Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
Originally Posted by anomie UNIX and Linux are real OSes - Windows is something else... Maybe you should qualify "real OS". I would be more than happy to... How much ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Banned CodeRoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    567

    Quote Originally Posted by anomie
    UNIX and Linux are real OSes - Windows is something else...
    Maybe you should qualify "real OS".
    I would be more than happy to...

    How much commercial support an OS has - has nothing to do with my definition of a "real" OS -- my definition is not based on the popularity of the OS, but on the practicality of "the simple truth" - "what is" - on the merits of the OS itself. Let me explain it this way:

    Any OS that ... you can give someone the complete source code - kernel and all - and they still can't break into it -- now that's a real OS.

    This is not to say that UNIX/Linux can't be broken into - but, in contrast:

    The crackers are having a field day with Windows, without having the source code -- just think of what would happen if Microsoft published its source code tomorrow - by the end of the year (if not the month) the parts of our government, military and civil, and our banking institutions that have computer infrastructure built on Windows would crumble (not to mention all citizen data and top-secret data stored in these systems would probably become VERY public) - and create such havoc and pandemonium in our society... This is why companies and the governments of whole countries (around the world) are currently "throwing Windows 'out the window'" and converting to Linux - it's cheaper (it's free) and, even more importantly, it's more stable and secure - trustworthy.

    Meanwhile, UNIX and Linux are solid as a rock (best we got, anyway)... You should appreciate the fact that the absolute majority of the backbone of the internet rests on UNIX/Linux - or, who knows...???

    This comparison should illustrate quite nicely what I mean by "a real OS"...

  2. #12
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    34
    now what google should do to dominate the tech market is make a unix-based Google OS.

    ha that would be like Kaboom to microsoft. cause curently microsoft still has the upper hand in the fact that they have the most common OS. If google were to put their own OS online for cheap and have it on their website it would dominate.

    Of course thats just my point of veiw.

  3. #13
    Linux Guru anomie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,692
    How much commercial support an OS has - has nothing to do with my definition of a "real" OS -- my definition is not based on the popularity of the OS, but on the practicality of "the simple truth" - "what is" - on the merits of the OS itself.
    That's nice, but that is my point. You are injecting your own opinion (and your own definition) and calling it "real".

    Linux, unix and windows are all operating systems. And they are all real (as opposed to imaginary).

    So if your gripe is that windows is less secure, well then I think that should go without saying around here. I agree. But it is silly to lay your opinions out on the table, then get into semantic arguments when your opinions are questioned. i.e. "This is what REAL means in my world!"

  4. #14
    Banned CodeRoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    567
    It is not my intent to argue.

    I did not say or imply that Windows was not an operating system.

    I did not mean "real" in the sense of 'existing' vs 'imaginary' - I meant it in the sense of 'strong-and-solid-as-a-rock/stands-up-to-the-test' vs 'weak-and-flimsy/has-holes-all-in-it', as well as 'trustworthy' vs 'untrustworthy'.

    I'm sorry this came across as a "gripe" - it was not intended as such - in fact, believe it or not, it was not even intended to "flame" Windows -- it is an honest objective assessment, not a subjective one with feelings attached. What I said in the segment 'The crackers ... in our society...' is not a flailing about of emotional blubbering - I am deadly serious. This, in part, was an attempt to bring awareness to a serious issue that affects us all in the real world.

    I am not afraid of my opinions being questioned -- but, if I should happen to expound or explain, please don't be offended to the point of feeling the need to become defensive. Your opinion is just as welcome on this forum as mine is. And, who knows, maybe one day your [expressed] opinion will help shape my own.

    Each and every one of us are entitled to our own opinion.

    anomie:
    Speaking of semantics - have you noticed that up until now, this post has been directed at/to everyone, not just you? Sometimes semantics are important -- just ask any lawyer...

    all:
    No offense is intended. Apologies for any taken. Just want to encourage you to BE AWARE.

  5. #15
    Linux Guru anomie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,692
    I don't feel defensive. All three are operating systems and all three are real.

    Moreover, if you don't think Linux is crack-able (part of your definition of a "real OS") then you're missing something important. Linux, unix and windows can be hardened. The default installs for Linux and windows are not secure enough, IMO, though one is arguably quite a bit better than the other.

  6. #16
    Banned CodeRoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by anomie
    Moreover, if you don't think Linux is crack-able (part of your definition of a "real OS") then you're missing something important. Linux, unix and windows can be hardened.
    NOT part of my definition of a "real OS":

    Any OS that ... you can give someone the complete source code - kernel and all - and they still can't break into it -- now that's a real OS.

    This is not to say that UNIX/Linux can't be broken into - ...
    (This is one place where semantics become real important.)

    Other than that -- you're right!

    Quote Originally Posted by anomie
    The default installs for Linux and windows are not secure enough, IMO, though one is arguably quite a bit better than the other.
    Right again!

    anomie:
    At this point, I will happily give you "the last word"... If you reply - say whatever you like - I will not "come back" with anything...

    We are all here to help each other. I'm sorry if my approach seemed "just a little bit too ___________________" (Hmmmm..... ??? - you fill in the blank; maybe I can learn
    something from it that may possibly help me to not come across so harshly next time...).

    Once again, no offense intended. Handshake?

  7. #17
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by ISOS
    Quote Originally Posted by the0r3tic
    Google is becoming as bad as MS already.
    NOBODY is as bad as MS - not even close.

    Quote Originally Posted by the0r3tic
    You gotta love MS though, they have some excellent marketing, their website makes me warm and fuzzy, and the vista logo is very nice (this isnt sarcasm or flame bait, its how I really feel).
    Yes, that's how they want you to feel - but, you need to look below the surface to see their true colors - unless, of course, feeling warm and fuzzy is the epitome and foremost concern in your life (this isnt sarcasm or flame bait, its how I really feel).

    Quote Originally Posted by the0r3tic
    UNIX/Linux IMO is a hobbyist OS.
    UNIX and Linux are real OSes - Windows is something else...

    Quote Originally Posted by the0r3tic
    Dont take it personally, its just my opinion (I love UNIX, it's _alot_ more better than MS Windows, and it's great fun to learn).
    Don't take any of this personally, its just my opinion. (I love Linux, too - it puts Windows to shame [where it matters the most - security and stability -- and even more important than that - it's OpenSource], and it is great fun to learn ----- and I fully support it.)
    Good, we seem to agree on a few things.
    Oh no! We have an elitist here! Windows is a Operating System, whether you like it or not, just because you're a GPL elite, it doesnt mean that its not a OS. It's a shame I dont buy any Microsoft Products, so I can feel as warm and fuzzy as I want.

    Edit: Oh yes, and this remark:

    unless, of course, feeling warm and fuzzy is the epitome and foremost concern in your life (this isnt sarcasm or flame bait, its how I really feel).
    Was totally uncalled for.

  8. #18
    Linux Guru anomie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,692
    ISOS,

    I just want to make one more comment: I already agree with you in general. I am appalled with security under windows, and I don't wish its use as a server upon anyone.

    That said, Linux has got a long way to go to become secure. They follow the same crummy "discover and patch" model as windows at this point, even if the OS itself is inherently more secure by design.

    SELinux is a good start.

  9. #19
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,366
    if you want security, and its your top, or only for that matter, priority you should really check out OpenBSD, one hole in 8 years...be warned it is a ***** to install...ahh I remember the easy days of gentoo stage 1
    Operating System: GNU Emacs

  10. #20
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by anomie
    ISOS,

    I just want to make one more comment: I already agree with you in general. I am appalled with security under windows, and I don't wish its use as a server upon anyone.

    That said, Linux has got a long way to go to become secure. They follow the same crummy "discover and patch" model as windows at this point, even if the OS itself is inherently more secure by design.

    SELinux is a good start.
    Linux/BSD should be on all the servers, BSD more so than Linux because of it's rock solid stability. Windows XP would be the desktop OS, and then with a BSD firewall to beef it up. Makes sense really, even ISOS can admit that. You could SSH into the firewall every day, and I think the ideal computer package for the average family should be a nice Production Machine and a BSD/Linux Firewall (set up would be very easy, infact, pre-configured and pre-installed). I think if companies started doing that, I think it would sort all this ******** media stuff I keep hearing about on Worms and Trojans on Windows XP. As for anti-virus, well, lots of production machines come with Norton these days, so that wouldnt be a issue. I think Microsoft is doing a good job with the Updates, except for the Genuine Validation, which can be easily bypassed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •