MS Linux
-
There's an article at OSNews[^] where the author seems to have a way for "Microsoft to kill Linux": The idea here would be to cut the driver layer out of Windows and attach it to Linux directly. This would become MS-Linux. If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market. Highly unlikely, but an interesting read nonetheless. "I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say huh?" - Buffy
-
There's an article at OSNews[^] where the author seems to have a way for "Microsoft to kill Linux": The idea here would be to cut the driver layer out of Windows and attach it to Linux directly. This would become MS-Linux. If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market. Highly unlikely, but an interesting read nonetheless. "I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say huh?" - Buffy
A way for Microsoft to kill Linux? Doesn't that require resurrecting the corpse first? :-D Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
A way for Microsoft to kill Linux? Doesn't that require resurrecting the corpse first? :-D Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Only if you believe it's still alive ;P "I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say huh?" - Buffy
-
There's an article at OSNews[^] where the author seems to have a way for "Microsoft to kill Linux": The idea here would be to cut the driver layer out of Windows and attach it to Linux directly. This would become MS-Linux. If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market. Highly unlikely, but an interesting read nonetheless. "I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say huh?" - Buffy
But surely the GPL would mean that Microsoft would have to release its code changes and thus allowing everybody to have the driver support in their own distribution? Besides, the best way to kill Linux is to make Windows a better and more secure product. There is nothing wrong with the Windows kernel, its just the other layers that make for a less secure operating system. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
There's an article at OSNews[^] where the author seems to have a way for "Microsoft to kill Linux": The idea here would be to cut the driver layer out of Windows and attach it to Linux directly. This would become MS-Linux. If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market. Highly unlikely, but an interesting read nonetheless. "I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say huh?" - Buffy
1. So, he deduces that people don't use Linux because of hardware drivers and absence of PnP. Following this line of thinking, Knoppix will kill Windows next week. 2. What he mentions already exists: User-Mode Linux for Win32[^]. For those who don't know UML (User-Mode Linux), Linux is quite portable and have something like the "Hardware Abstraction Layer" in Windows NT. So, you just rewrite that part and Linux is ported to that platform. What those guys are doing? "Porting" Linux to a platform known as "Win32". It runs as a user-mode program, without any other programs like Virtual PC or VMWare. So, UML-Win32 will kill Windows next week. 3. BTW, we also have Virtual PC and VMWare, so you can run Linux while keeping your precious PnP drivers. Virtual PC and VMWare will kill Windows next week. I don't disagree that installing the proprietary NVidia drivers for Linux is a hassle, but come on, people, who really believes that all we need is the safety and stability of Windows joined with the ease of use and software availability of Linux? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
But surely the GPL would mean that Microsoft would have to release its code changes and thus allowing everybody to have the driver support in their own distribution? Besides, the best way to kill Linux is to make Windows a better and more secure product. There is nothing wrong with the Windows kernel, its just the other layers that make for a less secure operating system. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote: There is nothing wrong with the Windows kernel, its just the other layers that make for a less secure operating system. It's hard to know if Windows is less secure. According to Secunia, Windows Server 2003 Standard has had 44 security vulnerabilities and Linux OS from the same time that 2003 was released have, in general, a lot more security issues. SuSE 9.0 has 63 and it was released after Windows Server 2003. RedHat Linux 9 has had 100 security vulnerabilities.... which of these 3 OS's has better security? I'd say Windows Server 2003. And another thing... take Apache 2 and IIS 6 ... common belief is that Apache is a lot more secure... Apache 2.0.x has 24 security vulnerabilities compared to IIS 6's 3 security vulnerabilities. As a web server, Windows Server 2003 was definitly more secure then it's rivials when released and with Service Pack 1 just around the corner I can only imagine that it will get more secure again. Regards, Brian Dela :-) Now Bloging![^]
-
1. So, he deduces that people don't use Linux because of hardware drivers and absence of PnP. Following this line of thinking, Knoppix will kill Windows next week. 2. What he mentions already exists: User-Mode Linux for Win32[^]. For those who don't know UML (User-Mode Linux), Linux is quite portable and have something like the "Hardware Abstraction Layer" in Windows NT. So, you just rewrite that part and Linux is ported to that platform. What those guys are doing? "Porting" Linux to a platform known as "Win32". It runs as a user-mode program, without any other programs like Virtual PC or VMWare. So, UML-Win32 will kill Windows next week. 3. BTW, we also have Virtual PC and VMWare, so you can run Linux while keeping your precious PnP drivers. Virtual PC and VMWare will kill Windows next week. I don't disagree that installing the proprietary NVidia drivers for Linux is a hassle, but come on, people, who really believes that all we need is the safety and stability of Windows joined with the ease of use and software availability of Linux? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: all we need is the safety and stability of Windows joined with the ease of use and software availability of Linux? :-D Hell, that made me laugh. regards, Paul Watson South Africa The Code Project Pope Pius II said "The only prescription is more cowbell. "
-
There's an article at OSNews[^] where the author seems to have a way for "Microsoft to kill Linux": The idea here would be to cut the driver layer out of Windows and attach it to Linux directly. This would become MS-Linux. If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market. Highly unlikely, but an interesting read nonetheless. "I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say huh?" - Buffy
If MS did that, the Linux community would surely create a huge storm - not because of the impeding death of Linux, but why Microsoft picked that particular Distribution.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Michael P Butler wrote: There is nothing wrong with the Windows kernel, its just the other layers that make for a less secure operating system. It's hard to know if Windows is less secure. According to Secunia, Windows Server 2003 Standard has had 44 security vulnerabilities and Linux OS from the same time that 2003 was released have, in general, a lot more security issues. SuSE 9.0 has 63 and it was released after Windows Server 2003. RedHat Linux 9 has had 100 security vulnerabilities.... which of these 3 OS's has better security? I'd say Windows Server 2003. And another thing... take Apache 2 and IIS 6 ... common belief is that Apache is a lot more secure... Apache 2.0.x has 24 security vulnerabilities compared to IIS 6's 3 security vulnerabilities. As a web server, Windows Server 2003 was definitly more secure then it's rivials when released and with Service Pack 1 just around the corner I can only imagine that it will get more secure again. Regards, Brian Dela :-) Now Bloging![^]
Notably, RedHat 9.0 is no longer supported. Support lifecycles in the Linux world are shorter than the common mayfly. Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Michael P Butler wrote: There is nothing wrong with the Windows kernel, its just the other layers that make for a less secure operating system. It's hard to know if Windows is less secure. According to Secunia, Windows Server 2003 Standard has had 44 security vulnerabilities and Linux OS from the same time that 2003 was released have, in general, a lot more security issues. SuSE 9.0 has 63 and it was released after Windows Server 2003. RedHat Linux 9 has had 100 security vulnerabilities.... which of these 3 OS's has better security? I'd say Windows Server 2003. And another thing... take Apache 2 and IIS 6 ... common belief is that Apache is a lot more secure... Apache 2.0.x has 24 security vulnerabilities compared to IIS 6's 3 security vulnerabilities. As a web server, Windows Server 2003 was definitly more secure then it's rivials when released and with Service Pack 1 just around the corner I can only imagine that it will get more secure again. Regards, Brian Dela :-) Now Bloging![^]
Here's a real "Get the Facts" campaign for you. The number of vulnerabilities comparison as done by these "studies" is crap. When they talk about vulnerabilities in a Linux distribution, it includes vulnerabilities for ALL programs distributed in that distribution. This means everything from IDEs to mail servers to graphics programs to games to chat clients to web browsers to office suites. I'd like to see a comperable number study done for Windows. The Windows numbers only include the OS, not Office and VS and Photoshop, etc. On another point, a lot of MS vulnerabilities are found by their partners who have rights to examine the code. In part of having those rights, the partners MUST disclose the information MS first and only. This means that there may be vulnerabilities never made public or patched and you might never know. My final point on these comparisons is that they do not include a ranking in severity. I'd take a handful of local compromises over one remote compromise any day. Even when severity rankings are disclosed, it's important to remember that one company's "critical" is another company's "recommended". I'm all for getting to the bottom of things and really getting the entire world on a secure platform whatever that might be, but let's start making fair comparisons if you want to compare.
-
Here's a real "Get the Facts" campaign for you. The number of vulnerabilities comparison as done by these "studies" is crap. When they talk about vulnerabilities in a Linux distribution, it includes vulnerabilities for ALL programs distributed in that distribution. This means everything from IDEs to mail servers to graphics programs to games to chat clients to web browsers to office suites. I'd like to see a comperable number study done for Windows. The Windows numbers only include the OS, not Office and VS and Photoshop, etc. On another point, a lot of MS vulnerabilities are found by their partners who have rights to examine the code. In part of having those rights, the partners MUST disclose the information MS first and only. This means that there may be vulnerabilities never made public or patched and you might never know. My final point on these comparisons is that they do not include a ranking in severity. I'd take a handful of local compromises over one remote compromise any day. Even when severity rankings are disclosed, it's important to remember that one company's "critical" is another company's "recommended". I'm all for getting to the bottom of things and really getting the entire world on a secure platform whatever that might be, but let's start making fair comparisons if you want to compare.
lmuth wrote: When they talk about vulnerabilities in a Linux distribution, it includes vulnerabilities for ALL programs distributed in that distribution. This means everything from IDEs to mail servers to graphics programs to games to chat clients to web browsers to office suites. I'd like to see a comperable number study done for Windows. The Windows numbers only include the OS, not Office and VS and Photoshop, etc. Hmmm.. You sound very confrontational there. Ah well. I was just stating what I read on Secunia. I run linux and windows and to be honest, I've never had any real security with either so the whole security poitn is mute as far as I am concerned. On the other hand, from what I have read in the past, it is actually the other way around. Security issues reported in Linux are normally kernel security issues and do not even include all layers of the OS. I'm am by no means saying that this is the case... I honestly don't know what is the case. You could well be correct. I hope you are. lmuth wrote: On another point, a lot of MS vulnerabilities are found by their partners who have rights to examine the code. In part of having those rights, the partners MUST disclose the information MS first and only. This means that there may be vulnerabilities never made public or patched and you might never know. I personally see that as a good thing. The less people that know about a security issue the better. Especially if it gets patched before anyone find out. lmuth wrote: I'd take a handful of local compromises over one remote compromise any day. I wouldn't... 1 remote compromise makes all those local compromises available to anybody who "takes advantage" of the remote one :-) lmuth wrote: I'm all for getting to the bottom of things and really getting the entire world on a secure platform whatever that might be, but let's start making fair comparisons if you want to compare. I'm not being argumentative here, and I agree with you completely, but people who diss MS security never seem to take into account that MS software is targeted a lot more then other OS's.... There is something like 80,000 viruses targeting Windows.... the vast majority of which rely on users stupidity to get onto a machine, not on security issues. There is around 6 or 7 viruses for Linux.... that is not becuase it is more secure... it's becuase nobody writes viruses for linux... that fact that there i
-
There's an article at OSNews[^] where the author seems to have a way for "Microsoft to kill Linux": The idea here would be to cut the driver layer out of Windows and attach it to Linux directly. This would become MS-Linux. If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market. Highly unlikely, but an interesting read nonetheless. "I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say huh?" - Buffy
That reminds me of the Simpsons episode with the Esquilox. A half horse half rabbit with the back half of a rabbit and the front half of a rabbit.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
lmuth wrote: When they talk about vulnerabilities in a Linux distribution, it includes vulnerabilities for ALL programs distributed in that distribution. This means everything from IDEs to mail servers to graphics programs to games to chat clients to web browsers to office suites. I'd like to see a comperable number study done for Windows. The Windows numbers only include the OS, not Office and VS and Photoshop, etc. Hmmm.. You sound very confrontational there. Ah well. I was just stating what I read on Secunia. I run linux and windows and to be honest, I've never had any real security with either so the whole security poitn is mute as far as I am concerned. On the other hand, from what I have read in the past, it is actually the other way around. Security issues reported in Linux are normally kernel security issues and do not even include all layers of the OS. I'm am by no means saying that this is the case... I honestly don't know what is the case. You could well be correct. I hope you are. lmuth wrote: On another point, a lot of MS vulnerabilities are found by their partners who have rights to examine the code. In part of having those rights, the partners MUST disclose the information MS first and only. This means that there may be vulnerabilities never made public or patched and you might never know. I personally see that as a good thing. The less people that know about a security issue the better. Especially if it gets patched before anyone find out. lmuth wrote: I'd take a handful of local compromises over one remote compromise any day. I wouldn't... 1 remote compromise makes all those local compromises available to anybody who "takes advantage" of the remote one :-) lmuth wrote: I'm all for getting to the bottom of things and really getting the entire world on a secure platform whatever that might be, but let's start making fair comparisons if you want to compare. I'm not being argumentative here, and I agree with you completely, but people who diss MS security never seem to take into account that MS software is targeted a lot more then other OS's.... There is something like 80,000 viruses targeting Windows.... the vast majority of which rely on users stupidity to get onto a machine, not on security issues. There is around 6 or 7 viruses for Linux.... that is not becuase it is more secure... it's becuase nobody writes viruses for linux... that fact that there i
Brian Delahunty wrote: I personally see that as a good thing. The less people that know about a security issue the better. Especially if it gets patched before anyone find out. It may be best that it is patched before becoming common knowledge, but it should be made public knowledge after the fact. I don't like anyone let alone company claiming (or having it claimed for them) that they have fewer problems if in fact it is only fewer known problems due to it being hidden. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So i had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004