> From: David Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2002/03/13 Wed AM 09:04:44 GMT+12:00 > To: clug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Why Linux won't suffer from viruses like Windows/Outlook > > Hi Jeremy, > > I should clarify: I don't run Windows for my own use, but I do, though > my IT solutions company Egressive, provide daily support and services > (and some compatibility testing related to Samba installation) for my > clients who most certainly do run Windows. I deal primarily with > Win95/98, but have some clients also running WinNT/2000. I go out of my > way to avoid supporting WinME/XP. > > I should point out that, following any Linux server installation in a > Windows network, approximately 90% of my support time is related to > Windows problems - the Linux servers are nearly bulletproof.
Indeed, having supported large linux installations and enterprise unix installations (NCR SVR4, SCO OpenServer, Solaris) in the past myself they are more reliable, I'm as big a unix zealot in the server environment as anyone. These days I'm a consultant for a large corporate and our environment is Novell Netware 4/5 / Windows NT-2K, theres many tools you can use, some are better than others at some tasks, people need to be open to this, some microsoft products are simply better. Case in point, I did a contract job over the weekend for a company who needed a server to stream live and on demand video content, Microsoft's Media Services on win2k was the obvious choice, you plug it in and it goes, if there was a better linux choice I would've suggested that. > I agree with you that Linux is not suitable for the naive user on the > desktop, and with the current design of Linux, that will continue to be > the case. Over the years, I have realised that the average computer > user simply cannot understand the concept of a root user vs. an > unprivileged user (among other things). I have discussed, at great > length with many people, the concept of a simplified Linux desktop and > it's clear that a managed thin-client approach is the only viable way > that Linux will make it to the desktop. In saying that, though, it's a > reality (see the clusters of 140+ Linux clients in the Maths and Physics > departments at U of Canterbury), and makes developments like Citrix look > very costly and shonky indeed. Citrix rocks!, I've just implemented Metaframe XP here and it's very cool, integrates with NDS for our user authentication and works over the internet / lan / wan, can embed an application in a web browser :-). > In saying that Linux isn't ready for the naive desktop user, though, I > think that the savvy user can gain tremendous benefit from it. I have > very happily used Linux on the desktop since I found FVWM in 1994 (I > don't use it any more ;o), and would never use a closed system like > Windows on the desktop again (in fact, Egressive exists in part because > my previous employer attempted to force me to "toe the company line" and > use Windows on the desktop - I said "bye bye" :o). Totally agree it's great for techies, however 99% of the populace aren't techies, it's the /. problem, "why would anyone want to run windows, oooh yuk you can't run a beowulf cluster of windows boxes" if we want linux to succeed we need to be aiming at where the majority stands. > As for Linux's vulnerabilities to boot sector viruses and the like, all > I can say is that, although I've had a server cracked before, I've never > had any form of virus in more than 8 years of professional computing. I > don't know ANY Windows users who can say that. > > You allude also to the problems associated with Windows supporting 16bit > and 32bit applications simultaneously. See my comment (below) about > Microsoft only wanting to make more money. The whole concept of > building a 32 bit system on top of a 16 bit system was abhorrent to > engineers everywhere, but the decision wasn't made by engineers - it was > made by marketeers. If it hadn't been for "consolidating marketshare" > many years worth of problems might've been averted... Yep, it sucks, but when theres a huge market for it and you're in the business of making money from software sales you gotta go where the market drives you. Luckily with 2K/XP the old 16bit compatibility is gone. > Finally, in regard to your point about user/group structure, you'll note > that I described Linux as having a "proper multiuser architecture". > That implies not only inheritable user/group permissions, but also the > practice of running potentially vulnerable services as non-root users. You can run services as non administrator uses in NT/2K/etc.. however due to limitations in what non admin users can do it sucks... ;-). > To wit, Apache (typically run by either user nobody or more recently on > some distros, user apache). I still get Nimda and CodeRed probes (which > are managed by using the Apache configuration hack sent to this list a > while back - thanks for that) - the only reason they allow someone to > OWN a Windows NT/2000 box is because Microsoft didn't adhere to prudent > multi-user design conventions (which are, by the way, 20+ years old in > the UNIX world). I should also point out that the vast majority of > Windows users don't run NT/2000 and therefore don't benefit from what > little user isolation those systems provide. Yep, but XP is making inroads into the desktop market and improving this. > Regards, > > Dave > > On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 09:03, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > you've made some valid points, however they're not all entirely correct (It's not >entirely prudent to comment on something you're not using and up with the state of >play on.), windows NT,2K etc.. have a proper user/group based security model and with >NTFS it does give a permissions structure that prevents a number of problems you've >discussed, alho' the unix permissions structure is by far a better design (NT has no >permissions inheritance from higher level directories...) it won't stop a number of >the virus attacks like boot sector deleters and the like. > > > > In relation to your point about goodwill and the like, sure the current crop of >programmers will keep making nice stuff, but like in any system theres always a bad >element that will migrate as the system evolves and becomes larger, people who write >viruses for windows will write viruses for linux if they start using linux, nothing >about the hugs and kisses world of open source will change that. > > > > Microsoft doesn't turn people bad, people will be do bad things anyway, you can't >blame them for everything... > > > > Microsoft doesn't have a community like the linux one granted, it's more like the >real world, it's incredibly diverse unlike the linux community and therein lies a lot >of it's issues, it has to cater to so many different people wanting to run everything >from old dos apps to 16bit windows apps to the latest 32bit stuff, more bloat more >chances of holes etc, but it's because the people demand that, if linux is to compete >it has to give the people what they want... this is one of the reasons I'm anti linux >on the desktop because if it wants to truly compete it's going to have to do what >windows does, unfortunately ms set the standard for what people expect on the >desktop, I think the whole linux on desktop movement is negative for the future of >linux (but thats a rant for another time :-). > > > > jeremyb > > > > http://www.jeremyb.net > > > > -- > ** David Lane, Director - Egressive Limited * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** > ** PO Box 24162, Christchurch, NZ * www.egressive.com * 025 229 8147 ** > ** Open Source: software for the discerning palate * www.openz.org ** > >
