Let the finger pointing begin

[morganlefay]

Nope snuggles Tiger was way before your time.....I think he would have liked you too

http://www.antionline.com/member.php?u=22905

MLF

[westin]

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

*Looks around for lightning* -- Heh, what, did you use it to hold up one side of your coffee table?

My parents had an ME box. I managed to lock that sucker up so many times...

Don't get me wrong though. I use OSX, WinXP, Win7, and several distros of Linux on a daily basis. I think all of them have their faults and their strong-points.

I think support is largely based on who you get on the other side of the phone. When I worked for IBM/Lenovo, I would actually get in trouble for going out of scope to help a customer. We were supposed to determine if it was hardware or not, then either set them up to send in their system, or send them a part. If it was not hardware, we were supposed to send them to our $100 software support team. They didn't even promise a resolution, and if it wasn't resolved, you were still out $100. So, instead of sending someone there because they couldn't figure out how to change their screen resolution, or add another user account, I would help them. On my metrics, my scope percentage was abysmal, my call times were horrid [we were supposed to complete all calls in under 11 minutes, if we didn't have a resolution we were supposed to find some reason to have them call back], but my customer approval rating was 95%+ ... and I got written up. That is why I will never own a Lenovo machine. They only care about the bottom line. Not the customers.

I am not sure what policies MS support has in place... and the rep could just be having a crappy day. I know I had several crappy days.

[gore]

Tiger Shark is a guy who lives a few miles from me and used to hang with me here, and a certain hurricane hormones saw us playing one day on AO and took it as "me being arrogant" and for some reason he left. Then I saw the reason and realized it was hippo critical of him to "take his ball and go home" after the years of how much more mature he was then the rest of us.

As for Reverse engineering a Windows box to make it do what Unix has done for 30 years.... Again, would you REALLY trust your life to a machine someone reverse engineered to get working?

And MLF, STFU, I didn't say they caused an oil spill, and I've yet to see that hardware was the actual reason. So saying "Hardware is the only reason not Microsoft".... You're getting obnoxious, you're no better than I am except you're doing it for the start menu where I'm doing it for Unix. You're the same arrogant **** I am just on the other side.

You know I see some cars have Windows installed... I wonder how long before the manual says "If your car crashes, hold the Car Door handle and pull three times and then grab the antennae to make it start up again". And how much longer it would take before people like you to not only accept this as normal, but defend it against all odds.

What rating did NT Server get back then? Lol, without a network Cable making the server portion of it totally un-usable? Heh.

Again, I'll ask again since for the third reply you've danced around the question:

Everyone can feel free to answer but this is the third time I've asked this and been ignored:

If you're life depended on a machine running and staying stable, would you REALLY trust Windows? If Windows was running a computer that your life depended on, would you REALLY trust it? Remember, if the screen turns blue, so do you.

I can see if now "Windows has encountered an error" and "Illegal Operation" would take on new meaning. Lol.

I'm waiting for a third time but it's OK, not once has someone ever answered yes, and you defending them can take a back seat until I hear your answer and why.



EDIT:

If this is a thread where you don't want someone talking about Windows and the possibility that all those blue screens we've seen over the last decade or two MIGHT be an issue, why did you post this in OSs? Windows is an OS, and this is the OS forum, so.... Where is the issue? Anyway, still waiting to see how much longer that question will be danced around. I'd LOVE to hear why if anyone answers yes. Unless of course they are named "Dr. Jack Kevorkian". Who also lives around here I might add.

Instead of half assed reverse engineering feats that would probably end in disaster, I'd like to see THIS replicated in Windows:

http://codeidol.com/unix/bsd/Securin...ip-the-Kernel/

Also, I'm having trouble finding the exact thing I was looking for, but, here is how it works, since I know ONE person who can do it:

You install Unix / Linux / BSD on a machine that is to be a highly secured Server. The machine can be a Web Server for the example:

You open the source code for the Kernel, and basically remove EVERYTHING not required to make the hardware work, and some network, which is enough to run a Web Server.

The Web Server itself is "hacked into the Kernel" so that it doesn't need anything else. The Kernel is the only thing actually running, no applications are installed, and the Kernel itself, drops ALL incoming packets that aren't basic port 80 Web Traffic, which basically ends up being the most secure OS and Server on the planet, and it does cost a lot to have done, but really, it's SERIOUSLY Locked. You can't get into it because there is nothing to get into. Even if they managed to find a Kernel exploit, or something similar, even THAT doesn't matter, because if it's not basic web traffic, the packets are dropped.

There is NO machine I've EVER heard of, that has had this done, and had a break in of any kind. The machine literally can be ran for years without anything happening to it, because, as I said, with nothing but a Kernel, what is someone going to break into? They can't get root on the machine because there is no user shell to issue commands. There is no port listening to anything except 80, and if it's not normal web based traffic, it drops the packet anyway.

The REASON this is not possible in Windows, is that you don't and won't, get sources for Windows where you can configure a custom Kernel, and then recompile it and install it, and it wouldn't work even then because you'd hav to write an interface for Windows without the GUI, which, too, takes resources no one needs on a headless server anyway.

I'm really having trouble finding the exact info I needed, and so I can' give a direct link, and you can find tons of Kernel lock down info, but for some reason, THIS process is not there much. But anyway, the whole thing is bare bones. There is nothing to break into, there is no interpreter to execute commands remotely, and, basically, even if there was, they wouldn't get through the Kernel.

That is why Unix is better than Windows. There's no Windows way of shutting off and recompiling everything, and Unix can. Like I said, even a Kernel exploit that gave the user exploiting ROOT, would do nothing, as there is no root, there are no users, nothing. The Kernel would drop the exploit before it hit the machine in the first place. That's as secure as I can think of.

[westin]

If you're life depended on a machine running and staying stable, would you REALLY trust Windows? If Windows was running a computer that your life depended on, would you REALLY trust it? Remember, if the screen turns blue, so do you.

From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01...eld_conficker/

The decision to disable automatic security updates was taken during Christmas week after PCs in an operating theatre rebooted mid-surgery. Conficker was detected on December 29.

[SnugglesTheBear]

That is why Unix is better than Windows. There's no Windows way of shutting off and recompiling everything, and Unix can. Like I said, even a Kernel exploit that gave the user exploiting ROOT, would do nothing, as there is no root, there are no users, nothing. The Kernel would drop the exploit before it hit the machine in the first place. That's as secure as I can think of.

I would go into more detail but I am a little sloshed at the moment so please excuse me for being brief

Now gore, you know you are really hurting me here. Its... its not that I PREFER windows, hell I down right hate the beast. But what you are saying isn't true. Your really hurting me gore with making me 'stick up' for windows, but here it goes. If you are running something as the kernel, you are rooted automatically. So this whole idea of making something more secure when it is bare bones IS more secure, but you need access controls. Running a web server as kernel code is, well...... dumb. All one would have to do is find some way of injecting assembly into the web traffic and then it is gg. I mean, granted I would have to find out what architecture you are running but after that all I need to do is find a flaw in your parser, which is very easy(but not necessarily there) thanks to the very loose protocol called HTTP. I throw my x86, PPC, ARM, whatever in there after finding a flaw in the way you parse a ridiculous protocol like HTTP (seriously try to parse it from scratch, you will HATE it) and boom, I got me a rooted box running what ever the **** I want it to. I am not saying that it isn't secure, what I am saying is that if there is an exploit.... well your machine is fscked ^.^

ughhhhhhh no more on this post, I want to get back to the sauce >.> I will wrap this up real quick then.

To answer your question, no I would not trust windows to save my life. I much prefer *nix for its portability, stability, and its simple design. Now back to drinking!

P.S. I sense a............. connection between gore and MLF Does anyone else or is it just me? (Sorry misses gore's wife, it is just that they fight like an unhappy married couple >.<)

[westin]

In my humble opinion, an OS is only as secure as the configuration. It is evident from the above posts that you can customize either OS down to bare bones, but if you screw up/miss something... you are hosed.

I can take linux and make it less secure than Windows by making stupid mistakes. Or vice versa.

Personally I prefer layered security... Though, that is not what we are talking about.

[nihil]

@ Westin

My parents had an ME box. I managed to lock that sucker up so many times..

.

Try a 1.3 Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM

Not the finest machine on Earth........but I would not build my wife a POS?

[The-Spec]

to drop everything that isn't standard Web traffic on Port 80, which is NOT possible in Windows).

Actually it is and you can. If the core install still includes software you don't want then here is food for thought... uninstall it.

Gore is angry because he can't even operate computers built for toddlers and grannys. This goes to show how illiterate he is when it comes to computers. Im sorry, but if you can't even handle a simple windows install then you're not worthy enought to browse the web... get off the internet.

"You Get Nothing, You Lose! Good Day Sir!" - Willy Wonka

[nihil]

OK.......back on topic please?

1. Halliburton screwed up the concreting (with BP consent)
2. Transocean screwed up by running a rig that was in bad shape
3. BP screwed up by putting wankers in as management..................they called the shots? and why does one of them consistently take the fifth amendment when called on to give evidence?

They are all to blame but BP have to take the lion's share IMHO............. blame travels upwards in my world.

I could have taken my .308 Winchester and blasted that crappy computer off the face of the planet.............it would not have made a blind bit of difference to the outcome.

1. If your concreting fails you are in trouble
2. If your BOP fails you are dead.
3. If you do not conduct proper testing, or ignore the results thereof then you are looking at something between reckless indifference and murder2.

The fifth amendment will not work.



EDIT:

18 of the 39 blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico have been attributed to concrete failure.

In 2002 the govt. tested the failsafes for BOPs.........3 out of 6 failed and 7 manufacturers declined to have their equipment tested

These are the hydraulic rams (shears) that are supposed to cut it off as a last resort.

The deep water submersibles they sent down couldn't activate the BOP either.............so please don't blame computer systems.

[gore]

Spec instead of fueling how about you help me find that damn post? I can't remember what the process is even called!

Ugh, gonna drag TheHorse back on here, he knows WTF I'm talking about.

I seem to have confused some people.... When I said how you did this, I'm pretty sure I made it clear when I said it wasn't possible in Windows that one reason is "You don't have source code to remove what you don't need and recompile"... That and yet again only one person answered if they'd trust their life to Windows lol.