wwp8

i'm sure microsoft normally brings out a new windows os every few years

there were 3.11 then win95 (1995) win98 (1998) win millemnium (2000)
winxp (dunno) win nt (same as xp)
so four years later (nearly five)
what is out or coming out soon

Lum

There's the 64bit edition of XP due out soon, and they're working on one codenamed "Longhorn" which may be out some time next year.
I just watched an official beta tester install XP 64 bit and nothing at all works on it, so we're installing 2000 now instead!

corradoboy

Anyone with any sense usually follows any Windows product with Mac OS X

Jerome

64 bit windows will run side by side with 32 bit versions for some years yet. Only when 64 bit PCs are mainstream will we see 64 bit take over. See here for more info.


XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) is the latest 32 bit version at the moment. Unless you go to 2003 Server, which isn't meant for standalone PCs.

Jerome

LOL.

Wet the bed again? Or some other reason for being up so early...

Dr Nick

I have already taken the next step.

Its called Linux

I only use MS bloatware now for games.

Enhancements with this upgrade include:

It never crashes
It doesn't keep trying to call home for upgrades (ala Win media player)
It doesn't spy on you to make sure you are not making copies of it
It is free
It comes with all the other packages too which are also free
You are much less likely to get hacked because of better security features
You are much less likely to get a virus
It doesn't constantly need patching to seal horendous security holes
It never crashes (and did I mention its free)

Only downside is you need a brain to use it. I'm a beginner with it and have a lot to learn but I am learning

Iain Young

Yes it does

So, that's an anti-piracy feature which is perfectly understandable

You can get loads of free tuff for windows as well you know...

Completely untrue. Recent reports have suggested that Linux is actually lagging behind windows in terms of the number of security holes etc. With Mac OSX coming out on top (with BSD close behind). For example, see here...

http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/52601283

Yes it does. More often than XP in fact...

You've already mentioned those. I've managed to crash Linux many times....

Mac OSX is the best OS, but XP certainly isn't the worst...

InvisibleMan

cant hack into it? ah so thats why i mention linux to our russian colleagues they have the same dislike to it as the rest of us have with ms. now if anyone knows what a good piece of software is - its the russians...

Iain Young

The big problem with Linux of course is that everyone has access to the source code of the operating system. So, if someone wants to hack into the system it's that much easier to find a way in....

angrynorth

LOL @ Corradoboy

Longhorn is 2006 for its primary release and is due to be completed in 2008/2009.

Don't want to wait? OSX Tiger is out early next year, OSX Panther is already out and is years ahead of Windows.

But then again you can hang on for XP Reloaded which is due in a couple of months ( I think).

angrynorth

OK, OK, Who is posting under Iains username? I never thought I would see that from your keyboard

dsmith

So why did my redhat server die when an app writes to a log file - but doesn't put the log file in the rotation. Eventually (actually quite quickly) filled the disk - crashed the server totally.

yes - i should have been checking disk space - but then good admin will help stop 2K/XP crashing aswell...

GaryK

LOL @ CorradoBoy too!

Yep longhorn is the next big thing but release schedule keeps on a slippin' and a slidin' obviously Billy boy keeps wanting to add more and more features that can extract even more money out of people's wallets!

What is puzzling me though from a software dev point of view they are changing the model completely, their 'avalon' framework which will be part of longhorn completely redefines the APIs that are still being formalised with .NET and applications will be built using XAML (pronounced zamal) which separates the UI from the code (kinda like .net code behind I guess) but in the next couple of years if you are doing development work you will have Win32 API for legacy stuff, .NET for current stuff and Avalon for future stuff, confusing, muddling, tricky? you bet!

Gary

Iain Young

Where's the smiley for blowing a raspberry

Actually I think OSX is much nicer than xp. It's just that it's no use for me whatsoever because I need machines to develop windows software on, as well as a gaming machine.

Having said that, I also don't think xp is as bad as people make it out to be

JackClark

> if anyone knows what a good piece of software is - its the russians

They know a fair bit about Malware as well, see the population of our virus labs.

SiDHEaD

I thought OSX was built on linux? Slagging linux then bigging up mac osx doesn't make sense.

stevencotton

Pretty much _everything_ is free for Linux and other UNIX variants, and usually of a higher quality. Most webservers are Apache on UNIX, nearly all nameservers run BIND, and how many ISPs run Exchange to dish out their customer mail? Techies choose UNIX for a reason in those situations.

Link entitled "Sloppy Sysadmins Leave Linux Security Holes" - Hardly the OS's fault if the admin isn't very good. Same as you not rotating your logs, not as if you didn't know it was going to happen

Perhaps you need to learn how to use it Seriously, how do you manage to crash it so often, what are you doing to it?

Best for what? You can't make comments like that, use the right tool for the right job. I know Linux and UNIX pretty much inside out and lots more besides but I chose OS X for my desktop and laptop, here (at work) and at home. I use XP for games because OS X and UNIX "suck" for that.

We've just dumped our last remaining Windows servers in favour of Red Hat Linux (personally I prefer Debian or a BSD, but we get a good SLA on Red Hat), we only used them because of software availability. Now we can be more reliable and from my point of view it means being called out less, which is tops

Incidentally, having the source code open not only means lots of people can see potential security holes, it also means they are spotted by lots of people. You can get the in-development version ia anon cvs too if you want it patched sooner, just compile yourself. Also means if I don't like the way something works I just change it. You will never be able to do that with any MS product as long as the current licensing mess stays the same. You have a hell of a lot less power over your OS than I do over mine and I could not work that way

Have fun,
Steve.

Dream Weaver

ZP??

Iain Young

Oooo touchy

That was just an example. The original poster claimed that Linux didn't need security patches. The link demonstrates that it does, (I could provide a load of other examples). You just need to keep it up to date the same way as you do with xp to be sure it is secure.

I do know how to use it (although I don't use it much myself). Our linux / unix testing department and development teams have found a fair few problems...

Good for you

Just because people can spot the holes and fix them, doesn't mean that they will. The potential is there for a hacker to spot them first and exploit them. Their job is made that much easier by having access to the source code. You might feel happy to take the risk, but I wouldn't.

I'll do my best

Iain

Iain Young

Well, show me where I can freely and legally download the source code to OSX so I can start looking for security holes, and I'll agree with you. OSX has far fewer security patches etc, probably due to this fact.

And I wasn't slagging off Linux, I was just saying that it's not the ultimate operating system that some people make it out to be. It has just as many security holes, flaws, and updates as XP. You need to keep both up to date to ensure you are secure.

Sheesh there are some touchy people on here

Markus

My 2 cents worth.

Longhorn is meant to be the "next big thing" from Microsoft. From what I've heard however, some of the really nice features that were touted as being in there, won't be, they can't get them to work. Now, I'm not sure how true that is.

It will be interesting to see how Longhorn compares to whatever version of the Mac OS is around when it finally ships (personally I don't see this happening until late Q4 2005, if you're very lucky, but probably likley to be start of Q3 2006)

As for linux, well, as for a server platform, hell yeah! I'd take it over 2000/2003 any day, and I know a fair few places who have done so. However, we are talking desktop here. I've got Fedora Core 2 on a machine here, and found it very simple to setup and use. I would certatinly be very temped to use it instead of Windows.

OSX is based on BSD, so a derrivative of unix, but not linux per-se (unless I'm wrong, which is possible).

angrynorth

OSX is built on Unix, not Linux

Edit : Oops, beaten to it by Markus.

InvisibleMan

> They know a fair bit about Malware as well, see the population of our virus labs

thats true. its amazing what some of them can do, theres always a tool & command line they can use to get something to work - all for legit networking support of course. so who better than people to know how to hack to monitor & prevent others hacking in your network

stevencotton

There isn't a hint of touchyness about my post because I don't care, but someone with some knowledge needs to balance the argument

I wasn't aware a "self watering" computer existed

Sounds like a money making opportunity to me

That is pure FUD I'm afraid, there are arguments for both closed and open source and that one is a naive one. More eyes on code means less mistakes made. If one person can see a flaw so can a hundred others, and the bad guys don't use tactics like that.

I trust you're running Firefox rather than IE? All the major ISP functions that open source caters for (BIND, sendmail or equiv, Apache, RADIUS, firewalls, anything that may remotely have customer access) are all open source so all the bad guys can see inside. Why aren't they compromised daily?

Steve.

Iain Young

You're missing the point. The original poster said that Linux NEVER needed patching. I was just demonstrating that it did. All computers need watering of some sort now and then (some more than others).

We're not into fixing linux. Got bigger fish to fry

Why is that naive? Surely it's just common sense. Sure, more eyes on code means more chance for things to get fixed, but also gives more exposure to potential hackers in the process. Holes only get fixed when people notice them. It just depends on who notices them first...

Not sure what you're getting at. There is a continuous flow of security patches for the various web servers, firewalls, browsers etc out there in web land. If you haven't got the latest updates in place, then you are vulnerable to attack. It's like viruses, your protection is only as good as your last update. I'm not saying that this does happen daily, I'm just saying that the open source nature of Linux makes the probablility of it happening more likely.

p.s. I run both firefox and ie

Iain

stevencotton

Not missing anything, I was in agreement

You seem to be the only company that belives linux needs 'fixing' - are you trying to make it run Exchange?

You are placing more honus on the cracker seeing a flaw and compromising a bunch of hosts because of that flaw than that of the people who are looking at these things and fixing them. There are far more coders out there doing good than bad. Linux has been open source since inception so why does it control most of the Internet? A good blackhat will find a flaw in something if she has the source or not, it doesn't take too much to find a flaw in closed source code either (as we have all seen). Security by obscurity is weak security.

Seeing as open source software is controlling most of the Internet, and you say there is more probability of an open source app or system being compromised, why is it the opposite that holds true? I'd be expecting all sorts of problems with my iptables setup at home because the source to my firewall is available. It's no more probable today than it was in 1991.

I'm forced to use IE5 on my Mac sometimes, I don't think you can fully get rid of IE though can you, it's an integral part of your OS

Steve.

Iain Young

Not at all. I know of several people (not within our company) who have had various problems with Linux. Although admittedly most of them seem to be hardware / driver related. That's getting off topic anyway, the question was whether Linux needed updating for security holes, and we both agree that it does

Very true, however I think that those stats are more down to the stability and reliablility of the internet code as opposed to the quality of some of the windows code. I hate to think what would happen to XP if it ever went open source. The hackers would have a field day

Yep, but I couldn't anyway. I'm doing servlet / web development for one of our products at the moment, so need to use all the major browsers to ensure compatibility etc.

Would be nice to get rid of it completely though. Firefox is much nicer

Have a good evening....

Iain

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

G*dd*m, I haven't seen a good Holy War like this one for ages!


M


(Running 2k, XP pro, Suse 9.1 and Mandrake 10.0)

SiDHEaD

hehe wasn't being silly just throwing something into the mix but I was wrong as usual anyway - so no worries FWIW i use XP on all my machines!

stevencotton

Then opting for closed-source would seem to have worked for Apple, but not for Microsoft? Or is it because OS X is based on the BSD/UNIX architecture? That's rhetorical

It's not a holy war, there's been no name calling

Steve.