Lazy looks at unixsucks.com

[lazygamer]

So I finally got off my ass and actually READ his site, rather then glancing at the first screen and closing it(told you im lazy). Now i know he's wrong, but I can't figure out why. The place is swimming with myths, but I can't see through them. You guys seem good at this, all I can do is look at his site and say "He's praising windows and dissing Unix, he's automatically wrong... but how? If it wasn't for that praising windows part, he would seem perfectly fine". Anyone care to help?

[DC]

Hmm, misinformation in line 1:
 

quote:Site:
News: According to IDC research market share of Windows in server market jumped 5% to 49%

 

quote:News source:
The Redmond, Wash.-based company's market share for shipments of new server operating system licenses jumped to 49 percent in 2001 from 42 percent in 2000

Shipments and shares are FAR from the same. Linux servers aren't bought 1 licence per server usually, and MS users might simply buy new versions more often.

The "why unix sucks" page does not give a single argument for the statement.

 

quote:Windows built on NT kernel is extremely reliable system, there are system integrators over there which would guarantee you 99,99% of uptime on Windows OS

Sure they do - but does this hold true? No - this has been discussed by experts before.
 

quote:I have not seen such claims from Linux distributors

Sure, they don't make idle promises.
 

quote: The common problem with so called BSOD (Blue Screen Of Death) in 90% of the cases called by hardware not being on HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) or drivers not signed by Microsoft or poorly written third party programs.

A good OS, like Unix, will prevent user-space apps from crashing the system. Windows does not.
 

quote:So about stability and quality of applications running on Windows. As I specialize in web servers I would compare IIS and Apache. IIS is as stable as Apache, things which might make it unstable are usually caused (as everything else on web servers) by poorly written applications.

Same, and not true at what it says either - IIS is riddled with holes, as stated by himself in the first paragraph.
 

quote:About security. Let's ask "Worshipper" who invented HTTP basic authentication, IMAP authentication, SNMP, telnet, POP3 and some other protocols relying on clear text. All that rudimentary protocols are still in use in production UNIX environments.

Sure they are. They are VERY secure in an internal network (where no-one can reach it). For external networks we have SSL, SSH and others.
Besides theoretic objections, experience learns us that Unix is safer.

For the "real cost" part: Economist and knowledgable people have pretty much confirmed that Linux is cheaper. Not free, but cheaper non the less. Especially on the long run.

 

quote:There is no single week  when a new security hole or bug is not found in Red Hat Linux!

Which are patched in moments. Win vulnerabilities are discovered pretty much as often, but less of the total is discovered (closed source) and patched much later.

[Chooco]

he claims that "UNIX and UNIX applications run faster then Microsoft . Well usually this remark always comes without any prove and just purely relies on your trust on professionalism of you UNIX worshipper. So far I have not seen ANY data confirming this" when actually there is proof. run a Half-Life server in Windows then run the same server in Linux, notice that the % CPU use in windows is at least about 10x as high. another thing, start Mozilla in Windows then start Mozilla in Linux. you will notice that Windows will load in the same time BUT the hard drive is just working its ass off to get that program open but Linux is not, just by looking at that you can tell that Windows has TERRIBLE memory management which has significant effect on speed.

he also says this "Here is data showing Microsoft OS and applications superiority over UNIX for web servers (http://www.specbench.org/osg/web99/results/web99.html), for SQL servers (http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp, note that Solaris implementation has 1/2 of the performance and 2x price of Windows)" but when you click on that link you see that although the best WIndows computer is a lot faster than Solaris, the worst Windows computer is a lot slower than Solaris.

he also says "Free? Of course not, you need to pay. Do you want updates, please pay 60$ a year for conveniece of downloading patches." which is actually not true. i installed Mandrake 8.0 and it had a system which automatically downloaded upgrades and it allowed you to pick which FTP you wanted the upgrades from. what a dumb ass   :rolleyes:  

he makes a really really good point about the updating though
"Here something else to think about. Check this link out  http://www.openssh.com/txt/trojan.adv. OpenSSH which used by UNIX admins in day to day tasks contained a trojan! It's not just contained a trojan, it was successfully distributed to mirrors around the world. What a slap on a face!
Have you heard UNIX worshippers screaming about insecurity or poor security practices of their applications? No, but sure you do hear a lot when something is broken in Microsoft products. This is just ONE of the products which is included in open source distributions. How is that compared to Microsoft updates? Well, all updates are digitally signed and are coming from a single source."

[Kintaro]

He has all kinds of bullshit on his site, I fooled him into putting a Link to my site on his so that after people read his bullshit on Unix people will come and see my informaton on Windows. They will also have the Cult of bob put right inot the corner of there eye. Its good for all my causes.

[Kintaro]

So what? Another biased review. If it would not be
published on www.opensource.org then I would have some
respect for it.
Why you are saying that Microsoft says some nice
things about Linux? Where is the doc? So far I heard
only that Microsoft acknowledge that Linux is cheaper
as far as OS installation cost.

GReg

--- Ex Eleven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> After reading the Halloween Documents I see that
> Linux must be better
> because of what Microsoft themselfs say.
>
>
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween2.php
>
> Microsoft say some very nice things about Linux.
> ========Microsoft Said This========
> Linux vs. NT
>
> Windows NT is target #1 for the Linux community. To
> characterize their
> animosity towards NT (or, for that matter, anything
> Microsoft) as
> religious would be an understatement. Linux's (real
> and perceived)
> virtues over Windows NT include:
>
>           o Customization - The endless
> customizability of Linux for
> specific tasks - ranging from GFLOP clustered
> workstations to 500K RAM
> installations to dedicated, in-the-closet 486-based
> DNS servers - makes
> Linux a very natural choice for "isolated,
> single-task" servers such as
> DNS, File, Mail, Web, etc. Strict application and OS
> componentization
> coupled with readily exposed internals make Linux
> ideal.
>
> The threat here is even more pronounced as over
> time, the number of
> servers (and consequently dedication to specific
> tasks) will increase.
> Customers enjoy the simpler debugging and fault
> isolation of individual
> servers vs a monolithic server runing multiple
> services.
>
>           o Availability/Reliability - There are
> hundreds of stories on
> the web of Linux installations that have been in
> continuous production
> for over a year. Stability more than almost any
> other feature is the #1
> goal of the Linux development community (and the #1
> cited weakness of
> Windows)
>
>           o Scaleability/Performance - Linux is
> considered faster than
> NT in networking, and processes. In particular, as a
> server, Linux's
> modular architecture allows the administrator to
> turn off graphics, and
> other non-related subsystems for extreme performance
> in a particular
> service
>
>           o Interoperability- Every open protocol on
> the planet (and
> many of the closed ones) have been ported to Linux.
> In a Windows
> environment, work from the SAMBA team enables Linux
> to look like an NT
> Domain Controller / File Server.
>
> Recently, the NT performance team ran their NetBench
> file/print test
> against a recent Linux distribution. Results
> indicate that although NT
> slightly outperforms Linux, Linux's performance is
> still quite
> acceptable and competitive considering the years of
> tuning that has been
> applied to the NT SMB stack.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Ex Eleven / b0b ]

[voidmain]

Sigh, regarding that SSH trojan. It was something that was caught just a few days after the trojan was placed there. And it was only in the source distribution and it actually did not effect SSH itself but created a trojan when you compiled it. This *never* made it into any distribution.

It would have only effected someone who happened to download the latest bleading edge source package from a mirror during that few day period and built it. If they passed the SSH binaries along to someone else it would not pass the trojan along.

There are also MD5 checksums which work similar to digital signing that nobody seemed to check when they downloaded the source which would have caught the issue in it's tracks.

It was embarrassing but no more embarrassing than Microsoft  shipping CDs with viruses on them (which has happened more than once).

[lazygamer]

Thanks for the help, sounds like Unixsucks.com really sucks!