Re: Experience the New Windows

["dodobh@xxxxxxxxxxx" <dodobh@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Suresh Ramasubramanian spewed into the ether:
>Actually, there is a flip side to this ... all the user-friendliness 
>that's being built into linux very often comes at a huge cost to 
>security.
A usability vs security argument startiing here?

>As most linuxen (with the possible exception of Caldera, with its e->desktop and e-server classification of its distro) are an all-in-one >thing (the same CD serves for a desktop install as well as a server >install, with little, if anything, to differentiate between the two >except the profile of apps installed).
Hmmmm, it actually depends on the profile of the user. I have never
done a server/workstation install (always custom -- throw (almost)
everything at my desktop, virtually nothing at the server). 
But that is because of my requirements.

>Redhat is especially bad at this - and Redhat 7 (and 6.2) are 
>insecure out of the box in their server installs.  This is because 
>of some very conscious decisions by redhat engineers to build user-
>friendliness into their product, *at the cost of security*.
wirex is much better in that regard, I believe. They have the most OpenBSDish attitude to security that I have seen. (They put up a bugfix to change a server starting by default to stopping by default).

>One of the basic tenets of marketing (proposed by Al Ries and Jack >Trout) is the STP concept - Segmentation, Targeting and 
>Positioning.  So far, 'doze has done that admirably with their clear 
>differentiation between NT Server (servers), NT workstation (office 
>workstation) (and Win 98/ME (home box).  

>Very few linuxen have done something like this.  If you attempt to >cater to the needs of everybody in a single distro, you'll end up >with a distro that nobody is satisfied with.  Debian and Slackware >have more or less stuck to their original image - primarily server >class [security conscious].  Redhat and its ilk haven't.
Well, some people do claim that RedHat is the easiest for newbies.

>The quest for user-friendliness, if taken too far, can lead to linux 
>shooting itself in the foot by alienating its original, core 
>audience (and still its primary market) - server admins.
Dunno, us admins will just start rolling our own packages. (Don't 
most admins? It takes some time, but is usually better for performance).

>Should a linux distro be a "home users" OS, a "workplace OS", a 
>"server OS" or an "all in one"?  That's the question.  Comparing a 
>server / workstation class OS to a home user OS (and excessively 
>focusing on the home user market because of its sheer size) is self 
>defeating IMHO.
Actually, you would have to define a home user first. (This might sound like nitpicking, but I really wouldn't be able to define the ypical home user, unless it is somone like our customers, who I wouldn't let within a million kilometres of any computer)
If you define a home user as one who just wants to edit office documents, play games and surf, then Linux isn't quite there yet.
But then, such a user will not be able to handle any OS properly.
[even Win9x needs maintainance].
For any user tht is willing to put in a bit of effort, Linux is quite a good OS, albeit with a steeper learning curve.
To make Linux user friendly, this has to be reduced (and the only example that I can think of doing this successfully is VB).

Devdas Bhagat



------------------------------------------------------------
For Valentine's Day shop by Brand, Product, Price, Store and Location!
http://shop.storerunner.com/shop.asp?pdef=home&trsid=3080