943,513 Members | Top Members by Rank

Hardware and Software > Microsoft Windows > Windows Servers > What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?
Ad: Download FREE Network Troubleshooting Tools from Spiceworks
You are currently viewing page 6 of this multi-page discussion thread; Jump to the first page
Permalink
Dec 22nd, 2003
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

i was refering to the fact of how it loads moduals onto its already running system sorta like Linux does
Team Colleague
Reputation Points: 96
Solved Threads: 21
The Geek Father
Zachery is offline Offline
781 posts
since Nov 2003
Permalink
Dec 22nd, 2003
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

Quote originally posted by Tekmaven ...
Actually, all novell servers, from 1.0 and on run on DOS! FreeDOS, Dr. Dos, MS-Dos, some type of dos. Basically, dos loads, loads the autoexec.bat and runs SERVER.EXE, the Novell loader. Novell isn't a kernel, just everything else. Just an interesting fact

Novell NetWare 7.0 will run on a Linux kernel, thats all.

NetWare is 3000x easier to set up then Linux, and it runs almost all of the most popular Linux open source software now - PHP/MySQL/Apache and so on.

Now, only if it did ASP.NET.
Actually, Netware doesn't run under DOS, it's just loaded by DOS. Kind of like how you can use loadlin to load up a Linux kernel through DOS. After server.exe is started, Netware removes DOS from memory.

I remember a little bit from the Netware class I took...

So, it does turn out that Netware 7 will use the Linux kernel after all?
Team Colleague
Reputation Points: 186
Solved Threads: 147
Cookie... That's it
alc6379 is offline Offline
2,519 posts
since Dec 2003
Permalink
Dec 22nd, 2003
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

Quote originally posted by Faranth ...
i was refering to the fact of how it loads moduals onto its already running system sorta like Linux does
That doesn't neccesarily make it Linux-like. I mean, there are tons of OSes that do that. I realized that you could load modules into the Netware kernel, but I didn't know that's what you meant. I mean, the BSDs, all of the SCO OSes, I think even Solaris does that. So, you could really even go so far as to say that it's "FreeBSD-like" or, "SCO OpenServer-like" if that's your basis
Team Colleague
Reputation Points: 186
Solved Threads: 147
Cookie... That's it
alc6379 is offline Offline
2,519 posts
since Dec 2003
Permalink
Jan 14th, 2004
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

Quote originally posted by njwnews ...
I currently have a Gateway Desktop with 120 Gig Hard Disk! I was wondering, what server software should I put on this computer. Windows 2000 Server or a Linux Server. The reason I need a server is for my 2 domains. I currently host DCDJ.net with another server and dcwdservices.com is parked. If you could please help me by telling me which software to install, that would be great. By the way, if you think Linux is better, tell me a place where I can put it on a disk and It will boot from the CD disk drive. Thanks. My email is admin@dcdj.net.

Nick
Let a Microsoft user interrupt here.
Ok, you want to know which is better I guessing here you mean security wise.
Lets take a look at OpenBSD and Mandrake
OpenBSD for example offers no additional security functionality over Mandrake Linux, but people think it is more secure because it ships with a more secure configuration. My arguemnt is that after setting up a real world system, the Mandrake one will have greater implementation assurances and consequently will be more secure for the same efforts than the OpenBSD one.
"the 'secure by default' system cant be blamed the first time some knownot configures his web server wrong on his box and gets rooted."
There is an internet full of documents on locking systems down, there are virtually none on how to open up a hardened system in a secure manner. Are they a knownot, or are they doing the best they can (at a more difficult task) in absence of good/any information?

(no comments were directed towards anyone)
Last edited by )BIG"B"Affleck; Jan 14th, 2004 at 5:23 pm. Reason: changinf of two words for political correctness reasons
Reputation Points: 25
Solved Threads: 8
Banned
)BIG"B"Affleck is offline Offline
766 posts
since Oct 2003
Permalink
Jan 14th, 2004
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

First of all, next time you reply, please use BBCode for the quotes. I edited your post and fixed the problem.

Secondly, I don't understand the point of your post. Are you saying that Mandrake Linux is better then Windows and OpenBSD? I understand your views about 'secure by default' but I disagree.

When setting up a real world system, we lock down everything that we don't need, and try to secure everything else. This requires people to understand whats running and how to secure it. Newbies aren't going to know how to secure everything. If everything is secure by default, this makes life much easier.
Moderator
Reputation Points: 322
Solved Threads: 28
The C# Man, Myth, Legend
Tekmaven is offline Offline
914 posts
since Feb 2002
Permalink
Jan 14th, 2004
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

1st of all(opinion) Do we really need more comments made by people who fail to read the information in question and my post, which was so kindly and clearly provided to them?

2nd of all(opinion) Do we really need more people just chirping in with unsupported, unsubstantiated opinions and claims?

Confused yet it doesn't take much?


Let me help you out here you probably became confused.
I speak of default configurations. I can't recall how many times I've come across "X is already hardened, so it is more secure." Operating systems like OpenBSD and Windows 2003 both fine examples of tribute to this fallacy. BIG"B"Affleck can & will demonstrate to NJWnews you and the readers of this thread that “more secure by default” actually results in a less secure real world system. How is that for facts shmacts?

Want me to continue?
Reputation Points: 25
Solved Threads: 8
Banned
)BIG"B"Affleck is offline Offline
766 posts
since Oct 2003
Permalink
Jan 14th, 2004
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

Quote originally posted by )BIG"B"Affleck ...
that “more secure by default” actually results in a less secure real world system. How is that for facts shmacts?

Want me to continue?
Yes, I really do. I want to see you make fun of yourself. That thought is so... wrong that I thought you were kidding...
Moderator
Reputation Points: 322
Solved Threads: 28
The C# Man, Myth, Legend
Tekmaven is offline Offline
914 posts
since Feb 2002
Permalink
Jan 14th, 2004
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

Quote originally posted by Tekmaven ...
Yes, I really do. I want to see you make fun of yourself. That thought is so... wrong that I thought you were kidding...
id rather have a NOS with everything off by default. that way i know EXACTLY whats on and whats off, instead of having to pool thought tons of crap to figure out what else needs to be secured
Team Colleague
Reputation Points: 96
Solved Threads: 21
The Geek Father
Zachery is offline Offline
781 posts
since Nov 2003
Permalink
Jan 15th, 2004
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

If you want to talk about which system is more secure in the hands of an Knownot (untrained ), than yes. OpenBSD is king and NT is the worst OS ever.

Quote originally posted by Tekmaven ...
Secondly, I don't understand the point of your post. Are you saying that Mandrake Linux is better then Windows and OpenBSD? I understand your views about 'secure by default' but I disagree.
More chirping!
Yeah, you disagree but you fail to post any facts. Basically its all unsupported, unsubstantiated claims ect .ect... Which fails to suprise me! Allow me to continue.

Quote originally posted by Tekmaven ...
When setting up a real world system, we lock down everything that we don't need, and try to secure everything else.
Seriously, pick up a book an OS security theory, the lot of you... it'll make for more interesting conversations.


Quote originally posted by Temaven ...
. If everything is secure by default, this makes life much easier.
Still talking default security and application level bugs?

*cries*

Why does no one ever talk about actual system security, always with the default installs or application level bugs. Who cares? I mean honestly.

There is no truth or deeper understanding to be had talking about how a product's default configuration or what buffer wasn't checked. For some reason there is never any discussion of the actual security mechanisms. The types of access controls, audit trails, etc, etc....

Default configurations are a dead horse that never had anything to offer in the first place, seriously, . Does it really matter if a system by default has 0 full compromisable exploits or 1 or 3,000? All that matters is if the system can be configured in a manner offering sufficient assurances as justified by your threats and asset values.
Quote originally posted by Tekmaven ...
Sounds like an uneducated user to me..
People, don't talk about things you don't know.
Thats what now Im telling you.

Quote originally posted by Tekmaven ...
I'm fed up with all these shit Linux distros giving me 20 text editors and 30 GUIs. Whats the problem with Linux - its not the power - or the speed. Its that there is to much of everything.

Shit hard to configure.
RTFM .... 
man man
....ect,ect......

Soon after you start posting fact behind your now, unsubstantiaded claims.
I will explain to the masses why
"more secure by default" actually results in a less scure real world system" until then let that saturate.
Reputation Points: 25
Solved Threads: 8
Banned
)BIG"B"Affleck is offline Offline
766 posts
since Oct 2003
Permalink
Jan 15th, 2004
0

Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

Just so you know, I'm pretty good at everything Linux. I've been using it on and off for a few years - I'm no newbie by any definition.

Where is your evidence for your claims? Give me some numbers, some research findings, anything...! All you have right now is your word, and honestly your word could use grammer and spell checking.

[Edit] Two wrongs don't make a right, so im contracting my distasteful remark.
Last edited by Tekmaven; Jan 17th, 2004 at 2:39 am. Reason: I was pretty upset at the time of the post, I'm taking offensive material out of the post.
Moderator
Reputation Points: 322
Solved Threads: 28
The C# Man, Myth, Legend
Tekmaven is offline Offline
914 posts
since Feb 2002

This thread is more than three months old

No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.
Message:
Previous Thread in Windows Servers Forum Timeline: life is full of work
Next Thread in Windows Servers Forum Timeline: Cannot get to Website from within the company





About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Acceptable Use Policy
Forum Index | Build Custom RSS Feed


Follow us on Twitter


© 2011 DaniWeb® LLC