Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?

From: Andy Zhang (andy_at_visaapply.com)
Date: 09/13/03 

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:39:32 GMT

"totojepast" <totojepast@atlas.cz> wrote in message
news:1445a2d7.0309120448.3da3cd7f@posting.google.com...
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/serverappliance/overview/compete.mspx
>
> "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
> configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support
> of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."
>

MS's ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Whoever wrote this probably hasn't
a clue what Linux is, much less ever tried using it. On top of that, MS
started using Linux for its internet services. Such hyptocrites.

Never mind the fact that Windows uses 14-character case-insensitive
passwords for authentication over the wire. Never mind the fact that Windows
would win the "most insecure OS" award. Never mind the fact that NTFS is
plagued with backward-compatibility issues like storing filenames in
DOS-style 8.3 format (even though they never intended DOS to read NTFS
partitions). Never mind the fact that NTFS screws up file permissions by
making random files have their permissions erased from time to time (yes,
I've had it happen to many-a-files). Never mind the fact that MS tried to
reinvent Kerberos and claim that it's just as secure as the time-tested,
standards-compliant one. And never mind the fact that MS uses the same
kernel, drivers, userland components, etc for both NT Server and
Workstation, the only difference being a registry key valued at $1500+.

> "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."

"Look at me! I can throw together big words that make no sense together
too!" Hetrogeneous to what? Blowing up every time you forget to install a
critical update?

> "More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
> integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
> real-world implementations limited."

What's wrong with lots of options? I don't particularly like having 32kb
clusters on a partition. What about ext2/3, ReiserFS, and everything else
that's supported on Linux? What do you have with Windows? FAT or FAT or FAT
or NTFS (and the insane fragmentation that come with each).

So, in short, yes, MS does lie. Lies very much indeed. 

--
Andy Zhang

Relevant Pages

  • Re: writing to windoze partition
    ... Umask of 222 turns off write permissions on all files and is suggested ... Linux cannot manipulate the MFT in the NTFS filesystem. ... > The windoze partition mounts okay and I can change directories, ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?
    ... > configurations of individual permissions to the file level. ... a clue what Linux is, much less ever tried using it. ... Never mind the fact that Windows uses 14-character case-insensitive ... DOS-style 8.3 format (even though they never intended DOS to read NTFS ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?
    ... > configurations of individual permissions to the file level. ... a clue what Linux is, much less ever tried using it. ... Never mind the fact that Windows uses 14-character case-insensitive ... DOS-style 8.3 format (even though they never intended DOS to read NTFS ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: Not enough permissions to read and write
    ... Someone told me that i have to log in as root user...how ... i'm very new to Suse Linux and learning. ... i meant NTFS because i had heard that there were problems with the ... read and write permissions when installing linux on such a partition. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems
    ... multiple mailing lists now and I've had enough. ... *cannot* allow the entity who specifies permissions check semantics on ... In the Linux world there are two ways to proceed: ... difficulty winning people over that security modules that do depend on ...
    (Linux-Kernel)