The people that are in love with Linux are either stupid or naive! Let's
see: we are comparing a thirty-plus year old architecture (Linux) with a
modern architecture (NT). As a person that has made his living developing
software at that operating system level on NT (as well as SunOS/Solaris and
VMS), I know for a fact that most developers know squat about this operating
system. What most people know is the Windows subsystem (i.e., the
Client/Server Runtime Subsystem, a.k.a. CSRSS). All NT operating system
calls start with the "Nt" prefix in user mode and the prefix "Zw" in kernel
mode.

Without a doubt, NT (the underlying operating system of all modern
implementations of Windows) is much more secure at the kernel level than is
Linux. Linux has owner-group-world security. NT has much more powerful
native form of security; namely, system and discretionary access control
lists (SACLs and DACLs). Yes, access control lists can be added to Linux
as an extension, but they are a hack to an old architecture.

With this said, Microsoft is to blame for crippling a very good
architecture. It is the subsystems that run on top of the NT operating
system that are source of all of the problems with the OS (especially, the
security backdoors). Another culprit is poorly designed device drivers.
I have been using NT, and its derivatives, since the first version was
released, and I have never had to restart a single, properly configured
system. The crap about having to restarting the NT derivatives all of the
time is pure, unadulterated hype!

Those who think that Linux will replace Windows on the desktop any time
soon, need to revisit the past. Unix-flavored operating systems have never
been unable to break into the desktop market. Do you know why? Because
they suffer from low personal productivity and cryptitis! Linux will also
never become mainstream because its followers suffer from the "John Henry
Effect." The revel in the knowledge of make files, command line compilers,
and cryptic commands (techies love this stuff, but end users hate it).
Worse of all, Linux followers have a bad case of NIHS (Not Invented Here
Syndrome); thus, they are forever trying to re-invent the wheel.
Technology is a tool to serve people! It must add value to a process!

In closing, I am not in love with Microsoft, but a few of their products are
actually well designed and built. The NT operating system is one of these
products. IMHO, the people that are pushing Linux are looking at the world
through rose-colored glasses. The Linux revolution is not sustainable
because it eats its own seed corn. Believe it or not, most of the people
working on Linux have an underlying profit motive--everyone has to eat. A
market, in which people do not receive remuneration for their work, is not
sustainable. Whether we like it or not, greed is the driving force behind
capitalism. The greed that drives businesses to seek out free software is
the same greed that will keep them from paying people to maintain software.


P.S. Anybody been using the DDN/Internet long enough to remember the Unix
Sendmail Worm (a.k.a. the Morris Worm)? I was developing network
software, on SunOS, at the Pentagon when this worm hit the net.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:00:56 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

I'm not convinced that he was trolling. Yeah, Linux is only ten-ish
years old, but it's clearly based on Unix which is thirty-ish. The
rest of it is debatable, at least.

In comp.os.linux.misc michael douglas <michaeldouglas123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, I was reckoning from about the time of chaucer and a bit before.
Sorry, I mean "en byt befyor".

Peter

"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
newsan.2003.08.15.16.09.39.997665@socal.rr.com.. .
You are correct in your assumption that I was not trolling. If one takes a
moment to look at the header, one will see that this thread is cross posted.
I picked it up in the "alt.computer.consulting" newsgroup. My reply was
aimed at debunking the NT is crap myth. This myth is propagated by people
who have zero knowledge of NT operating system internals (i.e., Windows <>
NT). NT was developed by veteran operating system designers from DEC's
research labs (i.e, David Cutler and company). NT is the successor to VMS.
At the kernel level, NT makes Linux look like a toy operating system (I have
developed system-level software for both operating systems). The major
problem with NT has been Microsoft in their reluctance to completely
document the NT interface; thus, locking everyone into developing to the
Windows API--as I said earlier, there are no NT calls that do not begin with
either the letters "Nt" (user mode, which is contained in NTDLL.DLL) or "Zw"
(kernel mode, which is contained in NTOSKRNL.EXE).

I think that the point missed here is that the quality of
OS:A vs. OS:B has little weight, except with those
qualified to make that evaluation. If MS pushes their
platform(s) into high dollar licensing costs and restric-
tions, the bucks will drive the revaluation. And that
revaluation, as we all know, will not be performed by
those most qualified

Gary





"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
newsan.2003.08.15.16.09.39.997665@socal.rr.com.. .

In message <3f3bddae_4@newsfeed>, Sparky <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org>
writes
It isn't just this failure, is it? The thing is, you can't separate NT
from Microsoft, so technical or security issues with NT, or any other MS
product, are completely subordinated to MS marketing strategies. This
makes lots of money, but not necessarily the best products.

Look at NT4: there is a DoS vulnerability that Microsoft will not
address, as it has almost abandoned support for NT4. Yet there are small
companies still using NT4 who simply haven't the turnover to absorb the
prodigious cost of upgrading. There is no upgrade path: no matter how
long and how loyally a business has supported Microsoft, that counts for
nothing. Everyone pays full price.

This doesn't happen with Linux. Certainly, applications die when nobody
is interested in continuing to maintain them, but almost by definition,
there is something better available by then. Where a program is
maintained, then when bugs in old versions are found, either they are
fixed, or there is a newer version in which the bug is fixed. And of
course it's free. Yes, there are commercial Linux programs, but again,
by definition, they only exist as tools for high-earning professionals.
No problem with affordability.

I quite like Access, and none of the Windows versions I've used (95 and
later) are as unreliable as is often claimed. But, when you come down to
it, they are all let down by association with Microsoft. What can you
say about a company which appears to find it acceptable for its software
to execute any old binary which is emailed to its user, or placed in a
web page?
--
Joe

"The Family" <lgvwalk@swbell.net> wrote:

Exactly.

If quality of the OS were a determining factor, Win9x would never have
gained wide acceptance. OS/2 would have survived, Win9x would have died a
rapid death, and the battle today would be between OS/2 and UNIX -- not
Windows and UNIX.

The people making purchasing decisions have little, if any, knowledge or
concern for OS quality or capabilities.

--
Carey Gregory
Windows Print Drivers and Components
http://www.gw-tech.com

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:05:36 -0700, michael douglas wrote:

"english" ever since the Angles were living on the island of Engel (off
the coast of Sweden) long before they ever got to the British Isles!
Of course the language has evolvedd and changed rather considerably in the
intervening time (about 2500 years)

--
This mail is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products were used in its
preparation or propagation.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:08:03 GMT, "Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com>
wrote:


Your automobile is based on 100 year old technology... Does it still
work? and would you rather use it than ride a mammoth?

Mike-

Mornings: Evolution in action. Only the grumpy will survive.
-----------------------------------------------------

Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have
installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If
email from you bounces, try non-HTML, non-encoded,
non-attachments.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sparky wrote:
One thing I can say about NT. It was developed by ex-Digital employees
and mostly by IBM during the OS/2 project days. When MS decided to go
it's way, the licensing agreement was in MS favor, so they had the
rights for the code. IBM was stuck with OS/2. After a software install
on OS/2 you do not have to reboot. Now that is called MISSION CRITICAL
AVAILABILITY. I don't know what additions MS did to the OS/2 code
before it evolved into NT, but it still needs reboot. Linux is also
truely a MISSION CRITICAL AVAILABILITY system. It may not yet have a
consistent and pretty GUI interface yet, yet it does complete the job great!

My only concern (as mentioned in the original post) is that a free super
system like Linux is more of a threat to your job than an H1-B visa holder.

Subba Rao

"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r5vqjv84e5veespajshg0h9s0dlte0mmho@4ax.com...

so what is it you think they ARE concerned with ?

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:41:01 GMT, Liz <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
because...

1. Price. Windoze + generic PC hardware was cheaper than the Mac OS +
Apple hardware.

2. Ease of use. Although inferior to the Mac, it still gave most of the
GUI ease of use of the Mac OS for non-technical users to cheaper
Intel-based PCs.

3. Most importantly, they won the war of pre-installed PC systems. OS/2
was much better than Windoze, but like Linux today, OS/2 had a very hard
time finding a market without a pre-installed manufacturing base 'cause
most people don't know how and don't want to learn how to install their
OS.

Windoze was then and still is today very poor software. For example, as
I write this, the WindozeUpdate site is running on Linux 'cause M$ can't
figure out how to secure their own most critical websites. Check this
out:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/...dowsupdate.com

Still doubting this myself, thinking even M$ couldn't be that stupid and
desperate, I did a quick 'n dirty check myself:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[root@tim tim]# nmap -O windowsupdate.microsoft.com

Starting nmap V. 2.54BETA30 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on (63.123.44.206):
(The 1543 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
Port State Service
22/tcp open ssh
80/tcp open http
137/tcp filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
443/tcp open https

Remote operating system guess: Linux 2.1.19 - 2.2.17
Uptime 6.940 days (since Sat Aug 9 14:46:28 2003)

Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6 seconds
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Not 100% definitive, but together it is kinda convincing. And this 18
months after Billy Bob Gates declared security the #1 concern at M$.

The best products don't always win the popularity contests, and that's
more true of software than most things. The Betamax was much better
than VHS, but VHS still won in the marketplace.

But the days of M$ dominance are coming to a close...their mistakes will
cost them eventually...Linux is too good, and well enough developed now
that it's simply unstoppable...

--
Registered Linux user #266531

In comp.os.linux.misc Crashdamage <3sm52yhr@nospam.invalid> wrote:
This is false. Look for yourself.

See. Nothing typically windows or linux there. It could be a winodws of
linux server running httpd+ssl, ssh, and samba.

Yes, but that's only a guess based on the above port pattern, and I see
no evidence to suppose it! The port pattern could be for either o/s,
and would be more or less normal in either for a secured server.

There you are - not linux. How did it check that?

No, very unconvincing. Look at the ssh response, for example!

debug: Remote protocol version 1.99, remote software version Server-V
debug: no match: Server-V

That's not linux!

Please stop spreading this unfounded fud. Fix your mouth.

Peter

"Crashdamage" <3sm52yhr@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:bf32bbcfaa824976daa92f5068c34ac1@news.value-news.net...

what you're saying is that MS won by giving consumers what they wanted ...
everyone should buy a higher-priced, harder-to-use OS because ... uh,
because ?? because why ? they're doing real-time process control in their
dens or cubicles, perhaps ?

sure gets a lot of work done for such garbage ..

if I recall correctly, Betamax had a one hour recording limitation; again,
not what people wanted ..

hedge that bet ...

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:55:07 +0000, Crashdamage wrote:

Word on Slashdot is that the WindozeUpdate site itself runs Windoze,
but sits behind a load-balancing machine that runs Linux; and the
reporting got temporarily thrown off.

The point of the load-balancing machine's OS remains, though.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:47:30 GMT, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
*partially* true. There's a Linux box in the mix...

--
Registered Linux user #266531

Sparky wrote:

Sorry to barge in, however.


I am someone who thinks NT is crap. But, it has nothing to do with security
or the kernel state. It has everything to do with being a user. I have
used linux at home since early 95 while at work I have been stuck with NT.
To call NT unstable is an understatement. There is not a day that NT has
not crashed on at least one of the computers in our room, 5 machines total.
The standing joke is that the first step in windows troubleshooting is to
restart the app and the second to restart the computer. In order to
perform updates our IT department is so skeptical that they do one update
or patch and reboot before doing the next. They complain as well that the
linux boxes in the firm are much easier to administer. The OS never
requires a reboot.

The standard office mail apps is no better. MS-outlook must have a memory
leak of some kind. After 20 or 30 emails it brings up a dialog that it is
out of resources. I have to restart outlook and life is fine.

"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8uatjvos2c4jcdques8m0bkadhtborssdk@4ax.com...

interesting ... I share your view of corporate IT people almost 100% ...
they're idiots; but it appears we diverge when it comes to "the Microsoft
issue" ... I still think they're doing a pretty good job of delivering what
end users and IT people want ... again, that's PRETTY GOOD, not perfect ...
except where really high levels of reliability, security and support are
essential (they just don't really play that game and never have) MS delivers
plenty at a pretty good price. What bugs me about IT honchos is they're
penchant for buying all sorts of non-MS garbage from a wide array of vendors
to run on Windows ... which is not the same thing as saying that nobody but
MS puts out good Windows software, btw ... for example, I have always
thought it was a shame that Delphi was so widely disparaged (or just
ignored) by IT when, IMO, it's a top-notch development kit which might have
become a true world-class product but for the ignorance of the MS bigots ...
interestingly, MS hired Anders Hjelsberg, Delphi's architect, for its C#
project ...

I don't see why good products have to be difficult or time-consuming to
install ... that's where Ellison and McNeely completely lose me ... and all
the customers they MIGHT have had ...

finally, they ALL suck when it comes to documenting what they've done and
how to use it

amen ... I've never understood why management tolerates them ... and for
those ready to jump in and say this is why foreign shops and workers have an
opportunity, forget it ... they're they're no better ... quite possibly
worse

oh, you left out that for the most part they are neither bright nor
ambitious ...

Sparky wrote:
Maybe.

I disagree.

I believe that a large portion of all software written in
this world is written for in-house use by the company writing
the software. I'd love to get some figures on this but they
are hard to find. However, this software will never be Open
Source but it will probably be out-sourced to cheaper labour
markets.

The other thing Open Source does is take the power away from
large mega-corporations like Microsoft and move many programming
tasks to small independant contractors. These contractors can
charge large and small companies to modify or improve existing
Open Source programs or write new ones. This work may or may not
move to cheaper labour markets. My experience is that small
companies do not want to out source small projects to India, but
would rather deal with someone residing in their own city.

By moving the the power from large corps with entrenched
monopolies to small independant companies and contractors you
end up with a far purer form of capitalism that we have now.

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Unsolicited Broadcast Email is Forced Pay-per-view
Advertising.

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote (in part):
of it quite well known and with wide useage, we tried to outsource a
piece of software. This outsourcing was a complete failure, and the
fault was not really the fault of the contractor. In the end, both
parties were extremely angry with one another, and we (the customer) had
a non-working product.

The problem was that to outsource a product, you need either of the
following:

1.) A contract that is precise in _every detail_ in its specifications;
i.e., that describes in complete detail everything that the software
must do, and everything the software must not do. This should include,
if important, things like delivery dates, memory required, execution
speed, throughput, reliability (and how this is to be measured), etc. It
should be silent on how it does (or prevents) these things. This assures
that if the specifications are met that the customer will be satisfied.

2.) An open ended contract that describes, as well possible, what is
wanted. It should include milestone deliveries where the customer could
try out what is already done and provide feedback to the contractor. It
needs a payment plan so that needed changes can be made as they are
perceived, etc.

For 1, our company was culturally unable to write software
specifications (a fact that astonished me, since we had to write a lot
of software of our own for our own use, and I was constantly plagued by
lack of useful requirements documents).

For 2, we never had the courage to try it. Bean counters needed fixed
price contracts to ensure that the contractor could do it cheaper than
we could, and we never had the time to review contractors' work until
the final delivery.

So at least at a company like the one for which I worked, outsourcing
will not work.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 7:50am up 26 days, 12:41, 2 users, load average: 2.02, 2.13, 2.11