Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EDS: Linux is Insecure, Unscalable

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the still-better-than-the-rest dept.

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."

7 of 1,112 comments (clear)

  1. At least they don't hide their bias. by Staplerh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Obviously, I thought the study was biased, looking at the list of supporting companies. But then I RTFA:

    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.

    --
    "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
    - Bob Dylan
  2. Oracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFH:

    ...according to the Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC.

    From TFA:

    ...according to the Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Fuji Xerox, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC.

    Fuji Xerox = Oracle?

  3. Re:What a bunch... by imroy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Linux kernel does have quite a few forks. They're just not big, seperate forks. Their work gets routinely folded back into Linus' fork. There's the personal forks like Alan Cox's -ac patch, Andrew Mortons' -mm patch, etc. Many architectures and sub-projects also maintain their own forks. So forks aren't bad on their own. Open Source licenses allow the different forks to share their work. It's just that the big commercial entities like to keep reminding people of the devastating Unix fork. To their commercial mindset it's the only type of fork they can imagine. And they're obviously trying to slow the commoditization of software through adoption of Open Source.

  4. Re:What a bunch... by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nice way of completely missing the point.

    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.

  5. Is that the same EDS... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...that killed several thousand PCs by rolling out Windows XP SP 2 onto Windows 2000 machines?

    ...whose financial affairs are being investigated by the UK government?

    Just wondering...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  6. They say linux doesn't scale well. by consumer_whore · · Score: 5, Informative

    They say linux doesn't scale well. SGI has Linux systems with 256 cpus in a node. http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/ Microsoft is only now getting a cluster version of their OS http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 3/04/2134229&tid=201&tid=231&tid=156

  7. Re:What a bunch... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 5, Informative
    I was wondering the same thing about Oracle. This might be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. I have read tons of news items about how Oracle is pushing Linux and according to this one, it seems Oracle leads on Linux with 360% growth
    Oracle's Linux commitment began in 1998 with the first commercial database on Linux. Today, Oracle is the only major software vendor to provide first-line support for Red Hat and Novell/SUSE. All Oracle products are available on Linux and Oracle Database on Linux has met the Common Criteria Standard at EAL4, the highest industry security level for commercial software. Gartner Dataquest says Oracle is #1 on Linux with 360% growth.
    Oracle also seems to be doing well performance-wise on Linux: Fastest benchmark result on four processors running Linux
    Fastest benchmark result on four processors running Linux

    On an HP Integrity rx4640 with four Intel Itanium 2 1.6GHz processors running Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 3, Oracle Database 10g Standard Edition achieved: World record four processor performance on Linux of 161,217 tpmC (transactions per minute) A price-performance ratio of $3.94/tpmC. Oracle, the first and only database provider to demonstrate TPC-C performance leadership on Linux, now holds more TPC-C world records on Linux than any other vendor. This latest benchmark result further demonstrates Oracle's commitment to delivering exceptional performance and reducing the total cost of ownership for all business needs.
    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison