Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Business IT

EDS: Linux is Insecure, Unscalable 1112

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the still-better-than-the-rest dept.
daria42 writes "Large enterprises should not use Linux because it is not secure enough, has scalability problems and could fork into many different flavours, according to the Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EDS: Linux is Insecure, Unscalable

Comments Filter:
  • What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vinsci (537958) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:47PM (#11954203) Journal
    ... of losers to Linux. :-)
    • by Janitha (817744) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:50PM (#11954243) Homepage
      Oh look, Microsoft is in that bunch too, the internets surprise me daily.
      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @02:05PM (#11955364) Homepage Journal
        " Oh look, Microsoft is in that bunch too, the internets surprise me daily."

        Hmm...actually, out of all of the groups.companies listed up there...I'd almost have to say EDS This stupid &$*#(# NMCI system they have burdened the Navy with cannot be described any nicer than as a royal 'clusterfuck'...horrible network connectivity...using windows, no good apps for admins to connect and admin to their machines...so slow, and restrictive. I mean, sure, it might be ok for a secretary to use just to do some word docs and powerpoint presentations, but, for people that need to code or so serious admin work...TOTALLY useless.

        And that is ONLY the functionality issues...they way they fuck the govt. out of money by what they charge is outrageous...not to mention the red tape involved just to get a simple request fulfilled.

    • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rei (128717) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:50PM (#11954254) Homepage
      The thing is... they act like forks are bad things. Yes, projects can die from fork-deaths; on the other hand, forks can breathe new life into projects. Of course, they neglect how much work is involved in successfully forking a process. I don't expect to see the Linux kernel forked any time soon ;)

      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by blane.bramble (133160) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:58PM (#11954385) Homepage
        Actually the kernel is forked all the time - most of the non x86 architectures start life as forks and eventually make their way back into the kernel.org kernel. Each new version is also a fork, which is why you can still get 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 as well as 2.6 - forks are part of the development model for the kernel, and are also part of many closed-source development models. Unless, of course, you completely stop all work on an existing product to produce a new version.
        • Re:What a bunch... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by chris_mahan (256577) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:21PM (#11954716) Homepage
          I have to agree. Everybody's little change is considered a fork. A real fork is when there's bad blood or differences in strategy between two groups, and one decides to 'rename' their project to be 'uberKool'.

          I personally think that forks are what makes FOSS nimble and trim.

          I can understand how those companies would not want that (my company is doing a project with EDS-- I won't comment!!!) since they live on bloat.

          I think the corporate motto of software development is "Write once, sell everywhere." And forks get in the way of that Almighty Directive.

          I say let them rot.
        • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stevesliva (648202) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @02:06PM (#11955371) Journal
          which is why you can still get 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 as well as 2.6
          Which is nice, because you're not forced to die or upgrade when some beancounter decides it's time to stop supporting security patches for NT or IOS or Solaris 2 or whatever.

          Here where I work, we're moving from one set of tools and database to something newer. The question arose, "But how will we look at old data 15 years from now?" (A valid concern in patent defense.) The answer, "The tools have been ported to Linux, right?" Done and done.

      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Codename_V (813328)
        Even so, it seems to me that the main difference between the unix forking example and the Linux kernel is that the Linux kernel is open, and thanks to the gpl will remain open. Fork it all you want, but I still get the source code.
      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mattyrobinson69 (751521) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:59PM (#11954395)
        prehaps somebody should show them the xfree/xorg situation and how much that *helped*
      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bonch (38532) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:00PM (#11954408)
        Forks ARE bad things. The mantra of "choice" isn't applicable to every situation. Standardizing on a platform is difficult enough in the Linux world. Forking things whenever one of the devs feels wronged (usually how these things get started) just increases the confusion and non-interoperability between multiple platforms. It's one more to support and worry about.

        Desktop Linux has, for the most part, stagnated because KDE and GNOME won't merge into one mega-standard. Instead, we must continue to install both entire desktop environments just to comfortably run each other's apps. It's absolutely ridiculous the way the wheel gets reinvented several times over. If you're running GNOME, a KDE app, Mozilla Firefox, and OpenOffice, you've got at least four major libraries now sitting in your memory, all doing the same things but with different code, implementing their own GUI widgets. You're never going to have desktop standards that way.
        • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Informative)

          by vadim_t (324782) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:09PM (#11954549) Homepage
          Nice way of completely missing the point.

          KDE and Gnome have nothing to do with forks. They're completely different things, independently developed, and which for the most part share no code. You can't just merge them because the architecture is different.

          Having several different libraries that implement widgets have nothing to do with forking. And at least Linux has only two big ones. I rarely use Windows anymore, but each time I do I'm amazed at the non-standard look of every damned application. I mean, for some bizarre reason every firewall, antivirus, IM program, office suite, etc. has to have its own widgets, and MS applications aren't an exception.

          A fork is a division in the development of a program. For instance, what happened with XFree. It was stagnating, so a group of developers decided to take the current tree, and work on it separately. Result is that we now have an actually active development in Xorg. I fail to see anything bad about it.

          • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by bonch (38532) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:22PM (#11954721)
            I never said KDE was a fork of GNOME or vice versa. I was just illustrating that having parallel platforms stagnates progress. The point is the same.

            Having several different libraries that implement widgets have nothing to do with forking. And at least Linux has only two big ones. I rarely use Windows anymore, but each time I do I'm amazed at the non-standard look of every damned application. I mean, for some bizarre reason every firewall, antivirus, IM program, office suite, etc. has to have its own widgets, and MS applications aren't an exception.


            That's true, but it's nowhere near how bad it is in Linux. If your only standard for comparison is the way Windows looks, desktop Linux is never going to improve. And regardless, the vast majority of Windows apps DO look the same and use native widgets, have buttons in the same place, have the same menu items, use the same keyboard shortcuts, and can copy-paste damn near anything between each other. The Linux offerings don't come close, because they won't standardize.
            • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:33PM (#11954885) Homepage
              "I was just illustrating that having parallel platforms stagnates progress."

              Uuhh, like Windows 9x and Windows NT?

              Bullshit when it applies to Linux. Having two highly competitive desktop platforms like GNOME and KDE results in both getting better faster.

              And it's nonsense to say that Linux programs don't usually use the same layout and menus. There's no significant difference between Windows and Linux in that regard. Some authors don't follow the standards, but most do. Certainly all the major applications do. And nit-picking one or two menu entries on some specific Linux program (which is no doubt your next tack) doesn't change that fact.

              Anybody switching from the Windows 2000 GUI to the XP GUI is going to have MAJOR problems with figuring out where everything is on the Start menu. Instead of having things in a clearly defined place, you have to read an entire panel of SENTENCES to figure out where what you want to do is located. Which is why MS allowed you to switch back to "classic view".

              Anybody who says Windows is easier to use than Linux is simply wrong.

              • Re:What a bunch... (Score:4, Insightful)

                by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot@nexus[ ]org ['uk.' in gap]> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:58PM (#11955259) Homepage
                Anybody switching from the Windows 2000 GUI to the XP GUI is going to have MAJOR problems with figuring out where everything is on the Start menu.

                Yep, I can vouch for that - I recently had to set up an XP machine (the last version of windows I touched was 2000 and the last version I seriously used was 98). It caused quite a lot of frustration trying to work out how the hell to add shortcuts to the top level start menu whereas in Win2000/98 you just right clicked and added a shortcut. XP is now down in my book as completely unintuitive - Linux is much easier and less frustrating to use.
            • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by NanoGator (522640) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:54PM (#11955183) Homepage Journal
              "That's true, but it's nowhere near how bad it is in Linux. If your only standard for comparison is the way Windows looks, desktop Linux is never going to improve. And regardless, the vast majority of Windows apps DO look the same and use native widgets, have buttons in the same place, have the same menu items, use the same keyboard shortcuts, and can copy-paste damn near anything between each other. The Linux offerings don't come close, because they won't standardize."


              Just to add to this point: Windows users such as myself are spoiled because of this. I've tried to adopt Linux a couple of times, but these very problems that were mentioned made me throw my arms up in defeat. It really is hard to switch to Linux when a.) It's an uphill battle all the way and b.) Windows has actually achieved a decent computing experience. (If you're shaking your head, make a BSOD comment and watch how quickly you're corrected.)

              Feel free to dismiss me as a newb or a dumb-shit or whatever. I have no problem with that. I didn't put hours and hours into Linux. Niether will a lot of 'desktop' people that Linux is going after. This is why I'm so critical of having to edit .CONF files etc.

              I do want to mention something, though: Knoppix is headed in the right direction. I used it about a year ago and was stunned that a.) it auto-detected everything just fine, b.) I had no problem finding what I needed, c.) It more or less behaved like Windows. I wish I could be more specific, but it was the first time that I ever used Linux and didn't feel like I was lugging around a ball and chain. So I don't want to sound like Linux will never improve, obviously it is. I just hope one day a little more thought in the direction of "Microsoft's already trained 10s of millions of peoples how to use a computer..." happens.
        • Re:What a bunch... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by DougJohnson (595893) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @03:22PM (#11956422)
          2 things
          1) you're right
          2) you're wasting your time posting it here

          All of the responses here are "it's good for me" but that doesn't count for a whole lot when someone is writing a report on whether or not it's useable for a corporation.

          Particularly in the space of something like Gnome vs. KDE it's absolutely mind boggling that there is no re-merging or picking of the "best" one. The big vendors need to get together and just choose one (a la XOrg/XF86)

          That is definitely one example of where incompatibilities generated by choice become detremental to widespread adoption.
          Another example is the lack of standardization for the directory structure. While this is better (in general) there's still no telling where some stuff goes. Like what does /opt serve for?
          Installation procedures should be at LEAST similar.
          In short, too many things change from distribution to distribution, and too many incompatibilities for "Linux" to be widely adopted. What MAY happen is for a single distribution to be adopted specifically. Like a company going with "GTK on Redhat" or "KDE on Suse".

          Until there is some standardization between them though, there's no reason to switch. I use it at home, but I'd never recommend it for anything where I work (except for servers and controllers)

      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Naikrovek (667)
        Yup. If I remember, forking XFree86 into X.org was the best thing that couuld have happened to X development. All recent distros worth mentioning now use X.org instead of XFree86.

        Forking isn't necessarily bad. Besides, everywhere I've ever worked uses a fork of unix.. Solaris, FreeBSD, HP-UX, AIX, all derive their origins from original UNIX forks.
      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hal9000(jr) (316943)
        The thing is... they act like forks are bad things.

        For enterprises and organizations, yeah, forks are bad things. They take up time and resources to manage and maintain. What happens if an organization chooses the wrong fork for the base OS? That is a very tough call.

        The really only useful choices that I know of, and admitedly I am not too hip to all the distros out there, out there are the ones that offer true support and will survive the software cycle.

        Think of forking like windows upgrades. Both imp
      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by xoboots (683791) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:05PM (#11954490) Journal
        Besides, fundamentally, Windows 2003 is a fork of Windows XP which is a fork of Windows 2000 which is a fork of NT. During their anti-trust trial Mictosoft asked why they were being punsihed for competing vigorously. Competition, after all, yields better products, better efficiencies and more choice. Naturally, they never meant it: now they blatantly say that more choice is bad for customers.

        here's some fun: http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:alliance

        Of course, this is just the begining. This is a good sign that the powers that be are starting to shake in their boots. They will continue their volleys and increase the intensity and ferocity of their attacks as their empires crumble. Its actually kind of fun to see them twisting in the wind like this.
      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Informative)

        by imroy (755) <imroykun@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:05PM (#11954494) Homepage Journal
        The Linux kernel does have quite a few forks. They're just not big, seperate forks. Their work gets routinely folded back into Linus' fork. There's the personal forks like Alan Cox's -ac patch, Andrew Mortons' -mm patch, etc. Many architectures and sub-projects also maintain their own forks. So forks aren't bad on their own. Open Source licenses allow the different forks to share their work. It's just that the big commercial entities like to keep reminding people of the devastating Unix fork. To their commercial mindset it's the only type of fork they can imagine. And they're obviously trying to slow the commoditization of software through adoption of Open Source.
      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Proprietary software dies much more than forked F/OSS software.

        Even when companies do well, they die.

        • Microsoft [com.com] kills off it's most popular programming languages by "forking" it internally.
        • The WinNT fork is killing Win98 so my only windows machine is no longer supported. Debian stable is still around.
        • Oracle will kill peoplesoft. If it were open sourced forks could continue.
        • HPUX, Ultrix, etc will die; while HP's Linux will continue.

        They have the whole forking thing backwards. It's proprietary

      • Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by clausiam (609879)
        The thing is... they act like forks are bad things. Yes, projects can die from fork-deaths; on the other hand, forks can breathe new life into projects.

        For a large enterprise a fork IS a bad thing. So is a new version, a patch, an update, any change. If you have thousands of computers any change costs time and money. While upgrading and patching incurs the cost it is a "necessary evil", being on a flavor that die off and is being replaced (even if by something better) is very bad. It's a real risk and man

  • Interesting crowd (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oneandoneis2 (777721) * on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:47PM (#11954206) Homepage
    No chance of any anti-linux bias from any of that lot, eh? :)
    • Re:Interesting crowd (Score:3, Interesting)

      by johnnyb (4816)
      The funny thing is that Rasmussen or whatever his name is at EDS said that Sun won the UNIX battles, but it you look at what EDS is actually running -- they are running pretty much all of the UNIX's, because they each have different strengths and weaknesses.

      And who made the quote that Solaris 10 can do anything anyone else can do and better? That's right, a representative from Sun.
    • Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bonch (38532) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:06PM (#11954502)
      No chance of the reverse from this crowd?

      Each claim should be evaluated regardless of messenger. If the claims don't make sense, there's no reason to immediately dismiss them because you know you're right. Instead, address them. Yes, there are cases where Linux is insecure and unscalable. There are cases where it is more secure and more scalable.

      We should adopt more balanced opinions around here. Unfortunately, what will happen is that people will counter the article's reactionary opinion with an opposite reactionary opinion.
      • Re:Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by idontgno (624372)
        Each claim should be evaluated regardless of messenger.

        I'm sorry, and it's probably petty of me, but I have a hard time getting past a messenger who uses a garbage word like "securifying" with a straight face. Such behavior is an outstandingly reliable touchstone for excessive levels of marketing-think, demonstrating an absolute and fundamental lack of credibility. If such a one tells me the sky is blue, I'd reach for my umbrella. I won't bother to look up. And I'd have a damn fine chance of being right.

      • Re:Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rpdillon (715137) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:55PM (#11955199) Homepage
        Each claim should be evaluated regardless of messenger.

        I completely agree. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore who wrote the message. Do you ignore who the author of the book was? Or who wrote the article? I don't lend everyone the same credence. It is very different for the criminal to claim he is innocent than for his supposed victim to claim he is innocent. The author makes all the difference.

        In this case, it is merely amusing to note who the author is, because clearly, the claims are absurd. Linux has been shown to be capable of high security (an agency called the NSA helped us in this area, IIRC). It has also been shown multiple times that it is very scalable (Google, anyone?). This has nothing to do with my opinion of Linux, it merely has to do with basic standards of credibility. It is akin to standing in front of a Rolls Royce and claiming that it is a low quality, inferior car. This is amusing, but it is even more amusing when you find out it's a Chevy salesman making the speech.

        Unfortunately, what will happen is that people will counter the article's reactionary opinion with an opposite reactionary opinion.

        First, I'm not sure how the article is expressing a reactionary opinion; I don't know of anything it was "reacting" to. It seems more like a baseless attack to me. Secondly, just because someone disagrees with an article does not automatically render their arguments invalid or "reactionary", as you suggest.

        Lastly, as a bit of concession, I do think balanced opinions are good. But that doesn't mean we should dignify this kind of propoganda. If someone (anyone, even the EDS) comes along with something that is measured, qualified and well-researched, then we can address it in turn. But this does not deserve serious attention. This is a classic marketing move - "The OTHER product is insecure, it doesn't work on a large scale, it is more expensive, and, oh look! We have an alternative right here!" Take another look at what this guy is saying and tell me honestly that there is anything remotely concrete in what he is saying.

        "From a corporate perspective, we are not confident where Linux is right now today. A large enterprise needs to be sure because it relates to securifying [sic] the environment. We see some of the same things occurring that did to Unix -- it could splinter into many different types of languages. We are quite cautious about Linux and its deployment," said Rasmussen.

        "We are concerned about security on an open standard environment like that. We are also concerned about some of the scalability issues that we are seeing on our clients on a global basis. Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there. We think Linux has the possibility of going the same route," said Rasmussen.

        "Quite honestly, in the notion of costs, as we look at what we are structuring with our alliance partners, we are not seeing a compelling cost advantage that would lend us towards Linux -- given the other things I have mentioned," said Rasmussen.

        Jim Hassell, managing director of Sun Microsystems Australia, argued that Linux was no loss to the Agility Alliance because it could use Solaris 10 instead of Linux rival Red Hat.

        "If you test Red Hat against Solaris 10 against whatever else... we would say that Solaris 10 beats it hands down on functionality and everything else," said Hassell.

    • by MikeCapone (693319) <skelterhell AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:09PM (#11954551) Homepage Journal
      ..that Linux is unscalable.
  • by suso (153703) * on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:48PM (#11954208) Homepage Journal
    In relation to the spirit of this article.

    In an industry where companies distort facts, thwart community efforts, it can be hard to know who to trust and what to believe. I think it is times like these when we the Open Source/Linux community can compare itself most closely with other changes and booms in society's history.

    Think of all the doomsayers who like to say "The sky is falling" around times of economic uncertainty and social change. In the end, the ones who take the risks during those times, usually come out ahead.

    I consider the Open Source community to be the "risk takers" per say of our time. I don't think that we'll end up on the wrong side of the fence when all is said and done. But if we do, so be it! At least we tried to make something better of the world. Something that gives rather than takes.

    I don't think we should spend so much time reading articles like this that give us the attitude that the sky is falling. We should spend more time celebrating Linux and Open Source and leading the way to what will come next. We need to be leaders not Doomsayers.

    If you want to read a good article on why open source is the right way to do things, read this Peruvian Congressman's letter to the manager of Microsoft in Peru [opensource.org]. Really great read.
    • by xdroop (4039) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:53PM (#11954297) Homepage Journal
      Think of all the doomsayers who like to say "The sky is falling" around times of economic uncertainty and social change. In the end, the ones who take the risks during those times, usually come out ahead.
      Sorry sir, your logic does not follow. Just because the winners were risk-takers, it does not necessarilly follow that risk-takers are winners. The risk-takers are winners because they took the right risk at the (right) time. That said, I do not think Linux is a "risk" these days.
      • by suso (153703) * on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:58PM (#11954379) Homepage Journal
        I do not think Linux is a "risk" these days.

        Neither do I. But Linux definately hasn't completely established itself yet in society. One could say that we are still trying to get in installed.

        And no, its not always about taking a risk at the right time. But percentage wise, their are so few risk takers (people who put them selves out there and try something new, etc.) in the world, that usually what happens during a time of change is that most people duck and cover while these "risk takers" command and conquer and usually win out at least somewhat in the end.
      • Yet non-risk-takers are almost never the winners. And when they are, they are merely beneficiaries of the labors of the risk-takers who did win. Like me being able to buy cheap gasoline and cheap broadband.
  • "Heavyweights." (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rah1420 (234198) <rah1420@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:48PM (#11954210)
    Interesting how all of them just might have a teensy > agenda of their own which is threatened by Linux in its ascendancy, huh?

    Yawn.
  • by conner_bw (120497) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:48PM (#11954213) Homepage Journal
    Bahahaha, conveniently enough.

    * CISCO: GPL Violators
    * Sun: Forked everything in Linux except the kernel for themselves
    * Microsoft: Vested interest in not having Linux compete
    * DELL: Microsoft's bitch
    * Fuji Xerox: The original reason for the GPL to exist
    * EDS. EMC: Can I get a me too up in here?

    Give me a fistful of FUD with my daily news please.
  • Duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by rhombic (140326) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:48PM (#11954215)
    And in other news, McDonalds sez "Burger King is bad for you! Try our new salads!"
  • by Visaris (553352) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:49PM (#11954225) Journal
    Why do people mention forking as a problem? If a new version forks off and you don't like it, just don't use it! Why is this a bad thing?
    • by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:12PM (#11954595) Journal

      Apache is a fork from NCSA.
      Firefox is a fork from Mozilla.
      Cinepaint is a fork from Gimp.
      What do these have in common?
      They are all successful forks because they are all OSS and that they share code/ideas.
      In contrast, the Unixes are good examples of code that started open, but was closed. Upon doing so, each fork of ideas,API was bad news. A better one is SMB. It was developed by IBM, IIRC. Yet, MS forked it and created network neighborhood. Doing samba and other apps to interoperate with it, is very difficult.

      So no. Forking in OSS is not bad. Forking closed source, or forking and then closing it (as would happen with BSD) does cause problems

    • I think there are three factors coming into play, here:

      They can make forking sound bad,

      Forking actually can be bad for application developers,

      Appeal to Hobbesian bias.

      First and foremost, forking is an issue that not many people understand, and is therefore subject to demonization in the press. Since the objective of the authors of these FUD pieces is to make people want to not use Linux, they will pick on whatever aspect they can make sound bad. In this article, they never talk about why forking i

    • Why do people mention forking as a problem? If a new version forks off and you don't like it, just don't use it! Why is this a bad thing?

      Because 70 versions of something that work 70 different ways mean that it is more difficult to support for network staff and software vendors.
  • shocking (Score:5, Funny)

    by zerkon (838861) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:49PM (#11954231)
    Who could imagine Sun and Microsoft speaking out against Linux... Just Shocking!
  • thanks (Score:5, Funny)

    by justforaday (560408) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:49PM (#11954234)
    Phew! Thanks for telling me. I'll get right on the phone with our MS rep to let them know we'll be renewing that contract...
  • EDS are scum (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:49PM (#11954237)

    Naturally EDS has financial interests in saying such things. They're a company that makes millions off of companies by pushing proprietary software.

    It's no suprise that Netcraft [netcraft.com] shows them as being hosted on IRIX, Solaris and now Windows; they just don't know anything else. Stodgy suits making backdoor deals with Microsoft to push MS product into companies they consult to.

    If your company uses EDS, be aware that your best interests are not on their radar.

    "Those who can, do; those who can't work at EDS."
    • Re:EDS are scum (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MadMorf (118601) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:10PM (#11954559) Homepage Journal
      "Those who can, do; those who can't work at EDS."

      Ahem...

      Firstly, speaking as a former EDS employee, I'm going to tell you to BITE ME.

      Secondly, I'm going to remind you that just because the Corporation sucks, that doesn't mean that all the employees are incompetent.
      Many, if not most, sucky-ass companies are the product sucky-ass management.

      And on that note I'm going to invite former CEO Dick Brown to BITE ME as well.
  • Slashdot says... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FooAtWFU (699187) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:49PM (#11954238) Homepage
    "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

    I think this is a fair summary. But really, Microsoft, I see you listed. Is Windows more secure? Is Windows more scalable? I mean, they know as well as we do about the possibilities of it splitting into multiple varieties, but aside from that...

    • by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:25PM (#11954765) Journal
      In fact, I have to laugh about the security and scalability issues.

      Linux is on how many servers at Google, Amazon, and IBM. In addition, correct me if I am wrong, but a fair number of the top500.org systems are linux based systems (whereas MS does not rate top 100, the last time I checked). Finally, SGI has a new system running Linux with 2K CPUs. Not even Sun does that.

      If ppl would netcraft systems that were hacked for CCs, they would realize they are almost all running windows. So MS has ~40 of the https space, but nearly 100% of all break-ins. Not a good stat to have.

  • by thomas.galvin (551471) <slashdot&thomas-galvin,com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:50PM (#11954242) Homepage
    In other news:

    Democrats advise constituents against voting Republican.

    Apple recommends iTunes users to purchase iPod.

    McDonald's suggests that Burger King's fries are bad for your heart.

    Snowball introduced to hell. Snowball melts.

    Sun rises in east for 1,324,408,203rd consecutive day.
  • by overshoot (39700) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:50PM (#11954251)
    Sun and Microsoft go without question, but some of the others are interesting. Oracle, for instance, has declared Linux to be the star of their roadmap going forward.

    Perhaps the key is the company most conspicuous by its absense: IBM, who competes with all of them.

  • by Staplerh (806722) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:50PM (#11954253) Homepage
    Obviously, I thought the study was biased, looking at the list of supporting companies. But then I RTFA:

    The alliance comprises a group of IT hardware and software firms that have combined their expertise and products to help EDS create 'best of breed' solutions and compete with the likes of IBM Global Services and Hewlett-Packard for the most lucrative government and enterprise contracts.

    Well, if Microsoft wants a lucrative government contract, clearly the organization that is supporting this move is going to decry the competition to push its own agenda.

    Why do people even listen to these organizations? I suppose you know their bias from the outset, rather than having to 'read between the lines' of other organizations.
  • Oracle? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:50PM (#11954255)

    From TFH:

    ...according to the Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC.

    From TFA:

    ...according to the Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Fuji Xerox, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC.

    Fuji Xerox = Oracle?

  • by Zugot (17501) * <.moc.mseso. .ta. .nayrb.> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:51PM (#11954258)
    and just shook your head and didn't have anything to say?

    That article was the worst.

    This is just more proof that EDS ain't worth a poop.

    "From a corporate perspective, we are not confident where Linux is right now today. A large enterprise needs to be sure because it relates to securifying [sic] the environment. We see some of the same things occurring that did to Unix -- it could splinter into many different types of languages. We are quite cautious about Linux and its deployment," said Rasmussen.

    What?
  • OS vs. language (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twd (167101) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:51PM (#11954259)
    I would not consider someone who would refer to Linux as a language, as Mr. Rasmussen did, to be terribly knowledgeable about this things.
    • Re:OS vs. language (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 14erCleaner (745600) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:28PM (#11954805) Homepage Journal
      It gets better: here are some other things he said:

      A large enterprise needs to be sure because it relates to securifying the environment.

      Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there.

      Clearly this guy was promoted to his level of incompetence long ago, and never bothered to keep up with the industry in which his company supposedly is a leader.

  • by ZephyrXero (750822) <zephyrxeroNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:51PM (#11954266) Homepage Journal
    How long are we gonna let people say things like this before something happens? I'm sure the big corporate Linux distro's like Red Hat, Suse, etc. could possibly be losing a lot of money from these sort of lies. How come none of them are stepping up and putting in a lawsuit or two? Does the entire Linux community need to start taking up donations to defend itself through advertising (something like a SpreadFirefox.com)?
  • Hmmmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sonicated (515345) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:51PM (#11954268)
    The top arcticle on Slashdot states:

    EDS: Linux is Insecure, Unscalable

    ..and the one below it states:

    Google and Their Server Farm

    Google is small, they always get hacked and their search engine doesn't scale. QED.

    ;)
    • Re:Hmmmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rtaylor (70602) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:26PM (#11954781) Homepage
      Google is small, they always get hacked and their search engine doesn't scale.

      Google doesn't really use any of the scalability features in Linux. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to avoid them and instead rely almost entirely on in-house technology for scaling.

      It's a bit like saying that florescent lights are scalable because you can put thousands of individual lights within a building, or that IBM laptops are scalable because you can purchase them in units of 1000 running MS Windows.
  • Securifying? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rw2 (17419) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:51PM (#11954275) Homepage
    A large enterprise needs to be sure because it relates to securifying [sic] the environment.

    I think that pretty much says it all. This is a quote from one of the people we're to take advice from...
  • hard to believe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yagu (721525) <yayagu@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:52PM (#11954280) Journal

    The article, or at least the people putting forth their thesis (I call bullhockey, it's really more of an agenda) do much to discredit themselves with claims such as:

    ..., Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications ,...

    I don't know exactly what they mean by "splintered", but working in the Unix field now for twenty-plus years, I never experienced:

    • ANYTHING I could describe as a splinter.... at worst I would describe my experiences as nuanced differences among the various flavors of unix.
    • EIGHT(?!?) applications! First and foremost, unix is NOT, repeat-after-me, NOT an application.... and anyone who describes anything about unix in those terms reveals more about their depth (lack of) in understanding of OS technology than insight therein.

    I don't find or see anything enlightening or new in the article, and walk away shaking my head when these kinds of observations get any press at all.

    • Re:hard to believe (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Skjellifetti (561341) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:11PM (#11954581) Journal
      But the article gets even dumber:

      Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there. We think Linux has the possibility of going the same route," said Rasmussen.

      There are still a lot of folks buying AIX and HP/UX. Using Rasmussen's logic, all that has to happen is for Red Hat to announce that they have the "One True Surviving Linux (tm)" and the problem of forking is forever solved.

      I agree with the parent. The problem of multiple Unix versions has been overblown by folks who clearly haven't done a lot of real application development on Unix.
    • Re:hard to believe (Score:4, Informative)

      by jdgeorge (18767) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:33PM (#11954889)
      Be fair, put Mr Rasmusson's words in context of a complete sentence:

      Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there.

      Interesting that EDS shares SUN's view of what Unix versions are available. Imagine how surprised HP, IBM, and even SCO will be to learn that SUN has the one surviving Unix, considering:

      The OS registered as compliant with the UNIX 03 specification is: AIX

      Other "surviving" Unixes that are registered by the Open Group include, well, look for yourself... http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/catalo g.htm [opengroup.org]

  • Hahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RenHoek (101570) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:52PM (#11954286) Homepage
    Unlike Windows wich is secure (XP SP1 box is compromised in 18 min when online), scalable (try running ANY version of windows on more then 2 processors), and has never been forked into multiple flavors (NT, 95/98, ME, XP Home/Pro/Corp).

    Yawn..
  • by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:56PM (#11954355) Homepage
    ... Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC.

    Agile for dinosaurs, I guess.

    EDS, Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, and EMC are not names I associate with agility. It would be like IBM, Exxon-Mobile, GE, and Wal-Mart getting together and calling themselves the "Lightweight League of Business".

  • by robkill (259732) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:57PM (#11954363)
    Back in 1996 EDS declared IE to be the "standard" browser for use on all internal machines. When those of us who were using Sun boxes asked "What about us?", the reply was "We have Sun users?"
  • doubts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by austad (22163) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:57PM (#11954371) Homepage
    I doubt all of the members actually agree on this. Oracle has been pimping their stuff on Linux pretty hard lately, and Linux is what they actually do their development on now.

    Cisco has been using linux in several of their products, including the cache engine card that fits in 2600/3600 routers, the WLSE, the Airespace stuff they just bought, and a bunch of other stuff.
    • Re:doubts (Score:3, Insightful)

      Which is why all of their Linux-using customers need to call up their sales reps and ask them about their commitment to Linux, pointing out that they are members of this "Agile Alliance". If enough sales folk get hammered, this nonsense will stop (or at least the only two remaining members will be EDS and Microsoft).
  • Oracle? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ChibiOne (716763) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:02PM (#11954430)
    Is Oracle member of this alliance? Aren't they the ones who say that Oracle is "indestructible" on Linux?

    Is this the general opinion of the Alliance, or just the opinion of one clueless spokesperson?

  • by big-magic (695949) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:04PM (#11954464)
    I'll really glad such a magnanimous and unbiased group of companies were nice enough to let me know to stay away from Linux. I might have made a bad mistake and started using Linux. I guess I'll just have to stick with FreeBSD.
  • securifying (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thomasa (17495) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:05PM (#11954475)
    This is hardly a unbiased group. They all are joining together to fight Linux. Not that they like each other. Solaris 10 have more functionality than Linux? That's a laugh. Why is Sun borrowing ideas from Open Source and Linux?

  • by nysus (162232) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:06PM (#11954506)
    It's like hearing what the leader of China thinks about Democracy as a competing form of nation-state rule.
  • by Ransak (548582) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:07PM (#11954522) Homepage Journal
    securifying

    Did George W. Bush take a job with their speech writing lackeys?

  • A Real Contender (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blueZhift (652272) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:08PM (#11954529) Homepage Journal
    This is just more proof that Linux has arrived on the scene as a real contender in the IT world. I remember when I first heard of Linux, there were literally daily changes being released for the kernel and things were seemingly in a constant state of flux. At the time I was using OS/2, but I was curious enough to keep an eye on Linux and where it was going. Years later, when it really mattered, the choice was simple, Linux. Why? I work in an environment where I'm an army of one and costs and security are very important. Windows just wasn't the best choice for what I needed to build and the budget I had. I guess I wasn't the only one who thought that way! So called studies that refute what frontline IT people see everyday in the field just prove the desperation of those threatened by Linux and the overall free open source movement. If they're smart, eventually they'll learn to live with and perhaps profit from it, but right now they seem more interested in stopping it through FUD and legislation.
  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:11PM (#11954576) Homepage
    I was just reading about Orion Multisystem's cluster desktops. These have from 12 to 96 CPUs clustered in one easy to use desktop system. Of course they run Linux.

    Then I click over here and learn that Linux has "scalability problems."

    I've yet to see any version of Windows scale to 96 processors in a single desktop! Not that it'd be worth it anyway, as the cost for Windows alone would probably exceed $20,000!
  • by LINM (255706) <mbego00&gsb,columbia,edu> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:12PM (#11954591) Homepage
    Was there a preliminary report to this one that studied how Linux affected/eroded their business models? Perhaps they saw that Linux provided a very powerful base for NEW technologies to leverage it as a great springboard for potentially competing products. This report didn't make it out, but now they are on this bandwagon.

    Do they cite an alternative that is better? I guess since Windows XP supports two processors (wow) they must be. Microsoft is also renowned for security (e.g. IIS, IE, Word, Exchange) so this MUST be what they are getting at.

    I have to add that this comes across as a bit of a surprise from an Oracle backed group after seeing 5 years of Oracle adds on the back of the Economist magazine:
    "Unbreakable Linux"
    "Powerful Linux" - ok I made that one up
    "Unbeatable Linux" - and that one but you get the point

    I guess now we can look forward to Oracle adds reading:
    "Unscalable Lnx"
    "Breakable Li n - u x"
    "Beatable linux"

    And in other news, IBM disagrees.
  • by thenextpresident (559469) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:15PM (#11954630) Homepage Journal
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1732672,00.as p

    Most of the desktop computers in the UK's Department for Work and Pensions were paralyzed for four days on Monday, when a failed upgrade took them offline. The outage, covering 75 percent to 80 percent of the DWP's 80,000 PCs, is one of the largest in the UK government's not entirely impressive IT history.
    And possibly one of the most costly. According to staff reports, the outage occurred on Monday afternoon, disconnecting staff e-mail, benefits processing, and Internet and intranet connectivity. According to one, a limited network upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP was taking place, but instead of this taking place on only a small number of the target machines, all the clients connected to the network received a partial, but fatal, "upgrade."

    Another source says that the DWP was trialing Windows XP on a small number ("about seven") of machines. "EDS was going to apply a patch to these. Unfortunately the request was made to apply it live and it was rolled out across the estate, which hit around 80 percent of the Win2K desktops. This patch caused the desktops to BSOD and made recovery rather tricky as they couldn't boot to pick any further patches or recalls. I gather that [Microsoft Corp.] consultants have been flown in from the U.S. to clear up the mess." EDS is also thought to be flying in fire brigades.
  • not scalable my arse (Score:3, Informative)

    by ciderpunk (611927) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:24PM (#11954752) Homepage

    http://grids.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?si d= 04/11/08/225209&tid=67

    "More than half of the [world's] fastest supercomputers -- which recently might be more accurately described as super clusters that are assemblies of many lower-power processors -- run on Linux, and Top 500 super list co-compiler and original editor Erich Strohmaier does not foresee any change in the open source operating system's dominance anytime soon."

  • by mark-t (151149) <[markt] [at] [lynx.bc.ca]> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:25PM (#11954763) Journal
    Isn't this more or less precisely what the Linux community has been saying about Windows?
  • by fadir (522518) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:32PM (#11954864)
    about google's server farm - one of the biggest linux server parks and argueable the most famous search engine with incredibly great overall-performance.

    *rofl*
  • by John Whitley (6067) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:32PM (#11954870) Homepage
    ... bullshit! As well all the other major enterprises that have many thousants of deployed Linux boxen running business-critical software. These folks use Linux because 1) it's much more secure and securable than the competition, 2) it scales massively, 3) they can have their own fork (e.g. apply security patches, performance changes, etc. to the current production kernel version on their schedule, not some vendor's). Isn't it ironic how some of the uses of having your own "fork" improve scalability and security. 8-)

    Let's not forget that it's far cheaper than the proprietary competition even for all of those benefits.
  • by Necron69 (35644) <jscott.farrow@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:42PM (#11955026)
    Let's see, we can deflate that statement rather quickly:

    Big Iron:

    BigTux Shows Linux Scales To 64-Way [slashdot.org]

    My current test system has 16 CPUS:

    zeus0:~ # tail -15 /proc/cpuinfo
    processor : 15
    vendor : GenuineIntel
    arch : IA-64
    family : Itanium 2

    (yes, it is Itanium!! Anyone got a 16-way Opteron box? Anyone? Buhler? I thought not...)

    And, of course, we all know about Linux clustering:

    Beowulf Clusters [beowulf.org]
    Single System Image Clusters for Linux [openssi.org]

    Ignoring the oddity of Oracle being in that group, none of the rest of the members actually make a scaleable Linux box, just ones that compete with them. The slant is obvious.

    - Necron69

  • Tripping (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:43PM (#11955043) Homepage Journal
    What do those "IT heavyweights" know about "agility"? They're giant, ancient monolithic dinosaurs, threatened by the vastly more agile little mammal Linux.
  • I'll bite. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jd (1658) <.imipak. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:55PM (#11955201) Homepage Journal
    • Insecure: Linux has three role-based security mechanisms and mandatory access controls (SE-Linux is just the one included), three ACL mechanisms (Trustees, POSIX ACLs and SGI's XFS security mechanisms), an EAL4 rating with an EAL5 possibly underway, USB or dongle system locking, support for cryptographic and "trusted" hardware, support for IPSec, a very impressive packet filtering system (layers 2, 3 and 7), capabilities and that's just the kernel. If you want to include the rest of the system, you've stack guards, SSL/TLS, Kerberos 5, rootkit detectors, binary modification detectors, TCP wrappers, bayesian intrusion detection systems, root jails, virtualization (which allows you to compartmentalize, and therefore can be used for security), MD5 passwords for the shadow suite, one-time password systems, public key encryption and a host of validation & security auditing tools (TARA, SARA, NMap, Nessus, BASS, etc)
    • Unscalable: The Linux kernel supports "pure" SMP systems that are respectably large. For larger system, bproc and OpenMOSIX permit scaling up to about 65534 nodes with each node taking perhaps 64 processors. To my way of thinking, that's pretty damn scalable. Actually, as bproc and OpenMOSIX use different migration systems, it may be possible to build a grid of grids, where you've a Beowulf cluster of MOSIX clusters of 64-way SMP nodes. This gives you a theoretical capacity of 274,861,129,984 processors. Microsoft is planning to add clustering, in the future. Let me know when it compares. Linux also supports NUMA, Distributed Shared Memory, Active Ports/Active Messages, gigabit MPI, high-speed network filesystems (Lustre!) abd other key components for scaling. See "first few entries in top 500 supercomputers" for further information.
    • Prone to forking: There are many Linux distributions, tailored to people's needs, but only one real "kernel". There are many Windows kernels (the 3.x tree, the 9x tree, the NT tree, the 200x tree, Windows CE, Longhorn) but the distributions are basically the same components. Who is creating more of a fork - the tailor who makes clothes that fit from standard material, or the tailor who uses the closest material to hand, regardless of what it is?


    The claims can be easily disproven. Unfortunately, while companies enjoy First Amendment protections, they are virtually immune to slander/libel. A pity, as there'd otherwise likely be enough money to be made from such a suit to keep every Linux user and developer fed and housed for the rest of their lives.

  • by hoggoth (414195) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:55PM (#11955210) Journal
    These entrenched companies, led by Microsoft, have a particular blind spot when it comes to recognizing the damage they are doing to their own reputations and public image by continually and obviously lying to the public.

    Microsoft has already damaged their reputation to the point that MOST IT professionals understand that anything MS says to them is most likely a lie. They may buy MS products for other compelling reasons, but always with the understanding that MS is a sneaky company.

    Aren't they apprehensive, even a little, of having NO goodwill among their customers? If the technology competitive landscape changes (eg: the power of the monopoly weakens) their customers will be eager to jump ship.

  • by a3217055 (768293) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @02:04PM (#11955340)
    I use Linux on a regular basis across many many machines of different sizes. Their maybe some truth in the article saying that Linux does not scale well. Firstly the whole thing of security is over rated. It is a corporate fudge factor, things are as secure as the apps that you use and you make your system. Linux does have a strange threading model but it works and does 99% of jobs with out issues.
    I run linux on SMP boxes ( more than 8 processors a machine) and their are some problems. Usually with network device drivers or some watchdog card. But otherwise it works. The most important thing is to learn how to get the job done.
    I have not used Solaris 10 thus I don't know what the new features are. The closed UNIX systems "seem" more robust because they sell the hardware with the software and ( example AIX with IBM POWER boxes ) and they have some major, major, major testing.

    Now the article says using Linux on mainframes is concering, well it sure is. Because why pay for a iSeries OS/400 license when Linux runs on the box rock solid. Linux on iSeries is amazing, it is a piece of art in itself.

    This was nothing but some technical jargon by soem companies that have outdated security procedures and they don't even have any facts. This is not news this is gossip.

    Also another thing Linux is a far more versatile system than people acknowledge it to be.
  • by Psarchasm (6377) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @02:09PM (#11955401) Homepage Journal
    Good article from all the way back in 2004 regarding where this is actually pointed. http://www.crn.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=510 00391&flatPage=true [crn.com]

    Would Sun rather see Linux go away? Sure, but they also believe in it enough to sell it. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v20z/index.jsp [sun.com]

    These are quotes directly from they guy heading up EDS's strategic alliances. Not from members of the strategic alliance - has anyone asked Ellison if he thinks Linux is insecure, prone to unfriendly forking? Guess not. http://www.oracle.com/events/unbreakablelinux/inde x.html [oracle.com]. Guess not.

    Cisco? Well lets see they have linux running on some of their hardware, and apparently its good enough for their engineers to run http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2005/0216cislinux.htm l [nwfusion.com]

    So lets round out the list...

    EMC - http://www.emc.com/products/systems/linux/index.js p [emc.com]
    Dell - http://linux.dell.com/ [dell.com]
    Microsoft - http://www.mslinux.org/ [mslinux.org] Err, umm - ok maybe not.

  • by consumer_whore (652448) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @02:10PM (#11955420)
    They say linux doesn't scale well. SGI has Linux systems with 256 cpus in a node. http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/ [sgi.com] Microsoft is only now getting a cluster version of their OS http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 3/04/2134229&tid=201&tid=231&tid=156 [slashdot.org]
  • EMC? Uh oh! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by willith (218835) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @02:18PM (#11955529) Homepage
    I better run into the datacenter and unplug all the Linux-powered EMC control stations and NAS heads we just bought! And they told us that they take security seriously! LIARS!

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.

Working...