Re: Any GIMP users (Linux)

RW+/- <eat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10 May 2006 21:29:26 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

RW+/- <eat@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On 10 May 2006 13:10:27 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Linux supports high-end computers better than windows, in general.
It's the latest high-end gaming graphics cards that might be issues.
As for updates/upgrades and security -- far better than windows.

Sorry, that statement is blatantly false. As to security it only appears to
be the case since the main focus of haxors are to breech windows system,
and then it is usually the case only because the users, or IT people are
just too lazy to keep their systems up to date.

No, the linux security model is simply much better than the Windows
one. The vast majority of complex applications, if they contain an
exploitable bug, only give the attacker access to one user's files,
and don't give any ability to compromise system software or do weird
things.

I'm not sure which of the three statements you thought was blatantly
false.


OK, "Linux supports high-end computers better than windows"
This has never been true.

This is true. It is true because hardware operation is
proprietary. Linux developers cannot pay the thousands of
dollars needed for a license.


"It's the latest high-end gaming graphics cards that might be issues."
Again, not true. Even most normal video cards have poor support. Even when
you take cards like NVidia and use the drivers written by them not all the
features are supported simply because Linux cannot handle it. 3rd party
drivers are usually poorer.

This is incorrect. Linux can handle them. Some features are
missing from some drivers because the manufacturers do not include
those features in their drivers.

nVidia, for example, writes the drivers for both the Windows and
Linux operating systems. They are not equivalent. The reason
is NOT that linux can't handle them. I'll leave it as an exercise
for the reader to figure out why.


"As for updates/upgrades and security -- far better than windows"

Never has been the case. At least if you disregard 95x, 98x+ products which
never had security in mind from its outset. In fact IP was not a default,
and was added later after the Internet took off. How many years did NT run
before its first breach? A breach enabled via a hacked Unix server/s.

This is incorrect. NT was good but never a real target for
hackers. Windows XP started out terribly and had a totally
insecure design. The idea that an outside agent can download
a program into your computer and run it without your intervention
is (a) a Microsoft idea incorporated in Windows and (b) a horrible
security hole that was *known* to be a horribe hole before Microsoft
used it.


As to haxoring Linux? LOL, from its inception it was rootable, yes, things
have tightened up considerably and now they tighten up the software as
well, why? In the hopes we won't have fun. If Linux users are like Windows
Users, and most are nowadays, they don't bother to get the security fixes
so their systems are as open as any others.

Wrong. The only real change in the Linux security model was to
turn on all security by default. That was done some time ago.
It is not easy to hack into a Linux system.

Further, if one does, it is usually not by exploiting a hole
in the system. That's basically not done. The reason is that
the few holes get fixed within hours, days at the most.

Most break-ins are due to guessable passwords and the like. Even
so, if you break into a user account, that does NOT give you access
to the entire system. You can screw the user but you won't bring
the system down.


There is much more to it then that of course, but it is a poor thing to do
when one makes believe that Linux is inherently more secure than a NTx
computer, since NOOB's will just laz about their systems.

That's as may be, but the Linux security model is in fact much
better than the Windows one. I've already alluded to the executable
program problem in Windows. In addition, the Windows was designed
to be user-friendly to the point of sillyness. Major components
are protected by, wait for it, having invisible names that can
only be made visible by using "attrib" or a similar program.
Security by obscurity doesn't work.


Yeah, mostly the ISP won't be able to help -- but my experience is
they can't actually help with Windows comm problems either. They can
only handle simple idiot mistakes.

Yes, they keep you from 3rd tier+ people who usually know what they are
talking about and where the fault lies.

Very few ISPs have more than one tier.


?? Who? I can only think that dial-ups would be like that.

I could give you a huge laundry list of what does not work in Linux, or if
it does will not operate to the optimum of its design. Take simple IDE
drives for instance, when they did get it up and running it ran slowly and
you could not get ultra DMA5 for years. Video similar problems.
Hyperthreading, similar problems.

History. 64 bit support is considerably better in Linux, and at work
we're having no trouble with 1GB and 10GB ethernet connectivity or
high-end disk controllers.


Not having a 64 bit puter I cannot vouch for this either way, I realize
that if you port some 64 bit Unix programs over it might be the case, but
then those are generally server programs. For WS's there are very few
programs that run natively in 64 bit which is why I'm not interested ATM.

Linux has been 64 bit for years. Linux runs on a variety of
computers. It was run on non-Intel, non-AMD 64 bit machines
a good while back and many of the problems fixed *then*.

Now when the proper CPU's come out, and M S's new OS, then I'll have
another look, Currently there are 64 bit Window's server programs which do
quite well.

I've kicked back on my servers at home, especially Linux ones. Linux mainly
because they did not support my hardware, NT+ did. I only run Linux on
older hdwe and up time is hardly any different them my NT+ ones. LOL, we
can quibble about what constitutes up time since most Windows security
updates require a reboot and sometimes that is also the case with Linux
albeit less frequently.

The only hardware that has real problems in Linux is bleeding edge.


Some disto's are much better than others, some have more advanced
features, it is all very interesting, fun, and there are some great
tools available for it.

New users should use Suse, even with its drawbacks. :)

Never tried that; too expensive for my taste.

Work is based on Fedora Core, so my work laptop is also.


Fedora is not a bad choice, since RH now works better with vendors for hdwe
support, and companies like IBM/Intel are only too happy to provide/write
drivers, etc for them. Sadly some of this seems a bit slow to flow to the
rest of the Linux community and once there even slower for proper reliable
application.

I think you might find that either Debian or (better) SuSE work
with more hardware than Red Hat.


My two servers are running Debian now, after running RedHat from
release 4 through release 7, and Slackware before that. It started by
installing kernel 0.99pl13 from a pile of floppies a friend got me.

Debian while slow on upgrades is a good and solid system with a broad base
of programs. I consider it a bit stodgy but pretty solid, although Slack
has often been my choice for as close to rock solid as you can get. I still
have an old AMD 16bit server with 64K of memory here that will run nicely,
don't know why I keep it around but I do. It was a screamer in its day with
Slack.

Bottom line, I don't have a problem with Linux boxes as long as the users
know what they are getting into and the man hours required to keep it up
proper like and not laz about in the false sense of inherent security and
that they get the correct version for their CPU. "I386 compatible" just
doesn't get it with me, you lose too much.

Most modern distributions get the CPU right -- and most of the
hardware too.

Why not download a Knoppix disk (<http://www.knoppix.org>) and
run it in your machines. It won't touch your hard drives, but
I'd bet it identifies all of your hardware correctly from your
monitors to your sound card and everything in between.


To keep it in sync with this groups subject....

Linux = Sigma lenses
NT+ = Canon Lenses.

Totally unfair. And I'm a Canon user.

That said, it remains true that many programming houses do not
support Linux. Thus no PhotoShop for Linux, no Dreamweaver
for Linux, etc., etc. Thus photographers will likely need to
keep a Windows machine around for a while longer yet...

PS: Your web pages are, however, far more likely to be
served by a linux (or in some cases unix) machine than
a Windows machine. The reasons are obvious.

----- Paul J. Gans
.

Relevant Pages