Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Why do you prefer *nix?
<Zombie9920>:
Hmmm, you expect me to take the words of a name calling simpleton seriously? Whatever man.
BTW, I'm glad you mentioned OS security. Whether you like it or not, every OS has security faults.
Here is 1 of the dozens of security flaes that I can dig up for Linux.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/242750
If you are smart enough to comprehend what that page is saying and you want to see more Linux security flaws I will be more than happy to throw some more at you. ;)
<Zombie9920>:
Typo correction from last post... flaes = flaws.
<Zombie9920>:
quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
What the hell do you mean UNIX is the OS of choice for high end architectures? It's the ONLY choice! Microsoft pretty much only runs on x86 these days.
There *is* one OS that will run on nearly every architecture out there and that is Linux. It runs on PPC, x86, Alpha, Sparc, Motorola, etc. We even installed it on our IBM 390 mainframe. If you want a 32 processor UltraSparc, you run Solaris, Windows can't run on it. If you want to run a V-Class HP system you run HP-UX, Windows can't run on it. If you want an IBM RS/6000 you run AIX, Windows can't run on it. If you want SGI you run IRIX, Windows won't run on it. Furthermore, why the hell would anyone want to run Windows on one of those systems???
Linux runs on many of the architectures ranging from AXIS web cameras and palm devices all the way to mainframe platforms.
And you want to build the worlds fastest supercomputer? Use Linux, even Big Blue has resigned to that fact: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2083758,00.html
And I defy you to find Windows making a machine on this list hum: http://www.top500.org/list/2001/11/
And you just can't have this kind of fun with Windows: http://tux.anu.edu.au/Projects/Beowulf/
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
--- End quote ---
Windows XP 64bit runs on most of the high end server machines you mentioned above, however you are correct about it not supporting 32 processors.
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by <Zombie9920>:
BTW, I'm glad you mentioned OS security. Whether you like it or not, every OS has security faults.
Here is 1 of the dozens of security flaes that I can dig up for Linux.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/242750
--- End quote ---
You are correct that every OS has security flaws and in order to stay secure one must stay up with all the CERT announcements and configure their system securely. The particular one you cite is regarding a bug in WU-FTPD (not UNIX or Linux). FTP on any system is inherently insecure because it uses clear text passwords (great sniffing fun) and although some Linux systems include WU-FTPD most good admins turn it off and use SSH/SCP when possible. I believe you can even run WU-FTPD on Win*. I did have a couple of systems that were vulnerable but had them patched the *same* day that the announcement was made. You are at the mercy of MS to get patches for their holes. Took MS long enough to even include an FTP Server, how long will it take them to implement SSH?
Now let's try one for Windows. Most of the muckety-muck mid/upper level managers hold the Gartner Group in high regard for technology reviews. I find this one extremely pleasing:
http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034
I've been having much fun converting companies from IIS to *NIX/Apache.
And another thing. I have YET to get a virus in ANY flavor of *NIX. That right there is the biggest security issue on earth if you ask me. I love watching the NT shops scramble every time a new I-LOVE-YOU variant comes out! Many laughs!
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
jtpenrod:
quote: My windows 2000 box can do that
--- End quote ---
This past summer, Steve Ballmer (yes, THAT Steve Ballmer) described in an interview how his household had two 'puters between himself, his wife, and kids. He admitted that, prior to getting Win XP, files were being screwed up by this sharing. This wouldn't have happened had he been using *NIX since each user would have had his or her own account, with their own passwords. According to Ballmer himself, no version of Windows prior to XP had this feature. Was he lying?
quote: Windows securty is is as good as the admin of the box, just like unix.
--- End quote ---
No *NIX has the vast array of exploits that Windows has: Outlook worms, macro virii that sneak in on Word documents, Excell spreadsheets, Powerpoint slides. Just last week, four Israeli script kiddies (ages 14 and 15) launched the Goner worm. Within a day, this thing had spread half-way around the world. The last *NIX worm that did that was the Morris worm back in the early 1980s. And Morris, himself, was no script kiddie.
quote: One user? One pc? no networking? What are you talking about?
--- End quote ---
Here is exactly what I'm talking about: UNIX was originally designed as an OS for mainframes. This meant multiple users. The UNIX file system incorporates "accounts" to keep one user from harming another's files. Users may be bundled together into "groups". Thus, every directory and file has three levels of permissions: User, group, and world. Each user sets his or her own level of permissions to determine who will, or will not, be allowed access to those files. The user also sets three other permissions: readable, writeable, and executable (nine total permissions). These file permissions may be overridden only by the superuser: noone else. This keeps all the system files protected and straight. MS-DOS, on the other hand, was intended as an op-sys for the first small computers, usually running Intel 8085s or Zilog Z-80s. With an eight bit word length, and 16 bit addressing, there was no way more than one person could use it at a time. Therefore, file permissions were not incorporated. In MS-DOS and Windows, *every* user is the superuser. Try this: go into Windows Explorer, click on the Windows folder, select some critical file (ending with .com, .sys, .dat) then click on "delete" and see what happens. If you let it, it *will* delete it. Hell, try deleting the entire Windows folder - it'll do that too. Try that on a Linux rig - or any other *NIX rig - and you'll get an access denied warning, and it won't do it. Only the superuser could do a thing like that (which is why you should avoid superuser status unless it's absolutely necessary AND you know what you're doing). File permissions didn't reappear until Win XP; and, of course, they're touting it as something grand and glorious. :eek: They are only putting back that which they took out 25 years ago.
This wasn't such a big deal until the Internet came along. Now *every* Windows rig that connects to the 'Net may not have just a single user, whether you know it or not. If some cracker gets in, he's *automatically* the superuser. He can get your rig to do his bidding with no trouble at all. That's why Windows rigs are so frequently involved in DDoS attacks, that's why Windows runs all that lovely spyware and adware. Download that "freebie" app and, without your knowledge, you're running a server that's serving up all your personal data. There is no such thing as Linux spyware. Why? Because, without root priveledge, the spyware app can't "phone home" without your knowing about it and specifically authorizing it to do so. If it were to attempt to change file permissions, you'd know about that too. And it's a damn fine line between spyware and a Trojan. Windows systems were *never* designed to network with other computers. Some 50000 WinViruses and still counting testifies to that with far more eloquence than I.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version