Windows, Linux, The Debate: which is best?

Sasha Tsykin stsykin at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 04:15:30 UTC 2006


Duncan Anderson wrote:

> Dick Davies wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/06, Duncan Anderson <duncangareth at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Well, you are lucky. About a month ago, the company's Windows 2003
>>> Server started rebooting spontaneously, causing much disruption of 
>>> work.
>>> It turned out to be an "unpatched" rpc vulnerability which had been
>>> exploited.
>>>
>>
>> So your windows admins didn't patch a box and it got done over.
>> That happens on any OS, and they could have just run a firewall to
>> avoid it.
>>
>>
> The machine had just been reinstalled after a disk drive failure. It 
> got zapped before the patches even had a chance to finish downloading.
>
> With a Linux box it would have been simple matter of reinstalling the 
> machine, turning off unnecessary services and carrying on.

I wont' argue with this, I prefer linux as a server machine anyway, 
although I can see the virtue in Windows for this purpose.

>
>>
>>
>>> The fix involved downloading 130 odd MB of patch/update software and
>>> rebooting again. If that's not "showstopping" I don't know what is.
>>>
>>
>> No, that's an outage. A kernel update (we got one this morning) needs
>> a reboot to take effect.
>>
>>
> A reboot on its own is hardly an outage, but having the server go up 
> and down like a yoyo over a period of days until the patches succeed 
> is. What I am asking is why should anyone have to put up with this 
> type of shit when it costs such a lot of money?

Don't then. It's a free world. But i agree this is definitely not a 
showstopper. A showstopper is something either so difficult to repair 
that nobody can figure it out, or somethign ipossible to repair. Merely 
restarting until some patches take effect is nothing. The show "went on."

>
>> If they're production boxes and can't reboot right now, enable a 
>> firewall.
>>
>> That's not a 'showstopper'. An OS upgrade that doesn't let you revert 
>> it,
>>
>>
> Well this whole discussion is getting boring. Windows is crap, and 
> nothing will ever convince me otherwise.

Fine, you're opinion. You're wrong, but you're entitled to that.

>
> Enjoy your Windows machines, if that's what you like.

I don't. As I've said repeatedly, if I liked Windows more, I would use 
it. Just because I can see some virtue in it does not mean I 
automatically prefer it to linux. Saying that it does is just puting 
words in my mouth.

>
>
> cheers
> Duncan
>
>> which is what Sasha mentioned, is.
>>
>> So, bad example.
>> I suspect if you gave those (shaved monkeys?) admins a Linux box, they
>> could f*ck that up before too long as well.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! 
> Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a 
> photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
>
>
Sasha




More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list