Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computer Certification > MCSE > Samba 3 runs rings around Windows Server 2003 in file serving performance

Reply
Thread Tools

Samba 3 runs rings around Windows Server 2003 in file serving performance

 
 
pheonix1t
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
Larry Samuels MS-MVP XP (Shell/User) wrote:
> Get real!
> Can you say "Slapper"?
> Where the hell did you get the idea there are no Linux viruses?
>

there aren't! name a virus that works the same way on MS and any other
platform? I've seen clients with Apple Mac's that were on the same
network as others with WINXP/2K machines. The windows machines were all
messed up with blaster and sobig - the Apple machines weren't affected
at all! The only sign they had that something was wrong was that the
internet access got very slow (due to the routers being saturated by the
MS viruses).
Like I said, there are security holes on all platforms, nothing is
perfect. But the amount of security issues that other platforms have
are much less compared to MS, even when the other platforms have most of
the market share! (for example, Apache has much less security problems
than IIS and it has most of the market share for web servers! If the MS
logic applied, then it should have most of the security problems...it
doesn't! At one time, Gartner even recommended that everyone remove or
avoid using IIS due to so many security problems!)


> Interesting that you would mention Sendmail, since that program had a
> security hole that remained unpatched for 7 weeks.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Larry Samuels MS-MVP XP \(Shell/User\)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
Just because a windows virus doesn't infect a Linux box does not mean you
are safe.
Go to any AV site and do a search for Linux virus--and prepare yourself to
be astounded with the results.

As for more secure--yes,but not out of the box:
Here are the OS specific patch counts so far this year (and please
understand that I did not put these numbers together. I encourage everyone
to validate these on your own):

All OS bulletins to date
OpenBSD 18
SunLinux 24
Trustix 24
EnGarde 29
Microsoft 35
SuSE 44
Sun 58
Mandrake 102
RedHat 102
Debian 175


--
Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
Associate Expert
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://home.earthlink.net/~larrysamuels/WS2003FAQ.htm
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone


"pheonix1t" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Wfjqb.1728$(E-Mail Removed) gy.com...
> Larry Samuels MS-MVP XP (Shell/User) wrote:
> > Get real!
> > Can you say "Slapper"?
> > Where the hell did you get the idea there are no Linux viruses?
> >

> there aren't! name a virus that works the same way on MS and any other
> platform? I've seen clients with Apple Mac's that were on the same
> network as others with WINXP/2K machines. The windows machines were all
> messed up with blaster and sobig - the Apple machines weren't affected
> at all! The only sign they had that something was wrong was that the
> internet access got very slow (due to the routers being saturated by the
> MS viruses).
> Like I said, there are security holes on all platforms, nothing is
> perfect. But the amount of security issues that other platforms have
> are much less compared to MS, even when the other platforms have most of
> the market share! (for example, Apache has much less security problems
> than IIS and it has most of the market share for web servers! If the MS
> logic applied, then it should have most of the security problems...it
> doesn't! At one time, Gartner even recommended that everyone remove or
> avoid using IIS due to so many security problems!)
>
>
> > Interesting that you would mention Sendmail, since that program had a
> > security hole that remained unpatched for 7 weeks.
> >

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
pheonix1t
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
Larry Samuels MS-MVP XP (Shell/User) wrote:

> Just because a windows virus doesn't infect a Linux box does not mean you
> are safe.

yes, I totally agree with you on that.

As for the #'s below, this has been discussed on other lists (I'm on a
few), the figures are a bit misleading. The linux distros include a lot
of patches and/or updates for the loads of applications that they come
with. A lot of the patches on suse or redhat, for example, are not for
the operating system. They are all patches of course, but most of those
are for the applications they come with. It's like if you take a total
of all the patches for microsoft windows and microsoft office.
Microsoft has seperate websites for the office updates....suse and
redhat put them all together.


> Go to any AV site and do a search for Linux virus--and prepare yourself to
> be astounded with the results.
>
> As for more secure--yes,but not out of the box:
> Here are the OS specific patch counts so far this year (and please
> understand that I did not put these numbers together. I encourage everyone
> to validate these on your own):
>
> All OS bulletins to date
> OpenBSD 18
> SunLinux 24
> Trustix 24
> EnGarde 29
> Microsoft 35
> SuSE 44
> Sun 58
> Mandrake 102
> RedHat 102
> Debian 175
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry Samuels MS-MVP XP \(Shell/User\)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
By the way, don't get me wrong.
I am a Linux fan even though my favorite Debian comes in on the bottom of
that list.

I am also a security freak that hates hearing people spreading the bull that
Linux is immune to viruses. It give new Linux users a false sense of
security and leads to tons of *nix zombies out there because no one warned
them not to run with root privileges.

--
Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
Associate Expert
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://home.earthlink.net/~larrysamuels/WS2003FAQ.htm
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone

"Larry Samuels MS-MVP XP (Shell/User)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just because a windows virus doesn't infect a Linux box does not mean you
> are safe.
> Go to any AV site and do a search for Linux virus--and prepare yourself to
> be astounded with the results.
>
> As for more secure--yes,but not out of the box:
> Here are the OS specific patch counts so far this year (and please
> understand that I did not put these numbers together. I encourage everyone
> to validate these on your own):
>
> All OS bulletins to date
> OpenBSD 18
> SunLinux 24
> Trustix 24
> EnGarde 29
> Microsoft 35
> SuSE 44
> Sun 58
> Mandrake 102
> RedHat 102
> Debian 175
>
>
> --
> Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
> Associate Expert
> Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~larrysamuels/WS2003FAQ.htm
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>
> "pheonix1t" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Wfjqb.1728$(E-Mail Removed) gy.com...
> > Larry Samuels MS-MVP XP (Shell/User) wrote:
> > > Get real!
> > > Can you say "Slapper"?
> > > Where the hell did you get the idea there are no Linux viruses?
> > >

> > there aren't! name a virus that works the same way on MS and any other
> > platform? I've seen clients with Apple Mac's that were on the same
> > network as others with WINXP/2K machines. The windows machines were all
> > messed up with blaster and sobig - the Apple machines weren't affected
> > at all! The only sign they had that something was wrong was that the
> > internet access got very slow (due to the routers being saturated by the
> > MS viruses).
> > Like I said, there are security holes on all platforms, nothing is
> > perfect. But the amount of security issues that other platforms have
> > are much less compared to MS, even when the other platforms have most of
> > the market share! (for example, Apache has much less security problems
> > than IIS and it has most of the market share for web servers! If the MS
> > logic applied, then it should have most of the security problems...it
> > doesn't! At one time, Gartner even recommended that everyone remove or
> > avoid using IIS due to so many security problems!)
> >
> >
> > > Interesting that you would mention Sendmail, since that program had a
> > > security hole that remained unpatched for 7 weeks.
> > >

> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
|{evin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 02:53:49 GMT, pheonix1t
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>wow...this makes it abundantly clear how much you know (or actually
>don't know). Viruses only work on MS products! In other words, a


Actually, this makes it abundantly clear how much YOU don't know.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Marlin Munrow
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003


True


On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:40:52 -0800, "Jeff Rush"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>With all the virus's out there attacking the windows servers with secured
>source code, how secure would you be running an opensource server?
>
>Would you really consider trusting your enterprise and mission critical data
>on an open source server?? Sounds scary to me...
>
>Jeff
>
>> Tests by IT Week Labs show the latest version of the open-source Samba

>file
>> and print server software is 2.5 times faster than Windows Server 2003 in
>> the same role.

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASO code runs much slower on Windows Server 2003 than on 2000 Tim Meagher ASP General 3 10-04-2005 04:13 PM
Printer/Fax Rings after numerous rings which is strange just ask Computer Support 3 06-12-2004 10:02 PM
LORD OF THE RINGS FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE aeQea DVD Video 7 04-27-2004 04:02 PM
Samba 3 extends lead over Win 2003....newbie or wannabe mcse's - get a clue! DaveT MCSE 8 11-05-2003 08:54 PM
Samba beats Windows 2003 in file serving performance Dolly Computer Support 2 11-05-2003 02:29 PM



Advertisments