Slashdot Mirror
An Open Letter from Darl McBride
canfirman writes "Well, it seems Darl is changing tactics as he's now published an open letter proclaiming the benefits of UNIX over any other operating system. However, most of his letter involves comparing SCO Unix to Linux from not only a business acceptance point of view, but from a technical point of view, too. Darl throws in a bunch of stats in there, too: 'In a study
conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most
vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux,
accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.' I'd love for somebody who has more technical knowledge than me to look at his points and see if what he says is true or not -- assuming anything coming out of Darl's mouth is true."
He says that when he came to the company they decided to focus on the area that was most profitable. He then goes on to say that this focus was not on litigation. It would seem that history will not bear him out on this.
When it comes down to it, is it productive anymore to even worry about this guy? At one time, I think it was, but now, I'm not sure. If he's still a danger to the idea of OSS, then I'm all for taking him apart bit by bit until he cries. But if he's just a harmless troll now, I'm ready to move on.
Has anyone started a betting pool for the final day of SCO's existence? It can't really be that far away, can it?
Finally, one more serious question: He says that they are proud of and focused on their own for-sale version of UNIX. What advantages are there to going with a closed, expensive version of UNIX over either an open, expensive version of Linux or an open, free version of Linux? I really don't know and am very curious.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
One should also note the weasel word being used, "manual hacker attatcks". Apparently for some OS's (which shall remain nameless), hacker attacks are automatic.
If, on the other hand, your time does have value, Linux is generally cheaper than the alternatives.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
As I assume you know, the "free" comment refers to the support/maint cost of linux, and not the actual purchase price of the software.
Oh give it up. I suppose you want a pony too? Well tough luck, even if I gave you a pony, you'd still have to feed it and take care of it. So you'll just have to suck up and make do with the freely modifiable, open standards based, non-vendor-locked-in, free-as-in-beer linux kernel and associated operating system, utilities, office suites and other freebies thrown in. Feel free to go sit in a corner and pout if you want. Then go and call SCOX to give you some free software, free support, and a pony. I doubt they'll come through, given that they already want to charge you $699 for something that's free.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
"Well, boss, we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't worry, I can go on IRC and ask someone to help me."
Terribly different from "Well, boss we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't worry, I can go to Red Hat's support and ask someone to help me."
Specially when going to Red Hat's support is GUARANTEED you will be talking with a first tier support drone, at least on the begining while chances are, if you know your work, that you can talk to the problematic program's AUTHOR, LIVE, on the proper IRC channel.
That PHBs don't like "free support" doesn't make it less valuable regarding its technical foundations.
Said as a joke, but one that speaks the truth. The primary target of most of the lawsuits has been people who have used SCO UNIX and decided to use some other operating system instead/as well.
What Darl does not seem to understand is that people do not simply buy (exuse me, license) software, they buy the company as well.
The behavior of SCO toward their own clients is not exactly one that encourages people to buy in. Irrespective of everything else, and positing that SCO had the best operating system in the world (stop laughing and just humor me for the sake of the argument)I wouldn't go near them with somebody else's ten foot pole.
It isn't worth the aggrivation of vendor lock in by legal intimidation.
KFG
Yes it is. http://www.linux.org/dist/
More importantly, Yes, it is.
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
No, just the opposite.
There are four potential categories of machines here. Unmaintained Windows, Maintained Windows, Unmaintained Linux, Maintained Linux. Of these, UW is so easy to target that it can be done automatically. UL is hackable, too, but there's enough variation that it generally needs to be done manually. I would further say that ML is more secure than MW.
Linux, having existed in a kinder environment, is like the boy-in-the-bubble stepping out into the world for the first time.
Unix (which Linux inherits much from, and in software aquired traits can be inherited :-> ) has been in a much nastier environment than Windows for much longer. Recall that the Morris Worm targeted Unix and Vax systems...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
99.99% of web site defacements have nothing to do with the OS. It's the web app that is compromised by a SQL injection attack or password workaround.
One of the problems is that there are a ton of badly written PHP apps that get installed on Linux mass hosting servers so some script kiddie just googles a string to find the vulnerable sites and uses their script to deface them.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Indeed, PHP is severely damaging the reputation of Linux. While the developers of PHP are well-intentioned, that is for sure, their creation has suffered from far too many security problems as of late. Of course, they cannot be blamed for the flaws of hastily written PHP scripts.
Nevertheless, the numerous insecurities found in PHP and scripts written in PHP are tarnishing the image of Linux. Hopefully the PHP developers put more effort into creating a web development platform that isn't as susceptible to scripts written by non-professionals. Just as Intel and AMD have moved to prevent stack overflow exploits via hardware improvements, it is time for PHP to do the same. They must make it so that insecure scripts do not run at all.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
What about:
Me: "Well, boss, we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't
worry, I already found the answer on one of the newsgroups."
or
Me: "Well, boss, we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't
worry, I dug into the source code and found the issue."
or
Me: "Well, boss, we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't
worry, I messaged one of the original developers on IRC and worked out what the
problem was."
Not every shop has the in-house expertise to deal without support, but there are plenty of us out here that do it. Frankly, most vendor support is shit anyways. We have support contracts for some of the software we run, and I usually don't bother; it's quicker to figure it out myself.
Sure, you can patch it - if you know how. Not everyone is a C programmer.