credit ... Most people that do use BSD licensed source in their applications freely give credit where credit is due ... But I think it's interesting that the hacker types that know all the bits bytes and nibbles were able to query against Windows and prove that it was the BSD code responding ... That's just awesome ...

... and to finish off this post ... Linux distributions have come a long way ... There are some distributions that are so easy to install and run ... They're getting to the point of the Windows type of computer that is very user friendly ... So much so that it's possible for a system administrator to bring up a Linux box easily enough and have it be as vulnerable as a Windows box on the Internet ... It used to be that Linux was only for hacker geeks that could figure out how to get it installed and working ... For this reason I and many other ISPs are running their servers running FreeBSD as it is more straightforward in the Internet environment ... After all, it was the operating system that really brought the Internet together much faster ... You don't think Windows machines were running the early Internet, do you? Mostly DEC and VAX machines running proprietary Unix ...

So much more to type, but if you start with those links and movies you might get your answer ... If you're unbiased, you will have so many resources available to you ...

 

[Provogeek]

I just wanted to comment on the Multimedia thing.

Yes, it is a pain in the rump to have to download and install a different codec for every type of video file out there, or even a different player. But as Microsoft trumpets, it's all about inovation. There was a time when a 60 minute video would use over 10gigs (Microsoft's AVI) of storage space, then someone came up with a compression algorithim that brought that down to under one gig (MPEG), then a group of people working together came up with Divx, now I can download a good quality video over 60 minutes and the file is under 200megs.

There was also a company that came up with a way to stream video over the internet with out forcing the viewer to actually download the video before watching it.

Then another company decided to make the video files that run with in their propriatery OS run on other OS's as well.

Yea, it's frustraiting to have to download the different players and codecs, but that also has given way for choice. If we only had one choice, there is very little to stop a company from choosing to raise the price, because when you have no choice, your stuck paying the bill.

 

[ikayak]

I was a MS supporter for years. Even Grandma can surf the net thanks to MS. Windows was great. Unfortunatly, with all of the security issues, Grandma is spending a fortune trying to keep her computer running. Yes, MS is a big target but there will always be someone trying to tear them down. No matter how you slice it, the average person cannot keep up with all the different things you need to do to keep your computer safe. Grandma needs a tech. By the way I am a Chevy fan and I don't like Fords. I should get a choice.

 

[eman6]

Well, if (God forbid) Linux will be the standard one day, we shall see how many security issues will there be when millions of hackers target it.

No matter what you develop, there is always those who want to cause damage. This does not mean what you are doing is bad.

______________________________________
Perfection is not impossible;
It's very difficult to achieve.
___________________________________

Eman_2005
Technical Communicator

http://www.smartistek.com

 

[pmonett]

If I'm not mistaken, Linux is already a ready target for hackers. After all, there are more Apache servers than there are IIS servers on the web.
I'm no specialist, but it seems to me that Linux is already far more secure than Windows, and will remain that way not because of the number of clients installed, but because Linux has inherently less points of weakness.
Of course, once users are in great numbers and can install any piece of badly-written software (and that does exist for Linux, just like everywhere else), that situation might change and users will very probably be inviting new weaknesses into their PC.
One difference will remain though: as long as Linux is called Linux, there will be no program that will be able to hijack the OS. The Linux core is not dependant on DLLs like Windows, which is, in my opinion, the major reason for its stability and security.
Windows will never reach that level in the home environment. That gives Linux a very good chance to stay ahead in the security arena, whatever else happens.

Pascal.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Hmmm, don't want to stir the hornets nest; but in terms of security there is only one thing stopping Windows for being as secure as anything else out there - good administrators. The Windows interface is very good and easy to use... possibly too easy. Power users start to play and play; get a copy of Win2k3 server from a mate down the pub and the next thing is they've got a job as a site technician for a company.
If Windows was configured correctly and best practices (for all OS's) were used (firewall, AV, backups, RAID redundancy etc.) then there is nothing really noticable about the security differences between Mac, Linux and Windows. (Christ, even Symbian OS has holes in it!)

Shove an unpatched version of any OS on the market directly onto the web after installation and someone could get in - security is a myth; it's only good adminstrators that prevent holes, not the OS being used.
In terms of DLL's - look at Linux .so files; or just do a search of 'linux dll' on Google. Number of hate post's in forums about Linux due to the same 'DLL' hell that plagues developers on Windows.

In terms of the orignal post; I see your point - MS Office is a standard. Open source products don't even try to use their own format as it just wouldn't compete due to MS's market penetration; so if you use OpenOffice 1.9 then you'll save your letter in a .doc format that Word 2003 can understand. (Unless really complex; but thats for a different forum!)
However in terms of multimedia formats it's differnet. I want to use WMP. Not because I haven't looked elsewhere; it's just that WMP is IMHO bloody good and I don't fancy the crap and spyware shoved and me from RealPlayer and the boredom of Apple's QuickTime.
However I've had to use both before - BBC only streams radio over .ram (RealPlayer) and another site I was using did everything in Apple's format. Same with why I can't use iTunes on a non-Apple MP3 player.

MS created a standard for office documents; of which all major players (open source and otherwise) now follow's to try and get in on the market - yet I still have to have 3 media players.




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[Stevehewitt]

pmonett

Just a quick comment back - just because there are more WEB servers that run on Apache than IIS; does mean more servers. MS has 60% of the server market - and that is apparently increasting according to WinInsider. (Google search, no idea what sort of credit the site has though!) Linux has under half at just 29%.

And then when you think about the number of servers that now, in this day and age have not got a web connection (direct or through their LAN), you can see that Apache and IIS are not relevant. 60% of servers is more than 29% - MS is a bigger target for virus writters and "hackers" than Linux.




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[WombatSound]

Yes, you can place the blame on a sysadmin for a system's security, but the OS should start you off right ... I was infected before I finished a Windows installation once ... It is vulnerable by default ... It also installs "everything" ... Installing FreeBSD, I have never been vulnerable ... It was at that moment I decided to firewall my entire connection ... before then I only needed to software firewall the Windows machines ... FreeBSD doesn't need a firewall appliance in front of it, but Windows does ... Also with FreeBSD I can be selective in my installation ... Again, it all depends what application you're using the machine for ... I have found Windows Servers for Internet use are not what you want going ... FreeBSD does a much better job all around ... in security and mostly performance ... Not to mention price ...

Again, I started as all Windows, then I found the power of FreeBSD (not Linux) ... The FreeBSD mail server I run does SPAM and virus protection updating its virus definition file twice daily, for free. The MS Mail servers I ran before were costly to begin with and the newer versions with SPAM and Virus prevention required costly subscriptions. The FreeBSD DNS servers I run the author offers a reward if it is breached ... The MS DNS Server is still easily spoofed and has an accessible cache that can be compromised ... The Apache web server is so much the rock that even people running Windows servers stop its W3SVC in favor of running the Windows Apache port ... If you'd like a trusted service that keeps track of the numbers, check out

http://www.netcraft.com

... Lots of good information there as well ...

I didn't happen on this discovery from propaganda or opinions, I happened on these results from researching the best solution to my problems ... In all situations I found FreeBSD could do what I wanted much more efficiently than the Windows services I had in place ... Mail, HTTP, DNS, Firewall ... FreeBSD can do it all and I saved a lot of money and frustration ... The only thing I needed to invest was my time and decent hardware ... FreeBSD doesn't require the same bloated hardware that Windows demands ... the GUI is great for a desktop .. pretty much useless on a headless server ...

 

[Stevehewitt]

I do agree, but unless you have the time to spend on learning a brand new system; which when CLI driven doesn't had the easy-to-use UI of a GUI then your stuffed. Bring in a Linux, FreeBSD, Unix, Mac, admin with a server and I'd agree that it's pretty much hands down - Windows by default is not as secure as alternatives.

My argument is not 'out-of-the-box', but after configuration. I've got a 4 year old customer on my books where it's only me that manages that server. SUS, autoupdate AV, email system has built in Spam/AV too (not Exchange mind!) and a decent firewall in place and the icing on the cake is IIS. I'm not saying it's bulletproof; I'm sure an experienced boffin could get into the system - but only after spending so much time and resources it wouldn't be worth his while.

In regards to the installation - I'd take another look. According to my log book I've done 164 2003 installations and 784 2000 installations in the last 6 years. Been able to choose at statup what gets installed.

Thanks,




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[WombatSound]

Installation: When I started with computers, what I cam to know and love was a black screen with a green C:\> staring at me when my computer finished booting ... These new Microsoft products do not give you that option ... Finding FreeBSD I now have back my prompt, although it looks a bit different and it's white now. Back in the day, if I chose to fill my RAM with the bloated GUI, I typed "win" ... now, I type "startx" ... Doing those 948 installations must have taken you quite bit of time ... an hour or so to install, and then more hours online updating ... FreeBSD installs in about 5 minutes ... Can start serving pages on the Internet in about another 3 ... There is no comparison ... and I speak from experience ...

My argument IS out-of-the-box ... cause more people installing Windows are not aware of the risks they're getting into when they start that long installation ... A newly installed Windows machine is a sitting duck ... A newly installed FreeBSD machine can't be touched ... For a techie, they know that they have to apply the latest updates and secure their open ports, etc ... Joe User has no idea and is attacked by automation ...

As far as mail and services go, I know that there is many products available to Windows that will do like tasks, just that they're in the thousands whereas I spent nothing for a solution and it updates more frequently and is more up to date all by itself ... There is more benefits to my solution in my opinion ...

This topic was started questioning the existence of Linux as a result of Windows ... I explained in my prior post that Linux was a reality before Windows even existed ... The question also asked what Linux was? Just a port to a PC for a Unixlike system? Absolutely not ... The the poster asked if we needed Linux ... No, we don't need Linux just as we don't need Windows ... But we do have this choice ... I have expounded on my reasons for my choices ... I run a mixed environment now and reap the benefits of each of the operating systems ... From experience in my field, I have found the best system to have up front is FreeBSD which is not even Linux ... FreeBSD protects my Windows machines, and FreeBSD runs my critical Internet applications ... but to be so naive or conceited that Linux is a result of Windows was something I couldn't leave uncommented on ... So the links I posted and the information in my previous post is a good starting point for someone to learn about the history of Operating Systems before Mr. Microsoft stole that little operating system off of that clueless guy ... heh, and he had someone else do it for him ...

 

[pmonett]

Steve:

I do agree that Linux servers are not the majority overall.
But, if we're talking about attacks from the Internet, it seems to me that servers that are not connected are not really relevant. The servers that can be attacked first are the ones connected to the Web, and among those, Apache servers are the largest group.
The other servers that are networked can be attacked, but only by an internal error, or by breaching a front-line server (of which, again, Apache servers are the majority).
As for DLLs under Linux, I've just learned something. I'll have to explore that further. Thanks for the info !

Pascal.