__/ [ ws ] on Wednesday 10 May 2006 10:26 \__
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Tue, 09 May 2006 23:52:41 -0700, Da'Punk-A wrote:
>>
>>
>>> VISTA: You got 2 items of photo ID and a thumb print?
>>>
>>> [sound of broken glass as Vista box gets to street level the messy
>>> way]
>>
>>
>>> USER types in pw.
>>>
>>> LINUX does what the fuck it's told.
>>
>>
>> The key difference, IMO, is that Windows tries to prevent you doing
>> anything dangerous and, in the process, makes it that much harder to
>> do anything useful - but stops you shooting yourself in the foot.
>> Linux, by contrast, makes it relatively easy to do most things,
>> provides some protection against dangerous things, but, when you do
>> goof, it takes the foot, the leg, and most of the county in the
>> process.
>>
>
> Riddle me this, Kelsey: Why is it then so difficult for Windows to stop
> *others* from executing these same dangerous commands and getting 0wn3d?
I was going to add /exactly/ that type of comment until I realised that ws
had beat me to it. Being permissive is not necessarily a good thing.
Systems to which downtime can be critical (let alone quirks) cannot afford
to operate with lenient policies. Incidently, I wrote something along this
line earlier this morning in the thread titled "What's running on a
Googller's PC". To quote:
Q __/ [ Drakazz ] on Tuesday 09 May 2006 22:58 \__
Q
Q > GNU/Linux is not somehow protecting you from viruses. It's just the
Q > thing that Windows is used more and people who are unfamiliar with
Q > computers will fail due their lack of knowledge about computers, which
Q > usually causes them to accidentaly download viruses etc.
Q > There are viruses on UNIXes too, but they are not that well known.
Q
Q
Q I partially disagree with the part where you argue that "GNU/Linux is not
Q somehow protecting you from viruses". While it does not actively
Q protecting the user from viruses, it protects the user from his/herself
Q by making it harder for unauthorised code (e.g. viruses) to penetrate the
Q system. The click-to-execute approach, for example, is too lenient. I
Q could say much more on that.
>> On the other hand, Linux makes it almost mindlessly easy to do things
>> such as backing up and restoring critical items, so when you do nuke
>> the neighbourhood, you can rebuild fairly quickly as a rule.
>
> And it *does* pretty much make sure you can't blame the mess on
> others. ;-)
I strongly agree with Kelsey as I have been down the alley of mistakenly
losing some settings (could happen in /any/ platform) and being able to
restore them from ".<app-name>". "Everything is a file" is a darn good
ideaology, to this date. It also makes it easier to deploy clusters with
the same behaviour, but without creating images.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | #ff0000 Hot Chilli Peppers
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:20am up 12 days 17:17, 9 users, load average: 0.13, 0.18, 0.27
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
