The research firm warns that the ASN.1 vulnerability made public this week could prove worse than the vulnerability that made MS Blaster possible.
Gartner Questions Microsoft’s Commitment To OS Security
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
On the one hand, I’d like for someone to write a virus that’ll finally get Microsoft to realize how important it is to their users to get this security thing worked out. I guess I’m also miffed enough about their practices as a company to where I wouldn’t mind if they had such a headache on their hands. On the other hand, I don’t want to walk in to work one day to find out we can’t use our computers. And I’d also feel bad for the actual, decent people who *work* at Microsoft who’d have to deal with it.
Gartner had previously recommended to its clients that they delay deployment of Windows 2003 Server in “sensitive Internet-exposed applications” until sometime after the second half of this year, but the note published Thursday indicated the firm may change its recommendation.
“We may have to revise even this cautious position if Microsoft fails to commit publicly to extraordinary efforts to eliminate glaring holes in its operating systems. Enterprises should continue to heavily weight the cost of continually patching Microsoft products when deciding which operating system to purchase,” the report stated.
hmm…I bet MS is going to love that.
what is shocking me the most, is that microsoft was informed about that vurnability, serval months ago and they took months to fix the bug and produce an patch.
no system is error free. but i expect the company producing or developing that system to be commited to that system and take any security issue as priority number one.
and i expect the vendor to inform me about such critical errors, as soon as they get the information. open communication to me as an customer is an way to show me, that you take care about me and my needs. i miss that kind of information from microsoft.
i wish microsoft could handle such things like ibm/lotus is doing it. they even have an public accessable site, where they have an fix-list of open issues for domino/notes ( http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/r5fixlist.nsf ) for every release of domino/notes (future releases and past releases).
why does not microsoft has such an system? why do they always need to hide and wait until someone is posting an vurnability problem to the public? why?
they have so manny developers and project leaders and managers and and and… and they can not fix problems quick enought? i can not belive that! they are not stupid and the company is not poor and has enought ressources (in man power and in money) to overcome that problem. but somehow they don’t do it. and i ask my self: why?
“We may have to revise even this cautious position if Microsoft fails to commit publicly to extraordinary efforts to eliminate glaring holes in its operating systems. Enterprises should continue to heavily weight the cost of continually patching Microsoft products when deciding which operating system to purchase,” the report stated.
Compared to patching and recompiling the weekly bug fixes for Linux based systems. C’mon, like it’s been said hundreds of times before: there is no perfect software and thus, no totally secure software. I tell you though, I’m glad that I don’t really have to worry about system exploits with my iMac and OS 10.3; but then again, neither should a properly secured and updated XP box.
If these idiot analyst firms would quit giving out ideas of how to exploit the vulnerability maybe things like Blaster would not happen. This is not responsible reporting because the report gives out information such as how to exploit the library, what port that can access the vulnerability and gives “ideas” to potential hackers and virus writers on how to take advantage of this vulnerability. I wish they would quit it and let microsoft do their jobs.
-> what is shocking me the most, is that microsoft was informed about that vurnability, serval months ago and they took months to fix the bug and produce an patch.
What I’m shocked, shocked about, is that when I went to Windows Update, this vulnerability was termed “recently discovered.” On what, geologic time?
“neither should a properly secured and updated XP box.”
I substitute XP with OS to make it more general.
What remains is:
1) Known bugs which are not fixed.
2) 0 days.
2 can be overthrown using certain techniques (ie. ACL’s or stack protector to name a few) and home users shouldn’t worry much about that either.
1 can be a problem. If people know how to exploit a certain program then the security of that program is at risk. In the case of full disclosure, it is for certain!
Now back to this case with Windows. This wasn’t full disclosure, but it was known to eEye and the bug was also long time ago known in other opensource implementations of ASN.1 where it was fixed. Why didn’t Microsoft fix it while they were notified about it? This isn’t the first time such a thing happens. With MSIE there are many full dislocused bugs which are left alone. Ridiculous, and it becomes more and more “typical Microsoft”.
When several unnecessary services which were legacy from NT’s days as a business oriented operating system are running per default years after the “Trustworthy Computing” initiative began.
“If these idiot analyst firms would quit giving out ideas of how to exploit the vulnerability maybe things like Blaster would not happen.”
Don’t be stupid, cause I know you’re not. They most certainly would happen. Anything that can happen eventually does, especially this sort of thing.
“Compared to patching and recompiling the weekly bug fixes for Linux based systems. C’mon, like it’s been said hundreds of times before: there is no perfect software and thus, no totally secure software. I tell you though, I’m glad that I don’t really have to worry about system exploits with my iMac and OS 10.3; but then again, neither should a properly secured and updated XP box.”
i don’t mind linux security patches, because it does not require server downtime. Rebooting a windows server several times a month or week is totally unnacceptable on a mission critical platform. especially for hosting companies striving for 99.99999% uptime, which is impossible on a windows server.
especially for hosting companies striving for 99.99999% uptime, which is impossible on a windows server.
maybe on a single windows server. but an hosting company is not an real hosting company if they don’t design their environment. and if their goal is to have that uptime, then they are anyway using an clustered environment. and with an clustered environment, almost any os can have that uptime.
Windows has little information on which update is what, I cannot tell you how many times I have read a “Critical Update” looking for a specific patch and saying “is this the one I need”.
There is no seperation between a “Critical Update” as in this and the RPC bug, or “Critical Update”: “This item updates the Bookshelf Symbol 7 font included in some Microsoft products. The font has been found to contain unacceptable symbols:
There is a HUGE difference between a remote vulneribility and an offensive font symbol!
I don’t need to download the font patch to a floppy before I bring the machine online to prevent it from getting infected before I can surf to windows update!
There _NEEDS_ to be some kind of seperation between remote vuln, local vuln, and who-cares-if-you-fix-it.
Definitely there is fundementally wrong with some of the IT guys here when it comes to Microsoft.
I can personally asure anybody that Microsoft is a much better choice for desktops. Anybody who will go with Linux is crazy, well unless they use desktops more like dumb terminals rather than personal desktops. Even then, Microsoft’s windows is a competitive choice there.
For the server side, only for simple tasks, Linux may make sense. Now since IBM embraced Linux, it makes sense to use Linux for more complicated tasks, but it is not free anymore. You have to pay to IBM or similar companies. So in that case, Microsoft is a competitive choice.
For security, if you are not a security expert, just install linux and do an upgrade. You will see the sheer number of security updates on Linux.
Finally, issuing patches for the vulnerabilities is a good indication that Microsoft is comitted to the security. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t issue these patches, and people could find out attacks without patches. So far we know that all the problems on the windows platforms were because of the unpatched windows systems. People are trying to make fuss about that, but on the Linux side the problems seem to be worse. The machines that keep the linux kernel are compromised. If I am an IT manager, I would definitely be very cautious about using Linux. If you make a choice based on these Gartner reports, which is known to be biased against Microsoft, then you may risk your own position. That is as simple as that.
People forget this, but the reason why people adopt Linux is not because Linux matured. That’s mostly because IBM and other big companies said they are behind Linux. That’s why companies use Linux. If they didn’t use Linux, they would use other Unix versions. So you don’t see people migrating from Windows to Linux, although once in a while you hear rumors about it, few instances, but there is no large scale migration.
Finally, 99.9% of the people who talk about open source vs Microsoft are not developers, but they are simply users. They don’t make significant contributions to the projects. They also don’t understand the motivation behind the open source projects. Some open source projects are there because that’s the best way for the developer to improve it. Some open source projects offer alternative commercial licenses to make money (mysql). There is also no coordination between these open source projects, no roadmaps, and in some cases there is rivalry. You can find open source projects where developers hate each other, and in fact some projects emerge exactly because of that reason. APIs which the commercial products expect to be backward compatible always are not backward compatible, so it is not practical for third party developers to develop commercial products for the linux. Even they do, they realize that they can not get help from developers of some of the APIs, because those developers hate commercial products. With Microsoft though, you can expect them to listen to you, and they do. When they move forward they tell you the roadmap, the new technologies. In open source, some people try to offer a compelete solution that is composed of independent projects with different licesing terms and usually try to convince you by spreading FUD about Microsoft.
Many companies which support open source have their own commercial products. So they don’t necessarily support open source for the reasons some zealots want you to believe. They support it because they want to focus on projects that they can make money on, such as Apple with closed source on Aqua.
Clearly this type of FUD do not prompt people to switch. People are limiting the limits of being an idiot by claiming all sorts of stupid stuff about Microsoft and windows. I am using windows happily, didn’t have a single problem. Windows XP is the best OS I have ever used.
But as a side note, I can use Linux. I don’t treat Linux as an obscure not-known OS. It is very natural for me to setup a Linux box at any moment. I wouldn’t regret using it, and I have been using it for a long time. I develop on Linux, I know Unix and Linux commands inside out. But stating the facts about issues are a different thing. I don’t like to hear lies again and again and actually I consider many number of Linux users no different than an average mac user or a windows user. They seem to be passionate about the OS, and I am also passionate about Linux. Definitely I like the feeling that I have more control over the OS. I did and I can do lots of stuff with Linux. But for me it is more like a hoppy on the desktop, on the server it is a serious business though. So I just wanted to put everything into perspective, don’t believe the liars who claim that Linux is better on everything and that Microsoft sucks blah blah blah. Those are not true, most of the developers on open source are not motivated with this type of stupid stuff. They are very clever people and they know the truth that Microsoft is the best in software by any means, including the security.
Not to say that they necessarily mind fixing bugs, but Microsoft is committed to only one thing: Making money. And they will do the absolute MINIMUM necessary to do that. They have no incentive to fix bugs unless those bugs prevent people from giving them money. Thus, if a bug goes unnoticed by users, Microsoft won’t fix it, even if they know about it. They don’t want to commit resources to anything which doesn’t directly contribute to them making money.
This is why they drag their feet on fixing bugs. And the reason they don’t change their attitude is because we continue to reward them by buying their software.
Gates’ initiative to spend time doing nothing but looking for vulnerabilities was genuine…. a genuine concern for the bottom line. It was also good PR for them to announce they were doing it. But they still have no reason to do any MORE than that.
Microsoft is like a fat, old, lazy cat. They will sit stationary as long as they can, and they won’t move an inch until it’s time to get fed. If you don’t feed them, then, and ONLY then will they try to pretend that they’re being nice to you… sorta.
How come you can claim that correcting a hole is not a commitment to the security. With this stupid logic, nobody is committed to the security. The number of patches on Linux is quite large, actually larger than Windows. Worse, Linux companies delegate most of this security work to independent programmers out there whom may or may not be working on the security issue at any time. There is no linux security team out there working continuously on Linux security. Smaller projects do not consider security even remotely. There is no project out there that develops security tools, code analayzers, etc… The average open source programmers skill is lower than most of the Microsoft programmers. Many open source projects are composed by kids who just want to play with code. Many programmers program in their spare time. Most of the programmers are not committed to these open source projects. When they find work, they may discontinue their work. Once you find a security problem, who is going to fix those. Most of the projects do not have enough number of programmers. Nobody train these people with security in mind. Nobody audits the code over and over again. Look at the security problems debian people had. Linux is absolutely less secure than Windows. I like Linux blah blah, but considering it on the enterprise companies is a risk.
Dude…. You insulting a lot of people if you say the average skills of a linux programmer are lower than an MS programmer. The truth could be the otherway around. I also cant believe you insulted open source projects as saying that people are not commited and that nobody checks the code. Hello? its a community project, a lot of people see that code especially if its popular like Apache(which btw is not a linux only software).
Which brings me to the next point! MS has some major security issues as an OS. To be technical, linux is just a kernel and hasn’t had as many bugs. And as far as the OS goes (Gnu/Linux) the bugs are few. Now when we talk about distro patchs they concern other things like O lets say Apache, Bind, X Windows. Those are apart of the OS! Sure a lot of people include them but not everyone has them installed on their systems. Hence your point about the majority of patchs are mute. In fact, Lets talk about proprietary apps in the windows world. I wonder if they were open sourced how many security bugs we would find… How many more patches would be needed…
Those are not* apart of the OS itself
Dude, this is not about insulting people, this is about stating facts. Nothing but facts. What does it take to be an open source programmer, what is the entry point. Nothing. You simply start a project and you can name yourself as an open source programmer. When people refer to open source developers, they also refer to me too. I also have a pet project on sourceforge. So I am also an open source developer. Have you ever seen what this community is about? Did you ever see and inspect the development of some open source projects. It is not always smooth. Lots of stupid arguments, people without any knowledge trying to teach you how to program, people with egos etc… Open source projects is about power. You show your skill to others and force others to admit that you are the best. That’s how the game is played in open source. Have you ever read Linux Journal. Go and read how these projects go in real life.
Your next pointless point show me that there are lots of people who don’t know what they are talking about. They assume that when they say something against Microsoft, they will be regarded as smart knowledgable geniues. That’s not the case. I am pretty darn sure that my technical skills are far more better than yours, I also like and love Linux and open source, but I know for a fact that there is no magic on open source. It is hell to develop applications with other people, coordinating etc… Only few open source projects are truly successfull.
When it comes to security, if we have to tell the truth I would say that linux is less secure than windows. If you have everybody using Linux, it would be like hell. People would have tons of problems. New worms, viruses, etc… People are alreadying having trouble managing their Linux boxes.
You don’t see Linux advocates building something useful, you see them accusing others. I mean how come a person can argue that Linux is more secure when they see a windows problem. When you see a problem in a car, do you conclude that others are better. You have to look at them too. News media are not going to point out every single Linux vulnerability out there. Again and again, I didn’t see anybody who can seriously convince me that Linux is more secure by nature. All I see is kids making stupid claims and news media gives them good coverage and they also make up their own stories.
I’ll bite.
“How come you can claim that correcting a hole is not a commitment to the security.”
Because he has human can judge on more circumstances than the fact it’s fixed alone. For you, perhaps it only matters it is fixed. For others, other circumstances can matter for example why the bug was there in the first place, why it took so long till it was fixed, etc.
“With this stupid logic […]”
^^^^^^
Oops.
“The number of patches on Linux is quite large, actually larger than Windows.”
As for the Linux kernel, i’d agree. There are quite a lot patches for the Linux kernel. 3rd party patches, incremential patches, 4 stable trees, 1 devel tree. Only the BK logs theirselve already indicate this. No discussion necessary about this, we agree.
That said, i really wouldn’t know as i don’t know how many patches are commited inside Microsoft. You happen to know this. Can you enlighten us with this information as well, or are you under an NDA?
“Worse, Linux companies delegate most of this security work to independent programmers out there whom may or may not be working on the security issue at any time.”
Examples please?
“There is no linux security team out there working continuously on Linux security.”
Regarding the kernel, it has to be secure before the source is made public. This is because after that anyone can read it. The nature of FLOSS, and this includes ie. OpenVMS too. Generally, with propritary software it is found by 3rd parties via reverse engineering, trial and error software testing, luck. So it is far more easier to audit afterwards because except for a selective few, people can’t read your code while with FLOSS you’re fried if you release such a thing, even in CVS (see a few recent OpenBSD commits).
“Smaller projects do not consider security even remotely.”
How can you be sooo sure? Are you sure you aren’t generalizing?
“There is no project out there that develops security tools, code analayzers, etc…”
For certain, such projects exist. Multiple. See ie. http://www.freshmeat.net
“The average open source programmers skill is lower than most of the Microsoft programmers.”
Again wild assertion. Please proof.
“Many open source projects are composed by kids who just want to play with code.”
Again wild assertion. Please proof.
“Many programmers program in their spare time.”
Again wild assertion. Please proof.
“Most of the programmers are not committed to these open source projects.”
Again wild assertion. Please proof.
“When they find work, they may discontinue their work.”
Or might not. Or someone else might pick it up. Or the Sun might evolves around the earth…
Again wild assertion. Please proof. Wait, i recognize a patern.
“Once you find a security problem, who is going to fix those.”
A human. What did you think, Agent Smith?
“Most of the projects do not have enough number of programmers.”
Again wild assertion. Please pr… you guessed it!
“Nobody train these people with security in mind.”
They’re all incopetent coders, because they’re open source coders! That’s correlated!!!1!1111111
“Nobody audits the code over and over again.”
You certainly know what everyone’s doing. And yes, there ARE audits. We can’t be sure who does, when it happens, because everyone can do it. Both whitehats and blackhats can do it. Yet people like you claim this is impossible!
“Look at the security problems debian people had.”
I did. It was a 0day. If i knew a 0day in your Windows server i could remotely exploit (or locally and got myself a passwd somehow) you’d be fried to my friend.
“Linux is absolutely less secure than Windows.”
Please proof. Nopne of your earlier claims are argumented or backed up with facts. Please provide some URL’s with analysis too.
“I like Linux blah blah, but considering it on the enterprise companies is a risk.”
Yeah and my best friend is black, therefore i don’t and cannot hate black people.
”Damn, young fool. Only now you realize you got trolled.” Indeed. At least i had fun too!
Because he has human can judge on more circumstances than the fact it’s fixed alone. For you, perhaps it only matters it is fixed. For others, other circumstances can matter for example why the bug was there in the first place, why it took so long till it was fixed
Wow, you mean you are looking for reasons to bash Microsoft. Because finding the hole is not enough for you. That’s exactly what I am talking about, it is absolutely stupid to claim that they have to write software without any bugs.
If you tell this seriously, that means you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The rest of your post is asking for proof for the proof itself!
The whole open source movement is going to die sooner or later. They are never going to replace Microsoft on the desktop. They may lose to Microsoft on the server, Microsoft is coming up with some real innovative technologies with Longhorn. Not many people are aware of it, but basically if everybody upgrades to Longhorn, there would be no need for java on the server side either. If Microsoft ties the server stuff to the longhorn programs, I can assure you that, we will see Linux only on cheap hosting companies.
The whole momentum behind open source is Anti-Microsoft hatred. How many times do you see people advocating Linux because of its new innovative features. Everyday, they try to convince people to move to Linux based on speculations, lies, distortions, exaggerations: “Microsoft is going to go after you, they are building secret labs to blow you up, Windows is insecure etc…” Have you ever seen a guy who is simply excited about Linux itself and thus promoting it to you. Linux is simply a 30 year old technology moved to PC. The kernel reached the stability of solaris etc… only recently. X-window which is the primary real reason why Linux is an option as a desktop is not a product of open source community. It is the result of a hard work of many corporations like IBM. My favorite window manager, which I respect a lot, KDE suffers from having too few developers working on it. On top of that, many so called open source advocates openly promote vandalism, code theft, attacks on microsoft’s site. I don’t like SCO, but I would never ever promote vandalism to their property. Many of the open source developers are teens who want to be someone like Linus. Most of them are dreaming. They all think they are going to change the world. This is not going to happen, sooner or later people are going to realize that open source movement is not going to get them anywhere. As I said, the force behind the Linux is not the merits of the Linux itself, it is the urge to take on the most successfull software company on earth. With that type of force, you can’t go far. To really change things, you have to work and work more. I believed in open source movement once, but for me right now it is nothing more than a hobby. Only on the server side, it is still serious and relavent to me.
“Wow, you mean you are looking for reasons to bash Microsoft.”
As i brought up earlier, i find it ridiculous that a company (_any_ company) needs 150 days to fix an important security bug (in a widely used program).
“Because finding the hole is not enough for you.”
That first example was rather put as a global statement how one can think, not as i see it in the current situation we’re discussing. Wether one’s thinking is rightful or not is not something i judge about, not even in this local example. It seems you missed i meant it all globally.
The second example is indeed how i think about this situation, yes, but was still meant as a global example in this context. I already pointed out this second example out as my opinion in an earlier post, and have done here again in the beginning of this post.
“That’s exactly what I am talking about, it is absolutely stupid to claim that they have to write software without any bugs.”
Nowhere do i claim that. You must have misunderstood.
Since you thoroughly evade, using the burden of proof fallacy, some of my other points in which i ask you to back up your arguments i consider this discussion between you and me as passe. It is up to you wether i stepped on your penis, leading to you feeling the need to defend this post. I think it is wasted time. Au revoir!
I don’t think Gartner has a valid argument against 2003 server. You are talking about an OS that has been in development how long? 2-3 years perhaps? Personally based on the complexity of windows and the exposure windows has, i am surprised Microsoft has handled these issues as well as they have.
Its a tired and frankly an ignorant argument that Linux is more secure than windows. Put linux in the same place as windows and i would bet that this discussion would be flip-flopped.
The assertion that this Windows is less secure then the closed source model is also laughable. How did the commercial Unix vendors ever manage to secure HP-UX/AIX/Solaris without sharing their code with everyone? Perhaps the fact the Unix has a hugely differnt design model than windows and 30 years of people picking it apart? Something linux benifits from by emulating Unix.
It would be nice to see more people engage their brains and use some simple logic with these matters rather than blather nonsense(Wishfull thinking).
Hi
”
The whole open source movement is going to die sooner or later. They are never going to replace Microsoft on the desktop. They may lose to Microsoft on the server, Microsoft is coming up with some real innovative technologies with Longhorn. Not many people are aware of it, but basically if everybody upgrades to Longhorn, there would be no need for java on the server side either. If Microsoft ties the server stuff to the longhorn programs, I can assure you that, we will see Linux only on cheap hosting companies.
”
linux and the open source is not going away. you cannot just wish it off. its being used all over the place not just by cheap web hosting companies
apache: almost 70/% of webservers
bind,sendmail,qmail and a lot of other server side software is more popular that u can imagine
google and yahoo are not cheap webhosting companies.
you can support windows and think they are the best. no problem with that but be sensible when you are talking about competition. even microsoft consider linux to its number 2 threat right after the economy. alteast be consistent with the company you are supporting
when gartner talks about something against linux people who support windows claim they are right and when the tide turns they are up in arms. the problem is not about the security hole but about the time taken to patch it up after discovery.
the number of updates in any linux distro is larger than windows because you are comparing a large distribution of much more than an operating system with one.
if you compare the core pieces you will find that windows has more updates
(_any_ company) needs 150 days to fix an important security bug (in a widely used program).
It always amazes me why people who don’t know what they are talking about say such stupid things. You give the reason itself why it takes 150 days to fix it. First of all, you don’t know exactly how many number of days it took to confirm it, to fix it, etc… Microsoft guys are profesional guys, they are not programmers who attempt to fix something, without caring whether it is going to break other things or not. On Linux, they usually fix faster, because of two reasons:
– They don’t care about backward compatability. Believe it or not, APIs are broken frequently. No developer cares about the stability. They just break other applications. I know this because I develop for Linux.
– Number of applications and users for Linux is small compared to windows. So developers have something little to worry about.
It is up to you wether i stepped on your penis, leading to you feeling the need to defend this post. I think it is wasted time. Au revoir
No you didn’t step on my penis, you did manage to get my penis and put it into your own …. Anyway the point is that, your penis is clearly too small for this type of stuff.
linux and the open source is not going away. you cannot just wish it off. its being used all over the place not just by cheap web hosting companies
You don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t see the future. Right now the whole momentum behind Linux is anti-microsoft bashing. Linux is used, and so is Amiga, and so is FreeBSD. Definitely they are not going to die the way you understand. But once you lose the momentum, they are not going to fill the news anymore. Which means that people are not going to get excited about it.
apache: almost 70/% of webservers
Argggh, apache is open source with bsd style license. Nobody can stop Microsoft taking it and extending it. Apache runs on windows too. What’s your point? You give the apache example, because you think you are bashing Microsoft, whereas you are making an ass out of yourself.
bind,sendmail,qmail and a lot of other server side software is more popular that u can imagine
Not on enterprise. People there usually use Exchange now.
google and yahoo are not cheap webhosting companies.
Excuse me but what the hell you are talking about? Do you even understand what I am talking about? Do you know what Longhorn brings. Obviously for their systems it makes sense to use an operating system like Linux, but what you don’t see is that if Linux is going to be important only in these cases, then Linux is dead. Google and Yahoo is not improving user interface stuff. Their applications need os for basic stuff. Their real focus is the application itself. Google has its own file system for example.
you can support windows and think they are the best.
This is not about supporting windows, this is about saying some idiots to stop bullshitting us.
no problem with that but be sensible when you are talking about competition.
You, a linux zealot want another sensible person to be sensible? LOL
even microsoft consider linux to its number 2 threat right after the economy.
You don’t see anything right? Let me explain you what’s going on. Microsoft is not competing with Linux. Microsoft is competing with IBM. They are not competing on the desktop. So let’s admit that linux is dead on desktop already. So say this correctly at least.
Microsoft considers IBM and linux to be its number 2 threat on the server market.
Now as you see, this is something everybody agrees on. But what you don’t understand is that, it is not linux being a threat to Microsoft. Microsoft is a threat to Linux. Microsoft was not a server company traditionally. Now this company is taking on IBM and others on the server market. Do you see the threat here. Linux is not a threat to the Microsoft. There is a Unix market out there who is going to decide on whether to go with Linux or Windows. Traditional Windows shops are unlikely to go with Linux. It is the unix market that may go with Windows, rather than its replacement Linux. You are too hyped to comment on this.
alteast be consistent with the company you are supporting
Do you support IBM? Then you should be consistent with what you are saying. I am not supporting any company, but you are definitely supporting IBM. I think you are a secret IBM agent.
when gartner talks about something against linux people who support windows claim they are right and when the tide turns they are up in arms.
I have never praised Gartner for anything they said pro or against Microsoft. I think they are bunch of idiots who like the attention they get from media. Any company who is using Gartner for serious decisions is an idiot too.
the problem is not about the security hole but about the time taken to patch it up after discovery.
Build a successful company like Microsoft, take the 90% of the desktop market, and show us how you can be faster than Microsoft in patching it up. Until then just STFU.
the number of updates in any linux distro is larger than windows because you are comparing a large distribution of much more than an operating system with one.
Which Linux would you like to compare windows with. If you compare linux kernel to windows kernel, then windows kernel is more secure, because we never heard of hacks on the windows kernel itself. So windows won.
if you compare the core pieces you will find that windows has more updates
Make a detailed list of these components. Show us one by one which one belong to core linux, which ones are not. Similarly do the same for windows and show us exactly the number of patches for both, the reasons behind them, the level of threat etc… Only after that, we can be sure that you are not bullshitting us, otherwise by simply claiming it doesn’t make windows less secure.
Forget your theories and see facts. Virii/worms is almost a non-issue on Linux. And it has nothing to do with market share. Apache works on more than twice sites IIS does. But IIS had more than three times more security holes in last two years ! Look at the eEye page and see how many holes they’ve discover LONG ago and MS did nothing about it !
I don’t care any clever arguing, theories etc. Life shows that MS products ARE insecure and unless it will change somewhat, I don’t care about any arguing that MS products are more secure than OSS. Keep your FUD for yourself.
hi
google and yahoo are not cheap webhosting companies.
Excuse me but what the hell you are talking about? Do you even understand what I am talking about? Do you know what Longhorn brings.
i am not going to talk abt longhorn until its a delivered product until then its just what is expected. dont hype
Obviously for their systems it makes sense to use an operating system like Linux, but what you don’t see is that if Linux is going to be important only in these cases, then Linux is dead. Google and Yahoo is not improving user interface stuff. Their applications need os for basic stuff. Their real focus is the application itself. Google has its own file system for example.
google doesnt have its filesystem. it uses ext2 and ext3 and its search algorithm is python based. i am a informed source.
even microsoft consider linux to its number 2 threat right after the economy.
You don’t see anything right? Let me explain you what’s going on. Microsoft is not competing with Linux. Microsoft is competing with IBM. They are not competing on the desktop. So let’s admit that linux is dead on desktop already. So say this correctly at least.
no. ibm is not mentioned in microsoft’s list. linux is not about ibm.go read microsoft. its pervasive because its not dependant on ibm.
Microsoft considers IBM and linux to be its number 2 threat on the server market.
no./
Now as you see, this is something everybody agrees on. But what you don’t understand is that, it is not linux being a threat to Microsoft. Microsoft is a threat to Linux. Microsoft was not a server company traditionally. Now this company is taking on IBM and others on the server market. Do you see the threat here. Linux is not a threat to the Microsoft. There is a Unix market out there who is going to decide on whether to go with Linux or Windows. Traditional Windows shops are unlikely to go with Linux. It is the unix market that may go with Windows, rather than its replacement Linux. You are too hyped to comment on this.
bad assumption
alteast be consistent with the company you are supporting
Do you support IBM? Then you should be consistent with what you are saying. I am not supporting any company, but you are definitely supporting IBM. I think you are a secret IBM agent.
when gartner talks about something against linux people who support windows claim they are right and when the tide turns they are up in arms.
I have never praised Gartner for anything they said pro or against Microsoft. I think they are bunch of idiots who like the attention they get from media. Any company who is using Gartner for serious decisions is an idiot too.
the problem is not about the security hole but about the time taken to patch it up after discovery.
Build a successful company like Microsoft, take the 90% of the desktop market, and show us how you can be faster than Microsoft in patching it up. Until then just STFU.
the number of updates in any linux distro is larger than windows because you are comparing a large distribution of much more than an operating system with one.
Which Linux would you like to compare windows with. If you compare linux kernel to windows kernel, then windows kernel is more secure, because we never heard of hacks on the windows kernel itself. So windows won.
no windows doesnt talk abt the kernel. if it had problem you dont hear abt it. thats how the proprietary model works
if you compare the core pieces you will find that windows has more updates
Make a detailed list of these components. Show us one by one which one belong to core linux, which ones are not. Similarly do the same for windows and show us exactly the number of patches for both, the reasons behind them, the level of threat etc… Only after that, we can be sure that you are not bullshitting us, otherwise by simply claiming it doesn’t make windows less secure
why dont u do that. u just claimed so. microsoft doesnt even provide a list. so i cant compare. they talk about redhat 6.0 and linux 9.0. someone has to tell them only linux 2.6 has been released
you are talking about some stuff like longhorn which isnt even a product right now. when it comes in late 2006 we can talk about that. till then its just what some company wants to achieve. its not something u and i can use.
i am a secret ibm agent?
how paranoid can u get. i am a certified administrator of windows and unix systems. ibm doesnt have secret agents. if if it didnt they dont post on osnews forums. again be reasonable
dont hype
This is not hype, it is from Microsoft which delivers products. I don’t see how you can dare to accuse me of hyping something so obvious and known. Some of those stuff is already implemented btw, so it is there, it is not a hype. You can run applications on the browser. That’s something very serious. We are not talking about your simple minded python scripts here.
google doesnt have its filesystem. it uses ext2 and ext3 and its search algorithm is python based. i am a informed source.
My friend I am more than informed source. Some of the people I know work there. There are papers out there which explain Google File System.
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/sosp2003/papers/p125-ghemawat.pdf
Everybody sees that you are an ignorant person. Clearly you had no idea what Google is running. So who thinks that this guy knows something about computers. He just learnt ls, mount and a few programs in linux and thinks that he is a mastermind on computing. lol
no. ibm is not mentioned in microsoft’s list. linux is not about ibm.go read microsoft. its pervasive because its not dependant on ibm.
Really, did you watch the spoof video in comdex keynote speech. Have you ever read inteviews with Bill Gates. Which company do you think Microsoft is competing. Redhat? Or maybe you think Microsoft is competing with you, cause you represent the linux? What kind of a troll you are? Just switch to Microsoft’s side, I don’t think open source needs this type of ignorant people. It is IBM that made Linux a serious thing on the enterprise. Do you know the power of IBM. Let me teach you some few things. Palm sold some of its models through IBM, cause enterprise customers didn’t buy it from Palm directly. They buy stuff only from IBM. Just check out the price of the thinkpad. Way expensive than others, yet people trust in tha name of IBM. People are not using Mysql instead of DB2. They still prefer DB2. Did you get it yet?
no windows doesnt talk abt the kernel. if it had problem you dont hear abt it. thats how the proprietary model works
Again I don’t see someone who knows what he is talking about. What are you trying to say? You think people are writing worms without knowing where they target? You seem to say things randomly without trying to argue a particular point.
how paranoid can u get.
You accused me of supporting Microsoft, and then you took my sarcastic joke seriously. Who is the paranoid stupid here? Who should be reasonable here? Clearly you need to learn a lot about computers.
It is too sad, ignorant people like you claim to be a linux advocate. I don’t think linux can survive too much. As I predict, it is eventually going to become irrelevant. What you forget is that, you can flat out lie and make so much outrageous stupid accusations and speculations, because news media does the same thing. You are absolutely not different than the average joe. Once the news media changes its mind, who is going to talk about Linux? Once IBM and HP changes its mind and finds another model to make profits, who is going to stand with Linux? Linux will be irrelevant compared to today. Of course, on the server side it may continue to be a serious os as long as IBM supports them. It is not people like you that contributes any value to Linux. It is real developers and big companies like IBM. You are just a noise on the internet.
How many machines were exploited by this before the patch was issued? How many machines will be exploited by this after the patch has been issued, but the lazy or ignorant people who are responsible for installing the patch have neglected to do thier job?
“If these idiot analyst firms would quit giving out ideas of how to exploit the vulnerability maybe things like Blaster would not happen.”
Did it every occur to you that if Microsoft would patch thier products in a day or two, that it would not matter if the vulnerability were discussed?
“This is not responsible reporting because the report gives out information such as how to exploit the library, what port that can access the vulnerability and gives “ideas” to potential hackers and virus writers on how to take advantage of this vulnerability.”
It is more irresponsible for Microsoft to let a vulnerability go unpatched for 156 days.
“I wish they would quit it and let microsoft do their jobs.”
If Microsoft did their job on system security this would be a non-issue.
Hi
I didnt claim i am supporting linux. he says i am. he shows a link which says google is using a modified ext2 filesystem. he says its new.
he says that sun,hp and other companies dont matter. only ibm. he calls me an idiot and a secret ibm agent and he claims its a joke.
no windows doesnt talk abt the kernel. if it had problem you dont hear abt it. thats how the proprietary model works
Again I don’t see someone who knows what he is talking about. What are you trying to say? You think people are writing worms without knowing where they target? You seem to say things randomly without trying to argue a particular point.
i am telling you that you wouldnt hear of windows kernel vulnerabilites bcoz ms doesnt talk about them.got the point?
show me the bill gates interview which says ibm is microsoft’s threat. ms is more worried about linux than about ibm. linux was a serious competitor even before ibm launched its campaign. study the timeline. linux is there not because of the commercial companies. even if all these companies dont support linux it will still be developed and will be available on the internet
sam can you stop spreading such irrelavent info.
windows longhorn does not exist yet it hasnt come onto the market its still all hype, its all just pr bullshit right now thrown out for people like you to jump up and down and say wow its gonna be so awesome.. The alpha/beta sucked hard winfs really sucks in current implentation But its work in progress, but i suspect delivery of it will be constantly delayed till there is much faster hardware to deal with the demand of shite like winfs.. Now compare winfs still pretty much vapourware with resier4, reiser4 is significantly faster than its predecessor and much faster than ext3 or ntfs or any other journaling fs out there its a modular fs and its supported by darpa, how much hype did you hear about this filesystem ? how much bullshit about it was spread ? nothing.. it doesnt need it, it doesnt need media attention it doesnt need hype its an awesome fs and once its adopted into linux thats another great advancement in linux.
Now lets look at ms’s past history ms cairo, go and do some research about that. Major bollocks spread by the great ms, and apparantly windows 95 was the first true 32 bit multitasking operating system, and if you believe that then you must believe every bullshit ms spreads.. Microsofts major money is spent on spreading bullshit and pr / marketing hype and shite spewing.. no wonder there os is so full of exploits and holes.
make the mass market believe that you are truly innovating when your just buying out / thiefing code from small companies and branding it as you next new innovation, or if you just cant buy it then bullshit it. Thats MS.
how many of the worlds servers run apache ? for that matter linux and unix ? a hell of a lot more than run windows.
Its quite simple if a virus writer wanted to cause true havoc the best thing to go after would be servers and the best target would be *nix. The fact is *nix is not an easy target you cant write viruses for it like you can do windows and windows is such a damn easy target, most of the userbase is average joe that barely knows how to right click their mouse button, but their computer came pre installed with windows so windows must be the best os. Whats worse is that by default windows security is just lax. Great at talking about how great they absolutely crap in producing.
Your whole notion of microsoft will win and longhorn will be so awesome and you dont need to run java is bullshit.
Ill put it simply to you. You own a business, microsoft a company thats been convicted in France and USA for bad business practices offers to tie you into the .net infrastructure.. Your information now belongs to MS, you have to upgrade when ms tell you to and continously write blank cheques for them to fill out. Thats basically what it would become.. would you buy into this ? or would you go for open formats that are platform independant and can be easily ported from one platform to the next without having to reinput all of your data.. The best choice will always be the open choice thats what it basically comes down to and will always come down to. thats business. Your information should belong to you not to a corporation with dictatorship tendancies.
Why was windows 95/98/ME so shit ? its because microsoft had a proper monopoly it didnt matter how bad the products were how utterly shit they were microsoft would still make money from it. If it wasnt for linux on the desktop making micrososft shit themselves i guarantee there would still be more incarnations of the 9x branch, simply because they could.
Why does it take so long to patch holes found ? what better way to cover it up, just sweep it under the rug and hope no one exploits it. But eventually it gets exploited and it blows up in ms’s face. Thats why sites like eeye have had to label the vulnerabilities on their site so that a proper record can be kept from MS being informed till they actually do something about it.
Some of the code has leaked now, only time will tell how many new exploits are found.
As to your arguement about linux desktop being crap,
to quote you
” I can personally asure anybody that Microsoft is a much better choice for desktops. Anybody who will go with Linux is crazy, well unless they use desktops more like dumb terminals rather than personal desktops. Even then, Microsoft’s windows is a competitive choice there.
For the server side, only for simple tasks, Linux may make sense. Now since IBM embraced Linux, it makes sense to use Linux for more complicated tasks, but it is not free anymore. You have to pay to IBM or similar companies. So in that case, Microsoft is a competitive choice.
For security, if you are not a security expert, just install linux and do an upgrade. You will see the sheer number of security updates on Linux. ”
how much unfounded crap can one person spew ? so i must be crazy to run linux as my desktop os. well f*ck you, is all i can say because i can get my work done in linux, i can watch films, i can play music etc etc. I didnt pay a penny for the os on top of which im not plagues with constantly upgrading my desktop and patching for fear of getting the next virus / worm i dont have to run norton which just kills resources.
I run debian by the way.
for your info. The exploits discovered recently which caused the debian servers to have to be taken down, how many users of debian where affected by it ? NONE, ZERO a local password was grabbed and from there the debian server was comprimised someone manually had to do all of that it wasnt by clicking a file which came attached in an email.
The question to ask yourself, ok maybe the cracker should how 1337 he is by cracking into the debian server, but what did they actually achieve ? nothing. The server got taken down and within a day they knew exactly what went on and rebuilt the server and within a week ( a week just to make sure) business as usual, and by that time updated kernel was available for all to download in apt-get. Thats what you call service no bullshit just getting it done.
server side only simple tasks ? no i think you must be thinking of windows.. give windows 2003 a load of 10,000 sites see how well it behaves.. Windows server is and has only been good for little businesses with their 50-100 users any more and it buckles it always has and it always will, wtf do you need a gui on a web server for ? all it does is waste resources.
Oh yeah and as a previous poster posted google must be a really simple task over 1000 linux servers, serving you your search results bud. Lets not forget hotmail, how long did it take microsoft to change it to their own server product ? as far as ive heard it failed so badly they still use a load of bsd servers as core. maybe they have made to managed to make it all microsoft but thats probably why its become so dog slow recently.
Its too sad ignorant people like you come and spout crap and expect no one to bite back.. If your gonna argue atleast come up with proof not here say and conjecture.
Frankly, I’m baffled how anyone could have taken my comment about Microsoft Laziness as having any bearing on Linux.
Microsoft fixes bugs only when they HAVE to.
Linux developers fix bugs because they have pride in their work.
What could be clearer?
Some security experts will say that security needs to be designed into a product from the very start. Not added on like some new feature. From the outside it looks like Microsoft has always treated security as some feature you add into the product. Could Microsoft make their software more secure? Yes, if they have the money and commitment. OpenBSD is done by a small group of people with very little money, but they manage to do code audits. The security of OpenBSD is very high. Nothing will be 100 percent secure but that should not stop a company to provide the highest level of security.
It doesn’t matter if Linux or BSD is better than Windows. What matters is that a lot of important information gets handled by Microsoft products and Microsoft doesn’t seem to care about security. Microsoft needs to act more responsibly.
This is a little OT, but it is perhaps better to correct these misconceptions quickly, as the X11/xFree86 confusion is quite common….
“X-window which is the primary real reason why Linux is an option as a desktop is not a product of open source community. It is the result of a hard work of many corporations like IBM.”
Huh? From http://www.x.org:
“The X Window System, more simply ‘X’ or ‘X11’, is judged worldwide to be one of the most successful open source, collaborative technologies developed to date.”
The most common implementation of the X11 protocol on Linux is called xFree86 (From xfree86.org):
“In short, XFree86 is an open source X11-based desktop infrastructure.”
The first version of the X11 protocol was developed at MIT in 1984. It’s been free and open source since it’s creation. DEC and Sun worked at the time with X11’s author, Bob Scheifler (MIT) to refine the protocol, so if any credit is due, it should go to them.
However, Bob “remains the author, the final arbiter and the final decision maker for the X Protocol itself” (X11v1 Release notes).
Cheezwog, there is no misconception in what I said. You just say totally something else, without understanding what I am saying.
Read the history of x-window here:
http://www.first.fraunhofer.de/persons/leo/report/node11.html
X window is not produced like linux kernel, or emacs. X window is produced first research people, and then supported by commercial companies, and then made open source along the way. As you see someone, in this case US government and some US companies paid for it. So the problem is that, you have to convince these people to support projects with that type of scale. If you can’t, then you don’t have it. You obviously didn’t get that point, but none of you say contradicts with what I say. When you see something open source, you automatically assume that it is done that way because they want to crush Microsoft or that they are commies. Many of the projects that Linux depend on are there because at one point in history, there was a need for that. Openoffice is another example.
Most of these projects do not mature because some programmers around the world were able to build large scale projects immediately. Most of these projects come from large companies. So the issue become will you see more of these donations in the future. For example linux has nothing like tablet pc. Will you see advanced technology companies donating their handwriting recognition know-how to linux or open source?
I don’t see developers working on these type of advanced technologies or programs. Usually you see ignorant people who bash Microsoft claiming that email program is part of the operating system. You see, most of these people are very stupid. They don’t even think about these details. All they do is talk even without much knowledge on the issue.
Cause unlike what Microsoft peddled before Windows 95’s release, all of this family was just an integrated GUI built ontop of DOS.
The computing world had all this hype about a great innovative 32bit OS and it was all crap. NT was the true 32bit OS of Microsot but they didn’t or couldn’t introduce it onto the average users desktop until 6 years after Win95’s launch (in the form of WinXP).
Unfortunately the world bought into MS’s crap and went with them when there were much better alternatives at the time such as OS2. A true 32bit OS from IBM that could do multitasking like no Windows has ever been able. If IBM had not tried to control the PC market in the 80’s and if they had put some support behind OS2 the computing would would be a better and different place today. Instead it is based on mediocrety curtesy of Microsoft who has in recent times stomped on anything truely decent in OS alternatives (no not MacOS or Linux, I’m talking of other alternatives).
Sam, I’m sorry to say but, Get of the Crack! Yes, Linux has not been great for the desktop but guess what, Microsoft is very bad there as well, even OS-X is quite lame. Your rational is very undeveloped with noi quoting of sources or illistration of points or a seeming understanding the differences between Proprietry OS systems and Open Source and the resultant reporting processes of each.
I really hope not to have to read another comment posted by you soon. And, do try to understand that when people talk about Linux and bugs you are bringing into the frey hundreds of software packages bundled into a distribution that is the common practice in Linux distros. I personally hate it and would love to know of a distribution of Linux that just gave me the core packages needed for a basic GUI desktop minus any applications but unfortunately I don’t. Until they do, you can not go around and compare the bug listings between Linux and Microsoft (but recently MS has been deciding to bundle lots of crap on their OS installs as well of which are not warranted i.e. movie maker, net meating, messenger, front page and so on but it still isn’t of the magnitude of Linux installs).
sam you know what you remind me of thomas12yrold.
Ok, I see, you are unable to understand between the ext2 and Google File System. Google File System is a distributed file system, how do you claim that it is ext2? You don’t even know what is ext2 or what is a distributed file system.
who was going on about filesystem ? what does the filesystem run on ? what os ? yes thats right linux so stfu. regardless of fs the os is linux, why didnt they design the fs to be run on windows instead ?
Yeah, probably Microsoft distributed the beta version of linux on its annual conference this year. Probably we are seeing screenshots authored by photoshop. Also probably people are lying all over the internet when they develop for longhorn. Heh. You can go to msdn to see the apis in the longhorn, and stop lying about the obvious known facts
read the rest of my comment where i said :
The alpha/beta sucked hard winfs really sucks in current implentation But its work in progress, but i suspect delivery of it will be constantly delayed till there is much faster hardware to deal with the demand of shite like winfs.. Now compare winfs still pretty much vapourware with resier4, reiser4 is significantly faster than its predecessor and much faster than ext3 or ntfs or any other journaling fs out there its a modular fs and its supported by darpa
notice i mention the alpha/beta whatever tf that was and it sucked hard.
Its work in progress and devlopers are already devloping 3rd party apps for it are they really ? show me some examples.
At the time of windows 95/98/ME, linux was more shit than these oses. There were virtually no usable windows manager. Probably you were too young at the time, but when we first started to use linux, all we had is few crappy window managers. There was nothing like KDE at the time, not even the collections of programs that we enjoy today. There were no openoffice etc…
ive been using linux near on over 6 years now, you were probably about 9 then.
kde was founded in 1996 and official first release was 1998.
amazing look at it now from 1998 till now what about windows ui in that time ?
and also to point out read the rest of my comments and dont just pick out what you want from it
the rest read :
its because microsoft had a proper monopoly it didnt matter how bad the products were how utterly shit they were microsoft would still make money from it
which you then turn around to say oh linux sucked on the desktop then… and hence why microsoft got away with its monopolistic bullshit.
and fyi windows ME was released in 2000 the same year as win2k maybe 6 months earlier and it sucked hard.. Even microsoft enthusiasts will admit to that fact.
(and thats what 4 yrs ago) and by that time kde was on 2.1 beta, and now its on 3.2, and by 2006 it should be on about version 5. So what does that tell you ? its only getting better but according to you, people must be crazy running the most updated and worked on os out there.
kde info from http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/project.php
Your entire response is crap, not even part of it. You are lying about obvious facts. Microsoft finds the holes earlier than hackers along with so many number of security companies. Show us one vulnerability that was zero-day vulnerability. Show us one paper that points to zero-day vulnerabilities. There is none. Just reading news.com, the register? slashdot? Is that your resources? Lol
im lying about obvious facts ? where am i lying ? sam you should become a politician because youve taken what ive written and modified it to suit your needs. and completely avoided all of my points i made to you, no doubt you will do it again with this post and frankly i wont bother replying to your next because frankly your nothing but a troll, infact calling you a troll, gives trolls a bad name
Microsoft finds the holes earlier than hackers along with so many number of security companies.
bwah hah hah hah hah ha. your so full of shite its unreal
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-27.html notice this vulnerability goes all the way back to nt4. How many years old is that, but microsoft are great with their security and it got patched in 2003..
wow only took them like 10 years.
the flaw in direct x
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111732,00.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/07/17/microsoft.flaw.ap/index….
a polish group that found the windows rpc bug / exploit
and the miscrosoft announcement from themselves here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr…in/MS03-026.asp
im not going on about iis bugs or directx bugs here.
http://www.microsoft.com/security/security_bulletins/
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/index.html
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39146115,00.ht…
”
EEye now says it has reported another seven as-yet-unpatched bugs to Microsoft, some as long as five months ago. The company is listing the report dates and seriousness of the bugs on its Web site, but will reveal no further information until Microsoft has released fixes.
Two of eEye’s most dangerous flaws were reported to Microsoft on 10 September, 2003, while the third was brought to the company’s attention a month later. According to eEye’s Web site, the fixes are overdue by 94 and 66 days respectively.
Im talking shit ?
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html
notice the amount of 97 days over due warnings ?
97 days is what, 3 months ? overdue
im not sure, but microsoft really do have a blindingly secure os.
0 day attacks ?
hmm lets see
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0EIN/2003_March_18/98871065/p1/ar…
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21027.html
amazing the term gets coined after ms gets one of em.
and by the way 0 day attacks are pretty lame to measure windows security by as most people that are peeved by microsoft security are peeved exactly because microsoft is informed and still does nothing about it.
so screw your 0 day vulnerabilities.. The vulnerabilities that are known and are not fixed are much more of an issue.
The guy bullshits us so openly that he doesn’t even care about his own credibility. It is not even about facts.
Appealing to the mass of the osnews readers wont work.. Most aint interested in this little arguement, and most cant be bothered never mind there are a lot of linux/open source supporters here.. Maybe you should hang out on a windows only site, and chat your shit there.. You will be more readily believed in ms pro sites that much i can guarantee.
and by the way look up the work of hans reiser, aka reiser 4 true he is getting funding and so he should but his work is truly awesome and has the gpl licence attached.
Just to point out that Dopey doesn’t even know what he is talking about.
who was going on about filesystem ? what does the filesystem run on ? what os ? yes thats right linux so stfu. regardless of fs the os is linux, why didnt they design the fs to be run on windows instead ?
The file system issue came up because I stated that Google has no interest in the linux itself, but basically it needs a basic os that its own application can run on top of it. That is they could use FreeBSD, etc… So the file system has nothing to do with windows vs linux. My point was that, google using linux doesn’t mean much for linux. It is a good thing, but it is not a big issue. You see Google had actually two choices there. FreeBSD or Linux. They said that they could go either way, they selected linux because the engineering team had more experience with linux. Now, Dopey has absolutely no idea about what is really going on here. He has no idea what is a distributed system is, how do you build one, etc… He is a linux advocate right? So he goes ahead and tells us the most stupid thing in his own conversation with me. He says, since it is linux we should shut up. Shut up for what? Who said it should be windows anyway. You even doesn’t discuss what I am talking about. You hear Google uses Linux on the news, you get excited about it, cause you feel like Microsoft is evil and all of that crap, and when somebody tries to explain you why it is not a big deal, you couldn’t find anything to say except that it is not windows. Of course it is not windows, it can not be windows, we experts know that already. What I am trying to explain to you is that, your ignorance on the issues are so big that, you don’t even make sense when you attempt to discuss these issues, cause you don’t even know what it means to build a distributed application and the file system used with it. Google is a big big distributed application with its custom build distributed file system. They can get rid of linux easily and replace it with another unix, they can also easily replace it with windows. The main point is not whether they should choose linux, obviously that’s the best choice, the point is that just because google uses linux doesn’t mean anything for a small or a big company. Google is an engineering company, they have the know-how to customize linux to their application in every way they can. In fact, you should say that, if Google uses Linux, it means that you need high-skilled engineers to be able to use it. Cause you have no idea, but these people had to deal with so many details that you can never even dream about. Because you obviously do not have the skills nor the experience on what I am talking about.
My final point is that, again and again, every time I see a linux zealot, I see an average computer user who doesn’t know what he/she is talking about. I just proved to the reader that, you should never trust on what you read on the news. The real life is so much different than that. There is an active campgain against Microsoft by the news media, but it is going to go down eventually. While this goes on, don’t do the risky move at all. Use linux only if you have the skill. I can use linux, because I have the knowledge and skill to be able to do everything I want with it. If you don’t know linux yourself, you will end up paying lots of money to companies like IBM, redhat, novell, etc… So Linux is free, better, etc… are all lies. You would be screwed by the linux community, in fact many linux advocates who know what they are talking about have big incentive to screw you. Because they make money by offering services. If everybody start to use linux, they can build companies that offer services and they can make big bucks. At the end it will be the consumer who is going to be screwed. Just look at what Dopey says, look at closely and you will see that everything he says either doesn’t make sense, or that it is pure lie. You can not find one single statement that makes sense and is really true.
Notice how this Sam person NEVER responds to facts about the ENORMOUS and NUMEROUS security holes in Windows. He is apparently too stupid to click on a link and actually read the link that discusses these holes in Windows, preferring to live in his little fantasy world wherein Microsoft loses no market share due to these same security holes. Maybe he is illiterate and can’t read a link even if he clicks on one?
Hey Sam, keep up the crap! makes for very entertaining reading between system crashes here in the hell that is my job keeping these windoze servers up.
management, what the hell do they know about IT?
oops gotta go now!!
some user just clicked on an email attachment. looks like more overtime for me and our staff that will cost the company mucho mas $$.