See related articles to this posting Arup wrote: So it's basically just a fast pathed Mutex. Mutexes are slower since they always involve a kernel call. The disadvantages of a CritcalSection besides not working among processes is they don't have a handle to use with things like WaitForMultipleObjects.
Blog This With all of this talk about firewalls, many people are asking "what are the advantages of Linux firewalls over firewalls running on Windows? First, is Linux more secure than Windows as a firewall platform? Second, what problems do Linux firewalls manage to avoid which plague Windows firewalls?
Third, why do organizations use Windows firewalls at all? On the way, I'll introduce Bastille Linux, a popular security project that includes a fairly powerful free firewall.
The point is, it might be very easy to share stuff between different versions of windows, but it is as easy to do the same between linux and windows or mac and windows, at least in the present. Maybe it used to be different. Hi Doug, I made some changes to the code in vm/. You will need to make a new boot image. The main change is that on Windows CE the cd, cwd and os- env primitives now . Linux And Windows NT Essay, Research Paper. Forget the browser wars. This year’s big nerd battle is the server shootout. between Linux and Windows NT – and it’s not just a bunch of geeks.
The most obvious reason that you should put your firewall on a Linux or Unix platform is that the alternative, Windows, has shown itself to be rather insecure. MicroSoft doesn't appear to care one bit about security, as incident after incident has shown in the past few years.
Between the Melissa, LoveLetter, Code Red and Nimda worms and a whole host of other programs that have easily preyed on vulnerabilities and security bugs in MicroSoft products, we've watched MicroSoft customers lose a huge amount of money and man-hours fixing unnecessary problems in their software.
The industry is even beginning to lose confidence in MicroSoft's ability to create secure applications.
In a world dominated by MicroSoft marketing, this was a significant deviation from the norm. The security community is currently discussing the fact that several insurance companies are now charging MicroSoft NT and IIS clients greater premiums, to account for the higher danger in running this operating system and server.
MicroSoft doesn't appear capable of creating a sound Web server that these groups will trust. Now, when you take note of the fact that operating systems are far more complex than server applications, and that complexity tends to cause more security problems, you see why many of us agree with these insurance companies.
We don't trust MicroSoft to create a secure operating system. Many of us don't even trust MicroSoft to create a stable operating system, much less a secure one. This makes me wonder whether any program that must have a very, very low rate of failure should be running on a Windows system.
As noted security writer Mike Rash puts it, "why would anyone run the single point of failure for your entire network on the king of reboot operating systems?! See, the entire operating system can be tuned for security by a competent system administrator.
While a Linux or Unix operating system usually ships as a general-purpose platform, it's designed to be tuned for the administrator's particular purposes, whether that be as a mail server, a firewall platform, or a workstation.
Securing these systems is a well-understood process - there are a number of books, courses and articles on the topic. Windows, on the other hand, has historically been very difficult to secure.
Firstly, the MicroSoft operating systems have either had less tunable security settings or they've had so many possibly conflicting settings that the unnecessary complexity buries the system administrator.
Secondly, a number of MicroSoft products have been known to ignore their own security settings - even in the case where a system administrator was able to configure the right settings, the product's own bugs stopped those settings from taking effect and preventing a system compromise.
Linux and Unix are just the opposite here. The security settings are generally present by design. Further, because the operating systems are so comprehensible and open, it's a trivial task to remove unnecessary or vulnerable subsystems.
This makes tuning for security fairly easy for an experienced system adminstrator. There are even a number of programs that can help an ordinary user or an inexperienced system administrator perform this task.
Bastille Linux is one example - this program both tightens security on a machine and teaches the user about security. It teaches the user about security so that he can make the best informed decisions about tightening security - it then uses the results of those decisions to carefully tune the security settings available.
Titan is another such example. By the way, due to the Open Source nature of Linux, it's even easier to secure than most of the Unix's. Part of this is due to the fact that a third party can modify the operating system itself, not just the settings, for greater security. WireX also makes an entire host of solutions to do the same type of thing, including SubDomain, a product which allows a system administrator to define exactly which files that an application will have access to.
A number of similar solutions exist as well. The wonderful thing about Linux's Open Source nature is that you're given the ability to not only inspect your entire operating system, but change it on a whim.
All in all, Linux just makes a much better platform to install a firewall on top of, rather than Windows. The Windows operating system has a bad track record for instability problems, bugs and security vulnerabilities.
Linux in particular, and Unix in general, avoids these by either being built more solidly or having far greater tunability.
Let's take a look at a related issue: Windows machines appear designed for maximal ease of use, with many pieces automatically woven together to make the experience easier for the user.
Unfortunately, this leads to a system that's far more complex than is safe - this creates security holes as different pieces interact with each other in ways that weren't originally intended.The information above is as accurate as I could make it based on a reasonable time studying the respective companies' Web sites.
There is no guarantee that these configurations, prices, and. Jan 12, · Byte declared Unix dead when Windows NT came out. Some 25 years later, Both Windows and Linux have problems of approximately the same level. This is why Linux is not the dominant desktop - it is in the same league as Windows.
Why Linux makes Windows 7 obsolete (13) September (1) August (1).
For many years Microsoft was a Sybase distributor, reselling the Sybase product for OS/2 and (later) NT under the name "Microsoft SQL Server." Around , Microsoft basically bought a copy of the source code for Sybase SQL Server and then went its own way.
Hence, he concludes, Microsoft will kill Windows! "Still, it's a big bet Microsoft is making here, one that leaves it both a big winner (Office) and loser (Windows).
. Jan 01, · I read somewhere that Longhorn isn't due until at the earliest. I'm curious as to why there is such a long time between it's release following. The True Zoom is between 9mm and 15mm thick. Snapping it onto the Moto Z Play Droid or Moto Z Force Droid brings the total thickness to 16mm/22mm or .