Let the finger pointing begin

[morganlefay]

MLF, in the 70s in Germany, they were using Unix on Kidney Dialysis Machines. If your life was truly at risk BECAUSE OF THE OS, not the software, would you REALLY tell the Doctor you're OK with the Windows machine?

well gee....I didnt think they had NT in the 70s or windows for that matter....but hey feel free to enlighten me.

We are talking about a machine that was regularly crashing....of course *nix never crashes of fails to perform due to poor configuration, bad driver, poorly written application or failing hardware......it just keeps running right??? And if it was crashing a good admin would just ignore it and not try and address the underlying issue causing the crashes...or "panics"

and if I had a broken hammer.....I would buy a nice shinny new one...only an idiot would use a broken tool....which was my point in the first place.

And then you come in painting their whole support team as start menu mouse clicking MCSE droolers....from one experience......hahahaha

I was just stating my experiences with their support teams have been much different.......

MLF

[gore]

No, I've not once in my 11 years seen Linux or BSD, crash, ever. Not once. And I've tried to by setting up a Perl script that does an infinite loop, which I did, and ran as root, and all that...nothing. *EDIT:*

**Obviously I did more than that script... I ran that while I did some other things, and ran some benches to see if I COULD make it crash. And I was also sending about.... 14GBs at the Machine to answer and process WHILE running an infinite loop and all that, on crap hardware, on purpose. And no, I really couldn't bring it down. I've not once had one of my machines.... Or someone else's machine I worked on for that matter, running Unix of any kind, EVER lock up.**

And as for drivers....They don't work the same. You can strip Unix down to nothing BUT Drivers and a Server, like Apache, and then, you have a machine like the ones govt use, that is almost impossible to break into. Then again, why would Drivers be bad for an OS that has 90% of the Desktop? Wouldn't Microsoft by now have some form of "Certification" that allows drivers that are trusted to be run so they DON'T do this? Oh wait... LOL.

I'm going to say a fact that MCSEs hate to accept:

Windows can NEVER be more stable or locked, than Unix. Ever. Because Unix doesn't need a GUI using RAM, and it can actually be stripped to the bare Kernel, and a Server you need (Like Kidney Machines?) Hacked into the Kernel itself, and then set the Kernel's own filters to drop everything else.

One of our Senior members actually has done this.

Now, given Windows Source Code, or, for the heck of it, FIND a way you could even possibly shut down a GUI in NON 9X versions of Windows, and then try to configure the Kernel.

As for that stupid comment about NT in the 70s.... Yea, THEY DID have NT then, they called it VMS which is what NT was ripped off of. And VMS sucks too so I guess I can't blame Microsoft for THAT one.

But nice ability to dance around a direct question on if you'd actually trust your LIFE to Windows. No wonder Tiger Shark liked you, he wouldn't answer that either.

No wonder both called me "Arrogant Youth".... I'd be mad too if I was stuck in a Buick doing 30 under the speed limit with my depends making me a "Grumpy old person".

[SnugglesTheBear]

No, I've not once in my 11 years seen Linux or BSD, crash, ever. Not once. And I've tried to by setting up a Perl script that does an infinite loop, which I did, and ran as root, and all that...nothing. *EDIT:*

**Obviously I did more than that script... I ran that while I did some other things, and ran some benches to see if I COULD make it crash. And I was also sending about.... 14GBs at the Machine to answer and process WHILE running an infinite loop and all that, on crap hardware, on purpose. And no, I really couldn't bring it down. I've not once had one of my machines.... Or someone else's machine I worked on for that matter, running Unix of any kind, EVER lock up.**

heh, I can make a *nix system lock up and crash fairly easily. Here is the easiest method. run the following command in the shell

){ :|:& };:

EDIT: ****ing smilies messin up my bash >.< the frown is supposed to be : ( no space.
that is the first thing that comes to mind. An infinite loop won't make a system lock up just an application really. The scheduler on every OS will take that by making the application that is way too greedy for system resources stop being allocated as much. You will see a slight performance loss though, but nah an infinite loop won't crash a machine. I have caused way too many kernel panics in my time >.< You can brick any machine, regardless of the OS is what I am trying to say.

Windows can NEVER be more stable or locked, than Unix. Ever. Because Unix doesn't need a GUI using RAM, and it can actually be stripped to the bare Kernel, and a Server you need

this is just wrong >.< You can do a 'core' install of windows servers.

Now, given Windows Source Code, or, for the heck of it, FIND a way you could even possibly shut down a GUI in NON 9X versions of Windows, and then try to configure the Kernel.

Hold f8 while booting and then select boot into safe mode with command prompt or something like that.

But nice ability to dance around a direct question on if you'd actually trust your LIFE to Windows. No wonder Tiger Shark liked you, he wouldn't answer that either.

I am probably missing some drama here. First thing I thought of then I heard tiger shark was the FS on AIX systems >.<

No wonder both called me "Arrogant Youth".... I'd be mad too if I was stuck in a Buick doing 30 under the speed limit with my depends making me a "Grumpy old person".

JUST STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! CAN'T YOU GUYS SEE THAT THIS CONSTANT BICKERING IS TEARING US ALL APART!?! :'(

[westin]

LOL -- I drink because you cry snuggles.

[gore]

Lol. OK, a few things:

Bash isn't installed by default on BSD or Unix, just Linux, but I did take the time to point out I only did it to make sure it was a full load. I said I did a lot more.

Now, Safe Mode Windows? Seriously? I didn't know you could shut the GUI off on Windows and still run IIS... (That was a requirement remember, the machine needs to be able to function as a server in the manner proposed, and again, you can't configure the actual Kernel in Windows to strip it down, at all, and again, in Unix, you can not only do this, but actually put a Server into the Kernel and shut of everything else, and set the Kernel's IP Filter to drop everything that isn't standard Web traffic on Port 80, which is NOT possible in Windows).

So again, yes, Windows can not compete in that until Microsoft decides to allow you to configure the actual Kernel, and add to it what is needed. Oddly enough a lot of Porn sites do this from what I hear....They pay someone to come in and hack a web server into the Kernel and shut off everything else so that not only will the machine ONLY accept incoming web traffic on port 80, but even if someone had root access, what would they really do without any tools or commands that work?

You simply can't do this in Windows. It wasn't designed to allow this.

Also, why does Windows Server come with Windows Media Player? Seriously? something that requires a reboot to patch and is NOT needed, shouldn't be bundled in a Server OS....

I'll see if I can find the book I have where it started talking about the whole thing, because it's REALLY interesting... Imagine a machine that's up and running and ALL it has, is the Server required on it. No GUI, no drivers except the hardware that's actually in it, no USB, no way of using telnet, or the web, no email clients or IM clients built in that can't be uninstalled normally... Just a Kernel, and nothing else. I'd say that's as close to un-breakable as an OS is going to get in our life time. All of the things that make it that way, aren't even possible in Windows. Which again, means, Windows loses that one.

Now, go get one of those stress reliever balls Microsoft hands out at conventions I wonder WHY they hand those out? *Giggle*.

*EDIT*

I could have been so rich 10 years back if I'd thought to find a lawyer to sue Microsoft for "Double Clicking" which causes RSI. Lol, everyone seemed to be doing fine with 3 Button Mice, which Unix still expects you to have, but to be different, Microsoft made a "two button mouse" and invented "Double Clicking". Windows therefore causes RSI, and had I thought of that then, I'd probably be annoying people from my Island.

[westin]

So, if I am reading this right, what you are saying is that we have oil in the gulf... because of a two button mouse? :-P

[morganlefay]

No westin....we have oil in the gulf because of windows...and MS sucks...and unix is better then windows...dont you know???

It sure wasnt because a poorly maintained unstable machine was regularly crashing due to hardware failure o basic poor configuration...because most MS admins suck and so does MS support.

Oh no.....just because a majority of businesses that run windows have their machines regularly crash and misbehave and it is acceptable....because its windows.... oh and MS support sucks...and the only answer you get from them is reinstall

if that were true I am sure demand would push for a more stable systems environment due to lost productivity.....but hey no....all us mouse clicking, drooling depends wearing MS Admins just ignore when systems misbehave...and unix system admins are god.....and they never make mistakes....and their systems never crash...blah blahblah blah

And btw ...I miss Tiger Shark and his valuable knowledge that puts to shame most of the self crowned know it alls here and I am well aware of the reasons he no longer visits this site.

MLF

[nihil]

JUST STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! CAN'T YOU GUYS SEE THAT THIS CONSTANT BICKERING IS TEARING US ALL APART!?! :'(

Hey, chill out Snuggles old chap............we haven't had a decent flame war since I can't remember when

If it came to life critical I would still go to VMS............... but I am in that age group ............. hey I just have to show my senior citizen's free public transport pass and I can hack any system on the planet

I also liked the old IBM AS400\OS as that was very stable in my experience.

I believe that UNIX is a pretty stable OS, but I have caused kernel panics in it (my incompetence I would imagine?)

I have also run a M$ ME system rock steady and stable for just over 3 years........no blue screens.........EVER!

I am reminded of an incident quite a few years ago (NT 4.0 SP5) where I could 100% reliably cause a BSOD by trying to print file listings in landscape rather than portrait.............obviously something had gotten corrupted, but I don't know what..............a reinstall of Windows fixed it.

just because a majority of businesses that run windows have their machines regularly crash and misbehave and it is acceptable....because its windows.... oh and MS support sucks...and the only answer you get from them is reinstall

Well, I only ever met one that did, and the answer was *remount"

Can't go any further there as this is a family site

[SnugglesTheBear]

Bash isn't installed by default on BSD or Unix, just Linux, but I did take the time to point out I only did it to make sure it was a full load. I said I did a lot more.

I was really getting at the point of a fork bomb. Here is a shell script that accomplishes the same thing

#/bin/sh
$0 &
$0

But that is such a basic DoS. There are many many many more. Such as exploiting TCP persistent timers (yes this will work on windows and BSD and linux etc.)

Now, Safe Mode Windows? Seriously? I didn't know you could shut the GUI off on Windows and still run IIS...

That was to illustrate that windows doesn't NEED a GUI. One the subject of IIS, please refer to my comment on a core install or the manual that is located here http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...8WS.10%29.aspx

you can't configure the actual Kernel in Windows to strip it down, at all, and again, in Unix, you can not only do this, but actually put a Server into the Kernel and shut of everything else, and set the Kernel's IP Filter to drop everything that isn't standard Web traffic on Port 80, which is NOT possible in Windows

is possible see link above.

Also, you can't 'configure' the kernel in Windows, but you can 'patch' it. It takes a lot of reverse engineering in order to make your own kernel modules, but it is perfectly possible. For instance, in order to get raw sockets on a windows XP and up machine (I do believe this is when m$ disabled promiscuous mode in their API since it was a 'hacker tool' but I could be mistaken so don't quote me =P) you have to write, or install, your own kernel module. But yes, I will agree with you, I find *nix server configuring a much less painful experience, which is one of the reasons why I prefer it over windows, but that is my preference.

You simply can't do this in Windows. It wasn't designed to allow this.

Also, why does Windows Server come with Windows Media Player? Seriously? something that requires a reboot to patch and is NOT needed, shouldn't be bundled in a Server OS....

See link above

I'll see if I can find the book I have where it started talking about the whole thing, because it's REALLY interesting... Imagine a machine that's up and running and ALL it has, is the Server required on it. No GUI, no drivers except the hardware that's actually in it, no USB, no way of using telnet, or the web, no email clients or IM clients built in that can't be uninstalled normally... Just a Kernel, and nothing else. I'd say that's as close to un-breakable as an OS is going to get in our life time.

Kernel only interfaces with the hardware in order to allow people to utilize the hardware for some function or another. That does not mean the kernel is secure(see my reference to TCP persistent timing attacks which exploits a flaw in the TCP protocol to spawn many kernel timing events and causes the system to lock up). So you don't have a secure system, just a minimal system, that doesn't do much.... HOWEVER, I do also know where you are coming from. In order for sockstress to work, you need to have a service running. If you just have a kernel, you don't have a service running, just an interface, which all it really does is suck power. I will agree that an off machine is VERY secure though

And btw ...I miss Tiger Shark and his valuable knowledge that puts to shame most of the self crowned know it alls here and I am well aware of the reasons he no longer visits this site.

sooo again, I am missing some drama here. Who is Tiger Shark and where can I extract his valuable knowledge?.... or am I one of the reasons why he no longer visits?

[nihil]

sure it would. Windows on each box, similar or identical configuration for each box, i would suspect we would see very close behavior. <@):P

I don't think so, as it would only apply to all common (mirrored) installations...........guess my next move would be to install the company mirror on an offnet virgin machine and then take a look?..............as I recall, cuddly bears were on top of the menu list

You can look in the member's list and search then you should get to his profile......then it's all posts, most recent and such?