Five Things You Can't Discuss about Linux 662
gondwannabe writes "Here are Five Things You Aren't Allowed to Discuss About Linux. With considerable chutzpa, an insightful Rob Enderle takes on what he considers five dogmas in the OSS community and explains why they're wrong. Examples: Linux is secure, "communes" actually work in the long haul, and that Linux is "pro-developer."
Why link this idiot on Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of this is just wacky (Score:5, Insightful)
He's right, it's our job to determine the best product for a given task given budget constraints, resources available, etc. But once we determine the best product, how can we NOT advocate it?
This following quote is very telling about the author's motives
Enderle clearly implies there was some sort of deliberate conspiracy to deceive by the people advocating linux. WTF? Does he really believe that?
I hate Linux Nazis and I don't think Linux or OSS is the best solution in all -- or even most cases. However, there are a lot of things in this article that are just wacky.
That said, Enderle does make some very good observations on community based works (that apply outside of IT as well) and some interesting comments on security. Just read him with an extra critical eye.
Re:Why link this idiot on Slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Irony (Score:1, Insightful)
fud (Score:5, Insightful)
Then his first 'point', "Is Linux a Myth?". This pretty much nails uncertainty and he is just getting started. The best part is he will lay down why he thinks it is wrong to 'abstract' linux, while his entire article rests purely on doing that, because it would be too hard to be more specific.
The doubt is spread throughout - "Is Linux Secure?", "Is Linux is(sic) 'Open'?" And supports this by saying he gets email that isn't nice and that means one can't honestly discuss Linux. (This is shortly after he criticized the open source community for in-fighting - these kind of contradicitions are so common in this piece, the mind boggles.)
I love the bugaboo about how a lot of linux contributors don't use their real names and could actually be spies. He compares it to Soviet Russia which dovetails nicely with his 'commune' question. Oh noes! Linux is the red menace!! (He's smart enough not to be too direct with this but it is rather plain to see).
Reading the comments that follow the article is just as much fun. Someone says when they can plug in a usb stick and it is autodetected, or intall a program by double clicking on it, they will consider linux. Apparently it's been a few years since he actually has seen a gnome or kde desktop. I do those things regularly and I'm running a couple versions behind on my favorite desktop distro.
This is fud, pure and simple.
Re:blog == article? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tom
Re:Five more things... (Score:5, Insightful)
How many versions of Windows are there now? I have no freaking clue which of the six or so versions of Vista I'm supposed to buy even if I wanted to, then there's XP32, XP64, Pro versions, Home versions, cut-down foreign versions, Windows 2003 or whatever it is.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what the worst thing is that can happen? That someone mods you up a few points and then down and then up again, etc. Then you'll be banned from posting for some time. It's quite ridiculous, but with so many zealots around, it just might happen. I've been there for saying something innocent but apparently really upsetting to some...
Re:3 steps (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some of this is just wacky (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how linux security is a myth either...All the DMZ machines at work are linux machines, and I've never had any problems with them...I get more problems from the windows machines that sit on the plague-ridden windows-centric supposedly secure corporate WAN. My home network is secured by a linux router and I've never had problems there either, despite the massive sort of bot scanning that infests consumer ISPs in this country (I get faaaaaar more security hits at home).
As for being developer friendly...When I can install windows and have it come with compilers and libraries for half a dozen different programming languages, then we'll talk about "developer friendliness". Fedora recently started bundling Tomcat with their distros as an installable option...Anyone who has ever installed Tomcat knows how valuable that is.
Linux has it's issues, and it's not perfect, but it is a good tool, and it has a great place in IT infrastructure.
Re:Some of this is just wacky (Score:5, Insightful)
Just Try (Score:3, Insightful)
Just try to discuss Linux from and ease of use, UI, user perspective and you will get a lot of Linux geeks telling you to tough it out, or, my fave "My grandmother uses linux and doesn't complain." (Your grandmother probably isn't installing apps and trying to make it more than a web browsing/email appliance.)
Unexpected, wild assed UI's are a problem in Linux and OSS in general.
Convoluted instructions, HowTo, etc. telling the user to dig into the guts of a conf and set oddly named, poorly documented settings.
Did I mention geek developed UI's?
Odd assed error messages that don't tell you why something failed to run or install, but it dumps everything a geek would want to know about it, onto the screen.
UI's that were developed by some pseudo-genius who THINKS he has a better grasp of the user experience.
No, you are not allowed to talk about these things, because you will be tagged as a heretic in the religiOS wars.
Did I mention UI's?
BSCS Grads (Score:4, Insightful)
This leads 'em to do one of three things:
1) (half) realize they can't hack it and go do something else for a living after a couple of years.
2) (just under half) realize that they just have to step it up a notch and manage to do so with varying degrees of success.
3) (jackasses like Enderle) realize they really can't hack it --but are too scared to try at an honest living-- so they either get a teaching certificate w/ the intention of making Education a career, or they become tech writers.
(Caveat: as a guy w/ no CS degree, but is a Sr. Sysadmin at a Fortune 50 company, and has taught CompSci full-time at the collegiate level - these are only conclusions drawn from my experiences. Naturally, YMMV)
wacky, stupid, hypocritical .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this is wacky:
The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit. It can be anything, in concept, it needs to be to win a deal.
He then goes on to treat Linux as a concept for the rest of the article, which is so stupid it's not worth reading.
Linux is a kernel. Free Software is a concept. Both can be talked about intelligently. Linux can be compared to other kernels. Free software can be compared to other development models. The rest of his "arguments" are just as big a waste of time.
As someone else pointed out, this is the guy the NYT quit quoting. Now I know why.
I don't even need to know (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy just spend the whole article deconstructing linux without any kind of factual support.
I was reading his five points and it seems to me that either he got paid for that or he really has no clue about what drives the OSS community. Why is that that everyone that doesn't understand has to bring it down to the money concerns or abstract concepts.
I was gonna spend some mod points in the thread but the guy is so clueless that i have to put my grain of salt, hoping that he reads it his somewhat alternate version of reality.
why the hell would he attack the security side of linux, if anything, linux is the leader in terms of secure OS. Is it because its less targeted by hackers (that happens to be using linux) or is it because it really is secure ? Time will tell, but the current fact remains that in raw numbers, linux is a lot less breached than well.... the windows OS.
the other thing that made me laugh beyond possible for such an article is whether linux is a myth or not, god, where does he come from. Why does he think SuSE and RedHat aren't cheating but ubuntu and the others are, because there's no box ? because its free ?
How do you use *real* metrics, what is a real metrics when you evaluate a concept like linux, why even call it a concept, is it any less real than the NTFS file system or the registry architecture used by windows ? what is that that you can touch with windows/apple that you cannot touch with linux ?
The "journalist" just plugs a bunch of buzzwords but when you get down to it, the article is really empty. Unfortunately, this kind of article will likely be read by people who, having never touched linux, will further be confused and distracted from it.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN TROLL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Five more things... (Score:5, Insightful)
ORLY? (Score:4, Insightful)
In my experience, The List is as follows:
Mentions of any one of these points are sure to cause any non-Linux-loving person to fly into fits of rage and/or wax eloquent on why you are so full of it.
Re:I agree with two of these... (Score:3, Insightful)
Something I wrote for my website but haven't posted yet:
Linux is much more secure than any version of Windows, both in design and in practice. There simply isn't any significant malware (viruses, spyware, adware, trojans, worms, etc.) for Linux. There have been no widespread viruses or spyware for Linux in all of its history. There are several reasons for this.
Linux inherits from its Unix ancestors a robust, well-polished security model that has weathered a large number of attacks. One of the key elements of this model is notion of "normal" vs. "privileged" users. Windows, which has grown slowly and painfully out of DOS (a single-tasking, single-user system) has none of this history and its security suffers greatly.
It's easiest to explain this by contrasting the schemes. Consider, say, Windows 98. Anyone using the system can do whatever they like to any part of the system including the fundamental operating system software. If you delete the wrong file, your computer is useless until you reinstall. More dangerous still, if any malicious program gets onto your machine, by any means at all (email, visiting the wrong website, downloading a program from the net), they can do anything to your computer. (And they do [wikipedia.org].)
Windows 2000 and Windows XP are supposed to be better in this regard. The operating system can support "regular" users with limited privileges and "administrators" with more capabilities. However, Microsoft had a problem with this - most of the software developed for Windows requires more privileges than a regular user has. In practice, most software simply won't install or work properly for a regular user. So, in the real world, most people run with full administrator rights, and the situation is exactly the same as Windows 98 and its cousins.
One of the main problems with this is that malware is no longer written primarily by adolescent pranksters. Malicious programs are now big business. Once they have taken over your computer, there are many ways to make a profit. First, they can use your computer to send spam email. They can also use your computer to host a website selling things advertised with spam. They can pop up advertisements on your screen regularly, and redirect your web surfing to sites they want you to visit. They can also use your computer as part of a Botnet [wikipedia.org], carrying out extortion against other websites. And, since they usually modify the fundamental operating system when they install themselves, they can be impossible to remove without wiping the system clean and starting over.
Microsoft has recognized this problem and is trying to address it in Vista. The main feature intended to address this is called "UAC", or "User Account Control", where users run without full permissions, but when a program needs to do something that requires more permissions, Windows stops and asks the user if they wish to allow it. However, because of the history of Windows detailed above, almost anything you can think of - even just removing a shortcut from your desktop - requires extra privileges. So the warning popups arise constantly as you use the computer.
Don't just take my word for it. See what a Windows fan has to say. [winsupersite.com]
In Linux, normal user accounts do not have the ability to change anything in the system willy-nilly. Even if a malicious program were to get onto the machine, it couldn't alter the OS or damage critical system files. Indeed, it would not even be able to alter the files and data of other users on the system.
But this limitation, unlike Microsoft's attempts, is not opressive. When one needs to do some
SCO shill or MS shill?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't complain, help (Score:5, Insightful)
Yours and this articles authors complaining, however, is dead weight. There is nothing I can do about a complaint such as "geek developed UI's." The reason those UI's look "geek developed" is because not enough people have taken the time to constructively critisize them. As a developer, there is nothing I'd like to hear more than constructive feedback on my UI's. But as commens such as that it is "wild assed" does not help.
Re:Irony (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Five more things... (Score:5, Insightful)
What negative effect? Most of the people running those distributions aren't contributing anything to anyone. Any of those distributions that is successful for long is probably contributing changes upstream.
It's good that the market is full of players. That means that even if we lose dozens of them, there will still be someone to carry the torch. How crap would it be if you wanted a different linux distribution because your distribution of choice had gone to shit, or failed to ever get their shit together even, and there was nothing to switch to?
Re:Some of this is just wacky (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some other things not to discuss (Score:4, Insightful)
On your second point, I don't think that the Linux "experts" have an attitude problem. I do think that the "so-called experts" most certainly do. I'm always surprised by how calm and open-minded OSS developers seem to be when I listen to interviews on LUG Radio and such. In fact, they're usually all about getting down to business, and are highly self-critical. It's the forum fanboys that give the "community" a bad name, or think that there is some kind of actual community (maybe I just didn't get my ID badge?).
Three: Do Communes Work? (Score:4, Insightful)
This and other comments lead me to believe that he "Just doesn't get it" (tm). He says that GPL 3 is could be real bad, keep your eyes open. What he doesn't mention, is that there's a ton of stuff under GPL 2 that you will still be able to use, you'll still be able to release under GPL 2, and tell the GPL 3 people to pound sand. What you won't be able to do is take new nifty stuff that someone put under GPL 3 and not abide by their terms. Well, guess what, you can't take Microsoft's, or Apple's or Adobe's software and not abide by the most basic of their terms which is "give us lots of money for which you don't get many rights."
Eye of the beholder ... (Score:3, Insightful)
On Windows, it is a huge pain to link anything to your applicaton that is not written in plain C. Someone else above already mentioned the Boost libraries. STLPort is another case in point. A C++ project of mine uses libpng, libz, some 3rd-party Fortran code, and lapack. Try linking binaries or even self-compiled versions of these into a Visual Studio project, and you soon will go nuts. Fortran libraries are especially bad, since every Fortran compiler out there seems to have its own conventions for how to do things.
I ended up having to package the source code for libpng, libz, and f2c within the Visual Studio source tree, and dropping lapack altogether in the Windows port. That way, I could at least share the code with a developer who does only Windows. Never mind that he loses numeric stability and performance because of this
Re:And he's 100% right (Score:2, Insightful)
::sigh:: /. at it again (Score:1, Insightful)
Some little insignificant turd writes his opinion on Linux, and you all react to it like he is the Linux Anti-Christ.
Is Linux so fragile in your mind that the slightest bit of opposition, no matter how uninformed, could endanger your little cocoon of root safety?
Please. You are no better then Microsoft fanboys or Apple fanboys. You are Linux fanboys, and you should beat yourselves like the bad donkeys that you are.
Q.E.D. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Five more things... (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance,
User: "Printer setup in Linux is hard."
Zealot: "Oh yeah!? Well printer setup in Windows is even harder!"
See how the Linux Zealot argument has absolutely nothing to do with the original complaint?
It's clear where Linux developers have set their quality standard: right at Windows-level. Since anything in Linux that's as bad as it is in Linux will never get attention. Given that standard of quality, I don't see how Linux will ever beat Windows because it'll never be better than Windows... setting up a printer in Linux will never be easier than setting one up in Windows because it's a non-problem to the zealots.
At the very least, the Linux Zealots could spend a few weeks using OS X so their quality bar might be a bit higher.
Re:And he's 100% right (Score:2, Insightful)
I submit that the foul odor you smell is coming from yourself.
Re:Some of this is just wacky (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't get in the way of the power user.
Things are modular and transparent. If you have problems they
are easy to see and easy to get information about. There's also
usually some other way to (successfully) approach what you're
doing. You have a meaningful choice of tools.
Re:And he's 100% right (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply not true. I see loads of +4 and +5 comments regarding honest and useful critiques of Linux. It just happens that most of the people doing the critical comments of Linux happen to be trolls or people who haven't a clue about anything computer related or who don't remember what they had to learn about using Windows when they were computer-illiterate.
I mean c'mon, we hear comments about the superiority of Visual Studio or the lack of Photoshop or the suckiness of GIMP all the time. It's just that we've stopped seeing as many "my hardware doesn't work" or "i don't know how to do this or that" because user friendliness and hardware support, just to name two areas, have improved significantly.
Re:Just Try (Score:1, Insightful)
Unexpected, wild assed UIs [angryflower.com] are a problem in Windows and closed source software (CSS) in general. Microsoft insists on changing everything between releases, up to and including menu items. Take e.g., IE. One version had "options" under "edit", andother had it under "file", another under "tools", etc. Mouse over "file" and nothing happens. Click "file" and mouse over "edit" and "edit" opens and "file" closes. What f'moron designed this crap, anyway???
Convoluted instructions when you can get them at all - they used to include good, solid manuals you could kill a dog with if you threw them at him. Now you get fifty pages for an OS! HowTos are completely nonexistant, etc. Help files are no help, telling the user to dig into the guts of the control panel and set oddly named, poorly documented settings that change names, locations, and icons from version to version. You used to be able to learn a Microsoft program simply by hitting F1. No longer.
Did I mention idiot developed UIs?
Odd assed error messages that don't tell you why something failed to run or install, such as MS Access' "Unexpected error (-5461): there is no message for this error" [google.com] rather than dumping anything a you would want to know about it and could google for, onto the screen.
UIs that were developed by some pseudo-genius who THINKS he has a better grasp of the user experience, like "Bob" or "Clippy" or those aggrivating damned menus that only show the items Windows thinks you'll need, but never are, so you either have to wait ten seconds or click again. Screens that require you to go from mouse to keyboard and back ahgain, damn but my elbow hurts toiday!
No, you are not allowed to talk about these things, because you will be tagged as a heretic in the religiOS wars.
Did I mention UIs, or apostrophes?
GPL matters more than Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux depends on the GNU tools, especially on the excellent set of compilers and libraries provided by GNU
Of course
Linus Torvalds made a huge contribution to the world
How can Stallman hurt Free Software and Open Source when Stallman was one of the few people that made it possible ?
I say to you
GPL contributed to a sort of common ground between companies
So this idealistic fool made this collaboration possible between long time rival companies because of the wonderful GPL and its idealistic approach, and now we don't trust his judgment anymore ?
What's your contribution to this world ?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ARTICLE TEXT (Score:5, Insightful)
1. We don't need to talk about a Linux company to compare it to Microsoft. We're not comparing a company to a company. We're comparing the products of many companies and individuals and the advantages and disadvantages of that vs. Microsoft's products. Many users of Linux don't depend fully on one company for updates, fixes, and support. So to say basically that because Microsoft ties us to one source for these things that means that we must fall into the same trap for other operating systems is narrow-minded at best.
2. Any reasonable IT person will tell you that security is a process and not a product. Having a more secure base to start with is part of that process. Having code review is often part of that process. Running programs that aren't meant to make system-wide changes as users not authorized to make system-wide changes is part of the process. Most Linux distributions do a better job of _supporting_ these processes, and since it's open and editable, can be made moreso by many parties.
3. The FSF is not a hippy nudist farm commune, and the GPL is not a "do your fair share" agreement. The GPL allows people who have a purpose of their own to take a working system and do just the work they need done to support a change to do so instea dof writing a whole system from scratch and duplicating that parts that already work the way they need. Meeting your own needs and giving a little back for others having given you that opportunity is not communism. It's smart in a capitalist marketplace to take the lowest-cost route to your goal. Companies buy pre-existing parts to make their products all the time. Disney takes fairy tales with no copyrights, then copyrights the new work based on it, then lobbies to get those copyrights extended. Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds may have their differences, but they both want you to be able to use their work to do your work. They're not askign for the keys to your car. They just want you to treat their work a certain way if you choose to use it. They don't even care if you don't give out changes you make. They just want to make sure you give out the sources of any binaries you make from _their_ hard work.
4. Employees are not valued on the price of what they work on. They are valued on the amount of money they make the company and the rarity of their skills. The only reason a Ferrari mechanic makes more than a Chevy mechanic is that fewer people know how to work on Ferraris and that the shop owners are able to charge more because the end customer can find fewer competitors since fewer shops work on Ferraris. The goal of the Linux community is not to drive up costs at an employer. It is to do the exact opposite. It's a freely available system which is meant to lower barriers, not raise them. The fact that it does the job of commercial Unix so well for so much less and has built so large a base of trained and experienced administrators and developers that the labor rates have dropped is a positive thing. It means Linux actually has a lower TCO, which is a good thing in a capitalist society. It's a point Microsoft tries to claim. Doing more business with fewer employees who need training that is easier to get is a goal of all good capitalist companies.
5. Linux is open entirely. The minds of some of its proponents are not. Please do not confuse the issue. Blind IT advocacy is bad, but some IT advocacy done with care is a wonderful thing. If Windows doesn't serve a department's needs, the IT department needs to make that clear to the people writing the check. If Linux doesn't meet the needs of a particular project, IT needs to advocate against Linux on that project. If something makes your job much easier and much less stressful while saving your company money, you should always support it vociferously.
Free and open debate (Score:5, Insightful)
What is most spot on is that the Linux community is not a place where open discussion is valued and those who refuse to adopt the purist view are attacked as fiercely as the Revolutionary Guard in Iran would attack a woman walking around in a halter top. Linux is just a technology and it has flaws like any other technology. Linux as a business has its flaws just like Microsoft or Gooogle (opps, Google does no evil, right??). GPL is a socialist economic model and much more onerous and way less free than Apache licenses.
let's have discussion. Let's have CIVIL debate. I understand that Linux devotees treat any comments that don't follow the orthodox view as heresy, but if you believe in "free and open", shouldn't it include the discussion and debate.
Disruptive technologies... (Score:3, Insightful)
From all I've seen and read, this is spot on. Enderle isn't much of a journalist.
Now, IMHO, the REAL trouble with Linux in the eyes of his sponsors (yes, I think he is shilling) is that nasty old GPL. Whether you call it Free Software or Open Source, software built under this conceptual model is a disruptive technology that is inexorably changing the software developers' ecosystem. Unless you make something that is truly unique in what it does, community-developed software at $0 or so is competing with your proprietary products in an increasingly effective manner. In the long run, this is good for software users overall, but really tough on commercial software developers who are invested in The Old Ways. That's why these FUD attacks happen. Of course, in the long run, there's no way the old-model businesses can stop this trend, but as with lots of digital trends these days, we're in for a rough ride along the way.
So unless you contribute... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some of this is just wacky (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Linux won't happen on the desktop (Score:2, Insightful)
Oss need another Linus Torvalds for GUI.
Before we do that, there was no OSS gui for Masses...
my review (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is just an os kernel, which confuses this poor guy horribly. I'm not sure what myth he's talking about, and apparently neither is he. Here's my favorite bit:
The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit.
Well, I've been running this "abstracted concept" for twelve years, and its merits are plain enough to me. His comments make more sense if you translate "abstract" as "something of which he has no knowledge or experience on which to base his opinion." This makes the entire FA pretty abstract, though
Two: Is Linux Secure?
I already said there is no "Linux," so how can I now treat it like a thing?
Whee! This guy is a postmodern genius.
He goes on to suggest that open source is vulnerable to the nefarious actions of trickster devs. This suggests he has no clue what "open" and "source" mean when combined into a simple term. How long could malicious code survive when it's freely available for peer review? I guess he thinks that vague, paranoid mumblings amount to an argument, though he fails to provide even a bad example of what he's talking about.
I think we can agree that sneaky tricks are better played behind closed doors, and leave it at that.
Three: Do Communes Work?
COMMIE BASTAGES!!! Heh. Yes, the GPL3 might, like, impinge on one's God-given right to steal the work of others and use it to rape the public with proprietary lock-ins. To arms!
There is one word for people that let any group or company unilaterally write a contract they have to live under
WindowsUser? Gahhhhh! (Sorry, the irony here was so dense I couldn't breathe for a second.)
Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?
I guess if you use Linux, you'll lose your job. Unless you work for Google. Or something like that. For sure, though, you'll suffer. Somehow. Maybe.
When I first started writing about Linux, I heard from over a thousand people that they disagreed, some rather violently, with what they thought I had written.
I don't think even the guy himself has a clue what he's written. It clearly never occurred to him that maybe the angry mob is right, and he's a braying dolt. Can anyone confirm that he's "one of the most recognized commentators on tech"
Employees often are valued based on the cost of what they work with. The higher the cost, the easier it is to justify an employee's salary.
Is this true? I thought an employee was valued based on the value they brought to the company. Maybe I'm not up on the latest big biz concepts, though
Is Linux is "Open"? [sic]
How can anything be "Open" if honest discussion isn't allowed?
This guy is painfully unequipped to survive an honest discussion, but like most of the points he's tried to address, he just doesn't get it. He's upset because people who are familiar with his chosen topic think he's an idiot. Cue martyr complex.
In sum: a fine example of empty rhetoric seasoned with an unassailable sense of self-importance. Entertaining in a train wreck kind of way.
Impressive writing (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure when the last time I've read so much only to realize the guy said absolutely nothing meaningful.
Just to answer one his taboo topics, does community work?
Well, the community was able to produce an operating system, that while may have not be most user friendly system, has features that took MS years add; like a built in firewall.
You can question it all you want, but the OS on my system was produced by the community and it works. Thats all the proof I need.
Re:Some of this is just wacky (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what BSD is for!
Re:wacky, stupid, hypocritical .... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is certainly not Linux's fault if bash has a security flaw. You might argue that it is ubuntu's or redhat's or suse's fault if they continue to ship bash with an unfixed major flaw, but Linux as a kernel has nothing to with bash or fixing its flaws. You are absolutely right there. You are wrong in (apparently) suggesting that this leaves a blame vacuum. Bash and the GNU project are most directly at fault, and indirectly, the distributors are at fault.
IF, on the other hand, a flaw in bash allows a Linux box to really be completely owned by an attacker, then that most likely is Linux's fault. Here is a case where comparing the Linux kernel to the Windows kernel is certainly useful. A bug in bash is not very useful to an attacker unless it corresponds with a Linux bug, say by allowing bash to overwrite memory it isn't supposed to touch, or whatnot. In most of the Windows kernels, however, a bug in one application could very easily allow privilege escalation, or arbitrary memory access, or all kinds of other very bad stuff. In that regard, Linux absolutely is more secure than Windows (I don't know about Vista).
So, in short, yes, speaking of Linux as solely the kernel is useful. Comparing the Linux kernel to the Windows kernel is useful. Speaking of Linux as a distro, or even as all distros, is useful. Comparing Linux distros to Windows distros (oh wait, there's only one of those for each version of the Windows kernel) is useful.
This guy is a troll... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. I does fine on merit. Maybe people just say "Linux" instead of "Ubuntu 6.10" or "Mandrake 10.1" is because the former is the way people talk. You know just like they say "Windows" instead of the exact version.
Also most distros have so much common code (Sort of the whole point of open source) that when talking about a feature it just makes more sense to say "Linux" then to rattle off a definitive list.
Besides, when people talk about Linux it covers a lot of things. Just like when people talk about
This guy is nothing more than an anti-Linux, anti open source troll. Here are some of his "Words of Wisdom":
" The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit."
" Linux is surrounded by people who generally don't even use real names and often "exaggerate" what they do for a living."
" PJ, the woman who allegedly heads up this legal resource, is currently ducking service from SCO and lord knows what she is covering up."
On the last example I must comment. SCO indeed wants to put PJ in the spot light. Not for any reason other than to harass her. Through her efforts she has shined a light on SCO's legal scam.
PJ has stated that she is extremely shy. Most people don't know what it is like to be so shy that you would do almost anything rather than be put on center stage. I know what it's like. For people like us written communication is no big deal but face to face and sometimes even phone contact causes unbelievable anxiety.
It's pretty shitty for this guy to imply that PJ has anything to hide.
He rambles on and on... What a jerk.
Re:Some of this is just wacky (Score:4, Insightful)
"Developer friendliness" has nothing to do with it.
"Developer lock-in" has everything to do with it.
Re:Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
The bit about outsourcing was hilarious. Linux causes outsourcing. Right. A more accurate statement would be that, in an effort to reduce costs, a number of companies switched to linux and outsourced their IT - two actions unconnected by anything aside from their change in relative expense.
Now outsourcing is slowing and reversing (and the job market's looking sweeter for it), but I don't see the 'switch back to UNIX' he was talking about. Perhaps I'm blind, but IBM, HP, et al are still Linux shops in the servers market.
His tirade on 'Openness' was hilarious. Of course if you shill against the baby of a bazillion IT workers, a percentage of them are going to rail against you. It's not a strike team; it's public opinion. Besides, if you think that's bad for you, check the number of page hits you get whenever you bash Linux, since I understand you've got a history of it. You may change your mind.
Also, I don't know where he gets the idea that discussion isn't allowed. He's got this big shiny soap box to be "Rob Pretenderle" on. As if he's prevented from saying what he says. Douche.
I also noted that Ubuntu was suspiciously missing from the Desktop comparisons, even though it's the most grandma-friendly variant.
Lastly, this is the best example of the *definition* of FUD I've ever seen:
"Linux exists in an environment where there is broad collaboration, but no effort to validate the collaborators so the opportunity for traditional, old style, data breach is immeasurable."
Yeah. Except that the CODE is validated before it's merged in. The collaborators' credentials aren't needed; even a bonded shop can go rogue, but as long as you're checking out the product, you're good.
Re:So unless you contribute... (Score:4, Insightful)
What they hate is paid for trolls who are not expressing their opinion, and are just spreading marketing.
I honestly tried to read the article, it 's not all that well written and like marketing just repeats itself again and again, so a quick skim was sufficient. The fun parts are, the executive board at IBM will be surprised to find out they are a commune and apparently Oracle will be joining them in commune status. I still can't understand why the windrones see Linux as godlike (there has to be some seriously paranoid things going on at Redmond), I just don't get it. For me it is fun and provides a far more cost efficient way forward, creates a more competitive software environment, and that is pro developer because it will give developers access to areas that M$ specifically excludes them from and has in fact used criminal tactics in the past to drive them out of those areas of software development.
The oddest part of the whole thing is somehow that every Linux contributor is somehow responsible for the opinions of every other Linux contributor or even end user. This of course comes back to your point, yes, people are free to express their own 'opinions' and just because they use Linux does not mean that they Linux community (not a commune, hippies? well at least it's not as bad as cancerous, communist, mafioso, terrorist, zealots - yay flower power) well attempt to censor them, and congratulations for the M$ board for paying for yet another personal attack, arn't you proud today Bill, as you shills pursue that nasty PJ, who dares to volunteer services for free, can't have people expressing their opinion when it disagrees with the M$ bottom line.