Re: What is the more popular UNIX flavor?

On 2007-12-08, Mister.Fred.Ma@xxxxxxxxx <Mister.Fred.Ma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:53 am, jpd <read_the_...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That would depend on what respective versions you were using, would it not?

Did you mean version of solaris or cygwin? Assuming you mean solaris,
why would it matter? The solaris system I was using went through

Re-read the sentence. He refers to the versions of _both_ systems.

continual upgrades, but the problem was that a plain user had to go
through many hoops to "make" applications of interest and tailor the
build process to the environment (details of which the user might not
be familiar with). Sometimes, they build is successful, with enough
detours to build prerequisite software. At least, that was my
experience. Cygwin upgrades and inclusion of packages of interest
were really painless.

This is a silly point to argue about. You appear to be complaining
that it is easier to install a pre-built package than it is to take
a source archive, unpack it, configure and compile it and finally
install it. This surprises you? It is like buying a kit car and
then complaining that you have to put it together before you can
drive it away.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't strictly speaking from an administrative
perspective. Cygwin is but a thin veneer that makes windows more usable
but it cannot make it a full unix.

Yes, that was my impression of his meaning. I was wondering if he
could provide examples of functionality that users would typically
want out of full unix but can't get on cygwin. I'm not saying it
doesn't exist. I might even agree with him, given examples that I
could relate to.

My complaints about the Unix-on-Windows systems in general is that
you simply don't know what they are going to do. Hard links?
Sparse files? Most of the systems support these things but you
are never quite sure how and if they are really doing the Right
Thing or some ugly kludge simply to get things working regardless
of what is happening under the hood. Then of course, they are all
incomplete to a greater or lesser extent. If you find yourself
needing eg tftp you only need to activate on a Unix system. It'll
probably need installing first on the equivalent Windows system.

You're right, IT people in the places I've worked are pretty
"attentive" about PC security. But in my experience, there's never
been a problem. This is not to say that invasions of PCs on a
workplace network doesn't happen. It is just that I've been lucky
enough never to have seen it, and I hope never to see it. On the
other hand, I've seen a solaris system commandeered by intruders from
overseas, who set up hidden servers doing who knows what (I didn't
ask). I believe it was an educational experience.

I guess I should clarify that I am referring to professional
environments, be it work or university. In my experience, the default
in such environments is for people to not have local PC admin
privileges, and those who do have shown enough awareness to not
routinesly use such privileged accounts.

If you've never seen malware on a Windows system I doubt how much
experience you actually have. It is truly endemic in many places.
Also, many commercial establishments are not the big organisations
with hundreds of users and dedicated IT departments that you seem
to suggest. They are much smaller outfits, maybe half a dozen
machines, possibly networked. There is no IT department, just
someone around who knows a little more about computers than the
others. Those are the places where you have trouble.

So your argument is one that reflects the status quo, and I'm saying the
status quo does not represent best current practices.

I got a bit lost in that last sentence. You made a number of points
about current practice. Which deficiency about the status quo you are
referring to?

The standard practices of your typical Windows user. Running as
a privileged user as default, installing and possibly removing
various pieces of crap from e.g. magazine cover discs that they
don't need simply to have a play with them. Not backing up. Poor
security settings because no one can be bothered...

--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Solaris 8 to Linux dump compatibility question (Nick Pettefar)
    ... Solaris 8 to Linux dump compatibility question ... FOLLOWUP: Netra X1: How to break the LOM prompt in order to ... patches not available to customers w/o sunsolve accounts... ... After this you will need to write a finish script that will install the same ...
    (SunManagers)
  • Solaris x86 FAQ 1/2
    ... Where can I obtain Solaris 2/x86 maintenance updates? ... What information should I have before an install? ... a 60GB disk shows up as only 28GB. ... Can I create a partition for Solaris within my extended partition? ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: trojaned SSHD ?
    ... I'd recommend moving to OpenSSH, which supports both ssh1 and ssh2 ... platforms, including Solaris. ... Information relevant to the installation of SSH on NCMIR systems. ... * Install Zlib 1.1.2 libraries, compiling from source, on Solaris and IRIX ...
    (Focus-SUN)
  • Cant upgrade Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 9 ? HELP
    ... I'm trying to upgrade one Sun Enterprise 3500 with Solaris 2.6 to new ... install is in progress... ... Solaris Software Group: Entire Group ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Solaris 9 C compiler cannot create executables
    ... Install KOLAB2 without problem but on Solaris 9 or 8 I have allways the same ... system SUNWbtoox CCS libraries bundled with SunOS ... system SUNWcsxu Core Solaris (Usr) ...
    (SunManagers)