Clearly, you have not used Windows 2003 R2 or 2008 then.
They are "secure out of the box" until you enable services and turn the firewall off.
I'm a Linux/BSD fan, don't get me wrong, but some of the comments regarding Windows on here may have been true 10-15 years ago, but Microsoft has (for the most part) improved in leaps and bounds.
Yes, if you leave a non-firewalled Windows machine exposed to the internet for years without updates, it will get owned. So will a linux box - I've *had* linux machines owned in the past when I was a noob linux admin (1996-1997) thinking "linux is great, i can install and forget.. lalalala"
+1. Anecdotal evidence yes, but out of 30 vista machines we have (total ~300 desktops) we've had zero problems wit spyware/viruses on vista. XP machines are constantly coming back in to be re imaged. all users have admin access on their own PC (for better or worse, this is our current model).
the UAC stuff is really not that bad once a box is set up and used for actual WORK. if you're a nerd who just has to play with stuff, then sure, it can be annoying. if you're an admin, then sure, it can be annoying. if you're an END USER, uac is a good thing.
FreeBSD isn't hard to use, its just different, if you don't put any effort into learning the differences and just assume everything should work like it did with a Linux distro, then you are the one who failed, not the OS. If you want it to act just like Linux then why are you trying FreeBSD?
Because like a typical linux noob who's been on board for about 18 months, he hasn't even tried FreeBSD, but just assumes that "Debian = bettah!" because thats all he knows (somewhat).
And yes, in a real world server environment, you upgrade stuff only when you have to - either security updates, bug fixes, or hardware upgrades.
I've just recently decomissioned a FreeBSD 4.x server that was exposed to the internet as a VPN server; due to the hardened configuration it ran just fine for the last 6 years with minimal maintenance.
My experience with ports/packages vs apt-get (about 10 years worth as a real world admin) is that the theoretical advantages of apt-get are no big deal.
However, having the ability to *easily* do
# cd/usr/ports/foobar && make config && make package
...is beneficial.
I'm not saying that pkg_add or ports are perfect. But that for all the theoretical benefits, I don't see the big win from apt-get. I'm not deinstalling a heap of packages at a time on my boxes (servers) - they are built for a particular purpose. Sure, for a desktop apt-get is a win, but in the server room, you don't fuck with shit that often. If you do, its generally a new box via hardware replacement....
Most hardware supported by linux is supported. JAILs mean less requirement for virtualization.
Personally though, I can't see the point.
The unified FreeBSD userland is what makes it so great, rather than some cobbled together collection of GNU shit, written by a hundred different people who decide that manpages aren't good enough, to use info instead and hence, there is never any current documentation.
"OMG but you can apt-get stuff". Who gives a shit. pkg_add -r does basically the same thing anyway, and "cd/usr/ports/xxx/foobarport && make package" makes a lot more sense to me than the commands required on linux to build packages...
Don't get me wrong, as far as LINUX goes, its debian for me. I just don't see the requirement to have a shitty GNU userland on the FreeBSD system.
Whilst I can see your point, if the company is big enough, they likely want to push a SOE out, and have a single common platform.
I.e., new machines will be Vista or 7 or whatever, and the old boxes will be upgraded to run that or thrown in the bin.
This simplifies IT management as you're only dealing with one combination of software/application problems.
I agree, ideally you'd just junk all the old hardware or keep it running the old OS until it is end of life, but supporting only one platform certainyl makes patch management, application development/deployment/etc much easier. If everything runs.net version XXX (supplied with vista) for example, you can just code to that and be done with it...
If you want XP compatibility for some shitty old application, spend the extra 50 bucks on a couple of gigs more ram and run it in a virtual machine using either vmware (payware) or VirtualPC (free from MS).
... if it doesn't run software i wish to run, then it doesn't matter how fast it is. Yes, i'm a linux user from way back, but really I don't care how fast my operating system runs, within limits. its more to do with what I can run on it. when falcon 4 runs on Linux I'll consider ditching my windows install:D
Most australians do not share the "internet is evil" and "games are bad" views.
Unfortunately, we only have 2 political parties with any chance of getting elected, and they're both headed by god-fearing christian types who seem bent on trying to protect the citizenry from themselves.
I have yet to encounter any software that will not install on Vista.
I've been running 32 bit on various machines since early 2007, and 64 bit since around june 2007.
I'm not quite sure how you managed to find heaps of software that didn't work with it...
I run games, I run productivity software, I run network administration tools. Its generally business as usual.... my only grip is with UAC and the RSAT pack, but that can be worked around and is a fairly specific usage scenario - for most end users (in a business environment), UAC is fine...
Or MS virtual PC. I'm a big fan/customer of vmware, but the last windows 7 test i did, it couldn't see the vmware network adapter. No doubt it will work in virtual PC with built in drivers, and virtual PC is a free download from Microsoft.
One word: Drivers The biggest problem with 64 bit vista: very few hardware manufacturers have 64 bit drivers for their system.
Um... where "very few" is not including Dell, HP, Toshiba, creative labs, intel, nvidia, etc?
This may have been the case 18 months ago, but seriously, even then the only driver issue i've had is with some shitty old wireless adapter on my personal built clone machine (that was not built with vista in mind at all).
I'm sure it will if you keep running it on your flaky hardware.
Having been running both 32 bit and 64 bit on various machines since 2007, i can't say i've run into any of those mysterious types of problems the vista hating crowd seem to bitch about...
FreeBSD is fine in a production environment, i have various servers running it, one of them has not been touched since 2003 (i left the company and it kept on ticking until I came back - is currently being decommissioned)
If you have an inkling to play with FreeBSD I highly recommend it. I was a big linux proponent until I gave it a shot in 2001 and found things to be far more clear and uncluttered (hard to explain, but there's a nice clear boundary between teh core OS and apps, unlike most linux distributions, logs are sane, APIs remain pretty stable, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
google cache.
next.
Clearly, you have not used Windows 2003 R2 or 2008 then.
They are "secure out of the box" until you enable services and turn the firewall off.
I'm a Linux/BSD fan, don't get me wrong, but some of the comments regarding Windows on here may have been true 10-15 years ago, but Microsoft has (for the most part) improved in leaps and bounds.
Yes, if you leave a non-firewalled Windows machine exposed to the internet for years without updates, it will get owned. So will a linux box - I've *had* linux machines owned in the past when I was a noob linux admin (1996-1997) thinking "linux is great, i can install and forget.. lalalala"
see mojave experiment. sad, but true. vista's bad rep, is mostly due to vista's bad rep.
+1. Anecdotal evidence yes, but out of 30 vista machines we have (total ~300 desktops) we've had zero problems wit spyware/viruses on vista. XP machines are constantly coming back in to be re imaged. all users have admin access on their own PC (for better or worse, this is our current model).
the UAC stuff is really not that bad once a box is set up and used for actual WORK. if you're a nerd who just has to play with stuff, then sure, it can be annoying. if you're an admin, then sure, it can be annoying. if you're an END USER, uac is a good thing.
So what about Bush then, responsible for thousands of deaths in OTHER countries?
So you'll happily let my malware through at high priority, simply because it puts a high priority in its TCP header?
Cheers dude.
Because like a typical linux noob who's been on board for about 18 months, he hasn't even tried FreeBSD, but just assumes that "Debian = bettah!" because thats all he knows (somewhat).
And yes, in a real world server environment, you upgrade stuff only when you have to - either security updates, bug fixes, or hardware upgrades.
I've just recently decomissioned a FreeBSD 4.x server that was exposed to the internet as a VPN server; due to the hardened configuration it ran just fine for the last 6 years with minimal maintenance.
Lol, typical /. moderation. I don't agree and have a bug in my arse = troll moderate.
My experience with ports/packages vs apt-get (about 10 years worth as a real world admin) is that the theoretical advantages of apt-get are no big deal.
However, having the ability to *easily* do /usr/ports/foobar && make config && make package
# cd
I'm not saying that pkg_add or ports are perfect. But that for all the theoretical benefits, I don't see the big win from apt-get. I'm not deinstalling a heap of packages at a time on my boxes (servers) - they are built for a particular purpose. Sure, for a desktop apt-get is a win, but in the server room, you don't fuck with shit that often. If you do, its generally a new box via hardware replacement....
What do I mean? If you want the GNU userland, run Linux.
If you want something more unix like, run FreeBSD.
The "GNU userland" niche is already filled by Linux, HURD, etc. I'm saying its a waste of time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere.
Personally though, I can't see the point.
The unified FreeBSD userland is what makes it so great, rather than some cobbled together collection of GNU shit, written by a hundred different people who decide that manpages aren't good enough, to use info instead and hence, there is never any current documentation.
"OMG but you can apt-get stuff". Who gives a shit. pkg_add -r does basically the same thing anyway, and "cd /usr/ports/xxx/foobarport && make package" makes a lot more sense to me than the commands required on linux to build packages...
Don't get me wrong, as far as LINUX goes, its debian for me. I just don't see the requirement to have a shitty GNU userland on the FreeBSD system.
... they almost managed to achieve Amiga 1985?
I know it's cool to hate on google lately, how that they're a global multi billion dollar company and all, but seriously...
Pretty happy with 2003R2 (which also includes SMBv2) here.
I.e., new machines will be Vista or 7 or whatever, and the old boxes will be upgraded to run that or thrown in the bin.
This simplifies IT management as you're only dealing with one combination of software/application problems.
I agree, ideally you'd just junk all the old hardware or keep it running the old OS until it is end of life, but supporting only one platform certainyl makes patch management, application development/deployment/etc much easier. If everything runs .net version XXX (supplied with vista) for example, you can just code to that and be done with it...
If you want XP compatibility for some shitty old application, spend the extra 50 bucks on a couple of gigs more ram and run it in a virtual machine using either vmware (payware) or VirtualPC (free from MS).
... if it doesn't run software i wish to run, then it doesn't matter how fast it is. Yes, i'm a linux user from way back, but really I don't care how fast my operating system runs, within limits. its more to do with what I can run on it. when falcon 4 runs on Linux I'll consider ditching my windows install :D
Unfortunately, we only have 2 political parties with any chance of getting elected, and they're both headed by god-fearing christian types who seem bent on trying to protect the citizenry from themselves.
Story hereby tagged "troll".
Yes, I've seen the "comparison" done by osnews or whoever it was. Its an extremely skewed crock of shit.
I've been running 32 bit on various machines since early 2007, and 64 bit since around june 2007.
I'm not quite sure how you managed to find heaps of software that didn't work with it...
I run games, I run productivity software, I run network administration tools. Its generally business as usual.... my only grip is with UAC and the RSAT pack, but that can be worked around and is a fairly specific usage scenario - for most end users (in a business environment), UAC is fine...
I've sent a drive in for data recovery before and was asked which operating system to recover: solaris or Windows NT....
Or MS virtual PC. I'm a big fan/customer of vmware, but the last windows 7 test i did, it couldn't see the vmware network adapter. No doubt it will work in virtual PC with built in drivers, and virtual PC is a free download from Microsoft.
Um... where "very few" is not including Dell, HP, Toshiba, creative labs, intel, nvidia, etc?
This may have been the case 18 months ago, but seriously, even then the only driver issue i've had is with some shitty old wireless adapter on my personal built clone machine (that was not built with vista in mind at all).
Having been running both 32 bit and 64 bit on various machines since 2007, i can't say i've run into any of those mysterious types of problems the vista hating crowd seem to bitch about...
FreeBSD is fine in a production environment, i have various servers running it, one of them has not been touched since 2003 (i left the company and it kept on ticking until I came back - is currently being decommissioned)
If you have an inkling to play with FreeBSD I highly recommend it. I was a big linux proponent until I gave it a shot in 2001 and found things to be far more clear and uncluttered (hard to explain, but there's a nice clear boundary between teh core OS and apps, unlike most linux distributions, logs are sane, APIs remain pretty stable, etc).