Linux-Advocacy Digest #38, Volume #30 Sat, 4 Nov 00 15:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Linux is great (mlw)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Andrew Suprun)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Directory Services for Linux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why Linux is great
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (joseph)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Chad Meyers: Blatent liar (Perry Pip)
Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff.. (Perry Pip)
Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff.. (Perry Pip)
Re: Windows 2000 magazine admits Open Source software is more secure. (Perry Pip)
Re: Why Linux is great
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 12:56:25 -0500
James wrote:
>
> ... and is almost entirely useless as a corporate desktop.
>
> I :
>
> 1. Cannot scan images from my USB scanner.
It works with a lot of scanner, perhaps not yours.
> 2. Cannot print to my USB printer.
I have never seen a USB printer. FYI it works on my HP just fine.
> 3. Cannot read my GroupWise mail.
What is GroupWise mail, never heard of it.
> 4. Cannot reliably share MS Office docs (what most companies use) with my
> colleagues.
I don't have any problem.
> 5. Cannot run SAP* for staff info.
What is SAP?
> 6. Cannot document/read business processes (Visio Pro).
We usually print to PDF graphics files because not everyone will have
Visio (or what ever) installed. (This means Windows machines too)
> 7. Cannot run BusinessObjects to access company warehouse.
What are "BusinessObjects" ?
> 8. Etc, etc, ....
You have named cases where it is clear that your IS department chose
avenues that were Windows-Only. For most cases, this is not true.
>
> This is apart from the fact that almost everyone I know would prefer the
> Win2k interface to that of Linux (Gnome or KDE). In fact most users don't
> give a damn about the OS they are using - they just want to get the job
> done. That is why our company is migrating all desktops (some 25000+ to
> Win2k).
I know of no one that lines the UI of NT better than Gnome.
>
> Basically Linux is USELESS as a corporate desktop.
I disagree completely.
>
> James
>
> *Open to correction here.
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Where else can you find a system, which can be downloaded for free, or
> > any price for that matter, that has:
> >
> > Object Relation SQL database.
> > C/C++ compiler
> > Programming editors
> > Office Packages
> > Debuggers
> > Network file servers
> > Printer Servers
> > Entire Internet service package
> > remote administration tools
> > e-mail servers/clients
> > Choice of desktops
> > Various programming languages besides C/C++
> > Calendar programs
> > CDR tools
> >
> > The list continues, 100s of utilities and tools, most (if not all) of
> > what anyone would want to do with a computer.
> >
> > There is no reason to buy Windows or NT!
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:28:08 +0200
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Buffer overflows are still leaving Linux and Unix open to Denial of
Service
> > attacks and hacking.
>
> Those are the primary forms of attack on NT too.
He wasn't talking about NT, or attacks on Unix, for that matter.
Aaron said that those vulenrabilities where removed from unix in 1988.
That was what he was (I think) talking about.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Suprun)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 18:34:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ermine Todd III) wrote in
<urDuzWnRAHA.56@cpmsnbbsa07>:
>JSP was a direct copy of MSs ASP model. Every text on the subject notes
>this. Furthermore, IIS actually has a built-in native mode for running
>JSPs. You didn't know that? Well, it's relatively simple to implement,
>but basically, you make a registry change to tell IIS that JSPs are just
>like ASPs but that they use Java. Once you've done that, IIS natively,
>without having to load something like ServletExec, can run JSPs.
Just compare ASP and ASP+ feature list. Do the same for ASP and JSP.
Do that again for JSP and ASP+ feature list. Which list is shorter?
Again what the advantage of ASP+ against both ASP and JSP? What the
main reason to replace ASP with new uncompatible technology?
And about JSP native support in IIS, let me not belive you. First,
JSP page must be compiled into bytecode before it can be queried as
opposited to ASP which is interpreted. Second, JSP spec is based on
and extends Servlet spec. Explain, please, how can it be run witgout
servlet engine?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:32:29 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:e0XM5.12997$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8u14od$u9m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Will (future tense). I want and have had them for the past 2 years.
> >
> > Is, Active Perl allow you to run perl scripts.
>
> Is that included in win2k? What would be involved in converting
> an apache/mod_perl page to use it?
It isn't, it's included in Win2K Resource Kit (apperently it's only
avialable if you buy a set of {10? more?} books abuot win2k which cost
300$).
Of course, if you don't want to pay for a lot of books you'll desperately
need sometimes, you can go and download it from their web site.
www.activeperl.com
I never converted apache/mod_perl page to IIS/2K/NT, so I can't say.
You'll have to ask someone else.
But perl script with activeperl also allows you to run scripts outside IIS.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:37:38 +0200
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MoXM5.122683$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > with dynamic content and even beats Apache with static content
delivery.
> And
> > > many many other great things about Win2K.
> >
> > What has Access got to do with a web server.
>
> Access databases are used as to serve up dynamic content on IIS.
In all fairness, you should note that it's strongly advised to refrain from
using Access to serve dynamic content on busy sites. Anything higher than 20
concurrent request to the same Access file is bad, especially if you don't
optimize your code. (IE, use ODBC, non-default counters, count with while
not RS.EOF, and so on).
OTOH, how many sites are lucky enough to get routine 20 concurrent hits and
can't afford the time it takes to get a good database?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 18:43:42 GMT
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:58:44 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anyone who reads the security advisories knows that Linux distros are
>unsecure and open by default.
I do read the security advisories. There are about the same number for
MS products as for Linux.
I agree that many Linux distributions run more services by default than
they should. This, however, does not mean that they are necessarily
"unsecure". They may become insecure down the road when people don't
update their systems.
MS products, on the other hand, don't run many network services by
default. This doesn't mean they are secure though, as ILOVEYOU,
teardrop, Back Orifice, and Word macro attacks have shown.
Out of the box, DOS is totally secure from network-based attacks. This
doesn't mean that it is a secure OS though.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Directory Services for Linux
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 18:44:09 GMT
"Jeff Turley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:J5XM5.45263$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am currentley running a Novell Network at work. With the way things are
> currently going with Novell the issues of moving to a new server OS has
> started to come up. The 2 choices are win2000 or linux. I am currently
> leaning towards linux however, I need to have some kind of directory
service
> running on my network. Dose anyone here have experience with NDS for
Linux?
> Or do you know of any other directory service that I could use.
LDAP is the standard for directory services if you want something not
tied to any vendor. I don't know if there are any nice user interfaces
to set it up under Linux but the server works fine.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 18:51:09 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:56:52 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... and is almost entirely useless as a corporate desktop.
>
>I :
9: wish I could have lockups long enough for a coffee break
10: want to lose data randomly. I don't want my files intact. I want to see
lots of FILExxxx.chk files so that I know that the operating system is working.
11: want weird junk randomly embedded in files. I want documents with one page
of text to grow to megabytes in size so that I know I'm being productive.
12: I can't do two things at once. I don't want my computer to be able to do
so either
13: want web browsers that popup advertisements in the foreground at timed
intervals. I don't want to be able to watch the page I'm browsing. I love
advertisements.
14: I want downloads that simply hang for 15 minutes and then only download 1%
with no error message at all. I want to have to download a different
downloading tool for every page I visit.
15: want animated chickens dancing around the help pages with advice as helpful
as reading the title of the help page.
16: I want my editor to do lots of things against my will automatically and
I want it so that I can't under what it thinks is best. Multiletter
abbreviations should always have the first letter capitalized and the rest in
lower case!
17: I want my applications to keep working like shit no matter how often I
upgrade my operating system. I really like having to replace all my software
to take advantage of a new OS working a little less crappy.
18: and I don't ever want to be able to use my data on another system or on a
future version of my software
Yeah. Linux sure sucks. Give me windows! Give me a frontal lobotomy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 18:54:22 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:TzXM5.122688$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Anyone who reads the security advisories knows that Linux distros are
> > > unsecure and open by default. They are the favorite hacking ground of
> > script
> > > kiddies and hackers.
> > >
> >
> > This hasn't been true for the last several releases.
>
> Sure it is.
Up till now I thought you just didn't know the facts but
now you are clearly misrepresenting them.
> > And the real favorite
> > hacking ground is still vbs viruses as attachments for Outlook. That
> > has affected orders of magnitude more sites.
>
> Affected. Yes.
Affected as in shutting whole companies down for days.
> Broken root. Nope.
Everybody is root on Windows. and the vbs has complete control,
moves files, deletes files, sends copies to everyone in sight, etc.
Who needs root?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:08:46 -0000
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:25:15 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:%SNM5.12955$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:dFNM5.121778$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > > They tested the best capabilities of all systems.
>> > >
>> > > Did I miss the php and mod_perl timings?
>> > >
>> > > > It's well known fact that IIS 5 on Win2K kicks ass on dynamic
>content.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you have alternative benchmarks post them.
>> > >
>> > > Why would I have any IIS timings? I would be interested if anyone
>> > > has equivalent perl code running under IIS and apache/mod_perl,
>though.
>> >
>> > That is the beauty of IIS. You can write you ISAPI filters in many
>> > languages, including Perl.
>>
>> Of course you can. The question is how it performs compared to
>> apache/mod_perl
>
>I'm more than willing to look at some benchmarks. Do you have any?
>
>> and whether you have to write thread-safe
>> code in a thread-safe language (which in my experience takes
>> about 15 years longer than when you don't) to make it work.
>
>IIS works just fine. And fast too. Kicks Linux and Solaris ass
Not lately.
These days is half as fast or slower on better hardware.
--
Drinking is not a spectator sport.
-- Jim Brosnan
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:10:07 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:tqXM5.122684$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> OpenBSD says they are 6 months ahead of other open source systems.
>
> That sounds like Linux is slow in responding.
Or OpenBSD is exaggerating. They just turn all services off by
default so they can claim that they are harder to exploit remotely
and consider it the user's fault if he actually enables any of the
services that he needed the computer for. Actually they are doing
a good and needed job, but there is always a tradeoff between
security and usability and an OpenBSD distribution moves too
far away from the usability side to be popular. It is probably
possible to build a Mandrake-like install on top of OpenBSD
but so far no one has been interested.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:10:47 -0000
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:12:35 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Bruce Schuck wrote:
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>>And all the other Unix/Linux exploits that let one take root.
>> >>Yes, yes...against improperly managed systems.
>> >Nope. All Unix/Linux systems have vulnerabilities.
>> >Especially buffer overflow vulnerabilities that Aaron claims were taken
>out
>> >of Unix 12 years ago.
>> >
>> Potenitally, yes. But provided you run an up to date system, those are
>> most likely plugged.
>
>Ditto for Win2K.
...assuming you aren't accepting email attachements from anyone.
<chuckle>
[deletia]
After the Microsoft breakin I'm surprised any of these MS shills
have the audacity to put WinDOS security in the same league with
Unix.
--
"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars."
-- Steve Martin
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 12:16:17 -0500
From: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8u0cd6$o50$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > Didn't Microsoft write OS/2 for IBM?
> >
> > They worked together on it. Then Windows 3.0 (unexpectedly) took off so
> > Microsoft dropped OS/2, hired Dave Cutler and a bunch of ex-DEC people and
> > started on NT as the Next Big Thing to run Windows apps.
>
> Actually, MS hired Dave Cutler in 1988, 2 years before Windows 3 hit the
> shelves. The project he was hired for was called OS/2 NT, or Portable OS/2
> designed to be run on althernate processors.
>
> Microsoft actually did most of the work up until the split (OS/2 1.0, 1.1,
> and 1.2. 1.3 was the first all IBM release).
What a lie. I used and OS/2 1.0 to the present v4.0 and MS did NOT do most of
the work on OS/2 1.0. In fact Mr Gates would whine and finger point at IBM
about OS/2 1.x: the 286 processor support, PM API and overall code development.
Now you want to give him credit.
Windows 3.0 took off because MS charged an OEM LESS $$ for a PC with DOS AND
Windows 3.0 than with DOS alone!! The FTC anti-trust investigation began in
1989.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:14:51 -0000
On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 08:09:36 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
[deletia]
>> > >
>> > > When Linux starts supplying drivers for even 1/100th of the hardware
>> windows
>> > > supports I'll be amazed.
In what area exactly does Linux support only one device out of
100 when compared to WinDOS. Please provide actual details.
[deletia]
--
Pie are not square. Pie are round. Cornbread are square.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: 4 Nov 2000 19:16:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:51:22 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:33:10 GMT,
>> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Particularly the ones where Red Hat was compromised and trojan code was
>allowed
>> >to be inserted and was released as final product by Red Hat themselves.
>>
>> As usual, you are a blatent liar.
>
>What? Ah... denying the truth again I see, Perry. Perhaps you should consult
>a psychologist as this is, in fact, truth. About 3 months ago or so Red Hat was
>under fire (in fact there was a mention on Slashdot about it).
Lies. There's no mention on slashdot. Provide a URL.
>Search the news archives, you'll find it.
Nothing. No such news. You're a blatent liar and FUDster.
Nearly all you post on Usenet is nothing but lies.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff..
Date: 4 Nov 2000 19:17:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 17:51:59 GMT,
Chad Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it's possible. It's also *possible* he got write access to it.
>> BTW, VSS can be cracked as easily as anything else MS does.
>>
>
>Sure
>[snip]
>IAC, That aint easy on a properly administered system.
That's another assumption you must make: that the MS's internal systems
are properly admininstered. Good security does not base itself on
assumptions.
>> >>
>> >> closed source software:
>> >> requires blind trust in people solely out to make money
>> >
>> >Requires trust in a group of people with an understandable motivation.
>>
>> A motivation that has no interest in your interests, and every interest
>> to exploit you. Yet you trust them totally blindly.
>>
>
>Understanding the motivation enables an intelligent person to predict
>actions and thereby anticipate problems.
That's why in my business we avoid closed technologies.
>> >> no public review.
>> >
>> >Reviewed in the market. If the stuff is bad it won't sell.
>>
>> Source code is not reviewed. Were talking about source code. Do you
>> even know what that is?? Security holes Trojans don't come out and
>> announce themselves to you.
>>
>
>The only true review of source code is running it.
Running binary code does not reveal trojans, or all bugs. Source code must
be availabe for software to be trusted.
>I was writing programs
>when you were in diapers Perry.
Fat chance. In fact, your lying again. You don't write code.
>And actually they do, in a professional
>testing environment.
Sure, and were I work we also peer review and auditing of code in
addition to testing.
>BTW have you heard of a debugger.
Useless for a product that is binary only and built without symbols. If you
actually wrote code you would know that. Once again, you are proven a liar.
>>
>> Bullshit. Provide some *proof* that OSS developers are any more
>> "unstable" than closed source developers. A closed source developer can
>quit
>> his job anytime, leaving no one in the company who understands the code,
>and
>> thus, no one in the world.
>>
>
>Two anecdotal examples:
There are plenty more examples of closed source vendors being late on
delivery, denying bugs exist, not releasing sucurity patches, and
abanding support for products. With open source, you have a chance to
fix the problem yourself or get a third party to do it. With closed
source you're screwed.
>> >> is subject to public review.
>> >
>> >Self review (AKA Peer Review) is inherently ineffective,
>>
>> 1) Public != Peer != Self.
>>
>
>What body, then, reviews the reviewers for accuraccy?
That's a could question in regards to closed source.
With open source, it's all public.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff..
Date: 4 Nov 2000 19:19:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 01:39:10 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3XCM5.2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>I can vouch that MS has extensive QA, unit tests and many test harnesses
>for all their products.
Oh sure..Since your ethics allow you to lie all the time, you can
vouch for anyithing you want.
>This is probably one of the reasons why Windows can detect RAM in any
>system and Linux cannot.
>
Lies. That issue hasn't been around for years.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 magazine admits Open Source software is more secure.
Date: 4 Nov 2000 19:19:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:02:59 -0800,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:33:54 -0800,
>> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I think the author should spend more time reading the security advisories
>on
>> >the Linux sites.
>>
>> He is, and that's why he said what he said. Since when does more
>> advisories == less security, as you seem to assume. In practice, the
>> opposite is true.
>
>In practive, a security advisory notes that a hole has been found.
And patched, which is what it supposed to happen.
>The list
>of holes in open source is large.
That's the advantage open source: the stuff gets found and patched.
>It then tells the script kiddies
It also tells the admins to install the patch. So again, there is no
definitive correlation between # of advisories and security level.
Not to mention you count inclusively the number of advisories for
multiple Unix/Linux distributions/version, instead of using a single
example.
With Windows, the vendor denies the problem and never releases a
patch. That's exaclty what the Win200mag article said. When only the
script kiddies know, there is no security advisory, just reports on
attrition. And NT has taken a firm lead again with more than 50% of
all defacements:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#SPECIAL
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:19:59 -0000
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:56:52 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... and is almost entirely useless as a corporate desktop.
>
>I :
>
> 1. Cannot scan images from my USB scanner.
However, it can scan images just fine from my SCSI scanner.
Oddly enough, my mother-in-law ended up with the same model.
> 2. Cannot print to my USB printer.
This may be only due to the fact that you would like this
to be the case.
> 3. Cannot read my GroupWise mail.
Then that's entirely a matter of GroupWise trying it's best
to exclude you from using anything else once you've tried
it (vendorlock).
Linux should not be faulted for piss poor engineering in DOS apps.
> 4. Cannot reliably share MS Office docs (what most companies use) with my
This is too poorly defined a criticism to be taken seriously.
This is quite disputable as many of us actually do this sort
of thing with Linux.
Furthermore, where does that put a Win32 WordPerfect user?
>colleagues.
> 5. Cannot run SAP* for staff info.
> 6. Cannot document/read business processes (Visio Pro).
AppFoo versus a doing a particular function.
[deletia]
--
VMS must die!
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
