Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: toadlife on 19 June 2005, 11:03
-
LOL. There is some serious flamage going on at slashdot for this one.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/17/127206&tid=106&tid=7 (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/17/127206&tid=106&tid=7)
Theo De Raadt - He's kind of like the BSD equivalent of Richard Stallman - only he's much more of an asshole.
-
Yup. Heard of him before...
-
Original Forbes Article (http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html)
From the quotes in the article, it does seem that Theo de Raadt does make quite an ass of himself. However, to put things in persepective, the interview was conducted by Dan Lyons, who also wrote the article. Dan Lyons seems to have an unreasoning hatred of all things Linux. I wouldn't be suprised at all if lured de Raadt into the interview by letting him think it was about OpenBSD, then surgically cut out everything but de Raadts anti-Linux rants.
-
theo da radt is allowed to make an ass of himself, its not like he is the leader of one of the most secure opensource projects out there. you kinda have to be a dick to run something that fricken parinoid
-
Theo de Raadt is a delusional fellow. He thinks Linux Developers all hate Microsoft. How many Linux Developers are on this forum? None. Linux Developers like developing Linux, they dont necessarily hate anything.
Personally, I think this article is a peice of junk with little coherent argument. I have asked BSD users (note: Im a BSD User as well) a million times "Why is it technically superior". Not once yet have I been answered.
With OpenBSD on one of my machines, it kept crashing. The mailinglist for OpenBSD claimed this was because of my hardware. Nonetheless it ran Linux flawlessly, and it runs Windows 2003 flawlessly. Hardcore BSD users are arrogant, delusional, paranoid little creatures that jump out and bitch about Linux because they know it will get them some attention. Their little operating system is about as important to the world as a tea leaf is to the east india company.
However I find OpenBSD a very stable and useable distribution for the jobs on my home network that I don't want to have problems with. I don't have to touch it and it doesn't have to touch me, a perfect marriage. It also runs on one of my older computers and is rather secure. The advantage BSD has over Linux is simply that it is usually: a lot more simple. It works. Linux changes a lot more than OpenBSD does. However their are Linux distributions that easily compare in simplicity: Trustix Secure Linux for example.
Anyway thats my view from both sides of the bar table.
-
I have asked BSD users (note: Im a BSD User as well) a million times "Why is it technically superior". Not once yet have I been answered.
I answered you. You don't have to buy it though.
Personally, I do not like OpenBSD. I have one server running, and it works fine, but after working with it for awhile, I don't particularly like the 'feel' of the system, and while back I actually had it kernel panic on me when I changed a certain option in postfix. The option wasn't that important, so I set it back and it has been fine since, but that kind of thing shouldn't happen. I'm pretty much stuck on FreeBSd now.
-
Novell NetWare = the best damn server OS, ever.
-
Once again.
Why?
-
Novell NetWare = the best damn server OS, ever.
I'm not a Novell person, but I've known/talked to a few Novell people and I've read many, many whitepapers/tech documents on Novell...
Novell:
* Absolutely Stellar security record
* Extremly stable (*insane* uptimes can be achveid with netware)
Their EDirectory product is very good too, but that goes beyond the scope of the actuall OS.
-
I just seen your answer. And I have never had a chance to try NetWare, but maybe I will.
-
Novell NetWare = the best damn server OS, ever.
I'd have to agree, as I once worked with NetWare myself. It's pretty simple to use and maintain, and it's damn stable.
-
netware secure? mabye, but ill bet 90% of all installations are totally insecure....we totally owned our schools network from time to time. god that was fun
-
netware secure? mabye, but ill bet 90% of all installations are totally insecure....we totally owned our schools network from time to time. god that was fun
That's mostly because upgrading NetWare is either lots of work for the lazy system administrator, or the organisation doesn't have the money for an upgrade.
-
netware secure? mabye, but ill bet 90% of all installations are totally insecure....we totally owned our schools network from time to time. god that was fun
lol, that reminds me of the time I visited my ex's university in the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania. They let me sit in on a class, and I found MASSIVE infections of both spyware and virii on my workstation. How did I find out? The first time, I tried Ctrl-Alt-Del only to get a security error, then did Ctrl-Shift-Esc and used the Task Manager to kill the security frontend. The second time, I made a custom autoexec.bat and COMPLETELY bypassed the login procedure, then ran some third-party scanning software from my "music" CD. Apparently, not only were they using an outdated client for Win2k, they had NO security options enabled. Idiots, I should've charged them $45/hour to clamp down their systems.
-
Idiots, I should've charged them $45/hour to clamp down their systems.
You do realise that most sysops on schools are teachers who know neat Windows tricks?
-
You do realise that most sysops on schools are teachers who know neat Windows tricks?
Apparently the Ivy League takes their worst teachers, singles out the ones that can't tell a CD-ROM drive from a cupholder, then smacks them in the head a few times with a wiffle-ball bat for good measure. Then they unleash them en masse upon systems that really don't qualify to run Win2k in the first place, even though they're somehow managing the feat.