TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>
> JB Foster wrote:
> > I had the chance a few years ago, to install and maintain a Linux server
in
> > an institution. Within 8 hours of it up and running, it was already
being
> > commandeered (for bandwidth I hope) from outside. What a scare,
definitely
> > not for the faint of heart. We were thankful that there was nothing
> > confidential sitting on that server, or that it was networked to the
main
> > servers. Never had a problem after Windows NT Server was installed over
it.
>
> With all respect,
this always seems to be emailese for "I'm about to rip you
a new one." Usually it's 'with all due respect'
> this is a post hoc argument. Because you were never
> cracked (or never knew if you were) after you installed an NT server,
> you conclude that the reason was that you installed the NT server.
Not pausing to read his mind, I thought he was just reporting a
fact here.
> This
> amounts to saying that, because you've never been attacked by an
> elephant since you started carrying a gun, then the gun must be scaring
> elephants away.
>
> The fact is, any server is vulnerable to attack unless you set up the
> right precautions.If your Linux server was cracked so soon, then the
> chances are that it was not actually up and running - that is, you had
> it minimally working, but hadn't set up the usual security features.The
> majority opinion seems to be that Linux is generally more secure than
> Windows NT, not less.
That has not been my experience. I run NT, 2000, Linux,
and BSDfree Unix servers for email, web serving, Telnet, ftp,
DNS, listserv, and other various services, including our
own server programs. We killed the linux
servers because there were so many security holes in them.
Fix one, and guess what, there's another one.
I assume the IBM versions of Linux are much more secure.
> At any rate, Linux has changed considerably in three years. Many major
> distributions now include security features such as firewalls as part of
> the setup.
That's good to know.
> > Linux and Unix work great, but you have to know what your doing. With
> > 'Windows', it's more designed for people like myself, who want something
> > that's as simple as 'load' and 'leave.'
>
> There's no operating system on which security is simply a case of "load
> and leave." If someone isn't monitoring log files, checking for viruses
> and running various security functions, then a system is not secure, no
> matter what software you have installed to prevent intrusions.
This is a good point. Windows servers have the problem that they are
a big target for the hackers. They have the advantage that hacks are
reported rapidly and there is a company to be responsible for the
O/S and put out alerts, workarounds, and patches.
I do agree with the earlier writer's conclusion that NT is safer than
Linux for a less technical user to use as a server. There's also a lot more
stuff that runs on NT/2000 than any other server,
including lots of non-server programs.
And as was noted here, better APIs.
Unix was actually promoted as a commercial operating system by the
big five computing companies, as a way of saving money on their
individual operating system development expenditures. NCR, Honeywell,
Burroughs, IBM, Univac . (Did I get that right?)
At the time it was being promoted, we who used 'proprietary' (propaganda
word)
operating systems all thought they were nuts. Unix isn't an operating
system, it's a digital playground for egomaniacs. 'yacc, yaac, yacc.'
They've improved it some since then.
Of course BSDFree and Linux were both rebellions against the
licensed versions of Unix, owned by the phone company
(actually Bell Labs, I think.)
> Bruce Byfield bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com 604.421.7177
>http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield
>
> "Looking back at the long years
> All that happened this way and that
> I think I liked most the rice and the salt."
> - Kim Stanley Robinson, "The Years of Rice and Salt"
Brad Jensen
www.elstore.com - digital archiving software
www.eufrates.com - elearning and new web conferencing
www.actasif.com - my own view of the universe
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"
-Robert A. Heinlein, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
(terrible title, maybe that's why it has never been made
into a movie)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Enhance, optimize and automate your FrameMaker-to-PDF workflow with TimeSavers:
Define all PDF features in your source FrameMaker files ONCE, distill MANY.
Bookmark Controller, Link Controller, UnBloat & more : http://www.microtype.com
Experience RoboHelp X3! This new RoboHelp release combines single sourcing,
print-quality documentation, conditional text and much more, into the most
monumental release of RoboHelp ever! http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
