Windows/LINUX development times. Now replying to JDT's response --- firefox v/s windows for WIFI security
18 Aug
2008
18 Aug
'08
7:44 a.m.
Hi,
I was busy.
Happy Parsi New Year.
JTD replied whose reply I intepret as follows that Windows (am I
correct ---- does not have a secure kernel like UNIX)---- then how is
Windows security done.
Now, for all over Mumbai/INDIA, WIFI can we say that we have to have a
secure kernel ---- for banks can one advocate a "develop new
applications / enhancements over LINUX development tool with Windows
running on top of LINUX using the emulator VIRTUALBOX which is open
source).
Now the key issue is that has anyone taken a software project of say
one year and shown it is cheaper to develop using Windows v/s LINUX
for the "easy to use touted set of Windows tool v/s which tool set to
use of LINUX".
Not over the entire life-cycle, but just over six months time to go
live. What if we take a fresh graduate of say visual basic/ASP from a
windows school and put him thru linux programming ------ how will the
development cycle be cheaper/prototyping cycle be cheaper.
Erach
18 Aug
18 Aug
12:41 p.m.
New subject: Windows/LINUX development times. Now replying to JDT's response --- firefox v/s windows for WIFI security
Erach wrote:
Hi,
I was busy.
Happy Parsi New Year.
JTD replied whose reply I intepret as follows that Windows (am I
correct ---- does not have a secure kernel like UNIX)---- then how is
Windows security done.
Actually JTD's answer meant that the kernel and user space memory
allocation are well defined in linux and not so much in windows
this means that user run programs are less likely to affect a system's
security in linux than it is in windows (correct me if I am wrong)
Now, for all over Mumbai/INDIA, WIFI can we say that
we have to have a
secure kernel ---- for banks can one advocate a "develop new
applications / enhancements over LINUX development tool with Windows
running on top of LINUX using the emulator VIRTUALBOX which is open
source).
what is the need for windows if an equivalent program can be made
available in linux, sometimes even "windows programs" run glitch free in
linux using WINE
Now the key issue is that has anyone taken a software
project of say
one year and shown it is cheaper to develop using Windows v/s LINUX
for the "easy to use touted set of Windows tool v/s which tool set to
use of LINUX".
the issue with such a study is that the people concerned are generally
reluctant to move to a new platform, given that, I can vouch for the
usablity of linux with a personal example, my dad has been bed ridden
since 2003 and internet is one of the few links that keeps him in touch
with the outside, he was just as new to windows as he was to linux thus
making him one of the best judges for such a comparison, well he loves
to work in linux as much as possible and wonders, why everyone still
sticks to windoze.
Surya
22 Aug
22 Aug
4:23 a.m.
New subject: Windows/LINUX development times. Now replying to JDT's response --- firefox v/s windows for WIFI security
On Monday 18 Aug 2008 18:11, Surya Pratap wrote:
Erach wrote:
Partly right. But the windows kernel itself is riddled with holes some
diliberate some due to various backward compatibility issues. That
apart security by obscurity is a known evil security practice.
therefore not having the source available for scrutiny as well as
patching is a strict NO for anything concerned with security.
JTD replied whose reply I intepret as follows
that Windows (am I
correct ---- does not have a secure kernel like UNIX)---- then
how is Windows security done.
Actually JTD's answer meant that the kernel and user space memory
allocation are well defined in linux and not so much in windows
this means that user run programs are less likely to affect a
system's security in linux than it is in windows (correct me if I
am wrong)
> Now, for all over Mumbai/INDIA, WIFI can we say that we have to
> have a secure kernel ---- for banks can one advocate a "develop
> new applications / enhancements over LINUX development tool with
> Windows running on top of LINUX using the emulator VIRTUALBOX
> which is open source).
Virtulization does not solve the security issue. Virtualization merely
provides the ability to better utilise hardware and manpower.
--
Rgds
JTD
7:38 a.m.
New subject: Windows/LINUX development times. Now replying to JDT's response --- firefox v/s windows for WIFI security
On Friday 22 Aug 2008, jtd wrote:
[snip]
Virtulization does not solve the security issue. Virtualization
merely provides the ability to better utilise hardware and manpower.
Virtualisation does solve /a/ security issue, namely that of containing
cracks into a limited environment. For instance, I'd rather someone
crack a virtual machine running HTTP through a hypothetical Apache
exploit (on a server with multiple virtual machines running different
applications) than the whole server using the same exploit.
It's not a panacea, but it does help you improve security. On the flip
side are the costs of virtualisation, whether hardware, IP addresses or
management.
Regards,
-- Raju
--
Raj Mathur raju(a)kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/
GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves
6:06 a.m.
New subject: Windows/LINUX development times. Now replying to JDT's response --- firefox v/s windows for WIFI security
On Friday 22 Aug 2008 13:08, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Friday 22 Aug 2008, jtd wrote:
True, as you point out, for a very limited definition of true. In many
(most?) cases exploiting a doze hole is all that is required to
zombie all the other doze boxes connecting to the service. Comprising
the entire host is not necessary, perhaps not even desirable.
[snip]
Virtulization does not solve the security issue. Virtualization
merely provides the ability to better utilise hardware and
manpower.
Virtualisation does solve /a/ security issue, namely that of
containing cracks into a limited environment. For instance, I'd
rather someone crack a virtual machine running HTTP through a
hypothetical Apache exploit (on a server with multiple virtual
machines running different applications) than the whole server
using the same exploit.
It's not a panacea, but it does help you improve security. On the
flip side are the costs of virtualisation, whether hardware, IP
addresses or management.
Agreed. The OP might have realised the danger in trying to paper over
deeply embedded architectural security issues.
--
Rgds
JTD
18 Aug
18 Aug
3:11 p.m.
New subject: Windows/LINUX development times. Now replying to JDT's response --- firefox v/s windows for WIFI security
On 18-Aug-08, at 1:14 PM, Erach wrote:
Now the key issue is that has anyone taken a software
project of say
one year and shown it is cheaper to develop using Windows v/s LINUX
for the "easy to use touted set of Windows tool v/s which tool set to
use of LINUX".
in my experience it is more expensive to develop in FOSS, for the
simple reason that the developers hired have to actually know what
they are doing, so cost much more. In the long run, though, once the
software is developed and deployed, the software is far cheaper to
maintain. If I am not mistaken, when Munich opted for FOSS, the FOSS
bid was much higher than the proprietary software bids.
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
lawgon(a)au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/
4:53 p.m.
New subject: Windows/LINUX development times. Now replying to JDT's response --- firefox v/s windows for WIFI security
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 18-Aug-08, at 1:14 PM, Erach wrote:
The general opinion of people in the software industry (programmers and
potential clients) is that Windows programmers are cheaper and available
in large quantities whereas FOSS programmers are few and quote
astronomical rates for their work.
--
Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux !
No Viruses
No Spyware
Only Freedom.
Now the key issue is that has anyone taken a
software project of say
one year and shown it is cheaper to develop using Windows v/s LINUX
for the "easy to use touted set of Windows tool v/s which tool set to
use of LINUX".
in my experience it is more expensive to develop in FOSS, for the
simple reason that the developers hired have to actually know what
they are doing, so cost much more. In the long run, though, once the
software is developed and deployed, the software is far cheaper to
maintain. If I am not mistaken, when Munich opted for FOSS, the FOSS
bid was much higher than the proprietary software bids.
22 Aug
22 Aug
4:46 a.m.
New subject: Windows/LINUX development times. Now replying to JDT's response --- firefox v/s windows for WIFI security
On Monday 18 Aug 2008 22:23, Rony wrote:
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On 18-Aug-08, at 1:14 PM, Erach wrote:
>> Now the key issue is that has anyone taken a software project of
>> say one year and shown it is cheaper to develop using Windows
>> v/s LINUX for the "easy to use touted set of Windows tool v/s
>> which tool set to use of LINUX".
>
> in my experience it is more expensive to develop in FOSS, for the
> simple reason that the developers hired have to actually know
> what they are doing, so cost much more. In the long run, though,
> once the software is developed and deployed, the software is far
> cheaper to maintain. If I am not mistaken, when Munich opted for
> FOSS, the FOSS bid was much higher than the proprietary software
> bids.
True. What was not included in the closed quote was all the costs
incurred over the life of the data. Standard accounting practice
would budget over 3 yrs. This is a distinct disadvantage to FOSS
where a program tends to have an indefinite life.
Further for a given industry the requirements will be 95% same. With
FOSS the costs for using the software in another city would be 10 to
15% of the first time costs, not 100%, as the case would be with a
closed solution.
The general opinion of people in the software industry
(programmers
and potential clients) is that Windows programmers are cheaper and
available in large quantities whereas FOSS programmers are few and
quote astronomical rates for their work.
shows that the costing exercise is crappy and / or that the clients
data is not important.
Having said the above, NEVER focus on cost as a USP - this goes for
any product - but on the strengths that you have and is missing from
the competition.
--
Rgds
JTD
5324
days inactive
5328
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Erach -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Surya Pratap