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."
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
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/
This is just misleading. Surely Enderle knows the truth, which is that the major vendors do provide indemnification, just like Microsoft? Red Hat do, as do Novell; heck, even Oracle [PDF warning].
"Don't you think it should be a hot topic right now, so where is the chatter?" writes Enderle. Yes, this was a hot topic - many months ago. As a result of that chatter, the major vendors started to provide or emphasized that they already provide indemnification. Is Enderle really qualified to write about Linux if he doesn't know that? (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he isn't intentionally misleading readers)
Rob Enderle is a known troll from the SCO fame, who got bunch of hits by taking the pro-SCO stance. He is generally writing anti-linux articles whenever he can on any subject that comes along. All he cares about is the number of hits his articles generate and posting on slashdot certainly helps that. He is also "THE" reason, why I stopped to read Forbes.com, since they publish his drivel.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
... 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