surely not

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peter, May 26, 2004.

  1. Peter

    Brendan Guest

    On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 04:23:35 +1200, brundlefly wrote:

    > bureaucracy from the word bureau, french for office
    > (Not a spelling flame, sharing knowledge for increased understanding)


    Ok. I won't comment on the pedantic nature of it then.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves." -- Dorothy Parker

    Note: All comments are copyright 3/06/2004 2:43:01 p.m., and are opinion only where not otherwise stated, and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Jun 3, 2004
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. "Cheetah" <> wrote in message
    news:aIFuc.4877$...
    <snip>
    >> 5. "In one study, he said commercial software offered lower total cost of
    >> ownership over open source software, largely due to software management
    >> issues. He added that commercial software has also been found to be as
    >> reliable as open source software". Many of the studies are at
    >> www.microsoft.com/getthefacts and yes, we paid for the research but if
    >> you
    >> think that commissioning research somehow causes the research companies
    >> to
    >> put their reputations at risk by doctoring the study results then please
    >> refer to comment #2 above regarding a very nice bridge I have for sale.
    >> The reliability claim is backed up by a number of studies. The last one I
    >> saw was a Veritest 'apples with apples' comparison of RH and Small
    >> Business Server 2003 - in one of the tests they stress-tested both
    >> servers
    >> for 59 days without either one failing. 100% reliability sounds pretty
    >> good to me.

    >
    > I'm not sure if I can keep a straigh face Brett. Windows unreliability is
    > legend. I'm still getting swamped by emails from peoples comprimised
    > Windows machines pumping out spam. Last week I spent a couple of hours
    > trying to get a Windows box to install modem drivers - Linux (duel boot)
    > recognised and installed drivers automatically.


    Yeah the old stuff sucks. We know that. Your beating a dead horse.
    Let me guess that those comprimised machines were Win95/98, no antivirus or
    firewalls, users running as root yadda yadda?

    Linux doesn't have the critical mass of un-IT saavy users who don't patch
    their machines.... yet

    > Yes, Win2K is a great improvement over NT, and MS have cleaned up their
    > act


    And it continues to get better and better
    Win2k is almost 4 years old. NT is 8 years old. Assuming you're comparing
    Microsoft against a modern Linux distro, then you should really be comparing
    apples with apples and using Microsoft's latest OS - Windows Server 2003
    which came out 14 months ago

    > in terms of reliability. However, MS "trusted computing" remains a bad


    Trusted Computing?

    > joke, and while you might claim that market share is the cause of worms
    > like Sasser we still do not see widespread infections from Apache which
    > continues to have about a 70% market share under the same theory.


    Different theory - Please don't compare apples with bananas. Windows is an
    operating system, Apache is a web server.
    Hugely different threat models and attack vectors between an old general
    purpose Windows operating system and a modern Linux based webserver

    Lets talk about modern operating systems? Windows Server 2003 includes IIS
    6 (IIS being Internet Information Server, the Microsoft web server)
    IIS6 has been released in the market place for around 14 months, and there
    are 0 vulnerabilties known and 0 patches for IIS6.

    I wonder how many patches Apache has had in that same time period... (and of
    course you'll need to include the SSL libraries that have had vulns found,
    and please remember to forsake your uptime for security and reboot so the
    new kernel fixes can load too)

    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Jun 3, 2004
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Cheetah" <> wrote in message
    > news:aIFuc.4877$...
    > <snip>
    >>> 5. "In one study, he said commercial software offered lower total cost
    >>> of
    >>> ownership over open source software, largely due to software management
    >>> issues. He added that commercial software has also been found to be as
    >>> reliable as open source software". Many of the studies are at
    >>> www.microsoft.com/getthefacts and yes, we paid for the research but if
    >>> you
    >>> think that commissioning research somehow causes the research companies
    >>> to
    >>> put their reputations at risk by doctoring the study results then please
    >>> refer to comment #2 above regarding a very nice bridge I have for sale.
    >>> The reliability claim is backed up by a number of studies. The last one
    >>> I
    >>> saw was a Veritest 'apples with apples' comparison of RH and Small
    >>> Business Server 2003 - in one of the tests they stress-tested both
    >>> servers
    >>> for 59 days without either one failing. 100% reliability sounds pretty
    >>> good to me.

    >>
    >> I'm not sure if I can keep a straigh face Brett. Windows unreliability is
    >> legend. I'm still getting swamped by emails from peoples comprimised
    >> Windows machines pumping out spam. Last week I spent a couple of hours
    >> trying to get a Windows box to install modem drivers - Linux (duel boot)
    >> recognised and installed drivers automatically.

    >
    > Yeah the old stuff sucks. We know that. Your beating a dead horse.
    > Let me guess that those comprimised machines were Win95/98, no antivirus
    > or firewalls, users running as root yadda yadda?
    >
    > Linux doesn't have the critical mass of un-IT saavy users who don't patch
    > their machines.... yet
    >
    >> Yes, Win2K is a great improvement over NT, and MS have cleaned up their
    >> act

    >
    > And it continues to get better and better
    > Win2k is almost 4 years old. NT is 8 years old. Assuming you're
    > comparing Microsoft against a modern Linux distro, then you should really
    > be comparing apples with apples and using Microsoft's latest OS - Windows
    > Server 2003 which came out 14 months ago
    >
    >> in terms of reliability. However, MS "trusted computing" remains a bad

    >
    > Trusted Computing?
    >
    >> joke, and while you might claim that market share is the cause of worms
    >> like Sasser we still do not see widespread infections from Apache which
    >> continues to have about a 70% market share under the same theory.

    >
    > Different theory - Please don't compare apples with bananas. Windows is
    > an operating system, Apache is a web server.
    > Hugely different threat models and attack vectors between an old general
    > purpose Windows operating system and a modern Linux based webserver
    >
    > Lets talk about modern operating systems? Windows Server 2003 includes
    > IIS 6 (IIS being Internet Information Server, the Microsoft web server)
    > IIS6 has been released in the market place for around 14 months, and there
    > are 0 vulnerabilties known and 0 patches for IIS6.
    >
    > I wonder how many patches Apache has had in that same time period... (and
    > of course you'll need to include the SSL libraries that have had vulns
    > found, and please remember to forsake your uptime for security and reboot
    > so the new kernel fixes can load too)
    >
    > Nathan
    >


    What he said and...

    http://www.zone-h.org/en/stats
     
    Brett Roberts, Jun 3, 2004
    #63
  4. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > Lets talk about modern operating systems? Windows Server 2003 includes
    > IIS 6 (IIS being Internet Information Server, the Microsoft web server)
    > IIS6 has been released in the market place for around 14 months, and there
    > are 0 vulnerabilties known and 0 patches for IIS6.


    "Microsoft's UK website was defaced early this morning by previously unknown
    hackers called the OutLaw Group. ... It's unclear what attack mechanism was
    used to inject the rogue content onto the site, which runs IIS 6.0 on
    Windows 2003."
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/ms_uk_defaced/


    Peter
     
    Peter, Jun 3, 2004
    #64
  5. Peter

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>, Peter <> wrote:
    >
    >"Microsoft's UK website was defaced early this morning by previously unknown
    >hackers called the OutLaw Group. ... It's unclear what attack mechanism was
    >used to inject the rogue content onto the site, which runs IIS 6.0 on
    >Windows 2003."
    >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/ms_uk_defaced/


    Touch‚. Oh, that's wonderful... I'm not laughing at Microsoft's misfortune,
    just at Nathan and Brett's "tag team" pair of posts boosting Windows
    2003/IIS and your response. It's rather like a salesman making his pitch,
    and at the end of it you say quietly, "Your flies are open..."

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
    national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
    software and decent hardware support."
     
    Don Hills, Jun 3, 2004
    #65
  6. Peter wrote:
    >>Lets talk about modern operating systems? Windows Server 2003 includes
    >>IIS 6 (IIS being Internet Information Server, the Microsoft web server)
    >>IIS6 has been released in the market place for around 14 months, and there
    >>are 0 vulnerabilties known and 0 patches for IIS6.


    > "Microsoft's UK website was defaced early this morning by previously unknown
    > hackers called the OutLaw Group. ... It's unclear what attack mechanism was
    > used to inject the rogue content onto the site, which runs IIS 6.0 on
    > Windows 2003."
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/ms_uk_defaced/


    SQL injection, not IIS or Win2k3

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.dunedinwireless.co.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 3, 2004
    #66
  7. Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 3, 2004
    #67
  8. Peter

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:31:16 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Don Hills wrote:
    >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/ms_uk_defaced/

    >
    >> Touche. Oh, that's wonderful...

    >
    > not so, it was an sql injection, not IIS or Win2k3


    Just like most of the defacements on Bretts page were probably due to
    buggy PHP/CGI coding or buggy web apps like PHPNuke or webmin etc rather
    than Linux or Apache vulnerabilities.

    Defacements aren't usually due to the servers being rooted, usually just
    bad admin or badly designed websites - if you (as a cracker) could get a
    root kit on a server, would you want to advertise the break in to the
    owners by defacing sites?

    Cheers
    Aanton
     
    AD., Jun 3, 2004
    #68
  9. Peter

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <dave@no_spam_here_please.dave.net.nz> wrote:
    >
    >SQL injection, not IIS or Win2k3


    Pedant. Where's your sense of humour? <g>

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
    national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
    software and decent hardware support."
     
    Don Hills, Jun 4, 2004
    #69
  10. Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 4, 2004
    #70
  11. Peter

    Enkidu Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:50:15 +1200, "AD." <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:31:16 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    >> Don Hills wrote:
    >>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/ms_uk_defaced/

    >>
    >>> Touche. Oh, that's wonderful...

    >>
    >> not so, it was an sql injection, not IIS or Win2k3

    >
    >Just like most of the defacements on Bretts page were probably due to
    >buggy PHP/CGI coding or buggy web apps like PHPNuke or webmin etc rather
    >than Linux or Apache vulnerabilities.
    >
    >Defacements aren't usually due to the servers being rooted, usually just
    >bad admin or badly designed websites - if you (as a cracker) could get a
    >root kit on a server, would you want to advertise the break in to the
    >owners by defacing sites?
    >

    In general the answer to that is "yes". It's a way of boasting.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Jun 4, 2004
    #71
  12. In article <>,
    "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote:

    >"Cheetah" <> wrote in message
    >news:aIFuc.4877$...
    >>
    >> Yes, Win2K is a great improvement over NT, and MS have cleaned up their
    >> act

    >
    >And it continues to get better and better


    I remember when Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft released a study
    claiming that the average time that an NT 4.0 system went between
    reboots was 3 days, while Windows 2000 could manage more like 30 days.

    Then when Windows XP came out, Steve Ballmer admitted that his kids kept
    crashing Windows 2000 all the time, while they couldn't do the same with
    XP.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 6, 2004
    #72
  13. In article <ELNuc.4913$>,
    Cheetah <> wrote:

    >Software is not "free" - even open source. It takes time and effort to
    >create it. The term "free" generally means without value.


    Not the way the Open Source folks use it. To avoid confusion, they try
    not to use the English word, instead referring to "software libre" (free
    of restrictions) as opposed to "software gratis" (free of charge).
    You're assuming the latter meaning when it is the former that is
    intended. The idea is that there is nothing stopping people making money
    from Open Source software.

    >The official line from MS is that they won't release software as GPL because
    >its viral, and the business model is unproven. They are in fact mostly
    >correct.


    Except for people like Red Hat and SuSE and IBM, all making money from
    GPL software very nicely thank you.

    >I suppose the thing that makes me angry about RMS is his insist[e]nce on
    >defining the open source community as somehow less moral - less committed
    >to the principle of freedom - than the FSF. This is ironic given that
    >projects such as The Hrd have failed in part because of the closed
    >development approach.


    The reputations of people like RMS will stand or fall on the success of
    the projects they're associated with. The fact that Hurd is being left
    in the dust by Linux speaks for itself, I think...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 6, 2004
    #73
  14. In article <m32lycy9b7fb$>,
    Steven H <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:41:21 +1200, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >>> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    >
    >>> Better get out my tinfoil hat and go to the bomb shelter then I
    >>> guess...

    >>
    >> I thought you *always* wore your tinfoil hat Dave?

    >
    >not quite, you can take them off when your in the shower as the one world
    >goverments mind readers have trouble reading your thaughts when your in the
    >shower - dunno why, it just works like that.


    Maybe that's just what *they* want you to think...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 6, 2004
    #74
  15. Peter

    brundlefly Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <ELNuc.4913$>,
    > Cheetah <> wrote:
    >
    > >Software is not "free" - even open source. It takes time and effort to
    > >create it. The term "free" generally means without value.

    >
    > Not the way the Open Source folks use it. To avoid confusion, they try
    > not to use the English word, instead referring to "software libre" (free
    > of restrictions) as opposed to "software gratis" (free of charge).
    > You're assuming the latter meaning when it is the former that is
    > intended. The idea is that there is nothing stopping people making money
    > from Open Source software.
    >
    > >The official line from MS is that they won't release software as GPL

    because
    > >its viral, and the business model is unproven. They are in fact mostly
    > >correct.

    >
    > Except for people like Red Hat and SuSE and IBM, all making money from
    > GPL software very nicely thank you.
    >
    > >I suppose the thing that makes me angry about RMS is his insist[e]nce on
    > >defining the open source community as somehow less moral - less committed
    > >to the principle of freedom - than the FSF. This is ironic given that
    > >projects such as The Hrd have failed in part because of the closed
    > >development approach.

    >
    > The reputations of people like RMS will stand or fall on the success of
    > the projects they're associated with. The fact that Hurd is being left
    > in the dust by Linux speaks for itself, I think...


    It says more about your own prejudices.

    The fact that many of the Free Software Foundation projects are not only an
    integral part of Linux distributions but also the BSD distributions and
    Macintosh OS X under the same licence also speaks for itself.

    What did you intend it to say ?
     
    brundlefly, Jun 7, 2004
    #75
  16. In article <>, ldo@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand says...
    > In article <ELNuc.4913$>,
    > Cheetah <> wrote:
    >
    > >Software is not "free" - even open source. It takes time and effort to
    > >create it. The term "free" generally means without value.

    >
    > Not the way the Open Source folks use it. To avoid confusion, they try
    > not to use the English word, instead referring to "software libre" (free
    > of restrictions) as opposed to "software gratis" (free of charge).
    > You're assuming the latter meaning when it is the former that is
    > intended. The idea is that there is nothing stopping people making money
    > from Open Source software.
    >
    > >The official line from MS is that they won't release software as GPL because
    > >its viral, and the business model is unproven. They are in fact mostly
    > >correct.

    >
    > Except for people like Red Hat and SuSE and IBM, all making money from
    > GPL software very nicely thank you.


    Oh really, why do you think Red Hat has changed to Fedora?
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 7, 2004
    #76
  17. In article <HsPwc.1186$>,
    "brundlefly" <> wrote:

    >"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> The reputations of people like RMS will stand or fall on the success of
    >> the projects they're associated with. The fact that Hurd is being left
    >> in the dust by Linux speaks for itself, I think...

    >
    >It says more about your own prejudices.
    >
    >The fact that many of the Free Software Foundation projects are not only an
    >integral part of Linux distributions but also the BSD distributions and
    >Macintosh OS X under the same licence also speaks for itself.


    But not Hurd.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 8, 2004
    #77
  18. In article <>,
    Patrick Dunford <> wrote:

    >In article <>, ldo@geek-
    >central.gen.new_zealand says...
    >> In article <ELNuc.4913$>,
    >> Cheetah <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >The official line from MS is that they won't release software as GPL because
    >> >its viral, and the business model is unproven. They are in fact mostly
    >> >correct.

    >>
    >> Except for people like Red Hat and SuSE and IBM, all making money from
    >> GPL software very nicely thank you.

    >
    >Oh really, why do you think Red Hat has changed to Fedora?


    To separate it out from RHEL, which _is_ making money very nicely thank
    you.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 8, 2004
    #78
  19. Peter

    brundlefly Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <HsPwc.1186$>,
    > "brundlefly" <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >> message news:...
    >>>
    >>> The reputations of people like RMS will stand or fall on the
    >>> success of the projects they're associated with. The fact that Hurd
    >>> is being left in the dust by Linux speaks for itself, I think...

    >>
    >> It says more about your own prejudices.
    >>
    >> The fact that many of the Free Software Foundation projects are not
    >> only an integral part of Linux distributions but also the BSD
    >> distributions and Macintosh OS X under the same licence also speaks
    >> for itself.

    >
    > But not Hurd.


    Can you elaborate what inference about Stallman that you intend to be drawn
    from this ?
     
    brundlefly, Jun 8, 2004
    #79
  20. Peter

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:05:22 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:

    > In article <HsPwc.1186$>,
    > "brundlefly" <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>
    >>> The reputations of people like RMS will stand or fall on the success of
    >>> the projects they're associated with. The fact that Hurd is being left
    >>> in the dust by Linux speaks for itself, I think...

    >>
    >>It says more about your own prejudices.
    >>
    >>The fact that many of the Free Software Foundation projects are not only
    >>an integral part of Linux distributions but also the BSD distributions
    >>and Macintosh OS X under the same licence also speaks for itself.

    >
    > But not Hurd.


    So what you're both really saying is that the contributions of the FSF can
    be seen but not hurd?

    <groan> sorry, couldn't resist ;)
     
    AD., Jun 8, 2004
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Meat-->Plow

    Re: Surely This Cannot Be Correct

    Meat-->Plow, Jun 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,647
    Meat-->Plow
    Jun 21, 2003
  2. Kráftéé

    Re: Surely This Cannot Be Correct

    Kráftéé, Jun 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,652
    Kráftéé
    Jun 21, 2003
  3. Steve Pounder

    Re: Surely This Cannot Be Correct

    Steve Pounder, Jun 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,347
    Steve Pounder
    Jun 22, 2003
  4. Prof

    Re: Surely This Cannot Be Correct

    Prof, Jun 22, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,671
    Steve Pounder
    Jun 22, 2003
  5. Ralph Wade Phillips

    Re: Surely This Cannot Be Correct

    Ralph Wade Phillips, Jun 22, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,752
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Jun 22, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page