 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Harry Seldon
Based and driven are too different things. Maybe I should have specified networking protocols. Windows was built around NetBEUI |
Eh? Not modern Windows. NetBEUI doesn't even ship enabled anymore.
quote:
Since Linux is a derivative of Unix I extrapolated that Linux, too, was built around TCP/IP as a communication protocol. |
Linux is not a derivative of Unix, and I still have no idea how you "base" an OS around a protocol...you support them.
quote:
I'll be more than happy to admit you're right about the linux TCP/IP being less robust the 'real OSs' if you can link me some documentation on it but until then I'll mark it down as more Microsoft propaganda. |
Feel free to discount it if you will, but why don't you think about it for a bit:
BSD has been around for how long, now? Linux has been around for how long?
BSD was designed for large server systems, Linux was designed for small, cheap server systems.
Windows supports both BSD's sockets and its own NTSockets, which are based on BSD's sockets.
Linux's simply isn't as mature, or as scalable, as BSD's/Window's/Unix's. It's the newkid and it's still trying to get there.
As for sources on this, well, that's kinda tricky. It stands to logic that Linux's isn't as good as an OS that's much more mature and designed for much larger systems, but I found a few links where people talk about Linux's stack:
http://lists.q-linux.com/pipermail/...ust/008420.html
quote:
by default freebsd tcp window size is 16k while linux is 64k. i tweak it in
order to have identical values and still my benchmark results that freebsd
tcp/ip stack is faster than linux. furthermore, it depends on what kind of
link do you have to test it, either LAN or WAN. these two links have
different behavior and i found out that freebsd tcp/ip stack is easily
configurable on the fly to those kind of link for maximum performance
compare to linux you have to alter its source code (eg. how do you disable
delay acknowledgement in linux?).. aside from that, many of the linux
community got annoyed with alan cox because he is always playing with the
tcp/ip stack code. in short, tcp/ip stack of linux is his toyland compare to
freebsd tcp/ip stack comes from the research group of berkeley. i remember
the time with linux kernel 2.2.x (somewhere in there) that its tcp/ip stack
really sucks. its too painfully slow until they release a new kernel which
improve the performance. |
http://lists.netisland.net/archives...5/msg00396.html
quote:
The one that pisses me off most frequently is that it is literally
impossible to return an RST packet in any way other than letting
the packet fall through to the kernel's TCP/IP stack. If you don't
return an RST, nmap can see the port's firewalled. If you do return
an RST, nmap just thinks the port's closed. But if you return an
RST by letting it through to the OS, you leave yourself open to OS
fingerprinting (due to quirks in the Linux TCP/IP stack) and, even
scarier, vulnerabilities in the Linux TCP/IP stack (say, like this
one:
https://rhn.redhat.com/network/erra...ils.pxt?eid=947
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-08-2003 21:54
|