[KLUG Members] Is NT Better then linux

[Bryan-TheBS-Smith]

Bill wrote:
> It mentioned, among other things, that UNIX had not been
> designed from the ground up to support GUI's or SMP.
> That's true. But the web page is about Linux, isn't it? And
> GUI's did not exist when Unix was being designed. Moreover, a
> GUI is not always desireable. In Linux the OS runs just fine
> without that overhead. And it also runs just fine with any of
> several GUI's.

One of the reasons I _hate_ NT over OS/2 is _because_ it _was_
designed with the GUI in mind.  In OS/2, I could boot into a bare
CMD.EXE session if I ran into issues.  When NT self-toasts itself,
I'm usually hosed as such.  Although a Linux recovery disk has saved
much data on several NT systems of mine.  ;-PPP

> It mentions that the basic concepts of Unix were about 30 years
> old ... as if that was a problem. But, really, is that a
> problem? The foundations of arithmetic are literally thousands
> of years old. But they still work. Reliably. Quickly. Gravity
> will still pull your fanny to the ground if you are careless on
> ice.

FreeBSD is an _excellent_example_ of how "aged UNIX" is
_very_mature_.  Just ask Microsoft -- it still powers much of
Hotmail and Expedia!

> As for the "fine grained security model" ... well, tell that to
> Happy.exe, CodeRed or AnnaIloveYou.vbs. Even though there are
> more Unix servers on the web than NT, hackers still target NT
> far more often than Unix. Why? Because they are easier targets.

Thank you!  People forget that when it comes to Internet servers,
UNIX is _more_popular_!  Yet more worms target NT.  Even the Linux
Ramen worm only got about 6,000 servers -- but Code Red is well
beyond 200,000 now.

Both targeted security holes that had been patched months earlier. 
But why don't NT admins patch their servers as much as Linux admins
do?  Simple, you usually don't have to reboot the server after
upgrading.  That makes a _big_difference_ and is the main reason why
I cannot stand NT.

> Notice that the Linux boxes also had to run SAMBA. This is a
> failing of Win / NT for not supporting a standard networking
> protocol but instead deciding to go their own way. Samba is not
> required for file serving / printing. It is only a requirement
> if you have to share files with MSFT os's. Unices / Linux run
> just fine without it.

Samba is exponentially more reliable than NT's native SMB service. 
I could go far into that.

> This page made buzz when it was first printed and there were a
> number of fairly complete rebuttals made to it. It's getting
> late. The above is just a sample of what was wrong with that
> document.. For a fuller run down try searching "google groups" @
> http://groups.google.com

And everyone pretty much ignores it for the FUD it is.

-- TheBS

-- 
Bryan "TheBS" Smith     mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org     chat:thebs413
Engineer   Absolute Value Systems, Inc.   http://www.linux-wlan.org
President     SmithConcepts, Inc.      http://www.SmithConcepts.com