Skip to main content

When Microsoft lovers bash Microsoft

People tell me I bash Microsoft too much; that Microsoft's products really are great. OK, so I won't bash Microsoft this time around.

I'll let Microsoft's own friends do it.

Let's start with Mike Danseglio, program manager in Microsoft's Security Solutions group. In early April at the InfoSec World conference, Danseglio was talking about Windows security. He said, "When you are dealing with rootkits and some advanced spyware programs, the only solution is to rebuild from scratch. In some cases, there really is no way to recover without nuking the systems from orbit."

In other words, Windows users may have no choice but to wipe their systems down to the bare-metal and then reinstall the operating system and applications.

In one case, Danseglio said, a branch of the U.S. government had a malware infestation on more than 2,000 client machines that "was so severe that trying to recover was meaningless. They did not have an automated process to wipe and rebuild the systems, so it became a burden. They had to design a process real fast."

That's great. If you run Windows, Microsoft is telling you that you may need to have a network process set-up to blow away your systems and restore them automatically.

Let's take that a step farther. You also can't trust your data backups, because they might have malware hiding on them. You'll also need to keep your Windows systems constantly updated, because an unpatched XP system that's exposed to the Internet, according to a recent Symantec study, lasted only an hour and 12 seconds before being compromised.

Let's move on, shall we?

Paul Thurrott, editor and owner of Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows, is the Windows expert's expert. I may know a thing or two about Linux, but I don't know Linux half as well as he knows Windows.

So, what does he have to say about the latest Vista beta? The title of his piece is: Where Vista Fails.

I quote: "Since the euphoria of PDC 2003 [Microsoft Professional Developers Conference 2003], Microsoft's handling of Windows Vista has been abysmal. Promises have been made and dismissed, again and again. Features have come and gone. Heck, the entire project was literally restarted from scratch after it became obvious that the initial code base was a teetering, technological house of cards. Windows Vista, in other words, has been an utter disaster. And it's not even out yet."

And people thought I was hard on Vista!

If you're one of those people who've been looking forward to Vista -- and dismissing comments from people like myself who run multiple operating systems and have found Vista to be less than impressive -- you really must read Thurrott's story.

How about Aero, for example, that great 3D interface, which will almost certainly require you to update your graphics card if not force you into getting a new system? The one new feature that people are excited about it in Vista?

Thurrott has this to say: "Anyway, the reality of glass windows is that they stink ... But the visual difference between the topmost window (that is, the window with which you are currently interacting, or what we might describe as the window with focus) and any other windows (i.e. those windows that are visually located "under" the topmost window) is subtle at best. More to the point, you can't tell topmost windows from other windows at all. And don't pretend you can."

I don't know about you, but that's got me all excited about Aero.

Or, take another guy who's Microsoft through and through, Vladimir Mazek. He's the CEO of Open Web Now Corp., a small Orlando, Fla.-based business that's all about providing Microsoft services to its customers. He's a mover and a shaker in the Microsoft SMB integrator space, with more Microsoft certifications than you might have known existed. And he runs his own Web site, Vladville, off "by WordPress [the open-source content management system] on CentOS Linux 4.3."

Why!?

Mazek explained to B.J. Gillette of Email Battles that, "Well the frontend box was always Linux, it was just powered by Blogger so it was a plain Apache. We used Windows + SQL 2000 for the backend and distribution of the SBS Show which gets like 40-60,000 downloads per episode so we had to get crafty about distributing it. But with the upgrade we just decided to standardize that end of things on Linux/Apache."

It wasn't because of any Linux or Apache technical wonderfulness that he switched over. He "migrated to Linux purely because of the costs. Despite popular belief, Microsoft does not give its MVPs [Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals] free production software."

Ah, but that is part of Linux's strength. For technically savvy users, like Mazek, it is completely free.

So, there you have it. A senior Microsoft employee saying that XP can be so thoroughly compromised that you may have no choice but to destroy and rebuild your PCs; a Windows expert's expert dismissing Vista as an "utter disaster"; and an extremely well-respected Microsoft integrator and MVP turning to open-source because it makes better financial sense.

I really don't have to say a thing about Microsoft, do I?


by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols


[taken from Linux-Watch]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

mplayer-gui error : Error in skin config file

After installing mplayer-gui package, I can't start it.

$ gmplayer MPlayer 1.1-4.8 (C) 2000-2012 MPlayer Team mplayer: could not connect to socket mplayer: No such file or directory Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control. Error in skin config file on line 6: PNG read error in /usr/share/mplayer/skins/default/main Config file processing error with skin 'default'
After googling a bit, I found out that it was due to the png files in dir /usr/share/mplayer/skins/default. This is the default skin directory. To fix this error, I have to install ImageMagick package because I want to use the convert program to convert all of the png files to format png24. Thus, cd /usr/share/mplayer/skins/default; for FILE in *.png ; do sudo convert $FILE -define png:format=png24 $FILE ; done
Rerun gmplayer and all should be fine.
Have fun!
UPDATE (02-10-2017)

It doesn't work on Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial) but there's a workaround here.

You can update your syst…

Moving your mysql database to another hard disk

Recently, my server's only hard disk was almost full. I bought a new hard disk with bigger size and I decided to just add it as a second hard disk. Since I need to move it to the 2nd hard disk, I need to find a proper way to move the db with minimum downtime. So I googled around and found a solution.
First, I needed to format the 2nd hard disk and I chose xfs as the filesystem. I created 2 partitions using Linux's fdisk for this task. First partition is 10 GB and 2nd one is around 900 GB. That's approximately added up to 1 TB. Then I mounted the 2nd partition in current partition eg /media/hd2 as follows:
mount -t xfs /dev/sdb5 /media/hd2
where /dev/sdb5 is the partition and /media/hd2 is the mounting dir.
Stop mysql db before doing anything:
service mysql stop
Afterthat, I copied the entire db to newly mounted hard disk:
cp -rv /var/lib/mysql /media/hd2
It will take a while if you have huge databases.
Then, change the ownership of the dir to user and group of mysql:
chown -R mysql:…

postfix - mailbox size limit and message size limit

postfix is my MTA of choice. I use it for my mailserver because its simplicity , security and sendmail-compatible (the widely used smtp in the world but not as secure). It is also extensible by plugging other servers for various purposes (antispam, antivirus,database etc).

I had one problem with file attachment larger than 10MB. Users couldn't send it although I have setup squirrelmail (SM) to be able to attach files summed up more than 20MB and I had modified php settings as per here. The problem was not in SM setting. It was postfix. By default, attachment size that can be sent by postfix is 10MB ~ 10240000 byte. How did I know it? I looked in log file (for my system it is in /var/log/mail/errors. For other system, the file to look is /var/log/maillog). The line looked like this:

Feb 26 16:30:53 webmail postfix/sendmail[30775]: fatal: me@mymailserver.org(74): Message file too big


Solution
Open /etc/postfix/main.cf with a text editor of choice and find message_size_limit directive an…