Ahem, no, yes, no, no, no, no, yet to be seen.
More precisely, show me hard data that proves it is across the board faster. Or, you can take back that statement. I mean faster algorithms too, perhaps even, gasp, compared on the same hardware.
Which seem to be very close to BSD jails which are implemented by grsecurity patches to linux. Take a look. If N1 Grid Containers are actually independent copies of Solaris, run User Mode Linux.
You can buy Red Hat Advanced Workstation for $99.
SGI doesn't think so. How many processors can Solaris handle? How many nodes can you use in a Solaris cluster (remember children, there are multiple types of scalability).
Really? Standard? You sure fooled me. I can't even buy Solaris at any stores around me. At least Linux is sold. As for installations, there seem to be fewer of these "standard" Solaris installations on new computers each year than Linux installations. Your "standard" applications are now being written for Linux and Windows Server 2003, not Solaris.
Running Linux apps efficiently remains to be seen. If they are going the *BSD route and doing syscall mapping, it probably does. You're going to run into a problem finding RH Linux binaries for SPARC though. The x86 version should have more luck.
My Powerbook G4 is blazingly fast with Fedora (well mostly, I haven't finished the upgrade from RH9^WYellow Dog 3.0). It's only a 1.33Ghz machine with a 64MB nvidia card that isn't even accelerated and 752MB of RAM.
Maybe you should look into non-x86 hardware.
What happens if my home is raided and my machine is taken. My machine would have to be unplugged. To start the machine back up, you have to provide several passwords to decrypt the hard disk. What happens then? Does the government go back to their offices and cry? Am I ordered by the court to provide potentially damaging information against myself?
I didn't RTFA, but did they by any chance "invent" Linux or some other Unix system? It seems to me that the permissions thing in Linux would stop worms cold.
Am I the only one who noticed the guy's last name, Dvorak, and thought it might be a pen name for a tech writer? If not, it seems that he was destined for his job.
Thanks for ruining the service we sprung $5 this month for. I guess my $5 is going to pay for a new server farm. Thanks again, slashdot!
Re:I wouldn't laugh about this too much
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 1
Your points are on shaky ground to start out with. We'll go from the bottom up, for my convenience:
The question is - do WE have the idealism to hunt down every single bug? (M$ people don't need the idealism for it - they get well PAID to do it).
While idealism is there, there are many open source developers paid very well to work on Linux. I'm not discounting idealism, it is a driving force behind linux, but I am saying there are professionals who are paid by companies to improve Linux.
Staying still, laughing about Micro$ofts misfortune here has to more immediate effects: (a) it will spurn M$ developers even more to deliver better software
This is an all around good thing. The more high quality software available, the better.
has Linux people potentially stay back and enjoy M$'s misfortune (and hence giving M$ more time to catch up, security-wise, that is). Do you want to sit at the "other" end of the story in a year or two - once M$ has sorted out most of its security issues, while linux might be more and more negligent of these issues (because everyone "knows" that it's Windows that's insecure).
This isn't going to happen for several reasons. First off, Linux developers are largely not competing with Microsoft. You may be personally, and the loudest, most vocal users of Slashdot may be, but most Linux developers are not. They code because they like to, because they see something that needs to be fixed, or because they're paid to. Idealism, which you talk about in this same comment, is a major reason why Linux won't fall to this level.
The developers that are paid also have different agendas. It seems to me that the only developers competing directly against Microsoft are large distributors like Red Hat, Mandrakesoft, Novell, Linspire, Xandros, etc and perhaps the Samba team. Almost all other developers are in it for different reasons. Many Linux installations take the place of Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Alpha, IRIX and other machines. A lot of Linux work is also done in the embedded space, with appliances being developed as well as real-time versions of Linux (both soft and hard real-time).
While uncertainty about Micro$oft brings some more people to Linux (which is touted to be more secure, but then again - it can just as well be penetrated by hackers)
Frustration with Microsoft products bring more people to Linux than uncertainty about Microsoft in my experience as a consultant. Also, a properly secured Linux machine can offer a much more controlled environment, going as far as to completely remove unnecessary code from the kernel and utilities if it is not needed, and the effort deemed required. Stripping down the NT subsystems, into the kernel/servers (I think NT is a microkernel isn't it?) and modifying the fundamental security policies of NT is not possible without an extremely expensive source license (which you probably won't get anyway unless you are a government, at least not a license to modify the code).
As a side note, Windows can be well-secured, but it is a multi-layer approach that requires other software, in fact other operating systems. This is not a flaw of Windows as much as an admission that no software is perfect, and the more variety in a network, the harder it is for a multitude of attacks.
Your friendly neighborhood emidln.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone h4x0r3d my box before I could get to it.
Ahem, no, yes, no, no, no, no, yet to be seen. More precisely, show me hard data that proves it is across the board faster. Or, you can take back that statement. I mean faster algorithms too, perhaps even, gasp, compared on the same hardware. Which seem to be very close to BSD jails which are implemented by grsecurity patches to linux. Take a look. If N1 Grid Containers are actually independent copies of Solaris, run User Mode Linux. You can buy Red Hat Advanced Workstation for $99. SGI doesn't think so. How many processors can Solaris handle? How many nodes can you use in a Solaris cluster (remember children, there are multiple types of scalability). Really? Standard? You sure fooled me. I can't even buy Solaris at any stores around me. At least Linux is sold. As for installations, there seem to be fewer of these "standard" Solaris installations on new computers each year than Linux installations. Your "standard" applications are now being written for Linux and Windows Server 2003, not Solaris. Running Linux apps efficiently remains to be seen. If they are going the *BSD route and doing syscall mapping, it probably does. You're going to run into a problem finding RH Linux binaries for SPARC though. The x86 version should have more luck.
Preview loads instantly as far as I can tell. Maybe you should try a Powerbook G4 with OS X.
My Powerbook G4 is blazingly fast with Fedora (well mostly, I haven't finished the upgrade from RH9^WYellow Dog 3.0). It's only a 1.33Ghz machine with a 64MB nvidia card that isn't even accelerated and 752MB of RAM. Maybe you should look into non-x86 hardware.
What happens if my home is raided and my machine is taken. My machine would have to be unplugged. To start the machine back up, you have to provide several passwords to decrypt the hard disk. What happens then? Does the government go back to their offices and cry? Am I ordered by the court to provide potentially damaging information against myself?
Just Curious
I didn't RTFA, but did they by any chance "invent" Linux or some other Unix system? It seems to me that the permissions thing in Linux would stop worms cold.
Am I the only one who noticed the guy's last name, Dvorak, and thought it might be a pen name for a tech writer? If not, it seems that he was destined for his job.
Which means exactly? The movies I download off of Bittorrent aren't officially owned, bought, or burned either....
Thanks for ruining the service we sprung $5 this month for. I guess my $5 is going to pay for a new server farm. Thanks again, slashdot!
Your points are on shaky ground to start out with. We'll go from the bottom up, for my convenience:
The question is - do WE have the idealism to hunt down every single bug? (M$ people don't need the idealism for it - they get well PAID to do it).
While idealism is there, there are many open source developers paid very well to work on Linux. I'm not discounting idealism, it is a driving force behind linux, but I am saying there are professionals who are paid by companies to improve Linux.
Staying still, laughing about Micro$ofts misfortune here has to more immediate effects: (a) it will spurn M$ developers even more to deliver better software
This is an all around good thing. The more high quality software available, the better.
has Linux people potentially stay back and enjoy M$'s misfortune (and hence giving M$ more time to catch up, security-wise, that is). Do you want to sit at the "other" end of the story in a year or two - once M$ has sorted out most of its security issues, while linux might be more and more negligent of these issues (because everyone "knows" that it's Windows that's insecure).
This isn't going to happen for several reasons. First off, Linux developers are largely not competing with Microsoft. You may be personally, and the loudest, most vocal users of Slashdot may be, but most Linux developers are not. They code because they like to, because they see something that needs to be fixed, or because they're paid to. Idealism, which you talk about in this same comment, is a major reason why Linux won't fall to this level.
The developers that are paid also have different agendas. It seems to me that the only developers competing directly against Microsoft are large distributors like Red Hat, Mandrakesoft, Novell, Linspire, Xandros, etc and perhaps the Samba team. Almost all other developers are in it for different reasons. Many Linux installations take the place of Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Alpha, IRIX and other machines. A lot of Linux work is also done in the embedded space, with appliances being developed as well as real-time versions of Linux (both soft and hard real-time).
While uncertainty about Micro$oft brings some more people to Linux (which is touted to be more secure, but then again - it can just as well be penetrated by hackers)
Frustration with Microsoft products bring more people to Linux than uncertainty about Microsoft in my experience as a consultant. Also, a properly secured Linux machine can offer a much more controlled environment, going as far as to completely remove unnecessary code from the kernel and utilities if it is not needed, and the effort deemed required. Stripping down the NT subsystems, into the kernel/servers (I think NT is a microkernel isn't it?) and modifying the fundamental security policies of NT is not possible without an extremely expensive source license (which you probably won't get anyway unless you are a government, at least not a license to modify the code).
As a side note, Windows can be well-secured, but it is a multi-layer approach that requires other software, in fact other operating systems. This is not a flaw of Windows as much as an admission that no software is perfect, and the more variety in a network, the harder it is for a multitude of attacks. Your friendly neighborhood emidln.