Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates
From: Dazz (cashdj_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/31/04
- Next message: Dazz: "Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates"
- Previous message: Dazz: "Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates"
- In reply to: Hairy One Kenobi: "Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates"
- Next in thread: Mimic: "Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:22:38 +1000
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:23:39 -0000, "Hairy One Kenobi"
<abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>"Dazz" <cashdj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d0vk105efbk0ji2ok3r5qoa3e5751ut9a6@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:43:16 -0000, "Hairy One Kenobi"
>> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>I'm sure that I'm going to regret this, but..
lol, hell no. :-)
>Nope. I don't run it (went back to Win2000). I should, however, have a
>reminder when I get around to installing it on a VMware image.. which I was
>/supposed/ to have done two days ago.
I use VMWare as well, and I really love it. I spend about half my
time in Windows, and the other half in Linux, but even when I'm in
Windows, I'm running Linux.
>That is correct. I keep referring to v6 because I can't remember what RH5 or
>Slackware offered (I have both the them as well).
I'm hoping you realise there's been a few versions after 6. :-)
They hit Ver 9, and then moved to Fedora.
But I have to remind you, that Redhat is not Linux. It's merely a
distro (one of many).
>RH6 (and all subsequent versions) offer package-based installations; some
>possibly also allow you to pick individual packages on-top, but I'm pretty
>sure that's not the case with RH. IIRC, it's a bit all-or-nothing when it
>comes to choice.
No, that's definitely incorrect. You can chose to install workstation
or server, or a combination of both, and you can also chose to install
individual programs (or remove what you don't want).
The same goes for all full size distro's, such as Mandrake, Slackware,
Debian etc etc.
>Windows offers the same choice.
No - not if you're talking about XP (which seems to be much of which
this discussion is based on). Windows Servers do offer much more
flexibility, but as we all know, Windows XP is not a Windows Server
(in the sense of NT 4.0 Server, 2000 Server and 2003 Server etc etc ie
all the variants).
>Yep. And someone who pays attention while installing Windows NT variants has
>the same choice. Can't clearly remember back to my time on NT 3.0, but I'm
>fairly sure it was in there as well.
Trust me, I remember all the installs of Windows NT variants.
But tell me, apart from the smtp option, how does one install pop3 on
any of those NT variants, without going to an additional (ie separate)
server, such as Windows Exchange or a third party?
Simple - you can't. Windows NT variants do not come with a pop3
server. They do not come with SSH either.
The installs are not the same, the packages are not the same, and the
flexibility is not the same. Oh, and the cost is not the same. :-)
>Hmm. I don't "know" you well enough to comment on whether you've ever worked
>in commercial IT; it would be a strange attitude to have if you had, though.
No. I need support for Windows, I don't need support for Linux,
because I can find everything I need. I don't rely on Redhat for
support (unless it's looking something up on their website).
Some background on me. I've been working in IT since 98, have a huge
amount of support experience, and have a reasonable amount of
administration experience, in both Windows and *nix environments.
I don't puport to know it all, and certainly, I learn something new
everyday (that's what interested me in IT in the first place).
As a matter of interest, have you ever administered Linux boxes?
What's your experience with them?
><snip>
>
>> I've noticed you like to make mention of Redhat when you speak of
>> Linux, but I trust that you understand that Redhat is not Linux.
>
>Yes, I do. I'm using it as an example I know (at the time I started taking a
>serious look at Linux, it was the only distro that provided decent support
>of some of my (cough) "uncommon" hardware - ATI, CTX, Netgear, etc)
Well, in my experience, Redhat had a big share in the Linux market,
however, as I grew experienced with Redhat, I began looking at better
alternatives - and there are better alternatives to Redhat, in terms
of stability, as well flexibility.
Hell, I grew so tired of Redhat (the last version I truly liked was
7.3) that I decided to build my own Linux from Scratch -
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org .
Now, if I was ever going to build a purpose built server (and I
haven't had to in recent times), I'd probably build it using LFS.
Why? Because it's flexible, I know what's going into it, I can build
it to my needs and requirements, and I can install only the packages
that I need. I don't necessarily have to go through the dependency
hell that I find with Redhat.
Of course, instead of LFS, I could also just look at Debian, or even
FreeBSD, because the same thing more or less applies to them.
And once again, I don't need the commercial support of Redhat, because
quite frankly, support from large companies such as Redhat and
Micro$oft, can and does usually suck. But with Micro$oft, it's a
necessary evil.
<snipped>
>Yes. And why would I *want* to keep upgrading the kernel, when I can just
>configure the changed options.. don't go there - this one, at least, was
>settled in the old VMS vs. Unix war nearly 20 years ago.
Really, you don't need to upgrade the kernel, unless it offers
additional features (ie support of hardware, increased security, etc,
etc). But that's your choice.
With M$, as soon as they stop supporting an OS, you *really* do have
to upgrade to the latest version, or be left behind in terms of
security patches etc etc.
>If it's such an obviously good idea, then it should be easy to name three
>classes of OS that require you to keep recompiling the kernel ;o)
lol, now don't get *me* started. ;-P
Dazz
>H1K
>
- Next message: Dazz: "Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates"
- Previous message: Dazz: "Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates"
- In reply to: Hairy One Kenobi: "Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates"
- Next in thread: Mimic: "Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
