Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: www.unixsucks.com on 21 August 2002, 02:37
-
http://www.unixsucks.com (http://www.unixsucks.com)
Enjoy,
And I almost forgot - here is a headers from www.kmfms.com. (http://www.kmfms.com.) Looks like PHP is vulnerable there.
And also why on so "Secure and good Apache" I can see just straight out in header what version of web server is being run and script engine? Very secure indeed.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:46:14 GMT\r\n
Server: Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) (Red Hat/Linux) mod_throttle/3.1.2 PHP/4.1.2\r\n
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.1.2\r\n
Connection: close\r\n
Content-Type: text/html\r\n
\r\n
-
you can set apache to show or not show that
-
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 (http://www.compaq.com/services/available/av_uptime.html, http://www.dell.com/us/en/epg/services/service_99_9.htm), (http://www.dell.com/us/en/epg/services/service_99_9.htm),) I have not seen such claims from Linux distributors. The common problem with so called BSD (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 poorely written third party programs.
so how do you explain that at least the top 50 uptimes on webservers are all running on BSD/apache except one which is IRIX/netscape enterprise?
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html)
..and maybe you should try i spellchecker next time you create a website. I noticed on other pages you had some words that didnt exist, such as satanistic... you probly mean satanic.
[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]
-
Pretty easy. Nobody cares about that site, wether it's running or not, secure or not, serves pages or not. Look at no.2 - wwwprod1.telia.com. Impressed? How secure is it? Here is headers which shows that it has not been updated for 2 years and subject to numorous exploits.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:11:44 GMT\r\n
Server: Apache/1.3.0 (Unix) PHP/3.0.1\r\n
Connection: close\r\n
Content-Type: text/html\r\n
\r\n
I swear, give me colocation or hosting facility, I'll put IIS with single static page and would get the same results.
Also survey only take samples of single web servers which is not typical scenario in business since you usually have webfarms to handle traffic.
GReg
-
Hmmm,
As far as I remember from my experience with Solaris, you have to reboot after installation of major system patches upgrades and I beleive if owner of wwwprod1.telia.com has 2 year old Apache on that server, he might have old and vulnerable OS as well, which needs to be patched as well.
-
umm.. i looked at that post of mine and realized it didnt make any/very much sense.
i'm sure NASA doesnt need security, thats why they run UNIX.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=off&mode_w=on&site=spaceflight.nasa.gov&submit=Examine (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=off&mode_w=on&site=spaceflight.nasa.gov&submit=Examine)
[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]
-
Content is not served by web server but the cache server. And what are you trying to say that UNIX or Apache running systems are not getting hacked?
http://www.apache.org/info/20010519-hack.html (http://www.apache.org/info/20010519-hack.html)
HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:31:05 GMT\r\n
Age: 34\r\n
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix)\r\n
Last-Modified: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:35:06 GMT\r\n
Accept-Ranges: bytes\r\n
Content-Type: text/html\r\n
Content-Length: 22711\r\n
Etag: "e0ee-58b7-3d6299ea"\r\n
Via: 1.1 scnetcache1 (NetCache 4.0R4)\r\n
Connection: close\r\n
-
I don't get it... You take the time to go to fuckmicrosoft.com. Then you take the time to sign up. I'm sure you've also been around exploring this site. But going through all this effort just to tell us that you dont like unix?
-
yes. As far as I can see right now you and people like you are bunch of happy kids living in happy dream world of glorified UNIX and bad Microsoft.
You are idolizing things and you need fresh air here to start thinking wether all things you beleive in are actually the truth.
Is not the whole purpose of newsgroups is to find the truth or at least express opinion? What is currently happening right now in this message board (without Microsoft backers) can be described as masturbation.
-
quote:
Originally posted by www.unixsucks.com: (http://www.unixsucks.com:)
yes. As far as I can see right now you and people like you are bunch of happy kids living in happy dream world of glorified UNIX and bad Microsoft.
You are idolizing things and you need fresh air here to start thinking wether all things you beleive in are actually the truth.
Is not the whole purpose of newsgroups is to find the truth or at least express opinion? What is currently happening right now in this message board (without Microsoft backers) can be described as masturbation.
hey! you only live a couple miles from me, maybe i can punch you in the face someday?
anyways, nobody cares about your opinion. this site is full of people that prefer BSD, Linux, Solaris, MacOS, BeOS, QNX, AtheOS, Amiga, etc. i doubt many people care what a microsoft junkie has to say, about 98% of the people that come here and "diss" alternate platforms have no idea what they are talking about.
feeding the trolls gets rather boring.
ah, i just have to do this: (http://smile.gif) :rolleyes: :D :eek: :confused: ;) :mad: :cool:
-
Could someone please move this to either the Dead Thread Zone or the Windows section? Doesn't belong here.
-
LOLOLOL!!!
Aaaaalll that site just to come here and try to piss off.
Yohoooooo you sure are a clever one.
Now that am slowly getting more and more into computing, (programming) I realize one thing.
People that prefer Windows are just plain fuking idiots. I am not talking about the average Joe that doesnt know any better when it comes to computers and all that. I am talking about the guy that claims to be in the IT field and prefers Windows.
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
Could someone please move this to either the Dead Thread Zone or the Windows section? Doesn't belong here.
why wouldnt a thread against UNIX be in the UNIX forum?
-
i just felt the need to post some of the defacement of sites statistics from alldas.org
it seems that windows (http://defaced.alldas.org/?os=Windows) computers (running anything) have over 20000 defacements. Linux (http://defaced.alldas.org/?os=Linux) 8000, OpenBSD 266 (http://defaced.alldas.org/?os=OpenBSD), Solaris 1400. (http://defaced.alldas.org/?os=Solaris)
-
Yep, only 25% of the web servers out there are M$ yet they have twice as many defacements as all of the other web servers combined. Gee, I think I'll switch to M$/IIS.... NOT.
-
Did you know there is a difference between constructive arguments and plain old trolling?
guess what you're doing now....
(cause you will find that a lot (i.e. most) people here are not as close minded as you think but formed their opinions of microsoft and their software based on years of experience with it, and not cause it's 'cool' to hate microsoft)
-
I'm sorry www.unixsucks.com (http://www.unixsucks.com) but your view on unix is stuck in the past. The first page of you site tells us how you have been in computing for a long time but it is obvious that the problems in unix's past have stuck in your mind and, fair enough to that, because not so long ago it (UNIX) could and would give people major headaches. Saying that though unix is and was widely regarded as a very powerful OS that did what it did very well, most people who have been in the business for the same length of time as you have similar idea as you and also see unix as a murky geek's world, the fact is though that things have changed and will continue to change and hopefully the next generation of computer technicians, experts, admin, geeks whatever you wish to call us can look upon things with a more open mind.
--Quote from unixsucks.com--
quote:
So the story is as follows. Mindcraft (which might or might not affiliated with Microsoft) decided to make a benchmark comparison between Red Hat Linux and Windows NT. Original test was dating back to 1999 and has shown that NT outperformed Linux in all tests (file server and web server perfomance). Of course Linux worshippers started bitching (as they always do) that test was biased, that Mindcraft are satanistic organisation, even Linus Torvalds himself bitched about the test (http://www.mindcraft.com/openbenchmark.html ) etc, etc, etc.
The first test was indeed unfair, and the second test was completely fair. Win 2k did indeed beat linux and that is that, it lost, but it performed valiantly. But minimal fuss was made, the general public weren't bombarded with propaganda from the linux camp trying to discredit the test. it was just accepted, and the community continued to improve linux and if there is another showdown it might win? who knows. Also linux did have to beat win 2k at 'it's own game' I'm not too sure how windows would perform trying to outperform another OS in the other OS's native task and format.
I apologise to everyone for the essay, I was just ticked off...
-
Hehe C++ program that tests system speed by executing code? Could you post that on the forums? People could grab it and try it out in both wind0ze and Linux on their systems, then post the results.
-
Unless your running Debian (only distro of linux) on pa-risc and HAVE used it than your not allowed to diss UNIX which is DIFFERENT than LINUX (apples to oranges anyone?) Moron. Unix runs on a different arcitecture (i will explain cuase i know you won't understand) AMD is an arch. Intel is an arch type. noth use x86. Unix uses PA-Rish which is MUCH better as it does TRUE multi tasking unlink processsor paging that x86 does. I am niether a blind unix worshipper or a *dows hater. I simply run linux cause of the bullshit eula on windows. Get your facts straight on the issue. unixsucks.com. Most unix boxes run a propriety software (ie hp-ux) Which isn't free. Some *nixes have been ported but mainly since they arn't free tey stay on unix. This topic is quite stupid since it is involoving UNIX and this forum is defending LINUX. they ARE different. Unless your running debian on a pa-risc system also unix can have MORE processors than windows and MORE ram and FASTER raid arrays ect ect unix is the supremee hosting os get over it you won't change this. the real competetion is between linux and nt. Get your facts straight please! Kthx
-
btw that c++ is probably optimized differntly on linux and windows which could taint the results enough to invalidate them
-
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 enviroments.
What authentication Win2000 comes right out of the box? Kerberos 5. How do you authenticate to read your email? Kerberos. How do you administer services? Terminal Services on top of RDP using 128-bit encryption.
Uhh? Bullshit. Linux invented kerberos 5 windows just fucked it up by changing the protocall. HTTP first on *nix same with telnet. BTW nowadays i can't think of 1 currently updated distro which comes with ssh. 1024 bits of encryption. What billy only uses 128bits? granted it is a bitch to crak both but still. Linux is MORE secure out of the box than windows.
-
sorry to correct, but tu, you got it all wrong, UNIX nowadays, is a designe philosphy. and pa-risc is not the only arch procs that unix can use, what about sparcs, alpha, m68k, x86-64, ppc, mips, vax, sh-x, arm, Xscale and probaly others, almost any kind of processer can run some form of unix. and will im saying that, it been a while since windows supported the alpha. umm, linux supports more hardware then windows does,