Open Source is 'Not Reliable or Dependable'

Exter-C writes "News.com is reporting that Jonathan Murray, the vice president and chief technology officer of Microsoft Europe has made claims that 'some people want to use community-based software, and they get value out of sharing with other people in the community. Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"

Comments

*boggle*

[Akardam]

Microsoft is one to make claims of reliability and dependability.

Re:*boggle*

[Dr. Evil]

We can rely that there will be security updates and we can depend upon them utterly.

So it's a reliable and dependable model.

Re:*boggle*

[theNetImp]

We can also rely on there being security holes that will allow all kinds of nasty worms and viruses into my system. So in that sense M$ is quite reliable. ;-)

Re:*boggle*

[niiler]

Hmmm...Since I moved to using completely free/libre open source software 4 years ago, the number of system crashes I've experienced can be counted on one hand, I have not needed to waste resources with a virus checker, and yet I've somehow still managed. I've not experienced this "unreliability" that is mentioned for nearly four years. But this is just my personal experience.

I'm sure that users of many non-free, proprietary software systems experience similar reliability. However, most of my friends and relatives who don't use FLOSS are always complaining of crashes, viruses, etc... Most of them also get that nasty build-up in between their teeth as well.

Re:*boggle*

[Pantero Blanco]

"We can rely that there will be security updates and we can depend upon them utterly."

More like "we can rely that there will eventually be security updates for most security holes and that we can usually depend upon them". It often takes Microsoft a ridiculous amount of time to fix flaws.

Re:*boggle*

[mausmalone]

Since switching to Win XP from Windows 2000 during RC1, I've experienced a few crashes due to some bad ram, but beyond that it's been steady as a rock. Also, I haven't needed to waste resources with a virus checker because I know how not to get viruses. A good firewall goes a long way.

Here's the question you have to ask yourself, though... will your friends and relatives who don't use OSS and who have crashes & viruses actually do better with OSS and a fresh install of Linux? Or would their problems be fixed with a fresh install of Windows, a good firewall, and the abolition of Internet Explorer?

I think that if most Windows users just used to use Windows in a safe way (and read the fucking dialog boxes that came up instead of reflexively clicking "OK" to everything), a lot of the "unreliable" and "virus-laden" views of it would start to dissipate.

While I know that Linux and OSS can be very secure and stable, Windows can be also. If people put the time into Windows that Linux-users put into Linux/OSS (by way of customization, and finding apps and drivers), they'd have a much more reliable machine (than their current Windows install ... I have no desire to compare Windows and Linux). The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do.

Re:*boggle*

[rthille]

You recommend abolishing IE, but what other commercial web browser is there for Windows? I guess there is Opera, though I don't think it has much mind-share...

Re:*boggle*

[Moofie]

"The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do."

The biggest unreliability with Windows is the reliance on users not doing stupid things in order to stay reliable.

That's a dumb thing to rely on. ASSUME the user is going to do unwise things, and design around that assumption.

Re:*boggle*

[ahodgson]

But the article says open source is not reliable. Ergo, no firefox.

Re:*boggle*

[Ponies_OMG]

The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do.

And having to give "adminstrator" privleges to users so they can run certain programs. And having it as the default setting when you create an account.

Re:*boggle*

[azhrei_fje]

Here's the question you have to ask yourself, though... will your friends and relatives who don't use OSS and who have crashes & viruses actually do better with OSS and a fresh install of Linux? Or would their problems be fixed with a fresh install of Windows, a good firewall, and the abolition of Internet Explorer?

And this really is the question, isn't it? But the answer isn't obvious.

First, let me explain my environment in my home office: I have a Linux/Unix-only network that I call my "corporate net". It consists of AIX, HP-UX, and a half-dozen Linux machines. The mantra in my corporate net is "no Windows allowed". One of my Linux boxes is used for my accounting system: a spreadsheet with macros, some word processing, Evolution email client, etc. All of it F/OSS.

My wife is the one that does our accounting, though. So she has to leave her Windows world (her office in our house) and come into my office to do accounting work, because I won't open an entry path in the firewall from her Windows machine. Even if I trust my firewall to only allow traffic from her box, I can't trust that her machine hasn't been compromised. And I have educated her about viruses and such, and she keeps her subscription-based scanners and such up to date. And she now uses Firefox (after 12 months of my urging!) so IE is not a direct problem.

I say "direct problem", because she still uses Quicken for our personal accounting (sigh) and Quicken uses the IE ActiveX controls for HTML rendering to display help information and other such things. So her machine won't be safe to my corporate net unless I actually delete/disable those DLLs. And she's not willing to give me that level of control over her computer.

I expect to have time over the summer to install VMware on her old Dell laptop. She plans to install Linux on it first, then I'll put on VMware, and then she'll run Quicken inside the VMware session. The VMware session will be read-only, with the Quicken data being store (in the Linux filesystem). Every time she boots VMware, she'll get the exact same image to run. Even if it does become infected, rebooting VMware will clear the infection.

In summary, educating users about viruses and how to avoid them is a great first step. But users can visit sites and become infected anyway. There are plenty of vulnerabilities that a firewall can't/won't protect against, and the user can't prevent. The only solution (that I can see) that maintains Windows compatibility is a fresh install of the OS that is read-only.

Re:*boggle*

[ncc74656]

You recommend abolishing IE, but what other commercial web browser is there for Windows?

Why does your browser have to be a closed-source product? Last time I checked, Firefox runs pretty nicely on Windows. If anything, open-source apps running on Windows can serve as a bridge to eventually running open-source apps on something other than Windows. If a file created under (for instance) OpenOffice on Windows opens without issue under OpenOffice on Linux, that's one less impediment to eventually switching away from Windows.

Re:*boggle*

[vux984]

Here's the question you have to ask yourself, though... will your friends and relatives who don't use OSS and who have crashes & viruses actually do better with OSS and a fresh install of Linux? Or would their problems be fixed with a fresh install of Windows, a good firewall, and the abolition of Internet Explorer?

That would help. However, sooner or later they are going to open an attachment, or download something dumb off the web or via p2p. A good firewall (2 way) will help, and abolishing IE will help, but it will just delay not prevent -- and sooner or later when services.exe or winlogon is trying access the network what do you? Give it a pass? or Deny?

I think that if most Windows users just used to use Windows in a safe way (and read the fucking dialog boxes that came up instead of reflexively clicking "OK" to everything), a lot of the "unreliable" and "virus-laden" views of it would start to dissipate.

That is the crux of it. The natural and easy way to use windows is unsafe, while the natural and easy way to use linux (or OS X) is safe. That's the pretty much the point. Windows is like a chainsaw - its safe if you use it in a safe way, but its damned easy to take a limb off with it if you have a moment of bad judgement.

The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do.

Exactly. And users aren't going to get generally smarter. And even smart users occasionally click the wrong button.

Re:*boggle*

[cyber-vandal]

From the article: "Open source is unreliable" so you can't trust Firefox or OpenOffice.

Re:*boggle*

[Cal Paterson]

Since switching to Win XP from Windows 2000 during RC1, I've experienced a few crashes due to some bad ram, but beyond that it's been steady as a rock. Also, I haven't needed to waste resources with a virus checker because I know how not to get viruses. A good firewall goes a long way.

Right, you've not had any problems with MS software. Now think that perhaps computers are used as more than as desktop machines. Now think that perhaps MS sucks at that.

While I know that Linux and OSS can be very secure and stable, Windows can be also. If people put the time into Windows that Linux-users put into Linux/OSS (by way of customization, and finding apps and drivers), they'd have a much more reliable machine

Install Debian or OpenBSD, and see how little effort it takes to have a secure machine; with everything correct out of the box. You act like it's the users responsibility to fix problems in the Operating System. It's not. Don't think that.

Re:*boggle*

[russ1337]

Are you saying you cant trust Firefox because it is open source? Or are you quoting the whole statement?

I think that OpenOffice and FireFox are more trustworthy because they are Open Source. Any programmer (who knows what they are looking at) can examine open-source code for flaws, insecurity, or malicious intent. The same cannot be said for closed source.

You still have to get your open source apps from a reliable source (same as closed source)... I.e You should only download Firefox from Mozilla.com, and OpenOffice from Openoffice.org. That way, you can ensure no-one has added to the s/w (maliciously) and recompiled it for distibution. No differnt than getting some dodgy version of Windows off Limewire only to find its laden with viruses...

Re:*boggle*

[Mistshadow2k4]

"The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do."

Knowing how ignorant of computers the average user is, I would have believed you, but there are two reasons I don't. One is experience with Windows myself. No matter how well you secure it -- limited user privileges, behind a router, use ZA, Avast!, WinPatrol and PeerGuardian -- something will happen to it. And limited user privileges is not the answer to security problems anyway. There are too many programs that require admin access, unlike modern *nix systems. Also unlike *nix, user accounts are not in any separate. If user A gets a virus, the system has a virus. On *nix if user A gets a (hypothetical) virus, you can delete that user account and make another because the system is not infected.

Another reason is an experiment I pulled with two people who were poor enough that they got little from Windows because they didn't have the money to buy third-poarty software. Understand, they knew practically nothing about computers as well, so of course their Windows installation was ruined in no time flat. I explained the difference between a user account and root and then switched them to Xandros. I also pointed them to the Xandros forums, where they could learn everything else they needed to know. Knowing that all this software was free was a big thing to them so they were willing to give it a shot. My experiment worked and their computers are reliable and secure -- yes, I checked up on them. These people still just the basics; log in as root, update and use APT to get more software. They know little else about *nix and nothing about security other than to update. They don't need to.

In conclusion, people who claim that Windows can be just as secure as *nix don't know *nix and certainly don't understand the difference between the security models of the OSes. Furthermore, it's inaccurate to claim how secure Windows can be since security requires so much software to secure it, which is not required with an OS that is designed to be secure in the first place, which Windows never was.

Re:*boggle*

[gutnor]

For most users out there, that the OS still function nicely is the least of their concern.
They can always load any 'repair' CD and get a more or less fresh OS again.

However, there is no repair CD to retrieve 5 year of vacation pictures.

The problem with security is that the social engineering is by far the most effective threat and basically that means that whatever the system, hackers will always be able to do what the user can do with his computer.

The only system that is ultimatly safe for a non "computer expert" user is an console type computer. You can only run the application that -whatever vendor- has installed for you, go on internet only via a -vendor controled- network, and save only 'passive' files on the disk ( like plain image, text, ... no macro, nothing ). And even then, I -unfortunatly- know people gullible enough to fall for a message like "Unlock the Nude Britney Spear pictures that are hidden on your disk : delete all your mails while pressing the F1 key. If you maintain the F1 key pressed all the time, your mail will not be deleted but you will see a new folder on your disk with the pictures"

We are in a world where after millenium of mugging and scam, people still need to be reminded not to show their wallet full of cash on holliday or not to fall for the classic card/dice scam on the street ! I still see people leaving their car open with engine running while buying some crap ...

Re:*boggle*

[Reverend528]

Boggle?

m a l y
e v e p
r g a w
j d p i

Re:*boggle*

[InsaneGeek]

Perms don't solve a thing, I've been harping on this point for quite a while now. If my dissertation I've been working on for a number of years suddenly goes, the fact that my /etc/hosts file is still there doesn't mean anything, only my files are important to me. This is the part everybody misses, and actually every OS has (windows had a much better file permissions model than linux has had for years, but for a while now most Linux filesystems have some form of extended ACL's) the only problem is that people hardly ever use them on any OS for their personal computer.

Again simple permissions do resolve this problem, as if I'm the only user of my laptop; if I'm logged in as myself (not root, administrator, etc) and all my work get's deleted having an OS doesn't do me any good.... unless all you expect from a computer is to look at it and not do any work.

Re:*boggle*

[jabelson]

Are not the brunt of internet "virus" attacks against indivdual desktops? Are you saying that Windows boxes are atacked because it's easy to do so?

Re:*boggle*

[schuster]

I think you're on the right track. What Microsoft wants people to believe is that with commercial development, help is only a phone call away. It doesn't matter if the quality of the support is good or not. What matters is that it's there. In addition, commercial software is created by a tangible entity where the programmers are specifically hired by the company because they're good programmers. Open source is created by volunteers who aren't getting paid and so have less incentive to make good software. Of course, that's all perception and the reality doesn't matter. Instead of just dismissing everything that Microsoft said, I think the community instead needs to discuss ways to better educate the public so that they have a positive perception of open source. For now, the perception is that open source software is software that's only used by hobbiests and is too complictated for the average user. If you ever need help, you get that from going to forums or sending emails and not knowing if you'll even get help or when you'll get it. Not only that, but the support doesn't come from people trained to help the common user, it comes from tech-oriented hobbiests that they won't be able to understand. That, I think, is what has to be dealt with.

Re:*boggle*

[Bush Pig]

Offsite backup.

Re:*boggle*

[killjoe]

The problem is that people who run windows run the whole MS "stack". They run IE, office, outlook etc. In fact most corporations will not even allow you to load non MS software on your machine.

Just today you had the zero day word virus going around for example.

If you loaded linux (or switched to a mac) you would be much better off because your entire stack gets to be different.

Re:*boggle*

[orasio]

While I know that Linux and OSS can be very secure and stable, Windows can be also. If people put the time into Windows that Linux-users put into Linux/OSS (by way of customization, and finding apps and drivers), they'd have a much more reliable machine (than their current Windows install ... I have no desire to compare Windows and Linux). The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do.


I used mswindows for years. from 3.0 to 2000, and now I even use winXP at work.
Other than that, I used GNU/Linux professionally for many years, and at home primarily, since the year 2000, and exclusively since two years ago.

The times a friend asked me to install Windows XP, I spent a complete an afternoon just installing winxp, plus office, printer, drivers and stuff. I have usually installed an AVG afterwards, and told them to get a better AV software or other protection, because I honestly don't have knowledge in that area, in _my_ particular experience AV software is bad for the experience. Maybe there's some customization I could do for them, but I just don't know what customization shopul be made, and it's not easy to find out what needs to be done. I have experience on Windows, but that's just another type of knowledge, and I have asked friends, not specialists, but developers who use winXP at home, and I never got anything better than "just install Norton AntiVirus". Problably there's a way to be safe with WinXP, but it must take an specialist.

My first Ubuntu, on the other hand, arrived some months ago. I inserted the CD, and less than two hours from there, I was happily listening to my mp3 collection again (that included some customizing), and importing my previous emails and configuration. I did no "customization" to the default install other than adding more sources of software in order to get non-free software, and using the package manager to add more software.

My girlfriend has no particular knowledge about ubuntu, but she has no trouble using it for office apps, email, web, skype, amsn, gaim. I let her do as she pleases, and she didn't even break her own stuff, even. For three years. She used a heavily customized Slackware installation I had, previously, but this Ubuntu has no customization or special configuration other than mplayer and mpd, an mp3 player.

I think I didn't invest as much time protecting my system as I spent on my friends computers, but I feel much safer, maybe I'm missing something.

Automatize please

[Opportunist]

Could we simply auto-tag all stories containing "Jonathan Murray said" as "fud"? It would save a lot of work and I doubt we'll get too many false positives.

Nice FUDdy title

[xtracto]

how did slashdot editors managed to understand "ther people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"" to "OpenSource is unreliable".

Hey, sometimes Open Source does it right, someties people preffer other ways. If THERE ARE companies that sell CLOSED software and services and their services al GREAT, yes this is FUD, but this time it is the editors the ones that are throwing it.

BURN KARMA BUUUUURN!!

Re:Nice FUDdy title

[kfg]

. . .how did slashdot editors managed to understand "ther people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"" to "OpenSource is unreliable".

Because they understand that that's the way the statement was meant to be understood?

Either that or they just cut and pasted.

KFG

Re:Nice FUDdy title

[rs232]

`how did slashdot editors managed to understand "ther people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.'"" to "OpenSource is unreliable"'

Because in an interview with the BBC a Microsoft 'technology` officer stated:

01. Some people go with commercial software because it is reliable and dependable.

02. Some people go with Open Source software because of its collaborative nature.

By linking the two statements in the same sentence, he misleadingly implied that Open Source was neither reliable or dependable. Now do you see How did you not manage to underatand this?

'some people want .. community-based software .. Other people want .. reliability .. dependability .. commercial software' - Jonathan Murray

More self-serving propaganda-- is this news??

[postbigbang]

And really now, what did you expect him to say? Our model sucks, and please, let me now genuflect in the hotbed of OSS dev?

It's like asking Steve Ballmer to take estrogen.

Not dependable?

[DaveM753]

I would have replied to this sooner, but Windows keeps crashing.

*shrug*

[stlhawkeye]

I don't think it's any more reliable or dependable than any other development paradigm. The difference is that instead of paying somebody for unreliable and undependable software, I can get it for free from open source. Firefox crashes more often, on every environment on which I run it (4 different OS's) than any other application I have. The difference is, I didn't have to pay for it.

Re:*shrug*

[Arker]

Another difference is that you can, if you wish, actually help make it stable!

Well, in firefox's case that would probably mean forking it since the development team has a chronic case of featuritis, but again, you can do that if it's important enough to you.

There are some definite advantages in terms of reliability and security to the free software model, but that doesn't mean all free software is going to be more reliable or more secure than all proprietary software - far from it. Free software, however, does allow users to become involved and part of the process, rather than condemning them to exist only as passive 'consumers.' And it does respond to their needs, rather than to the desires of the marketing department.

IE is much better coded than firefox - and firefox therefore crashes more often. Yet, despite that advantage, IE is much less *secure.* And that's what you get when marketing determines the program specifications...

SourceSafe vs CVS

[Rik Sweeney]

I bet to differ Microsoft. Why would I use SourceSafe, which is slow (checking out takes a very long time), unreliable (corrupts itself regularly) and costs money when I can use CVS which is fast, reliable and is free?

Re:SourceSafe vs CVS

[955301]

Just a few questions.

First about "I tried to install CVS or subversion". So, which one was it?

Second, you seem to value speed on something you do once - installation and setup - over the steady-state use of the source control tool - keeping your data integrity intact.

For Subversion, the explorer client is TortoiseSVN.

I've used Source Safe, Clear Case, Starteam, CVS and Subversion, RCCS, and a few others I've forgotten. By far, Subversion has been the best. Starteam was close, but it required a Microsoft setup back when I used it.

I do not agree that Subversion is difficult to set up.

Re:SourceSafe vs CVS

[hyfe]

Comparing SourceSafe with CVS is like comparing MS Office with Emacs ...

.. it's inheretly flawed because anybody remotely sane will recognize that SVN and VIM are superiour products.

move along...

[muszek]

MS claims that F/OSS sucks. Where's the news? Why does everything those fuckheads say have to make it to news sites? It's just the same as mainstream media and politicians - those morons don't have anything to say that's worth listening to, yet they're taking up to 90% of daily news.

Strange...

[biglig2]

...I mean, why are they so freaked out by Google? Since their entire infrastructure is based around software that isn't reliable or dependable, they can't possibly grow to any size.

NEWSFLASH!

[rolfwind]

Microsoft Executive will try to talk you into buying commercial software! GASP!

Well... actually, he said "commercial", so perhaps he's suggesting Mac OSX:) Perhaps he can clarify if he's trolling for his own company's software or if he means all commercial software. In which case he's not a marketing troll, but an idiot using a blanket statement who clearly doesn't care about the issue as he should be aware that Microsoft has used Open Source components in it's own OS - (TCP/IP stack?) - whereas they could have used a "superior" commercial solution.

Trollgasm!

[MaestroSartori]

The guy says nothing about open source, he talks about relying on community support or going with commercial support. What's the point of posting this article other than a million angry responses from people who just read the title?

Linux?

[RT Alec]

Why is this tagged "Linux"? Shouldn't it be tagged "IT"?

Re:Marketing tripe

[xtracto]

Of course people want dependable, that's why they're looking for something not laden with spyware, viruses, etc.

Sorry, you did not got FP.

I really hate the slashdotters that have this logic "ClosedSource -> Malware" or "ClosedSource->Bad", there are tons of applications that are closed source and DO NOT have any kind of crapware on them, a lot of them are even FREE.

Just because the author of a program do not want to give you his lunch for free does makes him baaaad, anti OpenSource or whatever, come on, get a grip!

MicroJerk!

[digitaldc]

First Microsoft flirts with Open Source saying it's 'maturing and more commercial,' and now they say it is not 'reliable or dependable.'

I think they are just badmouthing them because Open Source won't let Microsoft go all the way on the first date.

RTFT

[mechanosm]

That's the title of the article at news.com.com.com.com. Perhaps you can address your question to the editors there.

MS is the last place to hear such a thing from!

[mytec]

Hearing this out of MS reminds me of the quote: "We're seeing crazy uptime numbers now, like three months, six months. I fully expect we'll see a year of uptime when Windows Server 2003 is finished," said Jeff Stucky*. So uptimes, for MS's latest and greatest, that are far short of what *nix administrators experience, are a demonstration of MS's commercial stability? Does the other side of the pond experience MS in a different way?

That said, there are plenty of 3rd party applications that run well and are commercial. It's just Windows itself that doesn't run well. Some development groups are more focused on quality than others on both sides of the fence. I run a large number of commercial applications on Windows that run very well. I couldn't ask for more reliability or dependability. I could of Windows and that is the point.

*http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/25/ballmer _ushers_in_windows/

What in the "commercial model" does this?

[DragonWriter]

Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.

Certainly, there is commercial, proprietary software that is reliable and dependable. And certainly there is open-source software that isn't. OTOH, there are plenty of cases where the reverse is true, and I, for one, see little in the "commercial" software model, contrasted with the OSS model, that leads to "reliability and dependability" systematically.

Would have posted on this thread earlier

[monopole]

But our windows based server went down in flames crippling the office for two days. Fixed everything with Knoppix.

Thank god for reliable, dependable commercial software!

Where would you live?

[DumbSwede]

So to make an analogy, I should prefer buildings that are built that allow no inspections while being built or even after construction is completed, to buildings that are free to be inspected. Which would you trust to live in?

I have to agree in general

[erroneus]

Because, after all, what is "reliable" or "dependable"? By whose standards?

I just loaded FC5 on a machine cleanly. I then had it do a yum update. Once completed, firefox was unable to start as a regular user. (Root could start it.) Turns out that somehow the ${HOME}/.mozilla directory was chown root.root for some reason. I changed it and all was well again.

So yeah, it's "imperfect."

But GOOD-FREAKING-GOD! This is Microsoft claiming this? As if they set the standard for reliability and dependability? All this while their EULA states that their software is not guaranteed to be suitable for any purpose at all. That just OOZES customer-service, reliability and dependability.

Ridiculous...

Re:I have to agree in general

[Kjella]

All this while their EULA states that their software is not guaranteed to be suitable for any purpose at all. That just OOZES customer-service, reliability and dependability.

No, that just oozes of the US legal climate. I don't think I've seen any piece of software which doesn't contain a huge blob of pure CYA.

look at the adds in the linked article...

[advocate_one]

Resource center from News.com sponsors
Get The Facts on Windows vs. Linux
Radio Shack Saved Millions

Radio Shack, with about 5,100 company-owned stores and 1,800 dealer franchise locations learned the facts about Linux.

Read case study>>
Click Here!

* RadioShack Saves Millions of Dollars by Choosing Windows over Linux Read the case study>>
* Rayovac Choses Windows Over Linux for Lower Cost, Less Risk Read the case study>>
* Windows Server 2003 found more reliable Learn more>>
* Get essential information about Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 Free download>>
* Tommy Hilfiger Delivers Full-Scale Online Retail Presence in Less Than Six Months Read the case study>>

need I say any more? ;)

Re:Marketing tripe

[Opportunist]

Erh... this isn't about "OS->good, CS->malware", this is about "MS->malware". And I can't say that I won't sign that claim. We've seen it too many times to simply brush it off as an "OSer bashing MS".

We've seen Windows bundled with spyware, we've seen Windows phone home, we've seen rather suspicious loopholes (ok, let's be neutral here and say they don't have bad intentions but are just inapt).

Closed source is not necessarily bad. But this wasn't against closed source, this was directed at Microsoft. And there, the shoe fits.

Well of course

[sterno]

It would be rather a strange thing for a company totally dependent on the sales of proprietary closed source software to go out and talk up how wonderful open source is. It would be similarly looney to expect say, RMS, to talk about the advantages of closed source software. News for Nerds: Stuff that's obvious.

Microsoft made unreliable systems once

[nurhussein]

Way back in the day... of Windows 95/98/Me, when you had to reboot your box at least once a day/week, when it would lockup for no reason...remember back then when Windows was an unreliable and undependable POS (note to MS apologists : yes, I know Windows doesn't crash that much nowadays etc., but do remember those ancient times when it did).

You know why that was? That's right. It's because Windows was open source back then. It had to be. Because there's NO WAY it could be otherwise if they used a "commercial software model".

gcc

[TheGratefulNet]

gcc always comes to mind. its free, its opensource and SO much of the world depends on it!

unreliable? works as well (if not better) than many commercial compilers.

Hmmm

[linvir]

While I'm not an IT expert, so I can't say anything particularly clever, there is one difference even a lowly dickhead such as myself can see.

When someone stops supporting an Open Source product, it's still available to be updated by the community. When Microsoft decides that it's time for you to buy the latest version of their OS, you have NO FUCKING CHOICE. That's not dependability.

'Not Reliable or Dependable'

[Vandilizer]

This is why only commercial software like windows Vista will ship on time, on schedule, and on budget. With no bug and all the feature one could dream of.

Ok I am going to stop now. While one could argue this when only looking at a model it certainly dose not hold up better then the commercial model, at lest the one Microsoft uses.

While it is true that you do not have some one to bitch to when something goes wrong with the system is that any better then having a company ignore you complaints, or just listen and say it is ok we will fix it is a service pack? If you think Microsoft is accountable to you please by all means share what ever you are smoking because it has to be some good stuff.

That's Funny

[Goo.cc]

Because after reading the EULA for Windows XP, I would say that Microsoft software is reliable or dependable either.

He'd change his tune

[JohnnyGTO]

if he was using my wife's "Mobile Winblows" based vx6700 phone. POS is slow, the phone portion freezes up at the most inopportune times, it doesn't work (and the word work is a stretch) with anything but windows programs and did I mention it was a sluggish bloated pig ? Is that the type of corporate software he is referring to?

Re:Marketing tripe

[deadlinegrunt]

"I really hate the slashdotters that have this logic "ClosedSource -> Malware" or "ClosedSource->Bad", there are tons of applications that are closed source and DO NOT have any kind of crapware on them, a lot of them are even FREE."

You bring up a very interesting point I have come to realize lately. When fixing my brothers laptop (and by virtue of that act, my parents computers as well) an interesting situation came up. I'll try to keep this to the bare minimum so as not to stray to diatribe length.

My brothers laptop needed to be reformatted due to the nature of virus and trojans he had accumlated while away at college. Afterwards he needed to prepare a power point presentation for one of his last assignments. I had a copy of Microsoft Office but could not force myself "enable him" with what would have ended up a pirated version. The relevance of this is I directed him to OpenOffice.org and gave the necessary directions needed to download, install, and finish his assignment...Without requiring him to run to the local software store to purchase missing components of MS Office from his fresh install of Windows XP. Ultimately my advice was taken and followed and all ended up well but not without having to change the mentality of not only my brother buy my parents as well.

Free = virus, spyware, adware, trojans, worms, spamware, etc. At least so far as Microsoft Windows end users think. Hell, if it is legit then it's nagware or a stripped down barely functional trial version.

Microsoft with all of the security issues seem to have received a bit of luck with regards to F/OSS. People that live in a "Windows world" are typically scared off from any offerings that F/OSS can provide because it's associated with the majority of crapware that thrives in a "Windows world". (Whether it be closed or open source; not playing favorites) Essentially keeping the attitude, "If it didn't come from Microsoft then it will not be installed."

I gave a specific example of my immediate family but I see this pattern with friends and co-workers too. It didn't occur to me though until my family argued with me aggressively that OpenOffice would "tear their computers up again" if they installed it.

You may be VERY surprised to find out what the average non-tech end user thinks of "free" in reference to "free software" if you listen to them...It hurst both open and closed source software more than you may realize.

There are inherent problems with closed source!

[postbigbang]

Let's review:

1) collaborative third party development and evolution is impossible with closed source, except by a proprietary gatekeeper of some type
2) visible source is easier to fix than invisible source
3) it's impossible to judge application quality and security without seeing source; otherwise it's hearsay
4) open source survives the ills of its progenitors
5) it's still ok to charge for software, even open source, IMHO
6) trade secrets can be encumbered by closed source, and so can lots of copyrights and patents not owned or licensed by its developers
7) you don't learn by reading closed source code (an oxymoron), however, you can learn by reading open source code
8) closed source doesn't actually suck, but it can be used to hide, obfuscate, cajole, and frustrate both developers and users

OS/2 was a technical success and market failure, and took eons to get bug fixes finished. The same can be said for BeOs. Simply building a better mouse trap and thinking that people will flock to you is one of those sweet lies that duped engineers believe. It's simply not so.

And now Apple probably sucks because their microkernel and some of their codebase is now closed. For that, we'll all suffer.

No Kidding

[Greyfox]

I maintain a program that runs builds on pretty much all the commercial UNIX and Windows platforms ever. I have a minion who devotes a couple of hours a day to unsticking and requesting reboots on Windows systems that have gone down during the night. The Win64 machines are particularly bad -- one or two of our 6 machine clusters BSOD daily. It's random as to which one goes, but we've run memory testing on all those machines and they check out fine.

UNIX machines, including 32 and 64 bit versions of Linux go down infrequently enough that I investigate personally when it happens. We've had two hardware-related cases of UNIX machines becoming unresponsive to telnet and ssh requests in the past 6 months or so.

Reliability. Hah. Like how Outlook likes to remind me 7 hours after a meeting that I'm 7 hours late for the meeting. It couldn't be bothered to let me know before the meeting, mind you. That would be too convenient.

Microsoft has no clue what reliablity means. Some marketroid in Microsoft shouldn't be shooting his mouth off about how reliable their software is, when he's obviously never used reliable software. I'd like to address the following personally to the pencil pusher Jonathan Murray: "Shut the fuck up and go back to trying to convince companies to drink your company's poison kool aid. I dream of the day when your products are so marginalized that I never have to use them ever again."

FUD from both sides

[Ryan Amos]

Yeah, this is total open source FUD, but it's not as much nonsense as slashdotters make it out to be.

The big difference between Open Source and proprietary software is accountability. If you have a problem, who do you turn to? A vendor who you paid a lot of money to for support, or a mailing list that may or may not get back to you? Most businesses won't accept that kind of uncertainty.

Now, this is not as important for a lot of small/home businesses without an IT department. But once you get into the "medium" size businesses, fuzzy support options are unacceptable, and your IT management has two choices: Hire a bunch of expert Linux gurus to set up a great FOSS environment, or hire a bunch of MCSE monkeys at half the cost and spend the rest on software and support.

You know the software company is gonna be there in 5 years, and have documented knowledge of your environment, where your IT guru sysadmins may have moved on to other jobs. The training is standardized, so you can expect anyone you hire with an MCSE to be moderately familiar with the environment. It's probably ultimately easier on IT management to go the proprietary software route, because if there is an emergency, there is always a company who can be held directly accountable.

There is no cut and dry rule for whether or not you should use Open Source. But if your IT operations are not part of your core business, it may ultimately be easier to just pay for support. The reliability of Open Source largely depends on the skill of your administrators, and good admins cost more money than MCSEs and can be hard to replace because sysadmin skillsets vary widely.

The tags are FUD

[tvoglou]

Next time I'll see an article about linux dependability/reliability I'll tag it as FUD.

Dependability and reliability are counted on the basis of what you need and excuse me guys but MS has products that are much more dependable and reliable than the open source equivalents.

I would be very reluctant to promote the majority of the open source products as dependable/reliable in a real world situation (Where people have to use computers in order to perform some work) if I cannot have the management. E.g. that I would hardly recommend mySql when I can go with SQL Server Express because I get the functionality I want with the same cost and my job is MUCH easier. (This example in fact applies to many situations)

On the other side, I am an SVN advocate, because VSS is crap, svn has all the features I want, it's stable and the company can depend on it (partly because I am maintaining the installation).

I think that it would be better for both sides to stop FUDing and consume that energy to something more productive.

The headline is right

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Open source, in general (although there are exceptions), isn't reliable or dependable. In fact, I find it utterly amazing that a multi-billion dollar company, which has been specializing in software for more than a decade, can't compete on quality against a rag-tag team of squabbling volunteer code monkeys who can barely manage a release schedule.

Yes, Microsoft software is that bad.

Re:Oh, come on!

[the eric conspiracy]

This whole friggin site is "-1: Flamebait".

Wrong approach, Jon!

[kryptx]

There are several good reasons to use Windows. Reliability and Dependability are not among them.

That's not to say Windows isn't reliable -- it is -- it's just not quite as reliable as its open-source counterparts (to which it's being compared).

If Mr. Murray wants to market his product in contradistinction to Linux, he needs to focus on Windows' existing user base and worldwide familiarity with their interface.

riiiight

[sgt scrub]

This reliable? "MS Word Zero-Day Exploit Found"http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1965042 ,00.asp

Re:BULLSHIT

[linvir]

Just because Microsoft stops officially supporting a product does not mean everyone has to run out and get the latest version

WRONG. You're one person. Arguments based on "you're full of shit because your point doesn't apply to me" tend not to work. There is a wider world of people out there who need security updates and other patches. Most important of all of these are the business and school networks, Microsoft's real source of money. They have to stay up to date, or they get owned.

Now, the real issue is whether or not the updates are the source of the exploits. If MS didn't reveal the flaws, maybe there wouldn't be so many exploits for the unpatched systems. You might have had an interesting post if you'd gone with this, instead of two long paragraphs of narcissistic swearing. Do you understand that, dickhead? I don't give one rat's ass how you use your computer, I'm using my vague knowledge of IT in general. Let me clue you in on something: YOU ARE NOT THE YARDSTICK BY WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD IS TO BE MEASURED.

Re:Oh, come on!

[geobeck]

Your sig line makes your response even more amusing. :D

Re:It is reliable and dependable!

[xmorg]

And support!

you can relay on your OEM, to give you exactly 15 minutes per call to send you TO MICROSOFT who will charge you by the minute.

you can depend on the top googling for MS answers to include heavy advertising, registration required etc....

Re:On the contrary!

[Cader]

And no "commercial" company ever drops support for software or goes out of business or stops making a product?

Yea, and green bikes are faster.

[the_REAL_sam]

"Open Source" means that the source code is visible to the public.

Even licen$ed $oftware could be open source.

It is really quite silly to base generalizations on software's reliability upon whether or not its source code is visible. It's tantamount to saying "green bikes are faster."

On the other hand, the reason open source software is desirable is that it fosters trust on the part of the user. When I say trust I mean that the user can look into the source code of the software, and verify that it:
opens no backdoors,
installs no rootkits,
does not locally snoop,
does not locally spy, spam or advertise,
or leech system resources,
or delete the user's files,
or mess with security levels,
or alter files that it doesn't own,
or send out a flood of packets /ddos,
or hack remote systems by means of worm or proxy,
or open a local port,
or port scan and relay,
or be a blockscanner,
or a wardialer,
or do any of those other nasty things that we've seen and/or heard of.

in other words, open source software helps the user to verify that the executable software it compiles will not hack remote systems, and will not hack the local machine, either.

that's not to say i know anybody that sits down and reads the open source, any more than i know anybody that reads the full license agreement before clicking "i agree". but "trust", that's the theory.

there's also the creative commons aspect of it, as in "the software engineer you help train to day might be the one you hire tomorrow." if the guts of the software are visible then others can learn and share, and build upon each other, providing the best overall source code.

i've heard arguments that such a thing opens the door to piracy or software plagerism, risking profit loss. Well. Consider how many HUMAN hours went into writing and re-writing the same code based on some business man's notion of profit. Jesus Christ said that the love of money is the root of all evil.

Re:I have only this to say...

[igaborf]

It's not necessarily a good thing, although this is RHEL 3, which has many security fixes backported into the 2.4.21 kernel. (The 2.6 series is not necessarily inherently more secure.) Plus, the system in question doesn't have untrusted local users, which means that local privilege-escalation vulnerabilities, among the most common kernel-based security flaws, are not a concern.

But really, the point was not to show best practices, it was to show that such a system is reliable, no matter what the Microsoft marketing grunts may say. (For that matter, it has been reliable despite not having its kernel upgraded recently!)

An anoying AC asks for references.

[twitter]

The vast majority of internet-facing computers that function as zombies are in that state thanks to user intervention. I dare you to prove otherwise. Because if that wasn't the case then every single "Windoze" computer on the internet would be a zombie, and that is not the case, now is it?

Well, the majority of M$ computers ARE infected. It does not take long and it requires no "stupid" action by the user. Indeed, no action is required other than plugging the thing in. Study after study has shown this, but here are two for you:

• 2002, BBC, most read english language news site, tells users to "avoid Internet Explorer" based on drive by exploits.
• 2004, Botnet responsible for 80% of world's spam
• The Internet Storm Center, 2004, 20 minute half life.
• Avantgarde Study, 2004, 4 minute minimum time.
• A 2005 study of zombies, a total underestimation but one that shows large numbers.

Things have gotten worse not better and the numbers match personal experience all of us have. I've seen people bringing broken computers into stores. I've seen broken computers in banks, you know, the ones so far gone nothing can be done. While a user can help the process by going to net nasty sites, it's still not the user's fault. Their computer should not fail them that way.