J
jpd
Guest
Begin <9e187b53-1aa2-4a87-8f03-3f980b4d86c2@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:33:12 -0800 (PST),
Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com <Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 4:29 pm, Grant <g_r_a_n...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
[snip!]
>> Yes, but you don't get the full unix flavour, because basic OS elements
>> are missing in windoze
>
> Would you be speaking from a network admin perspective? From a
> plain-old user perspective, I found cygwin to be more flexible and
> up-to- date than a solaris system I was using.
That would depend on what respective versions you were using, would it not?
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.
> The plain-old user can update and add cygwin packages whenever he/she
> wishes, while only a sysadmin can do that on a more traditional
> networked unix . Well, you still need admin privileges on your own PC,
> but that's a typically considered a lesser risk than in a sysadmin on
> networked unix.
That is an assumption from widespread (mal)practice. Windows was never
designed with security in mind and as such has its version of that
bolted on repeatedly, but it never really sticks. For one, securing
windows is quite a bit of work because far too many defaults still are
wide open to favour the ``user experience'' over all else.
Still ``most people'' run their windows peecee with administrative
rights all the time, for a variety of reasons, often including not
knowing better. One result of that poor security environment is zombie
peecees the world over. It is indeed very easy to add software in that
environment.
As a counter example, in large corporations with massive windows
roll-outs the standard windows installation tends to be locked down
to avoid any further program installations unless approved by the IT
department. It helps, but it's not something the average user can pull
off. Sure, they might learn, but then cease to be ``average'' and move
on to be ``advanced windows user''.
If you run your own unix machine you are your own sysadmin. The
difference is that on unices separating administrative and user roles
is much easier and that the knowledge that it is a good idea and that
assuming the administrative role requires a bit more care and knowledge
than the role of user is much more widely accepted.
So your argument is one that reflects the status quo, and I'm saying the
status quo does not represent best current practices.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:33:12 -0800 (PST),
Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com <Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 4:29 pm, Grant <g_r_a_n...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
[snip!]
>> Yes, but you don't get the full unix flavour, because basic OS elements
>> are missing in windoze
>
> Would you be speaking from a network admin perspective? From a
> plain-old user perspective, I found cygwin to be more flexible and
> up-to- date than a solaris system I was using.
That would depend on what respective versions you were using, would it not?
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.
> The plain-old user can update and add cygwin packages whenever he/she
> wishes, while only a sysadmin can do that on a more traditional
> networked unix . Well, you still need admin privileges on your own PC,
> but that's a typically considered a lesser risk than in a sysadmin on
> networked unix.
That is an assumption from widespread (mal)practice. Windows was never
designed with security in mind and as such has its version of that
bolted on repeatedly, but it never really sticks. For one, securing
windows is quite a bit of work because far too many defaults still are
wide open to favour the ``user experience'' over all else.
Still ``most people'' run their windows peecee with administrative
rights all the time, for a variety of reasons, often including not
knowing better. One result of that poor security environment is zombie
peecees the world over. It is indeed very easy to add software in that
environment.
As a counter example, in large corporations with massive windows
roll-outs the standard windows installation tends to be locked down
to avoid any further program installations unless approved by the IT
department. It helps, but it's not something the average user can pull
off. Sure, they might learn, but then cease to be ``average'' and move
on to be ``advanced windows user''.
If you run your own unix machine you are your own sysadmin. The
difference is that on unices separating administrative and user roles
is much easier and that the knowledge that it is a good idea and that
assuming the administrative role requires a bit more care and knowledge
than the role of user is much more widely accepted.
So your argument is one that reflects the status quo, and I'm saying the
status quo does not represent best current practices.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.