First Linux Question

[gore]

Unix wasn't designed to be a server either. It was designed to play a game Ken liked on a PDP system and they wrote a text processing tool so it could be used by Bell Labs for something other than that game. You sure like saying BSD a lot. I can tell you from experience, not only do I feel that BSD and Linux only are different in philosophical terms, but the BSD community agrees.

You may want to check out sections of "The Complete Free BSD" towards the begining of the book, and "Free BSD Unleashed 2nd edition" which has simnilar info. Linux isn't less stable or less server ready, but it is however more desktop ready.

Lol besides the Kernel and a few tools, I'd like to hear you name more than 12 differences between Free BSD and Slackware from a user perspective. They are almost twins, and me and the rest of the Free BSD community, love Slackware.

I should find the mails from Free BSD where they were saying "We know Slackware is good, and we are cool with you using the Free BSD docs project to port those to Slackware". I know all this because I was the first person on the team to start doing so.

[Trevoke]

You sure like saying BSD a lot. I can tell you from experience, not only do I feel that BSD and Linux only are different in philosophical terms, but the BSD community agrees.

And the rest is blah blah (it's all true, but it's blah blah).

I agree, I agree, and I agree. *BSD and Linux are two completely different things. I'm not saying Linux is less stable or less server ready; I'm just saying it's not what I would consider as a proper OS for a server. What was that saying ... "Linux is for those who hate Windows, *nix is for those who love Unix" or something similar.

From a user perspective, I can't name 12 differences between S/W and FBSD, because as you said, it's pretty damn close!

On the other hand, I didn't know that *nix wasn't designed to be a server in the first place. So much for me. ;-) Thanks for the tidbit of knowledge.

So, whose war are you fighting? You're not fighting against me, and you're not fighting with me...

[gore]

I don't think of war, it's not right. (Unless it's an elitist war where you're telling Windows ME users they suck) I was simply pointing out your post SEEMED to say you thought that way, I didn't say you really did. Unix has been around a long time, and so has BSD, hell, BSD created TCP/IP AND Vi.

Without it we wouldn't be here. Some people fight over RV5 VS BSD, that's stupid they both are useful. Slackware follows a more Unix approach to Linux and BSD even releases and helps out Slackware. My copy of Slackware essentials, is from BSDi, as is "The Complete Free BSD" and on the Slackware page, BSd is marked as a supporter of Slackware.

I know quite a few people from the BSD group, good guys and none of them fight about Linux. Except for Gentoo BSD, which they aren't sure of. As I said the difference is more taste than tech. pkg_add -r PWNS most package manegement systems, and YAST PWNS all on usefullness.

[Trevoke]

I am frustrated. I want to give you positive antipoints but I'm at -12 because some people hated a post I made and gave it full negative criticism. *sigh*.
Anyway - yes, yes, and yes.
I agree with you.

[!mitationRust]

Originally posted here by Trevoke
Imitationrust wrote :
Because their system wasn't designed for this.

Damn straight!
I would never use Linux as a server. But I said that already. a *BSD or a *nix, which are more focused on security, alright. But Linux was not designed with security in mind.

I think you're looking to a "higher power" here, another dead end Ahh, I guess sh!t does roll down hill.


" Practical UNIX & Internet Security preface pg xv
...UNIX was not designed with military-level security in mind.....But the truth is, UNIX really hasn't become significantly more secure with its increase in popularity. That's because fundamental flaws still remain in the interaction of the operating system's design and its uses. The UNIX superuser remains a single point of attack: any intruder or insider who can become the UNIX superuser can take over the system, booby-trap its programs, and hold the computer's users hostage-sometimes even without their knowledge...."

Originally posted here by Trevoke

No OS is perfect, and the best you can ask from an OS is that it fulfill the niche for which it was designed.

Perfect, such a broad term. There are several systems many generations old, which are so validated; they're retiring without ever needing a patch. You know, I could throw out some acronyms here, but you'd be googling all day if I did. Not that you'd even care one whit.

[Trevoke]

I have the odd feeling that you're calling me stupid, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. Certainly, it couldn't be the words you used...
By all means, do throw the acronyms. I am extremely ignorant of everything that came before Windows 95 (I would say Windows 3.1, but I was 9 at the time so I'm ignorant of that period too because I didn't care), and would love an occasion to learn.

You also make me realize an error in my thoughts, so I would like to thank you for that -- "designed with security in mind" was not something I was thinking about. I need to now revise my arguments...

Still, I don't see how my sentence is invalidated. You're right, it's a very broad definition, which doesn't really invalidate many OS, if any. If you know a better way to word it, be my guest.

I'm also quite aware of root being a "security flaw"; it's part of the design, innit? If it turns out, after all, that Windows has the potential of being more secure than a whole slew of *nix derivatives, I'll recognize my mistakes (although I will probably bitch and moan quite a lot!) and learn.

[catch]

If it turns out, after all, that Windows has the potential of being more secure than a whole slew of *nix derivatives, I'll recognize my mistakes (although I will probably bitch and moan quite a lot!) and learn.

See this is where things get complicated... What is UNIX? What is Linux? What are the defining factors? Whenever a debate of security or functionality comes up, the pro-UNIX/Linux side claims every secerutiy benefit every put down for those systems as if they all existed or could exist in that system... never acknowledging the fact that such a system (even with a few of those changes) would function in a fundementally different manner than traditional UNIX/Linux.

For example, the traditional definition of UNIX has long been a multi-tasking, multi-user system based around a monolithic kernel with a philisophy of a superuser, tri-aspect permission bits, and a collection of small, simple tools that may be piped together for greater functionality.

Now clearly emacs is a violation of this philosophy... so does running emacs make the system no longer UNIX? Clearly such a system would still be UNIX, so gross philosophical violations are allowed. What about a UNIX system run in single-user mode? Again it is still UNIX. It must be the system calls... which explains why every UNIX/Linux has the same system calls... oh wait they don't. Oh, I know... POSIX compliance! Hmm so I guess the only true UNIX is AIX and the Windows POSIX subsystem is also UNIX! That can't be right... So what the hell is UNIX/Linux?!? And when does something stop being UNIX/Linux? (Linux is every harder to define, what with random research projects being added to the production kernel cause the NSA is "cool".)

What I will tell you is this: If we define UNIX as a multi-tasking, multi-user, monolithic kernel operating system that uses a superuser, simple tri-aspect permission bits, controlled partitions, and *shiver* jail (which was never intended as a security tool) as it's security framework... I can say that without hesitation the Windows NT line is more secure. If you turn UNIX/Linux on its head and add a slew of crap... then the waters get murkey... I do know this: the ONLY UNIX to ever be retrofitted to an acceptable multi-level secure configuration (B2) was Secure and later Trusted XENIX... need I remind you oh who built XENIX? Need I remind you of what system's security NT is based off of?

cheers,

catch

[gore]

SCO Built xenix Microsoft sold it

Would reply more but I'm watching Monsterfest on AMC.

All day horror movies are way cooler than this lol.

[catch]

Nope... you're turned around.
Microsoft licensed the UNIX code from AT&T and released XENIX in 1980. Microsoft, however did not sell directly to end users, instead opting to go through OEMs like SCO (who released SCO XENIX in 1983). Eventually SCO purchased XENIX outright.
cheers,

catch

[gore]

Oh **** how did I screw that up