ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Linux servers work just fine

By | October 21, 2011, 10:37am PDT

Summary: I may not know exactly what you’re trying to do with your servers, but I do know that, no matter what operating system you’re running, you need to know servers to be successful.

Linux servers can soar.

Linux servers can soar.

I don’t know exactly what happened with fellow ZDNet writer David Gewirtz’s Linux server, but I do know it was bad. Really bad.

He’s been having constant trouble updating and managing his software. The final straw was when he tried to install some updates to his hosted CentOS, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone, and it blew up on him.

His conclusion was that you need to be a Linux guru to keep a simple Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP/Python/Perl (LAMP) up and running properly. I beg to differ.

Now, at this point, David would point that I am a Linux guru. True, I am. And, as it happens I also run a CentOS server at a hosting company for my own Web site, email server, and some LAMP applications such as WordPress. So, yes, I also know a lot about his particular server. But, do you  know how much time—not trouble, just time—I’ve spent managing that system in the last year? According to my system logs: it’s been about an hour.

That’s not because I’m that good, it’s because my hosting company and I set it up right the first time and I haven’t had to spare a minute’s thought to it, never mind any Linux expertise, since then. My Linux wizard server admin. skills, such as they are, go to my experimental servers, not my production systems. My work servers just run and run and … you get the idea.

That said, if you’re going to run a server, any server, you may not need to be a wizard, but you do need to know the basics of your server and your applications. That’s true regardless of your operating system.

Reading more closely, part of his problem seems to be that he’s confusing operating systems. He talks about how using Ubuntu package instructions won’t work on CentOS or Fedora. Well, no, they wouldn’t. They’re different distributions, different operating systems. It’s like using Windows Server 2003 instructions on Windows 2008 R2. Sometime, it will work; sometimes, you’re going to end up in a big mess.

I’m also not sure why he’s spending so much time with manual setting up and tuning programs and configurations. Sure, just like with Windows Server, there are times a job is best done by getting down to the nitty-gritty with Linux .conf files and shell programming or Windows’ .ini files and PowerShell scripts. But, in my experience, on both modern Windows and Linux servers, you seldom need to go to such a low-level these days.

The immediate cause of his problem that caused everything to go haywire was a GNOME desktop update. OK, if you’re not a Linux expert, I can’t expect you to know many of us who are Linux experts, like say Linus Torvalds, that GNOME 3.x isn’t a desirable update to begin with. On the other hand, anyone who knows servers knows that there’s no good reason to update am already working desktop interface—or any other program that’s chugging along without any trouble—on a server. There’s just no “win” in updating working server programs to justify the time.

Gewirtz thinks his life will be easier with Windows Server. Maybe it will be. I hope that it is. Perhaps his hosting company, which sounds a bit clueless about Linux, may know how to properly maintain Windows. But, I can tell you now, since I’m also something of a Windows Server expert, that Windows Server 2008 R2, the newest and best of Microsoft’s server line, can also throw fits.

It may shock those of you who think I’m pro-Linux because of some irrational love for the operating system when I say that I think Windows Server 2008 R2 is a great server operating system. Indeed, it’s ideal for many business situations.

I don’t think Windows is a good fit, though, as a network edge server. If that’s what David has in mind—and it usually is when people are talking about LAMP servers at hosting companies—I think he has a better choice.

That choice is to find a hosting company with a clue on how to update his servers and can give him the kind of support he needs. If you find yourself needing to add, tune, or modify programs a lot on your server you need a competent server administrator no matter what operating system you’re running.

Related Stories:

Why I’ve finally had it with my Linux server and I’m moving back to Windows

Windows Server 8: Ultimate Cloud OS?

Ubuntu 11.10: Unity comes of age

Linux snickers at Microsoft’s victory declaration

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

Disclosure

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is a freelance writer. He does not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it!

His work has been published in everything from highly technical publications (IEEE Computer, ACM NetWorker, Byte) to business publications (eWEEK, InformationWeek, ZDNet) to popular technology (Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, PC World) to the mainstream press (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek).

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
85
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

we look for things...
pgit 31st Oct
@bswiss ...things that make us go.

Can you make us go?

He's smart!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
AlgotRuneman Updated - 21st Oct
If, indeed, it was the GUI which caused the system to blow up, I question the "server" designation. With Linux, of many different distributions, the recommendation I have followed is to keep a server lean. I do a server install, avoiding all the clutter of the GUI and its many dependencies. Security updates for GUI components then become a non-issue.
0 Votes
+ -
@AlgotRuneman

I have a point of contention with people that say that the GUI is unwelcome on a server. Quite often I'm dealing with a lot of small business customers that are using only one server box with one OS. Not only is virtualization unwarranted in those situations, but running commandline tools is a hassle, not to mention having to diagnose where a communication issue resides when you try to use remote GUI management tools. Sometimes running a full OS with GUI interface is fine for single-box configurations.

Also, updating a server is not something you want to do on a whim. Ask any Windows Server IT Pro what that's like when you have a custom or legacy .Net line-of-business app what that feels like when .Net security updates start coming down.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
Bookmark71 21st Oct
@Joe_Raby I'll never forget installing SP2 the day it was released on an NT 4 DEC alpha server I was setting up for a new network. The i386 version of the SP was fine but the alpha version caused DHCP to lease the same IP address to every computer. Microsoft fixed it later that day but it was an ugly lesson learned.
0 Votes
+ -
@Bookmark71

Wow, that takes me back.

Did they have a MIPS version of NT4?

I remember when certain 386 chipsets had a faulty 16-bit DMA controller. Can't remember the brand, but it wasn't Intel....
0 Votes
+ -
@AlgotRuneman It's a remote server. The fact that it has a GUI installed is bizarre. You keep the attack surface as small as possible and get the benefit of fewer chances for breakage.

@Joe_Raby In cases like SMBs, servers are almost always better administered with a web interface like Webmin's or Zentyal's (though I don't like the way Zentyal has destroyed the native configuration of the system). The server can sit in a closet, without monitor or mouse. It can be administered from any system on the network.
0 Votes
+ -
@daengbo

In almost every case where a small business server needs any kind of problem, you're digging it out of a closet and having to scrounge a console for it. Not only that, but a closet is the last place I want a server because you have no easy access for an in-house person to change backup drives, no do you often have proper ventilation. When you have a system that has all of your data centralized, you don't want to stress it out simply by doing something stupid, like locking it in a small space with no air flow.

Web consoles are fine for one-a-month administration tasks (if everything is running well, you shouldn't be logging in much more frequently than that - server logs will tell you the rest, and they can be emailed to you), but I always want a local console for "when something wrong happens" because that usually involves an on-site call. I don't rely on in-house network console I/F because when users see you do that from one of their machines, they automatically get the idea of entitlement in their head and think they can administer the network too.

When I do a server setup, it goes in a ventilated room or space with a console. Physical access is still limited, depending on the office space layout, but backup "admins" (read: tape changers) are still allowed in.

Every rackmount server deployment (I don't do many because I cater mostly to businesses of less than 100 users) I do also include a mandatory console of some type. Sometimes I use an IP KVM for multi-unit rack setups because it gives me remote access even if the software remote connection is down or the system isn't booting. Although a 1-port IP KVM isn't hugely expensive, for small business customers it's a frivolous charge IMO. The system shouldn't be so complicated that it would be warranted.

BTW: SSH ports should ALWAYS be closed to the public. On 3 separate sites (all different ISP's and WAN IP's too) where I did pre-installation security penetration tests, I enabled the SSH port and within 2 minutes I had about 100 login attempts from IP's from all over the world (every 10-20 were from the same IP) with random real first names, common admin/root names, and generic weak passwords. It kept going until I closed the port.

So word of advice: don't support SSH over the internet, okay? All of my IP KVM's have it turned off even though it's somehow supposed to be more secure. It obviously isn't. Should these hackers attempt to use an alphanum brute force attack, they could easily get in.
Logged ssh lame password attempts are not an issue unless your security is compromised. It is the same as saying your unwanted HTTP requests In your log file. If worried about passwords restrict user accounts and/or use keys. Google Flude ssh for an article.

What unix problem has required you to get out a console? What problem last required an onsite fix? Only hardware failures require an onsite visit, even single disk failures can be rectified remotely with a RAID spare.

Small business is a perfect market for outsourced unix servers. But they need to be handled by someone that knows what they're doing.
0 Votes
+ -
Well stated. Bravo. Couldn't agree more.
0 Votes
+ -
I have to agree
otaddy 21st Oct
@OSgeek Linux on the server is great...linux on the desktop is not so great.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for pointing out that you have to know something about servers -- just a little, maybe -- in order to run one. Your colleague's situation sounds like a PEBKAC or PICNIC error to me for someone who is in way over his head.
0 Votes
+ -
@lcafiero: "Thanks for pointing out that you have to know something about servers"
Don't be mad at SJVN. He just finally got to read the "Computers for Dummies" book, and he wanted to share with us what he just learned. I'm pretty sure if he keeps reading in one or two years he'll also get a slight grasp on even more elementary things in IT, he currently has absolutely not even a dim clue of.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
CommonOddity 21st Oct
@ff2222

Dude, even for trolling, this is lame. I mean, tremendously lame. Like, a 12 year old with a complete lack of imagination would muster up something funnier.

l2notsuck.com

@lcafiero

I would have to agree. It is very likely that it's an admin hiccup. I've used about 18 different distros, for all sides of the spectrum (and no pansy stuff either... Enterprise level solutions, GFS, CLVMD, Traffic squeezer, special WASTE implementation) and I've yet to have the issues that the dude was describing.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
lcafiero Updated - 21st Oct
@ff2222 I was not being sarcastic, nor was I calling out SJVN (and I'm pretty sure he knows this). I trust SJVN, and I think he knows his stuff about servers. His colleague who got in way over his head? Not so much. That was the point of my comment. After all, his blog is called DIY-IT, which is kind of akin to DIY surgery, no?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
kyleoster Updated - 22nd Oct
@ff2222: Come on! He's a Linux expert, he can install Wordpress! And to the guy above that requires either a KVM or a console setup, you're not very good at this and you come off as a "my way or no way" kind of person.
@ff2222 ......your FUD sounds just like something Loverock Davidson would post ...... are you two attached at the hip or something? .....neither of you will be as funny as Mike Cox used to be ........ take a day off.......
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for a great rational response to an emotionally charged article.
One additional note: who puts a GUI on a Linux server?!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
UrNotPayingAttention 21st Oct
Well done.

It's nice to read from someone who's experience doesn't end with clicking 'Next' through an install wizard.
0 Votes
+ -
Great article Steven.

After reading Davids article, I am still not sure what he was running. Was it Ubuntu, CentOS or Fedora?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
whatdoyouseenow 21st Oct
"There???s just no ???win??? in updating working server programs to justify the time."

Wow, that's such a 1980 philosophy. Good thing you don't run my servers.
0 Votes
+ -
@whatdoyouseenow I think he means non-security updates. If the updates fix bugs that don't affect you, why would you apply them?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
GreyGeek77 21st Oct
It's been several years since it has taken more than 30 minutes to install any Linux server. After setting up security and putting the updates on automatic, perhaps another 30 minutes or so, the "maintenance" time required is minimal too. But hey, I am not an admin, just a retired developer, so maybe I misunderstood how to install a server.

But, one thing I know for sure is that when you install a modern, mainstream Linux distro you also get a repository and an excellent package manager at no extra charge. If you can't use those two tools without messing things up you shouldn't be trying to install an OS.
0 Votes
+ -
Click bait du jour
Robert Hahn 21st Oct
This whole back-and-forth is stupid. The world is full of linux servers. There must be a million of them running. If one ZDNet author can't figure out how to run his, he should go hide in the corner instead of telling everybody.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
kirovs@... 24th Oct
@Robert Hahn
ROFL! +1
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
ScorpioBlue 24th Oct
@Robert Hahn

+ 1
0 Votes
+ -
To be fair though
ego.sum.stig@... 21st Oct
Gerwitz did just write a "click bait" piece, and no one seems to notice that he says he's "going back to windows" so to my mind it's hardly surprising he was so eminently capable of screwing up a Linux server. It's not been my experience that people coming from the "dark side" to the land of *nix (where we even have better beer) do that well most of the time. So, it's a pity (maybe) that he screwed it all up, but hardly unexpected.
0 Votes
+ -
@ego.sum.stig@... And that's a strike against Linux, not Windows. Potential converts get frustrated at the unintuitive nature of Linux and run crying back to Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
@Aerowind "unintuitive" = "not what I'm used to, so it sucks"
0 Votes
+ -
If you read what he said he was doing
ego.sum.stig@... 21st Oct
You might have noticed that he was doing many wrong things, that he thought were right. Odd that he got frustrated then? Not in the least.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
admiraljkb 24th Oct
@Aerowind "unintuitive" = "not what I'm used to, so it sucks"

I agree with daengbo. In my current experience, the guys that can't deal with Linux, aren't actually qualified to deal with modern Windows installations either. The IT world is a lot different than 12 years ago when you could be just a Windows admin working on "simple" Windows servers. They aren't simple anymore as they have to interface and interact with a lot of different systems that weren't around 12 years ago. Many of those systems are Linux based.

Expanding some on what ego.sum.stig said, David also had the disadvantage of "knowing what he was doing". His skillsets were out of date however. Why he didn't research which OS he needed to match his project I have no idea. But it was pretty obvious the project required Ubuntu/Debian and not RHEL/CentOS. In that regard, he would have failed on Windows as well. Basically what happened is like a guy who was working on Winnt3.1 all the time, all of the sudden working on 2008r2. The crap he learned back in the 90's isn't all relevant now.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, beat me to death with a kangaroo
ego.sum.stig@... Updated - 21st Oct
[duplicate drivel]
0 Votes
+ -
Haha!
thx-1138_@... 24th Oct
@ego.sum.stig@... +100
0 Votes
+ -
Windows servers work just fine
toddybottom 21st Oct
"Any problem anyone ever has with Windows is user error and lack of education."

Something tells me that you guys don't accept this argument. Likewise, we simply don't accept your argument.

Even the fine folks at kernel.org weren't able to keep a Linux server up. Apparently SJVN is even smarter than them.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
vivianvein 21st Oct
@toddybottom

+1
0 Votes
+ -
@toddybottom
Who this we and what argument we don???t accept.
0 Votes
+ -
@toddybottom Not true. Keeping the server up wasn't the problem. The problem was that a highly placed user had his credentials stolen. The server continued to work without flaw for a long time after the user's account was hacked.
0 Votes
+ -
@daengbo
And after he had his credentials stolen the kernel.org was totally and utterly root'ed . So how does one go from stolen credentials to a rooted server, huh? Wouldn't you expect the good folks at kernel.org to protect themselves against server rooting?

Not only that, then 17 days passed, the server was root'ed and nobody noticed . Not until some software started logging messages and someone went "hey, that software is not supposed to be on that server".

Not only that, *after* this happened, the Linux Foundation was root'ed. After the kernel folks, the Linux Foundation should be the best of the bunch. And they were utterly root'ed as well.

But I', sure that having SUID tool spread around has got nothing to do with it. Running as root is not at all a security risk, it is a *nix tradition. So much that it has become taboo.

Go Figure.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm of the philosophy that OS decisions, be it desktop or server, is often a judgement call, and that what works best will depend on what your needs are.
0 Votes
+ -
I concur
thx-1138_@... 24th Oct
@CobraA1 +1
0 Votes
+ -
Decent Post.
DevGuy_z 21st Oct
I'm not the IT admin type. I am a programmer in various languages C/ C++ VB C#. I prefer Windows because I like the development eco-system and I've definitely looked at others. In all disciplines the KISS principle applies. One difference between the OSes is that Windows does do somethings automatically that you have to setup manually in linux. The same can be said for OS-X. I remember adding a drive to Linux system and was shocked that it didn't report it (as Windows did) and I had to edit a file to make it mount the thing. Like you say once it is setup everything works but one of the differences that you have with the more proprietary OSes is that they will do some of the configuration for you. Some people really want turn-key solutions - plug it in and go. I too have found that Linux required a bit more configuration to get what I wanted. And this also situation dependent. Sometimes I don't want the system doing automatic stuff for me and sometimes I do.
0 Votes
+ -
@DevGuy_z Reminds me of a comment from an article about being coming to Linux when they've had nothing but do-it-for-me OS experience. It's the "Linux doesn't do X" complaint rather than a "I can't figure out how to get Linux to do X" complaint.
0 Votes
+ -
SJVN has a pretty good point that it is likely a lack of understanding of David, his ISP, or a combination of both that sank the idea of using Linux for his LAMP server, and that Linux generally handles these kind of tasks quite well.

However, I find it somewhat amusing that a common "mistake" that is being mentioned by the Linux crowd in here is David's use of a GUI for his server. Sure, I get the idea that servers should be "lean" and I understand that anyone *can* do whatever they want using the command line. But why should the fact that something is a "server" preclude it from having a more intuitive interface which would make it easier for the average joe to administer it?

Kindof sounds a lot like web designers being derided for using Dreamweaver instead of hand-coding all of their web pages. It's a tool, it's supposed to work.
0 Votes
+ -
@daftkey
What you have failed to realize is that Linux is a tool to make consultants money because there is no hope that any mere mortal could ever do complicated things on it like install patches. Linux users are meant to call up SJVN and pay him $400 per hour in order to patch their machines.

SJVN hates Windows because mere mortals are able to do those sorts of things all by themselves.
@toddybottom

What you have failed to realize is that Linux is a tool to make consultants money because there is no hope that any mere mortal could ever do complicated things on it like install patches

Well, I don't take such a cynical view on Linux. What I was trying to point out is a problem in Linux that, unfortunately, the main people who have the power to fix don't see as a problem.

Linux advocates like SVJN, AlgotRuneman, cavaughan, and chmod 777 don't make elitist comments about Linux because it somehow furthers their financial agendas, but rather they make such comments because they simply *ARE* elitists. Unfortunately, so are many of the developers who are charged with improving these types of tools in Linux - since these developers feel they know the one-and-only correct way to use a computer, the answer to a problem like David's is going to be some variant of "you screwed up, there's nothing for me to fix here".

This is the type of attitude that results in comments like "what do you mean the GUI crashed - why are you using a GUI on a server?" when really the question should be "what is wrong with the GUI that crashed?" since, you know, we're in the 21st century nowadays.
0 Votes
+ -
@toddybottom Oh, yeah. Consultants don't exist for Windows. O_o
0 Votes
+ -
@toddybottom

I'm not in IT -- I'm a used-books dealer. I've certainly never hacked kernel code, or even taught programming.

And I've been running Linux for over a decade (originally alongside Windows, but somewhere in the Windows XP days I decided Windows wasn't worth the requisite work/hassle to maintain properly). I have consistently found Linux to be reliably easier and quicker to install, and easier and quicker to maintain.

I don't know the details of Gerwitz's case, but going by his own rather disjointed account, he likely started off wrong to begin with, fiddled at semi-random, blindly followed instructions that didn't apply, jammed together components that didn't really go together, and by (bad) luck successfully cobbled together a server that apparently worked OK as long as no-one touched it, and confused "seems to be working" with "not broken".

I'm pretty sure that his problems weren't caused by updating, but by not installing and setting up properly in the first place. There's plenty of people who don't have a fraction of the qualifications that he claims -- never hacked on the kernel and never taught (or even practised) programming -- who have no trouble installing or updating a desktop or server Linux system.

PS: I updated two Linux boxes just today -- it took a few minutes, mostly spent checking the list of what components were being updated.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
deaf_e_kate 21st Oct
@toddybottom : you've just shown you know nothing about linux admin. Its best for you to be thought a fool instead of opening your mouth and proving it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
CommonOddity 21st Oct
@daftkey (Including your response to toddybottom)

1. You're right. I actually enjoy GUI on servers.
2. 'lean' is overrated. When I'm handed something with 96GBs of RAM, you bet your ass that Gnome is running on it.
3. Also agree, misdirection of issues is something that happens quite often. The question should be asked appropriately, and the reasons for the GUI crashing considered and fixed.

But, relative to #3, a bit of a side-step. KDE is building itself up to be the candy-ish DE. Fine and understandable. More power to them. Gnome? The radical changes in 3 were made for these exact reasons. The interoperability between stacks was left with a rather wide berth and plenty of issues existed in it. For the sake of integration and to address a lot of the problems that used to cause crashes (as rare as they were) with Gnome 2, they made Gnome 3. It's a little less open for tinkering as it sits now, but it's becoming increasingly stable at ridiculously exponential rates.

It's not that these things go unnoticed. Sometimes it does take time however.

And I wouldn't say all us Linux bigots are elitist silly but I definitely will vouch for you if you ever call me an *******. grin
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
UrNotPayingAttention Updated - 21st Oct
@daftkey

Ok, first... should an "average joe" really be allowed to administer a server??? Particularly a LAMP server facing the internet?

Not any server I'd want any part of... It makes me curious of all of these Windows Admins that 'point and click' their way to server management: how much do they really know about locking down not only a server, but a network? And am I trusting my online banking, credit card info, etc.,etc., to an "average joe" that needs server management dumbed down just so he can do his job?

And, no, I'm sorry... but the comparison to Dreamweaver and a GUI for a LAMP server is also incorrect. The end product of Dreamweaver will be a visually navigational and aesthetically pleasing website, it is intended to be visual. A LAMP server was intended to be ran using a CLI, running X and a GUI only taxes the resources of the hardware and is lazy on the part of the user.
0 Votes
+ -
@chmod 777

Ok, first... should an "average joe" really be allowed to administer a server??? Particularly a LAMP server facing the internet? Not any server I'd want any part of...

Should the average Joe be "allowed" to run a server? I guess you can decide whether you would "want" to have someone run "your" server if they were an average Joe, but to disallow servers for a whole population segment altogether? I thought Gaddafi was dead.

In all seriousness, though, I understand your sentiment, but the problem is that using a GUI != Bad Network Admin skills. There are plenty of admins that spend over 90% of their time working in a GUI, and they have rock-solid servers, whether it be Windows, Linux, or whatever. Working in a GUI doesn't just mean that it's "dumbed down", it means that certain tasks are more intuitive, and in many ways that also means that a) fewer mistakes are made, and b) potential problems are caught faster.

Average Joe running a server - you're right, I wouldn't want just some kid off the streets administering my bank, and I'm pretty confident that I don't need to worry about that. Certain businesses need certain standards in place. Luckily there are auditors and IT departments to do this. They have money, they can afford this level of support, and should expect the server admin to be a seasoned professional.

But Windows server technology (and even Mac OS X server)has also progressed to the point that Jim Bob who is a small business owner can hire a relatively tech-savvy college kid part-time to run his company's website and accounting system without too much trouble, and not have to worry about a simple system update hosing his entire system. This is the "Average Joe" I'm talking about. If you don't want him in your club, I can understand, but I fail to see why he needs to join your club to be an admin in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux servers work just fine
admiraljkb 24th Oct
@chmod 777

+1
Agreed. Unfortunately an average joe isn't capable of running and keeping secure a internet facing server (doesn't matter about which OS it is running, skillset required to maintain a Windows or Linux server anymore is close to the same, just the tools are different). That isn't elitist, it just is... They also aren't capable of keeping a Windows network secure internally either. This is why most companies have information security folks on staff. As sophisticated as the security challenges are these days (particularly in a Windows environment), I am having to do quite a bit of research to keep up with security threats, and I still question whether I am current enough. Average joes don't do that, because they don't know what they don't know about security threats to begin with... Ignorance is bliss... If they actually understood the current security situation, they'd unplug from the internet, turn off the computers and run screaming around with sandwich boards on them saying the "end is nigh". happy
0 Votes
+ -
we look for things...
pgit 31st Oct
@bswiss ...things that make us go.

Can you make us go?

He's smart!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix