Re: Switch from AIX to NT???

--- thamus <thamus@my-deja.com> > wrote: >In article <8t6o4t$e46$1@news.xmission.com>, > benj@firstlinux.net wrote: >> >> What bonehead gives the end users root access. Let 'em trash their >>own environment if they can't be trained not to run programs. > >Exactly my point. "PC" stands for Personal Computer. If they >had a Linux box in front of them, they *will* be logged in as >root and would gladly run a shell script called "I_Love_You.sh". But the Linux box doesn't have to be in front of them. They can access it via their Windows machine. Besides, if you're deploying Linux workstations that still doesn't mean you have to give the users root access. > >>One of the major differences here is that your average shell script >>doesn't run itself when you open the email it's attached to. Your >>arguments are weak in that regard. > >How much did Robert Morris cost the Gov? > >I have WSH on my NT machine, I also have Outlook. I have gotten >a lot of email virii forwarded to me, but not one has executed >on my machine. Why? Because attachements do not have to be handled >that way. Most viruses are propagated by the user actively >running the executable. I have to disagree. A lot of users don't have to make the decision to open scripted virii because of the way their systems have been configured by the corporate gurus or because the dangers of enabling certain funtions (in some cases the MS default is the least secure setting) have not been adequately spelled out. One of Microsoft's answers to this problem was to make the user click OK before sending a script launched email. The problem with that is twofold - a legitimate script sending to a distribution list of 20 people requires 20 OK clicks, which trains the user to click OK automatically without thinking about what process might have launched it. >> >> Again, the average user doesn't setup an Informix database either. If >>they're running Informix there's probably someone aboard bright enough >>to administer a Linux box. > >But if your techs know NT and not Linux (A growing segment >in these web days)... Hmmm. Maybe that's because it takes less training to reboot than it does to administer..... > >Note: >I like UNIX, I use it everyday. >I like NT, I use it everyday. >What I don't understand is the knee-jerk, >violent, anti-NT mentality. I just don't like unfair comparisons and yours is a misapplication of UNIX/Linux being compared to NT. I wouldn't put Linux on a user's desktop because the apps aren't up to speed yet. Even if you did, user's would be using GNOME or KDE, not the CLI and wouldn't have a clue (for the most part) how to execute a shell script if they were sent one. The Morris worm notwithstanding, in all the years I've been computing I have yet to receive an unsolicited shell script via email. I get 'I Love You' and other Outlook virii all the time via email on my Linux box. > >-- >Tom Kliethermes 90% of people give the rest of us a bad name. Common ground at last. >"Not answering this post implies that you believe everything I >have said." How could I not! == Maintainer of the procrastinator's FAQ. Well, maybe tomorrow I will be. _____________________________________________________________ Want a new web-based email account ? ---> http://www.firstlinux.net

In article <8t7d7t$kes$1@news.xmission.com>, benj@firstlinux.net wrote: > > > --- thamus <thamus@my-deja.com> > > wrote: > >In article <8t6o4t$e46$1@news.xmission.com>, > > benj@firstlinux.net wrote: > >> > >> What bonehead gives the end users root access. Let 'em trash their > >>own environment if they can't be trained not to run programs. > > > >Exactly my point. "PC" stands for Personal Computer. If they > >had a Linux box in front of them, they *will* be logged in as > >root and would gladly run a shell script called "I_Love_You.sh". > > But the Linux box doesn't have to be in front of them. They can access it via their Windows machine. You expect the (L)users to go back to elm or pine? I grew up on elm, but the vast majority of people will want gui email (whether in KDE or Windows). >Besides, if you're deploying Linux workstations that still doesn't > mean you have to give the users root access. > >>One of the major differences here is that your average shell script > >>doesn't run itself when you open the email it's attached to. Your > >>arguments are weak in that regard. > > > >How much did Robert Morris cost the Gov? > > > >I have WSH on my NT machine, I also have Outlook. I have gotten > >a lot of email virii forwarded to me, but not one has executed > >on my machine. Why? Because attachements do not have to be handled > >that way. Most viruses are propagated by the user actively > >running the executable. > > I have to disagree. A lot of users don't have to make the decision to open scripted virii because of the way their systems have been configured by the corporate gurus or because the dangers of enabling certain funtions (in some cases the MS default is the least secure setting) have not been adequately spelled out. This is no different than sending out linux boxes to users configured with only a "root" login. That's just MIS incompetence. > One of Microsoft's answers to this problem was to make the user click OK before sending a script launched email. The problem with that is twofold - a legitimate script sending to a distribution list of 20 people requires 20 OK clicks, which trains the user to click OK automatically without thinking about what process might have launched it. > > > >But if your techs know NT and not Linux (A growing segment > >in these web days)... > > Hmmm. Maybe that's because it takes less training to reboot than it does to administer..... ?? What's all this rebooting I keep hearing about? > > > >Note: > >I like UNIX, I use it everyday. > >I like NT, I use it everyday. > >What I don't understand is the knee-jerk, > >violent, anti-NT mentality. > > I just don't like unfair comparisons and yours is a misapplication of UNIX/Linux being compared to NT. Linux has better performance (depending on the application). But NT works, and it works well. I can do anything on NT that I can on unix, just in a different manner. Why does this cause so much anger? >I wouldn't put Linux on a user's desktop because the apps aren't up to speed yet. Even if you did, user's would be using GNOME or KDE, not the CLI and wouldn't have a clue (for the most part) how to execute a shell script if they were sent one. They could just double click on it, not? >The Morris worm notwithstanding, in all the years I've been computing I have yet to receive an unsolicited shell script via email. I get 'I Love You' and other Outlook virii all the time via email on my Linux box. This is because Outlook is the most popular. Don't you think that if everyone had linux machines you would be getting I_Love_You.sh (or some variation) right now? And you don't even have to be root to read your own mail folder and run a "([\\w|.]+\\@[\\w|.]+\\w)" for email addresses. In the late 80's early 90's, weren't there more unix worms and trojans and virii (Oh my! :)? And that was when everybody using a computer knew what they were doing. (BTW, I get virii all the time too, and have yet to send one back out.) > > > >-- > >Tom Kliethermes 90% of people give the rest of us a bad name. > > Common ground at last. I hope you mean that favorably :) > >"Not answering this post implies that you believe everything I > >have said." > > How could I not! Ha! You fell for my evil plan! Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8t9mgt$nn4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, thamus <thamus@my-deja.com> wrote: [snip] > Linux has better performance (depending on the application). > But NT works, and it works well. I can do anything on NT > that I can on unix, just in a different manner. > Why does this cause so much anger? Because NT *doesn't* work, not well at all. It makes an OK desktop, compared to win95 say, but as a server it's unreliable, aggravating, slow, obstructive, tedious, and annoying. All I have to do to just about any NT machine to get a blue-screen-of-death out of it, is simply *sit* in front of it for a couple days...even if I'm working from my laptop and not touching the NT machine.