Hi there;
It seems that we are dropping the main subject of the list, which is
(was?) firewalls. So here some humble ideas from an extremely tired
system manager (tired of FW-1 at the moment, damn thing is dropping
packets it is not supposed to drop, and allowing ones that it must not
allow, logs do not show anything about these two sets of packets, while
rest of the system (majority of rules) are working and logging properly,
any idea?).
........................
>
> Not by me it hasn't. Macs suck. Windows boxes suck. Unix vendors suck.
> Most operating systems suck; we seem to think of this as a fact of life
> these days, and we only notice when one OS sucks less than the others.
All these are correct IMHO, I believe that if it is less open, it sucks
more. So Macs and M$ OSs are at the bottom of quality scale.
.................
>
> Why doesn't Windows run on top of Xenix, Microsoft's Unix product,
> which had multitasking and (some) security built into it from day one?
> After all, Unix flavors are relatively cheap to make; you can get three
> or four by FTP for free these days. MS could have been killing off Unix
> vendors a whole decade before the launch of Windows NT, and they would
> have had the end product debugged by now.
Probably they drop Xenix, since they could not control the system
(market) while having de facto UNIX features, like a built in C compiler
(novadays UNIX vendors are trying to drop free compiler support, like
IBM and SUN, but while having GNU compilers who needs a vendor supplied
garbage, like IBM's compiler, I used it only to compile gcc). All
Microsoft wanted was (is) a market under MS control, when you buy the
system (God what a mistake) you are in trouble, they do not permit any
third party software on their OS. OK they do not say so, but they do so.
Although there are some software companies that can sell they products
on MS DOS and Windows OSs (especially Borland, their compilers are
always far better than MS ones), by not giving necessary information, MS
makes it quite difficult to write commercial programmes in their OSs.
Still there are lots of UN-documented functions and system data types in
even MS-DOS, only acceptable event tracer in Windows is a tool of
Borland, etc. etc.
.....................
> >Compare this feature to Unix. Unix is anything but user-friendly.
> >Without an understanding of Unix, which takes quite some time to
> >obtain, it's impossible to set up and run. Its commands are so
> >non-comprehensible I've heard them referred to as "extraterrestrial".
Well, if you do not like it, this is really your problem, at least with
UNIX you can say that "I know was is happenning in this system!". Can
anybody say this with a MS OS. I do not think so, I would not believe
anyone who says so (maybe Gates).
>
> Installing Solaris is no harder than installing Win95--in fact,
> it's easier, because the hardware usually isn't as broken as some PCs
> are--although Solaris is less colorful and it doesn't tell you how
> wonderful it is while it's copying files.
:)
> >So it's no surprise that when Windows NT came along, with its
> >familiar, user-friendly interface, it was an immediate threat to Unix,
> >despite the fact that Unix was more robust, had superior clustering
> >technology, and ran on larger machines.
Yes, yes, even kids can manage those, do not they. This helps CEOs to
cut costs, and helps UNIX managers, when those kids messed up entire
network of an ISP, you can charge anything you want, to clean up the
garbage. Boy, these people even do not know what garbage collection
is!!!! Thanks Mr. Gates.
...........
> I appreciate the fact that to people who have no computer at all, a
> Windows computer is an improvement; however, if you've been spoiled by
> Unix applications that work on machines that stay running for years at a
> time, it's hard to get used to an OS that crashes ten times a month, where
> every fifth application you install causes another one to stop working,
> and where even the tiniest security issue instantly becomes a major
> vulnerability because everyone is attacking your OS and the vendor can't
> keep up with the bug fixes. Ever notice how many viruses and trojans run
> under Windows?
Well, ten times per month is a good average, which makes three day
continous system run. This is only possible, you (or more likely an
attacker) do not overload the computer. In UNIX at worst you throw users
out of the system, stop some services, and clean unwanted things from
system, and get it back to the service, all online. When managing NT
only way is to press reset button usually. For example if you do not
have 128 MB RAM you cannot run a proper Exchange service, even in this
case it can shit itself once a week (what a crash, it usually takes 45
minutes to shutdown), and must be the only major load on the system.
Microsoft does not say so, but this is the only way to make it work. But
in an IBM system (even IBM, the worst UNIX platform I have, SCO is not
the worst UNIX but AIX) with 128 MB RAM you can receive +10000 peoples
mail, while having +100 of them logged into system at the same time, and
it keeps working for weeks or months.
......................
>
> I think the 'vi' text editor took me a month to learn; however, since
> its command language is more efficient than those of other popular
> editors, and I never need to learn any other editor, it was well worth
> the time. It's available for every single hardware/OS platform that I
> use these days, and it comes pre-installed on most of them.
Our old life jacket :)) In text terminals I use pico, an in X, emacs is
quite good. But of course one must know vi in order to be able to live
in an UNIX enviroment.
.................
> >Who know how hard setting up and administering a small LAN was before
> >WNT and W95??
>
> Win95 is easier to set up? I didn't know that. Funny that I wouldn't
> notice that after setting up dozens of Win95, NT, Solaris, and Linux
> machines.
Well, after the first hundredth it becomes easy, since then you can
tell what will go wrong according to on which step of installation
system makes funny (lets say) things.
>
> Win{95,NT} are significantly harder to keep running and administer without
> having a technical person in the same city. That's one of the reasons
> why we're phasing it out; the short-term costs are a little lower but
> the long-term costs would fund our procurements for years!
Thats right, I'm working part time in a company based in Istanbul (29E)
and our company has its primary DNS in Chicago. Well, you can guess it
is not an NT system.
Regards;
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Can Baysal <baysalc @
boun .
edu .
tr> | System Manager |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
USER, n.:
The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot."
References:
|
|
