What is said about UNIX

[Communikator]

http://www.simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf

Just discovered it wandering through Wikipedia.

 

[DanS]

http://www.simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf

Just discovered it wandering through Wikipedia.

Now that's OT.

And it really means nothing to anyone here.

Note, it's about UNIX....not Linux.

And.....it was written in 1994.

Can you do me a favor an provide a link to a review about the Apple Lisa
?

 

[dennis@home]

Now that's OT.

And it really means nothing to anyone here.

Note, it's about UNIX....not Linux.

Linux is a copy of unix (well the linux is the kernel) and its many
utilities.

And.....it was written in 1994.

And there haven't been any major changes to the way unix based OSes like
linux work.
Lots of bells and whistles but not much else.

 

[DP]

Now that's OT.

And it really means nothing to anyone here.

Note, it's about UNIX....not Linux.

And.....it was written in 1994.

Can you do me a favor an provide a link to a review about the Apple Lisa
?

I'm still trying to figure if I should upgrade from my Vic-20 to the C-64.
Any links appreciated there as well.

 

[DanS]

Linux is a copy of unix (well the linux is the kernel) and its many
utilities.


And there haven't been any major changes to the way unix based OSes like
linux work.
Lots of bells and whistles but not much else.

Oh...like Vista ? That pretty much sums it up.

 

[dennis@home]

Oh...like Vista ? That pretty much sums it up.

While the end result may be similar the comparison is wrong.
There have been lots of changes in windows to make it more secure while
there have been few in Linux.
Just look at how insecure windows 3.1 was and compare that to NT.
In the same time span there was almost no security improvement as far as the
design of Linux goes AFAICS.
There may have been a few bugs removed and a few better utilities added but
many of the flaws as discussed in that document are still there.
What Linux users forget is that while Linux looks similar to Unix the
internals are not the same and Linux is based on much older technology than
say Solaris or SVR5 and while SVR5 can get a B2 (or even B1) security rating
Linux cannot..

 

[NoStop]

While the end result may be similar the comparison is wrong.
There have been lots of changes in windows to make it more secure while
there have been few in Linux.

Because Linux, from it's inception, has been so much more secure than
Windoze. Can't figure that out?

Just look at how insecure windows 3.1 was and compare that to NT.
In the same time span there was almost no security improvement as far as
the design of Linux goes AFAICS.
There may have been a few bugs removed and a few better utilities added
but many of the flaws as discussed in that document are still there.
What Linux users forget is that while Linux looks similar to Unix the
internals are not the same and Linux is based on much older technology
than say Solaris or SVR5 and while SVR5 can get a B2 (or even B1) security
rating Linux cannot..

Never heard of SELinux? I guess not. In your warped little Windoze-mindset,
you obviously don't know squat.

Cheers.

--
Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:
http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

 

[Marco Desloovere]

I'm still trying to figure if I should upgrade from my Vic-20 to the C-64.
Any links appreciated there as well.

I can lend you my Apple ][ and two 5¼" diskette drives in the meantime.
Do you need VisiCalc as well?

Marco

 

[dennis@home]

Because Linux, from it's inception, has been so much more secure than
Windoze. Can't figure that out?

What has that got to do with anything here?
You people that acheive security by comparision are really stupid.

Never heard of SELinux? I guess not. In your warped little
Windoze-mindset,
you obviously don't know squat.

It doesn't get anywhere near B2 and B1 is much harder.