Re: [tlug] Linux and Windows {2k|Xp|Vista} Comparison

[Scott Robbins <scottro@example.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 12:23:48PM +0900, burlingk@example.com wrote:
> 
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:05:24 -0400
> > From: Scott Robbins <scottro@example.com>
> > 



             [I (Scott) wrote]
> > 

> > I think some of it, at least, comes down to the axiom that 
> > security and
> > convenience are mutually exclusive.  Windows is often the most
> > convenient.   They've made great improvements in the O/S as well. 
> > 
> 
> I do not think that convenience is the enemy of security.  Properly
> implemented a system can be secure and convenient.  :-)  Linux is making
> strides in that direction all the time.

Both you and Stephen have caught me on that statement.  :)  (Correctly
so, I might add.)

I should have qualified it by saying "can be" or "sometimes are."  I was
basically referring to the fact that it is more convenient (until your
machine is rooted) to use Windows as a desktop.  (Or until Outlook stops
working for no reason, or you install that program for your kid that is
loaded with spyware, etc.)



> 
> Overall though, I am glad to hear that we do have the BSD perspective in
> the conversation. :)  It is all well and good for the Linux types to
> talk about what is better between Linux and BSD based on what we have
> read, but it is much better to have someone who can solidly defend or
> deny any claims. :)

I don't know if I can ~solidly~ confirm or deny.   I remember, back when
mutt and pine were a religious debate (before everyone saw the light and
converted to mutt <ducks and hides>) and someone wrote on a newsgroup
words to the effect that people will pull up all sorts of technical
reasons to justify what is, in the end, an emotional decision.  

I prefer FreeBSD.  I also like various flavors of Linux.  Back in 2000
and maybe even in 2002, I felt that FreeBSD was noticeably faster and more
stable than Gentoo and Arch, the two distributions I was using at the
time.  Since then, I've continued using it. 


For the casual end user, the differences will probably not be too
obvious.  To the administrator, the fact that Linux sharply divides
kernel and userland while the BSDs integrate them (which is why one has
to agree with Mr. Stallman that it should be called Gnu/Linux) can be a
good thing or bad thing.  (Although, even with BSDs, if it's simply a
matter of adding a driver, one can recompile the kernel without having
to update the entire system. )

Going back to the original discussion, I would agree with the first
poster (Henri?  I've lost track) that the comparison cited was quite
dated and since then, Linux has made great strides.  



- -- 

Scott Robbins

PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

Buffy: I didn't say that I'd never slay another vampire. It's not
like I have all these fluffy bunny feelings for them, I'm just 
not gonna get way extracurricular with it. 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFOK6W+lTVdes0Z9YRAgLcAJ0TFsRW0cEAuLcIwzpZ5Abu2Gr8lwCbBbBh
MkksgpBeHi1HSNfARv/dmdE=
=ASe1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----