Slashdot Mirror
Five Things You Can't Discuss about Linux
gondwannabe writes "Here are Five Things You Aren't Allowed to Discuss About Linux. With considerable chutzpa, an insightful Rob Enderle takes on what he considers five dogmas in the OSS community and explains why they're wrong. Examples: Linux is secure, "communes" actually work in the long haul, and that Linux is "pro-developer."
He's a paid astroturfer/troll, why give him visibility?
Funny, I can't seem to find his name in any kernel commmits. Does he contribute under a pseudonym?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
He's right, it's our job to determine the best product for a given task given budget constraints, resources available, etc. But once we determine the best product, how can we NOT advocate it?
This following quote is very telling about the author's motives
Enderle clearly implies there was some sort of deliberate conspiracy to deceive by the people advocating linux. WTF? Does he really believe that?
I hate Linux Nazis and I don't think Linux or OSS is the best solution in all -- or even most cases. However, there are a lot of things in this article that are just wacky.
That said, Enderle does make some very good observations on community based works (that apply outside of IT as well) and some interesting comments on security. Just read him with an extra critical eye.
Since when do blog postings automatically mean they're news?
...
Given that I can't read the article (must be running on a windows server hehehehe) I'll just chime in that most of the time when someone is talking smack about OSS (not just Linux) it irks me because it's ignorant shite that gets repeated enough until it's true. Like "Linux is hard to install" or "GCC doesn't optimize well" or "Word is more professional" or
Mostly I'd be happy if people who don't embrace OSS [even enough to learn about it] would just shut their gobs so others could make up their minds for themselves.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I find it interesting that a commentator so thoroughly discredited as Rob Enderle would get a hit on Slashdot.
The NY Times has a policy of not using his quotes in stories.
Maybe someone should take away the admin privileges of the "editor" who put up this article
Posted as AC to avoid the obvious karma whoring:
The Five Things You Arent Allowed to Discuss About Linux
Posted by Rob Enderle on Monday 26 February 2007 at 7:44 pm
I started writing about Linux not because I thought it interesting, fascinating, or even because I liked to code (I dont).
I started writing about Linux because I was told I couldnt and the more people told me I couldnt, and particularly when they said or else, the more the Linux dirty laundry became attractive to me. In short, if anyone bothers to look at the sequence of events, they will see that the Linux community pushed me down this path. Granted I didnt fight much, but I have this thing about cover-ups. I believe they can lead to disasters both within a company and across a nation; here in the U.S. this last point, whether it be Global Warming or Iraq, would seem self evident.
So this time Id like to talk about the five things you cant talk about without being attacked by OSS supporters. Ill take the heat, and as always, Im not suggesting you stop deployment of Linux, Im just suggesting you intelligently cover your backside.
One: Is Linux a Myth?
This strikes me as both the most obvious and the least talked about. We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows, we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft, and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.
Linux isnt a thing, and it sure isnt a god. When we compare an operating system to another we should be comparing the specific distribution, which is a thing. When we compare it to Microsoft we need a company to do that; Red Hat, Novell and now Oracle provide us with a framework so that we can intelligently compare one to another and assess the differences.
The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesnt have to compete on merit. It can be anything, in concept, it needs to be to win a deal. But we live in the real world where there needs to be a real product and a real support structure behind it. If we are actually doing an evaluation we have to evaluate what we are actually going to end up using and it isnt generic Linux.
This isnt to say Linux cant or doesnt win in real comparisons, only that the majority Ive seen werent real comparisons. As a ex-auditor I care less about who wins than I care about the process that determines the winner. Ive seen too many instances where decisions were made on products, including proprietary products, based on what appears to be graft. One CIO even won a Mercedes Benz for making the right choice well talk about that in a future post.
Presenting the products and companies in abstract was actually rather brilliant, however, I cant find a Steve Jobs-like person I can congratulated for this excellent work. It just seems to have happened that way naturally, but, if you are going to be successful, your justification needs to be solid and for that youll need the specifics.
Linux is a grown up product; it isnt for everything or everyone though. Do your assessment with a real product against real metrics. SuSe and Red Hat are both capable enough to compete without cheating.
Two: Is Linux Secure?
I already said there is no Linux, so how can I now treat it like a thing? The easy path here would be to present the different security models for the different distributions but, for this purpose, Im going to leave Linux in abstract and talk about the unique security problem it represents. Im not saying Windows is more secure either; Im saying the products are so different from each other that comparisons may not actually make much sense, which is why there are reports supporting both sides of this. So, lets start by saying nothing is secure enough if people are involved.
Long before IT stopped being just it, security had three aspects: Physical Safety, Possession Protection, and Intelligence. The way security was breached in all cases was physical; people came in and did harm, s
So this is what people do when they get a degree in Information Systems or Information Technology. They spew BS about operating systems and make up crap to make people think they have an expert opinion.
I'm not sure if these are the five things, since the site is Slashdotted, but here's five more I've noticed you cannot discuss about Linux: 1. The negative effects of having multiple distros 2. The GIMP's interface 3. 3rd-Party games (though these days, there ARE a fair amount of good FOSS games) 4. BSD good, Gentoo for ricers 5. Fight Club
Site's already down?
I never get used to these constant resurrections
Then how am I.. *pop*
The term fud gets thrown around a lot. It seems if anyone says something critical about something else, the supporters of the attacked thing, cry fud. So this piece should be saved so that it can be pointed to as a great example of just what fud is. Fear Uncertainty Doubt. I mean he wastes no time, talking about a linux 'cover up' and how such cover ups can lead to disaster, bringing in global warming and the war in Iraq. That's some serious Fear.
Then his first 'point', "Is Linux a Myth?". This pretty much nails uncertainty and he is just getting started. The best part is he will lay down why he thinks it is wrong to 'abstract' linux, while his entire article rests purely on doing that, because it would be too hard to be more specific.
The doubt is spread throughout - "Is Linux Secure?", "Is Linux is(sic) 'Open'?" And supports this by saying he gets email that isn't nice and that means one can't honestly discuss Linux. (This is shortly after he criticized the open source community for in-fighting - these kind of contradicitions are so common in this piece, the mind boggles.)
I love the bugaboo about how a lot of linux contributors don't use their real names and could actually be spies. He compares it to Soviet Russia which dovetails nicely with his 'commune' question. Oh noes! Linux is the red menace!! (He's smart enough not to be too direct with this but it is rather plain to see).
Reading the comments that follow the article is just as much fun. Someone says when they can plug in a usb stick and it is autodetected, or intall a program by double clicking on it, they will consider linux. Apparently it's been a few years since he actually has seen a gnome or kde desktop. I do those things regularly and I'm running a couple versions behind on my favorite desktop distro.
This is fud, pure and simple.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Simply because he does not contribute directly does not void him from offering criticisms, and to suggest otherwise is blatant flamebait / trolling behaviour.
1: Question authors background
2: ???
3: Karma!
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
In an ironic twist... www.itbusinessedge.com runs Windows Server 2003 Microsoft-IIS/6.0 and NetCraft confirms it and the fact I can't open it at all reaffirms it.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
Just for comfort: I hope your karma will be fine. I find the GNU prefix a load of gnu sh*t as well. It's just ego talking. And you're right about the GPL, at least before someone invented a clause that said you had to accept the clauses of future GPL licenses.
You know what the worst thing is that can happen? That someone mods you up a few points and then down and then up again, etc. Then you'll be banned from posting for some time. It's quite ridiculous, but with so many zealots around, it just might happen. I've been there for saying something innocent but apparently really upsetting to some...
Site's already down?
You're not allowed to discuss this, boy; I'll let you get away with it this time, but next time it will mean some time in the cell with my deputy Sissy-John, mkay, son?
<insert your own joke here>
The Main link is Flame bait look at the tag.
Its at most a little funny.
IMHO the fire hose should have washed this one away.
"astute"
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
I'm not a coder, I'm a scientist. Sometimes I have to code. Getting the tools to do so is many times easier (faster, cheaper, less confusion, etc.) for me on Linux than on Windows. A colleague recently suggested I try quantlib. He also mentioned that they require Boost which can be a real pain in the ass to get compiled and installed on an XP machine. I went home and installed both of these libraries in 10s of seconds with Synaptic.
So for me, Linux is very "pro-developer".
That is probably not a bad thing. The article is not worth reading anyway. Basically he uses logic like, "If Friday is happy and Saturday is Sad, July 25th is Antagonistic" to prove that Linux doesn't exist or something. At that point, after the quote, "I already said there is no Linux..." I had to stop reading.
-R
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
I started writing about Linux not because I thought it interesting, fascinating, or even because I liked to code (I don't).
I started writing about Linux because I was told I couldn't and the more people told me I couldn't, and particularly when they said "or else," the more the Linux dirty laundry became attractive to me. In short, if anyone bothers to look at the sequence of events, they will see that the Linux community pushed me down this path. Granted I didn't fight much, but I have this thing about cover-ups. I believe they can lead to disasters both within a company and across a nation; here in the U.S. this last point, whether it be Global Warming or Iraq, would seem self evident.
So this time I'd like to talk about the five things you can't talk about without being attacked by OSS supporters. I'll take the heat, and as always, I'm not suggesting you stop deployment of Linux, I'm just suggesting you intelligently cover your backside.
One: Is Linux a Myth?
This strikes me as both the most obvious and the least talked about. We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows, we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft, and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.
Linux isn't a thing, and it sure isn't a god. When we compare an operating system to another we should be comparing the specific distribution, which is a thing. When we compare it to Microsoft we need a company to do that; Red Hat, Novell and now Oracle provide us with a framework so that we can intelligently compare one to another and assess the differences.
The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit. It can be anything, in concept, it needs to be to win a deal. But we live in the real world where there needs to be a real product and a real support structure behind it. If we are actually doing an evaluation we have to evaluate what we are actually going to end up using and it isn't generic "Linux."
This isn't to say Linux can't or doesn't win in real comparisons, only that the majority I've seen weren't real comparisons. As a ex-auditor I care less about who wins than I care about the process that determines the winner. I've seen too many instances where decisions were made on products, including proprietary products, based on what appears to be graft. One CIO even won a Mercedes Benz for making the "right choice" - we'll talk about that in a future post.
Presenting the products and companies in abstract was actually rather brilliant, however, I can't find a Steve Jobs-like person I can congratulated for this excellent work. It just seems to have happened that way naturally, but, if you are going to be successful, your justification needs to be solid and for that you'll need the specifics.
Linux is a grown up product; it isn't for everything or everyone though. Do your assessment with a real product against real metrics. SuSe and Red Hat are both capable enough to compete without cheating.
Two: Is Linux Secure?
I already said there is no "Linux," so how can I now treat it like a thing? The easy path here would be to present the different security models for the different distributions but, for this purpose, I'm going to leave Linux in abstract and talk about the unique security problem it represents. I'm not saying Windows is more secure either; I'm saying the products are so different from each other that comparisons may not actually make much sense, which is why there are reports supporting both sides of this. So, let's start by saying nothing is secure enough if people are involved.
Long before IT stopped being just "it," security had three aspects: Physical Safety, Possession Protection, and Intelligence. The way security was breached in all cases was physical; people came in and did harm, stole, or deployed "spies." They didn't need viruses or hacks, they just pitted their intellig
C'mon, Linux is like the Scientology of tech. The list of things that you aren't allowed to discuss is nearly endless.
Three Squirrels
Since we can't yet mod down stories, and I know a lot of you are aching to direct your mod points at someone, I thought as a courtesy, I'd post here so you could use me as a close enough proxy to modding down the story. Given as I've often criticized Linux.
You're welcome.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Just try to discuss Linux from and ease of use, UI, user perspective and you will get a lot of Linux geeks telling you to tough it out, or, my fave "My grandmother uses linux and doesn't complain." (Your grandmother probably isn't installing apps and trying to make it more than a web browsing/email appliance.)
Unexpected, wild assed UI's are a problem in Linux and OSS in general.
Convoluted instructions, HowTo, etc. telling the user to dig into the guts of a conf and set oddly named, poorly documented settings.
Did I mention geek developed UI's?
Odd assed error messages that don't tell you why something failed to run or install, but it dumps everything a geek would want to know about it, onto the screen.
UI's that were developed by some pseudo-genius who THINKS he has a better grasp of the user experience.
No, you are not allowed to talk about these things, because you will be tagged as a heretic in the religiOS wars.
Did I mention UI's?
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Q: Can "The Linux" compete with Microsoft, Apple or Sun?
A: Depends. On the desktop, no. On the server, rarely. Embedded in a microwave oven or something, yes.
Q: Do "The Linux" so-called experts have an attitude problem?
A: Watch how this is modded.
Q: Will large "The Linux" users eventually get sued by some corporation for patent violations?
A: Oh hell yes.
The server is slashdotted so I haven't read the article. But I can assume that someone sais that "Linux isn't perfect".
.haeger
Fair enough. There are some things that needs work. One way to get things done is to pay for it, and bounties seems like an excellent idea to get "your" idea implemented.
Just out of curiosity, is there somewhere I can do this? Sort of a "slashdot for bounties"? Somewhere where I can put some money into fixing a bug that annoys me or pay some money to implement a specific feature, even if I don't have the money to pay for a developer do do something for me. If I can contribute a few bucks to get something fixed, perhaps some others could too? It would add up eventually.
The closest thing I've found is BountyCountry but that doesn't appear to be very much alive. Or is it? And if it's alive, there seems to be an awful lot of projects missing. I have a hard time believing that no one would be willing to pay for some bugfixes or features in KDE or OpenOffice.org.
Anyway, this is just an incoherent rant. I should probably investigate this further and send it in as an article, with proper wording and some kind of structure.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Given GPL3 cannot be applied to the Linux kernel, I can't see GPL3 killing Linux in any way except possibly in being so much better that an alternative to Linux that is licensed under GPL3 gains massive popularity, in part due to licensing.
Which is not impossible, BTW.
Personally, I don't care about the long term survival of "Linux". Linux is a kernel, and not even a particularly interesting one. What I care about is the long term survival of useful Free software. If Linux takes a bullet because, for example, Solaris has a better Free software license, then so long Linux. Nice knowing you.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Was that article really written in the late 90ies or what? Very moot article in any event.
"So this is what people do when they get a degree in Information Systems or Information Technology. They spew BS about operating systems and make up crap to make people think they have an expert opinion."
He's not called" Rob Pretenderle" for nothing. After his uninformed trolling/shilling /self-promoting^Wwhoring in re. SCO vs IBM, people who have any brains get out the salt shaker.
This leads 'em to do one of three things:
1) (half) realize they can't hack it and go do something else for a living after a couple of years.
2) (just under half) realize that they just have to step it up a notch and manage to do so with varying degrees of success.
3) (jackasses like Enderle) realize they really can't hack it --but are too scared to try at an honest living-- so they either get a teaching certificate w/ the intention of making Education a career, or they become tech writers.
(Caveat: as a guy w/ no CS degree, but is a Sr. Sysadmin at a Fortune 50 company, and has taught CompSci full-time at the collegiate level - these are only conclusions drawn from my experiences. Naturally, YMMV)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
In the old days, when you had to manually compile and launch every service you wanted under Linux, this was partially true. However, people forget the first worms were based on sendmail and other *nix services full of security problems.
These days, with GUI-installed Linux distributions, Linux suffers from the same problem Windows used to be derided for: services are on by default.
I've been developing for about twenty years and Windows is still the most developer-friendly platform to develop for. The main reason for this doesn't have to do with availability of source code or documentation, but rather the ease with a single version of a product with a single installer can quickly get prospects up and running with the software. A lot of this advantage is eroding with web-based applications (that generally require no installation), but if you're writing "server" or "desktop" applications, it's generally less work to target "Windows" than "Linux" (or even Java).
It's hilarious to see you guys defending Linux to the death. Any psychologist will tell you that a defensive usually is desperately trying to hide some kind of secret shame, guilt, or other internal shortcoming. It's not like this guy is going to kill Linux himself, with this one post, so why are you freaking the hell out?
Most of you haven't even *read* it yet, and you hate it.
You guys are worse than the Microsoft fanboys, with your blind devotion to your bits and bytes of communized "open" code. It's not even user friendly.
Come back when you have an open mind and the ability to give grandma something she can run without calling you every five minutes.
Nothing spells flamebait like an entire article from Rob Enderle.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Remember, Enderle is the guy who's predicted the demise of the Macintosh more than anyone else. If there's a topic involving the Mac, Windows, or Linux, there's no question he'll be on the wrong side of it. It's amazing to see a pundit come in at a full 1750 MiliDvorak's on the Idiot Tech Pundit Scale.
But don't take my word for, as Google confirms the objective truth:
Rob Enderle insightful: 9,270 hits, Rob Enderle idiot: 32.200 hits
Anytime I read the phrase "Rob Enderle says," I know I can stop reading right there.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
You can't discuss linux on slashdot any more honestly than you could discuss the latest Zelda game on a Nintendo forum.
You aren't allowed to suggest that linux may not be secure, or that the desktop environments for it are kludgy and half-assed, or anything else. It cannot be sanely and calmly discussed in the "linux community".
The "linux community" is not wholy populated with, but has an overwhelming amount of straight-up zealots. People who use linux for philosophical reasons, hate proprietary software because it's proprietary, and are full of naive college-age perceptions of "good" and "evil". These people are more often than not, really not all that technical. They are willing to accept, on faith, that linux is secure and perfect in every way.
They're sort of like the Creationist who doesn't really know enough about biology or evolution to prove or disprove the matter in any way - but accepts based on faith alone that God created everything, and there is simply no room for discussion. Everyone else is wrong, and every fact they put forth just further proves how base of a bunch of liars they are.
Nobody has ever found a "dinosaur", just like nobody has ever exploited a machine running linux. They're just filthy liars spreading fud and their opinions are therefore worthless.
Linux remains on the fringe despite all its technical achievements. The community keeps it their with the sheer force of their assholetry.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
When I saw this article on slashdot, I had to check my calendar. Nope. April 1 is still 23 days away.
back to work...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Yes, this is wacky:
The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit. It can be anything, in concept, it needs to be to win a deal.
He then goes on to treat Linux as a concept for the rest of the article, which is so stupid it's not worth reading.
Linux is a kernel. Free Software is a concept. Both can be talked about intelligently. Linux can be compared to other kernels. Free software can be compared to other development models. The rest of his "arguments" are just as big a waste of time.
As someone else pointed out, this is the guy the NYT quit quoting. Now I know why.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why does the "pro-developer." platform have the shittiest developer tools? Yea, the source is open, but I just prefer doing stuff that I get paid for.
hmpf, i dont even need to like (or hate) linux to see that this is a biased article, probably sponsored.
The guy just spend the whole article deconstructing linux without any kind of factual support.
I was reading his five points and it seems to me that either he got paid for that or he really has no clue about what drives the OSS community. Why is that that everyone that doesn't understand has to bring it down to the money concerns or abstract concepts.
I was gonna spend some mod points in the thread but the guy is so clueless that i have to put my grain of salt, hoping that he reads it his somewhat alternate version of reality.
why the hell would he attack the security side of linux, if anything, linux is the leader in terms of secure OS. Is it because its less targeted by hackers (that happens to be using linux) or is it because it really is secure ? Time will tell, but the current fact remains that in raw numbers, linux is a lot less breached than well.... the windows OS.
the other thing that made me laugh beyond possible for such an article is whether linux is a myth or not, god, where does he come from. Why does he think SuSE and RedHat aren't cheating but ubuntu and the others are, because there's no box ? because its free ?
How do you use *real* metrics, what is a real metrics when you evaluate a concept like linux, why even call it a concept, is it any less real than the NTFS file system or the registry architecture used by windows ? what is that that you can touch with windows/apple that you cannot touch with linux ?
The "journalist" just plugs a bunch of buzzwords but when you get down to it, the article is really empty. Unfortunately, this kind of article will likely be read by people who, having never touched linux, will further be confused and distracted from it.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
I'm not a linux user basically because I use my PC for gaming. But I did not get an anti-linux vibe from reading the article. In fact, from seeing the reactions that it garnered (nothing intelligent, just a bunch of eye rolling)... it shows me the linux community needs to mature some.
An "insightful Rob Enderle" -- a contradiction in 3 words.
What next, a "brilliant John Dvorak"... oh, wait, that was last week.
He's nothing if not predictable. He thinks SCO should win its case against "linux" in general, so why would anyone be shocked he's written tripe like this?
s p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1543531,00.a
Isn't this a George Carlin skit?
Thank you.
Someone's been listening to too many Netflix commercials.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Enderle doesn't deserve the attention he gets. He's a failed consultant who took SCO's side and is bitter about his self-inflicted hardship at IBM.
Anyone who listens to his IT advice deserves what they get.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
This nimrod lost what little credibility he had by trumpeting the virtues of SCOX's multiple lawsuits to anyone that wouuld listen. Well, time has demonstrated that he has a grasp only on his XXXXX, and certainly not anything else even remotely related to the Linux development community. This should be filed under - has-been-tech-writer-that-lost-all-credibility-by- quoting-false-press-releases-as-truth-briefly-craw ls-out-from-under-the-rock dept.
A non-cow produces no milk
or anything good of that ilk.
With no cud to chew
what else can it do
but spew fud for the Redmond-based bilk.
If you're going to ask for an article to be called trollish, at least have the decency to stand behind your name. Oh, whoops. You must be Mr. Enderle. So pleased to meet you at last...
(incidentally for the humour-challenged, the first words of that limerick was a contraction of "Anonymous Coward")
cheers...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
But there is a truth, which is that whenever I have seen anyone point out a flaw in a distro, there is always a small core that just tries to shut the person down. While many appreciate the the flaw being pointed out like the ubuntu people responding the recent 30 days with ubuntu article, others treat whoever posts flaws like they eat children. That is not good, it does keeps some from reporting issues or talking about it because they feel it is just opening a can of worms. Most people genuinely trying to be helpful walk away when it is not appreciated.
Contains "Global Warming" and "Iraq" ?
:)
Check.
Uses Forbes and The Register as sources ?
Check.
Uses a car analogy ?
Check.
Writer does not know his stuff ?
Mmm... let's see:
"Let's take the GPL; this is like watching a government working. This is the license that defines how you will use the product and what you will "pay" for it."
Yup, check that one too.
Well, I'll stop here. In short: Just another of those Enderle articles. Don't bother reading it. It is slightly below a slashdot "+1" post.
The comments below that article/blog are a lot more "interesting":
"When any form of Linux can automatically detect my USB Memory stick and I can "double click" a program file and have it install the program [...] When Linux does that I'll consider changing."
I guess it is time then
And:
"Well, this is about one of the best articles I've read in a long time."
Oh, boy...
In my experience, The List is as follows:
Mentions of any one of these points are sure to cause any non-Linux-loving person to fly into fits of rage and/or wax eloquent on why you are so full of it.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Only what is written count, not who did.
If Hitler said 2+2=4 (ten base etc don't argue) you would dismiss it on the name alone?
there are some good points (on security) some bad (linux replacing unix killed admins jobs ? it's stupid )
but he is right about something at least:you simply cannot seem to say anything bad on linux without being treated like a retard...
ps:yeah it would be easier if we all speak english....it wouldn't be my second langage and I would probably see less grammar nazies commenting my post on the form alone, dismissing everything for that.
But I guess some people are stupid enough to dismiss everyhing an AC post because you know, someone who provided a fake email is so brave.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ista/editions/choose.mspx
You're welcome.
This guy is full of insight. From the article:
though selling ads for you HR internal website would be a creative way to get more income for your department
Maybe they could sell ad space in the office too. Desks, cubicle walls, bathroom stalls. Businesses owners are sitting on top of a huge captive audience. Ka-ching.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
1. Write a blatantly wrong and biased article about Linux and Open Source.
2. Put a link on Slashdot.
3. Watch your Add-Sense rating rise.
4. Profit!
Works every time. Enderle, Dvorak, and the likes of them are laughing their asses off.
My guess is that this is another attack/FUD piece for which he was well paid by Microsoft. He has zero credibility with people who know and understand OS's. It's those pesky PHBs that this is oriented toward, unfortunately.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Sure, "discuss" all you want. But you wont be discussing with me and you wont get any response until you actually file bug reports and try to come up with solutions to the problems you find. That is what I consider to be constructive work and not just general hand-waiving. Not long ago there was an article called 30 days with Ubuntu posted on Slashdot. It detailed problems the author found in Ubuntu Linux. That is useful information and inspired me to submit a few patches to fix the authors problem. Judging by the number of bug reports submitted each day to popular free software projects, it seems others are too capabable of constructively discuss and help Linux improve.
Yours and this articles authors complaining, however, is dead weight. There is nothing I can do about a complaint such as "geek developed UI's." The reason those UI's look "geek developed" is because not enough people have taken the time to constructively critisize them. As a developer, there is nothing I'd like to hear more than constructive feedback on my UI's. But as commens such as that it is "wild assed" does not help.
Football Odds
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ista/editions/choose.mspx
Not sure what's so difficult.
Now, post me a comparison of ALL current linux distros in a nice chart like this.
Only for small close nit groups. Once you grow to a particular size, they breakdown into chaos.
I would argue that Linux is no longer a close nit group.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He's just trying to stir up controversy to get page hits, like Dvorak admitted he did with Mac users.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I couldn't agree more and I think that is a very important point. I am a big Linux fan, but the best thing a consumer can do is be a good consumer and always use the best product. If HURD tomorrow became the most featured kernel and best for the community, then that would be what I would throw my support behind.
I never get used to these constant resurrections
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Doesn't mentioning Scientology in a non-Scientology setting put you at risk of copyright infringement lawsuits? Call your lawyer, now! Still, it's a funny line, with a grain of truth
.NET). Stick with Apple and you're in a different nearly proprietary language on another proprietary platform (Objective-C 2, Cocoa/Carbon). I don't want to be beholden to either party. I, as a developer want a wider market, not a narrower one, and not one where someone can charge me a vigorish just to keep doing what I love to do: write useful software that lots of people will want to use.
Linux has its weaknesses, yes. But its number one strength is brain-share, not brain-ownership. As a developer, stick with Microsoft and you're in a proprietary language on a proprietary platform (C#,
cheers...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
That's news to me...
LOL! The first entry mentions rob enderle :-))
S cale
http://www.google.com/search?q=Idiot+Tech+Pundit+
cb
1. Is Linux a Myth?
There is no "Linux", talk about Red Hat or SuSE or whatever, not Linux in general.
2. Is Linux Secure?
Despite what I just said, talking about general Linux is convenient, so I'll now do it myself. Then go into a rant about "spies" with an off-topic swipe at PJ of Groklaw, while not saying anything at all about security in the OS sense.
3. Do Communes Work?
Community efforts never work. Just look at the debate over the GPL3, which by the way is "anti-business" and a threat to intellectual property everywhere.
4. Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?
I'm not smart enough to understand open source business models, so I'll imply you can't make money giving away software, then throw out some FUD that Linux equals outsourcing. But I'll close the section by acknowledging that Google is making money using Linux, to pretend to lend some balance to my analysis.
5. Is Linux "Open"?
If you say Linux isn't ready for the desktop, you will be fired, receive death threats, and be sexually harassed.
Wow, what a brilliant article. We should stick this guy in a room with Katz and Dvorak and see who can come up with the most idiotic BS.
I just LOVED seeing this modded as fud/troll/falmebait.
It's simply the `stfu n00b` attitude that made Linux so popular at it's best.
how can we NOT advocate it?
Why is this modded +5 insightful?
Your role as IT cubicle dweller is to recommend the right tool for the job within the constraints given. Give that task your best effort, document your recommendations, and your role in the decision process is done. Send the email, print the document and distribute then move on.
Once you cross the gray area between recommendation and advocacy you will be assuming an awful lot of responsibility for something that you may not be charged with. I have forgotten the number of times I've made recommendations that were not implemented because:
1. My boss wasn't comfortable with the idea
2. Her boss wasn't comfortable with idea
3. My boss wouldn't stick his neck out on the idea
4. The CEO had a friend who....
I could go on and on. This is why I'm paid a decent (not great yet) salary for admining win32 POS servers that require too much babysitting compared to the linux I've been running for years on 1/10th the effort at home. Linux is not maintenance free for sure. But once you get reporting/auditing in place you know what's happening everyday. The same cannot be said for Microsoft products.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Getting paid has little to do with programming open source. Oh, well sure I work for the government. Programs I write should be for the public. Don't you think so too? Look at Larry Wall, PERL is open source, he gets payed. You do not have to program for free to make open source. You just need to use your brain a little to figure out how to do both. Perhaps programing closed source you do not need to think so much. You are certainly not going to have as many criticsc.
For those interested, there's always Google cache.
Whatever happened to the obligatory Coral Cache Karma Grab?
/ rob/?p=9
http://www.itbusinessedge.com.nyud.net:8090/blogs
that if I say something stupid and say that it is something you can't talk about, then nobody can tell me I said something stupid.
Wow.
This and other comments lead me to believe that he "Just doesn't get it" (tm). He says that GPL 3 is could be real bad, keep your eyes open. What he doesn't mention, is that there's a ton of stuff under GPL 2 that you will still be able to use, you'll still be able to release under GPL 2, and tell the GPL 3 people to pound sand. What you won't be able to do is take new nifty stuff that someone put under GPL 3 and not abide by their terms. Well, guess what, you can't take Microsoft's, or Apple's or Adobe's software and not abide by the most basic of their terms which is "give us lots of money for which you don't get many rights."
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I will grant you that packaging up a product in a Windows installer is a nice thing to have. However, from my point of view developer-friendly also means how easily you can integrate third-party libraries into your application, and in this area Linux has a huge advantage over Windows for a simple reason: there is a standardized ABI for Linux.
...
On Windows, it is a huge pain to link anything to your applicaton that is not written in plain C. Someone else above already mentioned the Boost libraries. STLPort is another case in point. A C++ project of mine uses libpng, libz, some 3rd-party Fortran code, and lapack. Try linking binaries or even self-compiled versions of these into a Visual Studio project, and you soon will go nuts. Fortran libraries are especially bad, since every Fortran compiler out there seems to have its own conventions for how to do things.
I ended up having to package the source code for libpng, libz, and f2c within the Visual Studio source tree, and dropping lapack altogether in the Windows port. That way, I could at least share the code with a developer who does only Windows. Never mind that he loses numeric stability and performance because of this
This man is both a professional troll and shill. His 2004 SCO Forum keynote speech is infamous:
h tml
http://ipw.scofacts.org/ipw-2004-11-4-193122-475.
He thrives on attention and absolutely delights in "proving" Linux users are raving fanatics, though that speech shows just who the raving fanatic is. Please don't give this guy any more web stats or attention.
Once again slash dot, you have shown me your true face...soemone "deconstructs" Microsoft in this way, and suddenly every is agreeing and throwing in their own words and laughing at how much of an ass Bill Gates makes himself.
Some little insignificant turd writes his opinion on Linux, and you all react to it like he is the Linux Anti-Christ.
Is Linux so fragile in your mind that the slightest bit of opposition, no matter how uninformed, could endanger your little cocoon of root safety?
Please. You are no better then Microsoft fanboys or Apple fanboys. You are Linux fanboys, and you should beat yourselves like the bad donkeys that you are.
Living With a Nerd
Well, I now have my box dual-booting between Windows and Mandriva. I've diabled networking on the Windows side, and get on the internet exclusively in Linux (at home). I haven't gotten any viruses, spyware, or other nasties.
So I'd say yes, compared to Windows Linux is very damned secure, indeed. Unchrackable? No. BUt at least it's made of sheet metal instead of glass and cardboard.
(You could say the same thing about Macs, too, but I can't afford one)
1997 called, they want their FUD back.
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
Rob Enderle doesn't offer criticisms. He offers flame trolls like you accused this person of being.
Never once has Rob offered any good insight- only name flinging and transparent bullshit. It's so
bad that his pet name in some circles is Pretenderle. His articles and papers aren't really very
good and don't have very many of these things called "facts" behind them.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
1. How is anything (but the last line which can be applied anywhere) in this rant insightful?
2. Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and the other name for him is Linux.
Your bias has blinded you to objectively reviewing Linux benefits. You completely fail to comprehend the flexibility that is inherent in the operating systems (aka distros) made using the Linux kernel. No, it's not the best kernel for everything, but it sure is insanely useful from embedded to high-availability systems. And it's getting better.
3. "..deliberate conspiracy to deceive.."
That's just what it takes to be in Sales. Microsoft's marketing practices aren't deceptive? Red Hat's? I've been in the room as the "technical person" thankfully when deals have gone down for both and deception is the name of the game.
4. Stick with what you believe and don't ever change.
It's a positive feedback loop after all.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
The Five Things You Aren't Allowed to Discuss About Rob Enderle
--------
One: Is Rob Enderle a Myth?
Two: Is Rob Enderle Secure?
Three: Does Rob Enderle Work?
Four: Is Rob Enderle Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?
Five: Is Rob Enderle is Open?
Discuss....
Presumably due to a slashdot effect, I have been unable to read that posting. But the author was obviously wrong about one thing: it is possible to discuss these things about Linux. Sadly enough, the discussion here is mostly about why "he is wrong", with a few notable exceptions. If everything was so great about Linux then people wouldn't spend money on Windows and MacOS X. The fact is, there are pros and cons are there is personal choice. And there are evangelists.
Really
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Since Linux is AFAIK the only kernel in town, it makes sense to keep calling it Linux. I personally will continue to do so. But I also support having a choice between kernels and Stallman's right to emphasize the distinction between the kernel and the rest of the system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Salt shaker? Hells bells when I see his name I order a truck load.
1. For me Linux is "easy to use". It is just not "the easiest to use" in some aspects... But once you get used to some stuff it is easy to use. The good news is that it is also "flexible to use" which is more important to me.
2. Linux is good for developers, however something I found pretty wicked as a developer was to distribute my program. Seriously, Making a cross platform game in C++ was not hard at all for me when I compare it to getting it to be distributable under linux. Just making a .configure ~ make tar.gz package was pretty damn hard. And I still have no clue how to make rpms, or .debs . I really looked for documentation on how they are done but somehow I can only get giberish. Seriously. So far the only distro I was succesful to make a package for was slax.
3. Is linux a myth? I used the linux kernel a couple of times so from my own experience linux isn't a myth, prove me wrong though.
4. Is linux secure? One can always argue that the unix model is always more secure than the windows model. And Open source ensures that vulnerabilities will be fixed (speaking of Microsoft's update tuesday that will not come this week). Of course it is foolish to think it would never have any vulnerability and it did have many.
5. I am using Kubuntu linux at this moment!, why? Because there were a couple of things I wanted to do that are in no way easy to do in windows XP, so I rebooted. Yeah, seriously linux is currently better at some stuff than windows, I don't expect anyone to deny this, at least I wouldn't expect anyone who actually tried linux to deny so. Of course there are some things that force me to boot into windows, but from time to time they are getting less and less. Linux will eventually be able to take windows on the desktop. I wouldn't expect it to happen anytime soon though.
The rest of the article is more about how linux is pro commie and all that crap, it seems like FUD sometimes, sorry. I do notice how me attacking the article really seems as if he touched a sensible part of linux, but seriously, this one article wasn't really a big piece of serious criticism more than a bunch of FUD. It actually reminded me to some satire site out there...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The day IBM or HP or Red Hat start complaining about the licensing of the GNU tools MIGHT be the day I take that position seriously. Until then, sounds like typical FUD. It's not like those companies haven't had time to consider a position on the GLP 3 draft. More so, remember Sun has considered licensing Solaris under the GPL.
Funny how you give no concrete examples of each claim because the EXACT same things could be said about Microsoft or Apple OS's.
I know. I support all three Monday through Friday. Saturdays and Sundays for the damn Windows servers.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
In a nutshell - You want people to adopt linux? Don't improve the software, improve "the community". Preferably with a shotgun.
Bob N'Drool is at it again. Of course, *he* would promote that IT not advocate a particular product, OS, etc. Unlike Bob *Rant for Rent* N'Drool, bastion of MSFT and others pay me for my opinions, but, of course, the money they pay me has no bearing whatsoever on what I advocate or pan. Nosirree, uh uh, never happen.... What a fargin' 'tard.
Truly. There isn't even any point (that I can see) in responding to it; the guy's ignorance does all the work for you... I mean, do you respond to the guy on the street who's howling "I'm a buffalo! I'm a buffalo!"
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
1. I agree that if you use the tools Microsoft gives you and don't leave their walled garden, it can be easier. This is a pretty small jail cell though.
2. Linux suffers from the same problem Windows used to be derided for: services are on by default.
You sir, are a funny guy. You seem to be under impression that there's the possibility of comparing security features between the two OS's. News Flash: There isn't.
2a. What are these "services" that are on by default on a Linux desktop? I've tried the big-3 and none, not one is a security compromise waiting to happen like giving a windows box a public IP.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
I have decided that Mr Enderle deserves our pity, not our scorn. And I'm not kidding.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
i just love irony....
I loved that
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Whoever wrote this article suffers from a horrible communication affliction. However, he's brought forth some fascinating insights that I'd like to underline, or perhaps restate:
1) Linux users like to silence the other side and attack peoples' opinions, etc-
This isn't the red menace- it's just a contemporary technological religion. Linux is a dogmatic cult- let's end the comment at that. I remember when I stopped using Linux and went back to Windows, it was like coming out of cult- it requires so much self-deceit and ignoring problems to convince yourself that Linux is the end-all be-all for operating systems. The moment Linux users think what they're doing is the best or perfect is the moment that this product will die- it's going to be an endless game of catch-up.
2) There is a strange connection between Linux and outsourcing.
Oddly, this seems to be true. I had a friend who was an engineer for Motorola- their entire userspace linux implementation was completely coded and handled in China. And the code was terrible. I had another friend who worked for a major bank as a DBA- he maintained lots of high-end Sun servers. Recently, they starting working some Linux servers into the mix. All the Linux servers are maintained in India, by Indian DBA's.
What is with Linux and outsourcing?...
3) Linux is not ready for the desktop
Ubuntu Linux recently failed the Little Sister test. Windows Vista and Mac OS X did not. QED
I work on interfaces- the Little Sister test is my failsafe system for figuring out if a product meant for everyone is actually intuitive.
(Technological relevance: My little sister is 11. Other interesting results show that Mac OS X was easier to pick up for her than Windows Vista and Zune was easier for her than iPod. Go figure!)
Final Thoughts:
If you can't draw the connection between Linux users and an angry mob, you've obviously never tried arguing with them.
There seems to be rash of unscientific, uninformed articles being posted lately. What's up?
Meh.
Bad news..... Rob Enderle is sexy Very bad news... for all of us.
Just a simple fact: if it weren't for the GNU tools, the Linux kernel would not have been possible at the time. ... GCC, GDB, libc, etc...
... we could not talk about the "success" of Free Software and Open Source without the excellent Linux kernel that we now have, but that is not the issue here. ... but to deny the involvement of the FSF foundation, especially the involvement of Richard Stallman ... that just shows stupidity and ignorance.
... it was the GPL license that gave Linux its edge over BSD ... it was politics and idealism ... dreaming of a better world. ... which now happily hack together on common projects (like Linux itself) ;)
Linux depends on the GNU tools, especially on the excellent set of compilers and libraries provided by GNU
Of course
Linus Torvalds made a huge contribution to the world
How can Stallman hurt Free Software and Open Source when Stallman was one of the few people that made it possible ?
I say to you
GPL contributed to a sort of common ground between companies
So this idealistic fool made this collaboration possible between long time rival companies because of the wonderful GPL and its idealistic approach, and now we don't trust his judgment anymore ?
What's your contribution to this world ?
No, that's really what I think. See, e.g., here. It's not finished so it's not linked from anywhere. Anyone want to tell me what's trollish about it?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Linux certainly isn't alone in having weak areas that its supporters generally aren't willing to discuss. And considering how far Enderle's miserable reputation precedes him, neither I nor anyone else are willing to discuss it with him. It's not even worth giving him the page hits to read, let alone respond.
It chaps my hide though that the major media keeps trotting out this pathetic little troll whenever he has a talking point, and they lap it right up without any fact-checking whatsoever. He's not even particularly slick either, though he seems to be smart enough to avoid saying or doing anything truly career-ending like Maureen O'Gara's stalking episode.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
I worry more about the effect of GPL3 on software development. Say I want to write a GPL2 program, or even worse I want to maintain an existing GPL2 program with contributed code that I can't relicense. Does that mean I can't use the next version of "readline"? Does it mean it can't be distributed legally in major distrobutions even if I link against old versions, because they may distribute it alongside new versions?
It seems like GPL3 is going to divide the community in half: GPL2 software that can share code and link against each other, and GPL3 software. It's sort of a problem with the restrictiveness of the GPL in general, but it's not an issue at the moment due to the wide popularity of the GPL.
I'm not saying that GPL3 is necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see how it can close the loopholes it wants to while still retaining GPL2 compatibility. This issue is definitely a Bad Thing (tm) and a solution needs to be hammered out before GPL3 is released.
Could you please tell me how I might "unleash the real power of my platform?" Will my Power Level increase after doing this?
1. Communes do work.
You simply aren't aware of any that do. More than just "some" religious order practice commune living. Seems to work for them and has been for a couple-hundred years or more in some cases. No, there's no Microsoft-sized commune that one can point to, but it definitely works. And then there's variations on communes like employee-owned businesses. SAIC is one _very_ large example of an employee-owned business.
2. GPL3
See Tivo and their novel exploit of the GPL2 and get back to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Intellectual property is a straw man argument.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
I suggest you read the Ubuntu forums, I haven't seen much of the "RTFM you stupid noob!!!!" behaviour there yet.
Tagging: HAHA, DefectiveByDesign, ItsATrap...
Wait, this is about linux?!!!
Retagging: Troll, FUD, Flamebait.
Finding other idiots on
Much of the reaction here helps make Enderle's point. While the quality of his article is mixed, he does make some valid points. For example, Linix security isn't any better than Windows if you run as super user (the way users run in XP) and then install some random executable. However, most Linux users are more savy than Windows users and avoid doing that. GPL 3 is *most certainly* anti-business and most of the money in Linux is in services.
What is most spot on is that the Linux community is not a place where open discussion is valued and those who refuse to adopt the purist view are attacked as fiercely as the Revolutionary Guard in Iran would attack a woman walking around in a halter top. Linux is just a technology and it has flaws like any other technology. Linux as a business has its flaws just like Microsoft or Gooogle (opps, Google does no evil, right??). GPL is a socialist economic model and much more onerous and way less free than Apache licenses.
let's have discussion. Let's have CIVIL debate. I understand that Linux devotees treat any comments that don't follow the orthodox view as heresy, but if you believe in "free and open", shouldn't it include the discussion and debate.
No kidding. This is one of the most uninformed, uneducated, idiotic linux articles I have ever written. The very first point the guy makes starts the whole article off poorly and I really can't believe this even made it to the front page of Slashdot.
His first premise is "linux is not a thing". Well, of course it is. Saying "linux is not a thing" is like saying the BSD TCP/IP stack is "not a thing". Just because it's a thing that can be used by more than one entity doesn't make it less of a "thing".
Then he goes on to say, for example, that in order to compare linux-based systems to Windows systems, one has to choose a commercial linux distrobution. So apparently you can't compare linux to windows and you can't compare Debian to windows, but you can compare RedHat and Suse to it. Um. Kay.
Frankly, I stopped reading at that point. This guy seems to be a bit too old and a bit too old school to understand the subject he's trying to cover. This reads like something some inexperienced middle-manager in a tech company would write to convince his employer to stay using Windows -- because it's what the guy used when he was younger and working in IT and he's just grasping at straws for any justification possible, without actually understanding the subject matter.
In fact, it's very easy to compare the two. For example, it requires some effort to configure a system to play proprietary formats on a linux system compared to a Windows system. The file systems used by Windows require defragging frequently while you essentially never need to on Linux. Linux machines tend to make great servers. Windows works out of the box with full functionality on more laptops than Linux does. See? Making comparisons is easy.
Not to be a dick, but it's guys like this that cause me to take commentary from guys who look old enough to be a grandfather with several grains of salt. This guy is a step away from describing the internets as a series of tubes that haul stuff dumped into them by big trucks.
Yeah, the thing about that is...
Rob Enderle genius: 55,500 results, Rob Enderle idiot: 32,200 hits
not to mention:
"nova express" insightful: 1,990 results, "nova express" stupid: 9,950 results.Ouch.
I don't believe this statement is true.
I guess, what do you mean by old days? I was working with Linux in 1992, with the
I think this really depends. I used to do a lot of development on Linux back in the 1990s, now I'm exclusively doing
That being said, for certain types of solutions there is a lot of stuff in the Unix world that is quite helpful and not readily available in the Windows world. Various libraries and such. Yeah, you can find the same thing, but they cost money.
It really depends on what kind of development you are doing. What problem you are trying to solve, etc. Windows is more suited for more general purpose stuff, but Linux has a niche.
You're right about the civility of people in the Ubuntu community. That's probably why some people go there for support for other OS's/distros. Ubuntu has been doing a lot of things right that other distros and their supporters still don't understand. I've often heard or read that Ubuntu's succes came from all the money backing it, which isn't always true, because the people in Ubuntu's forum are not paid for being friendlier.
This entire article is nothing but flame bait, written by a hack-for-hire who promotes his service of writing any opinion for a fee.
While saying these are things he can't discuss he goes ahead and discusses them. By the end of the article (I'm going by the copy pasted here since the original site is not responsive at the moment so I am assuming it's complete and accurate copy of the original) he has not presented one iota of evidence of any time he's been prevented from discussing these issues.
This article isn't worthy of being posted except for it's humour and flame bait value.
He is very insightful. You just read his article and do the exact opposite of what he says. The guy must have written a thousand articles and the odds are only 1/2^1000 that he could have gotten every single one of them wrong accidentally, so he is clearly a genius who only pretends to be dumb.
He says Linux isn't open because every time he opens his mouth and says something really, really stupid, everyone calls him an idiot and tells him to shut up.
From all I've seen and read, this is spot on. Enderle isn't much of a journalist.
Now, IMHO, the REAL trouble with Linux in the eyes of his sponsors (yes, I think he is shilling) is that nasty old GPL. Whether you call it Free Software or Open Source, software built under this conceptual model is a disruptive technology that is inexorably changing the software developers' ecosystem. Unless you make something that is truly unique in what it does, community-developed software at $0 or so is competing with your proprietary products in an increasingly effective manner. In the long run, this is good for software users overall, but really tough on commercial software developers who are invested in The Old Ways. That's why these FUD attacks happen. Of course, in the long run, there's no way the old-model businesses can stop this trend, but as with lots of digital trends these days, we're in for a rough ride along the way.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Widespread adoption of Linux on the desktop isn't going to happen. Here's why.
In 2004, it looked close. You could buy Linux desktop machines, and even laptops, at WalMart. Dell and HP had offerings. Today, the Linux laptops are gone from mainstream vendors.
What happened?
First, the laptop has replaced the desktop. Laptops used to be niche machines, expensive, fragile, and less powerful than desktops. That's changed. Today, for many users, a laptop is their primary machine. Laptops have less-standard hardware, and getting Linux to run reliably on a laptop without manufacturer cooperation remains iffy. Take a look at the laptop support instructions on Linux.org. Almost all the machines listed are out of production. (Many of the companies listed no longer even make laptops.)
Second, the ability to handle content in proprietary formats has become much more important to consumers. Want to play a DVD, or talk to the iTunes store? Tough. There's been talk of a "legal DVD player" for Linux since 2000, and although two companies came close to shipping such a player, neither still does. Linspire does have one, but only for their version of Linux, and there are some players licensable by OEMs for embedded devices. Seven years after the first claims of "real soon now" in Wired, it didn't happen.
Linux missed the window. Microsoft won. Deal with it, fanboys.
How about the 'branding' of Linux? Is Linux a kernel, a kernel+tools, a kernel+tools+applications, a 'way of doing things', used interchangeably with the term 'open source'?
/etc/bind rather than /etc? Or how RedHat (at one time) said they were going to pull nslookup?
How about how the term 'fork' has been replaced with 'distro'?
Where 'its all linux and therefore the same', yet Debian changes the code to bind to have named.conf placed in
Linux, GNU/Linux has plenty of issues which slow up adoption rates. The economic model is hard to beat however.
The argument that "Linux is the kernel" is very weak in my opinion because how useful is JUST a kernel? ... It is a clever sleight of hand that advocates use when convenient. ... See what I mean? You can't make the argument that "Linux is more secure than Windows"
I see your strawman and call it BS again. What advocate are you talking about? Most are not confused by the issue like M$ would want them to be. Enderle does not make sense because he's confused, debating the specifics of his confusion is a waste of time.
Outside of the present idiotic article few people say things like, "Linux is more or less this than Windoze." When you want to look at security studies, you do what Honeynet did and monitor a big bunch of computers set up on a network. In that case you notice that various versions of Windoze has a half life of four minutes out of the box and Red Hat takes about a month to get nailed. Specific set ups, specific results and personal experience usually matches. From that and code auditing studies and many other specific metrics, you could then argue that free software will always be of higher quality than non free software. By describing a development and distribution model, you can argue that free software inherently protects the user's privacy and rights. Someone like Enderle is so confused they can't get past semantics to see the underlying truth in the world.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Given GPL3 cannot be applied to the Linux kernel, I can't see GPL3 killing Linux in any way except possibly in being so much better that an alternative to Linux that is licensed under GPL3 gains massive popularity, in part due to licensing.
Which is not impossible, BTW.
Personally, I don't care about the long term survival of "Linux". Linux is a kernel, and not even a particularly interesting one. What I care about is the long term survival of useful Free software. If Linux takes a bullet because, for example, Solaris has a better Free software license, then so long Linux. Nice knowing you.
amenwww.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I find the GNU prefix a load of gnu sh*t as well. It's just ego talking.
It's worse - it's trying to steal credit for something. GNU/FSF ended up being bystanders in the revolution they helped create (and only helped create - they try to take credit for the whole thing, even though sharing software was a fairly common practice before GNU).
I actually have a lot less respect for GNU/FSF since they launched their GNU prefix campaign.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
I agree with you. What's so confusing about these versions? Heck, they put the features right on the back of the sold box.
I'm a user of both Linux AND Windows, and both OSS and Microsoft products, both at home and at work. I just don't understand the constant hostility toward Microsoft from the Linux community. Why? I mean really, why?
Microsoft is a business... it doesn't give things away, because that's not its purpose. It's purpose is to make money for its shareholders.. actually, it HAS to at least try do that by law. Their model doesn't work as well as it used to, but it still does work (take at look at their profits). Maybe one day their model won't work at all.. maybe one day giving away software will work for them, as it does for some other companies. But I don't see how they are evil when they employ many people who have families to feed, and they provide many of the products that a lot of you readers are curently using! Nothing is more ridiculous than a "DOWN WITH M$" post being written through IE. Some people are willing to pay for MS products because, guess what, they actually are useful for something! The new Office is really great to work with! Man.. I can hear the OO guys with the hoods coming down my street......
Some Microsoft products might not be technically superior to OSS and Linux, particularly in the OS department. Who cares? There are good uses for Microsoft products, and there are also good uses for OSS projects. I have used the best and worst of both of these many times. I like Windows; I think it is a good-looking operating system, and for my own use it is secure enough. I also think it is easier to use; not because I don't know how Linux works (both of my post-secondary degrees were done completely in the Linux environment), but because of so many other reasons. When almost anything goes wrong in Linux that I don't understand, I google it. Nearly every solution I find involves opening a terminal and editing something. My goodness, whose mother is able to do THAT? And for those of you who already hate me, what about the fine guys over at [H]ard|OCP? Go over there (www.hardocp.com) and read their "30 Days with Linux" article. These guys are smart, and they have a view that really amplifies my own.
Cmon people.. Linux is simply not superior in every way. Technically? Probably... but if software is only judged on technical merit, then where does that leave the user? I can provide more examples, but there is no point; you simply can't reason with a lot of sole-Linux advocates. I am an advocate of both systems; I love my Linux webserver. Fantastic. And I truly do hope that one system emerges that is hand-down superior-- if only that would happen, because then I wouldn't need to bother with both of them and all this stupid bickering might finally come to a rest.
... but the fact remains that Microsoft is not on the side of the little guy. The developers who write open-source software (mostly for free) decidedly are.
No matter how much you want to piss and moan about one thing or another not working correctly in Linux, that fact remains. This is why the MS-OSS double standard at Slashdot really doesn't bother me all that much.
+++ATH0
For everyone that says they know this guy is a shill and is arguing with a preconceived end, I didn't know thanks for posting the article and letting everyone vent a bit. This guys arguments are obviously subjective and inflamatory (reminds me of Rush Limbaugh), though his rhetoric is worth listening to in order to recognize it (I think). What you have to realize is that people will read his work and argue in the same line. The arguments are presented in a way that I might agree with about 10% of what is said, this in a debate leads to my appearance of "flip-flopping", the objective when presented with this kind of crap is too take out the foundation of your opponent.
Before reading his articleRob: We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows,
Me: Sure.
Rob: we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft,
Me: Sometimes, yes when comparing things like market share I cannot argue this
Rob: and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.
Me: sure (me thinks all organizations and software are superhuman :))
After reading his articleRob: We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows,
Me: No, we're talking about Unix OS design VS. a Dos/NT hybrid OS, where Unix dates back to the 60s and dos dates to the early eighties.
Rob: we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft,
Me: Sometimes, yes when comparing things like market share I cannot argue this, but these arguments tend to be made on a case by case basis where such comparisons are applicable.
Rob: and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.
Me: me thinks all organizations and software are superhuman :), for instance Mr. Enderle how far out can you calculate PI? Or can yoy beat Kasperov at chess, Ford Motors as a corporation has continued the work of Henry Ford long after his death as an organization Ford is nearly immortal, how about you? Who will carry on your work after your dead?
See preperation is everything when arguing with a subjective and inflammatory nut-job, you then know what traps are being set. Especially, if someone says "Rob Enderle says..." I can now discredit them with their carefully planned argument and finish with, "http://http//www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/ index.shtml" among others.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
I suppose Enderele is someone in constant contact with MS and other large companies. This sounds like a soundbite that somebody fed him from one of his contacts in the industry.
Enderele: So tell me, why do you think Linux is gaining traction
Source: You know people just advocate this stuff when really it's their job to provide business solutions
Enderele: So you're saying...
Source: What I'm saying is that we're not really competing with a product, it's an idea, a concept, and that makes it tough because everytime you show that you're better they say "but it's in this distribution", so there's nothing concrete to really compare against.
Enderele: Wow, you're right
Source: And what's frustrating is that we've shown every time that our operating system is better than Linux in every conceivable way. But the fanboys won't admit it, and so it's tough
Enderele: I think the public should find out about this. And I'm the one to do it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In slahsdot.ru, CC Karma grab you!!
Thanks. I'll be here all week. Be sure to turn the lights off.
Shortly after 9/11 Enderle was the first (and to date I think still the only) person to call Linux users and developers terrorists. Because you know, calling the opposing side "terrorists" is a fantastic way to calmly and rationally debate the pros and cons of an operating system.
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/salacio uscrumb/
It's not the users job to do this, unless you're implying that everything linux is beta. If that's the case then perhaps it should be clearly marked when you download the distro that you're a beta tester and you're expected to provide feedback instead of listing official release versions that appear to be out of beta?
First when I saw it slashdotted, I thought ... bet the server is not running Linux!
/ /www.itbusinessedge.com
Check it out:
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:
FLR
Huh? How?
you can't voice an opinion? Damn, the slashdot crowd must be FULL of windows devs...
but I guess I'll have to wait until I can hire an administrator to install it...
have asked me to pass on this message to Slashdot:
"Thank you."
... is you do not talk about linux club.
you are approaching foss development with a proprietary mindset, where whole number releases are deliberately managed to maximize profitability. foss works by continuous incremental upgrading and release of code between such milestones. there is no incentive for a proprietary company to do this because then nobody will by the next major release...
sum.zero
there's variations on communes like employee-owned businesses
How is an employee owned business like a commune? I have stock in my employer. Do I work in a commune? I need to understand what the heck you're trying to say here, because it's not too clear to me and I'm curious.
Intellectual property is a straw man argument
Just declaring that out loud doesn't make it so. I can wish away murder laws all I want, but that doesn't mean I have the right to kill.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Actually the license has little to do with being anti-business it is the developer that ultimately chose to use that license that is empowered. OSS and the GPL are only tools to empower developers, it is up to the developers themselves who's proprietary software company is next on the chopping block. Nobody is required to use GPL licensed software, business's can feel free to roll their own.
Got Code?
First section, fairly accurate really. Linux is always talked about as one great thing, it isnt. Some are god awful, some are dedicated to a single task, some are home user friendly, others are command line. Just as he says this pretty much makes Linux perfect at everything, even though that is often far far from the truth because there is no single Linux platform that will accomplish all of the jobs a particular person requires.
He is right the comparisons are often deeply flawed because they do not compare Ubuntu to Windows or Red Hat to OSX they compare Linux or sometimes even just *nix to the competition. You might as well compare the traits of one person to the best selection of traits from a thousand other people. That one person is going to feel pretty awful after that.
This isnt just a bash on Linux because he is also right that there are distributions that can stand up to some real comparisons, its just more often than not they never get the chance.
Second section. Starts off well his previous point stands and its all too true that if someone doesnt know what they are doing you will always be running things insecurely regardless of which O/S your using. He does go a little astray here but there is still an important point, in an open community where people are expected to get help from the army of other users (This is often touted as a benefit of using Linux, and usually thats very true.) maintaining decent security is going to become a mine field. Its a little paranoid, its probably not a common occurence but there is a risk. Though I think the whole thing can be summed up in saying that net security is only as good as those securing it.
Third section. Again pretty much spot on, the community behind Linux has produced some awesome stuff but it is impossible to ignore the infighting that is going on nearly constantly. The GPL3 being an excellent example of this. He quite clearly isnt saying that the community is wrong and it should be disbanded his last statements want the users of Linux to actually get more involved. Id expect people to be supporting this much. There are some distinctly anti community events going on and that is what this section is pointing too.
Fourth section. The money Linux makes is undoubtedly fairly small. Ive seen a lot of people argue about how open source can make money, thats probably true but its rare. Very rare. Red Hat is one of the largest open source companies ever yet you scale it up, or scale MS down and youll see a huge difference in profits. There is simply no way you can take such a slash in profits without that having a knock on effect to the employees.
Im no financial expert and I dont have enough figures but a lot of even this section appears to make sense.
Fifth section, and here is the prophesy. I know this guy has a sketchy past with these articles, I know that there are flaws even here, but by in large he makes some really good points. You would not know this from the endless insults and put downs streaming out of this thread. Ive no doubt that everything he has said about those who are even more extreme is true as well. Linux has become like some kind of religion to some people and it virges on being genuinly frightening at times.
Hes proven it right here. There must be about a half dozen comments on this thread that have actually attempted to discuss his points, or citisize them properly. Most are more content to just slag him off, or quote obscure parts and strawman him. No one, no matter what there opinion, deserves some of the harrasment these people have to endure.
Ill probably have annoyed some people just posting this, and in case they have been annoyed then try take a moment and remember. Its just an operating system, this is just an opinion, relax.
And when I come back, if I see Enderle linked, I won't read for *another* month.
Enderle is a whore: he has stated, in public, in writing, that he will come down on either side if any issue for money.
And he is stupid too - he is one of those that was convinced that SCO had a great case against IBM.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
This is a feeling I have had for quite a while now, though it's not usually a very popular view so I'm forced to keep it quiet.
Why forced to keep it quiet? I mean, I've been a fairly vocal critic of Stallman for years now, and I haven't been visited by the FSF Thought Police yet. Wait, who's that at the door...
*long delay*
What was I saying? Oh yes. Stallman's right. I was wrong. I know it now. I love Stallman...
Did you come here for an argument or did you want to debate something? If you want an argument, you are doing a good job, but if you want to debate something you are not. You are simply using multiple ad hominem's (Linux users are like creationists, Linux users are assholes, etc), appeals to belief (the "linux community" are all zealots), and probably a bunch of other fallacies that I am too lazy to look up.
Excuse me, but GIMP is an application, Linux is a set of operating systems that use the Linux Kernel. WTF does the UI design of GIMP have to do with Linux???
For the record, I use GIMP in Windows and the UI is the same there. Should I start attacking Windows because of it?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
- don't you just love italics? :P (And yes, I probably should have used the tag, but what the hey; that's what these threads degenerate into anyway =D).
At that point, after the quote, "I already said there is no Linux..." I had to stop reading.
Wait, is he trying to say that Linux is a spoon or something?
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
OK! Lets wiki search him!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Enderle
I'd hardly call him "insightful"
No way. I might be a linux fanboy, just like he is a linux enemy. The difference is that i don't get money for it.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
The world is flat, ...
earth is the center of the universe,
the telephone has too many shortcomings,
everything that can be invented has been invented,
a rocket will never leave the earth's atmosphere,
etc
Red Hat says it better in their Truth Happens campaign.
And the truth is that every generation has people fearing that their butts will get kicked when things they don't understand start changing the world.
And the latest and greatest news is the industry's attempt to kill the Internet Radio.
Pretty disturbing I would say.
"Wonder over on Groklaw and you'll see a lot of legal experts, a few months back I corresponded with one. His legal "expertise" came for a class on contracts, and I'm not kidding, he took in high school."
should be,
"WANDER OVER TO Groklaw... His legal expertise came FROM a class on contracts...".
Obviously the proof-reading was done by a spell-checker, which was backed up by a grammar-checker of dubious quality.
It's a blog, so that's slightly more forgivable than if it were published on the main itbusinessedge.com site, but if proofing the article was so poorly done, what about proofing the facts contained in the article?
As for the objective truth: Rob Enderle genius: 54K hits, Rob Enderle idiot: 32K hits :P
Not that that makes him any less of an idiot...
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Nah, this is the exact thought people had who were thinking Linux was going to rule the desktop just because it's better technology.
Even if there would be a better OS/kernel in the future, it would take -many years- before a significant portion would adopt it the way Linux has now been adopted.
You see this kind of lag everywhere in IT:
Windows -> Linux
IPv4 -> IPv6
PSTN -> VOIP
Spamfilters -> SPF (or any other solid long term solution)
It even takes a long time for everyone has migrated to a new major kernel release, so don't even think the world would be flexible enough to make a kernel switch in a reasonable time.
Try realizing the nearly every one of your little rants there are no specific to Linux. Take w trip the www.thedailywtf.com and look for their screenshot posts. You will see every "UI sin" you post made there.
... get the picture?
;)
As far as convoluted settings, arcane config files (because ShowAlways=True is so arcane I suspect you may not understand it), Windows has the registry, and now with Vista additional UAC options. Yet there is still more. You've got older apps that need to have configuration changes to run on XP or vista. Ever run enterprise software on Windows such as monitoring? yeah, talk about wild-assed and unexpected. How about the different behaviours of various media programs in Windows. Yeah iTunes looks and acts like Outlook which acts and looks like Roxy's Media stuff, which looks and acts like
Odd assed error messages that don't tell you why something failed to run or install, but it dumps everything a geek would want to know about it, onto the screen.
As opposed to the Blue Screen of Death which tells you exactly what was wrong and how to fix it? or the MS send bug report dialog when applications are unexpectedly (to the OS) closed dumping output and telling you "an unexpected error occurred". No kidding? an UNEXPECTED error? you mean there are EXPECTED ones in there?
Inf act, not a single rant of yours is limited to Linux, UNIX, OS2, MacOS, OSX, Windows, etc. They ALL share them.
Finally, you might want to see someone about that martyr complex thing you've got going on. I hear there are all manner of "good drugs" to help you with that. Though I hear they may cause unexpected side effects.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
I'm not gonna do 'em all 'cause this article makes my head a splode. I'll just do the 'Security' section.
"Issue #4 (or 3 or whatever). Security
"People say Linux is more secure, but they are forgetting that lots of people on Groklaw use pseudonyms. If this doesn't amount to a serious security vulnerability, I don't know what does."
(note: paraphrased, not actually a direct quote)
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You aren't allowed to suggest that linux may not be secure, or that the desktop environments for it are kludgy and half-assed, or anything else.
...Linux remains on the fringe despite all its technical achievements. The community keeps it their with the sheer force of their assholetry.
... I'll try again. Linux is a proper noun and should thus be capitalized, as any decent high schooler knows, and it is wholly not wholy, and to be a more proper word it would be assholery. That enough? :)
You can say it. Granted, you'll be asked to back your assertion up. But you can still say it. Why is people apparently such as yourself seem to think you should be able to say anything you want but that others should not be disagreeing with you? That's quite the double standard there.
The "linux community" is not wholy populated with, but has an overwhelming amount of straight-up zealots.
No more so than Mac or Windows. I do think we have a higher amount of tilted zealots though. The straight-up ones seem toliek neckties too much to properly fit in with an hippy-like zealotous group such as us.
Now wait this gets funny. You said:
It cannot be sanely and calmly discussed in the "linux community".
Then you said among many other examples:
Everyone else is wrong, and every fact they put forth just further proves how base of a bunch of liars they are.
I'll let my fellow zeolots handle your "on the fringe' mischaracterization. Perhaps you meant to write "I cannot sanely and calmly discuss Linux"? The hypocrisy in your post is so blatant as to warrant consideration as a poor attempt at satire. Hmm perhaps I was not "assholetry" enough
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
How is an employee owned business like a commune?
A Co-Operative would be an employee owned business that would have some similarities with a commune. A bog standard job with share options wouldn't be.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
I only want to comment on the "commune" crap. I'm not going to argue "do commumes work" because he's starting with a completely flawed premise. Linux, and FOSS in general is NOT a commune. It's a market. Wasn't this proven ages ago in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar?" Newflash: Just because the abstraction called money isn't involved, it doesn't follow that market principles don't apply. FOSS works more like the academic science community, where the primary currency is reputation. I would argue people don't contribute code for altruistic reasons, which "commune" would imply. No, people contribute code for selfish reasons: primarily, ego (my patch made it in which vindicates my ideas. People use my software which proves I'm right), and the pure self interest of wanting software that does what they want, screw everyone else. Ditto for people accepting code. Basically, in exchange for making the software a little less "yours" you get better software. It's the fabled win-win that markets are so good at producing. Of course the whole activity is noisy and "political" (in the sense that there's a ton of argument over who's right). Markets are very noisy places with people constantly haggling, browbeating and otherwise negotiating to get the best price they possibly can. What seperates it from a commune is the transactions are completely voluntary. From that standpoint, I see nothing wrong with Linus being a loudmouth with strong opinions or any of the other arguing that goes on. These loud arguments are, point of fact, proof that the marketplace of code is working.
For a second there I was under the impression this was going to be a suicide note..
Linux is ROCK solid, given the other stuff in the market today. Even my non-geek accountant friend, and his totally-non-technology, even internet related clients know it, without any propaganda.
Read radical news here
It's clear Enderle provokes a strong reaction from the rabble (I'm one of the rabble, back up there), but the blog entry is a good one, worthy of discussion, even as framed.
If Linux is to be taken seriously and adopted within large corporations, it does need to address those five points specifically. You can't convince upper management of the merits of your argument by using your Crazy Fist Number Eleven Slashdot Flame technique, so address those concerns rationally and in terms of business concerns, or you'll lose.
Widespread adoption among consumers should be ruled out categoricallly, until you can download a distro in one shot, and have it find your wireless adapter, Bluetooth adapter, and all your laptop goodies, without once have to su-su-sudo a single command line. For any laptop coming out of Dell or Toshiba, sold at Circuit City or Best Buy, and so forth. And there ain't a single distro that can do it today.
-BA
He is the first Linux Conspiracy Whacko.
His article implies he was threatened if he wrote about it, and talks like there is som,e group mind controlling what people say about Linux outside the hive, talks only in concept, and ignores any proof contrary to his position.
Or maybe his ass kissing of MS and Sco has led to Mean Linux Disorder.
Similiar to Mean World Disorder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is he a slug?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
I would say that the reason people don't want him talking about OSS, OFS, Linux, or subjects of rational conversation in general is that he can't stay on topic and his writing barely meets 10th Grade English standards. How exactly does physical security at offices have anything to do with the validity of the claim, "Linux is more secure than Windows?" Do yourself and all of us a favor: take a basic English course at your local C.C. and find out what a topic sentence is really for!
-- Let him who is without spelling error ignite the first flame --
You want to use some code that you don't have a license to and you're unhappy? Ask ANY software company if you can have their code.
and less stupid?
Like an Enderle filter.
Of course, if you like having Enderle control what you read, that's ok to.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I just don't understand why his article was given so much credit as to be linked in Slashdot.
I generally talk about Ubuntu when I want to talk about a whole distro; for instance, Ubuntu vs XP, or Ubuntu vs Vista. However, the fact that there are choices is a good thing. I've got a borrowed HP Jornada 720, and it runs a Linux distro designed specifically for it.
And let's be honest: Other OSes can be more diverse in their implementations than Linux distros. Take Windows Mobile or Windows CE vs any desktop Windows. At least with my Jornada, I can simply recompile desktop Linux software for the ARM processor and have it work -- Firefox being one example. Windows Mobile is more than a recompile, it's a port -- possibly more of a port than between different Unixes (Linux, Solaris, OS X), let alone different Linux distros.
At this point, TFA says something about how there are reports supporting both sides of the argument -- neglecting, of course, to look at how independent these reports really are.
I mean, you can say that it's a knee-jerk Slashdotter reaction that every report which favors Microsoft must somehow have been paid for by Microsoft. But that's because this is largely true. Whether or not Windows is cheaper, more secure, whatever, it's hard to find a report about Windows not from someone either directly funded by Microsoft, or with a vested interest in keeping people on Windows -- Symantec, for instance. Don't need antivirus on Linux, so if people discovered that Linux was more secure, Symantec might be out of a business model.
He mentions PJ of Groklaw "covering something up"... woman values her privacy! There must be something sinister here! It seems the focus of his rant is that anonymous people contribute patches -- fine, but trusted and respected people do verify each patch before it's applied. So yeah, Linus could 0wn us all, but I think he's proven his trustworthiness by now -- and Andrew Morton or someone else would catch him anyway.
Ultimately, his conclusion is it doesn't matter which OS is more secure, you need to audit your physical security. WTF?
Yeah, I lock my home at night. Now let's go back to how Microsoft can take months to fix critical security flaws which it won't even admit are "critical", while Linux tends to release a patch the next day.
And here he goes again, generalizing just enough to make his point true. For instance: "Right now they can't even agree if they need a new one, and the two sides have, as they seem more than willing to do, degraded into name-calling." You know what? The FSF does agree with itself that they need a new license. Linus is part of a different community. That's kind of like saying the US government doesn't work because Osama Bin Laden disagrees with people inside it -- implying that Osama is part of the government? WTF?
Let's see... people aren't paid for it, yadda yadda... Not even going to argue with this one, because it's plainly retarded. There is such a thing as volunteer work. Just because it kicked your ass at SCO doesn't invalidate it for the rest of us.
And no, not everyone using Linux will be effected -- in fact, the Linux kernel itself is not affected, and probably never will be. Or would you like to start talking about specific distros now?
Oh, and it's a threat to intellectual property... how? If you don't like it, don't license under it. And frankly, I'm not surprised that the FSF doesn't listen to you.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
My daughter played a Sony-BMG music CD she bought from Tower Records and (I could have killed her) ran the programs (Damn it Patty what were you thinking? But dad I didn't expect a big corporation to root your boxxen!) it installed its rootkit (Sony can say goodbye to any future purchase of ANYTHING form me. If they'll put a rootkit on your music CD, what will they put on your Sony laptop?).
I was running Windows 98. I wiped the drive with FDISK, reformatted, reinstalled... and couldn't find the driver disks for the on-board sound ship or the video card. I searched the internet and could find no drivers at all for the sound chip, and ATI no longer had W98 drivers for the video card online; XP only. So I bought XP. It didn't know jack about the sound chip, either.
So I bought an Audigy. Then I found an old video card I'd used with Linux, stuck it in (next to the ATI) and installed Mandriva 2005 dual-boot.
The sound chip works in Mandriva. Linux saw it, recognised it, it works. Windows can't use the onboard sound chip!
What's worse, since I "upgraded" to XP I can no longer create a multisession CD. Under XP, EAC chokes when I tell it to leave the CD open. XP disabled the software that came with my burner, and did it in such a way that I couldn't uninstall the software; software that has a $50 patch (they don't support the old version, want you to buy it again!)
But the burner and its Linux software work find under Mandriva. If I could (a) get Linux to correctly read HDB (Windows' D: drive that it fuX0red up so Linux thinks its directories are files, and it's the BIG drive) and (b) run EAC, I'd be done with Windows for good.
(No MRC this time; "angelic?" Huh?)
One: Is Linux a Myth?
...
... ?
...
Linux is just an os kernel, which confuses this poor guy horribly. I'm not sure what myth he's talking about, and apparently neither is he. Here's my favorite bit:
The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit.
Well, I've been running this "abstracted concept" for twelve years, and its merits are plain enough to me. His comments make more sense if you translate "abstract" as "something of which he has no knowledge or experience on which to base his opinion." This makes the entire FA pretty abstract, though
Two: Is Linux Secure?
I already said there is no "Linux," so how can I now treat it like a thing?
Whee! This guy is a postmodern genius.
He goes on to suggest that open source is vulnerable to the nefarious actions of trickster devs. This suggests he has no clue what "open" and "source" mean when combined into a simple term. How long could malicious code survive when it's freely available for peer review? I guess he thinks that vague, paranoid mumblings amount to an argument, though he fails to provide even a bad example of what he's talking about.
I think we can agree that sneaky tricks are better played behind closed doors, and leave it at that.
Three: Do Communes Work?
COMMIE BASTAGES!!! Heh. Yes, the GPL3 might, like, impinge on one's God-given right to steal the work of others and use it to rape the public with proprietary lock-ins. To arms!
There is one word for people that let any group or company unilaterally write a contract they have to live under
WindowsUser? Gahhhhh! (Sorry, the irony here was so dense I couldn't breathe for a second.)
Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?
I guess if you use Linux, you'll lose your job. Unless you work for Google. Or something like that. For sure, though, you'll suffer. Somehow. Maybe.
When I first started writing about Linux, I heard from over a thousand people that they disagreed, some rather violently, with what they thought I had written.
I don't think even the guy himself has a clue what he's written. It clearly never occurred to him that maybe the angry mob is right, and he's a braying dolt. Can anyone confirm that he's "one of the most recognized commentators on tech"
Employees often are valued based on the cost of what they work with. The higher the cost, the easier it is to justify an employee's salary.
Is this true? I thought an employee was valued based on the value they brought to the company. Maybe I'm not up on the latest big biz concepts, though
Is Linux is "Open"? [sic]
How can anything be "Open" if honest discussion isn't allowed?
This guy is painfully unequipped to survive an honest discussion, but like most of the points he's tried to address, he just doesn't get it. He's upset because people who are familiar with his chosen topic think he's an idiot. Cue martyr complex.
In sum: a fine example of empty rhetoric seasoned with an unassailable sense of self-importance. Entertaining in a train wreck kind of way.
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -- George Bernard Shaw
"Free software" is not a development model. It's a category of copyright licensing regimes...
I'd hate to limit my thoughts about freedom to licensing. The software's license is a way to know if the software is free or not, that's true. There is more to it than that, including development model. If I make a program free and it's useful to others, I might get help with it. Free software is founded on philosophical and moral principles. Licenses simply express those principles.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm not sure when the last time I've read so much only to realize the guy said absolutely nothing meaningful.
Just to answer one his taboo topics, does community work?
Well, the community was able to produce an operating system, that while may have not be most user friendly system, has features that took MS years add; like a built in firewall.
You can question it all you want, but the OS on my system was produced by the community and it works. Thats all the proof I need.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
The guy's job is to analyze the industry and consult for placing of (software) products. The whole marketing concept of free software is that software is a commodity and the differentiating stuff is developed and used in-house (like PageRank). What kind of a future this guy would have in such an IT world? No wonder his hostility against FOSS. In fact, FOSS with its customizations increases jobs for programmers since the majority is employed in IT, not in software houses.
Took a while for the article to load but I am just astounded at how completely and utterly irrelevant it is. I mean I had low expectations going into the thing after reading some of the comments, but I was not prepared for that.
Points one-five
One: Is Linux a Myth?
I guess he has a problem with the fact that the word Linux has become associated with a lot of different things. This isn't really talking positively or negatively about anything the whole thing is a discussion on how you aught to compare Linux distros to other OS's and not just some fussy concept that is Linux. Are there really IT people out there who think of Linux in this manner? As some kind of warm fuzzy enigma that can heal all the worlds ills?
Two: Is Linux Secure?
This was by far my favorite one, this had NOTHING to do with Linux security at all. It basically amounted to physical security is all that matters anyway so it doesn't matter whether Linux is secure or not because no matter how secure it is the users can still screw it up by printing out account numbers and giving out info over the phone. While this is all very true physical security and teach users good security practices is a good idea, implying that security of the system itself is unimportant is foolish. It may be easier to get one users credit card number with a phishing scam than to steal a whole database of them, but the payoff from the database is MUCH higher and the idea that the database theft risk should be ignored is ridiculous.
Three: Do Communes Work?
I thought maybe this might be a good point but sadly no it was really just a discussion of the GPL 3.0.
Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?
This was another great one Linux is bad because it will lower the costs your department spends on things other than bodies and apparently that is bad because your worth to the company is directly proportional to how much money your department spends. Maybe to solve this problem departments that decide to adopt Linux should enact a strict Cross only pen policy. That way the can get the benefits of Linux while avoiding the danger of lowering costs.
Is Linux is "Open"? (no five here, not sure why)
This section had nothing to do with whether Linux was open or not instead it was w whiny rant one how people are too critical of his writings. I'm sorry Rob maybe if you could actually follow a topic with details in the body that actually apply to your headings people would find them to be more reasonable.
...but not because he actually is one. It's more primarily because he's saying things that you don't want to hear.
A lot of Linux users demonstrably are Communist. You can deny it for as long as you like, but I see overwhelming evidence for it here all the time.
I will admit that I've never understood why so many Linux users seem to insist on staying in the closet with regards to their Marxist inclinations. Why not be honest and admit it? You'll get a lot more respect if you do. You'll also get a lot more credibility if, instead of simply flaming people like the guy who wrote TFA and calling him a troll, you actually logically refute his points if you think they're invalid.
LOL
:-)
Somebody with points left (not I, thus, alas) mod the parent up as 'funny'!
I mean, what; the mods didn't get the reference?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This is a case study in FUD. "I'm not saying that vampires do or don't exist just that you should fear them" or "Open source is fine if you like bankruptcy." Fortunately this guy is so far into his own world view that the article will only appear sane to the most dedicated zealot. It is interesting to note that, unlike previous articles from this source, he has tried to stay clear of clearly provable falsehood instead resorting to implication, misdirection and straw men. The times they are a changin'
I will loose BIG mod points on this, and never recover.
BUT
Forget about Rob E.
Is Taco seems an Apple fanboi or something? He seems to have a penchant for trolling with Anti-Linux articles. Cmon, we should tolerate this no better than Anti-Apple trolls. I don't want to see either.
An educated discussion is great, running drivel written by Rob E is unforgivable.
I'm sure you're already aware of this, but in case you aren't: Restating the premise doesn't answer the question.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
For example: Rob claims that it's a myth that linux is secure. To prove that linux is not secure Rob points out that people on groklaw post under assumed names. I mean come on now, I ask you, how could linux *possibly* be secure when some people on groklaw don't use their real names?
Ah well, what can we expect from an additted microsoft shill.
This really depends on how it's done. It's quite possible to see Solaris, with a Linux kernel personality, being treated by many as a drop-in replacement. If Fedora 6, or Ubuntu Jumping Jellyfish, or whatever simply came out with Solaris instead of Linux, then it'd take over in much the same way that Firefox and Mozilla simply, transparently, replaced Netscape 4. End users wouldn't even care.
Linux's role in the operating system commonly described as "Linux" is way over-rated. It's in almost every GNU-based operating system distribution because there's no real point in replacing it, it's Free and well supported. Something whose license better supports the needs of Free software users that's as capable (or more capable) and can be made to be transparently backward compatible would certainly have a high probability of displacing it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Apparently I was not the only one immediately disturbed by the blatant abuse of logic. I've tried to figure out the best description of the overall fallacy of each of his points: Point 1: Loki's Wager (a textbook case) Point 2: Equivocation Point 3: Red Herring Point 4: Ignoratio elenchi Point 5: Tu quoque Conclusion: Ad hominem (I could be slightly off on a few, so please correct me.) Please don't take this to be an argument for linux; that would be Ad logicam (a formal fallacy)
-proidiot
Phase one - Promote global warming with manure.
Phase two - Penguins die...
Phase three - Declare there is no Linux, pick up Free MS Vista Coupons for effort!
I lost my sig...
discussion?
Enderle is an admitted shill, and a well known liar. He twists facts, his "logic" is laughable. All of those things have been pointed out, and verified many times.
And where do you get this crap that open discussion about linux is not allowed on slashdot? I see linux criticized on slashdot all of the time.
How is an operating system maintained by thousands of different developers and hundreds of separate projects each with differing aims, compensation, and use of the various products anything like a commune?
A: They aren't. But if you want to grant the author of the article the benefit of a loose definition, then you have to accept that there are many different organizations which both fit the definition of "commune" better and which are quite successful and long-lived.
On the other hand, I wish to grant the author no such leniency. It's trolling, plain and simple.
And if you read down to the final point, "is linux open", you'll see he has quite an axe to grind that has little or nothing to do with the points he is making (which themselves have at best a weak rhetorical connection to linux). He does the classic thing that conservatives of all stripes always do. They point out that their opinions are unpopular with the wider community, and that people express this fact (i.e. "shut up you idiot") and then use this as supposed proof that the community is not as "open" as it pretends.
Phhhhhtttt.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
If you say you can't use Linux because it doesn't run Photoshop, you are told to use GIMP. If you insist that GIMP isn't an adequate replacement for Photoshop you are told it isn't intended to be a Photoshop replacement.
Circular and pointless. This is what people mean when they say you aren't allowed to talk about GIMP.
I find the author obtuse... He goes so far as to say that the best students do not become crooks, rather it is people who do poorly in school, which is obsurd. Similarly poor points are found throughout the article and it seems that everything the author says is unoriginal, regurgitated trash-talk.
I did read the rest of the article and your criticism is definitely on the right track. If this guy has ever seen a linux distro it was probably RedHat version 5 when RPM hell was par for the course.
After visiting his web page, I see that he and his wife are the company and they offer consultation services. If you're talking to the companies that can afford it "Buy microsoft and keep current" will always keep the lights on....
"The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit."
.Net. There's the kernel and the windowing environment, and all the other programs that are put together to make a useable operating system. Again that's just the nature of open source.
Bullshit. I does fine on merit. Maybe people just say "Linux" instead of "Ubuntu 6.10" or "Mandrake 10.1" is because the former is the way people talk. You know just like they say "Windows" instead of the exact version.
Also most distros have so much common code (Sort of the whole point of open source) that when talking about a feature it just makes more sense to say "Linux" then to rattle off a definitive list.
Besides, when people talk about Linux it covers a lot of things. Just like when people talk about
This guy is nothing more than an anti-Linux, anti open source troll. Here are some of his "Words of Wisdom":
" The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit."
" Linux is surrounded by people who generally don't even use real names and often "exaggerate" what they do for a living."
" PJ, the woman who allegedly heads up this legal resource, is currently ducking service from SCO and lord knows what she is covering up."
On the last example I must comment. SCO indeed wants to put PJ in the spot light. Not for any reason other than to harass her. Through her efforts she has shined a light on SCO's legal scam.
PJ has stated that she is extremely shy. Most people don't know what it is like to be so shy that you would do almost anything rather than be put on center stage. I know what it's like. For people like us written communication is no big deal but face to face and sometimes even phone contact causes unbelievable anxiety.
It's pretty shitty for this guy to imply that PJ has anything to hide.
He rambles on and on... What a jerk.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Rob Enderle isn't just any guy. He is the troll if there ever was one. From his Wikipedia page:
Enderle has surpassed most analysts in stirring up industry-wide controversy.
Enderle has been critical of Apple Computer and Linux, as well as Unix and the open source/free software movements in general. In particular, he believes that Linux is a "free-software scam," and he has compared some Linux advocates to terrorists, predicting that "one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement, the ongoing litigation with SCO or their employers." It is for these reasons that Enderle has been called "a Microsoft shill"[2] and even "raving lunatic"[3] by critics.
His free software scam piece is a good example of his twisted ways. Another one is his article about Why SCO Should Win.
Amazing! I stopped right at that point as well...
Now this gives me an idea for a research in cognitive science...
Ignore this signature. By order.
Of course if this was a blog badmouthing Microsoft's development faux-pas or Windows shortcomings then this would be "insightful". But since it's about Linux it gets tagged as "troll", "flamebait", "fud"- rather proves Enderle's point IMO.
This is a feeling I have had for quite a while now, though it's not usually a very popular view so I'm forced to keep it quiet.
Strange, as your view seems to be the majority view on slashdot (or at least the most vocally expressed).
In the 15 years of Linux, it has almost universally called Linux. Rebranding it to GNU/Linux has never taken off and is an exercise in stubborness at this stage.
It doesn't matter what people call it. But it's reasonable for them to seek recognition of their contribution. They've been polite but persistent about it, and I think that's appropriate. The terms that are used tend to define a concept in peoples' minds.
It is when I see effort to rebrand or move to relicence Linux the I sometimes think the FSF forget that the code was GPL'd for all to use under those terms for better or for worse, even if that means it being used in a system that isn't prefixed with GNU.
Huh? Again... Wha? Noone can relicense a work but its owner. And noone has a place to complain about it but its owner.
I've seen several people make this claim. But I consider it FUD. The FSF doesn't own Linux and can't relicense it. Don't know what they did to make you think this. But since it is legally impossible, you needn't worry.
(I know, I know. I'm expecting my karma to go through the floor...)
And yet you get modded +5 Interesting. You underestimate the popularity of your viewpoint.
Rob Enderle recently admitted to being Steve Ballmer's bitch.
Grammar Nazi
I know someone's going to mod me as a troll...
Look, I know many people here might not like what he says... Some of his points are justified, even if you don't agree with them. For example, there are 7 different Linux builds of GAIM for various distros. Also, the moderation of this article (when browsing at 5) demonstrates that saying anything critical of Linux causes a barrage of flames.
No, I will not work for your startup
>>Wow, what a brilliant article. We should stick this guy in a room with Katz and Dvorak and see who can come up with the most idiotic BS.
No, I want to stick him in a room with ESR, and wait for the noises to stop!
Lulz ensue. I use Windows for a number of reasons (primarily the multitude of applications availble -which in turn derives from the system's popularity- and lack of desire to fiddle around with Wine), but an analysis of his logical methods (or lack thereof) will reveal that his entire article boils down to misdirection and false comparisons.
I intend to dual-boot my XP with Ubuntu starting sometime this week so that I can make more educated comparisons in the future, but for now, let it be said that though I may lack in technical knowledge, I know propagandistic writing when I see it.
Well, to me that sounds like saying "DNA is a molecule and not even a particularly interesting one". Oh,yes, for sure, we do have Solaris, and *BSD, and Mach, etc. But what sets Linux apart is the fact that it's an immensely successful kernel. It works, it works very well, it's easy for developers to create modules for it, it has caught the attention of the public, etc, etc. It does so many things so well that many people are abandoning other kernels to use it, just like I dropped FreeBSD about ten years ago. It's the total combination that makes it better than any other kernel, in the opinion of a few million people. How many reasons do you need to make something "particularly" interesting?
Hm. Didn't know who this guy was before. His article seemed like it was written by someone who just doesn't *get* the concepts behind free software.
The bit about outsourcing was hilarious. Linux causes outsourcing. Right. A more accurate statement would be that, in an effort to reduce costs, a number of companies switched to linux and outsourced their IT - two actions unconnected by anything aside from their change in relative expense.
Now outsourcing is slowing and reversing (and the job market's looking sweeter for it), but I don't see the 'switch back to UNIX' he was talking about. Perhaps I'm blind, but IBM, HP, et al are still Linux shops in the servers market.
His tirade on 'Openness' was hilarious. Of course if you shill against the baby of a bazillion IT workers, a percentage of them are going to rail against you. It's not a strike team; it's public opinion. Besides, if you think that's bad for you, check the number of page hits you get whenever you bash Linux, since I understand you've got a history of it. You may change your mind.
Also, I don't know where he gets the idea that discussion isn't allowed. He's got this big shiny soap box to be "Rob Pretenderle" on. As if he's prevented from saying what he says. Douche.
I also noted that Ubuntu was suspiciously missing from the Desktop comparisons, even though it's the most grandma-friendly variant.
Lastly, this is the best example of the *definition* of FUD I've ever seen:
"Linux exists in an environment where there is broad collaboration, but no effort to validate the collaborators so the opportunity for traditional, old style, data breach is immeasurable."
Yeah. Except that the CODE is validated before it's merged in. The collaborators' credentials aren't needed; even a bonded shop can go rogue, but as long as you're checking out the product, you're good.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Hmm, i would say that linux and OSS results in plenty o' cash. I have thus far deployed heaps of customized CMS website solutions on LAMP servers, enough to allow me to keep studying for a masters degree in social work, without having to resort to getting one single dollar of student loan. 4 years of studies without debt, thank you OSS, thank you Linux!
And it's not necessarily on the top of his head. After dealing with all the exact crap Rob himself had mentioned, I have to agree with just about all of his illiterate, biased, and unprofessional comments. It might take a few years, but I believe the Linux community will end up destroying its own operating system from the inside out. Why else would this article hit such a sensitive nerve and spark such a debate? Because he's wrong? No, I believe it's because down deep the flamers know he's telling the truth, but are in violent denial of those threats to their primal security.
The man can't even distinguish between the OSF and the FSF.
Why do we have to hear about him? Who even publishes him?
The problem with his, analysis, and yours, is the mistaken assumption that the majority of the opinions expressed constitute the majority of opinion.
There are a lot folks like me who have found Linux useful, use it for what it is good at, and refrain from getting involved in the religious wars in the mailing lists.
If you can't rationally discuss something in the "Linux community", you're in the wrong community. Consider security, for example. I happen to know that both the NSA and RedHat chose to offer alternative security models in their Linux versions. Yet I don't recall any religious arguments over the relative merits of the respective models. Instead, people seemed to comment on the pros and cons of each model when the issue came up - or maybe I just didn't read slashdot one day...
And I think the best part about Linux, that everyone seems to miss, is the honesty.
When someone tells me that something works in Linux, I can trust that statement to be true, because they usually speak from a position of experience and impartiality. Contrast this with the proprietary model of software, where someone's livelihood is at stake if they don't sell enough licenses. I simply can't trust any advice given about Windows compatibility because there is always exists a monetary incentive for Microsoft to lie about the quality of their software.
I can much more easily accept software that doesn't work quite right if I know what I'm getting from the outset. OTOH, it is particularly galling for a large company, like Microsoft, to claim their OS works, and experience otherwise after having spent a considerable amount of time and money in useless frustration. At least there wasn't any deception with Linux, and I don't bang my head against a wall trying to force it to do something for which it wasn't designed.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Having read this I have decided to go ahead with an install on a old server I will be using on Monday morning. I admit I am going to stuff it full with Suse 10.2 bloat. The Joy! Oops! Managed to make a choice from one of the 7000 distros. On reflection, I could bring out my own distro... (sounds of mouse squeaking up to the Wikipedia search bar)
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
>Wonder over on Groklaw and you'll see
Yeah, I often wonder myself what's going on there.
I'm sorry, but error free writing is something I expect from somebody who wants to be taken seriously.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Within the first few lines of his article he expects you to suspend your disbelief as if you were watching a sci-fi movie. I found it impossible to suspend my disbelief; in reading his article I essentially considered it to be total drivel.
He is asking that you not even consider Linux to be an OS and asks you to not even try to compare it to the likes of Windows because it isn't done by an established company. That's like saying something isn't a parcel of land in the traditional sense because it has a forest on it instead of a mall.
There's no Linux like there is no air. At least you can see and Linux, air you can't without some help. His attempt to undermine Linux security is by saying that there's no security because there's no Linux. Of course there's a Linux.
The guy just drivels on with utterly false unsupportable logic. What's good about it is that it is completely unbelievable from the beginning to the end. If one could say anything, it is that it is a non-article.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
(Enough said.)
Because We The People need to take it as our God-given right to control our own technology that we buy with our money. Not continue supporting the corporate Fascism of a convicted monopoly.
Color me crazy - I see a conflict in a right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" that draws a careful circle around our computers. Technology permeates every aspect of our lives - we literally depend on it FOR our lives, in many circumstances, and certainly most of us now depend on some form of technology for our day-to-day living.
We now live with that technology controlled by a corporate Fascism. We need freedom. And speaking of the Fascism of the corporate monopoly, how much longer are you sheep going to go along with your news sources being taken over by asstroturfers spewing propaganda? What is the difference, in this thread, between Slashdot and Communist China?
FWIW I only skimmed the "article."
To save another lengthy point-by-point defense I'll simply say it: it's the code, stupid.
Linux isn't anything except the code. Open source and free software, they are the code. The code and the license(s).
They can't be crushed and won't just break. The code is there along with the rights to it. That's what linux/gnu/etc. is.
Is it open is it secure is it a commune is it pro- is it a myth? It's the fact that you don't get it: it's the code, stupid. That's the what and why. The who is anyone. The when is any time.
Yes there's a community and yes it fights. Yes there are redundant projects and good code and bad code. But at the end of the day, it's the code. Anyone with any familiarity with what free and open source software is can tell you that.
Linus said it recently with the Gnome dispute: a feature he wanted didn't exist and after inquiring he found himself in a silly dispute about that. He answered with code.
codex ipsa loquitur, stupid.
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Before I start this, I need to confess that I am a bad, bad person for posting this. This is because Enderle is a troll looking for attention and by acknowledging him at all, I'm giving him that which he craves. On the other hand, whoever posted this to Slashdot is a much worse person than I and needs to be spanked much more harshly (and not in a good way) so it's not like I'm doing any more harm. Besides, this is my opportunity to explain why he's not to be taken seriously.
So I shall now critique the linked article.
First points:
The article is horribly written. Normally, when you write an essay advocating a point, you state a thesis and then present various points that support it. This one doesn't. Enderle writes an inflamatory topic heading, then a a bunch of not-really-related statements--packaging material, presumably--around his actual point.
If I were paranoid and cynical, I'd say that the posting was actually written in the hope that the reader would just read the headings and assume they were valid arguments from the presence of the remaining text.
Now, on to the Five Forbidden Subjects of Linux. (Insert orchestral sting here.)
One: Is Linux A Myth?
The name "Linux" can mean either:
Both of these pretty clearly exist, at least as much as software can exist. (If Enderle had gone into that philosophical debate, this article would have been a whole lot more interesting.)
Mostly, he argues that Linux is often being talked about as something it's not. Yup, I knew that.
From there, he goes on to whinge about unfair comparisons between other products and some corporate corruption without actually saying that either of those are in any way responsible for Linux's success. So why does he bring it up? Beats me.
Two: Is Linux Secure?
Here, he brings up the tired old argument about how if (gasp) just anyone can modify Linux, how do you know that the bad guys haven't H4XX0R3D it? Or that incompetent basement hackers haven't screwed it up somehow?
(Simple: the people who decide what actually goes into the versions you buy are competent, honest and you know their real names. Also, the good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys in this game so bugs and any hypothetical deliberate sabotage are going to be found, and found quickly.)
Packaging material in this section includes a slam at Groklaw and some rambling about the importance of physical security. The latter makes sense to me, sure, but it's completely irrelevant to the point.
Three: Do Communes Work?
Now this is an interesting rhetorical trick. See, he's not asking, "Is the open source movement a commune?" because the answer to that is pretty clearly "no". (Or, given how often this particular comparison has raised its ugly head and been beaten down again, "No, you idiot!".)
Instead, he discusses the merits of communes, in the process taking it for granted that open source is a commune and so sidestepping any criticism of that idiotic assumption.
So in fact, this topic is almost never discussed in the open source community because it's irrelevant to it. I'll ignore the actual text here except to snarkily point out that his main complaint--that the whole process is so political--applies just as easily to democracy.
Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?
I'm not actually sure what he's talking about here. I think he's bringing back the old complaint that Linux drives down t
...the oxy."
Brilliant! And accurate!
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
he's been seriously traumatized by disagreement(and probably disagreeability)for trying to make a living getting people to listen to him. He's trying to clear your minds, don't you owe him THAT much? Think kind thoughts, Rob, everything is everything.
Rob Enderlie has been a paid shill for a long time. The things he doesn't understand are legion. No amount of logical discourse, no amount of 'proof' could possibly sway his opinions. Why? Because he's a paid shill thats why!
Nuff said.
He asked the question "Is Linux secure?" and then started talking about how most securiy problems are related to physical security. Then he did state that physical security was a larger problem in general. After that he started talking about Linux users / administrators and what I took from what he was saying was that he distrusts Linux users / administrators.
I have been working in IT security for over a decade and I agree with him that physical security is the biggest risk for most companies. I would also go as far to agree with him that you need to keep and eye on your employees because software / hardware security products do not protect your assets from malicious AUTHORIZED users. But, I wouldn't watch Joe the Linux Guy anymore than I would Mark the Microsoft guy.
From a physical security standpoint Linux is no more or no less secure than any operating system. The simple truth comes down to the fact that if I can lay hands on ANY device I can own it. I've done many Sarbanes-Oxley 404 (Information technology) internal audits. I have these little red stickers that have the word compromised on them. When I am in the physical security portion of my audit I place these on devices that I was able to get to and spend enough time with so that if I were malicious I could gained top level access to, placed man-in-the-middle devices on, stolen, or destroyed.
Only once did a CTO of one of these companies question that these devices (in this case most of their systems) were vulnerable. I went back in the next evening and changed the root/admin level passwords on the majority of his systems. The next morning he had scheduled a meeting with all the major players involved with the audit and some of the top level executives. We soon found out that the reason he had called the meeting was to call into question me and my teams credentials and ability to perform an accurate analysis of their security. I let him present all his "evidence" and then he pretty much demanded that our contract be terminated, that we not be compensated, and that I be escorted from the building and be told not to return. Luckily, the group gave me a chance to respond. Because from the layman's point of view, from which this group was mostly comprised of he had made what sounded like a pretty strong case. Unknown to the CTO I was ready to defend my position. I passed out a list of computer systems and devices (routers, switchs, etc) that were now completely under my control, though not to worry once it had been validated I would hand over a list of the new passwords. Next I passed around a printout of text that was made up of all the keys the CTO had pressed over a 24 hour period. Much of this was pure garbage, him responding to generic emails and the like. But then highlighted in yellow was where the CTO had typed an email to a friend outside the company talking about me and my security audit and how he was going to ruin me and my team. In one portion of that text he stated that the morons he would have to convince were nothing more than trained monkeys and pencil pushers so he would make short work of me and then meet his friend for drinks afterwards. Then mixed in with the rest of his daily babble he logged into several key systems, which I highlighted the name's of the systems the account names and their passwords in red. I circled all the times he typed telnet and explained to the group that although I have not started my systems analysis portion of the audit yet what the dangers of telnet were as compared to the more secure SSH. I then told them that I did not intend to devote any more time to this audit if the were going to follow the CTO's advice and not compensate me and my group. Then I asked if I should leave? The CEO stood up and said "No, please have a seat Mr. (the CTO's last name) will be leaving". He looked so red I thought he was going to explode. I later found out that he had not only been asked to leave the room but was himself escorted out of the building and told not to return. I guess the tr
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
is to discuss just exactly how far his head is up his ass.
10 inches? 20?
This is guy is fairly intelligent,.....He is not nuts......AH He's full of shit!
His remarks show an obvious bias against Linux and open source. Some people just can't accept that something done without profit motive can be any good. Seems to be anti American, what free enterprise (business) isn't producing the best stuff! Why would anyone produce anything of value and just give it away. Can't be any good. Last I looked Linux adoption was growing not shrinking. Even Sun the great Unix comapny seems to moving in the direction of open source. But of course none of this is is happening!
Title should be "Rise of another Maureen O'Gara"
I'm a FreeBSD user, and one thing I've noticed about many Linux advocates, is their near total lack of objectivity. I realize that all advocates try to minimize their system's weakness and emphasize its strengths. But sometimes it seems like Linux advocates truly cannot comprehend that their beloved system is mortal, imperfect and will not cure their acne.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Where would Linux be? The Linux kernel is just that, a kernel. That's Linux, and nothing else. The core functionality around the kernel is mainly GNU software. Do you know why GNU came along? Because AT&T and other unix makers were making proprietary, for-pay unix. GNU made the same functionality free, and it is that which surrounds Linux and makes Linux functional. Otherwise you'd have a free kernel and tons of for-pay OS functionality; like a brain that's free spirited and a body slapped in irons. Freeing your mind doesn't necessarily mean your ass will follow, in the operating system universe.
So yeah, wherever there is Linux, there is GNU. Certainly, one could have a free Linux kernel and for-pay functionality, but that doesn't exist in the wild. So, Linux is always GNU/Linux, in reality. When it ceases to be, you will sorely regret being "right".
And Stallman is a visionary. Without him we wouldn't have a free Linux.
Even so,
a) GPL v3.0 is controversial enough to warrant reverting to 2.0 and calling it a day, IMHO;
b) Stallman is a visionary but he is not God, so he does make mistakes;
c) GNU/Linux is the more honest term, but no one should get virtual concrete shoes for saying "Linux";
d) GNU/Linux does have a communal mentality that is turning almost right winged as far as the capriciousness and closed mindedness of the developer leadership;
but most importantly
e) I apologize for all the GNU/Linux zealots who've made life hell for dissenters. In Soviet Russia, the rebellion against the tyrannical Tsars became a tyranny in and of itself. America had its own similar moment with the Whiskey Rebellion, but to an infinitely lesser magnitude. We're in a period of time now where dissent among the rebels is leading to acts of microfascism (my term for online suppression of free speech that hasn't led to gunfire conflict or bloodshed). Zealots calling Laura DiDio "Dildo" is especially pathetic and highly damaging to our cause, but not as horrible as the morons calling her.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
is you do not talk about being a Microsoft shill.
/. are applicable to modern computing, and have been for quite a frigging while. If enderle took his head out of his rectum for long enough to realize microsoft's clustering has been playing catch up with linux for over a decade, he might start to realize Microsoft is just an implementor and not an innovator. But the high end is not the only thing, Apache kicked the shit out of IIS for years, and if it werent for the paid shills (read hosting farms thrown HUGE discounts on 2k3 web editions) IIS would still be sitting at the top of the list. As it stands, you can hire lots of techs with only the rudiments of computing background to *run* and half-way impliment microsoft software by doping their way through interfaces.
.NET studio and of course (Ala AU) 2k7-ribbon-tastic office. The OLPC is scaring them, and if free makes an impact with children world wide, they will start to see the impact in the pocketbook in the next generation. Their model is dying, and Gates most likely knows it. Perhaps years (decades?) from now, he'll come out of the woodwork all Steve Jobs like and saves the company from bankruptcy once OSS embraces, adopts, reimplements, and evolves beyond their sorry spagetti. Wine is only behind because Microsoft is allowed to illegally maintain a monopoly. If there was no question of bug work-arounds and actual implementations of standards (since what Microsoft says, and does are never the same) interoperability would not be a question, but a reality. Linux is the way it is because developers of applications and frameworks like Wine and Mono spend much of their time asking a system questions as a client would and then recording the result.
The second rule of a Microsoft shill, is you do not talk about being a Microsoft shill.
And the Third rule of a Microsoft shill, is you must post your story on a Debian-Apache server.
Apparently he thinks Linux is a killer server, even touting it over Microsoft's implementation of server operating systems... Except his story is posted on a 2k3 box running IIS.
No, I won't stop there. I'll just make the obvious even more clear, Linux is just the kernel. If you want to compare operating systems, how about Debian? Hmm... why isn't it ever mentioned by these shills? Why does RHE and SuSE get all the press? Is it because Debian just works, and can be configured minimally for high availability situations on gear 2k3 can't finish the install wizard on? Equivalent stripped distributions aside (Trustix comes to mind,) the world is full of people who demand Microsoft *quality* not realizing what they are demanding is artwork, not security or stability.
I wonder, is it because Ubuntu works even better than XP on the same gear? It's probably because nobody has ever put money behind Debian to praise it. Debian is Google's silent partner (Gubuntu is the internal Desktop platform if rumor is correct) and I'd say they're doing pretty damn well for themselves with it.
Feel free to continue demanding Crayola computing, and your playthings will keep melting in your hands before you ever run out of material.
The running gags of
Linux still takes someone willing to read doc, enter Ubuntu. The beast is flailing, Vista sales are waning the world might learn in time before the forced migrations start happening. Each cycle their grip loosens and more systems slip through their fingers. Grand Moff Monkeyboy needs to make an example before it is too late, and this is just some more of the ripples of the tsunami yet to come. Critical mass only lasts so long, and they know this. If software providers start porting to Linux in droves they have lost.
So prepare to see things like MASSIVE student discounts worldwide for the newest revisions of
That being said, for reverse engineered code written while half blind to the interaction of system internals, the shit is amazingly stable. One could even wager, in certain circumstances, it's more stable than the original. But that would be going too far, since obviously one can not talk about Linux since it doesn't exist. Fucking goober.
Especially considering that, for most people, the only differences between Linux and Solaris or BSD are the two or three proprietary apps for Linux that aren't available on the others.
IMHO its asking for credit where credit is due. I dont approve of it but I do know why they are doing it.
Remove all the GNU software from a Linux box and see what your left with.
Any time someone at work asks me how to set permissions on XP, I tell them it's too complicated for me. That's why I use Linux (Debian Sarge). Setting up permissions in Linux is much simpler for me. After all, I learned part of the concept in 2nd grade. 1+2+4=7 It's very easy to figure out how to make something executable or to restrict write permissions. In Windows XP, I don't have a clue. Every time I try to restrict something, I lock myself out, too. If you set something read only, anyone can change that. I know it's possible, I'm just saying it's too complicated for me. Linux is easy. Set permissions or modify a text file. In good distros, the text files even have comments that help you decide what settings to use. I can turn a service on or off just by setting the permissions in the rc file/folder. It's simple once you learn it.
I'm not some neophyte that can't operate complex systems either. At work, I use Hummingbird Exceed to log into an AIX server to sign into a VPM based file system to create electrical schematics. On that same PC, I use an Oracle based program to put together a part list of connectors containing wire harness numbers. For the life of me I still can't figure out why we're using PC's for this. There is a text based hosts file to tell Hummingbird where the server(s) is(are). I failed to mention the much simpler Legacy file system and part list program.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew