What is the more popular UNIX flavor?

jpd

Begin <>
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:33:12 -0800 (PST),
<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.

Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com

On Dec 5, 4:29 pm, Grant <g_r_a_n...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:41:39 -0800 (PST), Mister.Fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Nov 12, 2:48 pm, Artificer <eliezerfigue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am an IT trainer and I usually train different product like ORACLE,
> >> SQL Server and C # and windows server. I am pondering about studying
> >> a Unix Flavor to add it to my trainer repertory. However I haven't
> >> been able to choose between solaris, AIX, HP UX and maybe redhat
> >> linux.
> >> I know that this question depend on the region but I will like to read
> >> a couple of opinions about what is the UNIX flavor that is more common
> >> among commercial companies.
> >> Since I usually train mid size companies I would like to study first
> >> the flavor that is more common. Any Suggestions?
>
> >This is a bit late of a follow-up, but cygwin must be right up there.
> >You get the simultaneous M$ Windows, Unix shells, and X-windows.
> >Launching M$ apps from the unix shell is simple ("cygstart").
>
> 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. 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.

Fred

jpd

Begin <>
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:33:12 -0800 (PST),
<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.

Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com

On Dec 5, 4:29 pm, Grant <g_r_a_n...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:41:39 -0800 (PST), Mister.Fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Nov 12, 2:48 pm, Artificer <eliezerfigue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am an IT trainer and I usually train different product like ORACLE,
> >> SQL Server and C # and windows server. I am pondering about studying
> >> a Unix Flavor to add it to my trainer repertory. However I haven't
> >> been able to choose between solaris, AIX, HP UX and maybe redhat
> >> linux.
> >> I know that this question depend on the region but I will like to read
> >> a couple of opinions about what is the UNIX flavor that is more common
> >> among commercial companies.
> >> Since I usually train mid size companies I would like to study first
> >> the flavor that is more common. Any Suggestions?
>
> >This is a bit late of a follow-up, but cygwin must be right up there.
> >You get the simultaneous M$ Windows, Unix shells, and X-windows.
> >Launching M$ apps from the unix shell is simple ("cygstart").
>
> 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. 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.

Fred

jpd

Begin <>
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:33:12 -0800 (PST),
<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.

Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com

On Dec 7, 5:53 am, jpd <read_the_...@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
> Begin <9e187b53-1aa2-4a87-8f03-3f980b4d8...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:33:12 -0800 (PST),
>
> Mister.Fred...@gmail.com <Mister.Fred...@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?

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

> 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.

> > 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

I wasn't referring to home users, where there are more people who
would be unaware of many security issues, and there is no IT staff
policing security practices. Those home users would probably not be
interested in cygwin anyway.

> 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''.

Yes, I guess we are talking about the same thing. Then again, when we
talk unix entusiasts, we aren't talking average users (at least these
days, it seems). In my opinion, we should confine our discussion to
this crowd.

> 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.

As I said, I was thinking about unix enthusiasts considering options
for working in that environment. That is the crowd that I assumed is
being referred to in this thread.

> 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?

Thanks.

Fred