|
Home > Archive > Unix questions > December 2007 > What is the more popular UNIX flavor?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What is the more popular UNIX flavor?
|
|
| Artificer 2007-11-12, 7:25 pm |
| 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?
| |
| Todd H. 2007-11-12, 7:25 pm |
| Artificer <eliezerfigueroa@gmail.com> writes:
> 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?
Thank god, a Windows centric trainer who is clueful enough to
entertain learning a second OS! Kudos.
These are educated guesses:
Linux (though technically not a UNIX) would be by far the most
installed. RedHat used to be an easy choice of distro to aim at for
enterprise stuff. I think that may still be the case.
Solaris I'm guessing is probably second by a healthy margin.
AIX and HP-UX... too close for me to hazard a guess.
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
| |
| Artificer 2007-11-13, 1:37 am |
| Thanks a lot! Anybody else with opinions?
| |
| Moe Trin 2007-11-13, 7:20 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.questions, in article
<1194896895.215131.116710@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Artificer wrote:
NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news 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.
OK - let's get technical first, and then drop it:
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ Identifies those O/S
allowed to call themselves "UNIX" which is a trademark. Linux isn't
one of them. This is because no one has dropped the coins to have
a distribution (there are around 300[1]) of Linux tested. You get a
bunch of flame-wars over this subject. Outside of the trolls and
lawyers, few people care (and I'm one who doesn't).
>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.
The problem is as you state - regional. I'll agree with Todd's
rankings - Solaris is pretty popular. I've got a few dozen Sol 9
and Sol 10 boxes here, and almost as many FreeBSD, but we're mainly
a Linux house. We _also_ have two lonely HPUX 11.11 boxes for some
bizarre reason - don't ask me, I'm a network guy. I vaguely recall
having an AIX 5.something box about two years ago, along with a couple
of SGI boxes running IRIX 6.5.something. They don't seem to be here
any more (or at least aren't running/connected to any of my wires).
>Since I usually train mid size companies I would like to study first
>the flavor that is more common. Any Suggestions?
Two things to think about. First, *nix is a family of operating
systems that share a lot of traits/kinks/warts. If you _learn_ (to
the point that you are comfortable at the command line) ANY of them,
you'd be able to hack it - admittedly with some difficulty - in just
about any other. An interesting thought is that
[compton ~]$ ls `echo $PATH | tr ':' ' '` | egrep -vc '(:|^$)'
1435
[compton ~]$ find `echo $PATH | tr ':' ' '` -type f -atime -30 -print
| wc -l
168
[compton ~]$
The first command says to count the number of files in the directories
in my PATH. On this system (a version of Linux), there are 1435. But
the interesting part is the second command. Of those 1435, only 168
have been "used" in the last 30 days. There's a lot there - but you
rarely use even a significant amount of it. By the way, the '$'
prompt suggests I'm doing this as an ordinary user running a Bourne
style shell. If I ran this as root, there would be more in the first
result, but not the second (more commands available - about the same
number of a different selection used).
Second thing to think about is that each flavor of *nix (and most
specifically each distribution of Linux) has a lot of distribution
specific tools, and desktop eye-candy. And it is exactly that -
specific to a UNIX product, or a Linux distribution. Knowing how to
use Red Hat's toy administration tool isn't going to do you any good
on Mandriva, SUSE or Ubuntu (three other "popular" distributions of
Linux) much less Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, or OSX. _THAT_ is why that
command line knowledge is desirable.
http://www.distrowatch.com/ is a Free and Open Operating System
centric website - caters more to Linux than any other, but you may
determine some rankings from the content. But taking it back to
your point about regions - what do _your_ customers use? The entire
rest of the world might use $FOO, but if your customers are using
$BAR or $BAZ, you'd better know $BAR and $BAZ - what-ever they are.
Old guy
[1] 300 distributions - not as bad as it seems, as a lot are just
clones of another i.e., WhiteBox, PinkTie, CentOS, and several more
are GPL copies of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
| |
| Chris McDonald 2007-11-15, 7:36 am |
| Artificer <eliezerfigueroa@gmail.com> writes:
>Thanks a lot! Anybody else with opinions?
OS-X?
--
Chris.
| |
| Todd H. 2007-11-15, 3:01 pm |
| Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.au> writes:
> Artificer <eliezerfigueroa@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> OS-X?
Chris makes a good point to the letter of the question. Heh.
Problem with it of course, from a learning perspective, is that you
can be fancied an advanced user of OS X and not even know where the
Terminal program is hidden. :-)
That's a testament to the elegance of the gui, I suppose.
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
| |
| Golden California Girls 2007-11-16, 2:59 am |
| Todd H. wrote:
> Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.au> writes:
>
>
> Chris makes a good point to the letter of the question. Heh.
>
> Problem with it of course, from a learning perspective, is that you
> can be fancied an advanced user of OS X and not even know where the
> Terminal program is hidden. :-)
That's why he should have said Darwin.
> That's a testament to the elegance of the gui, I suppose.
>
| |
| Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com 2007-12-05, 7:32 am |
| 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").
| |
|
| On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:41:39 -0800 (PST), Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com wrote:
>On Nov 12, 2:48 pm, Artificer <eliezerfigue...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>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 ;)
Grant.
| |
| Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com 2007-12-07, 1:37 am |
| 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:
>
>
> 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
| |
|
| 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!]
>
> 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 2007-12-08, 1:45 am |
| 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:
> [snip!]
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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
| |
| Andrew Smallshaw 2007-12-08, 7:43 pm |
| On 2007-12-08, Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com <Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 5:53 am, jpd <read_the_...@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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@sdf.lonestar.org
| |
| Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com 2007-12-10, 1:42 am |
| On Dec 8, 2:52 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> On 2007-12-08, Mister.Fred...@gmail.com <Mister.Fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Re-read the sentence. He refers to the versions of _both_ systems.
Please reread the message you responded to and over-zealously
snipped. Your comment is redundant.
>
> 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 trying to make sense of the above paragraph. On one hand you seem
to have a chip on your shoulder about the comparison I make about my
experience with Solaris and Cygwin (lord nows why). On the other
hand, you confirm my opinion that installing things on Solaris is
harder, notwithstanding your obfuscating analogy.
>
>
> 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.
Oh, it isn't that hard to figure out what they're doing for a guru
like yourself. It's pretty well described in their documentation.
What isn't described can be brought up in their forum.
BTW, tftp does show up under a cygwin package search. Installing it
involves checking a box. Not sure why this would be considered
onerous.
Anyway, I related my experience, and I'm not claiming that it
represents yours. I never ran into the difficulties you describe. My
experience with Cygwin has been much better than with Solaris, for the
reasons described. Whether you consider Cygwin to be a kluge is not
important to many people -- whatever is "happening under the hood", it
does what is needed/wanted with minimal fuss. Hence, it is doing the
Right Thing. I don't see how that can be considered "ugly"; quite the
opposite, really.
Perhaps I shouldn't have presumed an understanding that people use
unix in different ways, and therefore have different requirements of
their unix boxes.
However, I thank you for providing those examples I requested, since
it gives me an idea of what is lacking, at least for some segment of
unix users.
>
> If you've never seen malware on a Windows system I doubt how much
> experience you actually have.
I didn't claim to have a specific amount of experience, but this seems
to be an issue for you. As I said, "in my experience" means that it
doesn't reflect your experience, specifically so that you don't get
all up in arms about it (I have some idea of how touchy people can be
about their operating systems). My meaning should have been blatantly
obvious from the follow-on sentences.
You've also misinterpretted "never been a problem" to mean "never seen
malware". I've advised colleagues to scan for malware, and some
relatively innocuous ones were found, and I've received spam
apparently from colleagues who I know didn't send them. But nothing
that really interrupted everyday activities much.
> 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.
Granted, not all businesses are big, but isn't this thread about
people interested in using Unix? It is reasonable to assume that they
are not the regular end user and have a bit more familiarity with OS's
-- even with the security paranoia required for Windows. Even if they
don't know much about Windows, most are bound to have heard that you
need to be careful about security.
>
>
> 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...
OK, thanks for clarifying. However, wasn't this thread about people
interested in Unix? You snipped all that -- I'm not sure why.
Now, back to the original thread, which asked what unix systems were
being used. Whether you personally like Cygwin or not (for whatever
reason), many users do, and they use it alot. Furthemore, in a
corporate environment, it's often the only unix option available for
one's personal computer.
I can attest that from a user's standpoint, cygwin does everything
that I've ever wanted out of a Unix box and much more (since it lets
me administrate, couples so well with Windows, and simplifies
applications inclusion/upgrade). This includes my experience using
solaris, HPUX, and linux. I'm sure there are some for whom this is
not true, but it is for them to write about their experiences.
On top of that, I have full and simultaneous access to my Windows
XP/2000 environment at the same time. This is utterly invaluable for
interactivity with others.
I would also hazard a guess that for those trying to transition to
unix, such a mixed environment is far gentler and impacts productivity
much less than throwing the poor bugger whole-hog into an unix
environment devoid of Windows. However, I've only encountered crusty
unix veterans trying to co-exist with Windows rather than Windows
veterans wanting to go Unix. Therefore, I retract that guess (which
might have raised lots of uninteresting debate).
In closing, when the motivations to use Cygwin are compared to the
shortcomings cited above, which I've never heard of before this
posting, the pro's far outweigh the con's for my purposes.
Cheers!
Fred
| |
| Andrew Smallshaw 2007-12-10, 1:21 pm |
| On 2007-12-10, Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com <Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2:52 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>
> I'm trying to make sense of the above paragraph. On one hand you seem
> to have a chip on your shoulder about the comparison I make about my
> experience with Solaris and Cygwin (lord nows why). On the other
> hand, you confirm my opinion that installing things on Solaris is
> harder, notwithstanding your obfuscating analogy.
Pre-built packages are available for either platform. Source code
can be compiled for either platform. Compiling code is harder than
installing packages (although you do gain flexibility). The
comparision between installing a package on one platform and
compiling that program from source on the other is not a fair one.
BTW I don't have anything against cygwin per se. I must admit that
I prefer Microsoft's grossly-misnamed Windows Services for Unix
but that's just my preference.
>
> Oh, it isn't that hard to figure out what they're doing for a guru
> like yourself. It's pretty well described in their documentation.
> What isn't described can be brought up in their forum.
>
> BTW, tftp does show up under a cygwin package search. Installing it
> involves checking a box. Not sure why this would be considered
> onerous.
Nice to know, but that was my point. I used tftp as an instance
of a tool that isn't needed all that much nowadays, but when you
do it is likely to be critical (it is typically used for netbooting
systems - that isn't too common today but when you need to do it
the nonavailability of tools is likely to be a show stopper). I
prefer things like that to be installed as standard rather than
have to install them manually. What happens if the machine you
need to netboot is the machine that connects you to the internet,
for example?
> Anyway, I related my experience, and I'm not claiming that it
> represents yours. I never ran into the difficulties you describe. My
> experience with Cygwin has been much better than with Solaris, for the
> reasons described. Whether you consider Cygwin to be a kluge is not
> important to many people -- whatever is "happening under the hood", it
> does what is needed/wanted with minimal fuss. Hence, it is doing the
> Right Thing. I don't see how that can be considered "ugly"; quite the
> opposite, really.
Fair comment, although I still would want to know what is happening.
The semantics of having a hard link to a file are quite different
to having a copy of that file, for instance. If things like that
are done without your knowledge then there are all kinds of problems
that can crop up later. I haven't checked to see what cygwin does
but that is my point - you can't assume anything so you have to check
everything.
> You've also misinterpretted "never been a problem" to mean "never seen
> malware". I've advised colleagues to scan for malware, and some
> relatively innocuous ones were found, and I've received spam
> apparently from colleagues who I know didn't send them. But nothing
> that really interrupted everyday activities much.
I would interpret that as being a problem, but of course that is
my interpretation, not yours.
> Granted, not all businesses are big, but isn't this thread about
> people interested in using Unix? It is reasonable to assume that they
> are not the regular end user and have a bit more familiarity with OS's
> -- even with the security paranoia required for Windows. Even if they
> don't know much about Windows, most are bound to have heard that you
> need to be careful about security.
For general desktop use I would agree with you that in general a
Unix user is more likely to be technically savvy than the equivalent
Windows user. However, you also see Unix in semi-embedded environments
where there is no-one there who is competent to administer the
system. Things like the tills in one of the pubs I frequent are
ultimately connected to a Unix server on site, that kind of thing.
The bar staff there are using Unix without even being aware of it.
There isn't _anybody_ working there that I'd consider a competent
computer user.
> On top of that, I have full and simultaneous access to my Windows
> XP/2000 environment at the same time. This is utterly invaluable for
> interactivity with others.
I'm not knocking that for a moment. Personally I find I have only
occasional need of a Windows machine. When I do, thanks to Windows
Terminal Services I can start rdesktop and have Windows running in
a window on my desktop. That is a real Windows machine, not an
ugly half-way house. Works great for me, although I'll grant you
it will not suit or prove practical for everybody.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
| |
| Mister.Fred.Ma@gmail.com 2007-12-11, 7:32 am |
| On Dec 10, 11:02 am, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org>
wrote:
> On 2007-12-10, Mister.Fred...@gmail.com <Mister.Fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Pre-built packages are available for either platform. Source code
> can be compiled for either platform. Compiling code is harder than
> installing packages (although you do gain flexibility). The
> comparision between installing a package on one platform and
> compiling that program from source on the other is not a fair one.
I've been repeatedly specifying that my account of my experience was
from a user perspective. Those two options are in fact a fair
comparison of the options faced by a plain ol' user in most (if not
all) of the networked environments that I have used in the past two
decades. You have no admin rights on the Unix box (understandably),
and often have local admin rights on the Windows box (or can get it if
you demonstrate the required awareness of the security-related care).
My point was that as a user in such an environment, unless you want to
be the bane of the existence of the overtasked sysadmin, you compile
your own software upgrades or installations, which often can be as
arduous as I described for the reasons I described, and might get
nothing out at the end of it. You might trash 10 unproductive days
trying to compile gcc, to no avail (or was it simply that the testing
phase was incomprehensible to a nondeveloper? Can't remember). Or it
might fail for some other reason related to admin rights/access.
So no, it doesn't surprise me that building your own can be infinitely
more time consuming and riskier, depending on how much one's
background leans towards development or sysadmin. And I suppose you
can call it a complaint to give a hard-nosed account of that. But
bottom line is that is the option faced by the user, versus checking
off boxes in the cygwin update.
>
> Nice to know, but that was my point. I used tftp as an instance of
> a tool that isn't needed all that much nowadays
I guess that was part of my point in describing your problem points as
apps I've never heard of. For *many* people who want basic
computation done, it doesn't matter. For the specialist, it might,
but cygwin doesn't claim to be an environment tailored for particular
specialists in particular areas -- though I find repeatedly find its
coverage to be surprisingly complete.
> but when you do it is likely to be critical (it is typically used
> for netbooting systems - that isn't too common today but when you
> need to do it the nonavailability of tools is likely to be a show
> stopper). I prefer things like that to be installed as standard
> rather than have to install them manually. What happens if the
> machine you need to netboot is the machine that connects you to the
> internet, for example?
I'm not sure. Being a user rather than sysadmin, it's not an area of
my experience, hence the user vantage point from which I posted.
However, one can always create a cygwin installation CD/DVD/mem-stick
in advance from any net-connected box, checking off the packages that
one wants. You would be the best judge of whether that addresses your
problem above.
>
> Fair comment, although I still would want to know what is happening.
> The semantics of having a hard link to a file are quite different to
> having a copy of that file, for instance. If things like that are
> done without your knowledge then there are all kinds of problems
> that can crop up later.
Can't say it's ever been a problem in my usage. Then again, I don't
know too many unix users who even know what hard links are, much less
use them. I would hazard a guess that it falls in the realm of
professional applications developers and IT specialists rather than
engineers and scientists.
I'd say that if the ratio of users to developers and IT specialists is
one-to-one, that's a pretty heavy overhead. Usually, an
infrastructure person has many users (or even customers, in the case
of a commercial apps developer). So there are many more people who
probably don't care *too* much about the internals and just want to
get the computation/analysis done. Not knowing what's under the hood
will serve this majority of unix users fine.
> I haven't checked to see what cygwin does but that is my point - you
> can't assume anything so you have to check everything.
Yes, well I'd have to do that no matter what system I use, for the
details that matter to me.
>
> I would interpret that as being a problem, but of course that is my
> interpretation, not yours.
If that is considered a problem, then the intruders that set up hidden
servers in my comparison example would be something far, far bigger.
Don't forget that when you run something like AdAware or SpyBot, much
of the "malware" they come up with is from a just-in-case viewpoint.
Many of the hits are not something that a lot of users would want to
get rid of.
>
> For general desktop use I would agree with you that in general a
> Unix user is more likely to be technically savvy than the equivalent
> Windows user. However, you also see Unix in semi-embedded
> environments where there is no-one there who is competent to
> administer the system. Things like the tills in one of the pubs I
> frequent are ultimately connected to a Unix server on site, that
> kind of thing. The bar staff there are using Unix without even
> being aware of it. There isn't _anybody_ working there that I'd
> consider a competent computer user.
Would that be cygwin they are using? I was speaking about my
experience with unix on Windows, which is limited to cygwin. I can't
speak to others. Cygwin is usually sought by unix enthusiasts.
>
> I'm not knocking that for a moment. Personally I find I have only
> occasional need of a Windows machine. When I do, thanks to Windows
> Terminal Services I can start rdesktop and have Windows running in a
> window on my desktop. That is a real Windows machine, not an ugly
> half-way house. Works great for me, although I'll grant you it will
> not suit or prove practical for everybody.
Our situations differ alot. I need the full Office Suite, and more,
and my bash command line and X-windows, as my native working
environment. Not that Office was a choice -- when you work with
others, it is essential.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|