[NTLUG:Discuss] [Fwd: [WTLUG:discuss] Microsoft FUD]

Jay F. Cox baa204 at saturn.angelo.edu
Tue Oct 5 22:08:10 CDT 1999


I know I cannot refute all of it, but some of it is just plain <wrong>. 
Here are a few points I have come up with (and please correct me if I am
wrong on some issues).  But I cannot do the research required to
disprove or even concede what all they are saying.  Btw, I believe some
of what they have said are right.  It would be nice if we could counter
most their statements some way, though, if the statements are wrong. 
Then, it would be nice if the linux community could put all refutations
on a web page for all the world to see ;-)  (but if you put any of my
points up, better rewrite them in you own words and of course DO THE
RESEARCH. All this was written from the top of my head, and I know I
make mistakes.)

For instance I know Linux can handle more than 128Mb in swap. However,
they say "The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM."  is ths the max
size for a single Linux swap file? (which isnt what you are supposed to
use anyway. You should allocate a swap partition in your linux install.)

Another point contrast the fact that linux isnt owned by a single
company, therefore *of course* there isnt going to be a central location
for linux security issues to be reported and fixed (although there are
quite decent email lists out there that would provide any information
you would need).  I would rather be able to contact the person that
handles the particular implimentation of security or what-have-you
directly than have the message relayed through to who knows where and it
perhaps never even gathering a response (though I havent ever messed
with Microsoft security anyway).

Besides that, they (obviously) havent mentioned that while linux users
can totally replace the operating system to remove any security defects,
NT users must only litterally "patch" their operating system.  From an
article I read in 2600 (so of course my information could be faulty, and
besides I read the article a long time ago, so my rememberance is faulty
as well.)I hear that the way these patches work, the patches are invoked
whence something detects that a security problem is encountered, (but
not before it can do any damage, supposedly).  In the article, it
describes that you can flood an NT server with packets with malformed
headers and basically for every packet, there is something like a
process invoked, and if flooded enough, the NT server runs out of space
for these type of threads and the packet get through to the original
operating system, and wreaks havoc. (I can tell anybody who wants to
know which issue this is described if they want to know).

"Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use
today;" Bullshit.  And how many architectures does NT run on?
(Addmittedly, this was under the section "Myth: Linux can replace
Windows on the desktop." But I was under the impression that the number
of video cards Linux supports was MORE than NT.  perhaps they mean other
"multimedia" cards?)

Ok enough ranting.

--

Jay Cox
--
The man who sees, on New Year's day, Mount Fuji, a hawk, and an eggplant
is forever blessed.
		-- Old Japanese proverb
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Jeff Yardley <chemist90 at hotmail.com>
Subject: [WTLUG:discuss] Microsoft FUD
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 20:14:20 -0500
Size: 1731
Url: http://ntlug.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/19991005/cf22c0cb/attachment.mht


More information about the Discuss mailing list