Pretty simple really, a Linux file server, a Linux work machine, and a Windows home machine.
You run a FILE SERVER IN A VM ON A CLIENT??? I have no words to express the idiocy you have demonstrated.
Oh that's right, like a dumbass you assumed there were multiple Win boxes.
You have claimed that you run Windows XP in VM, and use Windows 7 as a host. Was that a lie? Maybe you don't have any of that at all, and just spewing bullshit on behalf of your employers?
I've probably been using Linux longer than you have,
I can assure you, you have not.
certainly long enough to know that each of the OS's have their place.
And Windows' place is along with all other formerly popular things that civilized people do not associate themselves with.
Yeah, here is another clue - Virtualbox is from Sun not VMWare,
VirtualBox is usually inferior to VMWare in configurations with Windows guest under Linux host -- at least it was so in all my practice of using it. I am not stupid enough to run it under Windows, but I am sure, the sight of crippled Linux being slower than Windows warms the cockles of your heart.
Perhaps you should do some research into virtualization,
I already did. The above is based on my conclusions.
you don't seem to know much about it.
Most "to know about it" is marketing bullshit written for Windows users. Indeed, I do not know any of that, as it is nonsense.
And for the record, from a cold start the Virtualbox machine will boot faster than the physical hardware
From an actual cold start, your machine boots with its BIOS, OS, then VirtualBox. Then in VirtualBox you boot the guest OS. That is certainly not faster than doing only the first two steps. Oh, but you meant, from a fake cold start when you start OS in VirtualBox? Please tell me, why would anyone do that to Linux? The only time there is any point rebooting it, is for kernel updates, so why, again, you are "cold booting" it? To restore from a snapshot because you don't know how to use package manager and backups?
due primarily to a lack of BIOS wait screens and such.
I can tell you a little secret. BIOS does not have "wait screens". It actually takes BIOS that long to go through its POST routines to initialize hardware and configure its numerous tables, thanks to atrocious quality of its code. Yes, they still call it "POST".
Since you are unaware of this it's quite apparent you haven't tried running it before.
VMWare includes a copy of BIOS, complete with all its annoyances and deficiencies. VirtualBox has a somewhat less repulsive imitation of one, but it does little to improve start time. Especially when booting is done from a virtual drive file over such masterpiece of filesystem design as NTFS.
Now go ahead and spew some more anti-Mircosoft BS, you know you can't help yourself.
Said a person who claims to run a file server running under VirtualBox on Windows client. Look ma, I copy pretend-IP-packets in pretend-Ethernet-frames back and forth in memory every time I am trying to access a file, and then still call the same Windows filesystem, and the same Windows SATA driver as if I didn't have a "server"!
You might wanna consider googling something along the lines of "china executes businessman" then come back and say that.
And usually for things that would be a good idea to execute people for, even if death penalty was abolished for all other crimes.
Can someone tell me why Bernie Madoff, former Enron executives, and all current Goldman Sachs management are all alive while piddly murderers, some not even serial, are executed?
Secunia uses their own standard for criticality, and does not rely on the vendors reported standard. So Secunia evaluates both equally with the same standard.
Really? Where are their standards? How would they even find out about IIS vulnerabilities that are not disclosed? Would they ignore vulnerabilities reported by Apache itself if they are below their minimal standards? Such as, say, each and every "path disclosure vulnerability" -- as in, a "successful attacker" can determine that user www has home directory "/home/www"?
Look at the actual description of vulnerabilities. Most of Apache ones, critical or not, are below what would be even considered worth mentioning for any piece of proprietary software, leave alone specifically IIS. In a perverse way you are right that popular software will have more REPORTED bugs, but their actual impact on security only depends on secure design of software, something that leaves Microsoft dead last in any software category.
Hah, what a troll. Here is a clue retard - get over your zealot fanaticism, your giving Linux users a bad name.
In the mind of Microsoft marketdroid everything that threatens Windows dominance gives people a bad name.
My method has consolidated three physical machines into one, yielding an actual power savings.
How did it happen that you NEEDED three physical machines in the first place? Oh, right, to run your beloved Windows, and not just one but two versions at once!
It makes management easier, and has multiple nice side effects, including standardized hardware from the viewpoint of the Linux installs.
Linux does not need standardized hardware, leave alone crippled shit that VMWare provides. Linux supports great variety of hardware, and you clearly chosen yours with no other intention but to run Windows on it. Then run Windows and don't pretend that you can do anything else!
If the setup could have worked in a reversed configuration (Win on Linux) I would have run it that way, but graphics performance goes to shit that way, so it didn't happen.
No. You run Linux under Windows because you are attached to Windows, and can't use anything other than Windows. You have chosen your hardware, you have chosen your software configuration, so this is the choice you have made. If you didn't believe that Windows is superior to Linux for your purposes, you would not end up with this configuration.
So no, you are both wrong and a fucking retard because it is not "the only possible purpose of such setup".
Look at what you just wrote. You pretended that Linux BOOTS FASTER in such setup, despite the fact that when you boot your box, you have to first boot Windows (going through BIOS dragging its feet, loading bootloader, etc.). then starting VMWare (a beast on its own), then booting BIOS again, inside VMWare, and, finally booting Linux in it. Even if it has any advantages (though there are none), it certainly only makes booting into Linux much, much slower.
My understanding of computer security is just fine.
I do not understand Microsoft security because Microsoft security consists entirely out of closing the barn doors after horses are out, and writing more and more sophisticated procedures for doing so. If you "understand" that as anything other than stupidity, you are stupid.
There is only one right way to achieve security -- by not building stupidly designed, unreliably implemented systems. Microsoft never accomplished that much, therefore they are wrong.
It takes BIOS at least 10 seconds to get to the point when it accesses the boot device. Any claims of anything on a traditional PC booting faster than that are bullshit -- or counted from the point when BIOS finished with its poking around.
Linux is not meant to run under Windows. The only possible purpose of such setup is to promote Windows way of doing everything. What is the reason why Microsoft is promoting it.
Right, because you say so, it is obvious that the BLS uses terms like 'manufacturing processes' and 'produce' to describe the importation of material.
Companies do -- by outsourcing formerly local production. Then company can claim "90% reduction" while actually increasing administrative and sales overhead.
In any case, even consumption of steel is growing slower than population, what means that production of anything that uses steel (what includes everything where aforementioned CNC machinery is involved) is being shifted abroad.
Recent developments. Steel manufacturing is an intensely competitive global industry. By continually improving its manufacturing processes and consolidating businesses, the U.S. steel industry has increased productivity sufficiently to remain competitive in the global market for steel. Investment in modern equipment and worker training transformed the industry. Over the past 25-30 years, steel producers have, in some cases, reduced the number of work-hours required to produce a ton of steel by 90 percent.
To achieve these productivity improvements as well as product improvements, steel mills employ some of the most sophisticated technology available. Computers have been essential to many of these advancements, from production scheduling and machine control to metallurgical analysis. For workers, modernization of integrated, EAF, and finishing mills often has meant learning new skills to operate sophisticated equipment.
Those are not really usable numbers -- I am sure, a company that switched from local manufacturing to import or operating factories abroad can claim 90% of workforce reduction. And claims of "remain[ing] competitive in the global market for steel" don't exactly match with very small amount of export and increasing amount of import. The table describing expected employment is consistent with declining amount of production, and is not really related to history.
my main point was that automation has very actively reduced the number of people employed in that industry, while maintaining significant levels of production.
But is there any evidence of that? That each ton of steel produced in US requires less man-hours of steel workers now compared to, say, 80's? It probably would be the case for complex machined metal products. However those benefited from CNC mills and at the same time were largely replaced with foreign stamped sheet metal, thus still implementing the same outsourcing mechanism with no overall improvement in technology (from engineering point of view, and as far as flexibility is concerned, stamped metal is inferior technology, so it cancels few CNC mills and laser cutters).
That's because you do not understand how computer and network security works. You have company though, Microsoft people don't understand those things, either.
There should never be such a question in the first place. If "Deny" is not the only possible answer, security model is broken.
Please note that Microsoft imitated Unix/Linux sudo (and PolicyKit) prompt, that serves a completely different purpose there -- ask a user to confirm that he really intends to perform a system administration task. Untrusted software can't trigger those things in the first place.
Most of mentioned Apache "exploits" are not real vulnerabilities, they are deviations from security policy that might be exploitable (and if exploited, there is OS security on top of them).
All IIS exploits are known vulnerabilities (privilege escalation, remote arbitrary code execution) confirmed to be exploitable.
Some of those numbers unrealistically change between years -- this suggests that some creative accounting was going on.
There is also a matter of US population growth (more than 10% per decade) over the whole period. Per capita production significantly dropped no matter how you look at it.
You have claimed that popularity of OS increases the amount of successful attacks. I have demonstrated that popularity of well-designed product has no such effects despite being a more valuable target for attackers.
This means (if you are too thick to notice) that you are wrong.
Take a look at steel production; sure, U.S. production is a much smaller chunk of total global output than it was 30 years ago, but the absolute output numbers are about the same, or maybe a little higher.
Steel production within US territory, or steel production by US-owned companies?
So two things happened, there were large production increases elsewhere and per worker productivity increases here.
Really?
At this point productivity of foreign worker is just counted as "productivity" of people who handle import, as from US-centric point of view they "created the value". In this (insane) model product can just as well grow on trees because foreigners' labor cost is negligible compared to "administrative cost" of dragging it through US and shoving it down consumer's throat. Americans are not paid much less, they just have unproductive jobs that they are constantly afraid of losing.
Considering the phenomenal market share Windows holds in the computer usage domain, no doubt there will be problems.
NO.
Ex: Apache, the most popular and very secure web server.
Regardless of whether or not the Windows security model you speak of is broken or not, Its security problems are there for Apple to observe.
There is nothing to learn there. Windows "security" consist of kludges built on top of unworkable model -- it's best when it is least consistent. Apple just has to consistently use security model it already has.
CNC machines were supposed to take a whole lot of medium skill jobs. Then everything got outsourced, and people were just thrown into pointless paper-pushing, retail and other jobs that paid about what factory worker would be paid -- they just don't produce anything.
30 years ago probably would have ended up in a factor with a decent middle class lifestyle.
Why? If they are poor now, there is no reason to expect that they would fare any better in 80's (or at any other point in history). You are trying to make parallels with post-WWI Germany where EVERYONE was worse off than before the war, but this just isn't the case. Poor and ignorant people are likely to blame other races and ethnicities for their misfortune regardless of any facts.
Slashdot Mirror
...and he does not seem to understand a difference between an idea and a witty expression.
Pretty simple really, a Linux file server, a Linux work machine, and a Windows home machine.
You run a FILE SERVER IN A VM ON A CLIENT??? I have no words to express the idiocy you have demonstrated.
Oh that's right, like a dumbass you assumed there were multiple Win boxes.
You have claimed that you run Windows XP in VM, and use Windows 7 as a host. Was that a lie? Maybe you don't have any of that at all, and just spewing bullshit on behalf of your employers?
I've probably been using Linux longer than you have,
I can assure you, you have not.
certainly long enough to know that each of the OS's have their place.
And Windows' place is along with all other formerly popular things that civilized people do not associate themselves with.
Yeah, here is another clue - Virtualbox is from Sun not VMWare,
VirtualBox is usually inferior to VMWare in configurations with Windows guest under Linux host -- at least it was so in all my practice of using it. I am not stupid enough to run it under Windows, but I am sure, the sight of crippled Linux being slower than Windows warms the cockles of your heart.
Perhaps you should do some research into virtualization,
I already did. The above is based on my conclusions.
you don't seem to know much about it.
Most "to know about it" is marketing bullshit written for Windows users. Indeed, I do not know any of that, as it is nonsense.
And for the record, from a cold start the Virtualbox machine will boot faster than the physical hardware
From an actual cold start, your machine boots with its BIOS, OS, then VirtualBox. Then in VirtualBox you boot the guest OS. That is certainly not faster than doing only the first two steps. Oh, but you meant, from a fake cold start when you start OS in VirtualBox? Please tell me, why would anyone do that to Linux? The only time there is any point rebooting it, is for kernel updates, so why, again, you are "cold booting" it? To restore from a snapshot because you don't know how to use package manager and backups?
due primarily to a lack of BIOS wait screens and such.
I can tell you a little secret. BIOS does not have "wait screens". It actually takes BIOS that long to go through its POST routines to initialize hardware and configure its numerous tables, thanks to atrocious quality of its code. Yes, they still call it "POST".
Since you are unaware of this it's quite apparent you haven't tried running it before.
VMWare includes a copy of BIOS, complete with all its annoyances and deficiencies. VirtualBox has a somewhat less repulsive imitation of one, but it does little to improve start time. Especially when booting is done from a virtual drive file over such masterpiece of filesystem design as NTFS.
Now go ahead and spew some more anti-Mircosoft BS, you know you can't help yourself.
Said a person who claims to run a file server running under VirtualBox on Windows client. Look ma, I copy pretend-IP-packets in pretend-Ethernet-frames back and forth in memory every time I am trying to access a file, and then still call the same Windows filesystem, and the same Windows SATA driver as if I didn't have a "server"!
Prescott 2: Electric Boogaloo.
That's one way to stop royalty payments.
That's also one way to keep OTHER PHONE MANUFACTURERS from extorting royalty payments.
If only that also worked against Microsoft...
You might wanna consider googling something along the lines of "china executes businessman" then come back and say that.
And usually for things that would be a good idea to execute people for, even if death penalty was abolished for all other crimes.
Can someone tell me why Bernie Madoff, former Enron executives, and all current Goldman Sachs management are all alive while piddly murderers, some not even serial, are executed?
Secunia uses their own standard for criticality, and does not rely on the vendors reported standard. So Secunia evaluates both equally with the same standard.
Really? Where are their standards? How would they even find out about IIS vulnerabilities that are not disclosed? Would they ignore vulnerabilities reported by Apache itself if they are below their minimal standards? Such as, say, each and every "path disclosure vulnerability" -- as in, a "successful attacker" can determine that user www has home directory "/home/www"?
Look at the actual description of vulnerabilities. Most of Apache ones, critical or not, are below what would be even considered worth mentioning for any piece of proprietary software, leave alone specifically IIS. In a perverse way you are right that popular software will have more REPORTED bugs, but their actual impact on security only depends on secure design of software, something that leaves Microsoft dead last in any software category.
Hah, what a troll. Here is a clue retard - get over your zealot fanaticism, your giving Linux users a bad name.
In the mind of Microsoft marketdroid everything that threatens Windows dominance gives people a bad name.
My method has consolidated three physical machines into one, yielding an actual power savings.
How did it happen that you NEEDED three physical machines in the first place? Oh, right, to run your beloved Windows, and not just one but two versions at once!
It makes management easier, and has multiple nice side effects, including standardized hardware from the viewpoint of the Linux installs.
Linux does not need standardized hardware, leave alone crippled shit that VMWare provides. Linux supports great variety of hardware, and you clearly chosen yours with no other intention but to run Windows on it. Then run Windows and don't pretend that you can do anything else!
If the setup could have worked in a reversed configuration (Win on Linux) I would have run it that way, but graphics performance goes to shit that way, so it didn't happen.
No. You run Linux under Windows because you are attached to Windows, and can't use anything other than Windows. You have chosen your hardware, you have chosen your software configuration, so this is the choice you have made. If you didn't believe that Windows is superior to Linux for your purposes, you would not end up with this configuration.
So no, you are both wrong and a fucking retard because it is not "the only possible purpose of such setup".
Look at what you just wrote. You pretended that Linux BOOTS FASTER in such setup, despite the fact that when you boot your box, you have to first boot Windows (going through BIOS dragging its feet, loading bootloader, etc.). then starting VMWare (a beast on its own), then booting BIOS again, inside VMWare, and, finally booting Linux in it. Even if it has any advantages (though there are none), it certainly only makes booting into Linux much, much slower.
My understanding of computer security is just fine.
I do not understand Microsoft security because Microsoft security consists entirely out of closing the barn doors after horses are out, and writing more and more sophisticated procedures for doing so. If you "understand" that as anything other than stupidity, you are stupid.
There is only one right way to achieve security -- by not building stupidly designed, unreliably implemented systems. Microsoft never accomplished that much, therefore they are wrong.
Have you actually read what I wrote?
Or read how those vulnerabilities are described? Apache has very high standard of what is called a vulnerability.
It takes BIOS at least 10 seconds to get to the point when it accesses the boot device. Any claims of anything on a traditional PC booting faster than that are bullshit -- or counted from the point when BIOS finished with its poking around.
Congratulations, you are too stupid to use Linux.
Linux is not meant to run under Windows. The only possible purpose of such setup is to promote Windows way of doing everything. What is the reason why Microsoft is promoting it.
Right, because you say so, it is obvious that the BLS uses terms like 'manufacturing processes' and 'produce' to describe the importation of material.
Companies do -- by outsourcing formerly local production. Then company can claim "90% reduction" while actually increasing administrative and sales overhead.
In any case, even consumption of steel is growing slower than population, what means that production of anything that uses steel (what includes everything where aforementioned CNC machinery is involved) is being shifted abroad.
Recent developments. Steel manufacturing is an intensely competitive global industry. By continually improving its manufacturing processes and consolidating businesses, the U.S. steel industry has increased productivity sufficiently to remain competitive in the global market for steel. Investment in modern equipment and worker training transformed the industry. Over the past 25-30 years, steel producers have, in some cases, reduced the number of work-hours required to produce a ton of steel by 90 percent.
To achieve these productivity improvements as well as product improvements, steel mills employ some of the most sophisticated technology available. Computers have been essential to many of these advancements, from production scheduling and machine control to metallurgical analysis. For workers, modernization of integrated, EAF, and finishing mills often has meant learning new skills to operate sophisticated equipment.
Those are not really usable numbers -- I am sure, a company that switched from local manufacturing to import or operating factories abroad can claim 90% of workforce reduction. And claims of "remain[ing] competitive in the global market for steel" don't exactly match with very small amount of export and increasing amount of import. The table describing expected employment is consistent with declining amount of production, and is not really related to history.
my main point was that automation has very actively reduced the number of people employed in that industry, while maintaining significant levels of production.
But is there any evidence of that? That each ton of steel produced in US requires less man-hours of steel workers now compared to, say, 80's? It probably would be the case for complex machined metal products. However those benefited from CNC mills and at the same time were largely replaced with foreign stamped sheet metal, thus still implementing the same outsourcing mechanism with no overall improvement in technology (from engineering point of view, and as far as flexibility is concerned, stamped metal is inferior technology, so it cancels few CNC mills and laser cutters).
I disagree.
That's because you do not understand how computer and network security works. You have company though, Microsoft people don't understand those things, either.
There should never be such a question in the first place. If "Deny" is not the only possible answer, security model is broken.
Please note that Microsoft imitated Unix/Linux sudo (and PolicyKit) prompt, that serves a completely different purpose there -- ask a user to confirm that he really intends to perform a system administration task. Untrusted software can't trigger those things in the first place.
Most of mentioned Apache "exploits" are not real vulnerabilities, they are deviations from security policy that might be exploitable (and if exploited, there is OS security on top of them).
All IIS exploits are known vulnerabilities (privilege escalation, remote arbitrary code execution) confirmed to be exploitable.
Some of those numbers unrealistically change between years -- this suggests that some creative accounting was going on.
There is also a matter of US population growth (more than 10% per decade) over the whole period. Per capita production significantly dropped no matter how you look at it.
You have claimed that popularity of OS increases the amount of successful attacks. I have demonstrated that popularity of well-designed product has no such effects despite being a more valuable target for attackers.
This means (if you are too thick to notice) that you are wrong.
Take a look at steel production; sure, U.S. production is a much smaller chunk of total global output than it was 30 years ago, but the absolute output numbers are about the same, or maybe a little higher.
Steel production within US territory, or steel production by US-owned companies?
So two things happened, there were large production increases elsewhere and per worker productivity increases here.
Really?
At this point productivity of foreign worker is just counted as "productivity" of people who handle import, as from US-centric point of view they "created the value". In this (insane) model product can just as well grow on trees because foreigners' labor cost is negligible compared to "administrative cost" of dragging it through US and shoving it down consumer's throat. Americans are not paid much less, they just have unproductive jobs that they are constantly afraid of losing.
Considering the phenomenal market share Windows holds in the computer usage domain, no doubt there will be problems.
NO.
Ex: Apache, the most popular and very secure web server.
Regardless of whether or not the Windows security model you speak of is broken or not, Its security problems are there for Apple to observe.
There is nothing to learn there. Windows "security" consist of kludges built on top of unworkable model -- it's best when it is least consistent. Apple just has to consistently use security model it already has.
Considering that Windows security model is still fundamentally broken, the last sentence doesn't make sense, either.
CNC machines were supposed to take a whole lot of medium skill jobs. Then everything got outsourced, and people were just thrown into pointless paper-pushing, retail and other jobs that paid about what factory worker would be paid -- they just don't produce anything.
30 years ago probably would have ended up in a factor with a decent middle class lifestyle.
Why? If they are poor now, there is no reason to expect that they would fare any better in 80's (or at any other point in history). You are trying to make parallels with post-WWI Germany where EVERYONE was worse off than before the war, but this just isn't the case. Poor and ignorant people are likely to blame other races and ethnicities for their misfortune regardless of any facts.