If these were live sites... they were published works. If I'm not mistaken actions like this could easily be countered under the Personal Privacy and Electronic Communications Provacy Acts. Of course, IANAL...
Well, I'm glad it wasn't you who posted the rather crude message. The perils of AC, sigh. I therefore say to the AC who did post 'Nuts to You'.
Now, back to our debate. We were talking about the filesystem and security model. ACL's are 'a' way to do flexible security schemes. However, I can be just as flexible in *NIX. It's different not better or worse. I don't uinderstand why you can't realize this.
Areas where *NIX is dated? You'd have to expound on that esp. since you've said that you don't know much about *NIX. Your example of VI is uninformed... VI is an extremely powerful editor, but you don't have to use it. I personally use XEmacs (which by the way makes Visual InterDev look like a toy).
I guess your real problem is that since you're not a *NIX admin your statements are pretty much repetitive FUD... 'Linux isn't Unix, its a toy' (How can you say this without having used the product extensively?) 'UNIX is Outdated' (Again, you don't have knowledge to back this up)
In conclusion, I have never said that there is no place for other OS's, very few in the Linux communitity would say such a thing. You're the one who made statements (incorrect statements) about where Linux was bad. Look back at your first post.
Since your entire discussion is based on comments of others, I have to ask... Why did you post at all? Why did you make 'statements' about problems with Linux that don't exist? Why did you attempt to sound knowledgeable about a product you apparently haven't used? You degrade those of the Linux communitity who disparage NT, how are you any better?
I have tried to calmly discuss the topic, yet you respond with the same sentences... even though you admit that you don't know anything about UNIX... that you base your comments on the comments of others, not real experience. This is the typical MS line... one person stands and says "Wow MS is good", and the rest of you blind followers get a stiffy, and repeat it.
A) NT can block ports... but not based on IP... with NT it's all or nothing. In Linux I can block a port from everywhere except a few select IP's. Beat that.
NT Firewalls take an entire machine... you can install Checkpoint/Raptor/Other pathetic firewall on NT... but thats all the box is good for. In Linux I can have a file/print server or web server or FTP server etc. *and* firewall the box with no ill effects. Try that in you little blue box....
And yes Linux does support an encrypted filesystem. And NTFS is not fully journaled... (read the JFS Documentation)... hell, read anything, fill you mind with knowledge not the statements of others.
Now, we return to this issue of ACL's. I have stated three or four times. ACL's are not superior, they are different. A sysadmin who uses ACL's designs things differently than a sysadmin who doesn't. I'm not saying ACL's are not a Good Thing. I'm saying that Linux is not less secure becasue we don't use ACL's. You have not the experience to talk. You've said that. So end this silly dispute.
I've done Linux adminsitration. I've done NT administration (forgive me Tux). It's two completely different approaches. Your argument is wrong. It is fataly flawed. It is based on the premise that there is one way to do things. An unfortunate view prevelent in the MS world.
You tell me to shut up and sit down... but yet you, you with no experience... who likely has never truely admin'd anything outside of a reletively infant OS... you feel as if you have the right to make statements that have no basis in fact. Perhaps it is you who should sit and listen, and learn from those who have used many products, many OS's.
What in the hell are you talking about. Have you not listened to anything that I've been saying to you?
ACL is not superior, it is different than the way you do things in *NIX. IN the *NIX world you properly design users and groups so that these situations do not arise at all. It's a different way, not a worse, or inferrior way!
Permissions to directories and files are simply a small part of the overall security model. I noticed you didn't respond when I asked about permiting access and denying access to ports based on IP... that's also an important aspect of security... or being able to implement firewalling tools on your server... how about a usable encrypted filesystem?
You admit that you base your opinions on comments of others, so please please don't state you drivil as anything other than an Uninformed Opinion!
first of all, I'm going to pretend you're not dsesperately trying to hold on to the FUD you've tried to further. I'll pretend that you really are interested in learning about *NIX.
If you routiunely come across such a kludge of permissions, then you better go take a class on properly admining a network server. That situation would rarely if ever come up... esp. if you have a clue when it comes to designing groups.
In my world things like this don't come up. Most likely because I had some forethought when I designed stuff.
You can't make that statement without knowing what you're doing! If you haven't used UNIX/Linux much then sure it's gonna be harder to admin, for you.
I personally like the fact that I can sit at one terminal and admin serval boxes all over the world, including upgrades/patches/kernel modification etc. That's easy administration.
Truthfully, by your own admission you haven't used *NIX much... so this entire line of discussion has been FUD. Get a clue before you bother to post again.
Again, ACL's are a way to secure data. Not 'the' way to secure data. And yes, you can be in multiple groups.... As I said before, I think perhaps you have not used Unix or Linux for much.
Your example is right out wrong... it is more correct to say.
Why use a Mobile Home to go 100 miles when I can use a Lincoln Towncar. Sure you can sleep in the Mobile Home... but with such a short trip... do you need to?
Moderators are not always intelligent. But your comment was not flame bait... uninformed yes.. perhaps even an attempt at FUD. but I think it should not ave been moderated down.
You look at the idea of security through MS tinted eyes. In the real world, you'll find that there is rarely a person by person security level needed. Rather a group by group security level. Remember, you electronic business rules should imitate your 'real world' business rules. In a corporation, there are teams/departments/etc. Linux easily allows a system to be setup to mirror this. Groups, Sudo, PAM... again... look at what is done in the real world, not what MS adds to their OS as a bell or whistle.
Besides, if you base your entire interpertation of security on file permissions... I think you should not admin boxes. Can you control access to an NT server based on IP? Can you shut off individual ports? Can you firewall an untrusted server without adding alot of overhead?
That's more of a concern when dealing with real world security.
Adaptec?? I use Adaptec SCSI... and my box works.
As for vendor issues... if a vendor doesn't A) write a driver or B) Give enough information to the communitity so that they can write drivers... how are they not to blame... at least in part?
SMP stuff is not perfect, but it works well... read this: http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/?l=linux-smp &m=93914383715173&w=2
ACL issues should not be 'very important' to a sysadmin. Good security should be 'very important'. There's a big difference. Good security can be easily accomplished on a Linux box without ACL's, and it's no more difficult than working out a well designed properly implememnted ACL solution. I don't know if you actually have much experience with Linux, but apparently you don't have much experience with securing Linux.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'actually install the OS' or issues with full SCSI and PCI... I do the same... and have no problems. Unless of course your using some hardware which the vendor has been uncooperative with the communitity. Full SMP??? I'm not sure of any place where every server needs to have SMP. Besides, I'm running SMP here on a couple of boxes, and I don't have a problem.
Of course, one should always choose the best OS for the job. Linux is not always the best OS. But, your arguments for why NT is have no real basis, more like bias.
Posting Pro-MS statements as an AC is probably wise, esp. since it's tired old rethoric.
A) NT has bunches of hardware and software support.
So what. This has very little to do with the OS itself and much more to do with the strangle that MS has on the market. NT itself is usually 'more difficult' to set up supported hardware on than Linux is.
B) File System
NTFS and ext2 are different filesystems. But I fail to see where NTFS could be called better, unless you're basing that solely on ACL's (then see below).
C) Security
Ummm, is this the old 'Linux is based on a 30 year old model' argument? If so then it fails with flying colors. A poorly understood, and implemented ACL is worse than no ACL. ACL's are one way to do security on a system. One way, not 'the one true way'. If you have knowledgeable admins, they can secure a Linux box far better than a good NT admin can secure an NT box. Why? IP Chains, TCP Wrappers... a stable, tested, proven 30 year old security model (which has had the bugs worked out of it).... NT is 'New Technology' ie. untested. I don't want something unproven for my security....
D)Ease Of Use
Purely in the eye of the Admin. For me it's much easier to admin a straightforward Linux box than wander around menu after menu clicking on stuff hoping it will do what I want.
E)Linux Has As Many Bugs As NT
I'll assume here you mean that deamons and apps running on Linux have many bugs... the OS itself has nowhere near the bugs that NT does. (Esp if you believe that IIS and IE are 'part of the OS')
Even so, I much perfer a quick response to bugs and a speedy fix. In the NT world, I have to fight through the PR 'Don't worry' "Feel Good' crap to find out what the hole is. Then I find that MS knew about it for some time and neglected to tell anyone, or they don't have a patch, or tthe patch fixes the symptom... not the problem....
The GPL states that the code must be freely available. So if they post it on a web/ftp server they'll be fine. Or if they include an address that someone can write for the source, then thats ok too...
Just ask Linuxcare about their boot/root credit card cd gimmick at LWE:-)
I can't seem to read it. Since Microsoft considers itself important enough not to use standard web style fonts. Instead choosing some weird non-standard fonts that only look good through the eyes of MS software... I can't read it.
Who do they think that they'll convince? Where I work, we have what seems to be three groups, the undecided, the decidedly anti-anything-but-MS group and the group that's actually tried Linux.
This may look great to anti-anything-but-Microsoft people, but to any reasoning person this looks like standard Anti-Anything-but-microsoft fare.
I can barely make out the statement "Windows NT 4.0 Outperforms Linux On Common Customer Workloads". I am intrigued until I see that it links us to the old PC Week tests... hrmmm, I work for a huge corporation and even we aren't running quad-xenon boxes with multiple nic's, for web servers (or anything else). And while we're at it why didn't they also include links to c't magazines similar tests?
Again... (I'm looking at this article by pasting the text into gnotepad...sad really) Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories.
This is true, but it has more than stories. I have personally seen good reliability with Linux. I have never personally seen it on NT... for you that's a story. For me it's proof.
Next we have some FUD about TCO... they don't actually show any numbers... just point in the general direction of classic UNIX and say, it's probably like that!!!
Then some more blah about security. But, yet as the very recent PC Week "hacker" (ugh, get the word right please, its cracker)tests prove... security is in the hands of the person who built the server.
Finally some fud about the desktop... even though it was supposedly some looming giant during the anti-trust trial, ready to kill MS on the desktop.
What a happy day. MS has lost its grip on reality, here's just more proof
I have a great respect for the both of you. Can't you put the past *behind* you? If your honor needs satisfied... try champange corks at 10 paces or something!!
You've both been good advocates for (FSF, Opensource, GNU) but your constant infighting F O G's up the beauty of everything that all of you/us stand for. Get Over It !!!!
Not if they're part of a large theatre chain. Here in Central Ohio most theatres are part of a large corp.And as such can be easily convinced by the.gov not to premit "such-and-such" ratings. It's a big corp. they don't care.
Imagine, AOL makes a statement that they will no longer carry webpages rated below "NewBadRating". WorldComm/Compuserv/MCI makes the same statement, and they require it for all those who lease lines from them. AT&T does likewise. Get the point? Doesn't matter if "lil ole" ISP wants to allow all ratings, they're getting bandwidth from a bigger provider who doesn't.
End Users don't run servers. That's where linux will live. The desktop may have some linux variant or perhaps a MS OS, or maybe Be. I don't know. What I do know is that SERVERS DON"T NEED GUI's. when a CIO is shown the TCO of Linux vs. NT. Companies will switch. Admins, who don't like the interface will go the way of OS2 Admins, (Where ever that may be).
There is a difference between supporting Hardware and OS.
Customer buys hardware from vendor... he gets hardware support. Customer buys software, he gets software support. If I buy a Windows system from Dell and install some custom written apps, is Dell gonna support them? No. Same thing.
Keep your eye on SGI!!! Remember, they've announced that they're moving to Linux EOF... so my guess is that a prot of their software can't be far behind....
We're hackers not PR agents. The.org booth was decked out in a very relaxed style, and a very relaxed attiti=ude. Linux shows won't run like Comdex... (at least not the.org area). I saw Rob and many others give serious interviews.. if CNN is upset then they need to learn the new proceedure.
Besides... Debian had the stockpile of weapons... the rest of us there were defending ourselves;-0
Slashdot Mirror
If these were live sites... they were published works. If I'm not mistaken actions like this could easily be countered under the Personal Privacy and Electronic Communications Provacy Acts. Of course, IANAL...
I'm looking at a similar project and I think Zope and Squishdot (with bunches of customization) will fit the bill!!
http://zope.org
http://squishdot.org
Well, I'm glad it wasn't you who posted the rather crude message. The perils of AC, sigh. I therefore say to the AC who did post 'Nuts to You'.
Now, back to our debate. We were talking about the filesystem and security model. ACL's are 'a' way to do flexible security schemes. However, I can be just as flexible in *NIX. It's different not better or worse. I don't uinderstand why you can't realize this.
Areas where *NIX is dated? You'd have to expound on that esp. since you've said that you don't know much about *NIX. Your example of VI is uninformed... VI is an extremely powerful editor, but you don't have to use it. I personally use XEmacs (which by the way makes Visual InterDev look like a toy).
I guess your real problem is that since you're not a *NIX admin your statements are pretty much repetitive FUD... 'Linux isn't Unix, its a toy' (How can you say this without having used the product extensively?) 'UNIX is Outdated' (Again, you don't have knowledge to back this up)
In conclusion, I have never said that there is no place for other OS's, very few in the Linux communitity would say such a thing. You're the one who made statements (incorrect statements) about where Linux was bad. Look back at your first post.
Since your entire discussion is based on comments of others, I have to ask... Why did you post at all? Why did you make 'statements' about problems with Linux that don't exist? Why did you attempt to sound knowledgeable about a product you apparently haven't used? You degrade those of the Linux communitity who disparage NT, how are you any better?
I have tried to calmly discuss the topic, yet you respond with the same sentences... even though you admit that you don't know anything about UNIX... that you base your comments on the comments of others, not real experience. This is the typical MS line... one person stands and says "Wow MS is good", and the rest of you blind followers get a stiffy, and repeat it.
A) NT can block ports... but not based on IP... with NT it's all or nothing. In Linux I can block a port from everywhere except a few select IP's. Beat that.
NT Firewalls take an entire machine... you can install Checkpoint/Raptor/Other pathetic firewall on NT... but thats all the box is good for. In Linux I can have a file/print server or web server or FTP server etc. *and* firewall the box with no ill effects. Try that in you little blue box....
And yes Linux does support an encrypted filesystem. And NTFS is not fully journaled... (read the JFS Documentation)... hell, read anything, fill you mind with knowledge not the statements of others.
Now, we return to this issue of ACL's. I have stated three or four times. ACL's are not superior, they are different. A sysadmin who uses ACL's designs things differently than a sysadmin who doesn't. I'm not saying ACL's are not a Good Thing. I'm saying that Linux is not less secure becasue we don't use ACL's. You have not the experience to talk. You've said that. So end this silly dispute.
I've done Linux adminsitration. I've done NT administration (forgive me Tux). It's two completely different approaches. Your argument is wrong. It is fataly flawed. It is based on the premise that there is one way to do things. An unfortunate view prevelent in the MS world.
You tell me to shut up and sit down... but yet you, you with no experience... who likely has never truely admin'd anything outside of a reletively infant OS... you feel as if you have the right to make statements that have no basis in fact. Perhaps it is you who should sit and listen, and learn from those who have used many products, many OS's.
What in the hell are you talking about. Have you not listened to anything that I've been saying to you?
ACL is not superior, it is different than the way you do things in *NIX. IN the *NIX world you properly design users and groups so that these situations do not arise at all. It's a different way, not a worse, or inferrior way!
Permissions to directories and files are simply a small part of the overall security model. I noticed you didn't respond when I asked about permiting access and denying access to ports based on IP... that's also an important aspect of security... or being able to implement firewalling tools on your server... how about a usable encrypted filesystem?
You admit that you base your opinions on comments of others, so please please don't state you drivil as anything other than an Uninformed Opinion!
first of all, I'm going to pretend you're not dsesperately trying to hold on to the FUD you've tried to further. I'll pretend that you really are interested in learning about *NIX.
If you routiunely come across such a kludge of permissions, then you better go take a class on properly admining a network server. That situation would rarely if ever come up... esp. if you have a clue when it comes to designing groups.
In my world things like this don't come up. Most likely because I had some forethought when I designed stuff.
You can't make that statement without knowing what you're doing! If you haven't used UNIX/Linux much then sure it's gonna be harder to admin, for you.
I personally like the fact that I can sit at one terminal and admin serval boxes all over the world, including upgrades/patches/kernel modification etc. That's easy administration.
Truthfully, by your own admission you haven't used *NIX much... so this entire line of discussion has been FUD. Get a clue before you bother to post again.
Again, ACL's are a way to secure data. Not 'the' way to secure data. And yes, you can be in multiple groups.... As I said before, I think perhaps you have not used Unix or Linux for much.
Your example is right out wrong... it is more correct to say.
Why use a Mobile Home to go 100 miles when I can use a Lincoln Towncar. Sure you can sleep in the Mobile Home... but with such a short trip... do you need to?
If you're gonna talk about Linux... use it first.
Moderators are not always intelligent. But your comment was not flame bait... uninformed yes.. perhaps even an attempt at FUD. but I think it should not ave been moderated down.
You look at the idea of security through MS tinted eyes. In the real world, you'll find that there is rarely a person by person security level needed. Rather a group by group security level. Remember, you electronic business rules should imitate your 'real world' business rules. In a corporation, there are teams/departments/etc. Linux easily allows a system to be setup to mirror this. Groups, Sudo, PAM... again... look at what is done in the real world, not what MS adds to their OS as a bell or whistle.
p &m=93914383715173&w=2
Besides, if you base your entire interpertation of security on file permissions... I think you should not admin boxes. Can you control access to an NT server based on IP? Can you shut off individual ports? Can you firewall an untrusted server without adding alot of overhead?
That's more of a concern when dealing with real world security.
Adaptec?? I use Adaptec SCSI... and my box works.
As for vendor issues... if a vendor doesn't A) write a driver or B) Give enough information to the communitity so that they can write drivers... how are they not to blame... at least in part?
SMP stuff is not perfect, but it works well... read this: http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/?l=linux-sm
ACL issues should not be 'very important' to a sysadmin. Good security should be 'very important'. There's a big difference. Good security can be easily accomplished on a Linux box without ACL's, and it's no more difficult than working out a well designed properly implememnted ACL solution. I don't know if you actually have much experience with Linux, but apparently you don't have much experience with securing Linux.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'actually install the OS' or issues with full SCSI and PCI... I do the same... and have no problems. Unless of course your using some hardware which the vendor has been uncooperative with the communitity. Full SMP??? I'm not sure of any place where every server needs to have SMP. Besides, I'm running SMP here on a couple of boxes, and I don't have a problem.
Of course, one should always choose the best OS for the job. Linux is not always the best OS. But, your arguments for why NT is have no real basis, more like bias.
Posting Pro-MS statements as an AC is probably wise, esp. since it's tired old rethoric.
A) NT has bunches of hardware and software support.
So what. This has very little to do with the OS itself and much more to do with the strangle that MS has on the market. NT itself is usually 'more difficult' to set up supported hardware on than Linux is.
B) File System
NTFS and ext2 are different filesystems. But I fail to see where NTFS could be called better, unless you're basing that solely on ACL's (then see below).
C) Security
Ummm, is this the old 'Linux is based on a 30 year old model' argument? If so then it fails with flying colors. A poorly understood, and implemented ACL is worse than no ACL. ACL's are one way to do security on a system. One way, not 'the one true way'. If you have knowledgeable admins, they can secure a Linux box far better than a good NT admin can secure an NT box. Why? IP Chains, TCP Wrappers... a stable, tested, proven 30 year old security model (which has had the bugs worked out of it).... NT is 'New Technology' ie. untested. I don't want something unproven for my security....
D)Ease Of Use
Purely in the eye of the Admin. For me it's much easier to admin a straightforward Linux box than wander around menu after menu clicking on stuff hoping it will do what I want.
E)Linux Has As Many Bugs As NT
I'll assume here you mean that deamons and apps running on Linux have many bugs... the OS itself has nowhere near the bugs that NT does. (Esp if you believe that IIS and IE are 'part of the OS')
Even so, I much perfer a quick response to bugs and a speedy fix. In the NT world, I have to fight through the PR 'Don't worry' "Feel Good' crap to find out what the hole is. Then I find that MS knew about it for some time and neglected to tell anyone, or they don't have a patch, or tthe patch fixes the symptom... not the problem....
Sell your snake oil elsewhere.
The GPL states that the code must be freely available. So if they post it on a web/ftp server they'll be fine. Or if they include an address that someone can write for the source, then thats ok too...
:-)
Just ask Linuxcare about their boot/root credit card cd gimmick at LWE
I can't seem to read it. Since Microsoft considers itself important enough not to use standard web style fonts. Instead choosing some weird non-standard fonts that only look good through the eyes of MS software... I can't read it.
Who do they think that they'll convince? Where I work, we have what seems to be three groups, the undecided, the decidedly anti-anything-but-MS group and the group that's actually tried Linux.
This may look great to anti-anything-but-Microsoft people, but to any reasoning person this looks like standard Anti-Anything-but-microsoft fare.
I can barely make out the statement "Windows NT 4.0 Outperforms Linux On Common Customer Workloads". I am intrigued until I see that it links us to the old PC Week tests... hrmmm, I work for a huge corporation and even we aren't running quad-xenon boxes with multiple nic's, for web servers (or anything else). And while we're at it why didn't they also include links to c't magazines similar tests?
Again... (I'm looking at this article by pasting the text into gnotepad...sad really) Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories.
This is true, but it has more than stories. I have personally seen good reliability with Linux. I have never personally seen it on NT... for you that's a story. For me it's proof.
Next we have some FUD about TCO... they don't actually show any numbers... just point in the general direction of classic UNIX and say, it's probably like that!!!
Then some more blah about security. But, yet as the very recent PC Week "hacker" (ugh, get the word right please, its cracker)tests prove... security is in the hands of the person who built the server.
Finally some fud about the desktop... even though it was supposedly some looming giant during the anti-trust trial, ready to kill MS on the desktop.
What a happy day. MS has lost its grip on reality, here's just more proof
No problem with that... just that many more people will leave you alone when you walk down the street :)
I have a great respect for the both of you. Can't you put the past *behind* you? If your honor needs satisfied... try champange corks at 10 paces or something!!
You've both been good advocates for (FSF, Opensource, GNU) but your constant infighting F O G's up the beauty of everything that all of you/us stand for. Get Over It !!!!
I've never seen a manager ask for help... male or female!!!
Seriously, I could care less who writes the software, as long as no one is discouraged!
Not if they're part of a large theatre chain. Here in Central Ohio most theatres are part of a large corp.And as such can be easily convinced by the .gov not to premit "such-and-such" ratings. It's a big corp. they don't care.
Imagine, AOL makes a statement that they will no longer carry webpages rated below "NewBadRating". WorldComm/Compuserv/MCI makes the same statement, and they require it for all those who lease lines from them. AT&T does likewise. Get the point? Doesn't matter if "lil ole" ISP wants to allow all ratings, they're getting bandwidth from a bigger provider who doesn't.
I doubt that an NSA backdoor would be called NSAKEY. More likely it would be called sol.exe hehehe:-)
End Users don't run servers. That's where linux will live. The desktop may have some linux variant or perhaps a MS OS, or maybe Be. I don't know. What I do know is that SERVERS DON"T NEED GUI's. when a CIO is shown the TCO of Linux vs. NT. Companies will switch. Admins, who don't like the interface will go the way of OS2 Admins, (Where ever that may be).
There is a difference between supporting Hardware and OS.
Customer buys hardware from vendor... he gets hardware support. Customer buys software, he gets software support. If I buy a Windows system from Dell and install some custom written apps, is Dell gonna support them? No. Same thing.
I worked for a small company that builds PC's in Ohio... we had some very nice burn-in tools... they ran from floppies. No OS.
GPL states that the source must be freely available.
That means,
1) On the CD distro
2) FTP
3) Through the mail
RedHat's not stupid. Shareholders or no.
Keep your eye on SGI!!! Remember, they've announced that they're moving to Linux EOF... so my guess is that a prot of their software can't be far behind....
Hey,
.org booth was decked out in a very relaxed style, and a very relaxed attiti=ude. Linux shows won't run like Comdex... (at least not the .org area). I saw Rob and many others give serious interviews.. if CNN is upset then they need to learn the new proceedure.
;-0
We're hackers not PR agents. The
Besides... Debian had the stockpile of weapons... the rest of us there were defending ourselves