Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs
in [General Linux]
|
From: Köhlmann is aka 'Petey Toro' OLAY! on 4 Nov 2009 18:37 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Kholmann is aka little 'Petey Toro' OLAY! wrote: >> like a rouge sysadmin individual that has a hankering to start using >> Linux > ^^^^^ > > Is that what you call a Red Hat afficionado?.. No, that would be some clown out of control right out of Taco Bell.
From: Aragorn on 4 Nov 2009 18:41 On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as dennis(a)home wrote... > > > "Aragorn" <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message > news:hcrvkj$h1c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >> identifying as dennis(a)home wrote... >> >>> Of course there is another explanation.. >>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin >>> staff. >>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-) >> >> This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control >> hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single >> other Windows PC these days. <grin> > > Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems.. Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server - i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it easier for a controller to index them. The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt k1ddi3s get to play with it as well. > they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load > AV software or just turn them off. The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer - generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed there and what not. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: William Poaster on 4 Nov 2009 19:01 Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls, Aragorn was heard to say: > On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody > identifying as dennis(a)home wrote... > >> >> >> "Aragorn" <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message >> news:hcrvkj$h1c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >>> identifying as dennis(a)home wrote... >>> >>>> Of course there is another explanation.. >>>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin >>>> staff. >>>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-) >>> >>> This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control >>> hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single >>> other Windows PC these days. <grin> >> >> Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems.. > > Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a > botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server - > i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can > communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been > running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for > technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online > and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird > messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the > simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it > easier for a controller to index them. > > The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and > freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt > k1ddi3s get to play with it as well. > >> they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load >> AV software or just turn them off. > > The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may > inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked > home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer - > generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of > unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain > untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed > there and what not. So dennis(a)home showing that is something else he knows nothing about, botnets. What a surprise. -- Linux. The Malicious Software Removal tool which wipes Windows from your PC in seconds!
From: Peter Köhlmann on 4 Nov 2009 19:36 William Poaster wrote: > Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls, Aragorn was heard to say: > >> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 21:20 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >> identifying as dennis(a)home wrote... >> >>> >>> >>> "Aragorn" <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:hcrvkj$h1c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody >>>> identifying as dennis(a)home wrote... >>>> >>>>> Of course there is another explanation.. >>>>> windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin >>>>> staff. >>>>> Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-) >>>> >>>> This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control >>>> hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single >>>> other Windows PC these days. <grin> >>> >>> Botnet controllers are usually hijacked unix/linux systems.. >> >> Actually, this is not true. The purpose of a UNIX(-like) machine in a >> botnet is usually to run either an official or a covert IRC server - >> i.e. in the event of a rooted UNIX box - so that the botnet members can >> communicate with eachother via an IRC client. I happen to have been >> running an IRC network for many years - it's currently down for >> technical reasons - and we've seen such botnet IRC clients come online >> and gather in a number of awkward channels, even spitting out weird >> messages. Of course, they don't need to do that, as they can use the >> simple "/PRIVMSG" protocol, but having them in a channel might make it >> easier for a controller to index them. >> >> The software that controls the botnets is usually readily made and >> freely downloadable Windows software. That's how come the scr1pt >> k1ddi3s get to play with it as well. >> >>> they are too important to be windows machines as the user might load >>> AV software or just turn them off. >> >> The botnet controller is not a part of the botnet (although it may >> inadvertently be a member of another botnet). It is not a hijacked >> home or office PC. It's the black hat's own personal computer - >> generally a laptop with a wireless NIC so that he can make use of >> unprotected wireless LANs to gain access to the internet and remain >> untraceable himself - and so he's in charge of what gets installed >> there and what not. > > So dennis(a)home showing that is something else he knows nothing about, > botnets. What a surprise. > Well, knowing absolutely nothing about MD5 isn't his only goal, it seems. Although in that case he has succeeded just fine. He truly knows *nothing* about MD5 It seems he is now on to new frontiers. Why not botnets? It seems a worthy cause for MD5-dennis to know absolutely nothing about those, too -- Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Stupidity. And I'm not quite sure about the former. - Albert Einstein
From: JEDIDIAH on 4 Nov 2009 22:25
On 2009-11-04, chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > Mr. Majestic wrote: > >> You show me the corporate policy somewhere that mandates a Linux >> initiative, without justification to senior management that controls the >> budget. >> >> You're blowing smoke here, pure smoke. Coversion from one platform to >> another cost money. It's not for free, and it's not going to be slipped >> in no back door, when its coming out of other people's budgets, as there >> are other stake holders involved. > > Idiot. Nothing that Jed has written is in opposition to any of that. You > like building straw men that you can knock down? He makes it sounds like IT systems are bought and then used as if they were set in stone for 30 years. While there are some systems out there like that, they certainly aren't WinDOS based. So you are going to have to deal with "conversion" costs either way. There will be mandatory upgrades required to keep the product supported. There may need to be code changes to support newer versions of the system. There will be training costs necessary to deal with changes that inevitably come with new versions of monopolyware. An application may reach a tipping point where Windows doesn't scale anymore. Or an application may not scale using Windows at all to begin with. TCO might make a "conversion" seem warranted. -- In a "stable" but "inconsistent" system, the end user only ||| has to adapt once rather than needing to adapt any time a / | \ new version of the relevant shovelware is released. |