Anybody use Linux? For old hardware, which distro?
in [Setup]
|
From: Keith Keller on 3 Jun 2010 14:30 ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.setup.] On 2010-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > unruh wrote: >> >> I think most would say that any linux will only work for 5 years at >> most, as will most other OS. Not that it will not run after 5 years( >> assuming the hardware still works) but that so many security issues will >> have cropped up that it is dangerous to use it. Of course many still run >> Windows 95. And many also are infected by viruses, trojans and other >> nasties, and are a danger on the web. But they run. > > Linux wise, thats relative bollocks. > > Linux will run forever, as will any system that's not mucked around with > too much. Yes, it will, but what happens when the distro maintainer stops issuing security updates for (e.g.) openssh? Your choice is to either take it over yourself or upgrate to a newer distro release. That was unruh's point above--note he specifically stated that it'll run just fine. > The reason you upgrade is not because the SOFTWARE stops working. Its > because the hardware does, or something you want to do is no longer > possible on the old software. ....such as keeping up with security updates. Now, as far as the particular number chosen, 5 years? I'm not convinced about that--CentOS 3, for example, is still updated, and it was released over six years ago. (I believe that CentOS 2 is still getting updates, even.) Red Hat's official life cycle for RHEL releases is seven years. So RHEL 2 is EOL, and RHEL3 will be later this year. See http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/ Slackware still issues updates for 8.1, which was released in 2002. So I think this depends greatly on the distribution--clearly distributions can be found that will continue to release patches for longer than five years. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: David Brown on 3 Jun 2010 15:32 Keith Keller wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.setup.] > > On 2010-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> unruh wrote: >>> I think most would say that any linux will only work for 5 years at >>> most, as will most other OS. Not that it will not run after 5 years( >>> assuming the hardware still works) but that so many security issues will >>> have cropped up that it is dangerous to use it. Of course many still run >>> Windows 95. And many also are infected by viruses, trojans and other >>> nasties, and are a danger on the web. But they run. >> Linux wise, thats relative bollocks. >> >> Linux will run forever, as will any system that's not mucked around with >> too much. > > Yes, it will, but what happens when the distro maintainer stops issuing > security updates for (e.g.) openssh? Your choice is to either take it > over yourself or upgrate to a newer distro release. That was unruh's > point above--note he specifically stated that it'll run just fine. > >> The reason you upgrade is not because the SOFTWARE stops working. Its >> because the hardware does, or something you want to do is no longer >> possible on the old software. > > ...such as keeping up with security updates. > Somebody has been living too long with Windows, and even then with the myths perpetuated by "security" software vendors. You don't need to "keep up with security updates" on a computer unless you have put it in a risky place or are doing risky things with it. Even with Windows, firewall software, antivirus software, windows updates, etc., are a waste of time from a security viewpoint. If you think you need them, you've made a mistake in how you have arranged your network and how you use your computer. To take a concrete example, suppose you want to have an apache webserver accessible on the Internet. You need to keep up with security issues for apache, and any web applications you are running. That doesn't mean you need to keep updating it - you only need to fix things if they are actually relevant. You don't need to worry about issues with the kernel or any other software on the machine, because no one from outside has access to it. You don't need to worry about issues with web browsers or user applications, because there aren't any on the server. You don't need to worry about weaknesses in the ssh server because you have a firewall that limits access to it, and you have it on a non-standard port, so no cracker gets a chance to exploit it. Trying to keep something secure by continually patching known holes is a loser's game. You keep it secure by design, and by letting in only the traffic you want to let in. The only time I have ever seen malware on any of the systems I am responsible for - mostly windows desktops of various kinds, plus Linux servers and the odd Linux desktop - was due to the weak point of any good security system - users. Users are the only part of the system that actually need regular updating.
From: RayLopez99 on 3 Jun 2010 15:59 On Jun 3, 7:37 pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > I think most would say that any linux will only work for 5 years at > most, as will most other OS. Not that it will not run after 5 years( > assuming the hardware still works) but that so many security issues will > have cropped up that it is dangerous to use it. Of course many still run > Windows 95. And many also are infected by viruses, trojans and other > nasties, and are a danger on the web. But they run. Thanks. So you claim (and it may be true, though it seems to contradict the Linux propaganda) even Linux runs security risks after five years, unless you upgrade the kernel? Interesting.... RL
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jun 2010 16:01 Keith Keller wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.setup.] > > On 2010-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> unruh wrote: >>> I think most would say that any linux will only work for 5 years at >>> most, as will most other OS. Not that it will not run after 5 years( >>> assuming the hardware still works) but that so many security issues will >>> have cropped up that it is dangerous to use it. Of course many still run >>> Windows 95. And many also are infected by viruses, trojans and other >>> nasties, and are a danger on the web. But they run. >> Linux wise, thats relative bollocks. >> >> Linux will run forever, as will any system that's not mucked around with >> too much. > > Yes, it will, but what happens when the distro maintainer stops issuing > security updates for (e.g.) openssh? Your choice is to either take it > over yourself or upgrate to a newer distro release. That was unruh's > point above--note he specifically stated that it'll run just fine. > >> The reason you upgrade is not because the SOFTWARE stops working. Its >> because the hardware does, or something you want to do is no longer >> possible on the old software. > > ...such as keeping up with security updates. > since the original question was about something not on the net, frankly who cares? Chances are no one will target an exploit onto 5 year old code, anyway. I have not seen a Linux virus that works. Most of the security updates are to plug holes that the code junkies found before the hackers did. > Now, as far as the particular number chosen, 5 years? I'm not convinced > about that--CentOS 3, for example, is still updated, and it was released > over six years ago. (I believe that CentOS 2 is still getting updates, > even.) Red Hat's official life cycle for RHEL releases is seven years. > So RHEL 2 is EOL, and RHEL3 will be later this year. See > > http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/ > > Slackware still issues updates for 8.1, which was released in 2002. So I > think this depends greatly on the distribution--clearly distributions > can be found that will continue to release patches for longer than five > years. > Indeed, if that is really necessary. > --keith >
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jun 2010 16:02
David Brown wrote: > Users are the only part of the system > that actually need regular updating. yeah hang the fuckers. Starting with Ray. |