clutch

Quote: Actually, it's possible (at least with older versions) to install Red Hat entirely from an FTP site. I did that with an old laptop. I hosted the original binaries on my IIS FTP box, and ran the install on my LAN. It didn't take too long, or at least it wasn't long enough to really annoy me.

Quote: The distro makers don't control the code, they only compile and package existing open source software and add a few bits and pieces of their own. Control of the code ultimately lies with the original developers of the software. And wasn't there a good deal of fighting between the core group recently? Isn't this fundamentally the same anyway; a single group controlling the OS? And if a group of volunteers (essentially they volunteer their time, right?) can't agree on something, then does it sit or does one person have the deciding vote over the direction? I have seen democracy slow down a good deal of decisions in instances, so do you think that democracy is something that will work for software in the long term if it gets *really* big?

Quote: But from experience in the working world, the *nix machines seem to be much more reliable than the windows servers and desktops, not trying to dis windows, just a reality I have seen. (but thats what keeps us in jobs ) So your "experience" with both of these operating systems hinges on some articles that you read as indicated below, correct? OK... Quote: When i read that it was win2k server vs linux (redhat i think, 7?) It was rateing their networking and file systems (NTFS and EXT2) But ext3 is wompin on ntfs even more than ext2 did. As for security, the usual, hole..exploits.. all that jazz. For instance IIS vs the default installed apache server (a whole different test) you have to admit, IIS vs Apache, apache wins no problem. I have never seen these tests, but I wonder who "paid" for them. As for anyone that runs a default installation of anything as critical as a web server, they get what they deserve. Now, you are stating that in one set of benches MS won because they bought the benchmarks (or something similar), but in this case these results *must* be valid, right? Welp, here's what I have seen in my experience; much more care goes into the adminstration of the average Unix server than the average Windows server. That's where you will see a great deal of problems, and will continue to. Then, to top that off, there are so many Windows machines that there are many more targets to play with for hackers and script kiddies. There are too many Windows admins that are not properly trained, so they just throw everything on the box and don't pay attention to it. On top of that, many small businesses run Windows boxes (since they are cheaper) and stack all kinds of applications on it to the point of overloading it, or they install poorly written applications that take the server down. If there was as much care taken when installing Windows machines as there was with Unix (due to the expensive nature of the box, OS, and admins), you would more than likely see a different picture. Actually, on my networks I see a different picture everyday...

Quote: I don't think having multiple distros will kill Linux, quite the opposite in fact. With Windows M$ has to cater for millions of users of varying tastes and while they do they're best they're always going to do something a certain group of users don't like. Linux distributions solve this problem since users can find the one that suits them best to begin with and then customise it to suit their needs. If none of the packaged distros suit your needs then you can build your own distro from scratch. Virtuall no other OS offers this kind of flexibility. If you compile your software from source (which is relatively simple generally rewuiring only three commands: ./configure; make; make install) then software can be ported from distro to distro with realtive ease. This is what Linux us about: Freedom for users and Freedom for developers. Unfortunately, the more and more diverse they get, the more different they become *or* more "legacy" code that has to stay behind for compatibility. Either way, it doesn't seem like such a good case.

I use terminal services to manange my home AD from other networks, since I am not so crazy about VNC and PCAnywhere. I like that you can find a Linux distro for just about any need, but they are splintering off so much that it will kill them in the end. And the only one that is doing a pretty good job of being user friendly to new users (Mandrake) is going to be the one with all the holes. Just watch and see as more virus writers actually focus on Linux and its related modules, since Mandrake is the "kitchen sink" distro that pretty much includes everything, it will also be the most prone to holes and patching (but unlike Windows, you will probably have to go to different sources to get all the needed patches). I am curious though, in what experience are you comparing the security and stability of the 2 OSs to each other? What versions were they, and what applications were running on them?

You might call them "disabled bays" or "handicapped spots", but I call them "convenient".

Quote: Can linux install the .Net Framework and run my Visual Studio .Net? I am not sure about it hosting the .NET framework, and you would only get basic ASP support if you had something like ChiliSoft ASP running on the box anyway. But, I just got another box freed up today that I plan on formatting and trying out either Gentoo or RedHat on. This will be my third go with Linux, but my first time dedicating effort to getting a specific app to work on it (I tried some stuff a few years ago, and it was just a pain in the a$$) as the box wound up running like a backup domain controller on my test network for a bit.

Quote: Are you sure since you are an MCP MCSE you aren't part of the brainwashed bunch? I didnt mean to insult your daddy gate's Wow, you really are part of the hardcore Linux crowd aren't you. I am still trying to find out why funding a test immediately translates into buying the results. Can you prove that? I haven't seen the report, so I don't know either way. I do remember seeing reports comparing Oracle 8, IBM DB2, and MS SQL Server 2000 to one another, and SQL Server actually did quite well. However, in another one (this other one done by PC Week if I remember correctly) shows Oracle and DB2 doing well, but they were only using JDBC connections at the time (and MS had just released a beta of the driver). So, pretty much any survey/benchmark can show whatever results that you want to see, it's just a matter of putting the proper spin on it. As for being brainwashed, umm, yeah, sure. That's it. Wait a minute, let's review: 1. My OS has many more options for the things I do than Linux 2. I don't need hacks (or entire applications) to get applications that were not meant to work in my OS going 3. My OS doesn't have 50 splinter groups running around pimping their own distros that have a million text editors but have just *now* started seeing a strong Office Suite 4. I don't need to dual-boot with my OS to play games or applications 5. My server OS has a much more stable (and free) directory services solution that is fully integrated Hmmmm, maybe I wasn't so brainwashed afterall. It looks like my option isn't so bad. I can come up with more points than these, but there's no need. Now, as for being a fanatic, I would have to say that you missed your ride with the rest of the Heaven's Gate cult. So what happened, you turned to Linux?

My friend suggested Gentoo to me, but that takes a bit more configuration awareness although not as much as Slackware.

Quote: I read the same report that other dude did about Linux having more security flaws than windows, But i guess he missed the part where MS paid for that test. can we say buying the judge? or contest fixing? Sounds like the rantings of a Linux lunatic. Got anymore conspiracy theories?

Quote: Firstly Win2k outperforms WinXP in every way (gaming, applications etc) and because of this it has a whole lot less undesirable features that ppl dont need. I don't buy that, as myself and a friend of mine jumped from around 85fps to 110+ in Quake 3 when going from Win2K SP2 to WinXP, and I have seen better performance in parasolid-based modeling software (Solidworks 2001 and 2001+ in my case) Quote: Linux on the otherhand has A LOT LESS security issues than Windows: the problem with Linux though, is that the user needs to know HOW to use Linux effectively. once they do, Linux is a VERY POWERFUL tool, otherwise Windows is already preconfigured to deal with most security issues. Probably because nobody cares to hack Linux boxes as much as they like Windows boxes. For a LONNNNGGGG time the only exploits you would see on security and hacking sites were ones for Unix and their varying flavors, and now with the onset of appliances using *nix cores because of their "security" people are starting to focus on them again (like Oracle's "unbreakable" appliance server that was, in fact, broken). Quote: Lastly, Microsoft was the one to COPY the Mac's GUI. The MAC was the FIRST to use a Graphical User Interface, Microsoft was using a command line interface (DOS). so i think Windows copied Apple and Linux followed Windows. This one was already corrected by Admiral LSD.

[*]I have been using IIS since 3.0 made it worth my while, so I probably have a bit of a "leg up" on some others . [*]The amount of systems I manage might surprise you [*]I like my MCSE, because if I hang it from my rear view mirror I can get the best parking spaces at the mall... [/list=a]

Well, here's the latest info that I saw this morning: http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=25802 *IF* this is the case, while it's nice that they are really paying attention to bugs and security, it's a major letdown to those that can use the all-in-one prowess of a service pack in an enterprise. Not only are they useful for existing systems, but they are quite handy when slipstreaming and deploying into new boxes as well.

Not to mention Klark can host his own p0rn safely at these parties...

Programming in VB.NET--O'Reilly The Great and Secret Show (getting ready to start my second pass through it)--Clive Barker After The Great and Secret Show I plan on re-reading Ender's Game.

I can see where you are coming from in the familiarity part of it, but it's hard to actually get familiar with something without actually loading it first, right? Also, there are enough articles on technet about how to set it up, and one can just get IISLockdown from MS and not have any issues at all. Another good place for IIS info is www.iisanswers.com.

The FTP function will behave like that as you have to assign the "logon locally" right to any user or group that needs to access IIS via FTP *or* WWW (hence the reason MS urges that the servers by physically secured). This security is by design.

Quote: Do not use IIS period. Stay away from it like the plague Why?

Quote: Brand loyalty is dead. He's a techno-mercinary...

First, hardware and software manufacturers are going to push technology and move forward as there isn't much money in mainting both the "this will get us by" sector and developing new technologies. Most pieces of video hardware that you see in servers (like the Rage Pro from ATi) were actually quite popular but very expensive in their time, and now are only being use for simple 2D display duties (I loved mine for Forsaken and used the OpenGL wrapper [who here remembers that term for drivers eh? ] for Quake/Quake2). There's only so much production time and inventory a given manufacturer will sink into a specific model before retiring a model and moving to the next up the line, since it can be quite expensive to maintain several lines of product (because of increased overhead). Second, with the selection of hardware/software moving forward, most will not have the ability to look for older hardware in a particular application. I know that I had a problem just trying to dig up an old P3 500+ for a workstation and wound up getting a 1.2GHz Celeron with a new motherboard. Sure, it's pretty fast at running the OS (NT4) and the *ONE* measurement application that it hosts, but I figured this was going to be the case. I would rather have the price dropping on faster hardware than to have a ton of surplus of old stuff keeping the costs up for everything else. My workstation at work is a P3 733 with 512MB RAM, and I will be thrilled to replace that this month with a dual Xeon box since all of my applications (SQL Server, VS.NET, Adobe this, that, and the other, etc) tend to slow it down to a crawl. So, with the design of software/hardware moving forward, and in doing so driving up the performance of the lowest common denominator, what other reason is there to buy faster than needed machines? What about just for the hell of it? People do it all the time with cars, and computers are much cheaper, so why not? Companies wouldn't make cold cathode tubes and window kits if nobody was buying them, and having a machine that flies when opening and closing applications is much more fun than one that just crawls...

Quote: THG is too pro-Intel. Umm, I don't know which THG you have been reading for the last several years, but with Tom's constant referrals to "Chipzilla" (that's how he likes to refer to Intel) as not being fast enough when comparing the first XP+ models to the Williamettes, and whenever the Intel models were fast enough they instantly became "cost prohibitive" or some such. So honestly, I like having the new guy to balance this out, but I expect this article to drive the AMD lunatics nuts (maybe Tom himself?).

I read that it was a hybrid of the two, so which is it? Anyone got an old article to clarify it?

Actually, I felt that he was a big pimp of AMD stuff for quite a while. The reason why I felt this way was because even if a particular AMD CPU or AMD-supporting mobo performed poorly, he would find some way to put a Pro-AMD spin on it. However, this writer seems to be more of a fan of Intel products rather than AMD. I noticed this with a few of his articles (he's a new guy isn't he, like within the last 9 months or so?) he picks apart AMD's flaws and shows that Intel's stuff is actually quite good. I am glad that they now have someone to balance out their site a bit, and I have been checking their articles moreso now.

I don't care for PC specs in the sig at all, unless it's a link to your specs (in the manner that Four and Twenty has his). But that's just my opinion.