By the time Longhorn comes out I’m sure everyone will be sick of the subject “windows vs linux.” Will longhorn finally destroy that pesky linux and mark another decade of Microsoft’s monopoly, or will the underdog come out with a stunning upset and send a multi billion dollar company to it’s grave?Although both those views are pretty far from reality, at least in my opinion, that’s what you’ll hear a lot of. But this article isn’t about that, it’s about one side effect of longhorn which I don’t think has been considered enough…
In the countless articles and reviews of the longhorn builds I’ve noticed one thing people complain about. It’s that side bar. Nobody seems to like it. It’s a practical idea, but it’s said that it takes up too much screen real estate, that it’s an eyesore, and frankly you just don’t need it. Microsoft fires back with the argument that by the time longhorn rolls around everyone will have thirty five inch widescreen LCD monitors, and it won’t be an issue then.
Another issue is the system requirements. I read on one review that they were running a 3.2 gHz processor and it was still a bit sluggish with all the bells and whistles enabled. Generally progress should mean that not only does something look better, the performance is snappier as well. Although I realize it is a very early build with debug symbols in it, and that the screws will be tightened and the lines will be trimmed, it will still take a bit of computer to run.
Saying “a bit of computer” isn’t very objective though. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that Longhorn will run comfortably on a 3.0 gHz processor and somewhat uncomfortably on a 2.5 or 2.7. This is just for the sake of argument, mind you, a complete ballpark figure, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
In any case the point is simply this: to run longhorn it will require new hardware. Which might not be that big of a deal for a home user who upgrades every couple of years anyway, just another box and a shiny new LCD monitor. But for any kind of business it’s a bit more of a problem.
Working as a tech for a small computer shop, which has quite a few small business clients, I have a good view of how small bussinesses buy computers. The fact is, if they don’t absolutely need to, they usually don’t. I know of businesses still running 233’s and 366’s on desktops, with 64 megs of ram, and windows 98 as their operating system. Yet they probably won’t replace those computers until the processors finally fizzle out. It’s just smart business; why pay more for something new when what you have does everything you need?
And so we come to Longhorn, an operating system that, if you wish to buy it, you must either already have a nice computer, or you must be willing to pay for a new one. Which is, needless to say, something that many businesses (not just small ones, but enterprises as well I believe, and of course universities and government insitutions) will not be willing to do. What is to be done?
So far I’ve talked a lot about Longhorn and really nothing about Linux. This is where Linux comes in. By the time Longhorn comes out Windows 98 (the latest Microsoft operating system that will run on sub 600 mHz machines comfotably) will be almost a decade old. And will have no longer been supported by Microsoft for a quarter of that time. If a company wants these computers to be anything more than junk, they will have to look for an OS that will run on it, and in that search they will find an obvious answer: Linux.
There has always been a little bit of emphasis in Linux on supporting old hardware. Call it nostalgia, call it being cheap, or, as I prefer, call it good business. Whatever you call it, the point is that you can have a modern operating system on top of outdated hardware and still have a machine that will do exactly what you want, and not be prey to all the viruses and worms that are sure to crop up on an OS which is never patched again.
Some of my very first experiences with Linux were on a Pentium II 166, with 64 megs of RAM. It didn’t run KDE great, but with XFCE, firebird, and abiword I could do everything I need for school no problem.
I’ll admit, when I write I get caught up in the subject matter and sometimes forget to make points, so I’m going to sum it all up for you. Businesses don’t like to spend money. New computers cost money. Therefore it makes sense to try and make the computers you have work. Using ten year old software simply won’t cut, in terms of interoperability and just plain productivity. Therefore you must find software which is modern, will work with the newest software, is cheap enough to warrant not just buying a new computer, and yet will still run on your AMD 333s. The obvious answer to that is linux. With a light window manager and good software it will more than suffice. Especially since by the time Longhorn comes around windows emulation should be much better supported in linux, but mainly, much easier, so you’ll still be able to run that old proprietary software which your company relies on, just in a much better environment.
So who will win? Longhorn or Linux? The answer is neither, there is a place for everything. I can’t predict the future. Maybe a huge hardware breakthrough will happen and a new computer (including monitor) will cost twenty bucks. Maybe when people start putting linux on their old computers they’ll love it so much they’ll become addicted and forget all about windows. And maybe scallops are flyin’ outa me pants.
As is usually the case in this type of article, the author is obligated to give either the Linux community or Microsoft some advice on how to conquer the world. And so in keeping with tradition I’ll dispense the advice presently. For Linux to gain desktop space they have but one obstacle in my mind: make it easy. If you can get Linux installed and everything working absolutely properly it’s great, and I actually prefer using it. However, that is not such an easy thing right now. I think projects like Ark Linux are heading in the right direction, although perhaps taking things to a bit of an extreme. Perhaps the best installer is just a Live CD, like knoppix, with merely the option of copying it to your hard drive. So I don’t actually have any advice I guess, just keep up the good work, and be sure you’re ready when your chance comes.
To Microsoft… I have no advice. If they want advice, they can definitely afford it, and that fact means that they probably don’t need any of mine since they’re doing okay right now.
I don’t expect either OS to “kill” the other, really. In a month and a half I’m leaving on a mission for my church; I’ll be gone for two years with almost no updates on how they computer world is doing, but when I get back, I expect things will be quite different.
About the Author:
Joshua Boyles is a 19 year old computer tech, with intermediate linux skills and a lot of windows experience, who lives in the USA. He’s dabbled with Linux for a couple of years, and hasn’t destroyed anything, so he still likes it. He’s dabbled in windows for about seven or eight years, and has
destroyed some things, but he gets paid for it, so he still likes it.
If linux was as easy as windows to install maybe they will instal linux, but for the moment if you’re not a geek IT’S HARD TO INSTAL LINUX on a computer. So if nothing really change, i think small business will prefer to change their computer and work on longhorn…
Using Knoppix is soooo difficult! I need to put the CD in the drive and then reboot the PC! Yes, you are right, that’s too difficult for the average computer user.
Or wait, you mean a real distribution, like SuSE. That is a lot more difficult indeed! Insert the DVD, reboot and click NEXT-NEXT-NEXT-NEXT-NEXT-FINISS. Yes, one is a fool if one thinks that the average computer-literate small-business person will be able to accomplish this extraordinary difficult task… *cough*
Btw. I don’t see the problem with running XP on a P300/128 because it runs just fine on my PII/350/128. It’s the RAM that makes the difference, and a little the applications. On that PC it would not be recommended to use OO-quickstart, MS-Office bar, antivirus, Logitech drivers, WinZip Tray, Nero shell integration, ……….
“It has never been the case in the past. Never. Pick any operating system, Windows, Apple, Solaris, Linux, AIX, Netware, any one. With every new version of every one of these operating systems there has been an increased system requirement, ”
I know of one, OpenVMS. When I upgraded my Alpha servers to VMS 7.3-1 and enabled/tuned the XFC caching, my production cycles sped along approximately 20% faster without any changes to hardware. None.
The cycles include extensive Oracle database transaction table lookups and updates, financial data computation, and similar heavy lifting.
A lot of this ‘misinformation’ comes from Microsoft itself. Look at the minimum specs from Microsofts own website:
300 MHz processor
128 meg of RAM
1.5 gigabytes of hard disk space
The very site you linked states those are the “recommended” specs, with minimum being:
233 MHz CPU
64MB RAM (w/ limited performance/features)
1.5 GB HD (as you stated)
All said, I had a better computer (than either min. or recommended) 6 years ago, running Win95 (because 98 wouldn’t install properly in it’s original incarnation).
My father-in-law is currently running XP on a 500MHz system, but of course it’s a full P3 (rather than a Celeron or some such), has 256MB of RAM, and a far larger hard drive than 1.5GB, built out of spare parts. It runs wonderfully, but then he doesn’t use the XP themes (his choice, not mine), and doesn’t use it for much more than most other users (email, IM, scanning photos, music, internet, a few documents once in a while). I stopped using the same system myself quite a few years ago, except for testing software being developed for a 700MHz system that’s roughly 4 years old now.
Technically, the system may run. But there is a big difference between running and being useful. Load XP onto a machine with those specs and see how painful it is to use.
I’d recommend:
1.5+ GHz processor
512 meg of RAM
20 gigabyte hard disk
Depending on the user, I’d recommend a minimum of a 400MHz CPU with 256MB and a 20GB hard disk. For someone looking to do something more complicated than most users, I’d scale the processor and RAM up according to their use, and the hard drive according to their needs. Additionally, I only really recommend the 20GB hard disk because it’s becoming harder to find smaller disks and the cost per megabyte is higher even at 20GB than at higher levels (but better than it would be if you could find 8-18GB drives).
On the other hand, if someone had a computer that didn’t meet those levels, I’d simply look at what they have and see if it would be best to simply put a basic NAT box with minimal firewall in front of it. Someone that’s basically happy with their 233MHz PC running Win98SE (which, at the time of it’s release, I never recommended for less than a P2, though I’ve seen it run fine on some P1 computers) probably shouldn’t try to upgrade their system unless they’re willing to buy a whole new computer, but they should definitely have the appropriate software to protect the system, and something to shield them from the various attacks that may come through open ports.
On the other hand, if they want to run Linux, by all means let them. In most cases they’ll still have to look around to find the appropriate software to run smoothly in their limited environment. You’re not going to run the world’s flashiest window manager on a box that runs at a division of 10 the MHz of a current cheap/average computer, and a good portion of XP’s increased requirements come because they added a flashy window manager (and it doesn’t get rid of all of the overhead just because you disable theming; not that XP’s window manager is the world’s flashiest, either).
“For gods sake man please let Be Inc. rest in peace. It was a mismanaged company with an egomaniac at the helm. THATS what killed Be, not Apple and certainly not MS”
Windows vs. Linux… it’s not a fair comparison. This comment is in this thread to remember the fact that microsoft will try to advantage any other platform not just technologicaly, there will be always other facts not technical related.
MS will use any trick available to preserve it’s share, they are filling suits with everybody for any thing, they have money and time to do this, but emerging companies haven’t it. With the Software Patents enforce this will be an isue for any new compani, product, technology.
You can se the MS tricky practices in drivers, hardware, OEM, etc.
Linux and any other OS are not subject only to a normal market situation, any competitor (even linux) faces an enviroment filled with Microsoft sided advantages.
Linux not only need polish it’s technology and usability, needs tools to break all pro-ms enviroment variables and infrastructure.
And it was truth, Be decisions slowly killed itself, but MS practices can be considered as a grace shot.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=67
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=681
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4464
I guess it all comes down to what one’s used to. As if no one has ever done professional job until we got to work on >500 MHz computers. Which brings me to why I write in here:
I am not really a friend of changing computers. Up to the point that after about 7 years, I will be dumping my trusty home computer, a Pentium 233 with 160 MB or RAM and a mediocre Matrox Millenium with no 3D and just 4 MB of VRAM, and “upgrading” to a blazing “fast” Apple iMac DV 400 MHz with 600 MB of RAM.
I have never used anything but Windows and Mac OS before, and would like to put the old P233 to use as a computer to just play with new OSs, see what they are like and learn a bit of them. But I am seeing how even those that speak about “obsolete” computers refer to even faster ones than the one I am upgrading to.
So my question is, what the heck I can install in there, that has a GUI (if you do not ming I will go step by step) and does not suck. I do not care about drop shadows, SVG icons or other eyecandy, but still want a little bit more than a bulky typewriter (heck! I have done heavy Photoshop and lighty 3D work on that calculator and now it seems like we always needed a 2 GHz to play MP3s!).
The only thing I am open to upgrade is the graphic card, but have in mind that there is no AGP in there, so I do not really know if there are PCI ones in the market yet (that are not pretty much the same that I already have).
I will appreciate whatever piece of advice any of you can give me (except for anything related to aquariums or throwing it away) on how to approach new OSs.
Thanks for the advise…it where only four..no big deal
Certainly better than the 28-31 you claimed.
Oh..i did not anted to overflow you with information..sorry
I’m sure that’s the case, after all, the information on the section of the site you linked to was only slightly pathetic, and certainly didn’t back up your claims. At least the bulletins section is claimed to be updated bi-weekly rather than to be simply “timely” information.
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/index.html
Its not about third party software but about the OS
yet they list both.
Please read for once and look at the status of treath,
are ther remote/local exploits etc.
Yes, the three OS X exploits are 2 remote and 1 local, with the local being a status elevation that can be used once you gain remote access.
False, BSD and Linux are far more secure than any Windows version.
Then we come around to the old saying “Generalizations are always false” (I love that one, being a generalization itself). BSD and Linux, when administrated properly, can be very secure systems (especially BSD, at least by popular measure, because of it’s low number of discovered vulnerabilities), and Windows can be as well. BSD, Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X can all be gaping insecure holes on the network when administered improperly. Guess which system is most likely to be administered improperly?
The user is important but if your program get shipped with serious securtiy flaws, holes, and badly configured firewall the user is not to blame.
If the system shipped yesterday, you might have a point. Unfortunately, very few systems have ever come with a solid default configuration, and even fewer have remained secure for years without administrative intervention. Windows XP shipped 3 years ago, there’s no doubt in my mind that the most serious security risks coming from XP boxes are due to user ignorance and/or carelessness.
Windows XP per default shares a folder called “My Shared Docs” etc.
I have connected to dozens of Windows 200 / XP /2003 machines with: smbclient -L //123.123.123.123 and after that smbmount //123/123/123/123/C$ f.i.
That’s all well and good given that you should never be able to connect to an SMB share when you’re not on the local network with the user. Of course, there have been patches related to SMB vulnerabilities (though I’m not completely sure about 2003 Server), but even your most basic NAT box should stomp that out.
Of course, the fact that you managed an smbmount of C$ has nothing to do with “My Shared Docs”, any more than the fact that you managed to do it without supplying authentication to any of those operating systems (which is just a sign of a really bad configuration).
“Apart the need to be an programmer to setup Linux (im talking about final end users)”
hmmmmm yesssss… programmers are operating systems experts indeed… care to explain exactly where programming skills help? or did you just hear someone say that and have absolutely no idea what youre talking about?
“the users must sacrifice producivity, due THERE IS NO PROFESIONAL APPLICATIONS over linux”
really… because those expert computer users need all those advanced ms office features all the time… heck, that explains why sun microsystems is where it is now. they dont use any microsoft software. there goes productivity, no more documentation, no more presentations.. dang how do they manage? wont even mention offices that migrated to open office and friends. they must really miss that flight simulator feature in word now.
“GIMP vs Photoshop is the same as Notepad compared to Ms Word.”
what an odd comparison. i did have the feeling you had no idea what you were talking about.
“over windows i can even spell a word “email” and inmediatly i can write an email, but in linux enviroment i need to click 10 times to do the same”
interesting… can you detail both processes? in the meantime, check this out: $ echo “whee” | mail [email protected]. wow! i just typed that and it send an email! i must have ms office installed here and didnt even know!
“Yes Windows XP let alone Longhorn ain’t gonna cut it on these POS systems. Sorry. Technology moves forward my friends.”
We are talking here about minimum requirements, some of us had a bunch of old technology on what we found fun and like test everything we can. Obviusly some software will not run, but we learn on practice, not just guessing.
And for my mom and dad, that 400ix with Mandrake 9.2 are enought and usable, I’ll not pay an MS licence for such use, and anyway, XP doesn’t run acceptable on It. It came with W98 preinstaled, but WDM audio driver don’t work properly (even after tried around 6 diferent versions – even from Cirrus Logic and eMachines -), then I dropped it. Mandrake did the work flawles. But I had a choice, and that’s what matters.
With 6 computer just in my house ranging from 480SX 25Mhz to P4 HT 2.8 Mhz it’s not just bla, bla what I wrotte. It’s just experience, and MS is alive just in two of these, for Gamming and ’cause my work (MS Products).
>Certainly better than the 28-31 you claimed.
I was trying to point out that Windows has a lot of security issues in history and today. LInux and BSD have far less. ITs not about exact numbers. I will take your point.
> I’m sure that’s the case, after all, the information on >the section of the site you linked to was only slightly
>pathetic, and certainly didn’t back up your claims.
I linked to the top page, i assumd the reader could click trough the page itself. Sorry for that i did not know you where not capable of that.
> yet they list both.
Yes BUT we where discussing Windows not third party software.
>
\>Then we come around to the old saying “Generalizations
> are always false” (I love that one, being a
> generalization itself). BSD and Linux, when
> administrated properly, can be very secure systems
It is about the way the software behaves when its first installed, i pointed out that Linux and BSD are far more
better secured when installed than Windows.
> (especially BSD, at least by popular measure, because of
> it’s low number of discovered vulnerabilities), and
What a crap, that has nothing to do with i. Weak answer.
Lame.
> Windows can be as well.
No i can not its in the news all day even MS got their source code stolen from there own srvers..come on.
>BSD, Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X can all be gaping
>insecure holes on the network when administered >improperly.
Off course but again it is about their state when freshly installed, besides that Windows user a mostly newbies and
non-tech computer users, Linux and BSD users are mostly better instructed.
>Windows XP shipped 3 years ago, there’s no doubt in my
> mind that the most serious security risks coming from XP
> boxes are due to user ignorance and/or carelessness.
User ignorance? how is that? Most security issues with Windows are because of virusses and trojan wich can
exist because of bad OS design by the builder.
>but even your most basic NAT box should stomp that out.
NAT has nothing to do with security.
NAT tries to hide internal IP adresses but good scanner
are easily go trough. Please read more about security
and issues if you think a NAT box will help you to protect against crackers.
>Of course, the fact that you managed an smbmount of C$ >has nothing to do with “My Shared Docs”, any more than
> the fact that you managed to do it without supplying
> authentication to any of those operating systems (which
> is just a sign of a really bad configuration).
As you know C$ is an adminstrative share and should not be
viewable for Windows werkstations/servers, however Samba does show them, great design.
I connected more then once to “”My Shared Docs” folder when scanning IP ranges, all without password.
As far as i know you do not need any password for My shared Docs per defalut, i could be wrong dough..
Your old computer are enougth for graphical OS like BEOS and QNX, you can try MenuetOS and SkyOS. All those are fairy Simply to install.
As for Beos you can use Beos PE, Max edition or XBeos (Live CD). Your matrox would work fine.
QNX works as a standalone OS whit it own partition and filesystem, within Windows filesystem, and also as a Live CD. I guess QNX had matrox support (I haven’t any matrox).
SkyOS 4 was the last publicity avaibable and also works as a Live CD.
Even if your Graphic card is not supported al of these can work with VESA drivers.
Menuet is a tiny OS, fits in a Diskette but it has a Graphical enviroment, can work on a Fat 32 disk also.
BEOS, QNX and Menuet can live alongside with Windows.
Open source OSes give you TOTAL control over the OS, right down to the source code if you want it, not just what some closed source company will allow you to do. The OS is actually yours, as opposed to simply being allowed to use under terms of somebody’s EULA.
That is what attracts people to open source.
I linked to the top page, i assumd the reader could click trough the page itself. Sorry for that i did not know you where not capable of that.
You linked to a seperate, partially related section with a very small amount of relevant information, not the top page. Obviously I was capable of looking around for the relevant section, but then your comments made it apparent that you may not have been looking at the same section.
Yes BUT we where discussing Windows not third party software.
Of course, and I was simply pointing out that, in addition to numerous vulnerabilities for numerous operating systems, there are numerous vulnerabilities in applications, many of which are cross-platform, which could also be at issue. Additionally, many of those applications, 3rd party or not, are shipped with some of the operating systems we have been discussing.
It is about the way the software behaves when its first installed, i pointed out that Linux and BSD are far more
better secured when installed than Windows.
And this has not always been the case (nor is it always the case today). Linux distros have certainly gotten better at shipping a more secure OS than they did 3 years ago, or 10 years ago. On the other hand, when someone hands you a CD with Linux or BSD on it, you have no better assurance that it’s secure than if it were a Windows disc. You either trust the distribution or you learn to secure it yourself. Similarly, the level of installation you choose for a Linux or BSD install can be a determining factor in the security of the system, as any number of servers and applications may be installed with vulnerabilities based on configuration and version.
> (especially BSD, at least by popular measure, because of
> it’s low number of discovered vulnerabilities), and
What a crap, that has nothing to do with i. Weak answer.
Lame.
As opposed to your strong counter-argument. Again, it all comes down to administration, version, and configuration. OpenBSD is considered more secure simply because vulnerabilities are rarely found. This is helped by the fact that it’s maintainers don’t include the newest software, instead letting vulnerabilities in external products be found in other systems (ie systems running FreeBSD, Linux, etc). Still, they managed to have some rather serious (especially by their standards) vulnerabilities discovered in the last couple of years. The nature of security is that you can only secure it to the best of your knowledge and capabilities.
> Windows can be as well.
No i can not its in the news all day even MS got their source code stolen from there own srvers..come on.
So, because it has been configured in an insecure manner it suddenly can not be secured? By this measure, there is no secure OS in the world. Then again, if your idea of a secure OS is based on what the news tells you ever day, good luck.
Off course but again it is about their state when freshly installed, besides that Windows user a mostly newbies and
non-tech computer users, Linux and BSD users are mostly better instructed.
I believe I stated that last point myself, though in different language. The first point can be turned against you if you simply look at the differences between the average Linux distro and one of the handful of “secure” Linux distros. In this case, it not only depends on administration, but on your own personal definition of secure. Apparently, Linux as shipped by most distributors, is not secure enough for the government (any more than Windows is, take a look at the certified configuration of NT4 or 2k sometime).
>Windows XP shipped 3 years ago, there’s no doubt in my
> mind that the most serious security risks coming from XP
> boxes are due to user ignorance and/or carelessness.
User ignorance? how is that? Most security issues with Windows are because of virusses and trojan wich can
exist because of bad OS design by the builder.
and the majority of the viruses and trojans are released after MS releases a patch and security bulletin (the latter of which usually contains enough information to exploit the vulnerability). Additionally, security holes are not usually caused by a design flaw, but rather a flaw in the implementation, which is obviated by your use of the term builder (since a builder and designer are different people in most other industries). If the flaw were in the design, a patch would be far less than what is required to fix the problem. (then again, due to poor implementation and a design that pre-dates the need for internet access on desktop computers, it could be said that the number of patches will eventually lead to a necessary redesign)
>but even your most basic NAT box should stomp that out.
NAT has nothing to do with security.
NAT tries to hide internal IP adresses but good scanner
are easily go trough. Please read more about security
and issues if you think a NAT box will help you to protect against crackers.
Most NAT boxes have basic firewall capabilities (because it’s cheap to implement on the hardware required for a NAT box). Additionally, SMB is not supposed to be routed through a NAT box, therefore you should not be able to scan or mount SMB shares through it. If your NAT box routes SMB data to the outside world, perhaps you need to go with a better vendor.
As you know C$ is an adminstrative share and should not be
viewable for Windows werkstations/servers, however Samba does show them, great design.
I connected more then once to “”My Shared Docs” folder when scanning IP ranges, all without password.
As far as i know you do not need any password for My shared Docs per defalut, i could be wrong dough..
The shared documents folder should require a user account on the machine (but I could be wrong, I haven’t looked into it beyond locking down my network at home). Still, your previous statement included mounting the administrative C$ share, and regardless of whether or not you should see it, you should not be able to mount it without an account on the machine. Of course, if someone left an empty password, enabled the guest account, or whatever, it’s not hard to get in. I certainly don’t have any enabled accounts with the name “Administrator”, “Guest”, or “”, but I know plenty of people with at least one of the three.
Additionally, even if you gained access to “My Shared Docs” without a password, you should not have write access to the folder without access to an account on the machine, and (as far as I can remember) none of the accounts use it by default as their “My Documents” folder.
Then again, even with all of this wonderful, easy-to-access design, SMB shares don’t work the way half the users expect them to in mixed networks (even, or especially, networks consisting of Win9x and NT-based computers). It’s amazing how many people have trouble accessing files that they believe they should have access to over a network.
“For gods sake man please let Be Inc. rest in peace. It was a mismanaged company with an egomaniac at the helm.”
Um, Gates is not an egomaniac??
“THATS what killed Be, not Apple and certainly not MS”
Then why did Microsoft settle? MS admitted no wrongdoing, but they certainly were happy to hand over that cash to make it go away.
Lets leave the rest it more of a i think you think debate..
>Most NAT boxes have basic firewall capabilities (because it’s
NAT means Network Address Translation, so if you talk to my about a NAT box is assume you mean a box that does NAT.
The only basic firewalling NAT does is hiding IP from the outside that is it.
>If your NAT box routes SMB data to the outside world,
I bet i will not. I do not run Windows
>perhaps > you need to go with a better vendor.
I do not need to buy a machine that is capable of NAT, its very very basic stuff all you need is a 486/PI with some RAM and tow NICs. My NAT box is BEHIND my Firewall/Portsentry. My Vendor is Linux/BSD. I do not use SMB server only the client to connect to Windows PC on public networks.
Just after 5 IP scans i was able to mount a C and C$ without password. This is a Windows XP machine BTW.
ps. i DO NEVER temper with user machines nor do i use their data or storage, i only do this to point out to people that Windows is per default unsecure and should be used with caution.
———————————————————————
session request to 212 failed (Called name not present)
Password:
Domain=[WERKGROEP] OS=[Windows 5.1] Server=[Windows 2000 LAN Manager]
Sharename Type Comment
——— —- ——-
IPC$ IPC Externe IPC
print$ Disk Printerstuurprogramma’s
SharedDocs Disk
C Disk
ADMIN$ Disk Beheer op afstand
C$ Disk Standaard-share
Printer Printer hp psc 2100 series
Server Comment
——— ——-
Workgroup Master
——— ——-
I have Debian installed and in Debian I can actually do (almost) all the same things that I can do in WinXP. Only, I like my Debian better than my WinXP. I find I’m spending much more time in my Debian system. Debian (both in WindowMaker & in XFCE4) is simply easier to use, for me. When the Longhorn comes, I’ll expect that I’ll wipe out my Win32 partition alltogether, and start using Debian exclusively. Linux just seems to work for me.
[root@p4 web]# smbmount //111.111.111.111/C /mnt/floppy
1700: session request to 111.111.111.111 (Called name not present)
1700: session request to 111 failed (Called name not present)
Password:
[root@p4 web]# cd /mnt/floppy
[root@p4 floppy]# ls
AUTOEXEC.BAT MPSetupXP.exe Program Files
Bootfont.bin MSDOS.SYS RECYCLER
boot.ini msnaddin.exe Setup.exe
CONFIG.SYS My Music System Volume Information
debugInstaller.txt NTDETECT.COM uninstall.exe
Documents and Settings ntldr WINDOWS
Hersteld document.txt pagefile.sys WindowsXP-KB823980-x86-NLD.exe
hiberfil.sys Phenomedia AG Xi.exe
IO.SYS Prive
Completly readble/writable.
>Most NAT boxes have basic firewall capabilities (because it’s
NAT means Network Address Translation, so if you talk to my about a NAT box is assume you mean a box that does NAT.
The only basic firewalling NAT does is hiding IP from the outside that is it.
>If your NAT box routes SMB data to the outside world,
I bet i will not. I do not run Windows
>perhaps > you need to go with a better vendor.
I do not need to buy a machine that is capable of NAT, its very very basic stuff all you need is a 486/PI with some RAM and tow NICs. My NAT box is BEHIND my Firewall/Portsentry. My Vendor is Linux/BSD. I do not use SMB server only the client to connect to Windows PC on public networks.[/i]
Exactly my point. Most people don’t build a box just to do NAT, because it requires a base level of hardware that can support so much more than just NAT. Additionally, as I already stated, SMB requests are usually not forwarded from outside the NAT, because they are meant to be used on internal networks, meaning that they should not go through the network address translation. Of course, if you were to configure a basic NAT that simply translated the addresses, it would be up to your computer to realize it was receiving an SMB request from outside the network and either deny the request or ignore it (which most Windows computers will do, except for a bug that was fixed quite some time ago, or a user configuring an option that most users will never need).
Beyond security considerations, most bridges, NATs, firewalls, and so on don’t permit SMB traffic to pass through because it’s traffic that doesn’t need to be routed past these devices under most circumstances. Then again, since everyone loves to route everything over TCP/IP (something SMB was not meant to do), it takes a little more work to determine what you’re receiving (like, say, knowing what port it’s directed at), but it’s still a minimal fix, even if your PC is completely open to these problems (which wouldn’t be the case if the Windows machine was kept up to date).
“Longhorn will run on medium range computers of today, however, you will get stuck with none of the features taht make it longhorn including Aero. rather, you will have a win 2k look and feel.”
Oh really? What are you basing this on, eh? Articles you’ve read? True, longhorn CAN boot on older hardware, but it laggs horribly on anything worse than a p4. I know, I have the latest leaked build, mmkay? Justify your comment plz.
Open source OSes give you TOTAL control over the OS, right down to the source code if you want it, not just what some closed source company will allow you to do. The OS is actually yours, as opposed to simply being allowed to use under terms of somebody’s EULA.
This is all fine for me under certain conditions. I write software, I learned to do so under Linux (~8 years ago), so if I want to, I can open up the source files and mess with different programs.
The point is simply that this is not what I spend most of my time doing on any given computer. At work I spend most of my time developing software for Windows computers, not because we dictated that it run on Windows, but because our customers did so. The rest of my time is spent writing code that may need to be platform independent at some point in the future, and/or code that needs to run on Solaris. When it comes down to it, that’s about 8 hours a day that I’m dealing with code in one way or another, without ever looking at code for the operating system itself. When it comes down to it, if I had to modify code for the operating system while I was getting paid, I’d probably have to go through the legal department to get permission to do so (the reason being that for a great deal of open source, especially “free software”, there very definitely are a number of restrictions involved in modifying that source).
At home, on the other hand, I may do some of this here and there, as it suits my needs, but more often than not someone else has already done the work required. I still have one Windows PC in my home, though, for 2 very specific reasons:
1) games… do I really need to explain?
2) my wife needs specific MS software to get through classes taught on that software. This is especially true when the school requires her to learn how to use specific software (or pass a test using that software) to graduate. If she’s taking a class that’s supposed to teach her to use Excel or Access, what good does it do if I sit her in front of another program that does (more or less) the same thing? It only helps if I do that after she’s passed her class, so that she’s aware that there is other software that does the same thing, and that at some point she’ll have to learn the general concepts rather than the specifics of the application if she wishes to work in a field that requires it (much like I had to learn the MS applications at some point after using other applications in the 80s and 90s).
That is what attracts people to open source.
If that is true, then it’s a truly limited audience. Not many people (relatively speaking) are interested in breaking out the source code for app XYZ, the kernel, or the window manager. On the other hand, people hear “free” and think in terms of “no cost”, and they become interested, especially if
a) they have experience buying software (rather than just getting it with their computer)
b) they’re aware of the penalties for software “piracy”
For most people, what’s available in open source covers the majority of their uses. It needs some work here and there, and there are large areas in which it does not properly address people’s needs, but for the average users it’s fine, and for people interested in operating system research, it’s more than likely an excellent place to start (since you have access to the internals of the OS; though you may not find a lot of projects really reaching the cutting-edge unless you’re already in a research environment).
What really matters is that people know it’s out there, and right now that happens most in areas where people start looking for alternatives. There are still a lot of people not even looking, and they’re hard to reach if they don’t have a significant problem already. I don’t know how best to get through to these people, except to do it at the ground floor, by introducing people to these systems on a 1-to-1 basis, even if it’s simply through Knoppix or similar CD-based installations. On the other hand, I know that insulting (and assaulting) them for using Windows isn’t the way to do it. Furthermore, assuming that the people that might defend Windows on this board and others “don’t get it” or “are missing the point” may be, in itself, missing the point.
Many of us do get it, but taking up the rallying cry every time someone makes a comparison isn’t going to make improvements on either side of the fence. If people ignore security because someone told them an OS is “more secure” than Windows, they’re a target for future attack (as every Linux system was in the mid-90s when the first worm hit the OS, because many users assumed that just because none had hit meant that none would). Open source doesn’t solve every problem, or even every person’s problems, it simply solves the core problem with closed source: an individual with the desire and ability to fix their own problem can not always do so. The benefit of this is that sometimes there were a lot of other people with the same problem that didn’t have the ability to fix it, and if that person that does have the ability releases it, they can all benefit. There’s no guarantee, though, that someone with that ability will encounter the same problem (though the same could be said about closed source, it is beneficial to the company to hire people that have the ability to do so; additionally, having open source means that you have the ability to find someone with the ability to fix it and pay that person to do so, though not many people can judge whether or not a particular person taking their money really has that capability themselves).
“(especially BSD, at least by popular measure, because of it’s low number of discovered vulnerabilities)”
PainKiller please proof this wild assertion with sources.
The number of local vulnerabilities (in system calls) in the Linux kernel and BSD kernels is about the same: about ~3-4 per year with FreeBSD being slightly higher, NetBSD being about the same, and OpenBSD being slightly less.
Source: I’ve once investigated this in a discussion with Bascule here on OSnews.com, around february. Can’t find the thread though.
To the person saying Windows runs on all hardware: That is brilliant news! Please install it on my Z80, my 20 inch monitor and my Philips ghettoblaster. TIA! While you’re at it, also please install it native on a SUN SPARC (no can do), SGI MIPS (no can do), Alpha (only old versions of Windows) or Apple PPC (no can do)…
“1) games… do I really need to explain?”
<a href=http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq>Yes
Hehe
http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq
what is truth is:
1. Windows as dekstop has 90% of worldwide market
2. Linux has nothing, just spechs and empty arguments “windows is insecure, windows is satanic, mr gates is the devil”. With this kind of attitude from the linux communitie we are preparing for another decades of MICROSOFT monopoly.
Please linux communitie, stop to talk to much, and CODE a real desktop.
I swear the day than Linux has a DECENT desktop and profesional applications i will switch inmediatly.
It doesn’t matter whether Longhorn needs a brand new high-end PC or not to run – what *is* important that the vast majority of desktops PCs sold around the world (and almost all brand name desktops) STILL ship ONLY with Windows pre-installed. In 2 years time, almost all new desktop PCs will probably still come with Longhorn pre-installed and then we’ve got about 3 years after that before Longhorn becomes the world’s #1 desktop OS simply due to shipments of new PCs.
The fight here is for some major PC OEMs to be willing to give the customer a choice of OS (or even no OS [which I think is the way to go – OEM washes their hands of all software support and the user installs the OS they wants]) on their desktop PCs. Until that happens, we can go on about Linux being easy to install, the desktop being friendly etc. etc., but it’ll never get more than 5% of market share until it comes at least an OS pre-install option by the likes of Dell, HP, IBM etc. None of those big OEMs wants to lose their volume discounts from Microsoft (yes, they’re not supposed to threaten this, but you can be sure MS will find a way to punish OEMs that ship a desktop PC without Windows on it).
>Windows XP targets home users who do not have common sense.
If I’m not mistaken a majority of this whole discussion was that Linux was so great and people should switch over to Linux, yada yada ya.
Now I am a huge supporter of Linux and Open Source projects but if you had your average desktop or even business user switching over to Linux you would still have the same virus and worm problem that you have on Windows.
The only reason why Linux does not have that problem now is because 70% or more of the worlds desktop users are not using Linux! You would have to be a fool to think that just because you are using Linux you are safer from outside threats! Those threats will still be there because there is no perfect operating system.
You can see this as more and more individuals started migrating from Windows to OSX, if I am not mistaken there have been 2 huge virus scares this week alone, why? Because more users are using that sytem so there is a greater chance that someone will discover a bug.
As I said before I am a huge supporter of Linux but you can’t change peoples minds by going around yelling untruthful statements. Seriously, for once I would like to see the fan boys just take a step back and realize that Linux is not better than Windows and Windows is not better than Linux. They are both operating systems that do completely different things depending on the users needs. You can’t go around comparing apples to oranges.
“The number of local vulnerabilities (in system calls) in the Linux kernel and BSD kernels is about the same: about ~3-4 per year with FreeBSD being slightly higher”
If you’re suggesting FreeBSD is less secure than Linux, I definitely want to see some sources on that.
“Not many people (relatively speaking) are interested in breaking out the source code for app XYZ, the kernel, or the window manager. On the other hand, people hear “free” and think in terms of “no cost”, and they become interested, especially if
a) they have experience buying software (rather than just getting it with their computer)
b) they’re aware of the penalties for software “piracy””
Actually, I wasn’t emphasizing the source specifically, just the greater control. But by god, yours was one of the longest posts I’ve ever seen in here. You should save that for the hardcore zealots, I was just making a minor point.
Micrsoft are their own biggest enemy,
for most people Windows XP is good enough.
For most people Windows 2000, Windows 98 and even Windows 95 are good enough and that combined user base is far bigger competition than Linux and Macintosh combined.
Microsoft need a new realease to give the OEMs like Dell to ship the latest greatest and more profitable version, and the OEMs cannot wait for an excuse to sell even more expensive high powered machines.
I expect direct sales will be slim and OEM sales alone will not be enough. if Microsoft is to stay out of financial trouble (cant have people lose confidence in their shares) it will badly need to expand in other areas and make a success out of the X-Box.
“If you’re suggesting FreeBSD is less secure than Linux, I definitely want to see some sources on that.”
No, i am not suggesting that since i cannot compare a kernel with an OS nor do i find the compare of an OS which has a base + ports easy, honest when comparing with a OS which doesn’t have that distintion.
Also, i have already said what i have compared (and nothing more than that): i have found out that in the last year there have been slightly more vulnerabilities found in the FreeBSD kernel than in the Linux kernel. I have also provided information about how you can find this; unfortunately i haven’t been able to re-find this.
The reason why i compared kernels is 1) because loads, if not almost all the software which runs on a Linux kernel-based OS is also able to run on *BSD. If you want MySQL on Linux, and MySQL is vulnerable, you cannot say Linux is insecure because of that since MySQL could just as well run on FreeBSD or Windows XP. Because of such complexity, i stand releaved on the complex aspect which OS is more secure though i am perfectly aware there’s loads of generalizing arguments available. 2) everything but the kernel is easy to make harder, if not practically impossible, to intrude with bunches of methods available: stack protectors, ACL’s, privseps, chroots, etc which are both available on the subjects we’re discussing (plus Linux is only kernel is important here). That task lies for a big part at the desk of the admin(s), not at the OS, they provide it merely. However the kernel’s syscall’s cannot be protected since those run as root, cannot be privsep’ed (maybe in a microkernel it can be done), chroot makes no sense either nor does the stack protector. So those are extremely important _and_ unique.
> 2. Linux has nothing, just spechs and empty arguments “windows is insecure, windows is satanic, mr gates is the devil”. With this kind of attitude from the linux communitie we are preparing for another decades of MICROSOFT monopoly.
what is the linux “communitie”? linus? alan? andrew? who? can you please post links to these “spechs”? and what do you mean by “nothing”? linux doesnt exist?
> Please linux communitie, stop to talk to much, and CODE a real desktop. I swear the day than Linux has a DECENT desktop and profesional applications i will switch inmediatly.
can you define “decent” and explain why (obviously) you think explorer.exe is decent and gnome, kde and other window managers arent?
all i hear from you is crap. why dont YOU “stop to talk to much”?
A few things about Windows XP:
– Runs great on my P3-450 w/192MB of RAM. The only app that is slow to me is Firefox (an open source app, go figure)
– I can make it faster and stable than ANY Linux distro running Gnome/KDE
– It is possible (and quite trivial) to run Windows worm/trojan/virus/spyware free.
I worked in an environment where we had 1,000 Dell’s, all the same model, with every system running a ghosted drive. So Everyone started out with the same setup and same hardware. The desktops were locked down, So about all you could do was create bookmakrs in your web browser.
Windows was NOT stable. I hear of some people running it and it being rock solid for them, the remainding 95% of the workforce and home users don’t see this. I have seen a wipe the hard drive and restore from CD crap out on a Dell Box. Let’s not even talk about what happens on a system that has been cobbled togther.
REALITY: For most users Windows is not stable.
It may be subjective, but my Linux Installs seem alot more stable, even when Windows has probelms with flakey harware, Linux just RUNS on the stuff. I don’t think you can credibly argue that Windows XP is more stable than Mandrake 10.0 or Fedora Core 2. Or even for that matter RedHat 8.
It is not “trivial” for the average user to run a Windows system, trojan and virus free.
FOR WINDOWS: Install adaware, install spybot s&d install Zone Alarm, install Norton Anti-virus. Then manually update and run adaware and spybot every week. Every week check for security updates for windows, (even if you have Automatic Update enabled). Then read Znet for an hour every week. Because sometime in the next six months, something new will come out. I.E. 3 years ago spyware, 2 years ago Malware, 1 Year ago hijackware. We are due for a new windows hinderances. So your “average user” must keep up on this, OR wait till their machine crashes or crawls along and then find out what the new plauge is and what new program like AdAware will fix it.
FOR LINUX: Learn to only run as a regular user, only use ROOT to install new software. And run apt, urpmi, or Redhat update service on a weekly basis.
I know which one seems simpler to me.
Understand I know what I am talking about, I clean up 4 to 8 windows system every month. Doctors, Pastors, Secretaries, they all don’t have a clue, they just want to use their computer. You buy it, you plug it in. You answer a couple of questions for the wizard about your Internet Provider and away you go….into the hell of spyware and everthing else Micorosft does not protect you against as you run as a ROOT user on the most popular OS with the most unpatched secuirty holes out there, along with bad security setting defaults.
After reading the article I went and looked at some screenshots of Longhorn. Looks verrry claustrophobic.
For me personally it makes no difference whatsoever.
I use Linux exclusively. Have been for 5 years now.
Although I provide tech support for Win95-XP… and will have to provide it for Longhorn when it comes around.
I have absoluteley no interest in MS developments because I can do everything I want to do with Linux. Aside from that, I just plain prefer it over Windows.
As far as who’s going to win? Who cares? As long as developers keep cranking out distros it makes no difference to me how many people are using it.
I have been and will continue to further their efforts the best I can by sending money to those projects I have an interest in.
The reason I’ve settled in with Debian (1 year now) is that I think the developers and the community behind it will always be here plugging away. I think they love Linux so much that their commitment is here for the long haul.
So, as to who will win, it just doesn’t matter. As long as dedicated people who really love Linux stick around, Linux will never go away. It may never become as popular on the desktop as Windows, but it’s not going away.
I guess it’s a selfish attitude, but as long as it’s here for me and I am able to give in return financial backing when I can, I really don’t care who else uses it.
As for making Linux easier… well “easy” is a relative term. To me Linux is easy. Installing Debian wasn’t the nightmare I’d been led to believe it was. It’s not near the breeze that Mandrake and others are to install, but it’s also not as hard as it’s made out to be. After that, the basic useage is pretty similar.
So, for some, easy is what Linux is. For others it’s very difficult. Computer use in general comes easy for many people while others never quite “get it”. Those in tech support know exactly what I mean.
I don’t think it matters how easy it gets. People get comfortable with things a certain way, and they’re very reluctant to change.
I’ve installed Mandrake for a lot of friends and family. A few of them really clicked with it and like it a lot, and a few of them (my mom, for instance) just plain doesn’t want to be bothered. Her computer is how it is. It works. She can do what she likes to do on it, so why change? In her opinion.
Hey, choice is a good thing. In the very least, that’s what Linux has done for the world… given those of us who want it A CHOICE! Life’s good.
Good article Josh. Good luck on your mission. “God be with you ’til we meet again”.
>Now I am a huge supporter of Linux and Open Source projects
Really?
> but if you had your average desktop or even business user
>switching over to Linux you would still have the same virus
>and worm problem that you have on Windows.
Nope.
anymore crap?
i thought it to be a good read.
it’s too bad that such articles always manage to whip people
into a frenzy – bashing linux, microsoft and eachother.
I’m hoping the p2 166 ref is a typo, not an indication of the techlessness of the author, and (RE) what exactly are you going to put on this linux box that you need 10gb of disk space? my last debian setup clocked in at under a gig, with everything you could expect from a full winXP install (graphical desktop, internet browser, im client, email client, media player, remote terminal services (ssh + X), (better) games) plus quite a bit more besides (a full-blown database, secure web server (sorry, but there is no way I’m counting IIS 6 in that catagory – get it out of the kernel), email, news, ftp and DNS servers, sound and image editing software (no sound recorder and MSPaint don’t count – although cooledit and psp or photoshop might), a cd ripper, C/c++ compiler, java, perl, python and php interpreters, a full blown IDE, pdf reading and (more importantly) creating software. All free, legal, and installed as part of the operating system. Admittedly my winex, crossover office and vmware (trial) install might have pushed me over the 1gb mark, but unless you’re running a decent sized server setup (which renders that comparison with winxp irrelevant), or are one of those people who just HAS to press the ‘install everything rather than just everything I want or will use’ button, you’re not going to need 10gb space to install linux. As mentioned above, I got more bang for my buck with a 1gb debian setup than with the full (about 2gb…or was it more?) winxp setup. To each their own, though.
I installed Fedora1 (with 2.6 kernel) on my 166mhz/64mb ram/900MB hdd box and it runs very well. MUCH Faster than the old win98 in the box.
The things is you don’t need all the crap M$ put in windoz. Most of the stuff in windoz is just crap.
I think Linux is going at a great Rate. If Linux Community will just upgrade and add new features to the current set, there is nothing to worry about. I’ve tested the Longhorn Beta and the only thing I’ve seen is a large side bar (that I could run much more efficient rate with Karamba). From my perspective, I don’t need windows for anything other than games and Adobe/Macromedia Products… (director and photoshop).
Actually I was thinking about doing mkreiserfs on my windows partition.
BeOS rules all OS’s ;]
I must be one of the few individuals that uses BeOS as his main OS..
oh dear, you just marked yourself for deletion by the osnews stazi…