Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:50 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 3:42 am 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
Which is my point. Free isn't really free. You either pay for it with extra time OR you pay for it up front in a service contract.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:44 am 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:04 pm
Posts: 985
Location: Earth
that Linux guy wrote:
A real company with Linux servers has 24/7/365 support from their Linux vendor. Businesses don't just download Slackware and call it a day. They're running SLES and RHEL with support contracts.


Too broad of a generalization. I have several friends who work in the financial services industry, who use Linux and use Gentoo or Ubuntu as their primary Linux distro (back when Gentoo kicked butt). Many of them required hardware SLA's, if the hardware breaks, replace it under warranty and call it a day. Otherwise, they ran their Linux distros with no support from a Linux vendor, they just did it themselves.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:47 am 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:04 pm
Posts: 985
Location: Earth
CrashTECH wrote:
Which is my point. Free isn't really free. You either pay for it with extra time OR you pay for it up front in a service contract.


You're right in the sense that free isn't really free. However, what Linux proponents argue is the overall cost of owning a Linux box versus a Windows Server box. Between licensing and support costs, they often make sense that the cost of owning a Linux box is cheaper. However, I agree that free isn't free - sure, Linux is free, but support, if you don't have a capable Linux admin, ain't free.

However, as in my other post, I have friends in companies that run pure Linux and have not had to pay for support costs. They're very capable Linux gurus and run the entire kit-and-kaboodle on Ubuntu or Gentoo (back when Gentoo was awesome). They didn't need service contracts, they just fixed it themselves. :)


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:44 am 
Java Junkie
Java Junkie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:23 am
Posts: 24229
Location: Granite Heaven
yurimxpxman wrote:
Only one of these methods can be proven to be completely safe.


I would love to see proof that either of the methods you proposed is safe.

Seriously. Even just an explanation of why one method is safer than the other (regarding the insertion of illicit code to track / steal personal information).


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:49 am 
Java Junkie
Java Junkie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:23 am
Posts: 24229
Location: Granite Heaven
yurimxpxman wrote:
That is true. It's all in the hands of the distributor. Actually, that's an interesting thought. Wouldn't it be great to create a system where software is accepted by a series of people, and provided mathematical proof that each of these people okayed the changes? That would be a safer way to distribute software. You never know what kind of stuff the distributor (or packager) might wish to slip in.


That is called Change Management and it is an integral part of any corporate software production process. The implementation varies, of course, and that is what determines the quality of the finished product.

Quote:
What if the md5sum of each file, after being compiled with that specific version of code, was listed, and after comparing the hashes, people report that the binaries are safe? (You'd have to compile it under the same conditions if you were to check the md5sums, of course.)


The only thing that an md5 sum can tell you is that the contents of the file have changed. You're proposing a system that provides the same output (either 'changed' or 'not changed) if a comment in the code has changed or if a new function was added called 'stealCCandBankInfo'. This is very inefficient and wouldn't survive in an environment that produces more than 100 lines of code.

Quote:
My point is that only free software can be observed for blatantly malicious code.


Google 'black box testing'. You don't have to know HOW something works to determine IF it works and WHAT it does. :)


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 am 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
I have seen studies showing TCO both higher and lower. There are too many variables. I think that if you have smart admins, support costs can be low. I think it is far easier to get support for Windows when needed. I have been an administrator for both Windows and Linux boxes both. There have been cases where the Linux fix was easier than the Windows fix and vice versa.

My main point is that they are different. The fit different needs. They are supported differently. They are good at different things.

Why Linux? Because it can do a job than Windows/X-Server can't do as well or at all. Why not? Windows/X-Server does it better/cheaper/faster. It really depends.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:46 am 
Java Junkie
Java Junkie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:23 am
Posts: 24229
Location: Granite Heaven
CrashTECH wrote:
It really depends.


Sadly, I think that this sums it all up.

I say 'sadly' because it really kills the discussion. :P


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:10 am 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
I don't think so... I mean, it depends on what? I know it depends... but why?

I will be honest, for the most part, I can't think of a single reason to use Linux over Windows both @ work and @ home.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:43 am 
Java Junkie
Java Junkie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:23 am
Posts: 24229
Location: Granite Heaven
CrashTECH wrote:
I will be honest, for the most part, I can't think of a single reason to use Linux over Windows both @ work and @ home.


Cost.

The price of a Windows license would get me another couple gigs of RAM instead, or an extra TB of drive space.

Of course, this assumes that I have an existing Windows install that I can use for my MS-only tools (Fuck you, Framemaker. Fuck you.) So there goes that idea.

Ummm ... because ... ummm ... fuck.

/me goes to hug a penguin.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:28 pm 
TravBv2.0
TravBv2.0
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:35 am
Posts: 3898
Location: In the server room
DJSPIN80 wrote:
CrashTECH wrote:
Which is my point. Free isn't really free. You either pay for it with extra time OR you pay for it up front in a service contract.


You're right in the sense that free isn't really free. However, what Linux proponents argue is the overall cost of owning a Linux box versus a Windows Server box. Between licensing and support costs, they often make sense that the cost of owning a Linux box is cheaper. However, I agree that free isn't free - sure, Linux is free, but support, if you don't have a capable Linux admin, ain't free.

However, as in my other post, I have friends in companies that run pure Linux and have not had to pay for support costs. They're very capable Linux gurus and run the entire kit-and-kaboodle on Ubuntu or Gentoo (back when Gentoo was awesome). They didn't need service contracts, they just fixed it themselves. :)


Are you talking about on the servers, or on their office computers?

If I had a job as an Admin, sure, I might load Ubuntu on my workstation, but I wouldn't touch the servers in regards to reloading a new OS.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:46 pm 
Team Member
Team Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:52 pm
Posts: 3189
DJSPIN80 wrote:
You're right in the sense that free isn't really free. However, what Linux proponents argue is the overall cost of owning a Linux box versus a Windows Server box. Between licensing and support costs, they often make sense that the cost of owning a Linux box is cheaper. However, I agree that free isn't free - sure, Linux is free, but support, if you don't have a capable Linux admin, ain't free.

However, as in my other post, I have friends in companies that run pure Linux and have not had to pay for support costs. They're very capable Linux gurus and run the entire kit-and-kaboodle on Ubuntu or Gentoo (back when Gentoo was awesome). They didn't need service contracts, they just fixed it themselves. :)


I never said that free software can't cost money. (Or, rather, the programmer's service must be paid for sometimes.) I'm not into GNU/Linux because it doesn't cost me anything.I use it because it gives me more freedoms than other systems do.

Jipstyle wrote:
I would love to see proof that either of the methods you proposed is safe.

Seriously. Even just an explanation of why one method is safer than the other (regarding the insertion of illicit code to track / steal personal information).

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that you can only prove a piece of software to be safe if you have access to the source code. You can observe the behaviors of an application for a decade, and it may surprise you one day by doing something it shouldn't at an arbitrary point in time.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:12 pm 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
yurimxpxman wrote:
Jipstyle wrote:
I would love to see proof that either of the methods you proposed is safe.

Seriously. Even just an explanation of why one method is safer than the other (regarding the insertion of illicit code to track / steal personal information).

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that you can only prove a piece of software to be safe if you have access to the source code. You can observe the behaviors of an application for a decade, and it may surprise you one day by doing something it shouldn't at an arbitrary point in time.
No. You can't. You can't prove anything just because you can see the code.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:16 pm 
Team Member
Team Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:52 pm
Posts: 3189
CrashTECH wrote:
No. You can't. You can't prove anything just because you can see the code.

Why not? You may not see every security flaw, but you'll be able to see any malicious code.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 6:27 pm 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
yurimxpxman wrote:
CrashTECH wrote:
No. You can't. You can't prove anything just because you can see the code.

Why not? You may not see every security flaw, but you'll be able to see any malicious code.
You don't know that. I am sure I am a little better at programming than you, just based on experience, and I know I am not good enough to spot everything. I smell arrogance, and youthful ignorance.

Being free and open doesn't mean it is safer. It doesn't mean you can prove it safer. It doesn't mean anything.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 7:06 am 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:29 pm
Posts: 6328
Location: Far away from you
I was thinking the same thing. Exactly what does malicious code look like and how would you know it's malicious and just not appear that way? :)

Although, I'm not trying to slight anyone here, I would tend to trust a development community as a whole in this over anyone here and to date, they've done a pretty decent job at this.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:38 am 
Java Junkie
Java Junkie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:23 am
Posts: 24229
Location: Granite Heaven
yurimxpxman wrote:
CrashTECH wrote:
No. You can't. You can't prove anything just because you can see the code.

Why not? You may not see every security flaw, but you'll be able to see any malicious code.


Really? So if I change one function in the project I'm currently working on to allow a stack overflow, thus allowing anyone using my app to create services with local admin privs, you can find it?

FYI: this project has over a million lines of code.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 7:55 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:18 pm
Posts: 80
Why Linux? For one, it's a lot easier to spoof the MAC address of your brother's computer when he gets pissed off at you and turns a filter on his router to kick you off the internet. But don't tell him I did that, thx.

I've been using both Ubuntu and Windows XP for quite some time now and feel somewhat proficient in both. It's good to learn new things.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:08 pm 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
SpaceBison wrote:
Why Linux? For one, it's a lot easier to spoof the MAC address of your brother's computer when he gets pissed off at you and turns a filter on his router to kick you off the internet. But don't tell him I did that, thx.

I've been using both Ubuntu and Windows XP for quite some time now and feel somewhat proficient in both. It's good to learn new things.
It is just as easy to do it in XP. I haven't looked at Vista or Win7 though I imagine it is nearly the same process as XP.

I would do it because I didn't feel like re-registering my mac address with the college when I got a new PC.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 7:32 am 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:04 pm
Posts: 985
Location: Earth
yurimxpxman wrote:
I never said that free software can't cost money. (Or, rather, the programmer's service must be paid for sometimes.) I'm not into GNU/Linux because it doesn't cost me anything.I use it because it gives me more freedoms than other systems do.


The post I replied to was from CrashTECH. I never implied that free software can't cost money. I implied that Open Source - in the hands of capable individuals - can provide a lower TCO than Windows boxes.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 8:43 am 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
Lower TCO is possible... but I think if you have capable people then the TCO is going to be so close it is going to be six to one, half dozen to the other between Windows and Linux.

The biggest problem is Windows let "idiots" use a computer. The higher TCO (I believe) comes from more idiots being involved in the process.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

© 2014 Future US, Inc. All rights reserved.