Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat And Lineo Respond To MS Embedded Linux FUD
jeffy124 writes: "Red Hat and Lineo, the major spearheads of Embedded Linux, have said that Microsoft's recent white paper comparing Linux and Windows XP embedded is full of inaccuracies, false facts, and overall distorts the value of Linux in general. Lineo has gone as far to say it flat out lies about Linux. ZDNet has Lineo's response, Red Hat comments, and a summary article." Updated by HeUnique: LynuxWorks has also wrote a response (only this one is a bit more detailed).
M$ lied about this, they lied about XP not being hacked by al Qaeda...
;)
I bet this is not "First Post."
Thats why we have so many trolls! Heres something worth looking at!
(The petition, per se, is pretty useless. Nobody's going to listen to it. But, a slashdotted petition, right now when vocal opposition to Microsoft could actually have some impact on the MS/DOJ settlement, MIGHT create enough publicity to force Microsoft to back down.)
The bottom line is this. Not a single statement in the Microsoft evaluation was honest. Some had some technical points correct-ish, but in a way as to give a highly (and deliberately) misleading impression. Yet this is the information CEOs and technical managers will be relying on.
If it's not made illegal to decieve people out of their money, then it damn well aught to be at least made a very painful experience for the perp.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
no, i think that WAS the point. I read the whole white paper, and all the corresponding articles, including the responses from Lineo and others. The white paper does NOT blatantly lie about anything. It points out a number of features of embedded XP that are either not present in Linux or are not as good. That's called marketing. Of course the truth is stretched at some points, and of course MS is trying to make Linux look bad. THAT'S FUCKING MARKETING!!!!!! That is how customers are won and lost!!! What is MS supposed to do, release a white paper that says "Linux is every bit as good as our embedded solution." They might as well say "don't buy XP!!" That is not how business works, my friend. The world is not the Linux-centric commune that all of you daydreaming hippies want so badly. It's never going to be that way. There's always going to be competition, and most of the time, some company is going to dominate that competition.
But i digress. My point is, if you want to say that MS actually lied in its whitepaper, you show me one point in that press release, and give me some facts to prove that it is an outright lie. Then you can say that MS is in the wrong. Until then, MS is merely competing.
For example, in Lineo's response we read:
MS:Networking support in embedded Linux simply is not as comprehensive and feature-rich as that in Windows. Linux does not offer..."
LN:Lineo: The Microsoft author should review the state of the current Linux 2.4 kernel. Linux grew up on the Internet. Its support for networking services is comprehensive. Due to the open source nature of Linux, elements that may not yet be supported can be added by any competent engineer. Just because Red Hat doesn't support a driver doesn't mean it isn't there and usable. This has more to do with Red Hat test bandwidth than Linux maturity. They are picking nits here."
Looks like Lineo is so onanistic about Linux that they're leaving out or conveniently forgetting that 802.11b is a standard that most handheld/palmtop systems - which both of these embedded OS's are targets of - will be a requirement for most users of such devices.
In the section about "Localization", Lineo responds in a fairly arrogant tone:
MS:Multilanguage availability in Linux is extremely limited for both OS localization and application development. Localizing the OS means rebuilding it in the desired language.
Lineo: The OS should never be localized in the embedded space. You localize the user interface, not the OS. Even desktop Linux versions don't localize the OS--it's not necessary.
A fairly arrogant supposition at best, if not downright disingenuous.
Even more "NFL-calibre" dodging and weaving in this next one:
MS:To find and fix security flaws, Linux relies heavily on the Open Source community and source access, assuming that the "many eyes" of the Open Source community can equal a more secure OS. Even vendors such as Red Hat cannot guarantee the reliability and security of their OS. Red Hat's Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing states that they may not be able to test their software effectively because independent software programmers, over whom Red Hat has no control, contribute to Open Source programs.
Lineo: SEC filings always contain very alarming risk statements, even when they are unlikely, in the interest of full disclosure to the investment community. The reality of Open Source software and the "many eyes" theory is realized by comparing the track record of security reports for Microsoft OSes and Linux. Microsoft's Windows XP End User License Agreement is a telling report of Microsoft security record.
If the Linux Caliphs didn't mean what they meant in the SEC filing, then why did they put that in there? This is the last-nail-in-the-coffin for Embedded Linux; if the Linuxians who penned the SEC filing info said that, then it's a EXTREMLY telling fact of how reliable they think Linux and E-Linux is.
Another "chalkboard" lesson that any NFL RB would take to heart:
MS:Linux looks to Java as a distributed applications development environment. Java provides only a set of least-common denominator services across different OSes. Java was originally designed to be interpreted, and only gained the ability to compile down to native code after a major retrofit. It fails to take advantage of the unique capabilities of the underlying OS.
Lineo: Translation: .Net is a proprietary solution targeted at only Windows platforms.
DODGE...FADE...FAKE...RUN...DODGE AGAIN...SPIN...BUMP-n-RUN!
Lineo doesn't even address the issue and throws some obscure reference to .Net in a vain attempt to smokescreen the issue. Why? Because MS hit it right-on-the-head. Also, the Lineo response is incredulous, due to the purported work on Linux/*NIX/OpenSource projects to provide services compatabilites to .Net, so that Linux can interoperate with .Net!
And finnaly, the "smoking gun" for OpenSource!
MS:An OEM is required to sort through a potential legal morass of licensing issues around the GPL if it wants to protect its intellectual property rights. This creates extra costs from both a development and legal perspective. An example of this risk can be taken from Nvidia. An Nvidia programmer, in the course of developing a driver for one of its products, used a portion of code from a freely available video driver. The developer failed to realize the code was licensed under the GPL and would therefore require Nvidia to release the source code for its entire driver. Because Nvidia did not want to release the source code to its commercial software, the company incurred substantial costs to develop a new driver that did not contain the GPL code.
Lineo: The open source licenses are often spoken of as a disadvantage but they are truly a strong advantage. What they offer you is a choice: Do you want to use existing, freely available code (and contribute the resultant product back to the community) to quickly produce your driver or application or do you want to program from the ground up--increasing the development cycle, but avoiding the derivative work clauses of the open source licenses? This choice is not offered by a closed operating system such as XP Embedded.
Lineo spins and spews their own brand of FUD here, and the example that MS gives is an actual event that happened. OpenSource and the GPL are great if you're going to tinker and play with an OS on your own system at home, but it's a disaster waiting to happen when you start developing it in the manner that eLinux is being developed.
Additionally, I have a few questions for the Linux/OpenSource mavens here:
1) Will the end-customer be required to do a "build-and-nmake" on their own PDA or other eLinux device when a new rev of the software is released?
2) Who will the end-customer go to for support; the manufacturer of the device, or to some arcane amalgumn of Linux/OpenSource coders who tell the end-user that they'll have to change such-and-such lines in the sourcecode and then re-compile & re-build the OS?
3) What will happen when the end-user wants to make use of 802.11b or the other new "WiFi" connectivity scheme; have drivers made by the manufacturer that are certified by the manufacturer of the OS, or wait until some guy who's spent 7 years on his B.S. degree wakes up from his recouperation from a 36-hour Quake3 Frag-fest at his best friend's appartment to finish the code for the driver...and leaves out a vital piece of init-code for the driver to talk to the device?
As I've always said: Linux *does* have it's place - in Academia, the Hobbyist's desk, a web-server that doesn't need direct interaction with the end-user, or a super-cool Beowolf cluster like the one mentioned here on /. a few days ago (I tried to find the article, but unable to find it) - go to U of Kentucky's KLAT2 cluster; however, Linux and eLinux will not be the OS-of-choice for the average home/business because of the obstacles it must overcome (3rd Party software, compatability issues, support issues)
Linux="Linus, I Now Understand Xenophobia"
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!