OSNews

http://mirror.linuxquestions.org/pub/archive/tllts/tllts_77-03-30-0...

Everyone listen to this!

"http://mirror.linuxquestions.org/pub/archive/tllts/tllts_77-03-30-0.....

Everyone listen to this!"

Now that's how you do it! brilliant!

This article may be satirical, but to me it seems like flame bate, or possibly trolling.

We are talking about ZiffDavis, after all. Home of the Kings and Queens of poking hornets with a stick for raitings and page views.

That said, I agree with every last satirical point made in it, bar none.

I agree, I think this article sucks. It sounds like it was written by a spiteful 15 year old.

"I agree, I think this article sucks. It sounds like it was written by a spiteful 15 year old."

That is a really constructive comment you may as well have posted.

"And they hurt my feelings :'(."

okay maybe not the funniest thing in the world, look at the Category icon do you expect a serious article to proceed a laughing pumpkin?

Myself, personally, I thought it was a little humorous, especially about unpatched Linux systems lasts for months, but what's the fun of that?! :-)

But I can fully understand your point, and I guess I would agree. It does get old.

But for myself personally, I would like to see a LOT more discussions of BSD's vs Linux, and debunking this whole notion of how greatly secure Linux is, vs Windows. Ok, yes, Linux IS much more secure and stable, but did you check the BSD's? How does a default install, unpatched BSD compare to Linux for security and stability?
http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html

How does a default install, unpatched BSD compare to Linux for security and stability?

Next time provide an URL that leads to article that's actually up-to-date. From the article: ,,There are several new journaling filesystems in development for Linux that will fix some of these issues, but these will not be ready for the 2.4 release of Linux.''.

Yeah.. 2.4.. ;-)

yeh I'm sure comparing BSD to linux 2.2 years ago showed that BSD was better. But now it's a no-contest.
between the 2.
Performance: Linux, it's rewritten the entire TCP/IP stack twice I think since 2.2, and it's played with several new scedualers and journaled FS http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/12/27/1243207&t...

Drivers: Oh come on, one word, Wireless. BSD still is completely lacking.

FS: XFS. ReiserFS(or Reiser4), JFS. Linux's filesystem options are much more advanced, secure, and powerful thea either UFS or UFS2.

Security: they are about the same, unless u use a secuirty patched linux kernel that implements grsecurity or selinux, in which case linux.

packages, distro specific. I don't see how freebsd has a greater selection then Gentoo, Debian, etc.

Version control.. Yeh, once again linux has it.

Support, from ubuntu, to redhat and mandriva, linux's support options easy dominate that of BSDs.

I think someone should recreate this article, not using age-old software and a complete BSD-favored slant.

In terms of security, I think OpenBSD could still hold its own against a GNU/Linux system . Also I don't understand your comment about version control: pretty much every commonly used system that works on Linux works on BSD, and git is not an SCM panacea. Further I'm convinced that the IP stack is noticeably poorer, nor am I certain the file-systems are noticeable better (also it must be said, very few distros support XFS, JFS or Reiser4, in fact most default to ext3).

I'm no BSD expert, and I think that for general use GNU/Linux systems might be a bit better, but I wouldn't discount everything BSD has to offer. Linux based it's networking stack off it, there could be something else there for it to "borrow" as well.

That should be "Further I'm not convinced that the IP stack is noticeably poorer, nor am I certain the file-systems are noticeable better"

They are quoting FreeBSD in the example I responded to, not OpenBSD, so I couldn't say. And the article I quoted also said that linux had virtually no version support. I was just addressing the issues in which the article stated BSD was clearly ahead. I give BSD credit where credit is due, I like it myself and love the way NetBSD is implemented, but if you were to read the link that the user I replied to posted, u'd see it's more then a bit BSD-sided.
(a link that that again is http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html )
some quotes
"The network performance of Linux is 20-30% below the capacity of FreeBSD running on the same hardware"
They also stated Linux's security is about that of Windows 2000.
Then they compared BSD's UFS to Linux's ext2, and scored it minimally.
"Linux does not use any version control system"

It was less a response toward BSD as a rebuddle against outdated and misinformed crap like that article as a basis for comparing Linux and BSD.

> Performance: Linux, it's rewritten the entire TCP/IP stack twice I think since 2.2, and it's played with several new scedualers and journaled FS http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/12/27/1243207&t.....

You do not measure TCP/IP performance with a database benchmark.

> Drivers: Oh come on, one word, Wireless. BSD still is completely lacking.

Lacking proprietary drivers, you mean? (have you tried OpenBSD?)

> FS: XFS. ReiserFS(or Reiser4), JFS. Linux's filesystem options are much more advanced, secure, and powerful thea either UFS or UFS2.

UFS2 supports extended attributes for ACLs, it is very robust and scalable, and its soft-updates mechanism makes journaling less necessary. Now, tell me why the Linux community do need so much filesystems?

> Security: they are about the same, unless u use a secuirty patched linux kernel that implements grsecurity or selinux, in which case linux.

OpenBSD is much more secure out of the box than any Linux distribution.

> packages, distro specific. I don't see how freebsd has a greater selection then Gentoo, Debian, etc.
> Version control.. Yeh, once again linux has it.

I do agree.

> Support, from ubuntu, to redhat and mandriva, linux's support options easy dominate that of BSDs.

If you pay the price, yeah (not that it is a bad thing, of course).

> I think someone should recreate this article, not using age-old software and a complete BSD-favored slant.

Propaganda is propaganda, wherever it comes from.

Either give us an article with some *new* reasons why Linux is better, or some *new* reasons why windows is worse, or else hold your piece.

If we were going to insist upon new reasons, people would check this site every month and find one or two articles. Commentary on both articles would be promptly terminated when somebody realises that it isn't actually a new reason, simply an insignificant variation on the old one.

On the whole, I didn't think the article was funny though -- though the last line was great.

The article WAS funny, but that's a subjective thing. What the whole Linux camp is fighting is the steady drumbeat of misinformation from Microsoft and their allies. They're playing the game of, "if we say it enough times in enough ways, people will eventually believe it". I think the Linux side should shout their advantages as often as anyone will listen. Sure, someone has said at some time in the past that Linux is has the advantages over Windows. It is not enough to say it once. That line of reasoning is used by the husband who says, 'I love you' once and check it off his list.

This is not so much a technical issue as combating a techmarketing strategy by Microsoft. If you're a tech manager deciding on which OS to implement and you search for MS vs Linux info and all you find are fresh articles supporting Windows and old ones supporting Linux, what will you conclude? It may not be the deciding factor, but to someone just breaching the subject it will lend weight to the MS side of the argument.

The pro-Microsoft trade press is going to make sure there is a new article sitting there ready to make thier case. I hope the truth about Linux doesn't become a needle in a haystack.

The article WAS funny, but that's a subjective thing. What the whole Linux camp is fighting is the steady drumbeat of misinformation from Microsoft and their allies. They're playing the game of, "if we say it enough times in enough ways, people will eventually believe it". I think the Linux side should shout their advantages as often as anyone will listen.

THe problem with this logic is that in the article linked (and many like it), there is just as much misinformation about Windows. For example, saying:

Well, still, with Windows you get so many more choices of software, don't you? Like Lotus 1-2... oh really? I didn't know that. Or, WordPerfect... oh, pretty much dead too.

Is just downright dishonest. Hell, there's probably at least two dozen office suites alone on Windows, not to mention that most (if not all the apps) he mentions run on it. If you're trying to answer bullshit with more bullshit of your own, how intellectually honest is that?

Hell, there's probably at least two dozen office suites alone on Windows, not to mention that most (if not all the apps) he mentions run on it. If you're trying to answer bullshit with more bullshit of your own, how intellectually honest is that?

Okay, I'm calling your bullshit. Name me two dozen office suites for Windows. And no, multiple versions of the same office suite don't count.

And you have the gall to talk about intellectual honesty? Then again, one shouldn't expect too much from astro...I mean anonymous posters.

Okay, I'm calling your bullshit. Name me two dozen office suites for Windows. And no, multiple versions of the same office suite don't count.

Notice I said probably ... and the reason why I said that is because I know there is MS Office, Word Perfect Office, OpenOffice, ThinkFree, EasyOffice, Gobe Productive, Lotus, and hell ... those are just the ones I personally know about. God only knows how many of them there really are. My point here is that the article insinuates Windows = lack of choice, which is not true at all:

BTW: This is Darius - I'm too lazy to register

Notice I said probably ... and the reason why I said that is because I know there is MS Office, Word Perfect Office, OpenOffice, ThinkFree, EasyOffice, Gobe Productive, Lotus, and hell ... those are just the ones I personally know about.

Now, let's see...that's seven. We're still seventeen short.

I think it's safe to say that, in this instance, "probably" was a poor choice of words. We'll leave it at that, but you really shouldn't exaggerate like that, it doesn't make your argument more credible.

BTW: This is Darius - I'm too lazy to register

That's why cookies were invented. :-)

I think I understand where you are coming from. I guess everyone is motivated by their hate for for Microsoft. If the shoe was on the other foot , linux would be the unusable instable OS with viruses, adware and spam insecurities. I agree with the authors underlined sentament that a linux workstation, server, device, etc. is a perfectly viable solution, but with the anti-linux propaganda flooding the air waves, who can hear it let alone receive it. I really don't care what OS I use but I would lean toward linux because ,in my case, it helps me curb my illegal software tendencies (if you catch my drift). Yes windows is a great OS, but I can't afford to pay for all the software it takes to get me to a comfortable state and maintain it let alone ward of the countless hackers bent on Microsoft destruction.

The way to choose your system as a SysAd would be "let's check the recent press and see what system the articles are about"? 'nuff said

Repeat after me;

Ziff-Davis

always trolls for publicity.

well, the article wasn't really for you nor for the rest of us, who should know this kind of things well (hmm, may be?).

it's for the rest. and these are the well-heard-of reasons why many people don't give linux a go.

[but i do agree that it sounds trollish and childish]

I agree... i expected an article pointing out some interesting things about Windows... they might be of interest for Linux (or other OS) developers you know... but no, you a plain old stupid flamebait.

I do use Linux, but on some systems, the main system is windows... reason :
1/ MS Office (on windows, not even the latest versions) does really offer me features i don't get with OpenOffice or other software... esp. animations in Powerpoint etc.. (very useful for illustrating technical issues and algorithms or protocol operations)
2/ I like to play games from time to time
3/ My external HD still doesn't work (the card readers that or part of it do), my digital camera neither... i've been trying a lot, playing with modules etc.. But no success... I never had a piece of hardware that didn't work at all in windows. True, true... some standard hardware might have issues in windows and none in linux, but still, i don't expect a computer illiterate to install modules (or even compile them, er worse, recompile the kernel) to get pictures from his digital camera onto his HD... In windows, installing from an autorun CD worked so far. Oh, and i won't mention issues with wireless cards
4/ although i don't config files are really a problem (windows has it registry too), having an integrated gui allowing to configure anything is sometimes useful... Sometimes i'm just lazy and want to point and click. Well ok, i shouldn't have this issue as point 4.. this is not a reason to stick to an OS
5/ Some small little software just doesn't exist in Linux... Just some small tools. Many tools exist in linux, and when looking aroun, i find something useful. But well, sometimes i have to return to windows.

well, lot's of these 'problems' are not the fault of linux, but caused by 3rd party mentalities... or perhaps the reasons are with linux ... don't know...

My point is, i still stick with both, i love linux... but articles like the one we're commenting on are just pathetic

My sentiments exactly.

It's so so old and boring.

Lighten up it's satire. Yeah it's been posted before. Yeah it's old news. But if you wern't so busy taking things to seriously you would have probably thought it was funny too.

easiest partition utility ever if you want al your data lost, sorry, but really, it is easy to partition, but you have absolutely noooooothing to say about it, except, there that partition, nothing like, I wanna shrink that partition, and this and that.

That's part of why it's so easy to use...

"4.) Don't boot off the cd "

Actually, if your hardrive is bootable and you dont press any key, you will boot off your hardrive, even if the cd is in the cdrom.

My 2 canadian cents...

There's a problem with this though -- what if the CD doesn't have all the drivers that your computer requires? How do you download updates (or even the driver itself) if the ethernet driver is missing?

Don't laugh - my "very high end" Dell workstation's reinstall CD doesn't contain the ETHERNET DRIVERS for the machine! So the 2 times (so far) that I've had to reinstall Windows has required me (both times) to download the ethernet driver on another PC and use my USB key to copy the file to the machine. This is a $7000+ PC, and it doesn't have the ethernet drivers on its reinstall CD. Good Lord what are people thinking?!

these are responses you will get:

1) my computer isn't booting from cd
2) Why should I choose NTFS or FAT32? Why do I push L to delete a partition?
->compare this to diskdrake or suse's partition tool.
3) reboot X 30
4) I want to give the cd the boot.
5) and all the drivers, and other programs you'll need that will require 30 more reboots, and are installed on any base linux system.

Or get AVG, Spybot and Kerio, all for free - and all far superior than any product you can throw money at, fact.

You can get AVG and Kerio for free *for personal use only*. You can't use them at work without purchasing a license.

oh and rm -rf / leaves your system intact ?

Yes, because most of users ARE NOT ABLE to delete /. Do you know what deltree is?


and those applications listed that it does have are freely downloadable for windows users too. so ?

Not all of them, but that's not a point. I can get software, that's high quality AND it will upgrade with the OS upgrades.

it's as secure as the admin behind it, same as for windows.

I can asure you that clueless *NIX admin will be get less machine hacked that his clueless Windows admin.

find this is just TOO one sided.

This article is a joke.

I can asure you that clueless *NIX admin will be get less machine hacked that his clueless Windows admin.

I seriously doubt that, but in either case if the admin really is clueless they won't realize they've been hacked until someone tells them about it.

Out-of-the-box security on *NIX is a bit higher.

Never, never underestimate the damage potential of the unclued user when dealing with a unix-like OS.

how true it is..
But then again going to a webpage in linux (or any *x for that matter) doesnt normally compromise your system,, unlike a certain other OS.

"Yes, because most of users ARE NOT ABLE to delete /. Do you know what deltree is? "

The whole argument about Linux security being better due to file permissions is all BS. The files that are hard to replace and sometimes irreplaceable ARE able to be wiped out; only the easily reinstalled files are left intact.

Yes, the security model is an improvment but no it will not protect important data.

Well some OS developers have tackled that issue. For instance, Apple system have root, administrator (more like power user) and user. root user activation is deliberate. So if your destroying your system, you are well aware of it.

I'm not exactly sure why other *inix's haven't adopted this concept of the security the the "root" account

The whole argument about Linux security being better due to file permissions is all BS. The files that are hard to replace and sometimes irreplaceable ARE able to be wiped out; only the easily reinstalled files are left intact.

Yes, the security model is an improvment but no it will not protect important data.

The point is not about losing files - hey, one should do backups anyway, because hard drives fail. I've owned enough computers to know that.

The point is to avoid having your Windows box turned into a spam zombie, which then pollutes my mailbox with messages about prescription drugs and penile extensions.

Yes, the security model is an improvment but no it will not protect important data.

The point is not about losing files - hey, one should do backups anyway, because hard drives fail. I've owned enough computers to know that.

The point is to avoid having your Windows box turned into a spam zombie, which then pollutes my mailbox with messages about prescription drugs and penile extensions.

Still invalid... today the vast majority of computers run under 1 username even if you cannot turn the machine into a spam zombie at the system level you can still do it at the user level just as easily and still be as effective. In fact I have seen many worms and spyware run as the user with the user's rights...

Removing the malware might be easier at the user level however but not much...

And do you know what format C: leaves your systems intact? Asking rm -rf / was a most stupid question i ever seen. If you dont know where to use which command, STOP using computers! they are not for people like you!

Reason number 4: Linux isn't secure

it's as secure as the admin behind it, same as for windows.

Technically, there are no known remote vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel. To say that it is less secure than Windows is incorrect.

It is a fact, the Linux kernel is more secure than any Windows OS.

Plus, even without exceptional sys admin skillz, like my own, most users would never encounter a virus, adware or spyware throughout the entire life of their account. And if they were somehow to be infected the chances that it could damage the OS are quite slim and getting slimmer every day.

See, the thing is, most Linux distros are made by developers for developers, so they just look like toys because all the wires and guts are exposed. But when you put the paneling back on and polish it up you get a Space Shuttle. Its like they're giving away free kits to build your own Space Shuttle and all people do is bitch about how hard it is.. even after someone did most of the work putting it together for them.

What's wrong? We've come this far, but now you want to give up? Is it too hard for you? Is space too dangerous for you? And here I thought we wanted to do something with our lives besides waste away on the couch watching TV...

Yeah, I know, don't bother you.. money.

...sorry.. those voices are talking again... m make them stop.. ^^

Technically, there are no known remote vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel. To say that it is less secure than Windows is incorrect.

However, from time to time there has indeed been remote vulnaribilities to most distros and probably the kernel as well just like the Windows system.

Security is a nonsense argument these days, with XP and 2k3 Microsoft has really tightened up this stuff make no mistake.

If you're into security as a reason I can't see why you compare Linux with Windows anyway, both are jokes compared to for instance Solaris or VMS or OpenBSD.

Fact of the game is that choice between Windows and Linux is more about preference than most other reasons... (on the desktop side that is)

Security is a nonsense argument these days, with XP and 2k3 Microsoft has really tightened up this stuff make no mistake.

Make no mistake about what? That security is a nonsense argument because Windows is horribly insecure?

Solaris is more secure than any Linux distro? I guess you haven't heard of trusted Linux, SELinux, etc.

Its hard to understand what you are saying when you fail to mention specifics.

Yes, I know you want to attack Linux and sound intelligent. Perhaps you should research a bit first. That seems to help me.

Windows is insecure. Just last month there were new vulnerabilities in all the Windows OSs that could be used to gain administrator priveleges. To attempt to say otherwise is a lie, just like saying Iraq has WMDs.

Don't lie. Its a sin.

Solaris is more secure than any Linux distro? I guess you haven't heard of trusted Linux, SELinux, etc.

Actually I am primarily a Solaris admin and by default I find Solaris less secure with a lot more things open.

You have to seriously harden a Solaris box before putting it on the network.

inetd has a ton of things enabled from telnet on up that needs to be turned off and a lot of weird X server crap and smtp running by default and ... you get the point.

Maybe Solaris 10 is better but we use Solaris 8 and 9 here.

Quote: "oh and rm -rf / leaves your system intact ? "

No, it doesn't, as you well and truly realise. Pretty much every distro out there emphasises the fact during installation to not use root, unless you *really* must, and that you should create and use a normal everday user account for normal, every day usage. Microsoft Windows does NOT do this. Do you wish to call me a liar on this one? Oh, and to add salt to your rather crappy comment, pretty much anyone using Linux, that understands what rm does, and those particular switches, will have understood what it will do (and of course never deploy that command).

If a user is that stupid, as to deploy that command, then the chances are that they're too stupid to use Windows as well (and would fuck that up). Try working in tech support, you might have your eyes opened to some of the stupid things that users do. I've seen Mac users trash the System Folder (and not be able to boot up OS 9), I've seen Windows users trash their Windows folders as well. I've seen users screw the registry and have a non-working system. My point is, that stupid users like this, will persist on any platform. As a general rule, most Linux users are semi computer to highly computer literate, and the chances of them doing a rm -rf / are resultantly small.

Quote: "Reason number two: Linux is a pain to set up "

Did you read the article carefully? I suspect not. The author was make comments on the installation processes between a variety of Linux distros (named) and Microsoft Windows. The majority of users don't realise how "difficult" Windows is to install, because it's pre-installed in so many instances. I think that, for those bitching about how difficult Linux is to "install", it would be very fair to see a comparison of pre installed Linux systems vs pre installed Windows systems. Or, similarly, force Microsoft and OEM hardware manufacturers from pre-loading Microsoft Windows. That would take the wind out of the Microsoft's sails. In a typical free market, the PC hardware should come without any operating system, with the option for a customer to:

1. purchase an operating system (or elect not to)

2. elect to have the OEM hardware manufacture pre-install chosen OS onto their new system (or not)

Tell me, why isn't this the case? The best thing the US DOJ could have done (other than a few other things that they could have, and should have done) is to force OEM hardware manufacturers to sell OS-free systems. Try doing that now - try going to Dell etc and saying I want a PC but without Windows installed on it. You can't do it. I know, I've tried.

Quote: "and those applications listed that it does have are freely downloadable for windows users too. so ? "

And your point is? It's pretty obvious that the author was indicating that Microsoft Windows ships with a bare minimum of applications - paint, notepad, wordpad, internet explorer, outlook express, msn messenger, windows media player, and that's about it. Hell, it doesn't even ship with an application that *shows* every single process running on your system. Or a disk defrager that actually works properly. Get my drift?

Quote: "it's as secure as the admin behind it, same as for windows. "

Agreed, but - and this is a big but - the enforcement of normal and root user rights on a Linux system will ALWAYS make a Unix/BSD/Linux system safer than the equivalent Windows system. How many Windows users disable ActiveX, or use a normal user account with no admin rights (and run applications with the 'run as' option)? Exactly. Windows has been dumbed down to make it easier for everyone to use, and security and reliability have been thrown out the window (no pun intended) at the expense of ease of use.

Quote: "oh that's right ! windows users pay for everything they install, there is no free software out there for them at all ! unlike linux. "

There is, and this part of the article is slightly misleading. That said, Linux has a much larger range of free software than Windows. And remember, it's not only free as in price, but free as in freedom. Many free software packages for Windows do not give you the option of the src code...

Dave

"Hell, it doesn't even ship with an application that *shows* every single process running on your system."

Ctrl-Shift-Esc? NT 3.1 had this feature ...

Everytime I read an article about the irony of the damnable Windows vs. Linux I never see viable points. Always ridiculous blimmer blammer about a worst case scenario Windows XP installation compared to a clean Linux installation that has been highly customized by a guru. What about Windows 2000? I've been running it for 4 years now without any trouble, it rarely ever crashes, I can usually get out of it using the task manager or by killing the application causing the trouble from the command-line. Yes, Linux crashes. I don't like XP, I really don't but Windows XP does not encompass every version of Windows ever released. It would sort of be, and I do say sort of be, like saying "Ubuntu sucks, therefor Linux sucks", yes yes, it's Debian based, blah blah. You catch my drift. XP sucks but Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 were golden. Bah!