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 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.
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?
Welcome to slashdot, news for nerds. If you want a blog aggregator step over to digg.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"The negative effects of having multiple distros"
How many versions of Windows are there now? I have no freaking clue which of the six or so versions of Vista I'm supposed to buy even if I wanted to, then there's XP32, XP64, Pro versions, Home versions, cut-down foreign versions, Windows 2003 or whatever it is.
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...
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.
The fact that the man is on SCO's payroll and a raving lunatic who tends to compare Linux fans with terrorists also doesn't void him from offering criticism. On the other hand, posting comments from the man here is blatant flamebait/trolling behaviour.
All versions of Vista install the same way. Some just have more extra features than others. The same company supports all of them, in the same manner. As for previous versions of Windows, well, that's all moot since they're kinda *the previous versions!* This is like saying "omg there are multiple types of Xterras to buy I have no freaking clue whether I'm supposed to get the off-road or SE or a used 2004 one or whatever. And then there's all the exterior colors to choose from which one is the right one for me!?" :-P
I like basketball!!1!
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
What negative effect? Most of the people running those distributions aren't contributing anything to anyone. Any of those distributions that is successful for long is probably contributing changes upstream.
It's good that the market is full of players. That means that even if we lose dozens of them, there will still be someone to carry the torch. How crap would it be if you wanted a different linux distribution because your distribution of choice had gone to shit, or failed to ever get their shit together even, and there was nothing to switch to?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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 ?
Thank you for posting the article text. Now I can rip it apart bit by bit without waiting for his server to come back. Please keep in mind I'm speaking to the article's author when I say 'you' after this point, because I'm replying to the article text.
1. We don't need to talk about a Linux company to compare it to Microsoft. We're not comparing a company to a company. We're comparing the products of many companies and individuals and the advantages and disadvantages of that vs. Microsoft's products. Many users of Linux don't depend fully on one company for updates, fixes, and support. So to say basically that because Microsoft ties us to one source for these things that means that we must fall into the same trap for other operating systems is narrow-minded at best.
2. Any reasonable IT person will tell you that security is a process and not a product. Having a more secure base to start with is part of that process. Having code review is often part of that process. Running programs that aren't meant to make system-wide changes as users not authorized to make system-wide changes is part of the process. Most Linux distributions do a better job of _supporting_ these processes, and since it's open and editable, can be made moreso by many parties.
3. The FSF is not a hippy nudist farm commune, and the GPL is not a "do your fair share" agreement. The GPL allows people who have a purpose of their own to take a working system and do just the work they need done to support a change to do so instea dof writing a whole system from scratch and duplicating that parts that already work the way they need. Meeting your own needs and giving a little back for others having given you that opportunity is not communism. It's smart in a capitalist marketplace to take the lowest-cost route to your goal. Companies buy pre-existing parts to make their products all the time. Disney takes fairy tales with no copyrights, then copyrights the new work based on it, then lobbies to get those copyrights extended. Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds may have their differences, but they both want you to be able to use their work to do your work. They're not askign for the keys to your car. They just want you to treat their work a certain way if you choose to use it. They don't even care if you don't give out changes you make. They just want to make sure you give out the sources of any binaries you make from _their_ hard work.
4. Employees are not valued on the price of what they work on. They are valued on the amount of money they make the company and the rarity of their skills. The only reason a Ferrari mechanic makes more than a Chevy mechanic is that fewer people know how to work on Ferraris and that the shop owners are able to charge more because the end customer can find fewer competitors since fewer shops work on Ferraris. The goal of the Linux community is not to drive up costs at an employer. It is to do the exact opposite. It's a freely available system which is meant to lower barriers, not raise them. The fact that it does the job of commercial Unix so well for so much less and has built so large a base of trained and experienced administrators and developers that the labor rates have dropped is a positive thing. It means Linux actually has a lower TCO, which is a good thing in a capitalist society. It's a point Microsoft tries to claim. Doing more business with fewer employees who need training that is easier to get is a goal of all good capitalist companies.
5. Linux is open entirely. The minds of some of its proponents are not. Please do not confuse the issue. Blind IT advocacy is bad, but some IT advocacy done with care is a wonderful thing. If Windows doesn't serve a department's needs, the IT department needs to make that clear to the people writing the check. If Linux doesn't meet the needs of a particular project, IT needs to advocate against Linux on that project. If something makes your job much easier and much less stressful while saving your company money, you should always support it vociferously.
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.