| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Global IT firm predicts Linux will have 20% desktop market share by 2008 | |
|
||
| Time: 10:41 EST/15:41 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks Pascal. "With Windows, there's always some feature that you can only get to through the GUI," he says. He also cites the better documentation in Linux that allows administrators to solve oddball problems that can be very time-consuming on Windows, where parts of the proprietary OS are undocumented. McNutt feels that Linux is particularly strong in remote management, which is becoming more important as enterprise workers become more widely dispersed." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:38:06 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/18/2003 11:08:55 AM |
|
RoguePenguin, prepare your scroll wheel ;) :
SuSE: http://www.suse.com/us/private/download/updates/82_i386.html RedHat 8: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh8-errata.html (Oh, and support expires as of December 31st… this year) RedHat 9: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh9-errata.html Windows Server 2003: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/current.asp?productid=175&servicepackid=0&submit1=go&isie=yes (What, only 3 entries?!) Oh, and don't bother with the "but Linux distros include more than just the kernel--they include Apache, Samba, blah blah blah." Windows includes IIS, file sharing, and a lot of extras, too. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/18/2003 11:17:25 AM |
|
""With Windows, there's always some feature that you can only get to through the GUI,"
"McNutt feels that Linux is particularly strong in remote management...." Perhaps they should actually look into scripting on Windows, not just batch files and the like... I'm not aware of any feature that you can't get to without the GUI. They've also apparently not looked very far into Group Policies and how you can use it to control application settings (particularly brilliantly with Office)... there's nothing comparable on the Linux platform. |
| #3 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 8/18/2003 11:42:19 AM |
| This is horrible news for Apple. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/18/2003 12:09:05 PM |
|
RoguePenguin - When the FSF comes out and admits two weeks after knowing about it that the servers hosting much of the source code used in Linux had been comrpromised for 4 months...
It hardly seems as though the "Open Source Community" has a firm foundation to talk about security. |
| #5 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 8/18/2003 12:49:34 PM |
|
Although I would like to point out that one should never count out the Cubs until they bork things themselves, seeing Linux at 20% makes me laugh uncontrolably.
For that to happen there are LOTS of things that need to be addressed on Linux (note I didn't say "fixed.") Namely... (1) the X-window system blows chunks. (2) User administration needs to be made just a tad (not much) easier. (3) better fonts (4) more and better drivers for EVERYTHING. Approaching MS levels of support here. (5) standardization. I can't say it enough. When you have two linux gurus arguing over if the "/var" directory is even needed you know you have a problem. (6) mounting of drives. I shouldn't have to mount and unmount a CD manually. Autofs is a breakthrough for Linux in this area, pity Windows had that a long time ago. (7) installing software is a PITA. A big one at that. All this "./configure, make, make install..." it's garbage and outdated. (8) user friendliness. Linux is no where near where it needs to be for a user friendly environment. (9) DOCUMENTATION! I love reading the man page, hitting up USENET, and reading forums looking for reasons why things like SAMBA don't work right only to have some buttmunch tell me to "man SAMBA," or to "RTFM." If you twerps can't write decent documentation you need to stop writing code and learn how to deal with people better. Just because you know that there's some switch that needs to be turned on doesn't mean that everyone does. (10) If you can't put a CD in front of some grandpa someplace and have him partition, format, and install Linux by himself then you've lost the battle. If they have even the remotest questions on things you've failed. (11) interoperability. Get Linux on Netware. Have fun with ncpfs, dependencies, etc. I can do it because I had to. If linux doesn't play nicely with the "big boys" then it's a toy. (12) pluck the timber out of your eyes--pointing out the vulnerabilities in Windows and thinking you don't suffer some of the same problems because you run Linux makes you sadly mistaken. There are plenty of *nix only vulnerabilities that you need to address, moaning about the latest Windows problem (msblast.exe) and using that to point out the inferiority of Windows must make your skin crawl when it is clearly that Linux has many times more than newest iterations of Windows. (13) Using terms like "M$", "Windoze", "Winbloze", etc. only make you look like a shill and a dope. You're not "leet" your a dork. Deal. Speak English. Have respect. Be professional. There's a baker's dozen for you...there are plenty more. |
| #6 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 8/18/2003 2:04:26 PM |
|
Cthulhu:
While i agree with you i'd like to point out a couple of things. (3) better fonts : this has been addressed and continues to be addressed. A linux machine with standard truetype fonts and the bitstream-vera fonts using subpixel hinting for LCD's looks just fine in the font department. Not much improvement needed to match windows in that area IMO. installation of new fonts needs work (in some distributions). (4) more and better drivers for EVERYTHING. Approaching MS levels of support here : This has mostly something to do with the hardware vendors not linux coders. I think Linux does great for the little support they get from some harware vendors. Hardware from vendors that openly support linux (Nvidia for example) have great drivers. (7) installing software is a PITA. A big one at that. All this "./configure, make, make install..." it's garbage and outdated. : This only has to be done when manually installing (compiling) software from source. Installig software is a matter of clicking a few icons in most distributions. (10) If you can't put a CD in front of some grandpa someplace and have him partition, format, and install Linux by himself then you've lost the battle. If they have even the remotest questions on things you've failed. : Installing Linux has become just about as easy as windows. Many people with windows never had to install it as it came with the computer they bought. (11) interoperability. Get Linux on Netware. Have fun with ncpfs, dependencies, etc. I can do it because I had to. If linux doesn't play nicely with the "big boys" then it's a toy. : Novell just bought Ximian. Many other big boy companies are also making sure Linux is interoperable. |
| #7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/18/2003 3:38:17 PM |
|
Alright, RoguePenguin, let's take a look at that article:
LinuxWorld statement: "In the article in question the author Tony Northrup adopts the position that the Internet is a bad place where bad things happen to innocent people." Duh. This is not news. Thus the reason for a firewall, no matter what OS you use. LinuxWorld claim: "Don't mind the fact that Windows XP includes a software firewall which the article admits is insufficient." Um, not quite. This article takes a best-practices approach, which means you wouldn't run the firewall on your home machine. It suggests that you get a dedicated firewall box, which makes sense to me. As for ICF itself, it never says that it's "insufficient." It DOES say that it does not include "the rich features of a third-party firewall application" and that you should "determine if they meet your needs better than ICF." If Microsoft produced a full-featured firewall, they'd be condemned for "taking over the personal firewall market." And, incidently, they've had built-in port filtering before XP, as well. LinuxWorld claim: "However, attacks can be prevented much easier with Linux. The answer is simple: Turn off unused services." Um, this can be done just as easily with Windows XP. LinuxWorld claim: "Should a Windows user make sure that they check for updates daily? Yes." If anything, by my post earlier, it's the Linux users that should be checking daily. It doesn't even make sense to check daily as a Windows user, as the patches are usually released on Wednesdays, once per week. LinuxWorld claim: "Should a Windows user get anti-virus software and update it twice daily? Yes." Um, no. Twice daily? That's a bit much, but go ahead if you want. Most AV products make this automatic, anyhow! Oooh, such a big maintenance task. LinuxWorld claim: "Will that Windows user still be protected? No." Nor will any computer be safe, regardless of the OS. Sheesh!! LinuxWorld claim: "Maybe by the next Windows release they'll be caught up to where Linux was last year." What, to 40 vulnerabilities rather than 3? Hopefully not!!! Why don't you actually read that MS article, RoguePenguin? NOWHERE in that article does it suggest that ICF is "insufficient." In fact, it says "ICF is free and a great way to protect your computer from most of the bad things that might find you on the Internet." It only points out that it isn't full-featured. And it points out where you can get full-featured ones for free. Only the Linux zealots would see this as some sort of "admission" on the part of MS!! |
| #8 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 8/18/2003 3:55:45 PM |
|
athlonrulz: just because YOU cannot do that doesn't make my statement wrong.
RE: http://www.suse.com/us/private/download/updates/82_i386.html https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh8-errata.html Comparing the number of Win2k3 fixes to these lists is like comparing apples and oranges. Windows doesn't come bundled with 3000 3rd party applications. This post was edited by tgnb on Monday, August 18, 2003 at 16:14. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/18/2003 5:18:22 PM |
|
Alright, tgnb, despite my request, you did it anyway. Let's take a look closely then (has anyone ever done this???):
A few RH8 errata and Windows counterpart: RHSA-2003:199 Updated unzip packages fix trojan vulnerability zip utility built into Windows RHSA-2002:246 Updated Canna packages fix vulnerabilities Windows Global IME RHSA-2003:235 Updated KDE packages fix security issue Explorer.exe RHSA-2003:241 Updated ddskk packages fix temporary file vulnerability Windows Global IME RHBA-2002:305 Fix memory leak in Xft RDP/Remote Desktop RHSA-2003:255 up2date improperly checks GPG signature of packages Critical Update Notification RHSA-2003:251 New postfix packages fix security issues. SMTP server RHSA-2003:162 Updated Mozilla packages fix security vulnerability. IE RHSA-2003:245 Updated wu-ftpd packages fix remote vulnerability. FTP server RHSA-2003:206 Updated nfs-utils packages fix denial of service vulnerability Windows file sharing Etc. etc.... how far do I have to go???? Don't keep spreading the myth. This post was edited by bluvg on Monday, August 18, 2003 at 17:27. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/18/2003 6:29:41 PM |
|
RoguePenguin - "I didn't make any claims or statements. That came from your precious MS themselves ! "
No, you quoted them from the article. MS didn't make the claim either. But then I never made the claim that you made the claim. So while it's a nice way to distract attention, you dropped the point I made, that being that the "Open Source Community" doesn't have a sound foundation from which to attack others over security. bjd145 - "I can't say the same for Windows." To be completely fair, the only reason you can't say the same for Windows is because of your own ignorance with the Windows platform. I do hate to belabor this point, but the sad fact that it keeps being brought up does not aid our discussion. |
| #11 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 8/18/2003 8:24:25 PM |
|
JaggedFlame: "So that's somehow supposed to make Linux more secure?"
No it doesn't make Linux more secure and i never claimed that it does "You still get hundreds of packages on your Linux distro for it to at least be useful." So you admit that Linux is useful? bluvg: All I said is comparing this is apples vs oranges I didn't say the list doesn't contain legit issues or that it contains less than the Windows 2003 list. However Redhat includes so many choices that most likely one is only affected by a fraction of these fixes on a real world system. The fact that comparing those lists to Win2k3 Server is like apples and oranges is not a myth. athlonrulz: So if you werent trying to disagree what WERE you trying to say when you said "...not really.." in response to my statement. Oh yeah athlon t0tally rulez dud3.. This post was edited by tgnb on Monday, August 18, 2003 at 20:27. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 8/18/2003 8:42:57 PM |
|
tgnb,
I don't even come here too often anymore, but I know that Jagged has said on several occasions that he works with Linux and that it has its uses. Also, when you responded about the 3000 apps or whatever being included you implicitly sided with the "Oh yeah, well Windows is buggier than Linux" crowd. Whether directly stated or not, it seemed rather obvious to me what your opinion is. To be fair though, why don't you just tell us - in your opinion which OS is more secure, Linux or Windows? Yes that's ambiguous since there are several configurations/distros and versions/editions of each, so you choose your scenario and give us a verdict. I'm trying to be objective here, so please share your opinion and I'll consider it with an open mind. |
| #13 By 7754 (24.245.76.135) at 8/18/2003 9:44:54 PM |
|
#18, sorry, yes, you are right about Evolution. That was a cut/paste mistake on my part, and why I edited it to refer to the KDE vulnerability (4 minutes before your post ;). As for the Xft bug, I just grabbed the RDP correlation from this: "The bug occurs most commonly with terminal applications as their extensive text handling resulted in rapid memory leaks." RDP has a method of handling fonts as well (as glyphs).
As far as running a firewall on Windows, I agree with Sodablue--I think it's a misunderstanding on your part as far as how to figure out what's running and disable what you don't need (or script an installation to install only what you need). Look to the NSA guidelines for a reference point: http://nsa1.www.conxion.com/win2k/download.htm I've tried uptodate on RedHat... it does work well enough, though it's extremely slow in comparison to Windowsupdate. The documentation for bug fixes is also much more understandable at Windowsupdate (particularly for home users!). |
| #14 By 7754 (24.245.76.135) at 8/18/2003 9:56:54 PM |
| tgnb, my aim there was to point out in real terms just how wrong the ad nauseam argument is of the Linux crowd that Linux vulnerabilities can't be compared to Windows vulnerabilities because Linux distros include so many apps. At first glance, it makes sense... but when you dig into the actual vulnerabilities and the situation, you realize that Windows also has many apps (incidentally, two of the three Windows 2003 vulnerabilities were related to DirectX and an HTML converter...), and the Linux vulnerabilities have their Windows counterparts. Look beyond the superficial believability of the claim and into the vulnerabilities in-depth, one by one, and you'll see easily that the "so many apps" argument simply doesn't hold water. |
| #15 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 8/19/2003 12:04:38 AM |
|
1998 "Global IT firm predicts Linux will have 20% desktop market share by 2000"
2001 "Global IT firm predicts Linux will have 20% desktop market share by 2004" 2003 "Global IT firm predicts Linux will have 20% desktop market share by 2008" Well, at least they're upping the margin every time. Try 2050 and maybe you might be close :) Also, for the "Linux is safer" crowd, it's only safer because there are less attackers by volume. If we all switch to Linux and it started getting rooted like a 200 year oak tree (which it will because there are like 200-1000% the number of patches coming out for Linux as compared to Windows in the same time period), then what? BSD? Then what? MacOS? Then what? Windows? |
| #16 By 7754 (24.245.76.135) at 8/19/2003 12:45:53 AM |
|
bjd145, well, a couple things. In a sense you are right about something like DCOM, but you have to ask when tweaking loses sight of reality. I'm not sure why you are differentiating in terms of security between locking DCOM down and uninstalling it, for example. You can lock it down so that not even the system account can use it; you can go further and remove NTFS permissions (similar to the suggestions of removing permissions to cmd.exe, ipconfig.exe, etc.). You'd have to break into the machine to take advantage of the it, but if you already broke into it, why would you even need it anymore? Is someone going around programming against DCOM on machines they hack??? Even if they were, once the machine was in their hands, they could put it back on there. Are the NSA guidelines (for example) not enough? If you really need to exceed their standards, perhaps neither Windows nor Linux are what you want.
To me, having the GNU download site hack going unnoticed for 4 months and unmentioned for 2 weeks--and taking who knows how many hours to cross-check hash codes--is a much more worrisome threat than the Blaster worm that has had an available patch for several weeks. |
| #17 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 8/20/2003 10:09:58 AM |
|
BobSmith:
"Also, when you responded about the 3000 apps or whatever being included you implicitly sided with the "Oh yeah, well Windows is buggier than Linux" crowd. Whether directly stated or not, it seemed rather obvious to me what your opinion is. To be fair though, why don't you just tell us - in your opinion which OS is more secure, Linux or Windows? Yes that's ambiguous since there are several configurations/distros and versions/editions of each, so you choose your scenario and give us a verdict. I'm trying to be objective here, so please share your opinion and I'll consider it with an open mind." With my statement I did not side with any crowd. I make up my own mind and create my own opinions based on information from multiple sources. My opinion usually agrees and disagrees with parts of the different sides. Its not an easy answer to give whether Linux or Windows are more secure. Actually I believe that the question itself is flawed. In my opinion both windows and linux can be secured by a competent systems admin. The question thus doesn't become which is more secure, but which can be more easily secured. But then again a MS sysadmin might have a harder time securing linux while a linux sysadmin might find it harder to secure windows. Therefore the questions once again shifts to "what do YOU find easier to secure, windows or linux" and becomes a matter of personal preference and expertise. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:38:06 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
