Linux is Still not more stable!!! - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Linux is Still not more stable!!!

  1. #21
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    To not be crass towards those new to linux and trying to have some level of understanding concerning the mentality of windows users, here's a few points.

    1: Linux is more stable and secure right out of the box!
    If you install it without a hitch, yes, it will be more stable. If you configure stuff wrong, no it won't be more stable. As for security, BSD is the only one that's REALLY REALLY secure right out of the box. Security = 1 / convenience. However secure you want your box, expect to spend exponentially more time with it, monitoring logs, shutting down services not needed, port scanning your machine, nmapping your network to see where things go, etc etc. You get the drift.

    2: But I didn't have to do this with Windows!
    Yeah, you didn't. You just fall into the category of 'whipped MS-led sheep'. You also didn't question Windows dying every day, sucking up your memory, etc etc. Instead, it's one of those "These things just happen" or "Well that's windows for you".

    Linux has one thing that MS will never ever get or comprehend: the ability to change anything you want. You want login to say "Welcome Master, how can I serve you today?", sure thing, just get the source to login, change it, compile it, move it into production, and booya, there you go. And that's just 1 of oh...thousands of things you can do. And it's free. And it's supported by a bunch of people who do it for free. Try getting anything other than netmeeting, IE, or WMP from MS for free.

    To sum up UberC0der's message: RTFM (it's really that easy)
    Use 'man', as mentioned. 'man man' will help you figure out how to use it, and from there, you can find anything out.

    Last note: long live vi! Down with emacs! *flees from emacs lovers*
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.
    Share on Google+

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,255
    Originally posted by Vorlin
    1: Linux is more stable and secure right out of the box!
    If you install it without a hitch, yes, it will be more stable. If you configure stuff wrong, no it won't be more stable. As for security, BSD is the only one that's REALLY REALLY secure right out of the box. Security = 1 / convenience. However secure you want your box, expect to spend exponentially more time with it, monitoring logs, shutting down services not needed, port scanning your machine, nmapping your network to see where things go, etc etc. You get the drift.
    Vorlin, the first line of what you wrote is a dangerous generalisation. Linux in and of itself (as in a compiled kernel without services) is very much more secure than say, Win9x/ME. Unfortunately, most people consider linux to mean a distro, and security varies from distro to distro. I'm glad to see RedHat finally shaping up and locking down their boxes by default, but it wasn't that long ago that shipping versions of RedHat (6.2, 7.0, 7.1) had serious vulnerabilities in services that were started by default.


    Linux has one thing that MS will never ever get or comprehend: the ability to change anything you want. You want login to say "Welcome Master, how can I serve you today?", sure thing, just get the source to login, change it, compile it, move it into production, and booya, there you go.
    Funny thing you should say that...

    Last note: long live vi! Down with emacs! *flees from emacs lovers*
    Psst: I'm with you on this.
    Chris Shepherd
    The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
    \"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
    Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?
    Share on Google+

  3. #23
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    Vorlin, the first line of what you wrote is a dangerous generalisation. Linux in and of itself (as in a compiled kernel without services) is very much more secure than say, Win9x/ME. Unfortunately, most people consider linux to mean a distro, and security varies from distro to distro. I'm glad to see RedHat finally shaping up and locking down their boxes by default, but it wasn't that long ago that shipping versions of RedHat (6.2, 7.0, 7.1) had serious vulnerabilities in services that were started by default.
    Oh, the first line wasn't me stating that. I've had people say that before and the way I define 'stable' is this:

    1: you don't have to reboot 10x times to get everything running.
    2: your memory isn't chewed up, hence another reboot.
    3: generally speaking, a linux box isn't going to be on the internet right off the rip, so that's more secure right there.

    I'm just stating that without hitches, it's generally a lot better although I definitely do NOT condone leaving it that way. 5 minutes of education is amazing.
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.
    Share on Google+

  4. #24
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716

    Thumbs up

    VI should be renamed eVIl.
    as for EMACS what can you say?
    Live and learn, and read those man pages.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
    Share on Google+

  5. #25
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    chsh, also, another thing I remembered. At least linux hasn't suffered the gross negligence that Sun did a few years back when they released a version of Solaris (can't remember right now) where the root's .rhosts had a + in it by default. THAT'S insecure, hehe...

    And yes, I'm glad to see RH finally shaping up too. Then again, they've been in the market almost the longest and are finally in the black for profit.
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.
    Share on Google+

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,255
    Originally posted by Vorlin
    Oh, the first line wasn't me stating that. I've had people say that before and the way I define 'stable' is this:

    1: you don't have to reboot 10x times to get everything running.
    2: your memory isn't chewed up, hence another reboot.
    3: generally speaking, a linux box isn't going to be on the internet right off the rip, so that's more secure right there.

    I'm just stating that without hitches, it's generally a lot better although I definitely do NOT condone leaving it that way. 5 minutes of education is amazing.
    Sorry for the misunderstanding. It seemed to me like you were saying it was more secure out of the box.
    One thing I think bears repeating (this isn't directed at you Vorlin, but rather just a general comment) is that regardless of the OS you're running, you need to take steps to make it more secure. How secure an OS can be is really what varies, but even with Win2k's horrible track record, there are measures you can take to lock it down.

    chsh, also, another thing I remembered. At least linux hasn't suffered the gross negligence that Sun did a few years back when they released a version of Solaris (can't remember right now) where the root's .rhosts had a + in it by default. THAT'S insecure, hehe...

    And yes, I'm glad to see RH finally shaping up too. Then again, they've been in the market almost the longest and are finally in the black for profit
    Very true. That's a very good illustration as to why it's imperative to work to secure your box, and not assume it's perfectly invincible out of the box.
    Chris Shepherd
    The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
    \"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
    Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?
    Share on Google+

  7. #27
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    25
    Uber C0der:
    Thanks for the info on hdparm
    You learn something new everyday!
    --
    \"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity.\"
    Dennis Ritchie.
    Share on Google+

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    752
    Originally posted by Vorlin


    [B]To not be crass towards those new to linux and trying to have some level of understanding concerning the mentality of windows users, here's a few points.







    1: Linux is more stable and secure right out of the box!



    If you install it without a hitch, yes, it will be more stable. If you configure stuff wrong, no it won't be more stable. /B]




    Where were you 6 months ago, Vorlin? Why weren't you there when I needed you!?





    Sadly, this is very true. I had to learn it the hard way. About 6 months ago, when I decided to try Linux (with Red Hat 7), I flew through the install like one would when installing Windows. Later that day, it died. Three or four shoddy installs later, I finally figured it out. I read everything carefully, installed only what I needed, took extra care to configure my hardware right, and it works just great. I haven't rebooted it in over a month and a half. The only time I shut it down is for thunderstorms.





    About a week ago, I got SuSE. Hearing about how easy it was supposed to be, mixed with the excitement of a new OS, I flew through the install, and right afterward, went straight to adding packages. In my hurry, I didn't read the package conflict warnings, and it finally took the big **** on me this morning, taking my ENTIRE English paper with it. After a very careful install and config today, it works absolutely perfectly, and is performing above and beyond what I would come to expect from Linux.





    Let this be a lesson to all you current and soon-to-be Linux newbies! Linux is NOT Windows. It does not do your work for you. You have to take the extra time to do it right. If you're new to Linux, it may take you several installs to get it right. Even the easiest distributions require careful install and configuration. If it doesn't work the first time, don't be discouraged! Everybody hits a few bumps the first time or two through it. Just be patient, and you will start to pick it up. It takes time (and maybe some books and sedatives ).
    Share on Google+

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    185
    Perhaps I can give some advice to newbies.

    Keep in mind that Unix based OS's are more or less designed by programmers for programmers. It is assumed that you are going to read all of the documentation that comes with the software and that you are going to follow those instructions. If it does not work, it is assumed that you are going to attempt to fix it and email the developer with a bug report, or about what you had to do to get it to compile. Does this mean that all Unix based software is BETA? Absolutely not, but keep in mind that this kind of exchange between developers and end-users is as old as the OS itself. This is the essence of Open Source, the developers and end-users both work on the software to make a better final product.

    Conversely, the MS world assumes that you are not gouing to read the documentation, and that you would not know what the problem is and how to fix it. This is not bad, it is just the difference in who MS and Software developers for Windows have traditionaly sold software too.

    Keep the 3 sacred commandments of Unix hackers in mind when running a Unix based OS:

    #1 Read the documenation and instructions
    (RTFM).

    #2 Follow the instructions.

    #3 See #1.

    Of course Unix based OS's are not as easy as MS, but you are going to learn a crap load about computers, regardless of how much you think you know now.
    Know this..., you may not by thyself in pride claim the Mantle of Wizardry; that way lies only Bogosity without End.

    Rather must you Become, and Become, and Become, until Hackers respect thy Power, and other Wizards hail thee as a Brother or Sister in Wisdom, and you wake up and realize that the Mantle hath lain unknown upon thy Shoulders since you knew not when.

    Share on Google+

  10. #30
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    Where were you 6 months ago, Vorlin? Why weren't you there when I needed you!?
    Hehe, probably getting laid off because I was one of two expendable people (unix admins).

    One thing I think bears repeating (this isn't directed at you Vorlin, but rather just a general comment) is that regardless of the OS you're running, you need to take steps to make it more secure.
    This is the most true statement I've read all week. Getting a little more of an understanding how the operating system you just installed works is more beneficial than one can know. It's kind of like an anti-virus program. You configure it right and it just sits there, making you wonder if you did something right, when blakow! it stops a virus that came from a file that didn't have an extension because you made sure that you 'scanned files without an extension', making it all the more worthwhile. Just for note, I'll make sure I don't make generalized dangerous statements like an OS is secure right out of the box, even if it's mimicking someone who said that to me.
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.
    Share on Google+

Posting Permissions

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

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides