WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

[RayLopez99]

Are you trying to say I was /wrong/ about what it would take for /me/ to
consider windows on a server?

No I say you're wrong about "outstanding circumstances"--no need for
such extremes.

 Sometimes I really don't think you bother
reading posts before replying.  I am happy to discuss rationally with
you, but please cut out the knee-jerk astroturfing just because
something /looks/ like a sleight on your beloved windows.

I've found through years of provocative posting--some wrongly call it
'trolling'--that name calling and the occasional use of CAPITAL
LETTERS and EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!--not to mention ad hominem attacks,
get your posts replied to and read more often. Sorry but that's the
way human nature works--the squeaking wheel gets the grease--as both
the existence of Madison Avenue and neon lights attest to.

Web hosting companies charge more for windows hosting because it costs
them more.  It costs more for the licences

OK, I agree on licenses.

, it costs far more for the
hardware resources,

What? You mean separate and apart from the licenses, hardware running
Windows Server costs more? That's incredible. Did you misspeak? You
can retract that statement and I'll not flame you. Sounds absurd.

and it costs /far/ more in maintenance and security.

OK this "far" more (you too enjoy provocative posts, in your own way)
is clearly and exaggeration, but for the sake of argument let's assume
that yes, due to Linux's meagre 1% market share, there are few viruses
attacking Linux so yes Windows costs "far" more than Linux to maintain
(to the extent a $50 antivirus program for windows is a "far more"
expense). $50 >> $0. So yes, I concede this point as well.

  For web hosting, the great majority is done using Linux servers -
almost all running apache - because it is cheap and simple to have lots
of domains served from very few physical machines.

And why would that not be true using WIndows Server? Aside from the
"cheap" argument--I've conceded Linux is cheaper for a server--why
would it be more simple using Linux? Because of your unfamiliarity
with Windows Server OS? If so, that's your fault, not Microsoft's.

 And for over 90% of
customers, they don't care what system is serving up their web pages.
There are a few misguided souls that use system-specific backend
features such as ASP, or .net, or specifically require MSSQL databases -
these customers have no choice but to use windows, and pay significantly
more for it.

Strawman noted. There are indeed people who have no need for other
than an HTML page being hosted--and for them Apache is fine, agreed.
And MSSQL is "significantly" greater than Linux databases, to the
extent a few dollars a month is "significantly" greater than zero.

For /application/ serving, it's a different matter - there the features
are different between Windows and Linux.  Windows is not in any sense
"richer" or "superior" - it's different.

OK. Damaging admission against your own position noted. I'll use
this later against you. What you should have said, if you were a
dishonest Linux partisan, is that the features of Linux are superior,
and listed a few such alleged superior features. You are either too
honest, too naive to be a Linux partisan, or too inexperienced to know
about feature differences between Windows and Linux. Rex Ballard of
COLA newsgroup and his sidekick Liarmutt would have highlighted
alleged Linux superiority.

 And again, windows is more
expensive because it needs more hardware - for many reasons, Linux
servers virtualise much more efficiently, so hosting companies can get
more customers onto fewer machines with Linux.  And they don't have to
pay license fees (though many will choose to do so by using Red Hat,
Suse, or another commercially supported Linux).

OK now you mention virtualization. A new wrinkle. For now I will
agree that it sounds plausible, but MSFT is working on virtualization
so in a couple of years I would not be surprised if MSFT leapfrogs
Linux. But you might have a point, since I notice the cheaper costing
web hosting companies do seem to offer Linux as part of their "$1.99 a
month" teaser plan.

Anyway, I was talking about in-house servers - I didn't mention hosting
at all.  Windows still has a large share of that market, but /I/ would
not use it for servers.  If I had some sort of server application that
had to run on windows, it would be a different matter, but I have not
seen the need of such windows server software for a decade or so.  Linux
handles all my server requirements, and does so faster, more easily and
far cheaper than windows could.  But I can quite understand that some
companies still find windows servers appropriate - I have been talking
about /my/ needs, and those of /my/ employer.

Got it. And those needs change with time. In a few years, you may be
a Microsoft Server fanboi. Certainly Linux server market share has
been stagnant while Microsoft's server market share has been growing.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

Are you sure you are not Rod Speed in disguise?  I get the feeling I've
seen this thoughtless "Nope.  Wrong again." style before.

No but Rod Speed is a "friend" of mine. He's been tamed though by his
ISP...or he retired from Usenet as I've not seen his posts in the last
year or so.

There is no point in trying to correct you - you have clearly already
decided on your view of things.

Nope. Wrong again.

Actually, a lot of traffic is already compressed - many html servers
transparently compress html pages, and things like jpg files are already
compressed.  But there is plenty of scope for compressing other traffic
such as email, html headers, and even the ip packet envelopes.  When
traffic is coming from or going to a particular program, it is often
inappropriate to compress it - that would mean adding compression as a
feature of every program.  And for lots of network types, especially
trunks, it doesn't make sense to compress traffic - it would take too
much processor resources.  But for some types of network, such as
dail-up modem links and vpns, compression has little cost and therefore
makes sense.

OK, sounds plausible. Does not negate my points at all, as this was a
side issue.

Try not to show your ignorance.

A very large proportion of crimes are committed with "inside" help -

OK, conspiracy theory noted. Moving right along, as this paranoia is
counterproductive...

Ah, a /paid/ service.  That makes it /so/ much less likely that there
are con-artists behind the service, or corrupt employees, or accidental
security holes.  Since they charge money, they /must/ be good!

Exactly. Now you're starting to get it. By paying money you attract
smart people--even smarter than you--to build a robust VPN system.
Try doing that with "hobbyists" like Linux enthusiasts. Not as easy.

Do I think it is hard to leave a computer on all the time?  No, I don't
think it's hard - my Linux server in the cellar is only ever turned off
by power cuts.  And I'm far from alone in that.  

OK, just as I thought. My point exactly. Let's move on please, as
this was a minor point.

I mean all traffic except the VPN tunnel itself.  For a VPN to be
effective at hiding or securing your connection, every network packet
(and there are /lots/ of them) needs to pass through the tunnel.

What are these "lots" of data packets? I don't have a clue. In my
scenario (perhaps you have something else in mind): a user has her
laptop at a public Wi-Fi spot like Starbucks in the USA or an
airport. She then clicks on an icon by a commercial VPN service like
"Hide My Ass". Her data is then https tunneled to HMA's VPN servers,
and from there the data go to an online bank site. How can you have
"lots" of network packets that are outside this https tunnel? You
cannot.

RL

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Well, the big problem for kids here in the US is that the colleges are
teaching the wrong technologies to them, which is based on UNIX, Linux,
Java and C. That's not the technology that's dominant in the US. It's MS
that's dominant and .NET.

...it's like a troll stepped out an 80s desktop time warp.

Still just as clueless too.

[deletia]

Besides. Real comp sci programs don't teach "technologies" anyways.

That's for trade schools.

Plus, the tech du jour won't alter the fact that people in countries
with a 3rd world standard of living and cost of living are able to accept
a 3rd world salary.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Again, you are trying to claim I am "wrong" about my own opinion. It
would be understandable if you were claiming I was exaggerating in my
choice of phrase, but you simply cannot call me "wrong".

And to re-state the point, yes, it would take outstanding circumstances
before I would consider using windows on a server. I have not seen the
need for windows-specific server software within my company for a
decade. I have little doubt that once an IT manager or company IT
department gets familiar with Linux on servers, they will not choose
Windows unless they are dealing with particularly specialised
windows-only server software.

The key here would be some otherwise useful killer app doesn't run
on any platform but Windows. While this is very likely to be the case for
quasi-desktop applications for small shops and associated verticals, it's
much less the case as companies and problems get larger.

Windows simply doesn't scale as well.


[deletia]

I can't figure out what you are trying to say here. If you are

Quite. "Linux databases" don't just include mysql and postres. They
include every enterprise grade RDBMS that you can buy a Linux support
contract for that will run workloads that will make mssql and Windows
MELT.

suggesting that MSSQL only costs a few dollars a month, then that must
be for a very "shared" server - in which case customers would normally
be perfectly happy with free MySQL or Postgresql.

Proper Unix databases are what you connect your .NET applications to
in order to give them some illusory bit of robustness. They don't have
nearly enough robustness on their own.

[deletia]

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Linux servers only dominate on the Web server market, and MS dominates
the rest of the server market in client/server and here is why, by
means of application servers, middle tier servers, database servers and
backend servers, state servers and COM+ servers where MS dominates. And
as .NET continues to push SOA infrastructure, it will continue to dominate.

Complete rubbish. If it's a relational database app of any scale it will
be on *n*x.

Web hosting companies are not concerned about architectures,

They are, because they are concerned bout stability and low maintenance
and low power consumption.

and Web

hosting companies are for amateurs that don't know how to protect a Web
server that's facing the public Internet or companies that don't have a
Web site staff, servers or the expertise to protect a Web server facing
the public Internet.

Or professionals who simply find they are a cost effective solution tyo
highish traffic simple sites.

Then you have those companies and there are plenty of them that must
provide other things in a Web based solution N-Tier infrastructure that
goes well beyond what's happening at a front-end Web server.

Ideal for Linux then.

Typical application architectures are comprised of three levels with
each level running servers:

1) The back-end database where critical customer or organizational
information is stored

*nix for choice there.

http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/definition/back-end

2) The application middleware that enables the end-user to perform the
desired action on the data, and;

Depends on what the coders who wrote it chose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleware

3) The front-end Web servers that enable the outside world to interact
with the previous two levels.

*nix for choice.

Not all servers are front-end facing Web servers, which Linux dominates
there.

I have not seen any middleware Linux servers. I have seen 1 back-end
Linux database server running Oracle. All the rest of them I have seen
have been MS servers on both tiers, in the many sites I have done
contract development work.

That is because middleware is a term invented my MS to describe its own
stoopid way of doing things.

PHP is 'middleware'

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per David Brown:

MythTV is quite a challenge to configure. Give XBMC a try and see if it
works for you.

I went to SageTV, which does what I want to do. It's not
perfect, but it's good enough.

I suspect my main problem with Myth was SQL Anywhere security.

 

[RayLopez99]

Again, you are trying to claim I am "wrong" about my own opinion.  It
would be understandable if you were claiming I was exaggerating in my
choice of phrase, but you simply cannot call me "wrong".

You cannot play word games like that. If you mean that in your mind
Linux is superior, contrary to objective facts, then we cannot have a
rational debate.

Flame me all you want, but it is true.  I'm only considering /servers/
here (for a desktop with modern high-quality graphics and fast speeds,
the requirements in cpu and memory are similar, though windows requires
much more disk space).

For a simple file server, windows server has a minimum requirement of
512 MB and 1 GHz cpu, and a recommendation of 2 GB and 2 GHz.  Based on
my own installations over the past few years, a Linux file server has a
minimum requirements of about 64 MB and 200 MHz cpu (I set up a file
server with a 90 MHz cpu a few years ago, but that's maybe a bit small).
  Certainly 256 MB and 1 GHz is all you need - though obviously more
memory means more caching and faster access.

Wrong. You cannot defeat the laws of physics. If Linux indeed has
minimum requirements much less than Windows, as you claim, the
downside is that it will have performance much more minimal than
Windows.

Of course, these days it is hard to buy a server-class machine with less
than 2 GB ram, so you might think these levels are irrelevant.  But the
modern style of serving is with virtual servers - and since you brought
up the topic of web hosting companies, virtualisation is absolutely key
in this area.

Why would you want to virtualize so much? Why do you need virtual
servers? The only thing I can think of: various versions of Linux,
each requiring its own server. Or perhaps even Windows--you have ASP
2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 etc and various MSFT Server editions. But frankly
you don't need that much virtualization in a server because a server
is by definition a sort of virtual PC to the clients.

But with Linux, it's a different world.  If you need to do full
virtualisation, then each machine needs its own memory - but with far
smaller typical requirements, you get far more virtual machines in each
physical server.  And if you can use OS-level virtualisation solutions
such as openvz, it's all shared.  I use openvz to run about 20 virtual
machines on a 4 GB server - the hardware requirements of Windows make
that totally impossible.

Again, two points: (1) with less RAM as in Linux less performance,
and, (2) you don't need that much virtualization in servers so that
you have 100 different servers running on the same hardware. Three or
four virtual servers is sufficient.

Who mentioned viruses?  I was talking about maintenance and security.
Linux requires much less maintenance.  You do have the occasional
security update, but these are typically small and quickly applied with
a few lines via a remote shell, rather than hundreds of MB downloads and
a set of reboots to patch holes in a browser that has no business being
on a server in the first place.  And security on Linux is clearer and
more watertight, making it easier and more trustworthy (just look at how
many firewalls run Windows, compared to how many run Linux).

Are you claiming "maintenance" includes the time it takes for an IT
guy to install a patch on a Windows server? If so, Windows beats
Linux since Windows offers easy "one-click and forget" upgrades for IT
guys. That's well known. By contrast with Linux you have to be
physically present at the machine with no help from anybody.

Only a small percentage of website backends use ASP and/or .net.  The
majority use PHP, Perl, Python, JSP, ColdFusion, etc.  These all run
better on Linux backends (though they can also run on windows),
typically using Apache.  For databases, far and away the most popular is
MySQL, which is almost always run on Linux (though it runs on windows).
  For commercial sites, the "real" databases like DB2 and Oracle also
run on Linux better than on Windows.

Popular is not better. And again Windows is gaining.

Are you berating me for being a bad liar?

Admission of lying noted.

I use windows regularly, and there are plenty of situations when it
makes the most sense.

Stop right there. I win.

Goodbye.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

I have not seen any middleware Linux servers. I have seen 1 back-end
Linux database server running Oracle. All the rest of them I have seen
have been MS servers on both tiers, in the many sites I have done
contract development work.

Wow, good post. Steel is holding court, schooling these Linux
freaks! Way to go Steel, I learn a lot from your posts.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

The kids in India are training MS, learning .Net, coming to the US and
getting MS jobs. It is what it is.

Yes, it seems that way. Almost all the entrepreneurs in high tech I
know are using Indian coders, and are fairly happy with them, mainly
due to cost. For a lot of apps a half-good, not-bad program is almost
as good as a perfect program, and if it costs one-tenth as much, a lot
of startups are happy with that, at least until some money starts
coming in, then they can always rewrite it with more high quality US
programmers once the company matures.

RL

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per JEDIDIAH:

As far as a pure media player, XBMC wipes the floor with everything
else. SageTV and MythTV included.

I skimmed the XBMC docs and was unable to find anything about
recording TV programs.

Some kind of add-in? Or did I just miss it?

Also, does XBMC work with media extenders? Something I like
about SageTV is the little black box that sits under my TVs in
place of a PC: no moving parts, draws about 6 watts, works from
remote locations too.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Per JEDIDIAH:

I skimmed the XBMC docs and was unable to find anything about
recording TV programs.

XBMC has a MythTV plugin but it doesn't do any PVR functions on it's own.

 

[RayLopez99]

I was not under the impression that we were having a rational debate.
/I/ am debating rationally, /you/ are posting in defence of your
financial investment in MS

Non-sequitur and red herring noted. You lose this point.

Yes, Linux is superior for /my/ needs on servers.  Those are objective
facts, based on my analysis of the needs of my company, and the options
available.  As I have said many times before, I am happy to use windows
where it is the best choice - on servers, for my company, this is not
the case.

You can argue that windows is a better choice for most companies'
servers if you like.  I'll disagree, but it is a fair argument.

But you /cannot/ argue about what is better for /my/ company - that is
/my/ decision based on /my/ analysis, and my conclusion is
overwhelmingly in favour of Linux.

What the hell are you talking about? We already beat this point to
death and you conceded. You're crazy. Another point in my favor.

That is a total non-sequitor.  Have you never heard of the term
"efficiency"?  Linux is more efficient for many server tasks, and can
make more out of fewer resources.

A paper airplane is "efficient" in the amount of petrol it burns to
glide across your lawn (zero petrol consumed) but it won't transport
you from New York city to Los Angeles, USA. Another point in my
favor--as you admit MSFT servers are faster, stronger.

However, I will happily agree that more resources give more performance.

Right. A fourth point in my favor. Yes I am double counting but you
keep bringing up the same points.

I realise you are not very familiar with servers, but "virtualisation"
is a technique that has been used for several decades to modularise and
contain server applications and resources without needing to have as
many physical servers.

OK, I give you a point here. You're correct--for "trying out"
software, virtualization is superior. But once you try it out, and
conclude you want to buy it, then virtualization is no good. That
holds true even for your "two departments who want to run the same
hardware and software" argument--better to let the departments either
consolidate into one, or, buy them each their own equipment, if they
need it that bad. Virtualization is simply a Band-aid, or a temporary
fix.

Four to one, I'm winning this debate.

You want have two databases for two different departments at the office.
  Each department has their own database administrator, and you want
them to have management rights to their own areas so that they don't
have to involve the IT department in everything.  But they must be kept
separate and secure from each other.  You can fiddle about with users,
groups, permissions, etc., until you have a setup that looks okay.  Or
you can just give each department it's own virtual machine with it's own
dedicated database server and keep everything as smooth and simple as
possible.

Baloney. We're not that good with virtualization yet. You paint an
unduly optimistic scenario. I'm taking away your point as I see
baloney here. 4-0.

I could go on, or you could browse a little on the web.

Or you could take a sales job with VMWare. You're good at spinning
stories.
Right. That's why Linux is so good--the advantages of Linux are so
obvious, in this golden world of yours, that Linux gets 1% market
share. You're good, really good. Good at bullshitting.


Or none at all? Why use numbers in your fantasy world? Just will the
problem away.

I am confident that you have no idea what openvz is, and didn't try to
look it up on the web.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVZ>

With openvz (or other "light-weight" virtualisation solutions that are
available for Linux), memory is not dedicated to the virtual machines.
If a particular machine is not using the physical ram, other virtual
machines can use it instead.  The same applies to all resources.

Again, 1% market share. If even 1% of what you say is true, then
Linux would have 10% market share, not less than 1%.


[Rex Ballard type prolix prose deleted]

You should have heeded that advice.

What, exactly, did you think we were discussing?  Are you somehow under
the impression that I have been claiming Linux is the only system anyone
should ever use?  I'll give you a hint - if you look at the headers in
the posts I have made, some are sent from a Windows machine at my work,
others from a Linux machine at home.  I pick my software as the best
choice (to within my knowledge) for the job at hand, based on its
technical features, costs, the experiences and knowledge of the users,
etc.  In my experience, that lands on Linux for server systems, and for
desktops and laptops it may be XP, Win7, Fedora, Mint, Ubuntu, or MacOS
depending on the circumstances.

5-0, I win. So at home (read: where you don't get paid, don't make
money) you use Linux. At work, where the opposite is true, you use
Windows. That speaks volumes.

6-0 I won.

RL

 

[Peter Foldes]

I was not under the impression that we were having a rational debate.
/I/ am debating rationally, /you/ are posting in defence of your
financial investment in MS

Non-sequitur and red herring noted. You lose this point.

Yes, Linux is superior for /my/ needs on servers. Those are objective
facts, based on my analysis of the needs of my company, and the options
available. As I have said many times before, I am happy to use windows
where it is the best choice - on servers, for my company, this is not
the case.

You can argue that windows is a better choice for most companies'
servers if you like. I'll disagree, but it is a fair argument.

But you /cannot/ argue about what is better for /my/ company - that is
/my/ decision based on /my/ analysis, and my conclusion is
overwhelmingly in favour of Linux.

What the hell are you talking about? We already beat this point to
death and you conceded. You're crazy. Another point in my favor.


That is a total non-sequitor. Have you never heard of the term
"efficiency"? Linux is more efficient for many server tasks, and can
make more out of fewer resources.

Ray

Do you realize that eternal.september,aioe,microsoft.public before the shut down ran
on Linux servers. As far as servers are concerned Linux is much farther ahead then
MS Servers ever was. I am running a W2K3 Enterprise Server like here which I need
because of what I do but the Linux ones (servers) are far more superior.
Ray, do not talk like you know everything ,because all it is showing from you now is
that you do not. Study the use of servers and their capabilities before making more
of a fool out of yourself

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

 

[RayLopez99]

Do you realize that eternal.september,aioe,microsoft.public before the shut down ran
on Linux servers. As far as servers are concerned Linux is much farther ahead then
MS Servers ever was. I am running a W2K3 Enterprise Server like here  which I need
because of what I do but the Linux ones (servers) are far more superior.
Ray, do not talk like you know everything ,because all it is showing fromyou now is
that you do not. Study the use of servers and their capabilities before making more
of a fool  out of yourself

Well I do notice Linux servers are ubiquitous and so there is some
advantage to them--I always thought it was cost--no software license
if you run Linux Apache.

I don't know everything, but usually I'm pretty good with getting most
of the story right.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

I am /so/ sorry.  I bow to your superior knowledge of all things,
especially everything about me, and about my company and all its
computing needs.  First thing tomorrow, I will hand in my notice -
clearly my employer should not be paying me to run our IT department,
but should be outsourcing it to the famous RayLopez99, whose vast
knowledge of computing even stretches to being able to spell C# !

Surrender accepted. Don't feel bad--I'm not saying you don't know
your job. In fact, right after I posted about virtualisation I saw an
article in the Register that said in the last few years virtualization
has been taking the corporate world by storm. I was not aware of
that. What I interpreted this to mean (and I think I'm right here) is
that due to budget cost constraints (IT all over the world has been
cut back, or their growth slowed, due to the recession) IT departments
have been using virtualization as a 'crutch' or 'bandaid' to tide over
a company until such time that they can once again buy hardware. So
yes, you had a point that I did not appreciate at the time.

So I give you back your point.

I still won, 5-1.

RL

 

[Peter Foldes]

Well I do notice Linux servers are ubiquitous and so there is some
advantage to them--I always thought it was cost--no software license
if you run Linux Apache.

I don't know everything, but usually I'm pretty good with getting most
of the story right.

Ray

Linux Servers are big bucks, There is nothing free there. Cost in the vicinity of
good 5 + figures. And not talking about Apache either

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

 

[RayLopez99]

You are like some sort of old-fashioned village idiot.  You don't even
understand when you are being laughed at, but continue to make a fool of
yourself.

I am going to leave this thread, before the temptation to write
something rude or insulting overwhelms me.

Get it out of your system. What did you want to say? Does it bother
you that you lost? Don't be so competitive--let's say you won. The
point being: you lerned something from this thread. You learned that
life is not so black and white where "Linux always wins" or "Microsoft
is best everytime". There are shades of grey/gray. That's life. I
myself think there's a place for Linux: as a damper to the endless
expansion of Microsoft. Without competition, an organism (a
corporation is a sort of organism) becomes both flabby and expands
unchecked, like bacterial growth. With competition, an organism
becomes fitter. That which does not kill makes one stronger, as
Nietsche (a philosopher) once said. Intel is stronger with AMD
nipping at its heels. MSFT is stronger with Linux doing the same,
even with Linux only at 1% market share.

It's clear you know more about servers than I do, but that does not
mean you can't learn something. Even from a village idiot.

Happy New Year,

RL

 

[James Egan]

Wow, good post. Steel is holding court, schooling these Linux
freaks! Way to go Steel, I learn a lot from your posts.

Here's another laughable example from the archives of how to waste
your time and money. It's one of my favourites from D. lol.

http://tinyurl.com/3ym7lr6
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ym7lr6


Jim

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

I am going to leave this thread, before the temptation to write
something rude or insulting overwhelms me.

Oh give in to temptation: It might at least enliven this dreary
interchange.

A good flame, one that has literary quality, and is worthy of being
pinned to an electronic wall, is always worth the effort.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yeah, see ya I wouldn't want to be ya!

-100

Pathetic attempt.

Must try harder.