All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
31 Aug 2006
King's College School, one of the UK's top public schools, claims to have saved thousands in software licensing by deploying an open source network infrastructure.
The Cambridge-based school partnered with Sirius Corporation, a European IT services group specialising in open source software, to build and support the Linux-based network which includes email and proxy filtering systems.
The system features management tools that technical staff can use to monitor student usage of the internet, network storage and email.
Wendy Harris, network manager at King's College School, said: "The decision to use open source software does not merely stem from a need to save money, but to save time as well.
"Without open source we would spend our time fire-fighting holes, hackers and viruses. With open source software we spend our time focusing on education, not hardware or software.
"ICT in schools is there to better our children's futures. If the management of computer equipment becomes more important than facilitating teachers, supporting operational staff, or enhancing the learning experience of children, we will have failed to justify ICT in education."
Latest stories from Open Source
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Sneak peek at the forthcoming glass-based machine
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Software Design Architect (Windows Database Application...
Lead Java Developer - Fast growing, young and international...
Job Specification Graduate Support Engineer...
Job Specification For: Software Developer...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Open Source software is (generally) more secure by design.
Agreed, no computer system is completely secure unless it is monitored by pro-active, competent support people. That said, Linux, in specific, is fundamentally more secure than Windows due to the proper use of privileged and unprivileged users, separation of tasks, and a far more modular design (with very few dependencies). To say that Windows is a secure as Linux is a patently false statement. It can, with extraordinary trouble and great experience be made fairly secure, perhaps comparable to most out-of-the-box Linux distributions, but this level of vigilance and security is seldom applied to Windows installations. As long as Windows employs IE (and ActiveX) and normal users log in with Admin priviledges, Windows is as secure as a wet paper bag.
Posted by: David Lane 03 Sep 2006
Security
I do agree with the article. I have used both Windows and Linux for about 6 years now. Linux is both far more stable and far more secure. Only a handful of Linux viruses exist, and those exist only in the lab, not in the "wild". If there is a risk with Linux, it is that, since Linux is virus-free, it can act as a "carrier" to any Windows machines, so in that sense, when Linux is part of a mixed network, it needs virus protection to keep the Linux boxes from infecting the more vulnerable Windows boxes.
Posted by: Jerry McGill 03 Sep 2006
Open Source reply
> Linux and unix systems are > just as easy for hackers > and viruses to infect if > thay have not been set up > properly At the last count there were something in the region of 60,000 viruses for Windows and a grand total of 5 for Linux. Linux users tend to run browsers and mailers as ordinary users, whereas the bulk of domestic and SME Windows users run as the God user; making escalation of a Windows hack trivial. > likewise windows operating > systems are just as easy > to keep secure if they > have been set up properly. True .. except that it is more difficult, more costly and more time consuming to get to and maintain that point. > in todays age open source > software needs updating to > cover security threats, as > does all software. Very true .. but there is a slight difference. The patches come out quicker, they tend actually fix the issue, not make it worse and are easier to reliably apply using rpm or deb. > I think the days of ANY > software never needing to > be updated for security > reasons are well over, > regardles of price. Nobody ever claimed that Open Source software was infallable or never needed updating. Plenty have claimed that it is more stable and showed fewer and less dangerous security issues, because of the intense peer review to which it is subjected.
Posted by: Andrew Meredith 03 Sep 2006
Just a vulnerable, I agree
I agree that open source software is just as vulnerable, but as things stand today, it is a MUCH smaller target. With the majority of the world using Windows, there are many, many more threats targeting those systems. So, even if open source code is as poorly written as Microsoft's, the open source code would be less likely to be compromised. Regards, Jason
Posted by: Jason 03 Sep 2006
Windows security
Well, it depends on your Windows configuration. If you run windows conservatively with very few rights for the user, you are right. But windows security settings gets very confusing very fast - even if you use GPO, and most users will need more rights for their daily work than the default user have. Hence many administrators give their users poweruser rights -or even administrative rights- and then you have the problem with hackers, root kits and viruses. In most opensource operating systems, you are either administrator or user. A simple user cannot change important system settings, but only local files and folders. Almost all opensource applications are fine with this configuration (windows applications rarely are). And hence one of the major infection vectors is closed down. Ofcourse everybody needs to patch and upgrade when flaws are found. But that part is not rocket science.
Posted by: Jacob 02 Sep 2006
Duncan is mis-informed
Duncan, name 5 viruses that have infected a Kinux kernel... I'm waiting. Truth is YOU CAN'T, and the reason why is so fundamental to why Linux and Unix (also Mac OSX) are different than Windows, that it just shows you have no clue what you are talking about. You speak as if they are pretty much the same but maybe just look different?
Posted by: Uticus Fell 02 Sep 2006
This Is Not True (tm)
A blanket statement suggesting that Open Source software is "just as vulnerable" as software you pay for is something you really shouldn 't make, at all. It's true that you get into trouble sooner or later with *any* kind of system that is not maintained properly (admin s really should keep all their systems updated!), but there are many reasons why Open Source software ultimately is a lot more secure: - default application settings after installation that make sense instead of keeping the barn door open for attackers (almost all Linux distributions very carefully select which things to activate and which better to avoid for security reasons) - time from security hole discovery to patch *much* less than with certain proprietary vendors (some vendors announce a patch the moment a security hole is being announced, however in fact the hole has been internally known to them for months already, which in such cases often is much higher than comparable cases in Open Source software) - avoidance of stupid mail attachment execution and other really annoying security-breaching habits - systematic security issues in Windows which are (nearly?) completely unfixable (Google "shattered windows exploit") - an all-encompassing, single and easy update mechanism in most Linux distros with fast security patch reaction times vs. system-only updates on Windows (third-party application bugs are NOT covered by those updates!) that usually arrive later - many, many more people to find and fix security bugs than in proprietary, non-public source code Note that there also have been public tests with completely unpatched, old systems (a couple years old) where Linux systems *much* exceeded Windows security performance (time to initial security breach was much longer), so in addition to all the reasons given above for why OSS usually is more secure it can be said that your blanket statement is actually completely wrong since even unpatched, endangered systems have been verified to be more secure in the case of OSS. Plus, please tell me why there are far more website defacements and security breaches of Windows web servers when the Apache web server (often run under Linux or BSD on the internet) holds a market share of ~70%, whereas Microsoft IIS holds a market share of at most 20%? One could also mention here that those systems are usually far more lucrative to break than smaller-scale systems (Windows etc.), since big systems have lots of system resources and internet bandwidth to offer once cracked... Again, it's absolutely invalid to state that OSS is similarly insecure as proprietary software, since this is (at most!) the case with unmaintained systems only, which admins should never let happen anyway (if they fail to do their job, then they get to keep both pieces when -- not if -- it breaks). One could say that you started with a plausibly-sounding yet entirely bogus statement and illegally extended this initial agreement into a blanket "OSS is no more secure than paid-for apps".
Posted by: Andreas Mohr 02 Sep 2006
Observably not
It turns out not to be the case.
Posted by: Adrian Midgley 02 Sep 2006
Security
I do not agree with this... "Without open source we would spend our time fire-fighting holes, hackers and viruses." Open source software is just as vulnerable as software you pay for. beliving anything else is setting yourself up for a fall. Linux and unix systems are just as easy for hackers and viruses to infect if thay have not been set up properly, likewise windows operating systems are just as easy to keep secure if they have been set up properly. in todays age open source software needs updating to cover security threats, as does all software. I think the days of ANY software never needing to be updated for security reasons are well over, regardles of price.
Posted by: Duncan Mulholland 31 Aug 2006