Re: Security followup

[Andrew Plato <gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

"Bruce Byfield" wrote...

> What I mean is simply this: if you talk to experienced sysadmins (that 
> is, ones who have done more than take a certification course, but who 
> have actually managed a large system for a number of years), very few 
> will suggest that Windows is as secure or more secure. Or, to take 
> another approach, do a little research on the Internet. I'm not saying 
> that your opinion won't be represented, but it is definitely a minority 
> opinion.

My experience talking to veteran administrators is that whatever somebody
knows, they love. Hence, Windows people think Windows is great, Linux people
think Linux is great, and AIX people think AIX is wonderful. 

Everybody loves what they know. 

> >Furthermore, the overwhelming number of security programs written for
Windows
> >suggests that it is actually "easier" to secure a Windows system. 
> >
> This is a non-sequitur. First, the number of programs is irrelevant to 
> the issue. Second, there is not exactly a shortage of Linux security 
> programs. Third, the potential for security is not synonymous with ease 
> of security.

Again, here we go with this term "potential for security." What is that? What
does that mean? 

A Windows machine that is disconnected from all networks and placed in a vault
at fort knox is equally as secure as a Linux machine in the same place. 

> In other words, Linux boxes take longer 
> to secure for you because you're less 
> familiar with them. Someone trained in 
> Linux administration wouldn't have to 
> do the research, or wait for responses.

In the last 2 years, my firm has secured close to 50 different networks.
Networks with extensive Linux/Unix installations on average took twice as long
in consulting hours and as cost twice as much. This was using skilled Unix
engineers (not me). 

Based on my company's experience, Linux security applications are considerably
harder to install, tune, manage, deploy, test, document, and train.

This is also compounded with other economic factors. Namely, skilled Linux
engineers are extremely hard to find. And when I say skilled, I mean
level-headed, solution-focused, problem solvers. Not lunatics who boil every IT
problem down to "Microsoft is evil." Furthermore, Windows networks
significantly outnumber Linux networks (like 50 to 1, maybe 100 to 1).

Therefore, there is a diminishing returns on Linux. Linux projects on average
take twice as long as Windows projects and cost twice as much. Yeah, sure the
system is free. But expertise to use it costs a lot more. 

> BTW, I have to wonder what newsgroups or mailing lists you're using.
> In my experience, the waiting time is usually a matter of minutes, rather
> than days. And I usually don't use the IRC channels, where the response is
> even quicker.

This isn't me. This is engineers I've contracted who are Linux gurus. I
honestly don't know off hand what resources they used. I do know that it takes
them twice the time it takes my Windows guys to do a job.

I guess Bill Gates planned it that way.  

Andrew Plato 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Help Authoring Seminar 2003, coming soon to a city near you! Attend this
educational and affordable one-day seminar covering existing and emerging
trends in Help authoring technology. See http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l2.

A new book on Single Sourcing has been released by William Andrew
Publishing: _Single Sourcing: Building Modular Documentation_
is now available at: http://www.williamandrew.com/titles/1491.html.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.