Very Computer

Quote:>Boris you are the troll, Volker is not.

Oh yeah? You are too dumb to figure out what's going on? I'm lazy but this time I'll chew
it for you.

1. This zdnet test. http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,387506,00.html . How come
they only tested upto 64 MB memory NT configurations? Production NT servers with that
little memory will definitely experience RAM starvation. All NT tests at www.tpc.org or
www.specbench.org mention systems with at least 512MB RAM (more often 2 to 4GB. And they
didn't bother to tune NT. It's very easy: via control panel you can select whether your
server will mostly serve file, run applications,or manage user domain accounts.
Sure NT has larger memory footprint than Linux. But who cares: memory is cheap nowdays.

2. Linux is based on outdated inferior architecture: monolithic kernel, no threads as
opposed to NT which is employs micro-kernel architecture and kernel threads.

3. Security: NT is WAY more secure than Linux which has very basic security. Should I chew
this one too? OK. NT has NTFS file system which allows you to specify access to individual
files and directories for users, groups, etc. Unlike Unix basic root,owner,group,world
permissions model NT allows to specify arbitrary user and group names in file permissions.
In addition, you can turn on auditing for NTFS files: attempts to access those files will
be recorded in OS Security Log. OS Security Log can contain ~ 100 different types of
events including: file access, registry access, logon, logoff, process creation, system
time change, user account creation and deletion, priviledge level change in user accounts,
etc. All NT user and kernel objects are protected by access control lists similar to NTFS
files: shared memory segments, named pipes, mailboxes, etc. Page file space is cleaned
when reused by different processes to ensure that confidential information doesn't leak
between processes. Lots of extra features: like account lockout after several unsuccessful
login attemps, enforcing strong passwords - are available. SP4 contains Security Console
which allows administrator configure most security-related system settings; after saving
config info Sec. Console can be brought up at any time to compare current system security
settings with config file. For example, if strong passwords feature was enabled during
system config and disabled later Sec. Console will highlight this difference from original
configuration. Administrator can just synch system settings with original config.

4. I can understand that some people prefer Unix because they are used to it and don't
want or are not smart enough to use NT efficiently. But that so-called Linux community
produces tremendous amounts of stink combined with very moderate technical achievements.

Boris

Quote:> 2. Linux is based on outdated inferior architecture: monolithic kernel, no threads as
> opposed to NT which is employs micro-kernel architecture and kernel threads.

How do you know this?  Without access to the source code how do you KNOW
what the kernel is doing?  

Quote:> 3. Security: NT is WAY more secure than Linux which has very basic security.

That's amusing.  How many CERT advisories come out warning of security
holes in NT as compared to Linux?   Do you have any concept of security to
begin with?  Have you ever heard of a group called the l0pht?   They
manage to do a very good job of pointing out NT security holes.  Or of a
funny little program called Back Orifice?   Are you 0wned, Boris?  Are you
SURE that you're not 0wned?  Here's a fun little thing to try Boris (and
careful, you need to use Unix for this, so don't maim yourself):

Get NMAP.  Do a scan on the NT boxes that are connected to the Internet
looking for an open port 139.  Found some?  Good.  Now run the Netbios
Auditing Tool on those IPs.  Found some unsecure shares?  Not surprising.
Now smbmount those shares remotely using Samba.  Did you get in without a
password?  Not surprising.  Welcome to the world of "rooting" (an odd term
since NT is not a multi-user OS) NT.  You see, Boris, Microsoft does not
know security.  And for all your posturing about NT vs Linux, how much
Linux sucks, etc., Microsoft uses Linux.  Microsoft, in fact, has Linux
boxes on there network.  Ever hear of eggs.microsoft.com?  Yes, that's a
Linux machine.  You see, there's never one solution to every problem. It's
a damn shame that you can't understand that.  Maybe you are only 13 and
don't have the maturity to stop clinging to your cumbersome GUI, but NT is
not the solution to all problems.  Neither is Linux.  When you want a
server, use Unix.  When you want a computer that utter morons can use,
give them a Macintosh or a Windows machine.  When you want power for media
applications, use an Amiga or the BeOS (the latter not quite having the
application base, but has the potential).

Quote:> 4. I can understand that some people prefer Unix because they are used to it and don't
> want or are not smart enough to use NT efficiently. But that so-called Linux community
> produces tremendous amounts of stink combined with very moderate technical achievements.

And that's what has Microsoft so worried, right?  The ratio of "stink"
(whatever the hell you mean in that context) to "very moderate technical
achievements" must not be too high to freak the execs at Microsoft out.
But then again, they're ballsy enough to commit perjury, so maybe they are
getting worried about something they have nothing to worry about.

Matt

[snipped]

Quote:> 2. Linux is based on outdated inferior architecture:
>monolithic kernel, no threads as
> opposed to NT which is employs
>micro-kernel architecture and kernel threads.

Linux has kernel threads. In fact almost all modern UNIX supports
kernel threads.

Quote:> 3. Security: NT is WAY more secure than Linux which has very basic
> security. Should I chew this one too? OK. NT has NTFS file system
> which allows you to specify access to individual files and
> directories for users, groups, etc. Unlike Unix basic
> root,owner,group,world permissions model NT allows to specify
> arbitrary user and group names in file permissions.

NT may be theoretically secure but its not as secure as Solaris.  NT
security is limited to DACL while Solaris provides Mandatory ACL.  All
of the rest stuff is available on Solaris.  
[snipped]

Quote:> n. Administrator

can just synch system settings with original config.

Quote:

> 4. I can understand that some people prefer Unix because they are
> used to it and don't want or are not smart enough to use NT
> efficiently. But that so-called Linux community produces tremendous
> amounts of stink combined with very moderate technical achievements.

> Boris

Whatever.

Quote:>> 2. Linux is based on outdated inferior architecture: monolithic kernel, no threads as
>> opposed to NT which is employs micro-kernel architecture and kernel threads.

>How do you know this?  Without access to the source code how do you KNOW
>what the kernel is doing?

There's great variaty of tools to investigate NT kernel. One non-MS tool is NuMega SoftIce
de*. Are you really trying to say that NT doesn't schedule threads rather than
processes (like Linux)?

Quote:>Get NMAP.  Do a scan on the NT boxes that are connected to the Internet
>looking for an open port 139.  Found some?  Good.  Now run the Netbios
>Auditing Tool on those IPs.  Found some unsecure shares?  Not surprising.
>Now smbmount those shares remotely using Samba.  Did you get in without a
>password?  Not surprising.  Welcome to the world of "rooting" (an odd term
>since NT is not a multi-user OS) NT.

If you are talking about NT null session used by SMB it has very limited rights. Service
packs 3 and 4 closed this gap very significantly. Basically, even if you can see some
shares you cannot access them because of 1). share permissions, 2). NTFS permissions. Plus
your firewall should block port 139. Don't want to use firewall? Fine, just install RRAS
(it's free); it allows you to filter packets based on different criteria: set it up to
block UDP 137 and TCP 139 when coming from Internet.

Quote:> You see, there's never one solution to every problem. It's
>a damn shame that you can't understand that.  Maybe you are only 13 and
>don't have the maturity to stop clinging to your cumbersome GUI, but NT is
>not the solution to all problems.  Neither is Linux.  When you want a
>server, use Unix.

Take a look at NT TPC C results at www.tpc.org.  They are better than for Unix systems on
similar hardware (eg. compare 4-cpu PC server to 4-cpu Sun server; NT config. is ~40% more
powerful). NT scalability is still a problem. But NT clusters do exist; take a look at
latest IBM 1TB TPC D benchmark on www.tpc.org: they use 32-node cluster to handle 1TB
database. Wolfpack offers rather basic features at this time but as example above shows NT
clusters other than Wolfpack do exist.
Many companies use NT as Internet/Intranet server. Infoseek is one such high-volume site.

Quote:>And that's what has Microsoft so worried, right?

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not Microsoft. From my personal point of view the only
thing they should worry about is DOJ-related stuff.

Boris

Quote:>Linux has kernel threads. In fact almost all modern UNIX supports
>kernel threads.

I think you are mistaken. What system call do you use to create a new thread in Linux?

Boris

 clone()

No, I'm not saying one way or the other, my point is that without the
source code, you really don't know EXACTLY what the kernel is doing.

Quote:> > You see, there's never one solution to every problem. It's
> >a damn shame that you can't understand that.  Maybe you are only 13 and
> >don't have the maturity to stop clinging to your cumbersome GUI, but NT is
> >not the solution to all problems.  Neither is Linux.  When you want a
> >server, use Unix.
> Take a look at NT TPC C results at www.tpc.org.  They are better than for Unix systems on
> similar hardware (eg. compare 4-cpu PC server to 4-cpu Sun server; NT config. is ~40% more
> powerful). NT scalability is still a problem. But NT clusters do exist; take a look at
> latest IBM 1TB TPC D benchmark on www.tpc.org: they use 32-node cluster to handle 1TB
> database. Wolfpack offers rather basic features at this time but as example above shows NT
> clusters other than Wolfpack do exist.
> Many companies use NT as Internet/Intranet server. Infoseek is one such high-volume site.

Well, I'll have to grudgingly admit that Solaris isn't the best choice of
an OS to begin with (way too slow in my opinion), but you can't possibly
sit there and tell me that NT running Exchange or whatever, is faster
than a FreeBSD or Linux box running comparable hardware & sendmail.  Let's
face it, Exchange SUCKS.  I think we can all agree on that one.  And
unfortunantly, there are now proven benchmarks that Linux is faster at
file sharing while running Samba. Take a look at http://www.veryComputer.com/

It has a very good paper written by a guy who has used both Unix & NT in
server side deployment, and even is a Microsoft Certified Professional.
Please read it.

Quote:> >And that's what has Microsoft so worried, right?
> I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not Microsoft. From my personal point of view the only
> thing they should worry about is DOJ-related stuff.

> Boris

Halloween documents...?  Regardless of what Bill said the other day,
Microsoft is getting a like worried about Linux, also found in court
testimony, e-mails, etc.

Matt

o Both the NT kernel and the Linux kernel are modularized

o Linux has user threads, and the 2.2 kernel can SMP as well/better
  than NT's kernel (less/smaller critical sections) which is the whole
  reason for having kernel threads.

Quote:> 3. Security: NT is WAY more secure than Linux which has very basic
> security. Should I chew this one too? OK. NT has NTFS file system
> which allows you to specify access to individual files and
> directories for users, groups, etc. Unlike Unix basic
> root,owner,group,world permissions model NT allows to specify
> arbitrary user and group names in file permissions.

o The default installation of NT is very unsecure if you have non-
  trusted users logging onto the system.  UNIX is not.

o One can simulate ACL-type control with user/group games

Quote:> In addition, you can turn on auditing for NTFS files: attempts to
> access those files will be recorded in OS Security Log. OS Security
> Log can contain ~ 100 different types of events including: file
> access, registry access, logon, logoff, process creation, system
> time change, user account creation and deletion, priviledge level
> change in user accounts, etc.

o Linux can do all the above (if we had a registry, which we do not
  thankfully).

Quote:> All NT user and kernel objects are protected by access control lists
> similar to NTFS files: shared memory segments, named pipes,
> mailboxes, etc. Page file space is cleaned when reused by different
> processes to ensure that confidential information doesn't leak
> between processes. Lots of extra features: like account lockout
> after several unsuccessful login attemps, enforcing strong passwords
> - are available.

o Linux results in the same security except for scrubbing memory,
  which can have its drawbacks as well.

 [snip]

Tradeoffs are not always evil.

--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

I hate to followup on my own post, but I need to clarify this
statement:  Yes, Linux does have 'kernel threads', No the kernel is
not 'multithreaded' by the conventional definition.

--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

SNIP

Quote:

> 2. Linux is based on outdated inferior architecture: monolithic kernel, no threads as
> opposed to NT which is employs micro-kernel architecture and kernel threads.

NT is built on a 'monolithic' kernel.  Even if it were a micro kernel,
that
wouldn't necessarily be a plus.  As an example, most tests that I've
seen
on Apple's MkLinux vs LinuxPPC show LinuxPPC as being a bit faster.  I
think
that the long standing micro vs monolithic kernel debate is pretty much
irrelevant at this point.

-AJ

The library call is called "clone". My man page for that library call
dates from 10 June 1995.

Most programs will not use either the clone() library function, nor the
clone syscall directly, but will rather use the abstraction layer provided
by the PosixThreads library (called LinuxThreads, last I checked, and
included in the glibc distribution).

And yes, Boris, I have written multithreaded code on linux, to make use
of my SMP machines. It works.

Bernie

--
============================================================================
"It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy...
                                           ...let's go exploring"
Calvin's final words, on December 31st, 1995

Quote:>It must be new development which I wasn't aware of.

I believe Linux has had threads since 2.0.

Quote:>Anyway, NT had threads since it's
>inception.

Maybe NT has had threads longer than Linux. I don't know.
Anyhow, Linux certainly has threads now, and has had it for quite some time.

Quote:>What I mean by "kernel threads" is that each process has 1 or more threads
>which are scheduled independently of each other by OS (unlike co-routines or smthg);
>different threads can execute on different CPUs simultaneously.

That's exactly the kind of threads Linux has. They are scheduled just like
processes are.

Quote:>Writing multi-threaded
>applications is natural way of programming on NT.

...and using fork() is a natural way to do programming on unix.

Quote:>Unlike Unix user threads which were just
>co-routines traditionally (except for some platforms where they were mapped to "kernel
>threads")

Originally, unix didn't have "real" threads, that's certainly true.
But the original unix is more than 25 years old!
They actually managed to add *some* functionality in that time. ;-)
POSIX now defines a standard thread library (pthreads) which is
available on Linux. So there is now a standard unix way to do threads.

Quote:> NT threads were always *real* threads. We have some extremely powerful
>thread-related system calls in NT
>(eg. IO completion ports).

Don't know what these are, so cannot comment on them.

Quote:>My understanding was that most Linux apps create child processes in situations where  NT
>apps use multiple threads.

That's correct, AFAIK.

Quote:>Even though Linux got support for multi-threaded apps finally (as you just said), I'm sure
>most apps don't use those new features yet. It will probably take a while to upgrade.

As I said before, Linux has had threads for quite some time now.

Let me elaborate on the thread vs. child process issues.

In NT, there is an essential difference between threads and processes;
creating new processes is rather expensive, because a completely
"fresh" memory image has to be created. Threads are the cheap alternative.
So it is logically that many applications depend on those light-weight threads.

However, in Linux (as in any unix), we have fork(). fork() creates a new
copy of the process, but *not* by copying the whole memory image at once.
The memory is only copied one one of the two new processes tries to write
to it. If they do not write to some memory page, then the memory remains
shared between the processes. This makes fork() much cheaper than the
NT system call for spawning new processes.
Besides, processes that have been fork()ed
can still share their read-only data and their file descriptors.
They can communicate with each other through SysV semaphores, message queues,
and shared memory.
This is sufficient for most server-type applications.
(Were the individual processes operate more or less independently.)
Since processes are still quite isolated from each other, this makes
multiprocessing much easier. IIRC, Solaris can efficiently run web servers
on SMP boxes with > 100 processors. Granted, Linux is still lacking in this
respect, but it is already better than NT.

Now, if you need really closely-intertwined threads/processes, then
threads are the way to go. And they are available. It is just that, for many
applications, processes are just more efficient.

Greetings,

Stephan
--
    S.H.M.J. Houben    

I certainly would not agree on that one - Exchange is much more than a mail
server - if that is all you use it for, then it is seriously bloated. If you
use it for its groupware and collaborative functionality, it justifies the
investment in hardware which it requires...

Quote:>unfortunantly, there are now proven benchmarks that Linux is faster at
>file sharing while running Samba. Take a look at http://www.unix-vs-nt.org