 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
what is with all the "us versus them" feeling?
can't you just use whatever one is best to your needs?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
Which Unix?
Which version of NT?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by geeslaka
The members of the Unix community I have met have on average been more responsible and reasonable people than the members of the windows community I have met. Therefore, I believe the different Unises to be more secure than windows. |
This kind of logic is an example of the logic of the Unix community, and precisely why they're not necessarily more secure. 
The true Unixes actually are, because they've had 30+ years to mature and get all the bugs written off. If you looked at the Unixes when they were 10 years old, how old NT is, they were in a far worse state in terms of security than NT is right now.
Keep in mind that Linux is not a Unix...
As for the "Unix" community being more responsible...the person who holds the Unix trademark, SCO, is going around threatening to sue people and trying to charge licenses for Linux (because it "stole" some stuff...) to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the people thought what they were getting was free.
Responsibility. 
Meanwhile, the MS license actually protects the consumer and/or corporation from such practices -- if any legal issue ever comes up regarding Windows, the license states MS will handle the legal matter completely at their cost. They're not left hanging to dry as is the case today with Linux.
Which is more responsible?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
I guess you mean OS, not kernel.
Well, to answer your question, here is my experience:
I work now since 12 years in the software business. I have worked on softwares controlling a nuke power, test (mainly) and onboard program for Ariane 5 rocket and air traffic control, I now work on programs controlling semicon production lines.
In those 12 years, I worked on Vax/vms first, but then very fast we switched to Unix platforms for the real work, on Microsoft for the paperwork (documentation); I spend more than 6 hours a day on so many (I would say 20) Unix machines, less than 2 hours a day on (I would say 3) M$.
In 12 years, I have experiment only one single Unix crash (due to software) and 2 or 3 due to hardware (crash disk).
I remember at least 4 NT crashes (due to software) in the last 2 years for myself, 10 for one of my colleague.
And did I tell you that we usually are concurrent users on the Unix, while we are alone on our PCs?
I don't know a single industry whose control program is running on NT.
Does that answer your question?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
BSD (especially NetBSD/OpenBSD) is far far more secure. Linux (2.4.x) isnt significantly ahead of NT, and somewhat behind BSD, although I think we should reserve judgement on Linux until 2.6.x is released.
Asher is right, UNIX isnt a kernel, but one assumes BSD, Linux etc kernels, which is what talking about. Also, I'm going to hold out for the HURD as well, although it would do so much better if Stallman wasn't micromanaging it  .
Still, MS has a better desktop interface imo, and few desktop users care that much about server security.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-07-2003 07:19
That's just scary! 
!
|