Printable View
I was readin the news when I read this and kind of laughed. First off, IIS is going to be re-done so Apache has competition... Yea, I'm sure everyone who runs web servers are scared now.
Anyway, the part I liked:
""Web (hosting), security and high-performance computing are the three areas where Linux has more strength," he said. "Clearly, the one we're weakest in is hosting."
Maybe he worded it wrong?
This is Microsoft's Bob Muglia, senior vice president in charge of Windows Server development.
hey gore
not to bash your post bro... but i hope this doesnt turn into thoes "anything you can do i can do better" threads
linux vs windows
6 of 1 / half dozen of another
windows is weak in hosting... its strong in userability
linux... its weak in ease of use to new users.... yet strongest in hosting and web applications
on a different note
im suprised that M$ admitted something though... a big corp admitting a weakness??
I wouldn't want new users being administrators of my web hosting to begin with.
Bah, Linux security (and functionality in general) is so muddled these days it is pointless to discuss it without further qualifications. Otherwise you get people including LIDS, SELinux, Pitbull LX, their own custom patching, or whatever as they see fit with no regard for mutual exclusivity or formal evaluation. :-P
cheers,
catch
Oh, sure! Microsoft decided that they really care about your computer's security, so you know what they decided to do? Integrate their own personal antivirus (and possibly spyware protection, too, but I don't remember for sure) into Windows Longhorn! Sounds cool, doesn't it? Oh, wait... I forgot to mention... they're going to charge subscription fees!Quote:
Originally posted here by hexadecimal
im suprised that M$ admitted something though... a big corp admitting a weakness??
So wait... let me get this straight. I pay you yearly fees so that you may produce AV definitions to clean up what your OS let through? :confused: Makes perfect sense. (Not.)
Don't get me wrong. Every OS has holes. But Microsoft's idea of fixing their OS's holes is just plain stupid.
- Xierox
wow thats the first time hearing that one!Quote:
Oh, sure! Microsoft decided that they really care about your computer's security, so you know what they decided to do? Integrate their own personal antivirus (and possibly spyware protection, too, but I don't remember for sure) into Windows Longhorn! Sounds cool, doesn't it? Oh, wait... I forgot to mention... they're going to charge subscription fees!
i agree... thats just plain stupid... if they already dont make enough money from operating systems, msnbc, etc... now we will charge you for our mistakes....
Cant wait to see how that one goes when released.... will you be able to remove both the AV and spyware cleaner? or will they be intergrated into the OS like explorer
So far it looks like you will be able to choose whether you want to use it or not. I have been reading up on the new Longhorn here is a link sorta sheds light on it.
Longhorn Onecare
- MilitantEidolon
Ohhhhh Catch dear, what about SUSE? ;) Don't even act like you don't like them. ;)Quote:
Originally posted here by catch
Bah, Linux security (and functionality in general) is so muddled these days it is pointless to discuss it without further qualifications. Otherwise you get people including LIDS, SELinux, Pitbull LX, their own custom patching, or whatever as they see fit with no regard for mutual exclusivity or formal evaluation. :-P
cheers,
catch
That would be discussing "SUSE Linux" not "Linux." It is pretty clear what "SUSE Linux", "RedHat Linux", etc... but no one knows what plain old "Linux security" means.Quote:
Ohhhhh Catch dear, what about SUSE? Don't even act like you don't like them.
That's what I mean.
cheers,
catch
Oh, I got ya. Yea I myself screw that up at times and well, Linux as a whole has done a lot lately to up security, but I do see your point there. I would love to see you use Windows Server 2003 though, it's much better than 2000.
Perhaps the focal point of our entire econmic system is:
Money today is worth more than money tomorrow.
Consequently, I put off all business related expenses for as long as possible. :)
It is not so much that Linux has done a lot to up security... it is just that there are a zillion and one different Linux security projects going on. Some are good, most are still really too unstable to consider. SELinux for example... only in open source land could you have a product labeled as "Research only, not for production level system" thown into, you guess it! Production level systems! :)
Because Linux is so frequently configured at a core level, it's security can only be discussed on a per system or per distro basis. Unlike Windows or Solaris or AIX or whatever with their more universal security functionality.
cheers,
catch
apples to oranges. yes, windows does have security problems. yes, linux does have security problems. Its just not the same group of problems. An unpatched window server can get compromised as little as 15 minutes over an unprotected internet connection, an unpatched linux server can get rooted in as little as 15 minutes over an unprotected internet connection.
IIS will probly never threaten the percentage of linux web servers in use. But its still apples to oranges.
..... not to mention I get buttmunched about hearing Linux versus windows as an OS versus the applications. Apache is an application not the OS. In fact it runs on a variety of platforms. It is NOT linux, although it's roots are in Linux development. The advantage is most distros let you install it from their respective control panels but it's just as easy to get it up on Windows. So is it more secure on Windows versus Linux? We all know IIS is a pig, but it has it's uses. Especially if you already own it with a Server Distro. In fact you can't use exchange without it. The security issues really stem from stupid installation scripts from jack ass software corporations that do not think security as well as good Linux programmers. BUT, and that's a huge but - there are some SHITTY Linux programs out there from a security and even a stability standpoint (like Catch pointed out). MS does a better job perhaps of dealing with programs executing BAD code.