Originally posted by StarValleyWyAgreed.
"There is no [one] correct way to do the job.
That is the point of this thread. Anything you can do on Windows, you can do on Linux.
There are some advantages in developing for Linux which should appeal to a businessman like yourself:
1. The cost is less.
2. Linux and BSD are more robust. so your product should need less support.
Obviously the main disadvantage is the prevalence of Windows, so its often easier to go with the flow. However, since users can't tell what software you use for a database server, why not use MySQL/Linux or Oracle/Linux, and save on development costs?
Originally posted by MayharmHere is how to be the next Bill Gates.
You're all on the wrong track.
BIG business drives the computer world, BIG business is the USER.
USERS dont care what servers they are connecting to, they dont care what lies behind the interface.
GNU/Linux couldn't compete with ...[text shortened]... ]proprietary[/i] UNIX systems) isn't going anywhere...
MÅ¥HÅRM
As you say: If that happens with GNU/Linux...where will you claim back the money you've spent (i.e. on wages, not the "commodity" ) and the revenue you've lost?
So - set up a company selling GNU/Linux. No, not the software - the installation and backup. You start ahead of your Windows competitors - because you have cut out Microsoft's share of the profit. And companies have no problem using software which is not owned by Microsoft - after all, who owns HTML or the SQL standards and how widely are they used?
Start small - small business needs a web server and e-mail, and a browser on every desktop. Easily done for any computer techo.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI agree with you( is that a first?)
Perhaps you tried to hard, but what I wanted to say is that there are exactly a "million ways to any particular job. A really big percentage of those are 'correct'. I will guess that even if we could determine the absolute best, and the runner-up best, they would be within one percent of the next thousand ways of doing ANY TASK."
That is my experience. But I'm a liberal who ain't too hung up on "convention".
I bought a new box. Sure, I could shell out $100 and pay an OEM Windows XP and a bit more for a virus guard. Or I could do what many sneaky little Windows users do and 'borrow' an install disk.
But I surf the net, e-mail and a few other things and I am not a gamer (other than RHP). And for that Linux suits me fine. At work, I use XP - and even with firewalls and commercial anti-virus software, I still feel more comfortable internet banking on a Linux box.
I agree some people still prefer Windows. But for me, a operating system which is not a virus magnet and costs me a couple of dollars is way ahead from the start.
Originally posted by StarValleyWySorry, I understand now.
Perhaps you tried to hard, but what I wanted to say is that there are exactly a "million ways to any particular job. A really big percentage of those are 'correct'. I will guess that even if we could determine the absolute best, and the runner-up best, they would be within one percent of the next thousand ways of doing ANY TASK."
That is my experience. But I'm a liberal who ain't too hung up on "convention".
So spending a bucketload on an OS and software which is hardly secure (and requires ten security updates every week) and only runs on Intel compatible PCs is just as correct as spending no money on a secure OS which runs on just about all widely-used chipsets? Sure, neither option is wrong, but compared side-by-side, you must admit, one is more attractive than the other.
I wouldn't be surprised if my DVD player is running some version of Linux (it plays DivX movies as well). It says even on linux.org that Linux is used in things alike.
Originally posted by DreamlaXIf you choose Linux you will have to pay for someone to setup the system and maybe fiddle with migration of existing stuff, if you choose MS you will have to pay for the system itself. The most cost-effective way will vary from task to task.
Sorry, I understand now.
So spending a bucketload on an OS and software which is hardly secure (and requires ten security updates every week) and only runs on Intel compatible PCs is just as correct as spending no money on a secure OS which runs on just about all widely-used chipsets? Sure, neither option is wrong, but compared side-by-side, you must adm ...[text shortened]... ux (it plays DivX movies as well). It says even on linux.org that Linux is used in things alike.
As a desktop OS Linux may be moderately secure and stable as-is, but to install Linux for serious purposes and think that it can handle security and maintenance on its own would be foolish. Good file-system/user security and a software firewall won't cut it if someone really tries to mess things up. Linux needs a caring hand too. The cross-architecture nature of Linux is nice, but most people would probably use some x86-incarnation if they're looking for cheap machinery anyway.
That said, I've seen several companies who offers open source solutions for small companies for a price that can easily compete with a MS-solution.
Originally posted by Svin1If I run (behind a firewall) Apache server on a read-only loopback mounted ISO that has been chrooted with minimal bin and dev, how far do you think that hacker could get? You're right, Linux needs caring too, but just as much caring as Windows needs? Not likely. The longest I've ever had Windows 2000 up was about 4 weeks. Some virus creeped inside one of Windows 2000 swiss-cheese-like security, and wrote itself into the kernel just like that. After my computer stopped responding I assumed it was overdue for a reboot.
As a desktop OS Linux may be moderately secure and stable as-is, but to install Linux for serious purposes and think that it can handle security and maintenance on its own would be foolish. Good file-system/user security and a software firewall won't cut it if someone really tries to mess things up. Linux needs a caring hand too. The cross-architecture nature ...[text shortened]... people would probably use some x86-incarnation if they're looking for cheap machinery anyway.
I know heaps of people who run Linux on their Macs, especially iBooks. Indeed, the most common application of Linux is probably x86, but the ability to put it on just about all widely used chipsets is by far a big plus.
When discussing computing, you have to distinguish between home computers, front end "servers" and backend big iron. for the home PC, to be honest, Windows is a disaster. Every single person I know, who isn't a geek, doesn't like their system. It may be easy to install things which is really part of the problem. So much rubbish gets installed that the system ends up being incredibly unstable and horribly insecure. I have never owned an Apple but the more I see of it, the more I think it is the way to go.
The front end "servers" are traditionally windows based, mostly because nobody needed front end systems until Microsoft's marketing department persuaded everybody that NT was the way of the future. Unfortunately, it wasn't actually able to achieve much so now we have enormous rooms full of little PC's that are more often than not just windows on back end big iron. True that mail systems seem to have developed a nice niche on Windows though.
The biggest threat to these, it seems to me, is the fashion of consolidating your hardware. I see so many global companies now run maybe twenty virtual Windows machines on a single linux box running vmware ESX.
The back end, where your big databases are, belong to unix. Some people have thirty windows machines running a modest Oracle database with a scheduled re-boot once a month for service packs and "because it makes the machines run better" but not many.
Linux spans all of these, apart from the big iron, Linux is good but it isn't HP-UX, Solaris or AIX. They are about stability, not just that the OS never falls over but that you never need to switch them off, for anything. You just don't do it. You can't do it. Your systems MUST be up.
Of course, with Linux and Apple making inroads into desktops, with the front end being consolidated away and with the Unix servers showing little sign of going away, it seems Unix in all it's forms (yes Apple is Unix now too so who says unix doesn't have a good GUI) is squeezing Microsoft from both ends.
Many years ago, Bill Gates declared he would destroy Unix. I find it rather satisfying that what will eventually get him "retired" from Microsoft will be a free Unix that people decided to build because it is so damn good!
By the way, please don't refer to the gimp as "paint", that it isn't.
Originally posted by DreamlaXA hacker probably wouldn't get very far in the case you describe; it would have to be one talented hacker🙂 But not everybody has the necessary knowledge of security--I work on a project where the webserver is run by root and the last patch is dated two years ago, go figure.
If I run (behind a firewall) Apache server on a read-only loopback mounted ISO that has been chrooted with minimal bin and dev, how far do you think that hacker could get? You're right, Linux needs caring too, but just as much caring as W ...[text shortened]... ut it on just about all widely used chipsets is by far a big plus.
*nix would be my choice of OS if security and stability were the only issues, but for a lot of companies, there are more factors to the equation. Some have a IT-employees who knows nothing besides Windows stuf, some have specialised programs for storage-control, customers, accounting etc where the license is already payed. If these programs run exclusively on Windows and your employees (and you) are familiar with this environment only, there's not much of a choice: Windows it is. I sometimes work at a hotel and their system is Win-only. If they were to migrate all their data and have a new *nix-system developed, the price tag would be huge and every worker had to learn a new system. Much cheaper to simply stick to Windoze. There's more to software-solutions than the price of the software itself.
I think a lot of small companies are fooled by the 'Linux vs. Windows' cost comparisons published by Windows distributors though. I ran across a (Danish) commercial promising a complete business solution for small companies: Complete Windows setup with server, desktop licenses, the usual office-packages and a program where you could manage customers, storage, accounting and such. The commercial compared the price with a 'Linux solution' with the same features--needless to say, the MS-solution was the cheapest, because the Linux solution price included a sum that covered the development of a database-frontend similar to their attached program and some time for maintenance. Now, it would indeed be costly to have a database-frontend developed, but it would be tailored to your needs and just as important: it would scale. The MS solution in the commercial didn't scale. The database could take 250 entries, then you had to buy 'an expansion', which was merely a password that unlocked the next step and so on. If you wanted a database that could handle 100K entries you had to dish out 5 times more than the Linux solution🙂 Of course, you had to buy extra licenses for real security, office tools, the ability to calculate with prices in euro(!), etc. too.
Linux on an iBook sounds like a good idea. Maybe I should forget my wet dreams about PowerBooks and get a cheap iBook and shove Linux onto it instead.
Wheely: I installed Mac OS X in 2001 and haven't reinstalled yet. It still runs pretty smooth on my 450 G4 which is quite an accomplishment when you consider how much crap I've installed over the years. I think they took the right decision when they went down the *nix road.
Oh, and to the original thread-question: No future, I hope. They do have a pretty good grip on the market that will take a long time to lessen unfortunately.
Originally posted by DreamlaXDidn't mean to sound harsh 🙂 I think you are referring to photoshop which, though better than the gimp, runs under Linux with "wine". Still do my photo editing (I take and sell photo's in my spare time) mostly with the gimp but digital RAW file manipulation software is now available with Linux (thanks bibblelabs) and even NeatImage works with "Wine". Heady days indeed!
By Paint, I meant drawing software, but at the time I couldn't remember the name of their imaging software (Photodraw ?).
I remember when I had to hack some poor Chines guys semi-hack of Casio's serial camera protocol so I could get pictures off my QV10. Now I buy a camera, plug it in and wow! I can just copy stuff like you Windows boys and girls!
Originally posted by Svin1The security issue is important - Linux is far better protected fom viruses or spyware because Linux is built on open source where malicious software can not be hidden and uses permissions to decide which programs can be excuted, This is not a just a debating issue - if you can't trust your machine to be free from keyloggers, how do you connect to banks or make a purchase?
If you choose Linux you will have to pay for someone to setup the system and maybe fiddle with migration of existing stuff, if you choose MS you will have to pay for the system itself. The most cost-effective way will vary from task to task.
As a desktop OS Linux may be moderately secure and stable as-is, but to install Linux for serious purposes and think ...[text shortened]... pen source solutions for small companies for a price that can easily compete with a MS-solution.
"For every 100 scans, an average of 14.5 PCs showed the presence of system monitors, while 9.1 carried Trojan horses, according to the audit of companies. To date, the Webroot Corporate SpyAudit has scanned more than 27,865 systems, representing more than 11,375 companies and discovered an average of 17.8 pieces of spyware per corporate desktop computer box " Adn that is within a corporate - not home users.
http://www.internetadsales.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4510
If "As a desktop OS Linux may be moderately secure and stable"then a Windows system is as secure as leavig your wallet on the footpath outside your house.
The related issue of hackers targetting machines is a problem for both operating systems - but much worse for Windows machines. The first problem is technical - there is nothign to stop hackers installing anywhere once they are inside the firewall.
The second problem for Windows is piracy. Flaws in programs can be fixed in both Win and Linux machine by upgrades -and there is nothing to stop a linux user from getting the latest patch. But millions of Win users do not want to upgrade patches - becuase they are running illegal software. So there will always be millions of unpatched and out of date illegal versions of Windows, infested with nasties. And it is not just their problem - infested computers continue to try infecting Windows systems.
Originally posted by steerpikeI'm not saying that security isn't important on a desktop PC, it is, but what company would reject a software-solution because their dimwitted employees potentially could have their personal banking-information or RHP login compromised? I suspect that most will pick the cheapest solution (which in my own opinion often, but not always, will be based on open source rather than MS) As for home users: I think Linux or Mac is a better option for everything but games, but I've given up preaching.
The security issue is important - Linux is far better protected fom viruses or spyware because Linux is built on open source where malicious software can not be hidden and uses permissions to decide which programs can be excuted, This i ...[text shortened]... m - infested computers continue to try infecting Windows systems.
Linux and Macs aren't practically virus-free just because the code is open for all to see (Linux only) or the fact that the general permissions are better thought-out than in Windows. There's really no fun in viruses on Linux, there's much too few users. If you make malware aimed for Windows, you're targetting more than 90% of all desktops (more users = better spread) and security is weaker; as an added bonus, you'll find all of the dumbest users on the internet in your target-group. If you make an effective virus that hits Windows, you'll cripple big companies, piss off millions of users and make the headlines all over the world. In comparison, if you make an effective virus that hits Linux, you'll cripple the local newspaper, piss off 1000 pimpled teenagers and make a headline on slashdot.org.
Suppose every desktop PC in the world was running Linux. Do you think malware would cease to exist then? Granted, some of the bad stuff enters through doors left open by Microsoft, but a lot of it just rides piggyback with unknowing users. Give all the dumb users access to their own home directory and the hackers some incitement to migrate and malware will flourish on Linux too--just circulate a mail that tells people to run the attached program ("Hey! Save the attachment and type './bad_program' to see nude pictures of Britney Spears!" ) and voila!
About illegal copies not being patched and hence subject to attacks: meh! I take it they only infect other un-patched machines.
[/b]Linux and Macs aren't practically virus-free just because the code is open for all to see (Linux only) or the fact that the general permissions are better thought-out than in Windows. There's really no fun in viruses on Linux, there's much too few users. If you make malware aimed for Windows, you're targetting more than 90% of all desktops (more users = better spread) and security is weaker; as an added bonus, you'll find all of the dumbest users on the internet in your target-group. If you make an effective virus that hits Windows, you'll cripple big companies, piss off millions of users and make the headlines all over the world. In comparison, if you make an effective virus that hits Linux, you'll cripple the local newspaper, piss off 1000 pimpled teenagers and make a headline on slashdot.org.[/b]
One of the reasons there is no fun in viruses for Linux is not because there's much too few users, it's because the structure and security is far more integral than Windows'. There's just nothing to do for a virus, unless it knows a loophole or backdoor in Linux. Without root permissions, all you can do is affect files you have write permissions for (and that includes devices), read files you have read permissions for, and execute those you have execution permissions for.
Suppose every desktop PC in the world was running Linux. Do you think malware would cease to exist then? Granted, some of the bad stuff enters through doors left open by Microsoft, but a lot of it just rides piggyback with unknowing users. Give all the dumb users access to their own home directory and the hackers some incitement to migrate and malware will flourish on Linux too--just circulate a mail that tells people to run the attached program ("Hey! Save the attachment and type './bad_program' to see nude pictures of Britney Spears!" ) and voila!
You may in fact have to chmod it so that you have permission to run it. "Hey! Save the attachment, type 'chmod a+x bad_program' and press enter, and then type './bad_program' to see nude pictures of Britney Spears!". However, since that program would be running as a casual user, and not root, there is still not a lot it can do.
Originally posted by DreamlaXA nice way to protect yourself against any e-mail borne malicious nasty on a unix syste.
Linux and Macs aren't practically virus-free just because the code is open for all to see (Linux only) or the fact that the general permissions are better thought-out than in Windows. There's really no fun in viruses on Linux, there's much too few users. If you make malware aimed for Windows, you're targetting more than 90% of all desktops (more use ...[text shortened]... program would be running as a casual user, and not root, there is still not a lot it can do.
[/b]
1) Create a dummy account which receives your e-mail
2) Have a script run from your account which logs into the dummy account and runs your mail application. Optionally, if you are paranoid, get the script to copy your mailbox before opening the e-mail
There you have it, any malware, any nasty will obliterate, spy on, do it's nasty stuff on a completely useless account with no data in it. The worst you will have to do is recreate the account and copy the mailbox back (after editing out the nasty mail)
Not tried it because I've never ever received anything remotely nasty that would work on my machine.
Originally posted by DreamlaXSubstitute the program with a script then, it's just an example. You can do bad stuff even if you're confined to a home directory; not bad stuff that affects the operating system itself, but keyloggers and general snooping is possible. Something as simple as this example relies on naive users rather than weak security and there's not that many really naive Linux users out there, but if everybody used Linux, there *would* be dimwitted users galore.
You may in fact have to chmod it so that you have permission to run it. "Hey! Save the attachment, type 'chmod a+x bad_program' and press enter, and then type './bad_program' to see nude pictures of Britney Spears!". However, since that program would be running as a casual user, and not root, there is still not a lot it can do.