Re: Switch from AIX to NT???

--- thamus <thamus@my-deja.com> > wrote: >> >> 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). Huh? If they have a Windows box in front of them why are you thinking that forces them to use a character based email reader? The Linux box would run the Informix engine.... Did I miss something? >> >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. That's just plain silly. I don't know of anyone who gives root access to all their users (I'm sure there are some somewhere), but I've seen lots of Windows boxes configured poorly. And even if MIS did configure the box with an eye to security, MS version of security leaves much to be desired (see example just below this paragraph that you must have overlooked the first time). Additionally, users can reconfigure the apps too easily without knowing the security risks. > >> 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? It's an almost daily (sometimes twice daily) procedure I go through with my WinNT box in order to access all the applications that are hung for whatever reason. This is, however an improvement over Win9x. C'mon, this is so true that it's a joke even among the "Wouldn't use nothin' but Windows" crowd. >> > >> >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. Yes, and I can do anything on my bicycle that an F-14 pilot can do in his aircraft, just in a different manner. >Why does this cause so much anger? What anger? I already told you that your comparisons (like distributing desktop Linux boxes with nothing but root access) are silly and unfair, yet you continue to act as if your comparisons are apples to apples. > >>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? Not. >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? I would think it would have to be something better than a shell script, but I'll concede Linux is a smaller target 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. Whereas you would have to be root to read your own address book on an NT box? > >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. Yes. No. > >(BTW, I get virii all the time too, and have yet to >send one back out.) That says something about you, not your OS. >> >Tom Kliethermes 90% of people give the rest of us a bad name. >> >> Common ground at last. > >I hope you mean that favorably :) As far as you kow.... >> >"Not answering this post implies that you believe everything I >> >have said." >> >> How could I not! > >Ha! You fell for my evil plan! So, you are a Troll! == Maintainer of the procrastinator's FAQ. Well, maybe tomorrow I will be. _____________________________________________________________ Want a new web-based email account ? ---> http://www.firstlinux.net Half.com the hottest site for DVDs, CDs & more! Get $5 off your 1st purchase of $10 or more. http://ads.adflight.com/mach1.asp?a=19061&b=46867&c=3094

In article <8ta8r8$i15$1@news.xmission.com>, benj@firstlinux.net wrote: > --- thamus <thamus@my-deja.com> > > wrote: > >> 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). > > Huh? If they have a Windows box in front of them why are you thinking that forces them to use a character based email reader? The Linux box would run the Informix engine.... Did I miss something? I thought the point was to avoid the windows email viruses? > >> >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. > > That's just plain silly. I don't know of anyone who gives root access to all their users (I'm sure there are some somewhere), but I've seen lots of Windows boxes configured poorly. That's exactly my point, admins wouldn't think of doing such a thing with unix, but have no problem sending out OEMs designed for home use with no security at all. Not an OS problem. >And even if MIS did configure the box with an eye to security, MS version of security leaves much to be desired How's that? > (see example just below this paragraph that you must have overlooked the first time). Additionally, users can reconfigure the apps too easily without knowing the security risks. And I can do a cd /;chmod -fR 777 * This is still not an OS issue. > > > >> 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. How would you solve the problem? > >> >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? > > It's an almost daily (sometimes twice daily) procedure I go through with my WinNT box in order to access all the applications that are hung for whatever reason. This is, however an improvement over Win9x. C'mon, this is so true that it's a joke even among the "Wouldn't use nothin' but Windows" crowd. Yes, Win9x really does suck as an "OS", it's only really suitable as a gaming platform (and hardly that). Did you see my other post to "Obnoxio"? I seem to mysteriously avoid all these crashes and reboots that NT "requires" on a daily basis. I use my machine for everthing from database testing (tech support), to Win API programming, to perl programming. I've have lot's of application crashes, but I've almost never had to reboot to reuse that program (allmost: one program I was writing in perl grabbed a socket and wouldn't let go. I had to reboot to clear the socket beecause I didn't want to wait for the timeout). If your NT box crashes all the time, you either have a junk driver (another MIS/OEM problem: please guys, find the right drivers!), or failing hardware, period. > >> 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. > > Yes, and I can do anything on my bicycle that an F-14 pilot can do in his aircraft, just in a different manner. By "different manner" I meant using the GUI instead of commandline (although most things can be done commandline on NT), not "It can't really". > >Why does this cause so much anger? > > What anger? I already told you that your comparisons (like distributing desktop Linux boxes with nothing but root access) are silly and unfair, yet you continue to act as if your comparisons are apples to apples. I beg to differ. I was talking about security (or lack there of) as deployed by IT departments, it was a simple and accurate analogy. > >They could just double click on it, not? > > Not. No? > >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? > > I would think it would have to be something better than a shell script, but I'll concede Linux is a smaller target right now. It could be a nice binary executable named "NakedPicture" and if/when Linux gets on as many desktops as Windows you'll see lots of them, and they will be just as damaging. ( Think about it, look what damage can be done with a crap OS like win98: what havoc can be wrought on a real OS with a full set of languages, rlogin ability and an equally incompetent IT dept? :) > >And you don't even have to be root to read your own > >mail folder and run a "([\\w|.]+\\@[\\w|.]+\\w)" for email > >addresses. > > Whereas you would have to be root to read your own address book on an NT box? It wasn't a comparison, just that simple fact that email virii don't need root access. > >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. > > Yes. No. > > > > >(BTW, I get virii all the time too, and have yet to > >send one back out.) > > That says something about you, not your OS. It says I know how to use the OS security properly whereas the people distributing the machines don't. > >> Common ground at last. > > > >I hope you mean that favorably :) > > As far as you kow.... Be nice... > >> >"Not answering this post implies that you believe everything I > >> >have said." > >> > >> How could I not! > > > >Ha! You fell for my evil plan! > > So, you are a Troll! You're responding, ain't ya? :) Actually, we should probably take this off-group since we're really far off-topic... Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.