Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Linux saves Aussie electrical grid (the Inquirer)
the Inquirer
covers an instance of emergency Linux adoption by
Australia's Intergral Energy.
"QUICK THINKING open sourcerers might have saved an Australian power supply system after its electrical grid control room network got infected with a virus.
A Windows virus hit the networks of Intergral Energy and, according to a submission to Slashdot, the virus managed to spread to the operator display consoles in the control room.
Quick thinking techies in the control systems department of the utility swapped the infected Windows boxes for machines running Linux that they were using for development.
The move prevented the virus from taking over all the operator displays in the control room."
(Log in to post comments)
Linux saves Aussie electrical grid (the Inquirer) Posted Oct 1, 2009 18:07 UTC (Thu) by mrshiny (subscriber, #4266) [Link]
Looks like the Windows PCs were being used as X terminals to communicate with the SCADA systems. So shutting Windows down and using Linux as an X terminal is not a particularly controversial move. But the story has a certain poetry to it :)
Linux saves Aussie electrical grid (the Inquirer) Posted Oct 1, 2009 18:25 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Yeah, that's something I really, really don't get. I see a number of Windows PCs that are *just* used as a terminal onto a mainframe or X server or something. I dunno about you, but why waste a hundred bucks per term (plus maintenance and anti-virus, etc.) when you can do it all free?
Kinda bizarre, IMHO.
Linux saves Aussie electrical grid (the Inquirer) Posted Oct 1, 2009 18:48 UTC (Thu) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]
I suspect these companies either are completely ignorant about the free alternatives, or they think using free software means going without support.
Buying Yet Another PC Posted Oct 1, 2009 19:50 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Deciding what to buy takes time. If you've already decided to buy one kind of full-size PC for the people who need it, it's faster to get approval for buying another of the same thing than to have separate decisons for what kind of PC, what kind of thin client, and who gets which one. You're probably better off making an adequate decision about everything than making the perfect decison about desktop office machinery and letting an important decision go wrong. (A more important decision in this case is whether or not to give web access to the control stations for the electrical power grid, and that didn't get made either, but you get the idea.)
Yeah, that's another side to the story. Posted Oct 1, 2009 20:51 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Believe me or not, but most companies do need some Windows computers (proprietary programs, etc). And since it's impossible to buy the one model with Windows and Linux often they all are bought with Windows as a consequence. Thus in the end Windows is free for you too! Support is another question, of course, but then it's not a situaation of "hundreds bucks vs zero". It's a situation of "hundred bucks vs hundred bucks" and the answer is not obvious.
Buying Yet Another PC Posted Oct 1, 2009 23:12 UTC (Thu) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] You're probably better off making an adequate decision about everything than making the perfect decison about desktop office machinery and letting an important decision go wrong.In this particular case though they didn't make a perfect or even adequate decision. Instead they let a one-size-fits-all PC acquisition policy make the decision for them, and it turned out to be so badly wrong that people could have died because of it. Also, I bet much of savings they may have gained from that policy has probably now been wiped out in recovery costs and lost customer confidence.
Because it's hundred bucks per TERM, not hundred bucks upfront? Posted Oct 1, 2009 20:45 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Come on: most developers systems here are Linux yet guide from two or three years ago instructed to look for Windows stiker on the box to determine if you can install 64bit kernel or 32bit kernel (since then 32bit CPUs were decommisioned and we finally got some new desktops without the Windows stikers). And if your system already includes one OS - why install another? The fact that it needs antivirus, support and so on just adds up after that. Every upgrade (to the new version or Windows or to the new version of Linux) introduces disruptions and so should be avoided - and Windows have longest support period (yes, more then RHEL - and RHEL is expensive as hell). So no, Linux is NOT obviosly cheaper to support. Usually it's cheaper, but it's not guaranteed.
Because it's hundred bucks per TERM, not hundred bucks upfront? Posted Oct 1, 2009 22:45 UTC (Thu) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] That only holds true until you need to clean up the mess created by as in this case; the mess created by Windows. That doesn't include the embarrassment, witch hunts, and other damage control activities that usual go along with such incidents. Unlike your mind where you are convinced Linux is not cheaper, my mind cannot see it another way than BEing cheaper.
That's because you are too close to the problem... Posted Oct 2, 2009 2:08 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That doesn't include the embarrassment, witch hunts, and other damage control activities that usual go along with such incidents. Are you sure? If yes, then you are clearly a geek. Embarassment of a day of work lost to the virus attack is almost equal to embarassment of day of work lost to the wrong permission on one file /etc for normal people! While virus incidents are thankfully rare with Linux "small, insignificant problems" are quite often. And remember: any problem solveable only by running xterm (Gnome terminal, Konsole, etc) is $100-$200 worth of support! Because it requires call to the tech support person and billed as hour of work! Unlike your mind where you are convinced Linux is not cheaper, my mind cannot see it another way than BEing cheaper. That's because "small insignificant problems" which happen in Linux quite often are NOT "small insignificant problems" for non-IT people. They are full-blown problems... may be somewhat smaller on scale then virus attack, but comparable. Only when thusands of Windows computers are affected price goes steply up for Windows solution... till then it's comparable or even cheaper.
That's because you are too close to the problem... Posted Oct 2, 2009 6:28 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Have you factored in the cost of antivirus, license auditing, helpdesk and lost time? At one job the full antivirus scan kicked in all wednesday afternoons, and it was nearly impossible to do anything at all during that time. It is true that Windows has improved in newer versions, but Linux is also significantly better now (I have touched one or two files in /etc on my latest Debian laptop).
That's why I'm saying Linux is cheaper today... Posted Oct 2, 2009 14:38 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Sure. Disruptions by stream of updates to Windows, AV software and actual attacks are becoming more and more annoying. That's why I believe today Linux is on par with Windows and probably cheaper. But it IS close competition, not "no-brainer" reasoning like initial poster's "why waste a hundred bucks per term (plus maintenance and anti-virus, etc.) when you can do it all free?"... Maintainance is pretty expensive for Linux too! Where Linux distributions are streamlined enough and don't require tech support (routers, storage systems, etc) - it's already the default and Windows is long gone! But on desktop (even specialized desktop)... it's tough call...
Cheap Linux support Posted Oct 2, 2009 15:59 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Ah, OK. It's a pity that there isn't a cheap support option for desktop Linux; maybe because it is not viable at all.
That's because you are too close to the problem... Posted Oct 2, 2009 9:12 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Come on. You're not comparing a configuration error (wrong permissions in a file) made by the system admin to an external attack, are you?
Do you mean Windows admins do not make configuration mistakes? Apples to apples, please.
The problem is not permissions on file made by ADMIN... Posted Oct 2, 2009 14:34 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Do you mean Windows admins do not make configuration mistakes? I was not talking about problems made by admins - I talk about problems made by OS vendors! And yes, it is apples to apples comparison - non- IT users know one routine and one routine only: reboot, click "yes", "agree", "sure" and hope for the best. If it does not work - call the techsupport. That's the reason Microsoft's updates take weeks and/or months. They need to test everything and make sure installation will not produce avalanche of techsupport calls.
That's because you are too close to the problem... Posted Oct 2, 2009 16:07 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
The actual case under consideration is systems that run an X server and no local clients. If you're using Windows PCs for this application, you've gone way too far in having a single source for computers, because you're going to have to administer the Windows machines individually but could run all of them with a single netboot image that can be updated centrally. Almost regardless of the constant factors, O(1) support is cheaper than O(n) support, once you've got a control room.
That's because you are too close to the problem... Posted Oct 4, 2009 20:35 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> Are you sure? If yes, then you are clearly a geek. Embarassment of a day
> of work lost to the virus attack is almost equal to embarassment of day of > work lost to the wrong permission on one file /etc for normal people! > While virus incidents are thankfully rare with Linux "small, insignificant > problems" are quite often. And remember: any problem solveable only by > running xterm (Gnome terminal, Konsole, etc) is $100-$200 worth of > support! Because it requires call to the tech support person and billed as > hour of work!
Pretty much every company larger than 50 people has an IT department. There will be at least one full-time or part-time person to answer questions about permissions of files in /etc, drivers, etc. It's not "a call to tech support," it's a visit to Fred three cubes down.
The only question then is how many IT people do you need?
I've worked at half a dozen different companies. All of them used both Linux and Windows. From my experiences, you need about 3 times as many people to maintain a Windows setup as a Linux one. The number of employees doing Windows sysadmin work was literally 3 times as many as the number of employees doing Linux work, even when the number of boxes with each OS was the same.
Now, there may have been some biases here. Maybe the Linux users were more IT-savvy, and so didn't ask for as much help.
However, overall, I think it's safe to say that it's easier to be a Linux sysadmin than a Windows one. There are more viruses for Windows than for Linux. There are fewer automated processes in Windows-- for example, there's no easy way to run the same command on multiple machines. Windows machines tend to use a lot of proprietary software packages that don't play nicely together. (Fun party trick: install two games that overwrite directX.dll in the windows folder with different version of the library.)
All politics and ideology aside, the two operating systems evolved in very different environments. UNIX / Linux / BSD evolved in academia and big business. It was taken for granted that there was a competent, well-paid sysadmin sitting around somewhere. His name was "root," and he would take care of things for you. You can still see this heritage from time to time in Linux. For example, if you type the wrong password, the "sudo" command gives you a stern warning that you are going to be "reported to your system administrator." It makes people running Ubuntu in 2009 chuckle; in 1975, it seemed very serious.
Windows, in contrast, evolved for the desktop market. Microsoft spent a lot of time thinking about how to make things intuitive for average people with no training. When windows was starting out, network security was a non-issue because nobody was on a network. I know it's hard to imagine now, but there was a point where there was no such thing as the internet-- and that was the environment that Windows was conceived in. Not until the mid-nineties did desktop PCs even start connecting to each other. Even today, many Windows users run as Administrator all the time.
C.
Because it's hundred bucks per TERM, not hundred bucks upfront? Posted Oct 6, 2009 5:41 UTC (Tue) by cjl7 (guest, #26116) [Link]
RHEL has got 7 years of support for every release. But when you buy RHEL you don't buy "version 5", you buy "any version, old and new".
"maintaining linux" - well we are running a couple of ubuntu boxes at home, one windows and one mac. The ubuntu boxes are used by all except the 17 year old young woman.
My wife and our kids (non-root) have never needed to change any file in /etc to get there daily work done. (internet, banking, school...)
At work we are two sysadmins that manage 293 Linux servers (RHEL) and 27 workstations (Ubuntu). There are 6 Windows-sysadmins administrating 142 boxes and 2 helprunners "working the users" ;).
IMO linux/unix is a lot cheaper to manage, not only the "sysadmin" part of it but also the license and support part as well.
I'd go for a linuxbox anyday when you have a very specific situation like the article is talking about.
Best regards from a very cold day in northen europe. (-5 Celsius this morning)
Windows costs more! Or does it? Posted Oct 4, 2009 20:23 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Because (due to MSFT "campus agreements" and such) the Windows-as-terminal alternative is essentially gratis? Because if they dared install something different somewhere they'd come under pressure (from bosses, from vedors, from oversight comitees, ...)?
Linux saves Aussie electrical grid (the Inquirer) Posted Oct 1, 2009 23:43 UTC (Thu) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
It's telling to note that the Sydney Morning Herald story on this not only has no mention of Linux through the entire story, but most of the comments are from Windows zealots trying to shout down any suggestion that using anything else would be better. Here's a typical example:
> Look, obviously they weren't running the grid from Windows boxes or it
To misquote Babbage, I am not able to rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that causes such a statement.
Have fun,
Paul
P.S. I'm not linking to the SMH because I don't think they deserve it.
Linux saves Aussie electrical grid (the Inquirer) Posted Oct 2, 2009 14:03 UTC (Fri) by christian.convey (guest, #39159) [Link]
The *real* WTF was that a virus was able to get in there in the first place.
Linux saves Aussie electrical grid (the Inquirer) Posted Oct 3, 2009 12:29 UTC (Sat) by asherringham (subscriber, #33251) [Link]
True, it's very bad. It is also very bad if one thinks something like this is possible in a nuclear power station, or air force system etc. But anyone who works around computers nowadays knows how hard it is to keep them secure. Not just network threats (web, email etc.), but USB disks, Word or PDF documents etc. The list grows.
I must admit to being pessimistic. It just seems to me that, for most people, securing a computer is becoming impossible (note though - no excuses for power stations!).
Linux users must guard against complacency. Wasn't there a recent "Linux botnet" discovered? Whatever the detail, that's the headline and that is what's usually remembered. A wake-up call?
As the user base grows, the level of competence shrinks. Take a look on some web forums for a while (e.g. ubuntuforums.org). There are a lot of very new users, with little to no understanding of security, placing servers/systems on the internet. Some even installing and configuring via a script they download somewhere. Very clueless - and on the forums asking for help setting up their web mail, or mail server, or whatever. In the security forums, occasional people asking for help because they think they've been hacked. And maybe they have been ...
We've all have to start somewhere, but even now (after 15 years Linux) I am very wary from some server installation/configuration. To many now though - it's a big repository, apt-get/yum install and ... away you go!
More Linux botnets to come?
Of course, the opportunity side of this is fixing this breakage (consultancy, security/network admin jobs etc.) ...
Alastair
|
|||||||||||||