"Since Win2K, the OS per se has been much less vulnerable than in the Win 9x days."
I would not agree, while win2k made advances in basic things like user authentication and file permissions, it combined default network services of questionable value for desktops (messenger, rpc portmap) with a lack of a firewall.
The combination of these monumental design blunders produced a machine that had all sorts of entry points just waiting for an exploit.
At least win9x was so useless that it didn't have any services running, exploitable or otherwise.
Its really difficult for me to believe that in 2002 or 2003, when ever XP was released, MS still thought that it was a good idea to turn on all these services by default and not provide a firewall. Whare do their security "experts" come from that in 2003 they could not recognize the insanity of this? Didn't everyone know this by the early 90's?
You can make really big sites with PHP and you can make really big sites with Java, that's the fact. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Use what you want. Personally I use Java and while PHP lacks many facilities that Java has, Java also lacks things that PHP has. I would never look down on someone who uses PHP or any other language, because every language has trade offs.
One thing that you get with PHP is a platform that is more tolerant of shitty code, when Java will blow, the PHP server will keep chugging along. With Java you have to use a more rigorous build and testing process, while with PHP you can deploy individual files here and there without too much worry. To me these sorts of consideration are as important, or even more important than distributed transactions, and session sharing.
Not every site needs distributed transactions, or CMP or any of the other cool Java things. They are nice to have but they may not be required to make a specific site.
Why do you have to compile your own kernel? Maybe should switch to a commercial distro instead of making your own. Get redhat and up2date. You will have nice patched kernels, tested and ready for you to download. Easier than windows update in my expierience.
Having your lunix servers down for a day seems like your choice here, not a flaw in the OS.
I used work for a fortune 1000 company and I too tried to install Linux in place of win2k. I also am an accomplished VB programmer and well as Access, however I have not had your success with getting it to run faster than C.
I had heard great things about Linux and I decidedd that I would install and optimize it to run our enterprise web application (previously on win2k/access). I used PostgreSql in place of Access and Apache instead of IIS.
Everthing worked ok in development, the usual reboots every day or so, as is common with Linux. Then we switched the new application to production and all hell broke loose.
We did the switch a 2am so as not to inconvience our user base. When we switched over the cpu jumped to 100% and the linux box started swapping like mad. We started poking around, unwilling to believe that Linux was THIS shitty, but yes it was.
Then the linux box started smoking and halon came on and two of our MCSE's, who had been cleaning up some wireing in the server room, were overcome by the smoke and lack of oxygen, passing out.
We pulled the two MCSE's to safety and they are going to be alright. But in the end I lost my job and now nobody will even interview me. My name is ruined in the corporate IT world for my dangerous and unorthodox views. How can I tell them that I have learned my lesson, I WILL NEVER USE OPEN SORES AGAIN!
1. Ease of management.
2. $0 license fees.
3. Fewer security issues.
4. Reduced hardware costs.
5. Fewer support people required.
6. Applicable to more business tasks.
even without Linux the Unix workstation buisness would have been dead
That's true, it was NT, and a warped corporate mindset that killed the unix workstation business.
Still, workstations do make great development platforms for people who are deloying on their mainframe cousins.
The fact that it's going to Linux does not change that it would have gone to MS otherwise.
That's BS, I started with Windows, then migrated to Solaris and eventually went to Linux, but I would rather have chewed off my own leg than go back to windows.
Unix is losing on the webserver front because Linux is just as reliable yet cheaper. Windows is also losing in this market for the same reasons. If unix is suffering more than win32 right now, its just because they have no desktop install to fall back on.
This is just a preview of what is going to happen to win32 on the desktop in the next few years.
You are correct, but it get's a bit tiresome to install all of this software, and maintain it, when unix versions like RedHat have it all set up for you.
Its not just gawk, but more complex stuff like logwatch, gcc, a firewall, sshd, vim, gtar, tcpwrappers, etc. etc. etc.
I know I can head over to sunfreeware and get all of this stuff, but I just think Sun would be wise to make it a little easier for their users. They should create Gnu/Solaris, instead of shipping this 20 year old system V crap. Leave me the kernel, and the value added Sun code, disksuite, etc. and then update all the rest with the BETTER Gnu tools.
I don't want Gnu/Linux on sparc, I want Gnu/Solaris.
I have been running a multi server site with resin for a few years now. I haven't seen any of the versioning issues that you mention, even when I converted from Apache/JServ jdk1.1 to resin jdk 1.3.
I do think that the full 3 tier setup is probably a pain in the ass. Maybe a lot of people are resorting to this complexity without reason.
Moving to a war deployment was the best thing we ever did. We have an ant script that checks out the entire web app from cvs, tags the tree, compiles the app, tests and deploys the war to our staging server.
I have found that Java web apps can be more fragile than say perl/CGI so you have to take care , but the advantages for complex sites outweigh the problems.
Yeah I know, I was just trying to make a point (rather poorly as it turns out) that our profession is inundated with useless jargon and acronyms.
Why use a meaningless acronym, like COTS, intead of saying OTS, since as you say, it doesn't have to be commercial, or for that matter maybe OT would be better since it doesn't need to be off the shelf?
How about we just stick to the english language and say "pre-built software" or "custom software" or "bespoke software"?
Could it be because if we used existing english words then people would know what we are saying, and the whole point of creating the acronyms is to asure ourselves, and everyone else that we know more than they do.
"a standard to formulate consistent baseline security requirements for general-purpose (GP), commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) operating systems"
Too bad, it might have been useful for Non-Commercial Off The Net Software (NCONS) too. Ever get the feeling that someone has just been dying to use a new acronym?
I would be interested to find out what he is using today, the article is about a year and a half old.
I work with a guy that, if he had a choice, would probably use a Mac for his development. The company just sends us wintel machines and we wipe em and install Linux.
I admit that Mac is a credible Java development platform, especially if you want to use the Mac for other reasons. If your sole interest is Java development though, then I think Solaris or Linux would be better, due to the faster release cycles.
The cool thing about Java is that it really doesn't matter too much what you code on. You can develop on Windows, Solaris, Linux and even Mac and then deploy on a completely different OS. We did this for years, we coded on windows staged on solaris and then went live on linux. Any other language/runtime this would be crazy. We never had a single platform inconsistancy.
Could be that there is something worthy about their offering. Could be that the same tool is not always the best for every job.
And as for being "chased upmarket by disruptive technologies" seems to me that, if anything, they're offerings have expanded further into the low end markets in the past couple years.
They sell <$1000 1u's now, they sell these thin client thingies for $350, that seems pretty low end to me, and some how they are still selling those "over-priced" workstations that you believe nobody buys anymore.
So if $/MHz is the only worthy measuring stick for a computer purchase then why do people use windows?
Really? I would have thought that they would prefer to use Solaris so that they can use the latest 64bit VM, and have a choice of thread models. Or possibly the Linux version so that they can save a few bucks whilst still using the latest VM.
I develop with Linux and deploy to Linux, but for a big app I would use Solaris on a server with many cpu's, that way I would get my choice of VM's, a choice of thread models and full advantage out of parallel GC for >1GB heap sizes.
Just a thought... But do they really use consumer grade computers? Maybe as terminals but last time I was in a hospital's computer room there were no windows boxes around. There was a Dec cluster, a solaris box maintinaing a huge optical library, and a bunch of shit off the set of "2001 a Space Odyssey".
Got that right. What irritates me is that, even though I would never use win32 in my server environment, I am forced to do so by software vendors that refuse to port their shitty code to a unix platform. And yes I will replace this vendor asap, but it ain't easy. It would a whole lot easier if they would get their heads out of their buts and just port their code.
But I find that sendmail is easy to confiure, it has a very small (1-2) page m4 configuration file (sendmail.mc), and its incredibly powerful. Most people just don't understand that they will in all likelyhood never have to edit the sendmail.cf file. Its only there to support exotic configurations. Buy the bat book and read a couple chapters. After that, you can sell the book, because you will know enough to set up 99.99% of all mail servers.
As for security issues, it seems to have fewer cert's than the Linux kernel, so patch quickly and you should be ok.
And as for Gnome and KDE, well.... Yeah. But then most of the machines I manage don't even have X installed. What irritates me is that most of the common distro's (I use RedHat) are moving to brain dead desktops that are about as configurable as a Microsoft EULA. I don't mind them "unifying" the desktops but the glaring lack of choice and then the removal of the configuration tools means that I have to do a lot of post install, install so that I can fix things. Hell, you can't even set the background color without running Nautilus.
A synopsis of the/. opinions on this development are as follows:
Microsoft wins contract for homeland security?
-I feel safer already. -What's that, an oxymoron? -We would have caught Osamma but the server was down. -We could have caught Saddam but the server had a virus. -We could have stopped xyz but they were using unix and we couldn't read the file format. -In the interests of national security all computers must now run Windows. -Please change all NSC keys in the hive to DHS. -All you base are belong to us.
Re:I'd like to take this oppertunity..
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You can do a static compile of java into machine dependant bytecode using gcj if you are into that.
I do a lot of server side Java and I have never had a speed issue. Its much more likely to be a database issue that slows up the app than the execution of actual byte code. Remember that web/app servers ALWAYS top out on io before cpu anyway, so the fact that the Java server is running at, say, 40% cpu instead of 20% doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
"Since Win2K, the OS per se has been much less vulnerable than in the Win 9x days."
I would not agree, while win2k made advances in basic things like user authentication and file permissions, it combined default network services of questionable value for desktops (messenger, rpc portmap) with a lack of a firewall.
The combination of these monumental design blunders produced a machine that had all sorts of entry points just waiting for an exploit.
At least win9x was so useless that it didn't have any services running, exploitable or otherwise.
Its really difficult for me to believe that in 2002 or 2003, when ever XP was released, MS still thought that it was a good idea to turn on all these services by default and not provide a firewall. Whare do their security "experts" come from that in 2003 they could not recognize the insanity of this? Didn't everyone know this by the early 90's?
I guess this puts an end to the bio fuels (ethanol, bio-diesel, etc.) solution. If we burn more in 1 day than plants produce in a year....
You can make really big sites with PHP and you can make really big sites with Java, that's the fact. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Use what you want. Personally I use Java and while PHP lacks many facilities that Java has, Java also lacks things that PHP has. I would never look down on someone who uses PHP or any other language, because every language has trade offs. One thing that you get with PHP is a platform that is more tolerant of shitty code, when Java will blow, the PHP server will keep chugging along. With Java you have to use a more rigorous build and testing process, while with PHP you can deploy individual files here and there without too much worry. To me these sorts of consideration are as important, or even more important than distributed transactions, and session sharing. Not every site needs distributed transactions, or CMP or any of the other cool Java things. They are nice to have but they may not be required to make a specific site.
Why do you have to compile your own kernel? Maybe should switch to a commercial distro instead of making your own. Get redhat and up2date. You will have nice patched kernels, tested and ready for you to download. Easier than windows update in my expierience. Having your lunix servers down for a day seems like your choice here, not a flaw in the OS.
I used work for a fortune 1000 company and I too tried to install Linux in place of win2k. I also am an accomplished VB programmer and well as Access, however I have not had your success with getting it to run faster than C.
I had heard great things about Linux and I decidedd that I would install and optimize it to run our enterprise web application (previously on win2k/access). I used PostgreSql in place of Access and Apache instead of IIS.
Everthing worked ok in development, the usual reboots every day or so, as is common with Linux. Then we switched the new application to production and all hell broke loose.
We did the switch a 2am so as not to inconvience our user base. When we switched over the cpu jumped to 100% and the linux box started swapping like mad. We started poking around, unwilling to believe that Linux was THIS shitty, but yes it was.
Then the linux box started smoking and halon came on and two of our MCSE's, who had been cleaning up some wireing in the server room, were overcome by the smoke and lack of oxygen, passing out.
We pulled the two MCSE's to safety and they are going to be alright. But in the end I lost my job and now nobody will even interview me. My name is ruined in the corporate IT world for my dangerous and unorthodox views. How can I tell them that I have learned my lesson, I WILL NEVER USE OPEN SORES AGAIN!
"One is frightened of what's around the next corner with Microsoft," he said. "You wake up the next day and suddenly something isn't working."
Hahahaha!
Exageration. Just meant to say that it would impact downtime more than failing processors, something which I have yet to run into.
When you have to patch the kernel with security updates every week?
I think that a mechanism to patch a running kernel would improve uptime more than the ability to replace processors.
Also, some sort of buffer overflow prevention would be cool.
Don't know if either of these is possible... I think solaris has some sort of buffer overflow protection.
a compelling reason not to go to Windows
I could come up with several to save my leg.
1. Ease of management. 2. $0 license fees. 3. Fewer security issues. 4. Reduced hardware costs. 5. Fewer support people required. 6. Applicable to more business tasks.
even without Linux the Unix workstation buisness would have been dead
That's true, it was NT, and a warped corporate mindset that killed the unix workstation business.
Still, workstations do make great development platforms for people who are deloying on their mainframe cousins.
The fact that it's going to Linux does not change that it would have gone to MS otherwise.
That's BS, I started with Windows, then migrated to Solaris and eventually went to Linux, but I would rather have chewed off my own leg than go back to windows.
Unix is losing on the webserver front because Linux is just as reliable yet cheaper. Windows is also losing in this market for the same reasons. If unix is suffering more than win32 right now, its just because they have no desktop install to fall back on.
This is just a preview of what is going to happen to win32 on the desktop in the next few years.
You are correct, but it get's a bit tiresome to install all of this software, and maintain it, when unix versions like RedHat have it all set up for you.
Its not just gawk, but more complex stuff like logwatch, gcc, a firewall, sshd, vim, gtar, tcpwrappers, etc. etc. etc.
I know I can head over to sunfreeware and get all of this stuff, but I just think Sun would be wise to make it a little easier for their users. They should create Gnu/Solaris, instead of shipping this 20 year old system V crap. Leave me the kernel, and the value added Sun code, disksuite, etc. and then update all the rest with the BETTER Gnu tools.
I don't want Gnu/Linux on sparc, I want Gnu/Solaris.
I have been running a multi server site with resin for a few years now. I haven't seen any of the versioning issues that you mention, even when I converted from Apache/JServ jdk1.1 to resin jdk 1.3.
I do think that the full 3 tier setup is probably a pain in the ass. Maybe a lot of people are resorting to this complexity without reason.
Moving to a war deployment was the best thing we ever did. We have an ant script that checks out the entire web app from cvs, tags the tree, compiles the app, tests and deploys the war to our staging server.
I have found that Java web apps can be more fragile than say perl/CGI so you have to take care , but the advantages for complex sites outweigh the problems.
Yeah I know, I was just trying to make a point (rather poorly as it turns out) that our profession is inundated with useless jargon and acronyms.
Why use a meaningless acronym, like COTS, intead of saying OTS, since as you say, it doesn't have to be commercial, or for that matter maybe OT would be better since it doesn't need to be off the shelf?
How about we just stick to the english language and say "pre-built software" or "custom software" or "bespoke software"?
Could it be because if we used existing english words then people would know what we are saying, and the whole point of creating the acronyms is to asure ourselves, and everyone else that we know more than they do.
"a standard to formulate consistent baseline security requirements for general-purpose (GP), commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) operating systems"
Too bad, it might have been useful for Non-Commercial Off The Net Software (NCONS) too. Ever get the feeling that someone has just been dying to use a new acronym?
I would be interested to find out what he is using today, the article is about a year and a half old.
I work with a guy that, if he had a choice, would probably use a Mac for his development. The company just sends us wintel machines and we wipe em and install Linux.
I admit that Mac is a credible Java development platform, especially if you want to use the Mac for other reasons. If your sole interest is Java development though, then I think Solaris or Linux would be better, due to the faster release cycles.
The cool thing about Java is that it really doesn't matter too much what you code on. You can develop on Windows, Solaris, Linux and even Mac and then deploy on a completely different OS. We did this for years, we coded on windows staged on solaris and then went live on linux. Any other language/runtime this would be crazy. We never had a single platform inconsistancy.
This was posted Sept 9, 1996 right?
I think I have heard this all before...
Could be that there is something worthy about their offering. Could be that the same tool is not always the best for every job.
And as for being "chased upmarket by disruptive technologies" seems to me that, if anything, they're offerings have expanded further into the low end markets in the past couple years.
They sell <$1000 1u's now, they sell these thin client thingies for $350, that seems pretty low end to me, and some how they are still selling those "over-priced" workstations that you believe nobody buys anymore.
So if $/MHz is the only worthy measuring stick for a computer purchase then why do people use windows?
Really? I would have thought that they would prefer to use Solaris so that they can use the latest 64bit VM, and have a choice of thread models. Or possibly the Linux version so that they can save a few bucks whilst still using the latest VM.
I develop with Linux and deploy to Linux, but for a big app I would use Solaris on a server with many cpu's, that way I would get my choice of VM's, a choice of thread models and full advantage out of parallel GC for >1GB heap sizes.
So how come I had to install a patch for this ON TOP of SP4? Is windows update broken?
Just a thought... But do they really use consumer grade computers? Maybe as terminals but last time I was in a hospital's computer room there were no windows boxes around. There was a Dec cluster, a solaris box maintinaing a huge optical library, and a bunch of shit off the set of "2001 a Space Odyssey".
This is bullshit, I installed a w2k box last Friday and applied every patch that was available. There was no patch for MSBlaster.
Maybe if I had also purchased an extended support contract or something, but it wasn't on their public server, where it should have been.
Got that right. What irritates me is that, even though I would never use win32 in my server environment, I am forced to do so by software vendors that refuse to port their shitty code to a unix platform. And yes I will replace this vendor asap, but it ain't easy. It would a whole lot easier if they would get their heads out of their buts and just port their code.
These articles suggest that MS new about this fault for a month and that "experienced" sys admins were patching their systems.
I did a fresh install of w2k last friday and I installed every patch that was available. A patch for this worm was NOT on their site.
But I find that sendmail is easy to confiure, it has a very small (1-2) page m4 configuration file (sendmail.mc), and its incredibly powerful. Most people just don't understand that they will in all likelyhood never have to edit the sendmail.cf file. Its only there to support exotic configurations. Buy the bat book and read a couple chapters. After that, you can sell the book, because you will know enough to set up 99.99% of all mail servers.
As for security issues, it seems to have fewer cert's than the Linux kernel, so patch quickly and you should be ok.
And as for Gnome and KDE, well.... Yeah. But then most of the machines I manage don't even have X installed. What irritates me is that most of the common distro's (I use RedHat) are moving to brain dead desktops that are about as configurable as a Microsoft EULA. I don't mind them "unifying" the desktops but the glaring lack of choice and then the removal of the configuration tools means that I have to do a lot of post install, install so that I can fix things. Hell, you can't even set the background color without running Nautilus.
2003 fiscal deficit is now 500,100,000,000.
/. opinions on this development are as follows:
A synopsis of the
Microsoft wins contract for homeland security?
-I feel safer already.
-What's that, an oxymoron?
-We would have caught Osamma but the server was down.
-We could have caught Saddam but the server had a virus.
-We could have stopped xyz but they were using unix and we couldn't read the file format.
-In the interests of national security all computers must now run Windows.
-Please change all NSC keys in the hive to DHS.
-All you base are belong to us.
You can do a static compile of java into machine dependant bytecode using gcj if you are into that.
I do a lot of server side Java and I have never had a speed issue. Its much more likely to be a database issue that slows up the app than the execution of actual byte code. Remember that web/app servers ALWAYS top out on io before cpu anyway, so the fact that the Java server is running at, say, 40% cpu instead of 20% doesn't mean a heck of a lot.