im in love.....

Jug-A-Lug

Linux 0wnz meh
i just installed corel 1.2 on a 5gig i have to test it out, and i have to say.....IM IN LOVE!!!!!

Lucutus

nurd

Kali

corel linux? love?
those three words dont go together in the same sentence.
"pile of ****e" might be a better and more accurate description of corels effort

Hecate

bold.

install Suse 7.1, and go off and think about what you've done

Jug-A-Lug

by love i mean linux in general, i will be trying out mandrake 8 and redhat7 aswell, so as to give me a better view of things but i LOVE the interface, and im downloading faster.

Lenny

How much faster?

chernobyl

linux sux, get a real os like FreeBSD..a mans OS

Coyote

FreeBSD that load of unsafe OS
OpenBSD thast what your real looking for

Coyote

Jug-A-Lug

well in netshop our average download is 26k/sec

i was downloading numerous files today and note one was lower than 34k/sec

Kali

what wasn't mentioned also was the large difference in supported aplications and available binaries between freebsd and openbsd, the latter requiring major google sessions to find what your looking for

Coyote

Them were the days when men were men and
real men wrote there owen device drivers.
well you did say you wanted a mans OS

Coyote

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Coyote:
FreeBSD that load of unsafe OS
OpenBSD thast what your real looking for
</font>

I think you may be exageratting the security holes in FreeBSD a BIT, Coyote.

Renton

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jug-A-Lug:
well in netshop our average download is 26k/sec

i was downloading numerous files today and note one was lower than 34k/sec</font>

On a 256k Leased line ...

Hmm .. (/me whips out the calculat0r)

256 Kilobits / second (devide by 8)
32 Kilobytes / second

So then theoritically 32 kb/sec is you're ABSOLUTE max possible... Hmm and you got 34... wowsers thats cool... How'dya do it jag, plz tell us

RentZ

[IAR]Nevermind

hey lets get all sust jag out and try and call him a lier

Gerry

I was looking on the net to see how secure freebsd is, but I couldnt find any exploits for the latest release, 4.3 STABLE. Thats pretty good considering Freebsd runs many more services than openbsd by default. The fact that I couldnt find any doesnt count for much, but its still quite a secure os in most peoples opinion. Could you explain exactly how unsafe freebsd is coyote?

Zee Dude

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Coyote:
Them were the days when men were men and
real men wrote there owen device drivers.
well you did say you wanted a mans OS

Coyote</font>

Ahh a proper OS, a day is not complete without rebuilding the kernal at least once.

Coyote

Gerry you were looking for info well here it is about as good as you can get.

http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os.html#ALL
that is a list servers cracked in the 20 months.

FreeBSD 299 servers cracked
OpenBSD 7

Coyote

Kali

just one point on those attrition numbers..
while theres no arguing that OpenBSD is the more secrure of the two, the number of servers running OpenBSD is much much lower than those running FreeBSD, thus warping those figures slightly.

I've had a look around the site and I don't seem to see a percentage of servers hacked using a particular OS.

Also its a common fact that people are more likely to try and hack the more common servers moreso than say a Mac or NetBSD or a much rarer OS, simply because at this stage they are known inside out.

CiaranC

FreeBSD 299 servers cracked
OpenBSD 7

Hmm,

Isnt FreeBSD the more popular? Thats like saying

Win2k Servers cracked 299
Win3.1 7

quozl

I think Mike was joking. If you knew the os's, then you'd know OpenBSDs raison d'etre is security. Thats the basic aim behind it. FreeBSD is trying for a more usable and friendly system. OpenBSD is safer. Both are as safe as anyone on this board is ever likely going to need.
Mike is correct. And wasnt trying to get a big debate. (btw I'd rather FreeBSD myself for the reason kali gave above.)
quozl
Renton, dont even leased lines use software compression in their protocols? (no idea about hardware, doubt it). Hence 34k should be possible? (although physically it would really be just 32k/s, but the same compression ratios would apply to his 24k/s result anyway)