Glass panels: what OS?

Greg Copeland wrote:


Hate to tell you this, but the vast majority of the 'net is run on
Unix/Linux.

Well...UNIX and Cisco's IOS.

- Andrew

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:51:32 -0500, Bill Denton wrote:


Most of the time, when a shop has Linux boxes, it doesn't have techs, it
has
OS evangelists, who have a vested interest in insuring that Windows
boxes
fail. In most instances, if they would spend as much time learning how
to
administer Windows boxes as they do playing with Linux boxes they would
see
a marked decrease in their failure rate.


That's simply not true in least.

I have seen quite a few Linux admins who had to use cheat sheets for even
the most rudimentary Win server tasks. And during the dot.com bust I saw
more than one Linux admin deliberately allow their Windows boxes to
deteriorate so they couild make the Linux boxes look better, and thus
preserving their jobs.

Most Linux heads tend to be geeks, and they tend to put all kinds of
geek
crap on their computers. Of course, none of this geek crap is written to
Microsoft standards because geeks know much better ways to do things. If
you
put crappy, non-standard software on a machine, it will crash, no matter
what the underlying operating system.

That's simply not true in the least. Applications should not be able to
crash an OS. If it can, that's a serious OS bug. I would say that you've
been exposed to MS' OS a little too long without understanding what else
is out there.

I have seen applications crash NT workstation and server four or five times,
and I've crashed Win2K Professional twice; once with Flight Simulator. A
couple of years ago I worked for a software company, and a test suite run of
one of our applications brought down two Linux boxes and one Unix box.
Everything can crash.

And I saw a Win2K server mysteriously begin going BSOD, for no observable
reason. It looked just like a software crash. I worked in the IBM building
in downtown Chicago, where you would expect the power to be good, but it
turned out we were getting power sags which were crashing the machine. It
was plugged into the same outlet with a workstation which never had a
problem. I did some testing, and discovered that the sags were long enough
to drop the server, but not long enough to effect the workstation. I put in
a UPS; no problem. But as I said, it looked just like a software problem.
How many other hardware problems get blamed on the OS?


So, which is better: Windows or Linux? That's like asking which is
better:
hammers or screwdrivers. In both instances, you are looking at a tool,
and
for a given job one may be superior. But it won't be superior for all
jobs.

Not really. Both do the same roles. Thusly, it's fair to do a hammer to
hammer or screwdriver to screwdriver comparison.

It's not a matter of which will do the job, it's a matter of which will do
the job best. And there are things that Win will do better than Linux and
vice-versa. And better is not just a matter of benchmarking: in some small
towns you might find 10 Win administrators and zero Linux administrators. In
that case, Linux is totally worthless. It's all a matter of matching the OS
to the need.



And consider this: Do you send email? A large chunk of the recipients of
that email get it across networks that weren't set up by Phd/EE's, but
were
instead set up by a reasonably intelligent person who saw the need for a
network, read a couple of Windows books, and was able to set up a
Windows
network, thanks to the user-friendly Windows installation routines. If
they
had needed to rely on Netware, or Linux, or any of the other
non-Microsoft
systems those networks would never have been built.

Hate to tell you this, but the vast majority of the 'net is run on
Unix/Linux. It's considered to be the backbone of the 'net. Worse,
because the cost of entry to run windows is so low and they are commonly
used as endpoints on the 'net, windows computers are currently considered
the biggest threat and the greatest plague to date. As an example,
currently, the vast majority of spam actually originates from comprimised
win computers being used as open spam relays. These points have not been
lost in Washington either. Windows computers and their security are
considered a threat to national security. Feel free to check the
Department of Homeland security. Notice that the NSA is happy to develop
using Linux?

And I hate to tell you this, there were LAN's long before the Internet
became "prime time". I did my first Windows For Workgroups (NETBUI) network
in 1992, the Internet did not begin to achieve any sort of mass penetration
until 1996 or so. While the majority of the servers may run Unix/Linux, most
of the outbound data quickly goes through a router onto a Windows network,

I agree with you about the increased vulnerability of Windows, but a case
could also be made that the associated protocols, which were designed by
Unix guys, were poorly engineered. Had they been better designed the spam
problems would not exist. I don't make that argument, but if you talk about
Windows vulnerabilities, you also have to consider lacadasical engineering.

Long story short, friendly does not translate to reliability or any other
picture you're trying to paint.



And, in many instances, that's what counts...


You seriously should check your facts.

My facts are fine. I have made a decent living off Windows, so I don't see
it as the Devil incarnate. I know there are problems there. But there are
problems with every OS on some level or another. I don't have any problem
with Linux; one of these days I will probably get around to learning it.
Where I do have a problem is with people who aren't willing to understand
that both Win and Linux are viable operating systems. It's simply not an
either/or situation.




Cheers,

Greg Copeland

In article , Bill Denton wrote:
That's simply not true in the least. Applications should not be able to
crash an OS. If it can, that's a serious OS bug. I would say that you've
been exposed to MS' OS a little too long without understanding what else
is out there.

I have seen applications crash NT workstation and server four or five times,
and I've crashed Win2K Professional twice; once with Flight Simulator.

Which means the OS has some serious bugs. Either that or bad drivers
(I've come across some hideously bad - I mean really inexcusably bad
video drivers).

As for Windows being easy to set up (you cited WfWG), Macintosh networks
were that easy to set up in 1988 - we had a Mac network at school then.
It's hardly Windows that has made setting up LANs easy. Setting up the
LAN isn't even quarter of the battle - keeping it up *and secure* is a
much bigger chunk of it. An easy GUI setup and few scripting tools, and
an insecure default configuration means that the easy set up has a
really nasty sting in the tail, as evidenced by the hundreds of
thousands of hosts listed in Spamhaus's XBL (Exploits Blacklist). You
need proper admins (i.e. ones you'll have to pay well) to keep your
network secure even if it runs Windows. Admins who know how to write
scripts to automate jobs. That kind of thing. Having some non-admin set
it up with the easy-to-use GUI is just a malware breeding ground.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Bill Denton wrote:
That's simply not true in the least. Applications should not be able
to
crash an OS. If it can, that's a serious OS bug. I would say that
you've
been exposed to MS' OS a little too long without understanding what
else
is out there.

I have seen applications crash NT workstation and server four or five
times,
and I've crashed Win2K Professional twice; once with Flight Simulator.

Which means the OS has some serious bugs. Either that or bad drivers
(I've come across some hideously bad - I mean really inexcusably bad
video drivers).

As for Windows being easy to set up (you cited WfWG), Macintosh networks
were that easy to set up in 1988 - we had a Mac network at school then.
It's hardly Windows that has made setting up LANs easy. Setting up the
LAN isn't even quarter of the battle - keeping it up *and secure* is a
much bigger chunk of it. An easy GUI setup and few scripting tools, and
an insecure default configuration means that the easy set up has a
really nasty sting in the tail, as evidenced by the hundreds of
thousands of hosts listed in Spamhaus's XBL (Exploits Blacklist). You
need proper admins (i.e. ones you'll have to pay well) to keep your
network secure even if it runs Windows. Admins who know how to write
scripts to automate jobs. That kind of thing. Having some non-admin set
it up with the easy-to-use GUI is just a malware breeding ground.

Fine, if you have a huge corporation that can afford a bunch of well-paid
admins. Your argument is beginning to sound an awful lot like you don't
think most people should have computers and that you think that the general
public is a menace. That isn't the fault of Windows. You know, the Internet
would not be nearly so big today if it weren't for all of those incompetent
Windows users that are able to access it. Get rid of them and you dry up 80%
of the business base. The rest would not be worth keeping the Internet
running. You could not even go back to the days when only research
facilities and the military had Internet access. It would be gone,
completely. So, although you think that the public are a threat, maybe you
might start asking yourself what would happen if you really got your way.
Maybe you are a bigger threat than the public you despise.

C J Campbell wrote:

You could not even go back to the days when only
research facilities and the military had Internet access.

Considering the economic damages caused by each major worm run, that might
not be a Bad Thing. We'd lose a *lot*. But it might be better, in the
long run.

Still, there's a third alternative: safe computing. Unfortunately, the idea
that anyone can run a computer network has already been sold to an
unsuspecting public. While this might be true in an ideal world (and we
are getting closer to that over time), the fact is that networks require
maintenance and tuning and the occasional safety fix just like aircraft and
automobiles do.

People don't mind using mechanics or A&Ps because we're told it's necessary.
Had people not been sold the aforementioned lie, then perhaps this wouldn't
be a problem. Unfortunately, this idea has settled in and taken root.

- Andrew

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
As for Windows being easy to set up (you cited WfWG), Macintosh networks
were that easy to set up in 1988

They were that easy as long as you stuck with Appletalk. Again, the big
reason Macs are "easy" and "stable" is that there's practically no variation
in configuration from computer to computer. (And frankly, I've seen the Mac
bomb icon often enough to know that the word "stable" doesn't necessarily
apply to a Mac any more than it applies to any other OS).

They were hard then to set up in a mixed environment with non-Apple
technologies, and frankly, I still find it daunting at times when trying to
get different platforms to talk to each other on the same network, even when
it comes to configuring the Macintosh.

Pete

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:30:48 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Greg Copeland wrote:


Hate to tell you this, but the vast majority of the 'net is run on
Unix/Linux.

Well...UNIX and Cisco's IOS.

FWIW, Cisco IOS and Juniper's JunOS are both based on BSD.

People don't mind using mechanics or A&Ps because we're told it's necessary.

The difference is, anybody with a nearby library can learn how to fix a car or
an airplane. This is not true of Windows, or any closed source software. The
innards of windows are a secret. You cannot be sure of what the operating
system (or any commercial program) is =really= doing. I find that scary. With
open source, even if I personally don't want to open the hood, so to speak, I
know that there are lots of geeks who have already looked under the hood, and
any nefarious stuff would have already been publicized in a place I could look.

Imagine having a new aircraft come on the market, but nobody is allowed to do a
preflight. The mechanism for rasing the gear is a secret. The avionics are
coupled to the autopilot, but you are not permitted to know how. And you may
not fly without the transponde operating in mode Q.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

In article , Greg Copeland
wrote:

The trick is to truly show that the device was indeed rock solid, and
for
that history to be actually applicable to future use.

'taint no trick at all; we do it with voting machines now.

Bwahaha...

--kyler


LOL. I doubt the majority here are able to follow the humor there.

ya can't follow what ain't there. :-(

--
Bob Noel

Greg Copeland ) wrote:
: On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:08:41 +0000, Kyler Laird wrote:
:
: Bob Noel writes:
:
: The trick is to truly show that the device was indeed rock solid, and for
: that history to be actually applicable to future use.
:
: 'taint no trick at all; we do it with voting machines now.
:
: Bwahaha...
:
: --kyler
:
:
: LOL. I doubt the majority here are able to follow the humor there.
:

Here's an article for those who didn't catch the humor:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm
All the President's Votes?


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email