OT: New Virus? - Page 4

parabolize · #31 August 19th, 2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
A default install of Ubuntu is really bad for an old PC like he was talking about playing with. Same for Debian. Debian lets you do a custom installation.

Fine for a newer PC, just not old ones.

You can do a custom install with Ubuntu as well but unless you want to learn a lot from the get-go I would do the default install and install/use xfce4 desktop environment with older hardware.

Thermodyne · #32 August 19th, 2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

[b]parabolize said:
For a web server I would recomend FreeBSD over a nix workstation build.

FreeBSD is unix based...

Sure, but it is a true full server build.

Fyron · #33 August 19th, 2005, 08:24 PM

parabolize said:
You can do a custom install with Ubuntu as well but unless you want to learn a lot from the get-go I would do the default install and install/use xfce4 desktop environment with older hardware.

I didn't see any options for a package-level setup feature when I was installing Ubuntu. But yeah, you do have to learn/know a lot to make much use of the individual package selection level.

parabolize · #34 August 19th, 2005, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Thermodyne said:

Quote:

parabolize said:
For a web server I would recomend FreeBSD over a nix workstation build.

FreeBSD is unix based...

Sure, but it is a true full server build.

Not sure what your talking about.

parabolize · #35 August 19th, 2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
parabolize said:
You can do a custom install with Ubuntu as well but unless you want to learn a lot from the get-go I would do the default install and install/use xfce4 desktop environment with older hardware.

I didn't see any options for a package-level setup feature when I was installing Ubuntu. But yeah, you do have to learn/know a lot to make much use of the individual package selection level.

When it asks you to hit enter type server first then hit enter (it only installs the base meta package that way).

Fyron · #36 August 19th, 2005, 08:32 PM

Well, Debian sent me straight to Aptitude, which I like much more than apt-get. I suppose you could install Aptitude on Ubuntu and do that though... Not sure what you'd gain over just doing it in Debian, for an older PC that you don't want all the fancy bells and whistles on. At least we can agree that both are better than Redhat.

Parabolize said:
Redhat Package Management (RPM) has frightened a great many people back to windows.

Indeed it has.

Thermodyne · #37 August 19th, 2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

parabolize said:

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
parabolize said:
You can do a custom install with Ubuntu as well but unless you want to learn a lot from the get-go I would do the default install and install/use xfce4 desktop environment with older hardware.

I didn't see any options for a package-level setup feature when I was installing Ubuntu. But yeah, you do have to learn/know a lot to make much use of the individual package selection level.

When it asks you to hit enter type server first then hit enter (it only installs the base meta package that way).

It's not a desk top OS. It was built to run in the data center. It's more secure, and more reliable under heavy loads/long up times. But not as user friendly. FreeBSD is to desktop Nix as Windows Server 03 is to XP.

parabolize · #38 August 19th, 2005, 08:35 PM

ubuntu has dpkg apt-get and aptitude.

parabolize · #39 August 19th, 2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Thermodyne said:

Quote:

parabolize said:

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
parabolize said:
You can do a custom install with Ubuntu as well but unless you want to learn a lot from the get-go I would do the default install and install/use xfce4 desktop environment with older hardware.

I didn't see any options for a package-level setup feature when I was installing Ubuntu. But yeah, you do have to learn/know a lot to make much use of the individual package selection level.

When it asks you to hit enter type server first then hit enter (it only installs the base meta package that way).

It's not a desk top OS. It was built to run in the data center. It's more secure, and more reliable under heavy loads/long up times. But not as user friendly. FreeBSD is to desktop Nix as Windows Server 03 is to XP.

FreeBSD can be a desktop OS (I am running it on one of my computers). FreeBSD has only one down fall as a desktop OS it runs even less games then Linux (though there is linux emulation).

Thermodyne · #40 August 19th, 2005, 09:08 PM

To put this in perspective, windows get attacked more often because it is targeted more often. If you are a criminal trying to exploit systems, are you going after 2% or 3% of the systems out there? Or are you going to expend your time and effort on something that will attack 90% of the systems out there?

If you are truly good at administering Windows, you have a very small chance of being exploited. If you can load it run dcpromo and join a system, that does not make you truly good. Most users can barely load it, so they get hit.

I have six clients that run Redhat, and keeping them patched is more of a problem than the all of the windows system I work on. And for those of you who don�t already know, Redhat is not free to the business community, but is one of the few Nix distros that is insurable. FreeBSD is free and insurable, so is usually what a Nix network runs on.

Everyone has holes in their software. BIND has holes, Cisco has holes, Nix has holes. They just don�t make the news for the general public. One of the big problems right now is holes in apps. Windows apps can be patched at the same time as the OS. Third party apps usually need to be patched on a per-system basis, which eats up man hours. MS systems can also have driver updates installed along with patches, this make windows more or less three times as easy to manage as the others. One WSUS server to manage and with it you roll out service packs, hot fixes, security patches, application updates and patches, and driver updates. And you only have one system going to the web to get same, not 10�s or 100�s of systems eating up bandwidth. On the client side you control everything from ADDS with GP, this is where no one else can touch MS. But the vast majority of windows networks don�t even use GP, they just don�t know how. And they are the ones who get exploited! I should mention that many of the F5�s who make the news after being exploited are still running NT. NT is not a safe OS in today�s climate. It has nowhere near the security features needed to be called secure today. But the bean counters always hit IT first, because it does not generate black ink on the ledger. So NT has never been replaced.