Slashdot Mirror
EDS: Linux is Insecure, Unscalable
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."
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 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."
Perhaps the key is the company most conspicuous by its absense: IBM, who competes with all of them.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
and just shook your head and didn't have anything to say?
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?
-- Bryan
The top arcticle on Slashdot states:
..and the one below it states:
;)
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.
prehaps somebody should show them the xfree/xorg situation and how much that *helped*
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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 is bad, but they certainly talk about it as if it were a bad thing. And anyone who is paying attention to Linux has to admit that yes, forking is not only likely, but ongoing. This is seen as confirmation of the supposed problem.
That aside, forking does make life a little more difficult for developers of applications which would like to target multiple Linux distributions. Files are located in different places, init scripts are organized differently, different libraries or modules are installed (or not installed), and when some of the same libraries are installed, they are often different versions. Especially for shrink-wrapped software companies, which are accustomed to the relatively monolithic specifications of Windows (despite its own forking) or MacOS or even Solaris systems, these can make targetting the Linux market more difficult.
Also, I think we can blame Thomas Hobbes for infecting the world with his "centralized good, anarchy bad, mmmkay?" meme. Especially among the more highly educated, Hobbesian philosophy is accepted in America and outright embraced in England and other countries whose educational systems have been heavily influenced by England. Even those who have never had formal schooling in Hobbesian philosophy get exposed to Hobbesian bias, (e.g., when a news reporter talks about the "anarchy" in countries where there is social upheaval and widespread random violence, the listener is left with the impression that that is what anarchy (literally, "without center") means, which is right in line with the Hobbesian notion that anarchy inevitably causes social upheavel and violence). So to thinkers of Hobbesian bent, two Linuxes is necessarily, axiomatically, worse than one Linux, because it creates two "centers" for Linux. All things good come from having one strong center, according to Hobbes.
Anyway, just my two cents.
-- TTK, Anarcho-capitalist with biases of his own
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.
I use Linux on a regular basis across many many machines of different sizes. Their maybe some truth in the article saying that Linux does not scale well. Firstly the whole thing of security is over rated. It is a corporate fudge factor, things are as secure as the apps that you use and you make your system. Linux does have a strange threading model but it works and does 99% of jobs with out issues.
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.
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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)