Is Windows more secure than BSD/Gnu/Linux/UNIX?

Quote:

---

As I already mentioned in one of my posts, it's much harder to learn Linux, if you are already used to Windows.

---

Common now, that’s a load of guano…lol

How on earth does being accustomed to Windows, have anything to do with learning Linux? You can learn more than one OS, honestly! To cut your teeth with a *nix you obviously can acquire a distro of Linux that can be an easy install and has gui’s. Linux is not Windows but not as foreign as you make it out to be. I love the diversity of having them all. They co-exist quite nicely in my mind (disregard that nervous twitch) and my hdd’s. SuSE, XP, Slack, Win98, or any combo therein.

cheers

Gore

For a starter, if you want to swear at anyone, youv'e got yourself. Otherwise, please try and be civil.

If youv'e got access to Windows try

Control Panel\Add or Remove Programs\Add/Remove Windows Components

That should give you an idea about the services you don't have to install with Windows.

You might be surprised by the amount of people who still don't have an internet access, yet, they still upgrade parts of their PCs, or buy new printer and scaners, what should they do?

Now another question, would your mother be able to easily use Linux, if you weren't around?


Grunt

An 800MHz Duron will be sufficient to run most of the servers in my opinion. What it need is enough ram, big HardDrive and plenty of bandwidth. The only exception would make servers for extra large corporation. I worked in the company that used 200MHz for their servers untill about a year ago. They would still use them if the machines didn't start falling appart :). You can still run XP easily on 500MHz and use it as an office system.

So it's only gamers left as a driving force.

I don't agree with the way MS does business. But do you think that people that can't remove spywear from their Windows, will start doing it on Linux? I don't think so.

So yes, Microsoft are WANKERS, but they still managed to produce a good OS. If people can't use it properly, it's a different story.

I personaly want to be profecient in both Linux and Windows, as they make up the bigest share of the market. And they are BOTH GOOD systems, with their advantages and disadvantages.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Relyt
Common now, that’s a load of guano…lol

How on earth does being accustomed to Windows, have anything to do with learning Linux? You can learn more than one OS, honestly! To cut your teeth with a *nix you obviously can acquire a distro of Linux that can be an easy install and has gui’s. Linux is not Windows but not as foreign as you make it out to be. I love the diversity of having them all. They co-exist quite nicely in my mind (disregard that nervous twitch) and my hdd’s. SuSE, XP, Slack, Win98, or any combo therein.

cheers

---

For one theyv'e got different filing systems. It is a bit confusing at the start. Secondly Linux uses different file extensions, this is also tru for different Linux distros.

I'm using Fedora Core 2.

I agree that one can learn more then one OS, I never said different. I was just trying to look at things from the average user point of view.

Wow, you are full of crap. Any business that does any business online or runs a decent sized website needs a LOT more than 1ghz. And XP CRAWLS on a 500Mhz chip. No matter the RAM. Yeah, a company that doesn't do **** online, and gets like 100 hits a week can handle that, but other than those sorts of companies, they are screwed.

BTW the add/remove windows components doesn't hardly do ****. You still can't remove MOST services, or even disable them, without something breaking. I don't think you can remove ANY services from there anyway, I think you have to msconfig or go to admin tools/services.

And his mother wouldn't be able to run linux without his configuring, but most people can't run windows without someone else's help. Seriously. Why do we have a spyware/adware/virus/trojan problem. Misconfigured PC's running windows. You can't really count that those people are "running" there machine, because they're not. They don't have control. And when was the last time you saw joe blow buy a PC without an OS, and put it on right? If some PC's were SOLD with linux on them, already preconfigured, it would be different. They would still need help setting up a printer and other small BS that they would need help with on windows.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat


Grunt
An 800MHz Duron will be sufficient to run most of the servers in my opinion. What it need is enough ram, big HardDrive and plenty of bandwidth. The only exception would make servers for extra large corporation. I worked in the company that used 200MHz for their servers untill about a year ago. They would still use them if the machines didn't start falling appart :). You can still run XP easily on 500MHz and use it as an office system.

---

Your kidding right? one of my clients has maybe 40 users (far from extra large) and there servers get pounded by them we just upgraded a 2.4 ghz box with 6 gigs of ram becasue it would crash when 80 percent of them were working at full throttle. You say server like it only applies ot one thing. Any terminal server is going to take a beating, exchange servers on 500mhz? yea not if you want your mail. quit talking your just making yourself look like an ass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
Gore

For a starter, if you want to swear at anyone, youv'e got yourself. Otherwise, please try and be civil.

---

You stop being an idiot and I'll stop swearing.

Quote:

---

If youv'e got access to Windows try

Control Panel\Add or Remove Programs\Add/Remove Windows Components

That should give you an idea about the services you don't have to install with Windows.

---

Those aren't the services like RPC, and that won't remove Internet Explorer like I told you to try.

Quote:

---

You might be surprised by the amount of people who still don't have an internet access, yet, they still upgrade parts of their PCs, or buy new printer and scaners, what should they do?

---

Chain you to a fence so the only people that have to put up with your gross stupidity are the people walking by.

Quote:

---

Now another question, would your mother be able to easily use Linux, if you weren't around?

---

I seem to remember saying my Mom got around in it fine without me being there.

Quote:

---

The only exception would make servers for extra large corporation. I worked in the company that used 200MHz for their servers untill about a year ago. They would still use them if the machines didn't start falling appart :). You can still run XP easily on 500MHz and use it as an office system.

---

Putting XP on something like that would be almost as slow as you are.

Quote:

---

So it's only gamers left as a driving force.

---

Yea, who needs power, hell we all know when people make movies they use a 386 running DOS right? You ****ing dolt.

Quote:

---

I don't agree with the way MS does business. But do you think that people that can't remove spywear from their Windows, will start doing it on Linux? I don't think so.

---

They don't have to, Linux doesn't use Internet Explorer.

Quote:

---

So yes, Microsoft are WANKERS, but they still managed to produce a good OS.

---

Yea, I miss Xenix.

Quote:

---

If people can't use it properly, it's a different story.

---

Yes, then they end up here asking us for free tech support.

Quote:

---

I personaly want to be profecient in both Linux and Windows, as they make up the bigest share of the market.

---

Thanks for that stunning report. You'll never be "profecient" in an OS you can't even use to begin with and don't know anything about.

Quote:

---

And they are BOTH GOOD systems, with their advantages and disadvantages.

---

.... Right. I bet you're an expert.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
For one theyv'e got different filing systems. It is a bit confusing at the start. Secondly Linux uses different file extensions, this is also tru for different Linux distros.

I'm using Fedora Core 2.

I agree that one can learn more then one OS, I never said different. I was just trying to look at things from the average user point of view.

---

Linux doesn't use extensions. .txt doesn't mean **** to Linux. And boy are you ever looking from the average point of view.

Quote:

---

quote:
So yes, Microsoft are WANKERS, but they still managed to produce a good OS.


Yea, I miss Xenix.

---

lol, nice

Now, to the servers.

A company recieving around 2000 hits a day. I would say around 20 users on the site at any point in time. Does one realy need much power for that. Considering that any secure setup will require for you to have at least to or three separate machines, runing different servers. Company I worked for had three. They were all runing Linux. I do have to admit that management were a bit tight on Cash. They still blody are :).


XTC46

Please read my post more carefuly I said:

"An 800MHz Duron will be sufficient to run most of the servers in my opinion."

Gore

If your rambling here is an example of you Social Engineering skills, then God save us all :D

You don't like MS, fine with me. You feel insecure because of your teacher, well it's your problem. Keep all this to yourself.

Also try Control Panel\Administrative Tools\Services

Or try hacking the Registry.

I'm sure a smart guy like you can do this.

Any other question? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
Now, to the servers.

A company recieving around 2000 hits a day. I would say around 20 users on the site at any point in time. Does one realy need much power for that. Considering that any secure setup will require for you to have at least to or three separate machines, runing different servers. Company I worked for had three. They were all runing Linux. I do have to admit that management were a bit tight on Cash. They still blody are :).

---

So they could do it, but they needed Linux to do it on those tiny boxes huh? Hahahaha.

Quote:

---

Gore

If your rambling here is an example of you Social Engineering skills, then God save us all :D

---

Ohhhh this one catches on quick. How the hell else do you think a thread that actually had something to do with security got this many replies?

Quote:

---

You don't like MS, fine with me.

---

I never said that. In fact I've pointed out I liked a few things they made. Like Xenix.

Quote:

---

You feel insecure because of your teacher, well it's your problem.

---

.... Right... Ummm, what part of your anatomy was it exactly that you pulled that out of? I bet it was right next to your head in any case. Or in this case, orifice.

Quote:

---

Keep all this to yourself.

---

This is MY thread, if you don't like it, don't reply to it.

Quote:

---

Also try Control Panel\Administrative Tools\Services

---

Still can't shut down RPC can you dingle berry?

Quote:

---

Or try hacking the Registry.

---

Hacking and the Registry don't even belong in the same sentence. I actually popped it open the other day for my first time. God is that a disgusting excuse for a configuration. I'm a changed man now. 0 = no 1 = yes...... This is as hard as Windows can get? You know, it can't get very hard, and even then you can't keep it up long, I think windows needs Viagra.

Quote:

---

I'm sure a smart guy like you can do this.

---

And I'm sure an idiot like you actually thinks you're winning this discussion or making a point when not ONE person has said a damned thing about you being correct at all. Hmm, after reading every reply to you it would appear I'm not the only one thinking you're a big drooling half wit. Playing for Team The Great Unwashed.

Quote:

---

Any other question? :D

---

What makes you get out of bed in the morning? The thought that you're about to make half the World reading what you say at any given time think you're grossly incompetent?

I just checked it out more carefuly. I think you won't be able to switch of RPC as long as you've got othe srvices that depend on it. You'll have to switch them off first. And this end my discussion with you personaly. You seem to be the worst kind of american I ever met in my life. A stupid one.

At least I'm not trying to cover my "incompetence" by abusing people, but give out conclusions I made based on the things I've seen. Not What MS said or what someone else told, but the things I've seen and tryed. :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
I just checked it out more carefuly. I think you won't be able to switch of RPC as long as you've got othe srvices that depend on it. You'll have to switch them off first.

---

You can't Windows needs it to work properly.... If you call it working anyway.

Quote:

---

And this end my discussion with you personaly.

---

We were personal? Dude it's not like we got drunk and had sex, we argued.

Quote:

---

You seem to be the worst kind of american I ever met in my life. A stupid one.

---

I'm not a damn American. And who the HELL are YOU calling stupid? You have yet to prove any of my points wrong, you argued with Chsh, and you call ME stupid? How about you look into things more when you open your mouth? A typo or something you may have misread, OK, that's understandable, but when you act like you've got experience doing this and try bringing it to the table and then talk out your ass, that's not.

Quote:

---

At least I'm not trying to cover my "incompetence" by abusing people,

---

"AO BOFH - Luser Abuser"

What the hell were you expecting? Flowers and a goodnight kiss?

Quote:

---

but give out conclusions I made based on the things I've seen. Not What MS said or what someone else told, but the things I've seen and tryed. :p

---

Acid?

Quote:

---

Acid?

---

No, most acid users are smart enough to not make themselves any more stupid by speaking and talking like they are smart.

And nightcat, there are a lot of services you can't shut down in windows no matter what, without breaking internet and the OS. Without RPC you can't use the internet. Blaster proved that.

And ****ing seriously, how do you have the right to call someone a stupid american? Have you just never met a redneck or what? Gore's smarter than you could ever hope to be, which is obvious due to the fact you can't keep an honest discussion going without doing the "I'm a bigger, better person, I'm going to end this argument" Bullshit. I would really like to see you show some evidence as to how gore is stupid, and you aren't. You are the n00b the ****ing n00bs make fun of. The script kiddies laugh at you. Take an axe to your PC.

There comes a point in time... when a thread just needs to be locked ;)

Pooh..... Is that really you?

It's me. Needed a -long- break to recollect myself. MsMittens suggested I create a new handle versus revive the old one, since it's a rule of thumb IIRC to not reactivate former accounts.

Not a problem, but now I can't keep my former tutorials updated

Damn fine to see you back old chap.....

Whaddya wanna argue about today..... ;)

Good to see you too old pal :)

As for what to argue about... I'm going to try to do less arguing/debating/conversation obliteration and listen more. Seemed my last approach of talking/helping too much led to me becoming overly frustrated.

I bet you can still rattle my cage with a good "windowz$ iz f3r luz3rz and insecuR3".

ROFL..... Nice to see the sense of humor is still intact.....

As to "Seemed my last approach of talking/helping too much led to me becoming overly frustrated."

Never, ever let the bastards grind you down...... :D

I can second that its really him... I told him to take the handle "Pooh Sun Two"...
It would have been funny!

Good to have ya back

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by poohsuntzu
There comes a point in time... when a thread just needs to be locked ;)

---

Indeed, and when mudslinging like this thread has turned into occurs, IMO it's better to just delete the offending posts rather than kill the discussion entirely, but to each his own.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
What influenced an uptake of PCs in the wider public?

---

Availability and features offered.

Quote:

---

Why is there such a huge increase in computer power in the last years?

---

Because manufacturers have made more and more powerful processors, faster RAM, bigger/faster Hard Drives, etc...

Quote:

---

Wasn't it easier just to stick to mainframes?

---

For several reasons, no. Mainframes are not portable, they do not offer localized indiviudal security.

Quote:

---

Why do you think Apple has got only around 1% market share in OS part of business?

---

Two reasons: Their machines got left behind in the DDR race, and PCs have become viable in poorer nations. Those who had macs by and large have stayed with them, though they are more expensive so this drives some of the people away. Additionally, overall more cheap computers are built, this means X86, which in turn means Linux, Windows, etc...

Quote:

---

Have you seen any drivers for Linux suplied with the hardware? I sure as hell didn't.

---

Then you didn't look close enough. EVERY piece of hardware in my machine came with Linux drivers supplied, as well as for EVERY dell workstation I've used since they picked up Linux as a distribution option. Additionally, almost every major NIC manufacturer offers them on the CD/Diskette. This is true of 3COM, DLINK, Cisco, and Netgear at the very minimum.
FYI, My MSI GeForce FX5700U came with the NVidia Linux drivers.

Quote:

---

How long ago did Linux get it's GUI? ( I don't know the answer for that, vut try to be honest)

---

As soon as Xwindows was capable of running on it.

Quote:

---

How many operations in Linux can still be better done, if done at all, through the comand line?

---

This is a matter of preference. To me, all of them. This is because I prefer working from command-lines.

[and in another post]

Quote:

---

I'm a new person to Linux, yes,but not to PCs. I agree about the price bit. But my question was, about what drives the power increase. In any business course they will give you a definite answer "Demand". If there were no people wanting there PCs to be more powerful, we would still run the porcessors under 1GHz. That's what you need to use the latest Office aplications or browse the net. :D

---

What you fail to realize is that demand doesn't have to come from the public. Clustering is a big thing right now, and servers are being relied upon more and more. Both of these sectors mean that processors need to get faster and faster. The AMD/Intel pricewar had a lot to do with it too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by chsh
Availability and features offered.


Because manufacturers have made more and more powerful processors, faster RAM, bigger/faster Hard Drives, etc...


For several reasons, no. Mainframes are not portable, they do not offer localized indiviudal security.


Two reasons: Their machines got left behind in the DDR race, and PCs have become viable in poorer nations. Those who had macs by and large have stayed with them, though they are more expensive so this drives some of the people away. Additionally, overall more cheap computers are built, this means X86, which in turn means Linux, Windows, etc...


Then you didn't look close enough. EVERY piece of hardware in my machine came with Linux drivers supplied, as well as for EVERY dell workstation I've used since they picked up Linux as a distribution option. Additionally, almost every major NIC manufacturer offers them on the CD/Diskette. This is true of 3COM, DLINK, Cisco, and Netgear at the very minimum.
FYI, My MSI GeForce FX5700U came with the NVidia Linux drivers.


As soon as Xwindows was capable of running on it.


This is a matter of preference. To me, all of them. This is because I prefer working from command-lines.

[and in another post]

What you fail to realize is that demand doesn't have to come from the public. Clustering is a big thing right now, and servers are being relied upon more and more. Both of these sectors mean that processors need to get faster and faster. The AMD/Intel pricewar had a lot to do with it too.

---

My system is in general around a year old. Most of the hardware didn't come with Linux drivers. I'm sure, that as big companies will catter more for Linux, its uptake is going to increase even more.

At the moment I'm using Fedora Core2. The problem I found is that things like instals had to be done through comand line. Core2 simply doesn't have any grafical tools to do it, or they don't work.

As I heard Core3 is just double click like Windows. Again much userfriendlier :).

Some other setting like mounting Windows partition can be also done Only through Comand Line. Mind you, Windows doesn't seem to mount Linux filesystem at all ;)

And Mainframes :D

From the business point of view, mainframe is more reliable and more secure option. It has only one point of control, making it easier to maintain. Clustering, as I understand it, is a sort of a return to the mainframe infrastructure, where there is One BIG Computer and many satelites. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And now another big point. Demand

I can still remember the times when 56K modem seemed like a bliss to me. And that wasn't so long ago, just around 3 years back. And also remember the time when a few minutes wait for the webpage with "flush" graphics seemed like a short time. Computers in my school, never saw Windows, and I finished my school in 1999. Having started to learn computers more seriously only around 4 years ago, when I moved to UK, I can still remember all those things. And I remember that poeple were happy with them, as they did the job. But as it went on, people want biger and better thing, for a chiper price. As more people were ready to buy more stuff, the companies started to make their profits not through higher prices, but through higher sales volumes.

How long are any of you prepared to wait for a webpage? I bet half a minute tops. Many people now have bradband. The companies need biger computers, so that they could cope with demand, out demand Ladies and Gentlemen.

Of course I will not miss out a rightful statement of chsh and others about competition.

Apple Macs have lost out a competition race. And not so much on the hardware, but on Software side. But that's my personal opinion, although I am partly agreing with the other version as well.

And a mainframe is more secure how?

Quote:

---

My system is in general around a year old. Most of the hardware didn't come with Linux drivers. I'm sure, that as big companies will catter more for Linux, its uptake is going to increase even more.

---

This is because the majority (99%) of linux drivers are not something you install on the side. They are modules that are part of the Linux kernel or compiled directly into the kernel on default. This is how Linux LiveCds can detect massive amounts of hardware, because their kernels are compiled to have the drivers built in. The majority of Linux distros now have default kernels that focus on massive hardware compatability. You can't think of Linux drivers in the same way you think of Windows dll and .inf driver files. The system just doesn't work that same way.

And since, by default in most distros, the kernel is already setup to detect and activate hardware (both old and new hardware) driver issues are rarley a problem unless you borked the kernel and didn't include the drivers you needed in the kernel build options. The only driver I ever need, for my entire system, is the 3rd party NVIDIA driver for my 5900 card. Cdrom, hard drives, DMA, joysticks, sound card, and so forth all detected perfectly and have on every computer I've ever touched Linux with.

What I am trying to say, is that while it is an option for manufacturers to include Linux based drivers, the fact is that drivers (most) simply aren't that difficult to program and thus already exist without the manufacturers having to worry about it. Driver distribution in Linux isn't nearly as large an issue as it is in windows, because the drivers for everything are already capable of being in your Operating system on bootup.

hey nightcat think of it this way... with a mainfrae in theory it is easier to protect becasue it is only one computer...but on the flip side if a person misses one whole and a hacker gets to it the thing is toast.

Do us all a favor and stop posting to this thread. You have proven your self to know very little, and the little you do know, you dont know much about. its like you read something somewhere and try to repeat it but cant back it up.

poohsuntzu

I completely agree with you. Linux does have a wide hardware support. Only one question.

Do you think that I realy want to be compiling myself the latest kernel or getting the latest Linux distro, if in the years time I decide to change my graphics card?
But being perfectly honest, I don't think I'll be changing my hardware in the near couple of years. What should I do then?

XTC46
What you said about mainframe is tru for any system, only with the Server Client structure, after compromising the server an attacker has access to the whole network. This means he/she can leave the backdor on one of the "clients", resulting in network staying wide open even if the Server is patched.

And I believe this is true for both Windows and Linux based servers.

Which gives us once again the answer to the original question.

"The system is only as good as the people who run it."

And this has been said here not only by me, but by others, I hope we can accept them as being smarter then me and to have enough knowlege to be able to make obvious conclusions.

Am I wrong here?

Quote:

---

Do you think that I realy want to be compiling myself the latest kernel or getting the latest Linux distro, if in the years time I decide to change my graphics card?

---

Well, I would hope so. Are you honestly saying that in the future if you purchase a new video card you wouldn't download the newer drivers for it, but istead insist that the ones from 4 years ago should still work? No, of course not. You would download the newer drivers, just like someone would recompile their kernel to include a newer set of configurations for their hardware.

A very common misconception is that compiling a kernel is something uberleet and requires massive amounts of time and skill. When in fact, it's incredibly simple, easy, and quick. It just requires reading the screen.

However, still you are thinking of drivers in terms of how Windows handles it. That simply isn't how a *Nix system handles hardware management.


While I agree that a system is only as good as the people who run it, we can't deny certain underlying features/aspects of an Operating system. In my case example, how hardware is handled. Unix detects and manages it (as well as installs it) very differently than how Windows does. This is a clear difference between OSes. Now, expand upon that. There are certain features within both Unix and Windows that grant them security(or lack thereof) in certain aspects because of how they function on a core level. Thus, somethings.. no matter how talented the admin.. are left in the hands of the OS itself. Windows requiring RCP while Unix does not, for example.

poohsuntzu

For the hardware my argument is simple. I simply might not have the internet conection to download a new kernel. This is why I'd prefer to see some sort of linux support on Driver Disks, even if it's just a small file with the code which I need to add to the existing kernel.

All these small things do make a lot of difference. They are the reason why people will or will not use something.
I already gave an example of Fedora Core2. What, for me, was an interesting task, for a general user might be a reason to stop using Linux.


Now what's to the services that are run within OS. Linux is also runing them, as well as Windows, and if someone realy wanted, they could find and exploit a hole in Linux. But people seem to forget about that.

Now if someone wanted, they might be able to fix the RCP problem and set it up on some website free of charge, but instead these people prefer to use what they find by themselves. Often for personal gain or just to cause haos and to prove that "they can". So, instead of complaining try improving both systems, I'm sure many people will be gratefull.

May be I don't know as much as some of you guys, but at least I'm trying to look at things from every prospective and don't try to make out that something's perfect when it's not.

Quote:

---

All these small things do make a lot of difference. They are the reason why people will or will not use something.
I already gave an example of Fedora Core2. What, for me, was an interesting task, for a general user might be a reason to stop using Linux.

---

That's why "general users" don't use Linux... It might require learning something outside of clicking "install"...

Quote:

---

May be I don't know as much as some of you guys, but at least I'm trying to look at things from every prospective and don't try to make out that something's perfect when it's not.

---

I didn't see a single post in this thread that said Linux was perfect...

-Wiski

[EDIT]

Quote:

---

At the moment I'm using Fedora Core2. The problem I found is that things like instals had to be done through comand line. Core2 simply doesn't have any grafical tools to do it, or they don't work.

As I heard Core3 is just double click like Windows. Again much userfriendlier .

---

The "problem" you found isn't a problem at all... and, if I'm not mistaken, RHFC2 comes equipped w/ a package manager (similar to Debian's, isn't it?) I may be wrong on this, though - I dumped RHFC2 soon after I installed it because it shared too many characteristics of Windows - the very OS I was trying to find an alternative for!...

If you want a more "userfriendlier" environment, perhaps you should just stick with Windows... ?
[/EDIT]

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by wiskic10_4
That's why "general users" don't use Linux... It might require learning something outside of clicking "install"...

---

Well then people should stop complaining that Windows has got such a big market share. Don't you think so?

Not everyone in the world is a computer proffecional. And not even all the profecionals can use Linux. Some of my Uni profesors can't even use Windows properly, and they are considered among the top in their field of IT. Beat that:D

Quote:

---

I didn't see a single post in this thread that said Linux was perfect...

-Wiski

---

OK. I appologize. Wrong wording :)

Quote:

---

For the hardware my argument is simple. I simply might not have the internet conection to download a new kernel. This is why I'd prefer to see some sort of linux support on Driver Disks, even if it's just a small file with the code which I need to add to the existing kernel.

---

The linux kernel and all the modules for it, uncompiled, is around 40-50 megs. Within that kernel, and NOT needing a new one, there are hundreds of thousands of drivers. Like I said, you are still thinking in terms of Windows hardware management. To a Linux kernel, all video cards still use things in the same way execept for minor variations. Those cards that require minor variations have their own seperate code added in that you activate. No download required. If you end up needing a driver in the future (chances are, not) then you can always activate the driver that already exists in the kernel.

It's hard to explain without having you compile a kernel to see. Have you compiled one before, so you understand what I mean in the difference of Windows "Install a driver per hardware" versus linux "One driver in the kernel can actually run 500 other similar peices of hardware, since they do the same thing under a different brand name"?


edit:

Quote:

---

Well then people should stop complaining that Windows has got such a big market share. Don't you think so?

---

No, I honestly don't. Very few people who use Linux, BSD, or Nix complain about window's market share size. OpenSource and Linux isnt here for marketshare. They are here to deliever an operating system that has the capability to be incredibly flexible, moduled, secure, and usable. Marketshare may come, but that's a sideproduct from the origonal goal of Free software and Linux.

OK. I'll have to do a bit more learning on this. As I said before, I'm new to Linux. I goet the idea, but some questions still remain.

Like:

How does an existing modules will guarantie the future compatibility and an abbility to use all the extra features of the card, or other hardware?

but this is to biger question to answer here, so I'll just sort it out for myself as I get to it.

The easiest way to compare is like this(and please forgive the formatting example), and keep in mind that this is just an example and thus the basis of it can be expanded upon when discussing other types of hardware.

Problem: "I need a driver for my harddrive that uses DMA 4, SCSI capability, and is a Western Digital."


Windows Solution: Download the drivers for the Western Digital (insert model number here) drive.

Unix Solution: Turn on the options in the kernel that allow DMA and SCSI.


So, instead of having a driver for each harddrive, video card, etc etc etc.. UNIX looks at solving the core of the problem. For another example:

"All hard drives need to be able to read a certain file system. Okay, so we program in the ability that every single hard drive uses... reading. There, we've covered 50,000 different harddrives right off the bat.

Hm, now some of the drives can use DMA. Okay, so let's add in an option for DMA. There, now we have 100,000 harddrives that use the features of -reading- and -DMA capability-.

Ah, SCSI technology. Well, let's code how SCSI works. There, now we have 200,000 harddrives that use the features of -reading- and -DMA capability- and -SCSI capability-."


See what I mean? They solve one problem at a time, and then build on that feature. By doing it this way, you don't need (most of the time) 'per brand name' drivers, because in the end they are all going to access DMA the exact same way. They are all going to use their hardware to read to the drive in the same way. And they all use SCSI in the exact same way. So, it's like building a pyramid. The features that are common across ALL the harddrives are implimented into a single option, covering hundreds of thousands of harddrives.

When a new feature comes along, like SATA, then we just have to turn on the option for SATA and ALL drives that use SATA can now .. well.. use SATA rather than having to make a new driver for each individual drive make/model/brand name.

If/when there are special exceptions (the manufacturer does something NON standard to their hardware (fscking ATI!!!!!!)) then we have to rely on the manufactuer either helping out the opensource community or using their own close-source binanaries.


edit: Granted, when extremely new technology does come out, it will eventually require an upgrade of the kernel because we need to add one new feature for those 20358731486703198 harddrives to use as needed. But by that time, you would want to anyways. Keeping your kernel upgraded, secure, and stable is as essential as keeping Window's core upgraded via Windows Updated.

Quote:

---

Well then people should stop complaining that Windows has got such a big market share. Don't you think so?

Not everyone in the world is a computer proffecional. And not even all the profecionals can use Linux. Some of my Uni profesors can't even use Windows properly, and they are considered among the top in their field of IT. Beat that

---

Who's complaining? I'm not anti-Windows. As a matter of fact, the box I'm typing this very message on dual-boots w/ Win98SE (slightly customized, of course...).

I've recently become the admin of a small network at my University (the computer science laboratory), and hardly consider myself a, as you say, "proffecional" (professional - perhaps your RH box isn't equipped w/ a spell-checker either?). During the break, I intend to setup about 25 out of 30 of my Intel boxes with WIN NT (fully patched and slightly modified, of course). Why? Because most of my colleagues are NOT interested in *NIX systems, nor computer security in general. They are programmers, web designers, and information systems buffs, and are not generally concerned with the "inner-workings" of the particular system or network they are working on... of course, there will be *NIX systems available for those wish to use them (probably equipped w/ Debian, RHFC3, and my favorite, Slackware 10)...

I'm not trying to downplay Windows - Microsoft is very good at what it does - providing a low-maintenance (and insecure, vulnerability-prone) operating system on which things will run easily and automatically (for the next month, anyway, or until the latest patch is installed)...

I'm not of the mindset that Microsoft is "evil" - simple market analysis will show that Microsoft is doing the best it can in releasing "quality" software while remaining a competitive and profitable business - but that's a story for another time...

Anyway, sorry about the rant - I've been drinking (I am Wiski C, ya know).


-Wiski

Quote:

---

Some of my Uni profesors can't even use Windows properly, and they are considered among the top in their field of IT. Beat that

---

They are obviously not on top of too many people if they can't use windows properly. If you are "on top" of the field in IT, and can't use windows properly, you obviously don't deserve your job.

You people are arguing with someone who contends that opiates are a "safe" recreational drug. Why bother?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by The Grunt
They are obviously not on top of too many people if they can't use windows properly. If you are "on top" of the field in IT, and can't use windows properly, you obviously don't deserve your job.

---

Besides i cant see a professor that is "on top" on IT but cant use windows -- a professor must know windows to be a "professor", i know a lot of ppl that is "on top" and dont know windows, dont use windows, etc. Example: mainframe experts. They only know windows enough to start terminal emulators and use that comfortable "green screen".

BTW: Most ppl make a confusion about Mainframes: Security x Reliability.

Myth: Mainframes are more secure. In fact, they are pretty easy to hack using the basic approach -- the breachs that all admins leave due to bad administration
True: Mainframes are rock solid in stability. Their Hardware and O.S. were designed to survive to a lot of "situations". Ex. IBM is developing their (mainframe) OS for more than 40 years since TOS/DOS thru Z/OS. Its hard to see an O.S. that can survive to a processor failure (on a MP enviroment of course) or a Memory Bank Failure or a bus failure (that we can find on lower platforms). IBM O.S. can recover from that events.

And the question why everyone go back to MF? Even to the re-centralization of processing (WEB=green screens) Mainframes (due to reliabity) are SO MORE costly that a (low platform) cluster for example.

Imagine them how much costs a Mainframe cluster...

Quote:

---

They are obviously not on top of too many people if they can't use windows properly. If you are "on top" of the field in IT, and can't use windows properly, you obviously don't deserve your job.

---

Not necessarily. As I type this, I have an article in front of me that talks about a professor at the University of Saskatchewan who has taught engineering and computers (including programming) as well as written many textbooks for over 30 years --- and he's never used a computer.

Keep in mind that often professors are expected to be specialists in a particular area, so they become focussed on that narrow view. Doesn't mean that they will be experts in everything. I know someone who knows Microsoft Win2K/2003 inside-out but he couldn't tell you point 1 about Linux nor could he use Powerpoint beyond the basics. I find that it's not unusual for my programming colleagues to be experts at the language they teach but rather neophyte at basic usage. I suspect this stems from the University method of teaching computers: theoretical mathematic point of view with little to no real world application or hands-on.

Quote:

---

Besides i cant see a professor that is "on top" on IT but cant use windows -- a professor must know windows to be a "professor", i know a lot of ppl that is "on top" and dont know windows, dont use windows, etc. Example: mainframe experts. They only know windows enough to start terminal emulators and use that comfortable "green screen".

---

That's a load of crap. No professor needs to know Windows inside out unless they are teaching it. Do they need to know how to get things going? Certainly.

Remember, these are just tools for us to do our work on. Perhaps we should take a lesson from Paul Tremblay (the professor I alluded to above) and try working without...

I see what you are saying...

My statement still remains then, if they are this specialized with something, with little to no hands on experience, they aren't experts in my opinion :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nightcat
For the hardware my argument is simple. I simply might not have the internet conection to download a new kernel. This is why I'd prefer to see some sort of linux support on Driver Disks, even if it's just a small file with the code which I need to add to the existing kernel.

---

I would honestly like to know what hardware you have (a list of everything) that didn't come with driver support for linux because IME almost everyone includes it.

Quote:

---

All these small things do make a lot of difference. They are the reason why people will or will not use something.
I already gave an example of Fedora Core2. What, for me, was an interesting task, for a general user might be a reason to stop using Linux.

---

This is where you're going to have to wake up and realise that you really don't "get it" about Linux. If you have a problem with the way Fedora does things, PICK ANOTHER DISTRIBUTION. This isn't Windows where you only have the current version or two and that's it. There are a load of different Linux distributions out there that do things better/worse, give them a try.

Quote:

---

Now what's to the services that are run within OS. Linux is also runing them, as well as Windows, and if someone realy wanted, they could find and exploit a hole in Linux. But people seem to forget about that.

---

Nobody has forgotton about it at all, the fact is it just doesn't happen anywhere near as often on Linux as it does Windows.

Quote:

---

Now if someone wanted, they might be able to fix the RCP problem and set it up on some website free of charge, but instead these people prefer to use what they find by themselves. Often for personal gain or just to cause haos and to prove that "they can". So, instead of complaining try improving both systems, I'm sure many people will be gratefull.

---

No, they couldn't. That would require source code access to the RPC portions of Windows. The most they could do is notify Microsoft.

Quote:

---

May be I don't know as much as some of you guys, but at least I'm trying to look at things from every prospective and don't try to make out that something's perfect when it's not.

---

It seems more to me like you're using a tunnel-vision approach and assuming a whole lot about how an operating system you've barely used works.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by poohsuntzu
No, I honestly don't. Very few people who use Linux, BSD, or Nix complain about window's market share size. OpenSource and Linux isnt here for marketshare. They are here to deliever an operating system that has the capability to be incredibly flexible, moduled, secure, and usable. Marketshare may come, but that's a sideproduct from the origonal goal of Free software and Linux.

---

To further emphasize the point: Linux and OpenSource in general are NOT directly products of Free Enterprise or Capitalism, they were a product of necessity, and continue to be. This is the fundamental difference between its development and Microsoft's.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by poohsuntzu
edit: Granted, when extremely new technology does come out, it will eventually require an upgrade of the kernel because we need to add one new feature for those 20358731486703198 harddrives to use as needed. But by that time, you would want to anyways. Keeping your kernel upgraded, secure, and stable is as essential as keeping Window's core upgraded via Windows Updated.

---

I beg to differ on this last point. Keeping the kernel updated is absolutely not as important as keeping Windows' core updated via Windows Update if only because the Windows core includes WAY too many things that Linux' kernel does not. In fact, barring a kernel vulnerability and presuming all hardware functions, the only reason to ever upgrade your kernel is speed/stability issues..
This might scare you, but there are plenty of boxes out there running 2.2 still.