Microsoft uses Ubuntu!

[phrostbyte]

http://download.microsoft.com/download/E/D/D/EDD40B84-7889-4B7F-9EEE-D9D690751DB2/Linux_avi.wmv


Microsoft uses Ubuntu and makes a nice little video of how to install PHP and Apache on Ubuntu desktop. :lolflag:

[ad_267]

This is from a series comparing linux and microsoft servers and is supposed to show that microsofts method is better, although this video seems to make it look a lot easier with linux.

It's from here: http://www.microsoft.com/ireland/getthefacts/default.mspx

Also see this thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=758243

[phrostbyte]

I know, it's almost informative. Maybe we can get permission to put this on http://screencasts.ubuntu.com? Haha! :)

This is the only video like this I can find.

[lavinog]

I find this to be interesting on m$ comparison with linux on security:
http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/windowsserver/compare/graphics/vulnerability_chart.gif
I would think minimizing the unfixed vulnerabilities would be the most important. In which case m$ is pointing out that ubuntu is better.
link:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/linux/server-security.mspx

[SunnyRabbiera]

yeh its funny on how this is actually HARDER to install on windows despite this guy's insistence that its easier on windows...
what a maroon!

[FuturePilot]

I think Microsoft needs to pull their foot out of their mouth after demonstrating how much easier it is to install PHP on Ubuntu.

:lolflag:

[Tuna-Fish]

Only they did it wrong.

The correct command is


sudo tasksel install lamp-server

..and then go grab a cup of coffee while it installs.

[Koori23]

the vulnerability aspect is somewhat humorous to me.

If you actually read thru them on secunia, in some cases it's like "If OS's were cars". If the engine blows up on your Vista or Server 03 system and your coffee mug doesn't fit in your cupholder on your Ubuntu machine, somehow those drawbacks carry the same weight.

Every time I see a bar chart comparing the two, I always think that.

[LightB]

The thing you have to remember about Secunia though is that it's about issues that were volunteered by the developer of an OS or the apps it runs, not actual ones in existence. So even that graph would strongly suggest that some Linux distros are far less lenient with vulnerabilities than the other guys on it. And well, it's the truth.

[Old Marcus]

I may sound noobish, but is this required to view php files from your own computer? Since I'm making a website with a bit of php and every time I try and look at it with firefox(yes I know it has to run through an apache server for the php to work) it tries to download the file. :confused:

[DutchDude]

I find this to be interesting on m$ comparison with linux on security:
http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/windowsserver/compare/graphics/vulnerability_chart.gif
I would think minimizing the unfixed vulnerabilities would be the most important. In which case m$ is pointing out that ubuntu is better.
link:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/linux/server-security.mspx

Interesting.

Yet the picture can lead to press releases that Ubuntu contains more vulnerabilities than Microsoft. I've seen such articles in the media in the past, but these were not very effective for Microsoft. Most people think: if Microsoft bashes Ubuntu, then Ubuntu must be good. If Microsoft needs bashing Ubuntu to promote its products, then Ubuntu must be very good!

Apparently, they softened their tone of voice hoping that the www-community would react softer on their "get the facts" campaign.

[Teber]

actually the testing is done on a working server, which need not be your own computer. if php works properly on the server it will work for anybody. you just need to install php on the server where the php docs will be. php will then run serverside, meaning it will run even on ******* machines!

very much the same can be said of perl and asp and some other goodies!

[SunnyRabbiera]

Interesting.

Yet the picture can lead to press releases that Ubuntu contains more vulnerabilities than Microsoft. I've seen such articles in the media in the past, but these were not very effective for Microsoft. Most people think: if Microsoft bashes Ubuntu, then Ubuntu must be good. If Microsoft needs bashing Ubuntu to promote its products, then Ubuntu must be very good!

Apparently, they softened their tone of voice hoping that the www-community would react softer on their "get the facts" campaign.


No if the chart read properly Ubuntu is the better as it shows ubuntu developers actually pay attention to bug reports and security patches, though in this case red hat would be best.
though if Debian were in it I dont think the chart can take it :D

[DoctorMO]

As a perl developer it's amusing to me how some people install perl on windows.

1) They had all the installers downloaded already
2) They didn't show how easy it was to update perl/php/apache on ubuntu
3) How do you view the perl and php docs, run perldoc.exe?
4) I fail to see how I could write perl in notepad for a large project.
5) They didn't tell you how many more vulnerabilities active state perl has.