Sorry your browser is not supported!

ok so tell me what are hte good and bad points of opensource software and closedsource software
and this is onyl for free closed source does not mean the program is sold
ok now tell me
thx

Open source bugs can be solved by their users, while closed source cannot. But closed has less of a security risk because users don't know how the code works (security problems can be solved by open source users etc)......that made no sense to me either

Neofish is quite spot on really.
OpenSource is great for if you want to get the largest selection of programmers all working on the same program to enhance it. Linux Distributions for example are improved upon in this fashion, however OpenSource comes with a price.

There is no guarentee that someones code will work correctly with your own. In this respect there is a much larger chance of bugs creeping in. What's more because everyone has a slightly different programming style this can mean that while bugs are aparent they can be a nightmare to ween out due to lack of understanding of why someone has written what they have.

Security is a huge issue. If you have your source open for all to see, then people will be able to negate any security you have. This isn't a case of 'how well you program it', as again you can cast you mind back to Linux and all OpenSource Distributions *will* let in malicious programmers given they can devise quickly ways to get around any security you have.

Less Control, is able to be placed over the direction of what the program takes. You might have one idea for what you want to do next, but then 50 others might have different ideas. This leads to alot of things being added into a program that your just not quite sure about, or you dislike.

Personally speaking I prefer LGPL Source, this is different to Open Source.. in the way that your not providing a CVS or SafeSource of the code to the program with which everyone can futz with, but rather your releasing an Open version of the source that will allow others to use your program as a base for thier own variation rather than them creating thier own version of the same program. It means you can omit things that are important to keep closed and people don't touch your source for what is actually released, just that it is available for thier own use.

ohhh i think i will make mine lgpl source it sounds much mroe secure ect plus i could have some sorta original signature thign in the binary source so that u can tell that this is from me and not a pretender that could be giving out a virus under my product

The other side of the argument is that, with open source software, more people can expose security flaws. Corollary: Linux is open source and is arguably more secure than Windows, a closed source product.




I'm hoping I'm misunderstanding what you're saying there. Are you suggesting that all open source distros are inherantly insecure? You know what, I'll do a Raven and say "I don't even have to dignify that comment by providing a well rounded counter argument".

It isn't more secure, just look around. Microsoft based servers often end up going down in sections rather than the entire server being compromised, Linux servers kill every service currently using it not just the section that someones tried to hack.

While you can flipside the coin that open source exposes more security flaws, fact is more people trying to maliciously break into Windows has ment that Microsoft have fixxed more potencial security issues as a result.
You can build the more techncially sound bank in the world, but your not going to make it secure until you have a few trial runs of people trying to get in as they will expose the flaws in a real-world situation rather than 'perfect parameters'.



I'll stick with my bank analogy here. But which team is more likely to make off with money.. the guys who case the bank from the main lobby, or those who have the detailed schematics to the entire building and security system?

The guys who are casing the place might get in with more brute force, but the guys who have the plans can be in/out of the building without anyone even realising they've been there or done something.

I could sit here and say that Unix is far more secure than Linux for the same reason Linux fans use for their proof that Linux is more secure than Windows. Because you hear alot less reports that it is broken into and taken down by malicious people.

Thing is I'm not that ignorant. What I find quite amusing is alot of people harp on about Linux being more secure and open source.. but realistically, how many Distributions of it do you know that you can *actually* download the source and tinker?
Hell it's a fact that each of the major Distro's even have thier own Runtime formats that are compiled *closed* source.

They all have different security systems, they all have different layouts. Just because Red Hat uses the same Kernel as SuSE, the actual code behind the scenes and workings of them couldn't be more different.

I mean c'mon you honestly think Linux' security reputation really has anything to do with the fact that the Kernel is open source? yeah pull the other one.

If Linux, Unix, Windows are all correctly setup for online use by a trained administrator your are not getting into any of them unless you *REALLY* know the system and potencial flaws and hope that they're not fixxed yet.

The same goes on the opposite end, anyone simply installing the OS without optimising and securing well hell it'll be like leaving your door open when you go on holiday. It doesn't matter what OS your using they're all as insecure as the other without setting them up.

EDIT - apology to the original poster.

I did write a lengthy essay here on the benefits and detriments of open source software, in particular linux vs. windows in the server market. However, since I was annoyed with someone for hijacking my thread once (and getting it locked), I've edited my post, removing my comments.

Raven, you're right. No really, even though your uninformed, (RHx/Fedora downloads coming with SRPMs? Or even how's about gentoo... a distro whoose entire package management system relies on the idea of downloading the source for each component/app, and *then* compiling it on your machine?) you're obviously right.

wow that's a first

Well written code should be secure even if people have access to the source code and know exactly how it works.

For example, the most widely used encryption algorithms are open source, including RSA 4, DES, BlowFish etc.

We could be here all night (or all year in Raven's case) discussing Linux vs. Windows security, so all I am going to say is that Linux is used and trusted by companies such as GM, Verizon, American Express and Google. In case you are interested, I believe that the TGC website runs FreeBSD (and the forums run Linux).

Algorithms are different, they're not static. Further more generally the only algorithms currently deemed 'secure' are those that are not decryptable or are hardware based (AES).
128-bit SSL is deemed secure for the simple reason that you require specific hardware in order to decrypt R/T and you need to do it R/T, in order to get an entire stream.

Problem is if the OS isn't secure then doesn't matter what algorithm is used to mask the files sent, people can just discover the ports used for external use and use the 'consistancy request' to get inside. Remember all outbound ports are also used for inbound as well because communication between machines has to be 2-way in order to maintain synronisation else the files corrupt.



GM = General Motors a.k.a. Crysler / Ford / Corvette?
I think what you'll find is that these companies don't trust Linux, they trust IBM.

There is a big difference, why they use Linux servers over Windows or Unix.. well that's anyones guess. It doesn't prove that it is better. After all even large companies are subject to big hype. What is more they see it as a saving, because it is cheaper to purchase to begin with. These companies don't care that it costs more in the long-run than Windows .NET Systems.

After all that's what business' are far more about, saving money they percieve. IBM are capable of proving secure solutions, it doesn't matter what the hardware PPC, StrongARM, x86... or the software Windows, Unix, Linux... IBM are out to provide the best solution.

TGC uses Linux for thier systems for the simple reason, it is still cheaper to get a Linux server from an external host than it is to purchase a Windows server. What's more is Rich uses PHP, which will run fine on Linux, so what is the point of the added features of a Windows server when they won't be used?

What would be interesting would be to see what happens if Linux became as mainsteam as windows is (ie 50/50 split between the two) and then see if the large spyware making business turns on linux, and is successful

Writing spyware for Linux has a number of challenges which make it more difficult in theory (as you correctly pointed out, it has yet to be tested in practise):

1. Different users run different software. On Windows you only have to 'develop' your spyware for IE and Outlook and 99% of the market is covered. On Linux you would need to cover KMail, Konqueror, FireFox, Mozilla, ThunderBird, Nautilus at least. Oh, and a wide range of versions as well.

2. In Windows, executables can be run by default, under Linux you have to mark a file as executable before it can be run.

3. Under Windows, the average home user always runs as a Computer Administrator. Under Linux, although you *can* run as a root user for day-to-day work, it is strongly discouraged. Indeed, on my SuSE installation, the root user background is a large black bomb, with lots of scary warning text. To perform admin tasks in Linux, you usually just run a particular application as root.

4. The same challenges that make writing commercial software on Linux challenging also make writing binary-only spyware difficult. Interesting Paradox!

Edit: To clarify point 4, Google for "dependancy hell" and see what comes up.

yeah but therein you've shown why Linux won't ever become mainstream Rob.
Because without standardisation it can't become mainstream, as everyone would end up with several versions of the same program making it more confusing to use for the majority of users.
Problem with standardisation is it means it provides people who have malicious intents the ability to work on a single virus that can kill that one standard.

A good reason why I am trying my best to introduce people to .NET is that it is checked on the assembly level for malicious code. As such, .NET programs are albiet slowly as it is developed more and more more secure, more memory safe, etc..

It is a good reason why Windows-Haters wish to downplay what dotNET means to the industry. As it is providing exactly what Linux was *suppose* to, as well as becomming something that is a technological evolution. Alright so it isn't there *yet*, but it is definately working towards it and does appear to be the best hope for a true unified development platform.

hey i was wodnering what actually is .net the onyl thing i could guess it is is like some extension or soemthign used for secure data such as passwords but what would it do on a server

and leyvin very good point

Yes.


They have it, its called POSIX and most *nix code can easily be ported from one platform to another with few problems. Sure, many people don't pay attention to the standard but it's there. Also, I disagree in that it's "confusing to use for the majority of users" because they already have to do. When you buy a program you make sure your operating system is supported wether its Mac OS or Windows 9x and even then you have to make the distinction between Mac OS before 9 and OS X and between the Windows 9x family and the NT family except now it's between Debian and Fedora Core.

Here's the big issue though. Lets say server A uses the Apache webserver on FreeBSD (which is what the top rated web-hosts use), both the server and the OS are open source and secure. Now lets say that server B uses Windows Server 2003, the OS and the server in this case are closed source. Now if a security problem comes out in either they need to be fixed. If you have an in-house coder you can fix Apache or FreeBSD because they're open source or you can wait for the official maintainers to fix it. With Windows Server you need to wait for Microsoft to fix it. If this is a security problem usually they can get a update soon enough but what if it's just that the server's slow? Again, you can optimize the Apache server if you wanted but you can't touch the Windows one. Also, since the source can only be fixed by Microsoft if Microsoft ever goes out of buisness you're screwed whereas with Apache you can still maintain it (Apache is decended from an earlier open source HTTP server by NCSA). And what if your boss decides to switch to a new hardware architecture? Since the code's open you or the developement community can modify the code to run on the new hardware whereas, again, you need to wait for Microsoft to port it if they feel like doing it.

good points all of u

Goth POSIX is good and used by almost every Unix / Irix Based OS I know, all the Linux developers seem to ignore it.
I mean you say about currently users have to be aware of the different formats even under Windows, but to a degree they don't have to.

Each generation of Windows is backwardly compatible with the previous generation, this is something native and doesn't often mean you have to touch and of the 'compatibility' settings in order to get something to work. Even when you do, it is much easier for a user to tick the box and set it to the Operating System indicated on the product box. If you want this in Linux you have to program in the support yourself!
This wouldn't be so hard if it was every generation of the Operating Systems that this happens, but not only does each generation of Linux have it's own versions that are slightly incompatible but also each distro does as well.

Alot of packages are released in DEB / RPM format, something covered above by Adr which surprise-surprise no one has chosen to point out what was wrong with his point os SRPMs and using Gentoo as an example again Red Hat.
While a number of the high-end distro support this, the low-end ones don't, so you'll fourced to use the source tar.gz distributions..

What's more there is *no* guarentee that it will install/compile on the Linux you are using unless it is a major distro. Even then there is no guarentee it won't just close itself within a few seconds / minutes.

If we get onto the subject of fixxing vunerabilities.
Your right, Windows Server Admins have to wait for Microsoft in order to fix the problem which can sometimes take upto a week in most cases between first report and fix. During the meantime however an Admin is more likely to have the knowlage of how to block off given vunerabile areas, perhaps preventing access to certain features for a while but making the server secure again until Microsoft release the patch.

Linux servers again as you've noted, there is a chance that the Admin can simply open the source and edit it. A small flaw is found in this plan though.

Red Hat & SuSE are the most used Distro's for businesses, and there are alot of areas that are *closed-source*. Further more, the Admin has to *also* be capable of programming using C/C++... and with GNU GCC at that which is not a popular language to be taught. When you take into account that it costs *alot* more to hire a Programmer over a trained Administrator, instantly you might begin to understand why Linux costs *alot* more in the Long-run. What's more the majority of business' that use Linux don't have Admins that are capable of programming the OS.

Infact most users who use Linux understand how to compile things into the Kernel and runtime, however if you asked them to say make a clock for the desktop. Which takes the simplist of recoding, most of them would get lost.

You also have the time factor. As I've mentioned Microsoft usually endeavour to fixx any reported bugs within 5 working days. They not only have a team of 70 people specifically for the task of bug crushing, but they're all very very well trained in the source code of the OS. I've tried to edit up a few Linux Distro's before in order to do things the way I'd prefer, and it took quite a while just to find the relevant code, let along work around it in a way that doesn't cause more problems that were there in the first place.



Same goes for Linux. There are more distro's for more hardware platforms, and you can hire someone to come in and recode the kernel in order for it to work on the new hardware.
This said this is also why alot of business' still use Windows NT 4, because it works on all current platforms.

Once again a big benifit of Microsoft gaining momentum for .NET is that Windows using .NET as the base (i.e. Windows 2003) will run on any Processor Type, you can personally recode the Assemblies for the Hardware CPU/BIOS. What's more this means that you dont' have to have the source and recompile it.

So while you'll wait 2-3days to compile and install Gentoo you've altered for this new hardware to make sure it is working correctly, Windows it is actually *purely* a case of taking the assemblies you've created for the CPU type and dropping them in the Microsoft Assemblies directory. This means that *all* applications on .NET using ANY CPU will run without problem instantly on Windows.

Again on Gentoo you'd need to download the source and recompile each and every damn application. Which would require you to not only alter the OS itself, but also a version of GCC capable of using the harware you have. In order for it to even be half as stable as .NET it requires a relatively highly skilled programmer.

Really my point stands up well in the fact of Linux needing standardisation. As it was created to BE a Standardisation in the first place, and what happened was each person got thier grubby hands on it and decided they wanted to create thier own and rather running to the standardised design they simply run the same kernal and believe that = Linux, when it doesn't.

Apple MacOSX uses Unix as it's basis, it doesn't mean you cna instantly take any *nix application and run it on the OS. Infact if you tried to you will have Apple sit there and say it isn't recognised.

When using applications like Maya, I've found that it only works in certain distros. Such-as Red Hat, and SuSE.. others it doesn't support. What is worse imo is that while people complain at Windows software being bloatware, alot of my Linux software ends up much much larger.

Adobe Photoshop CS: Windows 156MB, Mac 180MB, Linux 240MB
Maya: Windows 230MB, Mac 300MB, Linux 380MB

there are a whole host of applications cross platform that follow this suit. Windows applications with .NET are getting smaller and smaller, not larger... Linux is stagnent in terms of evolution.

The OS has it's place, there is no denying it. Just a fact really that I strongly disagree that Linux is *better* than Windows at anything.

Stability : Windows Crashes, thus Linux = Better. Linux however has crashed a few times on me (from default installations), each time destorying hardware. Further more applications on Linux have a habit of silently crashing. FireFox is a bloody good example who reaches a memory plateu and simply turns unloads itself. Not cleanly might I add.

Security : Moot point. Fully Trained Admin, both operating systems are as secure as each other. It is cheaper to train someone for Microsoft products. Programming resources for creating work around code in Windows is much easier with MSDN.

User Interface : You can't argue that Windows is easy and straight forward. While people can complain it doesn't have advanced features, the reality of the situation is that they are hidden from 'General' users to prevent them killing the system.

The only thing that Linux currently has going for it is, Less Spam and Virii. Problem is, if it became as popular and used as Windows is.. anyone who believes it'll stay as squeaky clean as it is really is just deluding themselves.

Really something you have to ask yourself as a Linux fan is this...
'Why did Apple Macintosh user Unix for thier MacOSX Operating System?'

Once you understand the answer you'll understand why I get sick of hearing all the diatripe that follows Linux. The only way they cna make themselves feel better about the OS is to constantly try to put Windows down with superficial facts, that only remain true provided they are not put to the test.

.NET is a development platform, a little bit like Java. .NET is not actually a language itself, you can write .NET code in Microsoft's C#, Managed C++ or VB.NET languages (and possibly others as well?)

The reason that it is *theoretically* more secure is because it has various features designed to protect programmers from their own stupidity. For example, instead of allocating memory when you want to store something, and then manually freeing it later when you have finished, .NET deals with all of that for you automatically.

This protects programmers from doing things like allocating memory for a 10 character string (eg: "ABCDEFGHIJ") and then not checking the length of the string that you are trying to write into that memory (so you end up writing data outside of the allocated area, leading to possible security exploits)

Edit: Raven, your above post weighs in at almost 1400 words. You need a more challenging job!

Yup, Delphi.

I'm not too sure about .Net yet. It very much depends on where it will be in 2 or 3 years.

Also anybody can write their own .NET language. Every .NET language compiles down to the Common Runtime Language first, and I've seen a book out there that explains how to do this. It was clear above my head though.

How about PlayBasic .NET?

Yes, to a degree. While usually they're pretty good (I have Windows 3.1 apps that work in XP) there's plenty that don't work (mainly stuff for 95 and NT). The same goes for Linux. Yesterday, I compiled a complex program written for Solaris 1.05 in Red Hat 7.3 with no problems (Well, it did give me 3 datatype casting warnings) and it worked flawlessly. In august I had to scrounge up a Windows 95 CD because we had a bunch of programs that we needed to run with some intruments that required 95 and 95 only.


True. Then either use a better one or put it into the lower one. It's like complaining that 98 won't run certain XP apps. However, you could hack in RPM support into any distro of Linux if you really wanted but can't put any form of support into 98 (which Microsoft has abandoned).


Actually, most universities that teach C use GCC (in the U.S. at least). Also, note that GCC is the only compiler that conforms to the C standard completely. VC++ doesn't. So by learning proper standard C you know GCC. All you need to brush up on are the libraries and the things GCC adds on to enhance C (which are described on all systems using GCC by typing man gcc). Also, GCC is available for more platforms than VC++ (which is for Windows only).


But you don't need to be a programmer to use Linux. Sure, it helps but it's not necessary. There are teams of people that make sure that bugs are fixed for each application. However, since it's open source and anyone can contribute and modify it changes and bug fixes come more often.


True, but it's controlled by Microsoft. This means that it'll be placed where Microsoft wants it placed and support what Microsoft wants it to support. So you're forced into using it for Windows and Windows alone. Luckily, an open source version of C# and .NET is in development by Novell being devised solely so that Microsoft can't exclude other OSes from developing for .NET.


No, you'd only need to alter As (the GNU assembler) more than likely. GCC usually doesn't require that much modification and places that do usually require modification are documented.


Darwin is BSD, Linux is Linux. It's like asking why your Windows console application doesn't work on DOS since they're so similar. However, a good deal of code can be ported between SysV, BSD, and Linux but not all of it just like DOS code needs to be rewritten for Windows sometimes. Note that the base of Mac OS X is open source.


What?! Linux is constantly evolving with more good distributions coming out, more applications being moved between them, and more platforms supported. Linux distributions and compilers had 64 bit support before Microsoft even announced that they were making a new 64-bit version of Windows.


Yes, Linux is not perfect but its track record is certainly much better than Windows. I've never lost hardware to Linux but I lost a scanner and motherboard to NT and my Architecture and Assembly teacher last semester was telling us about how he had to write his own driver for an old digital video camera because 95 destroyed his first one (and before you say it, no, he's not a Windows hater). While you might have lost hardware I haven't nor has anyone I know or talked to (excluding you). I shut down my Linux machine at work for the first time in over a year yesterday but my Windows XP computer at home needs to be restarted for one reason or another every week. Also, Linux and *BSD servers run most of the web including the ones with the highest work load.


No, because, as I said, bugs in open source operating systems can be fixed fixed but holes in Windows need to be fixed by Microsoft. I'd rather have the world working on a project rather than a single company.


You're right, Windows is easier to use most of the time (although Mac OS gives it a good run for its money, which use open source code as its foundation).


This is my biggest problem with Windows XP besides security. Windows restircts what you can do even if you're Admin. I'm sick and tired of killing explorer so it'll release its lock on a file that I want to delete (usually a folder on my desktop that's empty). Linux gives you the power to do what you want even if it's removing your home directory or /, Windows doesn't at all.


Except, the more problems we get the quicker we can solve them. If there was some massive Linux virus that got out in the wild (which would be quite hard to do) it would most likely be fixed in a week tops and it won't happen again whereas Microsoft, even though they release fixes just as quickly, doesn't fix all the bugs. XP still has problems with security, our servers at work were broken into repeatedly (until we ditched them for *BSD of Linux), my desktop still crashes, and my obsolete Linux server still hasn't been broken into despite the number of attempts (which was tried more than the Windows servers).

There seems to be an overwhelming number of people and companies that put their faith in open source operating systems because time has shown them to be more secure and stable. Windows has been shown to be insecure and unstable. If you want to be a professional game designer you probably would want to ditch DarkBASIC and go to OpenGL in C because that's what the successful people use. The same goes for web servers you can either go Windows Server 2003 or you can go with FreeBSD with Apache (both open source and used by the best of the best).

Who knows.

Not true Goth. Just because Windows isn't open source (yet), this doesn't mean there isn't an SDK that allowed you to add 3rd party support for things such-as formats.
The Microsoft Platform SDK allows you to do just this, by providing you with access to basically everything without providing the actual source the system allowed you to add just about anything you choose and alter Windows 9x/NT to you needs. While this is probably better exampled with the X-Box some of Microsoft's own design, there are plug-in's out there to allow you to natively use EXT2 and RPMs under Windows. Considering most people don't need the Cross-Platform from Linux->Windows often, this really ment that this is something only used by a handful of people worldwide, but still the fact that it is available does debunk the whole 'You can't alter Windows like Linux' that people are quite to point out.



Well, yeah it isn't a perfect emulation system. It does provide more support than most other operating systems. With the current level of backward compatibility being around 90% at the moment, it does make me wonder why they wish to hang onto it so dearly. Even more so as the source for Windows upto and including XP are being forced into open source over the next year by the European Union.



Visual C++ is only available to run on Windows, it is capable of compiling to any platform. Quite a common misconception that simply because you have to develop on Windows it automatically means what you compile must be used in it too.
Visual C++ still conforms to the ANSI C++ Standard, it just happens to have alot of Microsoft extra's that more people use because it make life easier.
Standardly it is setup for Windows development, so unless you do change the settings you'll never be able to export to anything else without using the compiler directly.



If you want to install it and for it to be secure, you have to be a programmer, there are no two ways around it. While the top-end brands have tried to eleviate this fact over the years, alot of aspect of setting it up still boil down to you not only knowing your hardware but knowing your programming.



Heh, sounds like a traditional 'Linux' fan statement that. Microsoft doesn't give a crap about Windows in the long run, they just care about making sure they have control over the market. For a decade yes this has been done through Windows, however not the focus is on the technologies behind Windows and not the OS itself.

Currently there are versions of .NET working on several platforms, the question isn't where it will work or who will use it, but more who is willing to actually PAY to have it in thier software.
Of course Microsoft will continue to provide for the end-user developers a free way of using thier platform, thier libraries, etc.. however if the other Operating System Developers wish to be able to complete with Windows they have to pay for it.

It is the same with Windows itself, Microsoft don't prevent other companies having the source. You just have to pay to use it, there is an SDK to modify it for licensing purposes. Effectively put Windows is much like Half-Life 2...

You have everything available to you for free to create free software and get everyone over to using that version of the game, while sure Valve will make alot on Half-Life 2 itself. Fact remains is they are going to make 10-100x *more* on the Licensing of the technology. How the hell do you think id Software became so rich?



I have personally lost hardware from both Operating Systems... however the only Windows that ever destroyed my hardware was NT 3.51, and technically the Hard Disk wasn't destroyed it just refuses to be repartitioned and reformatted, it still works. just can't get the bloody OS off of it.

Linux however, the reason I stopped using it a while back was because I was constantly purchasing new hardware. While sure I had a system that had linux on it and worked fine and was on constantly for 2years, personally I put this down to the simple fact that... I never touched the system. It was on to act as a backup system for putting each days backup files on-to then it'd put them onto DAT Tapes. The Linux' I used on a day to day basis kept destroying RAM and Hard Disks, one even destroyed a BIOS which ended up being costly to replace. While sure 16-32mb every 2-3 months isn't a big deal and a new 540MB HDD every few month wasn't exactly major either, the costs started to really show compared to the Windows NT/95 Machines I had that although crashed on a regular basis never needed any hardware replacements. (the NT problem was when i tried to update to Workstation 4)

Hell the fact that I am currently writing this post on my original PentiumII 266MHz right now, really does prove my point that despite having Windows NT 3.51, Windows95b, Windows ME, Windows 2000 & now Windows XP... this machine has stood the test of time. For saying it only cost me £500 back in '96 I'm quite pleased with how much value for money it has been.

Also I always have this machine running *always*, it has been up for 3years now since installing XP... while it has been rebooted a few times for Service Packs and such, it has never been switched off. It has served me very well.

Now you can either put that down to the OS being good, or the fact I know my way around Windows to set it up correctly. That said you'd probably put it down to luck, I'm not the only one who keeps his system on constantly without problems though.

While you can sit there saying that Linux has a better track record, there have been discussions in IRC before whenever Linux has come up with other people who still do use the OSs who have has similar experiences with parts going down.

For saying 'Linux / BSD' runs most of the web... well firstly you keep brining up BSD (Unix) fact is that it isn't Linux, it is Unix. I have quite a respect for that OS, I don't have any respect for the kiddy Linux. To say they are the same OS would be completely wrong so don't be trying to put them in the same boat, as they may have come from the same origins but they are very very different.

It's like trying to say that Windows 95 is just like Windows NT 4.. they might look the same but they couldn't be further different.



Holes in Microsoft can be worked around by a good Administrator. A Linux Administrator *must* have someone recode that section to work... so while Windows can be made safe with a stop-gap measure, Linux is open to the world until a bunch of students get off thier arses to fixx it. This is provided your willing to wait several months for someone to *also* come across the problem just to varify that your not crying wolf.

As such if you want to make sure security holes are filled in Linux you must be a trained programmer and understand how Linux works.

What is more is if you have a group of 10 programmers, they can work more closely and bugs will be kept to a minium. Mircosoft have learnt in past OSs that having a huge technical support staff of 70 is sometimes causing more harm than good because as they fixx one bug another one will appear because each coder has thier own style.
Working on a world-wide scale, the problem faced isn't just that of larger programming groups but also there will end up being several solutions to the same problem each with thier own pros' and cons'.

Another thing to note is, 'who knows the operating system better?' some 20yo Student who picked up the source yesterday in an attempt to help, or someone who has been working on the OS since it was created?
While alot of people say 'well more bugs are fixxed in Windows than Linux just goes to show how much more insecure it is', fact is these people are trained specifically and work 40hrs weeks on PURELY fixxing bugs. There are millions upon millions of bug reports that come in daily... as such the team not only have to decide what needs fixxing but how and in what way.

So it's really more a fact that more work is *actually* going on because it is organised. It's like IBM fixxes more bugs in Linux than any other company world wide... why? Because thier variation is more buggy? No because they have a team dedicated to fixxing the problems.

Most of the world uses Linux for high-end servers at the moment, partly for the reason; a decade ago it was the 'done' thing, and partly because it is FREE. If you notice alot of people who were using IBM Linux such-as Yahoo! and eBay, have actually over the past few years changed over to Unix.

IBM aren't going to change the deals for thier versions of Linux and Unix; perhaps for the same reason your not going to see an advert for Unix on Microsoft's homepage.
You want to always be pushing your OWN products not the ones that *could* be better solutions.

With .NET Online languages still in thier fledgling stage, realistically speaking there is no need for people to do a costly swap to Windows Server if all they're going to do is run Apache / mySql / PHP... they do that now, why spend a tonne of cash to change it?



You can turn off these things, however they are put in to protect your home computer or business from 'retard' actions.
Considering the way you have to do most things in Linux is through SH, well I really don't see the big complaint. I mean given that Command Line will also provide you with the exact same abilities.



What fairy-tale Linux world are you living in? o_0



XP works fine with security provided you keep youself up-to-date with the current happenings and solutions Microsoft provides. If your server is being broken into, then I would say to fire your current Admin and get one that knows what he's doing.

Once again... BSD is Unix... UNIX!! There is a world of difference. If your desktop crashes then again I said say that your network admin / tech support aren't doing thier job.
I have Windows XP Service Pack 1 on here and it's more stable than SuSE 9.1 Professional (which is also on here), it is simply a case fo altering the services to provide what is needed not what Windows wants to give by default.

As for the hacks on Linux failing. I was talking to my mate about security for Linux, and he said 'alright grab your laptops and boot one up to Linux and one up to Windows XP.. i'll try to break in to both' ... took him 20minutes with Windows, all of that time Windows was flashing that he was attempting to do so.

Linux took him 4minutes and he downloaded a bunch of files from the hard disk without Linux making a peep. Neither of them were securely installed, as they were fresh copies as I'd got the laptops earlier that day. Fact was it surprised me he could break in so damn fast, later on we retried the test after I'd set both up to be secure. He still broke into Linux after an hr and a half, but Windows he just gave up on after a while... searched the net for a vunerability and got in within 30minutes.

If i'd searched the net and secured against these known flaws I could've probably prevented it, but it was an interesting test to run and was interesting that he *HAD* to go online to find out how to get into Windows that had been securly setup.



Is this why the majority of game development houses either use Visual C++ or Codewarrior, with SDKs to each of the consoles or computers and currently DirectX games outnumber OpenGL games 50:1?

While you can say 'well Medal of Honour, Call of Duty, Return to Castle Wolfenstien, Quake3 are all OpenGL' fact is that only ONE of those games is actually developed from scratch, the other are modifications of the engine.



Bollocks, it's because it's cheap. The only reason they appear stable and secure is because they'll run on damaged hardware, meaning you don't know if you need to replace it (as such data corruption can happen), and no external company that has no bias has ever done extensive security tests on the OSs. Everyone just goes by the news they hear.

Sure you hear big news about Microsoft servers being broken into don't you? lol Seriously apart from Microsoft how many reports have you heard? Virii are a different issue, same goes for backdoor trojans, these are taking advantage of the users stupidity... Seriously, how many reports have you heard of a Windows platform going down due to a DDoS? Or hacked and had a forum replaced or such?

I'd hazard a guess are either you can count them on one hand or none. Because Windows servers are few and far between... So the reality is that no one really can tell. Alot of companies also don't like to be left out. You say 'well my network is using Windows Server 2003' and hear guys who know nothing about OSs make that sucky noise that always means you've done something bad.

Fact is more around society than the technology itself, and if you'd wake up to smell the CLR you'd realise that


.. wouldn't that require Empty to get aquinted with MSIL? Heh
I really don't see that going down too well, heh

Shadows of Emptiness,

Open Source products are only as good as their contributors.
but, the following is also true

Closed Source products are only as good as their contributors.

To say one approach is fundamentally superior, seems illogical, as it doesn't equate the 'talent' of those contributors.


Jeku,




Now why didn't I think of that ? ..

Yes, the only difference is other people can use and fix your code. So if you don't want other people using it then you should keep it closed.

Everything up to that point was fine but this statement is just wrong. You can edit anything on an open source OS but you can't in Windows only duild on it. Yes, you can fix bugs but if its deep enough in the kernel or something you're not going to be able to.


Actually, the only a few parts of the code are being opened up and only in a few places (universities, contractors, etc.). The entire thing will never be opened up for everyone to see unless there's an NDA invloved (although I would love to be proved wrong). Plus its mainly so the government can see that there's no malicious or undocumented software in the code.


I've set up secure Red Hat and Fedora machines without doing any programming besides typing ./configure and ./make install. Heck, my girlfreind (who, even though quite geeky, can't code for crap) installed Fedora Core and set it up with absolutely no problem.


Yes, the conversation was on open source OSes... That covers all modern BSDs (although, I do vaguely remember a closed source derivatinve of BSDi still being sold but can't find any info on it).


Again, open source. Also, technically it's not UNIX since it doesn't have the trademark nor is it POSIX nor does it include any SysV code.

That's not true. Linux can be made very secure just with editing simple script files. They're max about as complex as DOS batch files.

Of course we're never gonna reach the level of you highly optimized Crystal whatever compiler. However, the difference is, we might actually create something for the real world, you know, where real people will be able to download and use it, because it'll really exist.

*slam*

Typical bitchy attitude.. I was trying to make note that MSIL is basically a Hyper-x86 style of ASM, and given you have said on countless occasions that you prefer 68k; not to mention the fact you cling quite closely to Pascal over the C-variants, while I have no doubt you'll work around a language in Pascal .NET the actual thought of you willingly going low-level so to speak with MSIL seemed quite amusing given your dislike for the style of the syntax.

After all, why would you want to work on something you dislike just for profit in your spare time? I know I'd much rather work on something I prefer to use unless I have an obligation to it. As it stands Pascal will allow you to do what you wish with a syntax you wish.. you venture out into the .NET world and you'll have to surrender that luxury.

Might be something to think about before trying to lash out, eh



Pretty much the original point i've been trying to get across.
I've been trying to defend the Closed-Source position based on the most knowlageable Windows-Linux arguements really, however the message doesn't appear to get through much.



*nix Operating Systems are generally speaking caught under GPL, while Linux users will argue as my Ex does quite often 'this means no EULA', however the fact is this is another form of trying to protect sensitive source.

If you change the internal of the Kernel, yes you *must* by law release the altered source. Now on-top of this you can then use XFree86 in order to have a nice Graphical Interface, again if you alter the source of this you *must* release the source.

In Red-Hat 11 this is very true, you can access it's Kernel Source and it's XFree86 source freely and recompile with it freely.
Thing is that just compiling these sections does not allow you to use the themes... this requires a 3rd component in Red Hat 11, this component you do not have access to the source, while it is in a Source Runtime Program Module and you are capable of compiling it; the source itself is *not*. As such you cannot change how the Theme system works without installing a 3rd Party System, and must adhear to thier bug fixxes in this area.

Sure this is a very trivial matter, however without *Licensing* the technology you cannot have access to that source. Thus this makes Red-Hat 11 a closed-source Linux... sure the fundimentals to used it are open, and come with Fedora Core 3, however the fact remains that because there are aspects thare are closed source, you do not have *complete* access. The very License it uses does state this as well, that while the publically created aspects of the program *must* be distributed freely, the internally developed areas don't need to be released at all. It is like, while RPM is a relatively well known runtime format not.. the fact remains that the actual internal workings of it are *not* open-source and if you wish to use it, you have to download and 'hack-in' the library and header control for it.

If this is the new meaning of Open-Source, then this would technically make Microsoft Windows Open-Source as well. As once you have licensed the technology you can freely develop with it however you please and some aspects *must* be opened up for the public to use. This is the entire point in the Platform SDK, it is a huge library of the background programs and source that make up Windows. It may weigh in at a hefty 1.8GB for the entire SDK however it provides you with the abilities to alter and create a new operating system basically entirely from scratch simply using the already compiled Kernel. You may thing that Winblinds was a rather clever product to provide what Themes did for WindowsXP, however technically speaking they simply used the freely available PlatformSDK to create it.

Alot of Linux' are developed the exact same way. It is completely upto you how you decide to go about distribution; just because most Windows developers decide to close up thier source, doesn't mean that Microsoft have as well. If you are under this misguided impression I'd strongly suggest you actually research the Platform SDK and low-level Windows development.



There was a BBCNews24 report about this, that Microsoft has to 'completely' release the source for Microsoft Windows & it's dependancy libraries by 2006 up to version 5.1 (Windows XP)
This might explain why Windows Media Center 2005 works more and mroe exclusively on .NET, because this will remain closed source. No doubt another reason why Windows 'Longhorn' was delayed as well as alot of rewrites done in Windows Service Pack 2. When the news broke it seemed like nothing was going in favour of Microsoft but they have clearly shifted from a defensive position to a very agressive one once again.





How do you know it's secure if you've not had people try to break into it? That was the entire point in the experiment we ran, one that actually shut-up my Ex on the subject who is a devout Windows-hater and Linux-fan.



Either your arguing points for BSD (Unix), or Linux; you can't argue for both. Else I could argue on mark with AmigaOS, which if you have ever used it .. or MacOSX is not an OS you want entered on the side what a positive role Closed-Source can provide.



Do you know what BSD actually stands for and where the name has come from?

Unix, Linux and Irix .. are VERY different operating systems.
This is almost identical to saying because Porsche, Seat, and Fiat are all owned by the same manufacturer using the same technologies and shared designed; this means that they are identical cars.

Sorry but just because something has come from the same origin, doesn't mean that it has grown into the same thing. While sure it can be argued on the point of Open Source...

not all Unix, Linux, Irix Operating Systems *are* Open Source; not all of these Operating Systems are free.

Red Hat / Fedora aren't fully open-source, they are only as open as Red Hat deems necessary. Gentoo however is perfectly open.
MacOSX is not fully open-source, however FreeBSD is.
Microsoft Windows is not fully open-source, however BeOS MAX is.

they all use the same base, however they are very different operating systems in the end result.

I stand by my statement that anything open source inherits a lack of security simply for the reason, that even if you do make something perfectly secure.. which is improbable in it's own right, you face the problem that someone can take advantage of something that is doing exactly what it is suppose to.

An example is that you can deliberatly run a program on Linux that tries to log in with the wrong ID, you can then keep the program running to trace the new memory created and copy it as the programs checks against the internal database. You can take this memory create a new point and take the pointer address in that to the database storage. As the encryption key is created and outlined in the source you can simply take from that to create the correct encryption key in order to use your newly aquired database file pointer, search it for the data you need (the file format is outlined again in the source).. then it's just a case of logging in using the username and password retrieved. Once logged into Root you can do just about anything you please, well on most peoples installations.

Now while you can do the exact same on Windows, the fact is you'd have to have the program search for the 128-bit Encryption, provided the user doesn't have an AES capable (TCPA) Processor (then your just screwed really).. and then you have to try and sift through the data in the database files, at which Windows spans this across several files meaning you need several file pointers. Given how Windows doesn't cleanly allocate and deallocate memory, this means that you might accidentially take from memory the point to a task it is doing in the background... as again there is no open model for how the memory works, this just makes it more of a lucky dip unless you deliberately force the password program to create the memory to check and run it in a seperate thread.

So while sure, it'll take longer on Windows. This is the key really between what I would consider a 'Secure' system and an 'InSecure' system.
You can never create unbreakable security without TCPA, sorry but it's a pipedream to ever thing that pure Software Security is actually 100% Fool-Proof. Even hardware isn't, however it can make the job so insurmountable with the given technology that it makes it seem impossible.

NO! I'm arguing for open-source software! This includes BSD *AND* Linux, both of which are under the GPL or equivalent (the BSD license is labelled as open-source by the OSI)! Have you been paying attention?


Yes, do you? Doesn't seem like it...

I know where BSD comes from. I also know that Linux, SysV (aka proper UNIX), and IRIX are different. However, I also know that they as a group are all more similar than when compared to the BSDs.
Unix: The Complete Reference is considered one of the best guides to UNIX and it describes SysV, IRIX, Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, and UnixWare. Did you notice how it doesn't talk about BSD at all! Why? Because BSD and UNIX aren't related! Yes, BSD is an offshoot of UNIX and is compatible with UNIX on many levels but most of the internal compatabilty is because extensions were added to the SysV code to give it some compatability with BSD. Linux is made to emulate true, SysV UNIX not BSD. BSD also shares no code with SysV and is not, by default, POSIX. So, in closing BSD is NOT UNIX!


I never said they were...

Oh yes, and... doesn't exist. By your arguments I'm assuming that you mean either Enterprise or Workstation, which might keep some stuff closed (for commercial reasons rather than security, all the security stuff is standard SELinux compatible) but the numbering scheme ended with 9 so 10,11, etc. don't exist.

Well seeing as I took the 4th year Linux System Admin course which was, by the way, professed by a top level security advisor, our systems were very secure And we did have to download third-party tools (like from insecure.org among others), but it really was not as difficult as you'd believe.

I know that no matter how secure you think your site is, it is still inherently insecure because they're man-made. However, I'm finding it incredibly hard to believe that you say Windows is *more* secure than Unix-based OS'--- it just blows my mind. It pretty much goes against anybody that's not on MS' payroll

What I'm saying is both are as insecure out of the box, and both are as secure correctly setup by professional administrators.

I trust Windows more, for the fact that in-order for someone to break into the system they must figure out how it works. No matter how intelligent a person is, this still takes something very valueable. *Time*
Given enough time any operating system currently available can warn you that someone is doing something they shouldn't.

While sure I'll agree the home systems are insecure as hell, business platforms are not. See we're not talking about script kiddies or mass-damaging Virii, or even silly DDoS.

(While sure DDoS seems like an issue, firstly it just makes a system crash, secondly Windows Servers buffer then deny access. This means that while someone is trying to DDoS, the system will simply prevent access until such time that it stops. Means no data is lost, but the site does appear down until the DDoS is finished.)

What we're talking about here is the security, in particular hackers. While any fool can get in with a trojan fact is that these can be programmed for anything and rely on the users stupidity to actually download them and bypass all security. Hackers are who you need to be worried about as these are the people who are actually going to take and alter data. Trojans *might* provide the same abilities more often they have limited functionality due to the nature of the programs that tends to limits to just starting, closing, and powering down... stuff like that.

As the hackers are the main worry you have to think about, then really thier ability to get in undetected is what seperates the operating systems security.

While sure, a fresh install or even professionally setup version of Windows XP will show some glaring gaps in security. Windows XP Home and Professional were never designed for Server use.. atleast not on a secure business scale. Service Pack 2 does provide this, but to a limited degree really, it is still very much a home / small business / user OS.

Windows NT4 Server, Windows 2000 Server, and Windows 2003 Server.. these are the Operating Systems used for business servers and what need to be secure.

You cannot use Windows NT 4 Workstation, Windows 2000, or Windows XP Professional and expect they have the same security measures as those systems designed to protect your valueable data. If you do then you really do need to goto Microsoft.com and order yourself the 2003 Evaluation version.

What ther server editions provide is that added security for business means. While you can sit safely on the fact that 'Linux is secure, and Windows is insecure.' the fact is that this is being taken from Linux vs Windows XP... not Linux vs Windows 2003.
When you change markets you change products.

Reality speaking there is no need for hyper-security in the Home Editions, while a recent rise in Windows attacks has force Microsoft's hand to act with Service Pack 2; it is a sorry fact. The problem is that all of these constant attacks really is making Windows alot better in the security dept... while sure you can scoff at this because of Linux. Remind me when the last time Linux needed a spyware protector?

Hell, I've browsed under Linux using FireFox and the pop-up blocker just sits there doing nothing with no logs. Use the same browser on Windows XP and the same sites get a handful of pop-ups. While you can attribute this to Linux being more secure and safe, personally I see this more of a fact that Linux is only safer because it isn't ever tested of this safety.

Yet if you went through a list of server hack reports, 1:40 is a Windows one. This would be a fine and dandy ratio if Windows was minorly used for business systems; however Windows Server in one of it's many incarnations is used at a ratio of about 1:10 to a Linux Distro.
With this being the case surely if Windows was *truely* more insecure we'd be hearing reports left-right-and-center, rather than it being big headline news everytime one is broken into?

I'm not saying it is better.. hell the best closed source Operating System is and probably will continue to be AmigaOS. It's the only one that has not been successfully hacked since version 3.5, which probably isn't impressive until you realise that alot of the european particularly German hacker groups actually deliberately try to break into Amiga machines everytime they meet.

I am saying however I do trust a professionally administrated Windows Server over a Linux Server, even if it is professionally administrated. There is only so much people can do, and when it comes down to the crunch Windows provides AES (Hardware) Protection on Pentium 4 / Xeon, and Athlon64 / Opteron Processors as well as also taking longer to break into without prior knowlage.
Once a hole is discovered it can temporarily be closed down rather than needing a there and then patch...

My bank uses Microsoft Windows as it's server. I feel very secure knowing that if anyone tries to electronically fraud and take money from any account there, that it is more likely than not that while they may end up getting in... in the end they will be caught due to records kept by the OS and there is a good chance that it will take so long they could be detected and a lock-down system put into effect.

Perhaps not perfect secure, but it makes me feel safe enough.



Pick Linux or Unix... that's what I'm saying. Defend from a single position because you can cover the short fallings of one OS with the strong points of the other. This makes a perfect case, you have yet to provide a complete case for either. The fact that you keep switching depend on the situation your facing suggests even more to me that rather than Open Source providing something in a complete packaged, in order to have what I have right now with Windows I would have to combine several packages.

While this might seem like a nice solution to you, I don't want to deal with incomptibilities or have to compile the OS myself or patch in order for everything to work correctly.

Personally I prefer the ability of taking a CD, putting it in the Disc Drive and an hr later having a fully working computer with OS that I can tinker to my hearts content... or just leave alone and use without worrying about what is installed, what needs to be built into the kernel, what Windowing system I'm using, etc...



alrighty.. a nice little quote for you to find on your own



Does Berkeley mean anything to you?
BSD not Unix ... HA! yeah, and on that day Microsoft decided to also give away free X-Box's with Gentoo installed.



Red Hat 9 was the final *free* edition, it wasn't the final edition to be numbered. Red Hat 10 a.k.a. Fedora Core 1, and Red Hat 11 a.k.a. Fedora Core 3.

Just because they renamed Red Hat free edition to Fedora doesn't mean that the *real* product dropped it's name and version method.
You should go out and actually learn more about the Operating Systems your trying to dearly to fight for here.

I think perhaps if you want to really argue your case better then perhaps try focusing on something else... such-as .NET; really does provide very good arguments for both sides. Might require a little more research though.

Umm... yes.. I know where University of California at Berkeley is and what they do and even what Berkely Software Design Inc. did. You're little quote really proved nothing (what was it supposed to?). Still BSD isn't UNIX. If BSD is UNIX then you're admitting that Linux is UNIX. Both BSD and Linux are free, open-source operating systems that maintain compatability with, yet share no code with, At&T's original System V UNIX. SysV can legally carry the name UNIX since it's POSIX, BSD and UNIX can't since they don't conform to it as a rule.


First, what's Fedora Core 2 then? Also, this quote:

appears on the bottom of the Fedora Core website and the documentation. Also, the Red Hat name and logo appear nowhere on the installer, desktop, documentation, etc. Since the Red Hat OSes were always given support by Red Hat (they were commercial products remember) they bore the logo and name, Fedora doesn't, so it's not the next of the Red Hat series.



Why? We're debating open-source versus closed-source, correct? I'm illustrating the strong points of open-source operating systems and that despite the fact that they're open-source they're still very secure. Yes, I'll admit Linux isn't perfect. If I were to create a high-performance and high-security server I'd probably use either Open- or FreeBSD. However, Linux is very secure, more secure than NT, 2000, or XP and is more commonly in use plus arguably more "user friendly". Closed-source has its place, if you have a function that you don't want reproduced in other places then keep it closed but for security you need open-source. Why? If a problem arises who would I trust, a group of contributors around the world or Microsoft? The group of contributors of course. You can see what they changed and what was causing the problems. Microsoft just magically fixes everything for you and then, what do you know, another hole is discovered in a week. Microsoft has shown that, so far, they've had many problems with detecting and fixing security holes. Open-source products like Apache, Linux, OpenSSH, etc. get security holes too but are fixed in the same amount of time as the closed-source Microsoft ones and we get to see what changes they made and make sure that the changes really work and what they did. Also, yes, someone can easily peruse the code and see if they can find any errors, but that's the joy of open-source! They're confident in their security so they don't need to hide it. Anyone can mask their source code so people can't try to get around security but only when you can let the world see your code and still have no holes is when true security is reached.

Obviously you don't, else we wouldn't even be having this coversation. I find it pretty pointless aruging a case with someone who is unaware of what is *actually* the program he is trying to draw from and which isn't.

Linux / Unix are not the only Open Source programs, your the one who has fixated on them.. as I have mentioned they are not the same program so pick one to show the most advantages. Else you are arguing the case on to broad an area, making up for where one lacks with the others strengths. I picked Windows for the simple reason it was an opposing OS that everyone has knowlage about, but I could quite as easily make this an argument about Quake vs Half-Life.

Same thing and people tend not to have already formed opinions on the underlying software past how good it looks.

Thank you.


No, it isn't.



The 68k has a much better architecture than the x86. Nevertheless it's been a good 10 years since I released my last piece of software for an 68k computer (namely ST). Why? Because it's dead.



I dislike the x86, too. As well as a lot of things in Windows and the PE format. But that's no reason not to investigate it when it is required.



Even though I've only touched the surface of the IL (as there's currently no need to go deeper), from your above statement, it seems it's still more than you have done.

Empty, if that's your conclusion then fine.



As I said above you developing using .NET seems quite amusing to me.
Hmm .. this said, probably do it all at a higher-level anyways

Now show me an example with 3 local integer variables. Add the first two and store the result in the 3rd. Then you'll prolly notice MSIL is totally stack based (very similar to Java's bytecode), opposed to the x86 where most operations are done via registers.

Everything I said was correct. Look it up. If you find something different (which you won't) tell me to prove that you are right and I am wrong, don't say I'm wrong and give no proof. You didn't even say how I was wrong.

BSD or Berkeley Software Distribution is the name of the UNIX derivation produced by the University of California at Berkeley. In the '70s AT&T Bell Labs let universities have the source code to UNIX. Eventually, the code at Berkeley had been completely redone and new code had been put in in the place of AT&T's original code along with many extenstions. In the early '90s the source code was released under the BSD license (which is open-source). AT&T sued BSD Inc. and the Regents of the University of California for copyright infringement but the case was settled out of court allowing that BSD could remain free and out of AT&T's control so long as no code from UNIX was in it.


Your first two posts were comparing Linux and Windows so you were the one who started this fixation. I brought up BSD since it's similar to Linux (open-source, free, and based on UNIX) and is an example of the success of open-source. You could start talking about Norton Anti-virus or Internet Explorer or Visual C++, I have no objections, but I can just as easily counter with OpenAntiVirus or Mozilla or OpenWatcom. Oh yeah, did you know that Quake's source has been open for porting since 1996 (the year it was released) and fully GPLed in 1999? Obviously not.

Guys, there isn't much point arguing with Raven ("Leyvin"), his posts are aimed at winding people up more than anything.

In his past history, Raven has tried to argue with a fully qualified lawyer about English Law, asserted that the GameBoy Advance has a 300Mhz processor, stated that DBPro is an interpreter, claimed to have played the full version of Half-Life 2 a long time before it was finished and ... I don't really need to go on.

DBC is isn't it?

I dunno ,his 'bank' analogy almost swung it for me



NOT