Slashdot Mirror
United Linux is Here
pstreck writes "Red Hat watch out! Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE and Turbolinux have made good on their promise and United Linux is here! According to their website 'United Linux is a standards-based Linux operating system targeted at the business user. It is developed, marketed and sold by an experienced partnership of Linux companies.'"
I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards.
For at least the first 8 months of 2001, open-source poster child Linux was far less secure than Windows, according to the reputable NTBugTraq, which is hosted by SecurityFocus, the leading provider of security information about the Internet. (The company's 2001 statistics are available only through August 2001 for the time being.) According to NTBugTraq, Windows 2000 Server had less than half as many security vulnerabilities as Linux during the reported period. When you break the numbers down by Linux distribution, Win2K had fewer vulnerabilities than RedHat Linux 7.0 or MandrakeSoft Mandrake Linux 7.2, and it tied with UNIX-leader Sun Microsystems Solaris 8.0 and 7.0. A look at the previous 5 years--for which the data is more complete--also shows that each year, Win2K and Windows NT had far fewer security vulnerabilities than Linux, despite the fact that Windows is deployed on a far wider basis than any version of Linux. So once again, folks, you have to ask yourselves: Is Windows really less secure than Linux? Or is this one of those incredible perception issues?
For more information and the complete stats, visit the SecurityFocus Web site.
http://securityfocus.com/vulns/stats.shtml
You can cry all you like now but I'll rather pay money for decent software.
Oh and don't try posting this as a news article on slashdot because they wont publish it. No bad publicity for Linux on Slashdot, just Windows. People on Neowin.net like myself know about the cry babies on here. But unfortunately you do have some interesting articles that are non Linux/Windows related.
.
.
For at least the first 8 months of 2001, open-source poster child Linux was far less secure than Windows, according to the reputable NTBugTraq, which is hosted by SecurityFocus, the leading provider of security information about the Internet. (The company's 2001 statistics are available only through August 2001 for the time being.) According to NTBugTraq, Windows 2000 Server had less than half as many security vulnerabilities as Linux during the reported period. When you break the numbers down by Linux distribution, Win2K had fewer vulnerabilities than RedHat Linux 7.0 or MandrakeSoft Mandrake Linux 7.2, and it tied with UNIX-leader Sun Microsystems Solaris 8.0 and 7.0. A look at the previous 5 years--for which the data is more complete--also shows that each year, Win2K and Windows NT had far fewer security vulnerabilities than Linux, despite the fact that Windows is deployed on a far wider basis than any version of Linux. So once again, folks, you have to ask yourselves: Is Windows really less secure than Linux? Or is this one of those incredible perception issues?
For more information and the complete stats, visit the SecurityFocus Web site.
http://securityfocus.com/vulns/stats.shtml
You can cry all you like now but I'll rather pay money for decent software.
Oh and don't try posting this as a news article on slashdot because they wont publish it. No bad publicity for Linux on Slashdot, just Windows. People on Neowin.net like myself know about the cry babies on here. But unfortunately you do have some interesting articles that are non Linux/Windows related.
The reason why they would be creating a United Linux distribution would be to actually get rid of the many distributions and unite on one single distribution. I think this is an excellent idea to try to make the standards a bit fewer, and in the meantime create an allmighty one.
You slashdotters are all still really cynical to everything you ever hear about!
The CLIT can suck my ass, I'm not giving up this first post!
You're absolutely right, more distributions does equal more competition. The problem though, is that these individual distributions are not competing with Microsoft. They are competing against each other.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying here, but I believe this is a "together we stand, divided we fall" situation. No single distribution will be competetive with Microsoft as long as it has other linux variants to contend with as well.
This consolidation is a step in the right direction. I hope it doesn't turn into Just Another Distribution.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Hello? No source release until 5 months after the binary release? I seem to remember Corel coming under flak for doing something similar.
I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards.
This, from a RHAT stockholder? Geez. Slashdot is lamer than I could have imagined. Using this forum for personal profit is nothing new I guess, but really, this is low.
I need stuff that helps me work faster, better and *simpler*. That is what Windows *does* have in its favor currently. Most things are just a few dialog boxes away and I'm done. I'm waiting for that in Linux and I hope with a decree that they are going after business that they will realize that business isn't interested in the arcane. They want simple, fast solutions to common tasks.
But dialog boxes != simple, fast solutions. Note - you didn't say that they were, but all too often this is taken as mantra. Sometimes, GUIs are the right thing to use. Sometimes, CLIs and editing of config files are the right things to do. Very often, GUIs which edit config files in the background enable you to split off level 1 tech support from deeper tech support.
What is true is that businesses generally want repeatable infrastructures. This often (but not always) requires a good degree of automation within business processes. I would maintain that both Windows and Linux have a ways to go on this front, but I'd place more money on Linux getting there, since the view of a stripped down internet appliance is (IMHO) easier to make under Linux.
The arcane is not the desirable, but computing systems are complex, multi-faceted entities. And abstracting away complexity by degrading how good a fit the systems are for your business is not a good strategy. Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.
A bit incoherent, this post, but it's my overtired rant against the belief that pointy-clicky interfaces are by definition better for businesses. Everyone needs to be trained how to use business equipment properly - whether its a fork lift or a computer.
--Ng