Re: Dark side of linux (against)
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Phillip Neumann wrote:
> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:49:32 -0300
> From: Phillip Neumann <max@julia.dhis.org>
> To: debian@murphy.debian.org
> Subject: Dark side of linux (against)
> Resent-Date: 9 Nov 1999 16:00:32 -0000
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
> Hello,
>
> This is more a linux questoin that a debian one.. but anyway...
>
> I had some time now for playing with linux in general, so i know some of the
> pros that this OS does offer to the users. But i just know 1 side of the
> coin... im wondering what is agains linux?
The one major problem is the 2 GB max file size limit, which keeps large
databases from being able to run on a Linux platform. It is especially annoying
that no effort has been made to resolve this issue.
> well some would be its kind of an experimental OS, so it doesnt offer too
> much end users software;
For a *NIX environment, there is almost as much software available for Linux as
there is for BSD, Solaris, etc, if not more since Linux supports many features
not available on the other platforms.
> many harwadre is not supported; and its hard to find tecnical support for it.
The hardware support is second only to MS Windows 95/98/NT. There may be some
things that BSD supports that Linux doesn't, but offhand I don't know what. As
for technical support, there have been companies such as LinuxCare that provide
technical support for Linux. The hardware support in Solaris X86 is vastly
inferior to that provided by Linux.
> but i dont know any others... in what else circunstances would you not
> install linux?
I have already answered this question above.
^ what about atacks? ive heard that *BSD is much more secure
> that any linux OS. why?
For DoS type problems, Linux has a record of VERY VERY fast response to these
reports. The Ping of Death from what I remember was fixed within four hours of
the report. For security, you need to look at the individual packages that are
supplied with your distribution. If there is a sendmail hole that is
discovered, then ANYONE running an affected version of sendmail, regardless of
OS will need to get a properly patched or secure version. That isn't the fault
of Linux. Also, if there is a security hole in Redhat, that does not always
mean it is a problem for ALL Linux systems, but again, it is a package issue in
almost all cases.
For stability, that is another issue. BSD has been in development for FAR FAR
longer than Linux, and because of this, it CAN be more stable in some cases. I
know that my Debian Linux systems tend to have uptimes over 6 months, with many
people having uptimes of over one year. It's all a matter of how quickly and
often you upgrade the OS. If you really wanted, you could have installed
bo(Debian 1.3), and still be running it with well over a 1 year uptime. Linux
systems have an OS version release of less than one year. That's not a matter
of stability in most cases, it's a matter of choice.
I hope this helps.
Dave Bristel
> > > thanks, > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------
> Phillip Neumann
> max@julia.dhis.org
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: