Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 16:20 \__
>
> >
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> __/ [ Linønut ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 13:10 \__
> >>
> >> > After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
> >> > wisdom:
> >> >
> >> >> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6041804.html
> >> >>
> >> >> <quote>
> >> >> Computer makers sold $17.7 billion worth of Windows servers
> >> >> worldwide in 2005 compared with $17.5 billion in Unix servers,
> >> >> IDC analyst Matthew Eastwood said of the firm's latest Server
> >> >> Tracker market share report. "It's the first time Unix was not
> >> >> top overall since before the Tracker started in 1996."
> >> >>
> >> >> And in another first, fast-growing Linux took third place, bumping
> >> >> machines with IBM's mainframe operating system, z/OS. Linux server
> >> >> sales grew from $4.3 billion in 2004 to $5.3 billion in 2005,
> >> >> while mainframes dropped from $5.7 billion to $4.8 billion over
> >> >> the same period, Eastwood said.
> >> >> </quote>
> >> >
> >> > And
> >> >
> >> > Conventional wisdom in the 1990s forecast that Microsoft's Windows
> >> > would inexorably move to market leadership, but its arrival was
> >> > slowed by several factors. For one thing, Windows took much longer to
> >> > mature than many expected.
> >>
> >>
> >> Windows is not maturing. It is aging. Viruses are one indication (among
> >> others) of the its wrinkles, which will soon have Windows put in a
> >> parents' home.
> >>
> >>
> http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2005/09/12/microsoft-management-software_cz_vma_0913microsoft.html
> >>
> >> ( Microsoft's Midlife Crisis )
> >>
> >>
> >> > Too bad they didn't compare server counts.
> >>
> >>
> >> Linux servers would probably be cheaper; not only to buy, but also to
> >> maintain. Remember IBM's TCO rule, which suggests that Linux is 40%
> >> cheaper to own.
> >>
> >> It is worth pointing out that this article was the only one, among several
> >> that had cropped up, which bothered to explain the decline UNIX, which is
> >> the due to the impact of Linux. The Windows /relative/ share of the pie
> >> may have actually decreased.
> >>
> >
> >
> > -> Windows is not maturing. It is aging. Viruses are one indication
> > (among others) of the its wrinkles....
> >
> > Not that Windows isn't without wrinkles or problems but the server-side
> > of MS seems to have their act together much better than the
> > desktop/client people do. Much of the OS is common but NT-Server seems
> > pretty tight right now. Here's why I say this...
>
>
> Before I move on, I should at least point out that Microsoft servers were
> shown to have critical problems. Their level of tolerance for DDOS attacks
> is worryingly low. Frankly, I don't know which sources you received this
> information that you disseminate from. I can only speculate.
>
>
> > 1) If you go to these security-oriented web sites (Secunia, Sans, etc.)
> > and look at the security advisories the number for NT Server (not XP or
> > desktop) is about the same as for any other OS.
>
>
> It is easier to watch the white box which is *nix and report an endless
> number of deficiencies. Microsoft relies on the black-box-based model. They
> now threaten those who call for a bug 'bounty hunt' -- that which could help
> them accumulate constructive tips and pointers.
>
>
> > 2) What hacker wouldn't love to take down Microsoft.com? But the
> > web-site, FTP servers, etc are all up 24/7 which implies to me that the
> > server product isn't something that can be easily hacked. Nobody has
> > taken down eBay, Dell or any other large MS site either. Microsoft.com
> > was taken down many years ago but they never hacked in to the site...
> > that was a denial of service attack. About the same time
> > Whitehouse.gov, CIA.gov and a bunch of other government agencies were
> > hacked and they run *nix.
>
> Kind reminders:
>
> * MSN in Korea had all user profiles stolen a few months ago, or something
> along these lines.
I do remember reading about this (probably here in COLA) and did a
quick Google search for it. I didn't find it on Google but I did run
across this first which shows that all systems get hacked: Hackers
Monkey With Korean Mozilla Site -
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3512081
> * eBay came under zombie attack that brought it down about 2 months ago,
> albeit maybe only the UK was affect. Subsequently, the offender appeared in
> court.
This one I did find. (
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/28/ebay_bots_ddos/ ) The guy took
over 20,000 computers and used them to launch a simultaenous
distributed denial of service attack on eBay. I'm not an expert in
these sorts of attacks but my gut instinct is that just about any
computer system would have a problem handling an attack of this
magnitude.
> * Governmental agencies are *the* prime targets for hackers, not Microsoft
> /et al/. Merely any government in the world (particularly those that are not
> close allies, e.g. Russian, Korea, China) has an interest in national
> secrets. Such governments can afford to employ the shrewdest and most
> experienced hackers whose (paid) work is motivated by loyalty to the
> country. They only receive extensive training. You cannot compare that to an
> out-of-work IT professional (or incompetent) whose hatred to Microsoft is
> the only incentive.
>
>
> > 3) The virus/malware issue is more of a user/operator problem than a OS
> > problem. Servers are typically operated by people who have a higher
> > degree of technical knowledge than Joe six-pack. The typical Joe
> > six-pack home user runs Windows as Admin/root all the time which is an
> > invitation for trouble. This isn't the case with servers.
>
>
> I can't say I agree with you on that one (/with respect/). I am not thinking
> only about the malware/virus issue. Let me stress my point using a recent
> example:
No problem if people agree/disagree. I think it's what makes the
conversation interesting.
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/01/09/exchange-servers-failure/
>
> Security is not everything. Ease-of-use, resilience, stability and
> predictability are extremely important matters. All the guys ever do around
> here is give love & affection (attention=$) to Windows servers and their
> disappointed clients who cannot do something as simple as receiving mail,
> let alone keep their O/S clean from trash.
Good points. I'm not familiar with exchange server but I can't remember
anyone saying outstanding things about it either.
> > So in my opinion I don't believe that Windows servers have nearly the
> > problem with malware/viruses that you see with XP desktops. The generic
> > term "Windows" tends to lump both product lines together and the
> > reputation of XP desktop may be tainting the server product.
>
>
> Have you run and maintained a cluster of servers yet? I have not, but I see
> the level of attention each server requires (i.e. frequency of downtimes).
No I haven't. I write software that someone else maintains. I have
managed a Windows server that's in my house for the past several
years. Last weekend I added a Ubuntu server to the house but 2 servers
still isn't a cluster. They are also behind a firewall so it doesn't
really count.
|
|
