EDS: Linux is Insecure, Unscalable 1112
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."
What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:4, Funny)
(ducks and runs)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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. /opt serve for?
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
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)
Let's examine your post (Score:4, Insightful)
I use Office 2000, which uses normal looking widgets. However, I have seen Office XP/2003, which uses the exact same widgets Windows has, but with some outlines drawn around them.
Visual Studio? The same. And it didn't even do it before Visual Studio 2003.
Internet Explorer? Here, you're either trolling or confused because Internet Explorer uses native Windows widgets.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Windows apps all use the same native widgets. And by the way, even the apps that draw their own widgets aren't loading entire GUI libraries into memory to do it, like in the OSS world, which was another part of my point. Why do I have to load up four ways to manage button widgets in RAM just to get work done because people want "choice"? I just want to get my work done without losing all my memory to the reinvented (and reinvented, and reinvented) wheel.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even when companies do well, they die.
They have the whole forking thing backwards. It's proprietary
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Interesting crowd (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Tell that to Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are the risk takers of our time (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:We are the risk takers of our time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We are the risk takers of our time (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:We are the risk takers of our time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Definitely the wrong image to portray (Score:5, Funny)
I bet that if Obi Wan Kenobi posted a comment on slashdot like:
"Darth Vader betrayed and murdered Luke Skywalker's father"
10 people would reply to his post saying that he is using the wrong wording because he didn't actually murder him. Then Obi Wan would have to qualify his wording by saying "Its true, from a certain point of view."
Sheesh. Give me a break people.
"Heavyweights." (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
"Everything in Linux except the kernel"? WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Everything in Linux except the kernel"? WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Oblig George Carlin... (Score:5, Funny)
FUCK PEARS!
Why is forking a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Forking is not the Problem. Closed source is. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Why is forking a problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Why is forking a problem? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
thanks (Score:5, Funny)
EDS are scum (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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...
Re:Slashdot says... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
In other news: (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Interesting list of companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps the key is the company most conspicuous by its absense: IBM, who competes with all of them.
Oracle (Score:5, Informative)
At least they don't hide their bias. (Score:5, Informative)
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)
From TFH:
From TFA:
Fuji Xerox = Oracle?
Re:Oracle? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever read something... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Have you ever read something... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Have you ever read something... (Score:4, Funny)
No entry found for securifying.
Did you mean scarifying?
Re:Have you ever read something... (Score:5, Funny)
How about right now tomorrow?
OS vs. language (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OS vs. language (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yet another slandering of linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
EDS: Linux is Insecure, Unscalable
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)
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)
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)
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:
I don't know exactly what they mean by "splintered", but working in the Unix field now for twenty-plus years, I never experienced:
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)
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)
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)
Yawn..
Who Comes Up with These Names? (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
A former EDSer (thankfully) (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:doubts (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this the general opinion of the Alliance, or just the opinion of one clueless spokesperson?
Whew, thanks for the info (Score:3, Funny)
securifying (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't very significant and not news (Score:3, Insightful)
Best. Quote. Evar. (Score:5, Funny)
Did George W. Bush take a job with their speech writing lackeys?
A Real Contender (Score:5, Insightful)
That's hilarious (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Trying not to Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
EDS was responsible for crashing 80,000 Computers (Score:5, Informative)
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)
http://grids.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?s
"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."
In all fairness.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
funny to see this article right above the news ... (Score:4, Funny)
*rofl*
Google and Amazon call... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's not forget that it's far cheaper than the proprietary competition even for all of those benefits.
Uhm, Linux doesn't scale?? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
I'll bite. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt cast back on MS et al (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Linux and scalability (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Target... IBM... Innocent bystander, Linux (Score:5, Informative)
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/ind
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.ht
So lets round out the list...
EMC - http://www.emc.com/products/systems/linux/index.j
Dell - http://linux.dell.com/ [dell.com]
Microsoft - http://www.mslinux.org/ [mslinux.org] Err, umm - ok maybe not.
They say linux doesn't scale well. (Score:5, Informative)
EMC? Uh oh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oracle (Score:5, Informative)