On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:41:38PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:

| For example, say you have three departments within a company: Marketing,

| Development, Production. Allowing each department to maintain their own

| server instance allows each department to have their own users, home

| directory configuration, samba (possibly) network config & authorization,

| separate file/print sharing domain, etc.

|

| That is simple not doable with a single OS, yet with a reasonable priced of

| h/w all can be maintained on one platform.

|

| The security benefits are at the application level, *NOT* at the OS level.
Let's have a look at the case.
Three departments all on one machine, each under one VM.
Why compare this to all departments on one machine, all on the same

OS ? That's not a fair comparison.
Compare your one machine with 3 VMs to three machines. What do you

think is more secure ? If you really, honestly think that the one

machine/3 VM's solution is more secure, I'm actually very interested

in your reasoning for this.
You seperate and isolate each department on their own machine. As

secure as the OS and/or application running on that machine.
Now you join three machines into one machine with three VMs, adding a

layer of complexity/code that is quite useful (as it saves on hardware

costs) but maybe not very mature yet.
How does that joining *add* security ? Please elaborate.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--

quoted text
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+

+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]

                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/