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
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
I never get used to these constant resurrections
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?
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...
<insert your own joke here>
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.
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.
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.
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).
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/
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.
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
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.
An "insightful Rob Enderle" -- a contradiction in 3 words.
What next, a "brilliant John Dvorak"... oh, wait, that was last week.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On your first point, Linux is still the most used operating system on web servers. It's also in third place in the realm of IT (based on 2005 server *sales*, CNET): #1, Windows: $17.7 billion; #2, Unix $17.5 billion; #3 Linux $5.7 billion (11%). Then when you factor in that Linux is often slapped out onto servers that a company has already purchased (low cost, good support for aging hardware, high functionality), I'd hardly agree with your assessment that Linux is rarely used on the server. It's not a big dog, but it's not rare. Desktop: you're right.
On your second point, I don't think that the Linux "experts" have an attitude problem. I do think that the "so-called experts" most certainly do. I'm always surprised by how calm and open-minded OSS developers seem to be when I listen to interviews on LUG Radio and such. In fact, they're usually all about getting down to business, and are highly self-critical. It's the forum fanboys that give the "community" a bad name, or think that there is some kind of actual community (maybe I just didn't get my ID badge?).
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.
Funny how calling people 'assholes' gets their backs up isn't it? It is a good way to prove your point too isn't it? You know purposely offending people so that when they retaliate you can run around like a headless chicken screaming about how people are oppressing you. Who is it who sounds like a Creationist now arsehole?
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
Case in point: during Linux Lunacy 2002, I ftp'd up a recording of a round-table talk session (ab't the --then upcoming-- 2.6 kernel, w/ Linus Torvalds). The file was a ~60MB .ogg file (sorry - didn't have the presence-of-mind to compress the audio) to an anonymous server running at the school I taught at. It was an eMachines cast off with a P3 500 and 1GB of RAM, set up as a basic ftp/http file-shovelling machine. It ran RH 7.2, and was latched into a 100mb network, which was in turn hooked up to a nice sized slice of an OC-12 trunk that we were hosting for the Utah state gov't ISP (UEN). According to the IT department, the single-Cat5-linked static IP addy it bore reportedly chugged along at a sustained data transfer rate of something like a GB/hr for nearly two - 1/2 days straight. When I got back, it was running just fine. The only real thing I did to it during setup was to max out the mem cache and the # of processes it could spawn.
That incident alone made me a firm believer in Linux' abilities.
Now I won't discount that a heavily graphics-intensive website with tons of custom code (javascript, PHP, whatever) wouldn't have taken it down, or that if I had done a piss-poor job of setting it up... but if you set it up right and reasonably match the hardware to expected internal loads, I don't see why a Linux server would blow up under enormous loads... at least larger loads than IIS can bear on the same hardware.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
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.
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.
I've seen plenty of insightful discussions about Linux on slashdot and elsewhere. Could it be that you don't see them because you call the people you disagree with filthy liars and assholes? Could it be that this causes the majority of calm, rational linux supporters to ignore you as the uninformed troll you are?
I submit that the foul odor you smell is coming from yourself.
Simply not true. I see loads of +4 and +5 comments regarding honest and useful critiques of Linux. It just happens that most of the people doing the critical comments of Linux happen to be trolls or people who haven't a clue about anything computer related or who don't remember what they had to learn about using Windows when they were computer-illiterate.
I mean c'mon, we hear comments about the superiority of Visual Studio or the lack of Photoshop or the suckiness of GIMP all the time. It's just that we've stopped seeing as many "my hardware doesn't work" or "i don't know how to do this or that" because user friendliness and hardware support, just to name two areas, have improved significantly.
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 ?
Most help channels don't like people going RTFM or people going on rants about windows being 'teh suck' or going on with FUD about Linux taking over the world if insert here favorite application name were on it.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
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.
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 $0 or so is competing with your proprietary products in an increasingly effective manner. In the long run, this is good for software users overall, but really tough on commercial software developers who are invested in The Old Ways. That's why these FUD attacks happen. Of course, in the long run, there's no way the old-model businesses can stop this trend, but as with lots of digital trends these days, we're in for a rough ride along the way.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
The argument that "Linux is the kernel" is very weak in my opinion because how useful is JUST a kernel? ... It is a clever sleight of hand that advocates use when convenient. ... See what I mean? You can't make the argument that "Linux is more secure than Windows"
I see your strawman and call it BS again. What advocate are you talking about? Most are not confused by the issue like M$ 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.
... 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
you can't voice an opinion? Damn, the slashdot crowd must be FULL of windows devs...
I read the 30 days with ubuntu article, but hadn't come across the response, so I went looking for it; this is the closest I found: http://digg.com/linux_unix/Ubuntu_Reps_Respond_to_ 30_days_with_Ubuntu_Article
it's pasted in the comments a few comments down. Thought that might be useful for anyone else who hadn't seen this yet but was interested.
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.
Problem was simple.
Oss need another Linus Torvalds for GUI.
Before we do that, there was no OSS gui for Masses...
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
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.
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
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
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.
"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!
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
I agree with many of the counterpoints presented, but they do get somewhat off topic. Granted, the article itself, apart from some self-congratulatory meta-statements, is not about "5 things you can't talk about in Linux" so much as "I don't follow the Linux community at all."
1. Not being able to talk about Linux as a product. Linux is used as a generic for the trademarked Linux kernel used with some userland system be that busybox, BSD utilities, GNU applications, or whatever. At work we say 'Windows this' and 'Windows that.' Microsoft Windows includes every versions from a DOS menu system from the 1980s, Windows 95, 98, 98se, 2000, CE, XP, Vista and about a 1/2 dozen server systems based on NT. In fact, one of the first things a 'Linux newb' is told by any 'Linux guru' is that Linux, as used generically, is not a single application, kernel, distribution or package system. It is more a style and context for an operating system, similar in approach to UNIX. The only difference is that many companies and people package and sell and distribute Linux. Only Microsoft distributes Microsoft Windows.
2. Mostly harping on physical security and worms is a little off topic. Every security class, seminar and training session will harp on how security is not some Hollywood GUI with flashy pass codes. Making veiled attacks on Groklaw doesn't help. Tangential slander at community members for using handles (a long tradition in UNIX, not just Linux) is a hollow ad-homian attack. In corporate security, like F/OSS security, it takes a few dedicated and skilled individuals to do the hard work.
3. The community is supported by a few? No surprise. The community is full of the legends of super-coders. People talk about it a LOT. In a corporation you have a few people that do a lot of work and a few dead weights. When the dead weight gets to be too much, the company fails. The people working in F/OSS donated their time or (per the recent who paid for Linux articles) were paid just like everyone else. What about BSD which tried this before? Because the GPL encourages feedback enrichment and freeloaders have margial cost, F/OSS scales much better. It's like the difference between an FTP server and Bittorent.
4. One word: telecommuting. You ask 'is Linux pro-developer?' I ask you: what kind of development? I'm typing this on SuSE, the name in German originally meant 'System for Software Development.' I have over 30 complete development tool chains installed. Documentation for how to learn over a dozen programing languages. And, like OS 10, I have a UNIX CLI that has 30 years of refinement in supporting development. And thanks to the GPL, I can develop how I want and what I want. I may not have Microsoft Word and Adobe Photoshop, but you weren't talking about that kind of developer or were you?
The argument that I will get paid less because my tools are cheaper makes no sense. Any manager that would pay me more because my tools cost more is an idiot. Me and my skills have to rest on our own qualifications. If I do a better job in a perfect world, I should get paid more. In reality I compete with other people who only have to do the job 'adequately.'
Outsourcing isn't a fad, it's businesses realizing that high-priced Ferrari mechanic could wash their car as well as the kids down the street. Eventually the jobs go where they need to. The F/OSS community is already distributed widely and used to coordinating people from remote locations. Linux isn't made at one campus in Redmond, Washington but all over the world. I have an advantage if I know that I can do my job for 1/10 the price in India just as easily as in th
"You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."