Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:08:23 +0100 (CET) From: Micke Josefsson <mj@isy.liu.se> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: matthew@starbreaker.net, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: As usual, I disagree. Message-ID: <XFMail.20011129100823.mj@isy.liu.se> In-Reply-To: <023501c178ae$76162550$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29-Nov-2001 Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Micke writes: > >> Any system that is going to be used today must >> have a high security level. > > Careful ... you risk locking UNIX out of the picture if you insist on really > high security. > > Anyway, desktops don't need security any more than a person's wallet needs > security in his own home. And even if you provide it, people won't use it. I feel much more comfortable with FreeBSD than with Windows, securitywise. But you have already gathered that, I guess... > >> Any security flaw inside any computer is >> going to be exploited sooner or later. >> FreeBSD or Windows! > > Well, Windows NT wins for security, if that's what matters. Windows 9x is no > better than FreeBSD (somewhat worse, actually). > >> Until their box crashes mysteriously. > > Crashes usually are not frequent enough to be an issue. > >> Granted, many users don't mind reinstalling >> the lot ... > > I've encountered users who reinstall several times a month, and consider > reinstallation a reasonable way to deal with problems. I can't imagine what > they do that is useful with their machines, since useful work tends to be > difficult to carry out when you rebuild the machine from scratch every two > weeks. > >> ... but I cannot get past a feeling that there >> must be something seriously wrong with that approach. > > Agreed. See above. > >> With windows, users can easily install any >> (crappy) old software and make the system unstable >> or worse. > > Only on Windows 9x. On NT/2000, you must log on as an administrator to > install > many types of software. > >> I realise that that the proliferation of the windows >> desktop make computers easier to handle for many, >> but at the cost of what? > > The cost is pretty low. It does tend to homogenize the user base and give > dominant products an edge, and it requires more hardware, and there are a few > other disadvantages--but overall, it's the best deal for the average user. > Just look at AOL. > >> A properly setup FreeBSD box is also easy to use for >> the normal tasks: opening/sending emails, starting a >> word processor, enter data into spreadsheets etc. > > And who is going to properly set it up? root! I run some 50 boxes dual boot win/FBSD. I set them all up and after some iterations they seem to work as intended. All but one are for desktop use by others. > >> A recent swedish survey concluded that 2 work-hours >> every week per person on an average is lost due to >> computers malfunctioning in some way or another. Why is >> it that BSODs are so known? > > "Malfunctioning in some way or another" does not equate to a BSOD. Correct. I heard the survey on the radio, I haven't been able to get it proper. I would be an interesting read. > A lot more time would be lost by average users in working with FreeBSD (or any other flavor of UNIX) than in working with Windows, for equivalent output. Hmm. Perhaps. But much of the work done in any job is word processing, and the tools exist for that also in the Unix domain. > Of course, some users live just to play around and deal with malfunctions ... > for those users, there is Linux. My coworker uses linux. Still, after several years, I have a definite feeling that he deals much more with lib-this and lib-that that is needed to get the programs running. > >> Is a registry such a bad idea really? > > I don't know. It's a single point of vulnerability, and if it is opaque, you > need special interfaces to deal with it (and if these fail, you're out of > luck). > I think it's a wash, myself. However, on FreeBSD, at least I can worry a bit > less about damaging the entire system if I accidentally change one file. > >> /var/db/pkg is a good thing but a more general >> approach could very well be beneficial to FreeBSD >> as well? > > I'd be extremely cautious about moving in that direction. That's how Windows > ended up where it is today. > > The problem with friendly, automated interfaces is when they don't work. And > it takes a lot of effort to build an inteface such that it never fails to > work. I shouldn't need to be automated/cryptic. /etc/defaults/rc.conf contains a myriad of settings and is still legible - sort of. >> On numerous occasions have I had to help out users >> with both minor and major tasks that were sooo >> easily done in FreeBSD and sooo difficult in windows. > > And never vice versa? In fact no. To keep the records straight I have to admit that I also use Windows but mostly when adminning it and to get pictures downloaded from my PalmPix camera. Sure, there are applications that only exist in the windows world but I can often live on happily without them. (Still looking for a tiny BRIEF-editor clone for BSD, and that is a DOS survival) > >> I always found that the WPS in OS/2 was the >> more easy to use GUI. > > If you prefer FreeBSD, this is understandable. OS/2 looked way too much like > MS-DOS for my tastes, even though it wasn't. But the GUI is marvellous. You can even copy between several directories simultaneously and start other apps at the same time. Windows more or less locks up during a single copy-ing. > >> No. But it can (and IMHO, should) be used more >> than it is today. Some shops will definately benefit >> from Windows but many would do better or equal >> using FreeBSD. > > For servers, that is certainly true. For desktops, I have serious doubts. My "50 box experience" supports my statement. For the average user I would love to see statistics. My users are university students. > >> The world would be better off with open standards on >> documents. > > That already exists, in the form of PDF (and PostScript). > >> I don't really see why Microsoft don't let the >> specs out for the .DOC-format. > > Because the specs change from one release to the next. The .DOC format is a > terribly poor way to exchange documents, and additionally it carries the > danger of viruses. Still it keeps coming. I have come to regard the doc-format as encrypted and if staroffice can't cope I generally drop it. Unless it appears to be VERY important. BTW, I have grown a liking towards RTF since when I discovered how easy it was to edit the raw data. > >> Mee too. Or plain postscript. > > PS sometimes doesn't render as intended, depending on how you have your > rendering software set up. PDF is a stripped descendant of PS that leaves > little room for alternate interpretation, so a document prepared with PDF > looks pretty much identical no matter where you display or print it. I use Lyx and its pstopdf conversion a lot and I am not really happy with the conversion. Perhaps it is the free implementation that is not up to scratch, but similar results also come from Adobe Distiller on our Solaris system. > >> Until virii strikes again, and again, and again, ... >> They realize that they should have thought about it. > > But they continue to open attachments. Amazingly they do! > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message ---------------------------------- Michael Josefsson, MSEE mj@isy.liu.se This message was sent by XFMail running on FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE ---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20011129100823.mj>