Slashdot Mirror
Linux Sux Redux: A Rebuttal
SmooC writes "This is SecurityFocus's reaction to Fred Moody's article, claiming that NT is more secure than Linux. Ran on slashdot last wednesday.
Ben Greenbaum who manages the Microsoft Focus Area, sees it from a different perspective."
You might want to check out ABC New's very own Linux FAQ - some of the innacuracies are quite amusing and suggest a general cluelessness at ABC as a whole. The URL is http://abcnews.go.co m/sections/tech/DailyNews/linux000403.html.
... Eazel - that'll be the people making one key application that will be the new file manager shell in Gnome 2.0. Not that Gnome isn't already a viable easy-to-use interface.
...
Some notable cock-ups are:
Linus isn't in charge of Linux any more, but his opinions are taken very seriously by Linux developers
Hmmm, arguably he never was `in charge' of Linux as it's licensed under the GPL. However ABC seem to be implying he's taken a back seat, which will come as a surprise to readers of Kernel Traffic.
The core of Linux is a text-based operating system, like DOS. But several different competing graphical interfaces have sprung up to make it friendlier. They look like a streamlined version of Windows or the Mac, generally with bigger icons and fewer shadows
I can see a DOS / Unix shell comparison being valid given the likely cluelessness of ABC's regular readership, but they clearly haven't got much idea about the X Window system and its relationship to desktop environments, etc.
It may soon become easier to use with a product called Eazel, being developed by several of the original programmers for the Macintosh. They claim that they'll be able to put an easy-to-use face on Linux
Hmmm
Critics of Linux say that the software is a "perpetual beta" - always under development, always mutating, always buggy, and never quite ready for prime time
Critics (like good old Fred Moody) might say that, but most people writing crass editorials aren't experts in any field, let alone Linux. And if it's so buggy, why have I spent the last four years working for big companies where Linux is increasingly the server OS of choice thanks to its stability and flexiblility? My current employer doesn't have anything but Linux on the servers - including file, print and database servers, not just our firewall or web servers.
What applications are available? Lots of server and Internet software, but little else
They might want to check out freshmeat.net - not all that stuff can be vaporware
The three biggest Linux companies are Red Hat (partially owned by Intel), Slackware, and VA/Linux
Now I stand to be corrected on this one, but Slackware - a company? And waht about SuSE or the makers of TurboLinux? Do I detect classic signs of Yankocentricism in this great American institution?
Linux is a complex system, and tech support is usually a must
For a newbie, yup. But I've yet to come across a company or cluefull user that needed tech support.
Chris
This is similar to the ad going around from MS about W2k increasing sales from a company by 13% or 5% -- because we can't see all the raw data, there might be something they didn't want to include, or the like, and would make these numbers go the opposite way.
While a pain in the butt, peer-review in scientific journals is a very good thing :D
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Some posters are not remembering why the phrase "Linux sux" was mentioned. Moody wrote a previous flamebait article with this line back in 1998 and got roasted on slashdot. Moody had claimed to have a secret informant who had to use Linux but was afraid to speak out the "truth", that "Linux sux". He never substantiated this informant, of course.
Anyone remember the "report" from 5 years ago that said 90% of the Internet was pr0n? Time did a big 'ol article on it, the report wound up on the Senate floor, etc.
Too bad the data used for the report was completely wrong.
Too bad that report is still probably being used to decry the evils of the Internet.
No matter how many rebuttals there are, it won't stop the fact that Moody's article is out there. We must demand a correction from Moody or abcnews.com that also gets linked to the original article. Otherwise, 3 years from now, this will come back and bite us again.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Instead of a rebuttal, which I don't think Moody's article really deserves since it would be considered flamebait to anyone that can add, I propose something different. When something that bad comes up, everyone on /. should follow the banner adds from the page Moody's article is on, find customer service on that site, and tell them exactly why you visited the site. Explain that their advertisement was on page spewing FUD, and that they have consequently been affected by this. Explain that their banner ad went to waste because you have no intention of spending your money with sombody that supports those idiotic views. Also explain that you don't care that they don't have editorial control over the content, they do have control over which editor's sites they spend ad money on.
t
Does anybody believe that Moody's "article" was intended to do anything other than generate page hits, rile up Linux users, and get them to send scathing flames that can later be used to show the "immaturity of the community?" Personally, I would have rather seen Slashdot ignore this story altogether. Anybody who knows anything about Moody's past associations and opinions knows that he has a clear agenda, and that agenda does not particularly care for the success of Linux.
IMHO, while it's good to write a rebuttal to an obvious nonsense article, it's also probably giving Moody's troll a bit more attention than it deserves.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground