There won’t be just one Longhorn Server. Instead, there will be nearly a dozen customizable variants, partners say.
Looking (Way) Ahead to Longhorn Server
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Way to go, MS.
So is a Federation going to supercede a forest now?
I don’t know why there have to be several “editions” of a server. Why can’t they just be add-ons a la SQL Server to a standard server edition? After all, it appears that Windows servers are ALL just intentionaly crippled/stripped down versions of the flagship server product. Is there a reason why Windows 2003 Standard Edition can’t support PAE but Enterprise Edition can? Is there a downside? I don’t see one.
It ALL feels so devious. I can already tell there will be benefits to a pure Windows 2007 domain that will “force” upgrades by introducing features that won’t be backported.
With Windows you don’t have the confusion caused by having it mutate into a multitude of different… Oh wait…
sounds like Linux.. 😉
Except with Linux you install the programs you need and uninstall the ones you don’t. With MS if you want to switch the purpose of the server you can go ahead and reinstall the whole system. Oh joy. At least that is the impression that MS has left so far, since they seem to think that modular thinking is too hard for people to grasp(some article was talking why Windows wasn’t and wouldn’t be modular).
If I were to switch to Linux I would want:
1) A quality product.
2) Stability in the sense that I now have a quality product, there is good documentation, and the company stands by it, and doesn’t introduce a million changes, upgrades, etc.
3) Instead of changing everything every 8 months, can someone stand by something, can we use what we have?
“These Microshit trolls need to read the EULA.”
as if you understand every part of it. its too complicated for anyone but lawyers. the average end users cant be expected to understand all that legal stuff. if you want them to really understand it before even using windows, that by itself is a admission of failure…
…there will be nearly a dozen customizable variants…
Yup! Longhorn for Asia. Longhorn for Europe. Longhorn for North America. Longhorn for South America. Longhorn for…
For every version they have a code base that they will have to support, which is a negative cost driver because they will have to have more people to support the development effort, more people to support help desk calls, more people to fix patches, more people to write device drivers. All of which will get passed on to the consumer through the cost of the software, service agreements, etc…
How can this be good for MS? Reminds me of IBM and what they wanted to do with OS/2. Me thinks they just shot themselves in the foot.
Q: How can this be good for MS?
A:. All of which will get passed on to the consumer through the cost of the software, service agreements, etc…
added note: the costs would be subtle and not upfront
Maybe i’m missing something, but the artical says it in pretty simple fasion, Longhorn Searver will be what MS calls Role based, you pick which parts you want to use and install them, like add-ons, the code base is the same for all versions, there won’t be a different code base for each different Server version etc, This sounds like it’s going to be pretty moduler to me, The only thing MS has to keep track of are the different parts it has for you to install.
What could be better? You pick a few small parts for a specific role, and later on if you want more you just add-in a new role and install those parts, no re-installing of the whole OS or anything. This all sounds very good to me. I can’t see why you’re all knocking it down or something.
“. This all sounds very good to me. I can’t see why you’re all knocking it down or something.”
because when others did it the very same MS tried to piss it off as splindering
I really don’t care what the marketing/spinsters said back then, I just know what I see going on now and it looks good to me. If something is going in the right direction I’m not going to bash it just because it’s being done by some company I might hate. Hell I don’t really like Apple, but their Ipod is good, and I don’t really like Sun but uhh well cough, java is still a mess so forget that, nevermind about Sun.
“I really don’t care what the marketing/spinsters said back then, I just know what I see going on now and it looks good to me”
unless they tell me the costs and how much pain I would have to suffer to add more “roles” to a server I am running I am not commenting either way
…now on to the server market!
GO MS!
I wonder when the … from shawcable.net will be permabanned like Eugenia suggested.
I don’t know why there have to be several “editions” of a server. Why can’t they just be add-ons a la SQL Server to a standard server edition? After all, it appears that Windows servers are ALL just intentionaly crippled/stripped down versions of the flagship server product. Is there a reason why Windows 2003 Standard Edition can’t support PAE but Enterprise Edition can? Is there a downside? I don’t see one.
I have to wonder if people like you get similarly worked up about car manufacturers who relase multiple versions of the same vehicle with different options…
”
I have to wonder if people like you get similarly worked up about car manufacturers who relase multiple versions of the same vehicle with different options…
”
poor analogy. operating systems are nothing remotely similar to cars
>>What could be better? You pick a few small parts for a specific role, and later on if you want more you just add-in a new role and install those parts, no re-installing of the whole OS or anything. This all sounds very good to me. I can’t see why you’re all knocking it down or something.
<<
You are forgetting the obvious cash cow MSFT has in this strategy.
First they charge you for the Kernel(Basic stuff) then they charge you per addition. So if you had a web server, and wanted to add in a small database server well that’s extra, and extra always cost more than they should.
Think of buying a car. Buying the car with the really cool built in navigation system is $3,000 more but if you buy an after market one that doesn’t look as good it’s only $1500. But if you want to buy the manufactors navigation system as a upgrade, you pay $3,000 plus installation.
remember MSFT has already said it won’t chrage by the processor, leaving MSFT other ways to make up the difference.
begin impression
>Windows is unadministratable because there are just too many
>variants; we can’t be expected to know how to do things on
>this many different distributions of windows.
end impression
For every version they have a code base that they will have to support, which is a negative cost driver because they will have to have more people to support the development effort, more people to support help desk calls, more people to fix patches, more people to write device drivers. All of which will get passed on to the consumer through the cost of the software, service agreements, etc…
Um, 95% – 99% of each “variant” will be identical…
How can this be good for MS?
Easy, they get a larger range of products to charge for (which will probably be priced lower individually, providing incentive for customers to buy). The support costs may be marginally higher but, as I said, the vast majority of each “variant” will be identical to each other “variant”.
longhorn seems very good, a complete new api, no more win32 api hell, no more netbios, no more crappy gdi. And they already had a great kernel (which was totally being wasted on a crappy and outdated api like win32).
poor analogy. operating systems are nothing remotely similar to cars
In this context they are. However, there’s no shortage of products that use price discrimination between different feature levels, so feel free to pick one – stereos, computers, VCRs, etc, etc.
The point is that many mass produced products come in variants aimed at different feature sets and price points that are 99% identical. Very few people seem to get anywhere near as upset about this as they do about Windows doing it, however.
If I were to switch to Linux I would want:
1) A quality product.
2) Stability in the sense that I now have a quality product, there is good documentation, and the company stands by it, and doesn’t introduce a million changes, upgrades, etc.
3) Instead of changing everything every 8 months, can someone stand by something, can we use what we have?
RedHat enterprice Linux has 5 year lifecycle (althought you CAN upgrade to newer version, for free (part of subscription) if you WANT to, if you dont, stick with old version – it will be supported for 5 years. And RedHat & lots of partners stand behind of it.
SuSE enterprise Linux has also 5 year lifecycle and Novell behind it.
There you go – ready to switch?
“In this context they are”
not true. there is no vendor lock in or per cpu licenses for cars.. MS can choose to charge for trivial changes. the car market is saturated with competition. the industry cannot afford to slack
“Um, 95% – 99% of each “variant” will be identical… ”
hmm. thats a problem then. who would want to go with variants like that. you need good differentiation to support each of them
No, no, no. Dr. Smithy, you have it SOOOOOO wrong.
Cars are NOT like operating systems. Know why? Because there may be R&D cost, but adding features usually involves adding more HARDWARE to a car. In other words, there’s a cost to provide additional features.
Now, with Windows Server, the “standard edition” only supports 4 GB of RAM. The Enterprise Edition uses Physical Address Extension and can support 8 GB RAM. My question – with the coding done, why would you INTIONALLY REMOVE the ability to supprt 8 GB of RAM from a product? There is NO cost to you, because you press a single CD each time. There is only one reason: to jerk every nickel out of your customers who are otherwise committed to your platform.
There’s no other answer that I can find. It costs Microsoft nothing to add features to all editions, but it DOES cost Volvo something to add side airbags, or ABS, or nicer tires, or a rear windsheild wiper, or cruise control, or….
not true. there is no vendor lock in or per cpu licenses for cars..
There’s about as much vendor lock in with cars (good luck keeping your warranty unless you get the car serviced at a certified mechanic).
I’ve no idea what you’re trying to suggest with “per CPU licenses” and I doubt you do either.
MS can choose to charge for trivial changes.
So can car manufacturers.
the car market is saturated with competition. the industry cannot afford to slack
Most car buyers stick with a particular brand. Particularly at the more expensive end of the scale.
hmm. thats a problem then. who would want to go with variants like that. you need good differentiation to support each of them
The functional difference between, say, a mail server and a DB server is quite significant. However, from a code perspective, the difference is quite small (ie: the mail server code vs the DB server code – almost everything else is going to be identical).
In other words, the additional support cost to Microsoft is minor, because the underlying technical differences are quite small. However, to the customer the differences are quite significant (they get a “web server” or a “DB server” or an “Exchange server”).
People put up with it because most people don’t get viruses and IE works just fine. Really, how many times have you been infected with a virus? None? On the issue of IE, it has security issues, but how many of those have affected you? I’m going to guess none to both of these questions.
I work for a small non-profit. We averaged a virus or scum-ware or other breach every few weeks. Just two weeks ago I had to rebuild a Win2k OS that some employee though it would be neat to install some crappy wallpaper switcher off the internet. Just about half of our desk tops use Suse Linux – but they require maybe 5% the maintenance time the remaining 95% goes to keeping the Windows machines running. When I talk with Windows admins these days – number one subject by far – Security or lack thereof. When I talk to Linux / Unix admins – Subjects vary – How to install hardware, new software, new configurations to get more out of the same equipment and so on and yes an occasional how to improve security.
In fact when I go help people using XP systems that are having problems with their computer – and they say that they have never had a virus or worm. I quite often find that the problems are due to some downloaded infections or other, often they have more than one. Modern crap no longer just tries to crash your system – the real profit for these thugs is to let you continue to do what you do but just steel information or computing capacity from you. This is why I never transact any business on the web from or to a windows computer. When I do business on line it is from my personal Linux based system – from a user login that is used for nothing else with Firefox with no extensions and this machine is never on the internet without an active working firewall.
Fact is that unless you are spending a great deal of effort and money at keeping your windows computer clean – you got crap in there somewhere.
”
In other words, the additional support cost to Microsoft is minor, because the underlying technical differences are quite small. However, to the customer the differences are quite significant (they get a “web server” or a “DB server” or an “Exchange server”).
”
oh. how about I want additional roles or shift roles for my server. How much am I going to pay MS. thats the whole point for Ms right?
No thanks
I work for a small non-profit. We averaged a virus or scum-ware or other breach every few weeks. Just two weeks ago I had to rebuild a Win2k OS that some employee though it would be neat to install some crappy wallpaper switcher off the internet.
Why did that user have sufficient privileges to install software in the first place ?
Why are you blaming Microsoft and Windows for user error ? Do you blame Linux when a user accidentally rm -rf’s their machine ?
Fact is that unless you are spending a great deal of effort and money at keeping your windows computer clean – you got crap in there somewhere.
Actually, it’s pretty simple:
1. Don’t run as an admin
2. Use the builtin firewall
That protects you from 99% of the nasties.
oh. how about I want additional roles or shift roles for my server. How much am I going to pay MS.
Whatever they charge.
thats the whole point for Ms right?
Correct. To make money. They’re a business, after all.
You know, it would save a lot of needless discussion if people like you prefaced their first rant with “I [don’t understand|fundamentally disagree with] the basic principles behind running a profitable business and therefore think business should give away their products for free”.
“Whatever they charge. ”
wont work in a free market
“Correct. To make money. They’re a business, after all. ‘
there is a different between making money and sucking it
Cars are NOT like operating systems. Know why? Because there may be R&D cost, but adding features usually involves adding more HARDWARE to a car. In other words, there’s a cost to provide additional features.
And ? You sound like you think the cost to add features has some bearing on the price charged for those features.
Now, with Windows Server, the “standard edition” only supports 4 GB of RAM. The Enterprise Edition uses Physical Address Extension and can support 8 GB RAM. My question – with the coding done, why would you INTIONALLY REMOVE the ability to supprt 8 GB of RAM from a product?
Product differentiation. The same thing done by car manufacturers and just about everyone else.
Basically, in the software world, it’s a crude way of identifying which customers have more money to spend and charging them more accordingly. Same theory is behind CALs and different price points for multiprocessor systems.
There is NO cost to you, because you press a single CD each time. There is only one reason: to jerk every nickel out of your customers who are otherwise committed to your platform.
Correct. Business 101. Welcome to capitalism. You have grasped the basic principle behind running a for-profit business.
There’s no other answer that I can find. It costs Microsoft nothing to add features to all editions, but it DOES cost Volvo something to add side airbags, or ABS, or nicer tires, or a rear windsheild wiper, or cruise control, or….
But nothing like the additional cost they charge for those options.
The principle used is identical – define feature sets and the highest price you think most of your customers will pay for them. Software makers have the advantage that their materials cost remains the same throughout, but have the disadvantage that their initial and ongoing people costs will be higher.
”
Correct. Business 101. Welcome to capitalism. You have grasped the basic principle behind running a for-profit business. ”
crap. this is NOT how business needs to work.
”
Actually, it’s pretty simple:
1. Don’t run as an admin
2. Use the builtin firewall
That protects you from 99% of the nasties.
”
people can keep dreaming. the built in firewall doesnt even try to restrict outgoing data..
wont work in a free market
Of course it will, if you really need their software. That’s the point of a free market.
there is a different between making money and sucking it
Only in scale (which is a subjective measure). Not in principle.
crap. this is NOT how business needs to work.
It is if they want to make money.
people can keep dreaming. the built in firewall doesnt even try to restrict outgoing data..
Nor does it need to to protect you from the majority of exploits trying to get *in*.
Outgoing traffic filtering is somewhat useful for detecting whether or not your machine has been compromised. It’s of little use for stopping that compromise from happening in the first place.
“It is if they want to make money. ”
so you believe. there are other companies which do it far better…
“Nor does it need to to protect you from the majority of exploits trying to get *in*. ”
lame excuse for bad protection
Re:Don’t run as an admin
Doesn’t really work when some programs don’t allow you to run as a limited user. Maybe if MS had thought of that back in the Win9x days, we wouldnt have this problem.
Linux was designed from day one to be a multiuser system. I can’t think of a single normal app that will not run under a non-root account. Plus, on XP, I made a limited account and a guest account, and both had constant errors about the user not being able to access something or other, and all I was doing was sitting there. Never tried to open a program or anything and I was getting constant errors. It was probably to do with some program I had installed, but good luck finding that program. Never did fix it. With Linux I don’t have this problem.
I have no problem with companies trying to make money, but when that company puts money before your security (such as integrating Windows Media Player to try and put Real Networks out of business and the same with IE) then there is a problem. You don’t have this problem with Novell or Red Hat. Name one time they have done something along the same lines.
Microsoft’s blatant disregard for security when it comes to design in a lot of their products + the fact that the integration of IE and Outlook Express has 90% of Windows users using the same vulnerable programs instead of competitors products and a more split up market share (which is the case with Linux, not everyone on Linux is using the same web browser plus mail client…hell some distros ship with 4 or 5…what are the chances everyoine will choose the same one) + the fact that there are a lot of sick people in the world that have too much time on their hands has been a magic petri dish for the security problems Microsoft has had.
Doesn’t really work when some programs don’t allow you to run as a limited user.
“Run As”.
Maybe if MS had thought of that back in the Win9x days, we wouldnt have this problem.
They did. Application developers were too lazy to do their jobs properly.
Linux was designed from day one to be a multiuser system.
So was Windows NT.
I can’t think of a single normal app that will not run under a non-root account.
Unix developers have been writing apps for multiuser systems for about 3x as long.
Plus, on XP, I made a limited account and a guest account, and both had constant errors about the user not being able to access something or other, and all I was doing was sitting there.
You mean you’ve got some poorly-written application running in the background ?
It was probably to do with some program I had installed, but good luck finding that program. Never did fix it. With Linux I don’t have this problem.
This does not change the fact that when *application developers* don’t write their applications properly it’s the *application developers* who are at fault.
I have no problem with companies trying to make money, but when that company puts money before your security (such as integrating Windows Media Player to try and put Real Networks out of business and the same with IE) then there is a problem. You don’t have this problem with Novell or Red Hat. Name one time they have done something along the same lines.
Novell and Red Hat aren’t writing their OSes (at least I assume you’re talking about Novell Linux), they’re repackaging a bunch of components into a product. They’ve got SFA influence on most of the components they’re repackaging. They’re not in a position to be “integrating” things like media players and web browsers.
However, when we look at companies or entities who *are* in such a position, they’re all doing it, so a reasonable conclusion is that Microsoft are only doing the same thing everyone else is.
Microsoft’s blatant disregard for security when it comes to design in a lot of their products […]
For example ?
[…] + the fact that the integration of IE and Outlook Express has 90% of Windows users using the same vulnerable programs instead of competitors products and a more split up market share […]
Which is somehow different to the same thing happening on, say, OS X with Safari and Mail.app ?
[…] (which is the case with Linux, not everyone on Linux is using the same web browser plus mail client…hell some distros ship with 4 or 5…what are the chances everyoine will choose the same one) […]
Once Linux actually starts having an impact in the same demographic Windows does, fairly high.
+ the fact that there are a lot of sick people in the world that have too much time on their hands has been a magic petri dish for the security problems Microsoft has had.
The vast bulk of Microsoft’s “security problems” are the result of:
a) their products’ ubiquity
b) poorly configured systems
c) ignorant users
“For example ?
”
IE. IE and did it tell you about the excuse for a browser called IE
“Once Linux actually starts having an impact in the same demographic Windows does, fairly high. ”
explain apache and IIS then
“The vast bulk of Microsoft’s “security problems” are the result of: ”
of MS being stupid enough to autoexecute scripts in Outlook and extremely dumb implementation of activex in IE
IE. IE and did it tell you about the excuse for a browser called IE
You’ll need to be a little more specific with regards to its relation to the OS’s design, given IE is really just some (heavily reused) shared libraries and a wrapper application.
explain apache and IIS then
Explain what, exactly ?
of MS being stupid enough to autoexecute scripts in Outlook
This has never been default or deliberate behaviour.
and extremely dumb implementation of activex in IE
Somehow I doubt that has anything close to the impact of people running as admin users and installing anything they get prompted to.
“When I talk with Windows admins these days – number one subject by far – Security or lack thereof. When I talk to Linux / Unix admins – Subjects vary – How to install hardware, new software, new configurations to get more out of the same equipment and so on and yes an occasional how to improve security. ”
That’s a sign of Linux’s shortcomings in hardware support, software support and consistent configuration support. If Linux supported those things as well as Windows, you’d be spending more time doing things and less time talking to other admins.
“explain apache and IIS then”
The most recent version of IIS has had fewer vulnerabilities than any version of Apache since it’s release. Explain that. I’d especially like to hear how that makes Apache more secure in your warped little mind.
I need to say this. I am a Linux/Windows/BSD/whatever works for the job user. I used to say: “people who get complain about windows viruses is because they dont now tihs (backwards). Funny thing. Today fixing a computer for a friend, the impossible happened. I installed windows, patched, firewall. Next step, Norton. Guess what, it found 53 infected files. What?????. What in the WWF? I couldnt believe. I blamed myself. I guess I did something wrong. Did a plug the power supply backwards? or Computer viruses now infect airbound like in real world. This is getting out of control. I am sorry. I am windows user. I am a Linux user. I do what I have to do in both. But after this, I have to give the edge to Linux.
Price discrimination is not when a hardware manufacturer charges different amounts for different models. Price discrimination is when you charge different prices for the same product to different segments of a market.
Example. Charging a lower cost for weekday matinee shows as opposed to evening and weekend shows.
Longhorn better come with better documentation than XP did because there’s alot of bitching and moaning about how computer users are stupid, but the skimpy pamphlet MS gives you with the new Windows machine you just bought doesn’t explain about security, and only the basics of having and administrator and user account. All OSes should come with a manual which explains, first and foremost, security. A new computer user is entitled to after bought the product, and shouldn’t have to print out their own manual from a PDF. I single out MS here because they do have their own press afterall and have no excuse to be cheapskates.
Is somebody going to try and tell me that throwing one of these:
http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/7483.asp
in with each copy of Windows sold (pre-installed or otherwise) would break them financially??
You want computer users to not be cluesless… than somebody better teach them.
<pedantic>
> Linux was designed from day one to be a multiuser system.
Actually, I don’t think the very first versions of the Linux kernel supported multiple users.
</pedantic>
Every release of Win XP since RTM has recommended that you automatically download and install security updates. Those recommendations became more and more insistent with SP1 and SP2. If users had heeded those warnings they’d be right, but “experts” like you have recommended turning them off.
MS haven’t been shy about including those warnings. They’ve advertised the importance of updates in desktop “bubbles” that your sort reviles. They’re more clever than you, though, and know that those “annoying bubbles” are likely to reach more people than a 500 page book ever will.
“Those recommendations became more and more insistent with SP1 and SP2. If users had heeded those warnings they’d be right, but “experts” like you have recommended turning them off.”
Yes, too right they recommended to switch it off – we had machines that got messed up by installing SP2, heck even Hewlett Packard support recommended not to install SP2. And what about the fact that just a couple of weeks after the release of SP2 there were already a dozen of new security vulnerbilities. Way to go !!!
Way to go Matt … no need to get personal.
“it’s IBM that recommended not installing SP2 to their staff, NOT THEIR CUSTOMERS (caps because there’s a small chance it might get through – wrong on the company, wrong on the detail.”
Being a HP customer and talking to their support, i was recommended not to install SP2 – so you better think before making general sweeping comment based on some assumptions.
“Second, there’s been exactly one security update to SP2 so far, not a dozen now, and especially not in the first month. ”
Read my post properly before you make any comments! I was not talking about security updates, i was talking about vulnerabilities that were discovered !!!
Today fixing a computer for a friend, the impossible happened. I installed windows, patched, firewall. Next step, Norton. Guess what, it found 53 infected files. What?????. What in the WWF? I couldnt believe. I blamed myself. I guess I did something wrong. Did a plug the power supply backwards? or Computer viruses now infect airbound like in real world. This is getting out of control. I am sorry. I am windows user. I am a Linux user. I do what I have to do in both. But after this, I have to give the edge to Linux.
That’s where you went wrong. It should been “I installed windows (with the network cable disconnected or behind hardware firewall), firewalled, installed norton, then patched.”
It only takes 4 minutes for an unprotected XP SP1 machine to become a zombie bot:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/30/1932245&tid=220&tid=…
and here a few links:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/20/sp2_scripting_vuln/
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39174604,00.ht…
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/meldung…
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/meldung…
some of these ar ein german – but Matt i am sure u can read german, seeing that you seem to be so clever ….
Users are entitled to have a manual. You can get malware before you even make it to the download site. So what’s your problem? Dingos getting too close to your settlement?
Longhorn better come with better documentation than XP did because there’s alot of bitching and moaning about how computer users are stupid, but the skimpy pamphlet MS gives you with the new Windows machine you just bought doesn’t explain about security, and only the basics of having and administrator and user account.
The online help is fairly good, I believe. Certainly the few times I’ve looked in there for answers I’d expect to be there I’ve found them.
Not to mention the online help has the *massive* advantage of being quickly and easily searchable.
What makes you think a user will be any more like to read a manual over an inch thick (that’s how big they were back in the Windows 3.x days, when you got a printed manual with it) than the online help ?
One good reason for printed help is that often if you need a manual it is becuase your computer is not working and not working often means unable to conncet to the Internet. Most Linux distros have this problem as well although if I recal last time I bought a distro it was SuSe 7.1 Personal and it had a decent (read about an inch thick) printed manual.
As for peoples views that the user/admin is in error if the machine gets infected if it is not protected for ten min, this is rediculus a system should be hardend enough by default as to be a difficult crack not an open door. I run Linux with no security other than a non-root user etc. (which I know is stupid and yet I do not have any problems and someone should be able to do this with Windows as well, go figure)
I think that in terms of security one of the advantages of Linux that people don’t credit it with enough is the plethra of distros, imagine writeing a script that could attack multiple different versions of many applications configuration arrangemnets etc in the same way that one can with Windows.
One good reason for printed help is that often if you need a manual it is becuase your computer is not working and not working often means unable to conncet to the Internet.
When I said “online” I meant included with the OS – ie Start -> Help and Support.
I sincerely doubt a printed manual is going to be of much assistance to anyone with an unbootable machine.
Most Linux distros have this problem as well although if I recal last time I bought a distro it was SuSe 7.1 Personal and it had a decent (read about an inch thick) printed manual.
The online help in most Linux distros – at least from the perspective of helping the typical ignorant end user – is atrocious.
As for peoples views that the user/admin is in error if the machine gets infected if it is not protected for ten min, this is rediculus a system should be hardend enough by default as to be a difficult crack not an open door.
Many Linux distros dating from 2001 are pretty vulnerable out of the box as well.
Current versions of XP – ie: with SP2 install – are basically impervious out of the box to remote exploits.
As I’ve said time and time again, it’s pretty easy to avoid 99% of the nsaties out there:
1. Don’t run as admin.
2. Use the builtin firewall
3. Avoid dodgy websites
4. Don’t use IE
I run Linux with no security other than a non-root user etc. (which I know is stupid and yet I do not have any problems and someone should be able to do this with Windows as well, go figure)
I’ve been running Windows machines since NT4 with no more regular security measures than using a limited user account for day to day tasks and not installing questionable binaries (and, more recently, not using IE).
I do occasionally run one of the online virus scans an ad-aware over my machine, but they’re yet to pick anything up.
I think that in terms of security one of the advantages of Linux that people don’t credit it with enough is the plethra of distros, imagine writeing a script that could attack multiple different versions of many applications configuration arrangemnets etc in the same way that one can with Windows.
Trivial. How many Linux machines have you used that didn’t have things like bash, awk, sed, perl, mail, etc on them ? Hell, I’d be willing to wager there are more Linux machines out there with complete development environments on them than aren’t.
Linux distros are only different enough to be frustrating and annoying, they’re not different enough to meaningfully get away from the “monoculture problem”.
Windows isn’t less secure than lets say Linux.But then again security is a broad subject.Does one run ipsec,certificates,is the replication secure enough etc etc.In most of the cases if a processor can be fed instructions when it should see data,it will happily go about executing the passed instructions.This charracteristic makes system exploitation possible on a variety of platforms,not solely excluded to windows.