Getting back to the origin of this thread I don’t think I can really help, and I am not going to advocate one OS or another. But after reading through it several times I would like to make a few comments:
1st) I do not know or have experience with newer mainframes, but using the old ( early 70's ) mainframes as a reference to today’s “modular” systems is like comparing apples to oranges ( not a reference to Apple computers ). I remember sitting in the basement of a state-of-the-art mainframe at a large college ( now a university ) computer center waiting for a printout of my program that ran on punch cards. Getting tired of waiting I went to another room, played what I recall was some type of “space invaders” on a terminal which my “security level” did not have access to, then, when done, went and retrieved my printouts. I never considered myself a hacker ( there was no AUP, etc. at the time, and “hacker” or “cracker” were not a well known terms; ) I just needed something to do while killing time and ignored the other areas of the system that were opened through my efforts.
Points here?
a) old mainframes were not that secure ( I got in with no trouble or effort, and I was only being taught Fortran at the time; the system ran Unix )
b) Time is relative. When I look back at what I did then, and what I would expect now ....
c) I could have graduated with a 4.0 average instead of dropping out in disgust!! ( head hitting wall several times )
2nd) The Grunt saidThis could change, and appears to have already. When I was first introduced to Linux very few used it and it was not very forgiving. Back then the average Linux user was typically a geek looking for a challenge. Then the Geeks demanded more, and contributed support to it, making it grow. It Became more forgiving and more “ user friendly” and changed to something someone would use to call themselves a geek.Quote:
The average linux user is smarter than the average windows user. That's why there are more windows virueses. That and market share.
3rd) I’m not going to debate clusters here, but as far as uptime? Windows 98, IMHO was the best OS M$ ever put out, and I challenge GORE to run a stand alone windows 98 box for six months straight without a reboot and have it respond at the end of the time trial!
The debate at this time over which OS is more secure is fruitless yet needed. M$ entered the arena with intent to dominate the market and spread it to homes ( and thus novices i.e. ignorant users ) for financial gains. If it weren’t for such debates M$ would not be sincere in their current efforts to secure their OS. But the “nix” OSes are now trying to move into that same arena and are becoming more “user friendly”, thus including more and more not-so-intelligent users to gain a market share.
I know I missed several points here, but I don’t have the time to spend here that I would like.
The real question here is who is more responsible? What price to pay for convenience? For profit? As far as I know, M$ OSes can be secured ( I hope, I am using one now ) . But if I target a group of people to use an OS that I created shouldn't I ensure that the OS is acceptable as far as the usability, the functionality and the security that the users require dispite their ignorence?
