Slashdot Mirror
Net Radio Exec Says "Don't Mention Linux"
Barence writes "It might be reliable enough to power their device, but it seems some companies are still a bit reluctant to use the 'L word' when talking about their products. Speaking at the launch of the touchscreen Pure Sensia digital radio, director of marketing Colin Crawford was pressed for specifics of the new device's software. But after his CEO reminded him that the new radio was based on a Linux OS, Crawford remarked: 'I don't like the using the word "Linux" on a radio.'" Of course the presence of (possibly embedded) Linux may not have any relevance to consumers in some products; but does the word itself carry a commercial stigma?
Maybe it's a competitive advantage and they don't want to advertise all the details of what lets them produce a device cheaper and faster than their competitors. Really, the Linux community needs to stop seeing adversaries around every corner.
Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
Depends. Did they make and then fail to release any changes to the source?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Sure. To a consumer, Linux = hacker security risk. Because it's true.
Au contraire, my friend. Linux = hacker / security tool. It all depends on how well you play your cards.
I reminds me of an episode of Northern Exposure. Maurice had a fit when Chris, the DJ, told the story of the city's founding by a pair of Lesbians.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
It has not been released yet, until it is we can't be sure. Perhaos it was their plan but surly it cant be anymore!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
It means "unknown" and "strange" to anyone who hasn't heard of it or isn't very computer savvy. It means "complex" and "difficult" to anyone who has heard of it that is moderately computer savvy. It means "shut the hell up and stop asking me stupid f'ing Linux questions every time I sit down at my desk!" to those of us who have used it and work with any one in the previous two categories. Seriously...I started using a Mac so I could get my nice unixy and open source goodness without having to play 20 questions every time I booted my damned laptop. Now they just look and say "oh, its a Mac, those are expensive" and walk away.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
if it's built on open source software, chances are someone will force them to reveal their source code.
Squeezebox Touch is Linux-based, and imminently hackable. Although not emphasized as a consumer selling point, it is certainly no secret and there is a very active developer community around the products.
Depends on who "you" are, and its not so much playing the cards. The system admin is likely to be your weak link in a security situation, so it is up to the qualifications of your admin more than anything else. Granted, you'll probably find more people who are pro server admins on other systems more than linux just because linux is still only gaining running ground. If you hire a system admin, however, they should know the OS at hand or they SHOULD NOT BE HIRED. Period.
A shitty Linux admin is just as bad as a shitty Windows admin.
If, and only if, they made any changes to the GPLed code. And, even then, only the bits integrated into the GPLed code.
There are almost certainly outfits for which that is a serious issue; but I'd be shocked if these guys are one of them. Their device is almost certainly a more-or-less stock ARM board, with a Linux BSP already provided by whoever they bought it from, along with a few not-very-exotic peripherals, also likely off the shelf. On top of that will be their closed blob of a program, which is where all their special sauce is. The program running on top is completely unaffected by the license of the OS, and is almost certainly where the only remotely distinguishing work was done.
Only if they've violated the license. If they can't use linux without violating the license, then they shouldn't be using it. Thinking that they can use linux, violate it's license and get away with it by just not telling anyone is.... kinda slimy.
That includes [especially] me. We already have our own perceptions of Linux and what it means. We, at times desperately, want others to see Linux the way we do. But they don't.
Frankly, I don't really know or understand how others see Linux. I could venture to guess though... Linux is weird. Linux is not normal. Linux is what "different" people use.
I know that people put a lot of associative value in identity. People want to think of themselves and everything they identify themselves with as good and normal and hopefully even cool. Linux is only cool to a limited number of people... to everyone else, Linux is an associative reflection of all the weirdos who use Linux. Most of use are geeks and not socially ordinary. What does that say about how others might see Linux?
overall, I think that people still relate Linux to "Command Line" and "Nerdy basement hacker geeks who are fat and have too much facial hair"
People are really surprised when I show them my netbook running Ubuntu and all they have to do is click the firefox icon on the dock. They are always shocked when I explain that it's based on Linux.
Slashdotters like to jump at it and go "cool, does that mean I can hack on it like my toaster?". They in marketing probably have absolutely no interest in that, they want to sell an appliance. Whether it's running Linux or BSD or WinCE or whatever else embedded OS, that's not what they want to talk about. That's not what they want the marketing message to be. They don't want people thinking of it as a computer in drag because computers are complex and their device is easy and user friendly. Funny how a marketing director might want to focus on features and not the internals of the OS running the thing. So it runs Linux, great. Could we get back to telling you why this is a product people will want?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes but how do we *know*. Guess we'll need to have look now, won't we?
You don't want to imply that your product is for nerds. That's why T-Mobile's Android phone is just marketed as "T-Mobile 3G, now with Google!"
Linux is increasingly behind the scenes everywhere, because it works well and requires no licensing costs. Google OS is likely to make it mainstream, because that's a name people trust. Linux is a server OS. But only if you call it Linux.
But he's right. Linux is really nerdy from a marketing perspective. It comes off sounding inaccessible and just... well... the bad type of geeky.
The problem is that it's generally connected to Linux users.
"Free" have a commercial stigma, specially if you put all meanings in that word.
no no... dont mention the war!!!!!!
--john cleese
Let's see how the talk show host respond to "Freax", as Linus used to call it.
To most consumers and end users linux is at worst something they have no clue about other than hearing that "hackers" use it, and at best is something they were goaded into trying once but at the moment a problem occurred they found they had no help and had to either ditch the computer for a new one (you wouldn't believe how many customers I get insisting their computers are irreparably broken when its simply a boot problem) or pay what they feel are excessive amounts to get some tech to reinstall windows on it again.
Linux is scary to most, wonderful to few that know better. Thats not going to change so yes in terms of advertising to joe average mentioning "linux" will more often not shift a product from the must have category to the must avoid one. It sucks but its reality.
So you explain that they can watch fullscreen flash will work, even though it won't? So you explain that all win32 apps will work, even though they won't?
If, and only if, they made any changes to the GPLed code. And, even then, only the bits integrated into the GPLed code.
If you distribute any GPL code, such as the Linux kernel or the GNU userland, you have to offer the sources to the recipient.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Just call it the "WebOS" like Palm does.
Linux = Super Geek.
If you know about computers, you're a geek. If you know about operating systems other than a Mac or PC, then you're a super geek. If you don't know what the words "operating system" mean, you're not a geek and don't care about Linux at all (because it's not a Mac or a PC). Even then, people don't care.
So, when they ask something like "Will it play Bioshock?", do you say
a) "It will"
-or-
b) "It will, but not with high texture details or proper mouse control, and don't change the resolution or that will crash the game. Oh yeah, the game will page fault quite often, so save regularly, but other than that, it will work just great!"
What a great friend.
Advertising "it's got Linux" is as stupid as those bank ads I kept seeing a couple years ago boasting that their new website was using Java on the backend or something. As an end-user consumer, I don't fucking care. Does your product work reliably? Does it provide me with some service I need? Is it easy to use? That's what I care about, not some mostly irrelevant technical detail of its implementation.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
You do not talk about Linux.
Second rule ... you do NOT talk about Linux!!
What are anagrams alex?
If you are a normal consumer and you see a penguin on a product, you probably won't know what it's all about. The same person will almost certainly know the Windows logo. That's enough to make people gravitate towards what they know. People are afraid of the unknown.
Linux has hundreds of flavors (or spins or whatever) and no body advertising how great it is. So the popularity of Linux and related devices will be up to large marketing departments (mostly in Redmond). As much as I hate to say it, Linux doesn't stand a chance against that.
Linux needs a real commercial champion for the everyday consumer market. Just think of the server market. Maybe Google would fit the bill, or maybe they will do the same as Apple. Time will tell.
One CEO at a time. I hope he told his marketing director he's a dick.
if it's built on open source software, chances are someone will force them to reveal their source code.
Force? There's no force involved[*]. They knew that if they made any changes to the software, they were going to release the source from the moment they decided to distribute a device with Linux on it. Assuming they have customised the code, the decision to release the source was entirely theirs. And it was made when they chose to use Linux in the first place.
[*] Well, except for RMS' ninjas, but we don't talk about them....
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
You have to love http://www.icecast.org/ and I am Sir Audiophile E-MU 0404 geek. I know more about open source radio than the poster. I also own http://www.fluxradio.org/ The Linux word is for brave people. You can advance and go commando BSD! It will take a very intelligent individual even to get to grips but in the words of Brenda Russell. "I cry just a little, caught up in the middle, when he plays piano in the dark". I suppose music is music is power. Music and lyrics makes one elite 31337.
All cows eat grass!
See this. Enough said.
The game.
That's okay. Stallman says it's GNU/Linux, but I'm sure he'd be happy if you dropped the Linux part ;-) So just tell people you're building a GNU radio. Brand GNU.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If it ran Windows do you think he would be showing off about that? Most people don't care what OS products like this use. The company probably wants to differentiate their product from a computer.
Linux = security risk only if you use Windows and you piss a Linux user off.
To a Linux user who pisses a Windows user off, well, let's just say this particular relationship isn't reciprocating.
I hate printers.
But I thought Linus was Caucasian? Jeez, you learn something new every day.
I hate printers.
No nock to Linux since I think it's a great OS, but I get the impression that this maketing exec thinks it has a 'home built' sort of stigma attached to it. It's actually a primary Linux strength, but I have to wonder if this guy is getting marketing feedback that Linux has a bad rep with common consumers or if it's just based on his personal opinion (informed or not).
They probably don't want a bunch of hacking and tinkering of their product by the vast hordes of losers out there who get off on breaking protected devices.
I know this won't be popular at /., but I think most people around here would take a phone that "worked" but used non-Linux (OS/2, MVS or VMS). I can't imagine too many slashdotters that would say, "This phone reboots twice a day and the battery life stinks, but it runs linux so they can pry it outta my cold dead hands.
Yeesh, I just want a phone that has good battery life, 3G, call clarity etc etc. I don't care what OS it runs. Hell, if they said it ran Banana-OS, as long as it worked, who cares. It's a phone. Plus even if it ran linux, what percentage of consumers would be able to do anything with any of the source that they provide? Hack all you want, but in a year or two when it's time to renew my contract I'll be getting a new phone anyhow.
Just my $.02, and I'm going back to my phone which runs some random OS.
Oh SURE they knew they would eventually release the source. And SURE they would willingly adhere to the license terms. And people don't cheat on their spouses. And nobody cheats on their taxes. And no one ever gets sued over this kind of thing. And I'm dating Megan Fox.
GIMP is the only drawing program you'll ever needamiright?
....more like, he's a marketing guy, evolved a bit from a sales drone, and oftentimes there's just no need to overcomplicate the sales and promotion process.
Is Linux a selling point to this guy's customers? Probably not. And certainly not as it would be to people on this website.
Thus, no need to get into it.
The real question is "has Linux even pervaded the public's consciousness sufficiently to where it *could* be a plus or minus?" And I'd have to argue no, at least not outside the tech crowd.
Many commercially successful products use Linux. Tivo anyone? Why wouldn't anyone want to identify themselves with Linux, unless there's a commercial tie-in with a competitor (Apple or Microsoft)?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Xenu will by destroyed by Xorg. (Of course, you need to get some fifth level modelines first.)
Okay, I know it doesn't really mean the device is hard to use, but there is certainly that perception for a consumer. The last embedded commercial product I worked on was Linux based (on a little ARM system) and it was just great. But we didn't tell people it was Linux unless they specifically asked or bothered to dig through the manual.
'It runs Linux' means:
- Apple people sneer, but they'd buy an iPod anyhow so it's not a huge loss.
- My dad sees 'Linux' and thinks 'Oh my god, Linux was so confusing I guess I'll just get an iPod instead'.
- Normal people see 'Linux' and think they'll need to crack the password in 72-bit font like mad haxxors every time they want to use it.
- Nerds go 'ooooooooh.' This is the one group for which it is a good thing. But also a small group.
- GNU people think 'Why doesn't this just boot into root shell? Corporate evil!' Seriously, we had one guy who pestered tech support for months claiming GPL meant we had to tell him the root password. Why did we stop giving everyone root? Because they screw it up and RMA the thing.
And honestly I have bad UI associations with Linux too, the same way I do with Windows CE. Just the thought of my MP3 player booting into Gnome or something like Gimp is enough to give me the hives, even though rationally I know an embedded device is more likely to be running something like PegUI or Qt Embedded. Or even totally custom, but that usually also means bad, because people who build their own UIs from scratch almost never have any idea what they're doing.
The bottom line is that even though I love embedded Linux I just don't see that there's a commercial advantage (and there is plenty of disadvantage) to letting people know it runs Linux unless being a cheap open device is one of your primary selling points. If they did their job right you will never know what OS the thing is running. The nerds will find out anyhow (see the Kindle). Only the crusaders crave the validation.
If I mail you a Red Hat CD do I have to provide the source? Or can I just point you to redhat.com? It's just an OS. It might even be a stock distro.
You have to remember how product marketting works in companies. It's not a rational process, but involves someone tabling an idea that catches the imagination of a bunch of droids who quite literally know almost nothing and aren't capable of producing anything themselves --- that's why they're in Marketting after all.
As a result, technical issues don't matter, but identifiable feature points and catchy slogans do. Factual details of Linux are totally off the agenda, while "Linux Inside" might work, and a cute penguin on the box might too. In contrast, actually talking about Linux or open source is as horrifying as talking about the voltage levels on a USB connector -- it becomes "technical" rather than just a feature point or icon on a box. It's not their world.
Give the marketeers something that matches their M.O.. A few slogans would be a good start.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
more like anal-grams, if the rumors I heard at Linux-Con 2003 were even remotely accurate.
Linux = security risk only if you are an idiot and override the installation defaults. However, Everyone KNOWS that EVERY microsoft product is a security risk, no matter HOW you install it. So much so that there is an ENTIRE INDUSTRY of software products that have grown up around protecting microsoft products. So, nice ashman you have there MS fanboi, care to erect another strawman for me to burn down?
"force them to reveal their source code"
As you say, you must offer the source for any GPLed code you ship in binary form; but this is only revealing your source if you've made changes or additions to the GPLed code. Otherwise, it is just revealing somebody else's source that you used.
do it and you get visited by the MS MiB and so do your customers.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Most slashdotters are too caught up in their own world. Typical computer users out there don't even know what an operating system is much less know about Linux. Just the word "Linux" comes across as sounding like technobabble. Just mentioning word "Linux" to these people is liable to be as big of a turnoff as would mentioning the word "religion" to a bunch of hippies in any context. All they want to hear is their music.
Either they're a GPL violator, or this information is available somewhere, in the form of full source code.
No, this strikes me as entirely a marketing-driven decision, which begs the question, who got the idea in their head that Linux would be a bad thing?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I've worked for years for a wide variety of companies who, quite often, are Linux on the backend and Windows on the desktops. True to form Developers, Sales Personnel and C level exec's see Linux as a plus, but the Marketing types don't. So often do I see this that I use it to actually tell if a persons role in a company is Marketing. I'm not using this as an anti-marketing post either. It's just what I see. Linux isn't a marketable term for them. Nor is Windows. It seems that unless the OS is the draw on the product (as in "Now with Windows 7" or "The latest Android based SmartPhone") no one is willing to mention the OS as a marketing point. Fact, yes, marketing point no. In all due honesty it seems that outside of a narrow band of consumer products (laptops/desktops or Android Phones) the underlying OS has little or no value in the marketing of a product. You don't buy an iPhone because it runs OSX you buy it because "There's an app for that". Honestly. How many of you know what OS your phone/TV/DVR etc run unless it's a DVR you built or an Android phone most wouldn't. Features sell, OS's rarely do. Heck even Jobs was loath to admit that OSX was a Unix for a long time, even so, people expect the OSX environment, but they buy MAC for a lot of reasons, little having to do with the OS itself.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
win32 apps are irrelevant.
The Window app is not irrelevant to the Windows user:
and in fifteen years or so he can accumulate quite a number of them that he likes - and won't walk away from on a whim.
The geek reminds me of the home mechanic who was last seen still tinkering under the hood - while the rest of world has gone out for a drive in the early autumn air.
I mean come on! The things you hear about Linux is and are for DEVELOPERS ONLY. Who's posting irrelevant stuff to potential end-users? I don't hear anyone complaining about assembly lines having incomplete products all dangerous-like on the line you know. All the disputes and rumors is directly from developers because they don't have little-dick-syndrome managers to bloat the overhead of development and stifle development with IP NDA's. Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA's) prevent developers of Linux from singing to the consumer quires like birds. The only reason you and I have heard ANY arguments against Linux is because it is that much more an open fence marketed by the hate from competitors to Linux. Who would've known all the nuincances as to why you shouldn't use Linux and whether they are valid? Who new? Hey, what's that? What are you doing there, msn, with that keyboard and stuff? Writing some software? Releasing it GPL? Ah that's rad. Hey, what's that guy next to you writing? A competitor? He's looking over your shoulder man, and you just let him? He's like mocking you, man, and he won't let you look over his shoulder to find some criticism on him like he does you? Man, that's unfair and wack -- oh, he's not a natural person coding some software like you. Your competitor doesn't have a free sole, man! He doesn't belong in the hobby and research room, because he's got another priority. Don't let him copyright work he hadn't done yet, because he saw what you wrote, man!
And do you remember how exactly that story has ended?
TiVo got royally fucked and we got GPL3 from that stinky bearded pedophile.
A-farking-men.
Linux -- really, the Unix family in general -- does have some security advantages over Windows. For example, lower desktop market share makes it less attractive (and, yes, that is a security advantage); a straightforward access control system makes it easier to harden; text-based config files make it easier to audit; etc.
However, security features don't matter if you don't use them. If the average idiot uses Linux, they only safety they have right now is that it's not being targeted especially actively. As soon as there are a few "useful" trojans out there, J Random User will happily enter his password at the sudo prompt to get the strip-poker game (or whatever) the malware is riding on.
This is only untrue if you have a professional administrating the machine, and disallowing stupid user tricks.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
And not just any piss; it's the foul-smelling, awful-tasting piss my dog gets when she has a UTI.
Having come from a business in the financial industry who spent years angsting over Linux, I've got a different perspective. We weren't just out to convince consumers; our potential customers weren't the ones we needed to ultimately keep happy. Our 'Do or Die' audience were the major banks, MasterCard, VISA, First Data International... And these are very risk-driven places. Not risky - if anything, risk averse - but mostly just risk-focused. In these risk-focused organisations, relative newbies like Solaris are only treated as acceptable because they come from the SunOS heritage. Their risk is somewhat well understood.
Oracle makes database software. Other people just shuffle bits around somewhat haphazardly and hope the information stays put. They understand the risks of Oracle. Moreover, they all speak the common language of Oracle Risk - they can talk between themselves with that as a baseline, and not waste tremendous time justifying.
We were looking at slashing our software budgets by hundreds of thousands of dollars (which represented well over 90% of our total OTS software budget!) by going to RHEL and MySQL. All the feasibility studies said they would still exceed our requirements, just as Solaris and Oracle did.
Result? No go. It was mentioned at the corporate level, and we got our mandate. The big banks don't rely on Linux or MySQL, and nor will we. How can they sit in the corporate box at the racing and meet the other bankers' eyes, knowing that they're on the well-known, stable Oracle, and we're just on MySQL?
The concession I eventually got was if I can find three reputable banks owning to using both Linux and MySQL, we could look at switching, and it would go from "cheap and risky" to "cutting edge". I moved on before that happened.
If all of the banks follow similar rules, it'll never happen.
The Os is irrelevant except when my safety is at stake! Therefore I like My GPS to run Linux, I do not fly on Airbus planes since Window OS is in control of the plane and can override the Pilots control inputs!! Bad Idea for both the B-2 Bomber and the Airbus that went into the drink after leaving Brazil for France!! Actually both from the same cause, bad input from the pitot tube to the computer, which then overrode the pilots!!
Oh SURE they knew they would eventually release the source. And SURE they would willingly adhere to the license terms. And people don't cheat on their spouses. And nobody cheats on their taxes. And no one ever gets sued over this kind of thing. And I'm dating Megan Fox.
Well, that's where RMS' ninjas come into it. But I told you, we don't talk about them. 8^)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
LA asthma range earwax?
A max angler wears a hat?
A hatman wears lax gear?
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
...there's nothing to see here. My 3 year old Pioneer plasma TV uses Linux and several open source libraries. The manual has the GPL text in the back. Pioneer didn't market it as a "Linux TV" - they marketed it as one of the best plasma TVs available - and that's why I bought it!
Shoutcast! Neener neener! There, said it. The other "secret" has been revealed.
Maybe they didn't want people to figure just how easy it is to roll their own?
If you know the software and the minimum hardware specs needed to run it, it might be possible to go even cheaper building your own "net radio" because the software half is essentially free.
security features don't matter if you don't use them
The difference between Linux and Windows is not in terms of security features that you do or don't use. The key difference is that Microsoft deliberately channels "not-quite-what-you-wanted-ware" to your system and those channels are used by others for putting malware on your system. The entire point of ActiveX is to put software on your computer you didn't ask for. The reason why autorun wasn't disabled when you thought it was is because MS wants to be able to automatically install software. The .Net/Silverlight system has the same idea behind is and will turn out to be a similar disaster. At the very least it will be used to inflict DRM you don't want.
No amount of astroturfing will change the fact that when you get a Linux system, you get to choose exactly what is there and exactly what isn't. Since you only choose the bits you want you don't tend to choose the bits (except flash) that are designed to automatically install malware. I'll agree that this isn't a fundamental difference between the security Linux Kernel and Windows kernel's security mechanisms. VMS, which Windows copied was certainly more secure than UNIX. However, that's a purely academic discussion. The actual Linux system you install is less likely to deliver software you don't want than the Windows system.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
I don't see any shame in saying if Linux is underneath. Chances are that if you have a set top box, router, media enabled TV, blu ray player, or some other sophisticated modern device that one or more of them is running Linux. On the other hand I don't see why consumers really care one way or the other. The only thing that matters is the frigging thing is fit for purpose.
The truth is that the rule "there is no such thing as bad marketing" simply isn't true.
As long as there are blindsighted win vs linux vs mac vs bsd vs whatever.. there will always be a loser. And if you look at it, there are a lot of "linux fan's" who take every oportunity they can get to bash microsoft / other vendors. Even in on a local news site here, there are guys who just can't help themselfs but write "windows sucks, microsoft sucks" below the "windows 7 coming out soon" article.. This is actually doing more damage then good...
So yes, people grow tired of the "super operating system".. They might even have installed one of the versions the computer magazines have added on disk, erased half of their system because they couldn't figure out the installer, don't have a clue about these "partition things".. And after a while, the will grow to dislike the "brand name" by itself.. just as many here seem to start shivering when they hear "microsoft" or "windows"...
And for that reason, it's not even all that weird that they keep their "device" on a neutral ground.. because their potential customers should not be windows, linux or other lovers.. they should be people who want to play music
When I met him he came across as a rude arrogant paranoid man with no social or hygiene skills. It didn't help that I was the only one in the room wearing a suit (came straight from work to a university programmer's society meeting). He spent most of his time on his weird comedy routine with the fake halo and robes (St iGNUtius).
I asked a simple question: "What do you say to those who suggest free software is harder to use?". This was a few years ago when rebuilding your kernel from source was the norm. His response was a dismissive "Who says that? I haven't heard that". Not like I had a lot left after his St iGNUtius rant but I lost all respect for him in that moment. I don't want him representing my point of view even on the occassions when we do agree.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The reason is too simple to me. That radio is insanely priced, presumably aimed at rich people, so they don't want their customers to know it uses Linux, a thingie for hippies,and not a product for professionals like Windows.
Or maybe advertising your use of Linux moves you from being a mere annoyance to a mortal enemy of the Redmond cabal.
:-) ... but I think a far more likely limitation would be that there is probably no version of Windows CE for the processor in the radio, i.e. Imgtec/Pure's Meta
> you get to choose exactly what is there and exactly what isn't.
You've never used Debian and apt-get, have you?
>If I mail you a Red Hat CD do I have to provide the source?
The GPLed parts yes, if you're a commercial outfit.
From GPLv2:
GPLv3 is stricter
Linux Thorvalds, ancient Viking god of computers?
On average, Linux users are smarter than Windows users. You don't want to say you use Linux?
no, I don't have a sig
Only the sources to Linux/GNU, which are already public, not the sources to your proprietary stuff which you're not even including.
Linux Thorvalds, ancient Viking god of computers?
Is he the one who fought the Midgard server?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Oh SURE ninjas have neckbeards. And SURE they wear ill fitting cheetos and sweat stained tshirts with some lame joke only malajusted social retards find humourous printed on them which barely cover their huge bloated rolls of flesh. And SURE ninjas can stand up without inflicting themselves a minor spinal injury from their twisted, hunched over posture and suffering an ashmatic attack from the exertion caused by minor bodily movement. Need I go on?
For example, lower desktop market share makes it less attractive (and, yes, that is a security advantage); a straightforward access control system makes it easier to harden; text-based config files make it easier to audit; etc.
"people can't be bothered targeting us" isn't the best security policy.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
if it's built on open source software, chances are someone will force them to reveal their source code.
i'm sorry, whose source code?
A shitty Linux admin is just as bad as a shitty Windows admin.
I'll raise you one. I would say it is worse. Unix is far more configurable and assumes that the admin knows what they are doing a lot more than windows does. Its much easier to stuff up.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
That many of you miss the point. He wasn't supposed to use Linux as a main selling point, or even a selling point at all. But he was _asked_ about the technical specs, and didn't want to name the operating system. No one would have thought twice about if he had just answered. It's not a problem to list Windows Mobile as the operating system, why should it be a problem to list Linux? Consumsers are, as many other pointed out in this thread already, not interested in what it runs underneath, but what it can do. As long as the unit works and does what it's supposed to, I don't see the harm in telling people that.
-- Linux user #369862
Linux has left a sour aftertaste in the mouths of many early adopting consumers. I know what I know: Linux is the operating system with no understanding of SYSTEMS ... and that is precisely why Apple succeeds and Microsoft dominates. How many years have people put up with holier-than-thou command-line fascists pouting about why their legendary quest fails to make a measurable difference in the real world? Leave the geek hero worship title in the server room where the sucking sycophants can knowingly chuckle whenever someone pronounces Linux like it is spelled. Mod this any way you want. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.
I'm getting tired of kdawson or timothy making it so that every random piece of flamebait or troll post from Linux Today ends up on the front page here.
We don't need to read about every orangutan in the trade press who writes that this is, or isn't the "Year of the Penguin."
We don't need to read and dissect every antagonistic screed that comes up, about whether or not Linux is "ready for the desktop," as if anyone really knows what the desktop means in objective terms, anywayz.
In other words, we don't need to endlessly debate whether or not Linux complies with the (completely subjective and arbitrary) definition of every boneheaded, meaningless buzzphrase that the droids on ZDNet or Computerworld are able to dream up.
You want copy, and you want something which is going to provoke discussion; I get that. Discussion and mindless, pointless flame wars between the FSF drones and the rest of us, however, are two completely different things.
I tried to submit an article about a Vim plugin for Firefox, (ergo, something useful and potentially beneficial to the readership) and that got rejected. I tried submitting an article about PCManFM, another potentially useful piece of software, and that got rejected too. Yet this sort of trollbait routinely gets accepted and posted as a matter of course.
Is cheap sensationalism and inter-community grudge matches under the articles, really what you want this site to consist of, Slashdot editors?
he never said it was a security policy, just an advantage. If you're less likely to be attacked, that is a small advantage. Sure, you're still not safe, but at least you're not a blanket target.
I love to slaughter the english language.
Nah. You remember what happened after that concert where Jim Morrison told the audience to take of their clothes and after the concert there was a pile of clothes left and many kids went back home completely nude?
Parents got scared. USA declared "War on the Doors". The songs of the Doors were no longer played on the radio. All their concerts were cancelled. The Rolling Stone magazine put out some articles that made fun of Jim, who eventually fleed to Paris and died.
So? This is not a conspiracy theory. US *has* the power to turn the media against "enemies". Linux is clearly an enemy since it threatens Microsoft, one of the few companies left that bring money back to old US.
Dave Cutler, Microsoft, DEC and just about everyone that has been within a mile of a VMS system would strongly disagree with you there. For "purely academic" substitute "not true", thus the security comparison is irrelevant.
When you talk about the OS you are describing the car. When I or a fucking textbook talk about the OS I am describing the engine. What you and other deluded newbies want to do is name the engine after the stereo that is installed in the car.
It's not LiGnuX (look up the first stupid renaming attempt before your time) and it's not gnu/linux, plus when you talk about the whole thing it's Ubuntu, Fedora, or whatever those that put the distribution together want to call it. I didn't do the work on the OS or the distribution so I don't get to name them either, and neither did you, and neither did RMS.
This "beige box is the hard drive and everyone who says otherwise is wrong" view of computer systems is IMHO really annoying in a forum like this with a lot of people with a technical background.
To put thing simply: the gnu people did not work on linux, just some tools that others bundle with linux, so calling it gnu/linux is an insult to those that actually put together the kernel and the software distributions.
When I at the fight club, I was accessing Usenet on my Linux device.
OK, so this trend is full of the same thing that comes along every time an article about Linux vs. mainstream gets published. They don't know or care what an operating system is. They recognize the Microsoft brand but they don't really know what Microsoft does. They get bored by technical "details". They don't want to know how things work, they just want them to work. They don't care about logical arguments, it's all about emotional perception. OK. But that begs the question I put in the subject box. What do they care about? Where's the passion in their lives? What can they be proud of? What can they do that's unique? Please don't say they care about having sex with gorgeous partners; I'm not different from them in that respect - and I'm happily married and quite satisfied in that respect, thank you. I would make this an Ask Slashdot but they don't tend to publish my questions.
I worked at a job where we exploited open source on a massive scale vs. competitors who didn't. It gave us serious advantages in time-to-market and scalability. For a long time, our use of open source as the basis for the system was essentially a trade secret. To this day, I don't discuss the details, even though the "cover" on that little operation was blown long ago. For years, I told senior management that our technological advantage would dissipate quickly if competitors did what we did. Nothing was really stopping them, other than the fact they had never fully investigated the possibilities. The average corporate IT department is hostile to OSS. The competition allowed the "preventers of information services" to hold them back. Their alternative was to spend BIG bucks to try and close the gap.
...you shount't say: shit, fuck, satan, death, sex, drugs, rape, linux
I suspect his actual point was just as he said; He doesn't like using the word Linux ON A RADIO.
This is not a slur against Linux, rather he doesn't want people to think of his radio as a computer-based appliance.
I'd like to tell my listeners about this fuckin' great product that can be used just about goddam anywhere for any shittin' purpose you cunt-heads can possibly dream up. Oh, and it runs [beeeeeeeeep].
Table-ized A.I.
# apt-get install snarblax-image-2.6.31-7-generic
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package snarblax-image-2.6.31-7-generic
# init 0
The entire point of ActiveX is to put software on your computer you didn't ask for.
Have you actually used Windows in the last, oh, 9 years or so? Did you ever see an ActiveX control on a web page in a browser install itself quietly, with no confirmation from the user, with default security settings?
(Hint: in XP and above, it actually requires 3 clicks to install a new ActiveX control - one to click on the sliding bar above the page which says "Page is trying to install ActiveX", one more in the opened dialog to answer "yes" to the question "Should this site be allowed to even ask you to install ActiveX", and then one more in another dialog to confirm that, yes, you do want this particular ActiveX control to be installed. That's for a digitally signed control - one without a signature will be rejected outright.)
But you most probably don't have any 'real world' experience. No professional who is not dealing with all kinds of people has. Therefore, you have a skewed view of the world. That is not meant as insulting or making a fool of you, it's just the way it is. Most people here on /. deal daily with people who are about as smart as they are. But only when you have to deal with, for instance, people who need unemployment money, or with patients, who come from all layers of society, can you understand the intelligence level of the average person.
And the person who needs unemployment money quite likely knows more about something (might be a trade, might be housekeeping or child care, or maybe just knows more about 1970s rock idols) than you do.
Remember: while people asking for your help seem stupid, think how you sound when you talk to your mechanic (or doctor).
I agree that people in marketing are not tech-savvy (on the average anyway). I agree that some people would never care that Linux is used in the machine, and that some (though probably very few) would even be scared away by the fact that linux is the basis of the machine. What strikes me as glaringly obvious though, is that anybody who cares whether or not their radio runs on Linux can already find out that this particular one does just that (look at the coverage it's been given here), and anyone who doesn't know, doesn't care or would shy away from the product because of it probably doesn't read things like slashdot, and would never know the difference. To me, this a perfect example of marketing genius.
Not by itself, of course not. Note how I mention several other security advantages immediately after that. But you do realize that lowering desirability of target is a key component of risk management, right?
Look, risk is "likelihood times impact". You can't really affect impact in most cases, but you can nearly always impact likelihood. Strong passwords make it less likely that someone will breach your system. Separation of duties makes it less likely that a single legitimate user will be the source of a compromise. Choosing something that requires unusual skills to attack (like a mainframe) reduces the likelihood people will even try.
And, choosing to use something that isn't worthwhile to attack reduces the likelihood that an attacker will go after you instead of someone else.
The only caveat is that, like any security decision, it can't stand on its own. You still need to practice defense in depth, you still need other security controls in place.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
My experience has been that 9 times out of ten it is an application issue over an OS issue and when an app fails like Avaya's Proprietary application it runs on linux or some app running on a linux based phone I don't want linux getting the blame.
Linux has mostly stable drivers there are a few issues here or there. Windows as much as it is dissed is not usually at fault for many issues people have with it. Let apps fail or succeed in there own right. Especially closed source apps. Stop blaming windows or linux when it is an MS Office or Firefox issue.
Why do you hate us so much? You make many people feel bad - please stop doing this. I don't complain about the many Slashdot users who think men are better than women, straight men are better than gay men, and smart people are better than the mentally disabled. Though if I had a gun I would shoot you all. Asma (using the fonetik speling) is nothing to laugh at. How would you like not being able to breathe, and suffocating (to die because you cannot get air in your lungs)? The rich and powerful have always had a set of common beliefs (a worldview) that say why they deserve to be on top, and how everyone else deserves to be ruled by them. If we think all those philosophies from past centuries and millennia are crap, why should we think the current one is true? And by the way, we will (mostly) all be dead in 100 years, so there. But seriously, you seem angry. Do you think lazy fat people are stealing your gold and your good things?
This post powered by Simple English.
No?
That is why Linux, Solaris (or any Unix for that matter) is safer since you can remove any layers of software you don't need.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Linux (and UNIX in general) makes saner assumption about security. They are OSes that were born knowing that more than one person could be using the same computer and, later on, that a computer was not an isolated entity.
These realizations came later to Redmond, who has struggled ever since to understand why certain practices are not secure.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Linux Thorvalds, ancient Viking god of computers?
Is he the one who fought the Midgard server?
Yeah - he's the one that used the Beowulf cluster to do it. :D
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Dave Cutler and his entire team were hired from DEC by Microsoft to design the NT Kernel, they would protest that the NT kernel is nothing like the VMS kernel .... but they are some respects similar simply because they were designed by the same people ...
Security however is more to do with the details ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Can you tell this to the people running that minority system Apache, they don't seem to get many exploits?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
All sorts of appliances are Linux based (many routers, network printer boxes, etc) and no one either knows or cares.
So Dave Cutler is a one trick pony?
Who are you to say this when a group of DEC lawyers couldn't?
These companies need to give credit where credit is due. The whole thing about being "scared" to mention the word "Linux" is preposterous. My personal opinion is that when I hear that a device is run by Microsoft, I instantly think it will be unstable and riddled with bugs. When I hear Linux, I think of stability, reliability, and efficiency. It's just the conception of the users, and I think these companies should look past that and give credit to Linux. They obviously chose to use Linux for a reason, so let's give it credit. http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux
If you hire a system admin, however, they should know the OS at hand or they SHOULD NOT BE HIRED. Period.
A shitty Linux admin is just as bad as a shitty Windows admin.
1) This is kind of a Catch 22, no? How does an admin get experience with $OS unless he's allowed to be in an environment that uses it? I've seen FAR better results over the years from hiring admins who demonstrate an understanding of good practices and how to address problems and find information compared to hiring admins whose resumes claim experience and meaningless certifications.
2) Linux is not an OS. It's a kernel around which several hundred >different OS's are cobbled together. You're saying that someone who knows Debian shouldn't be hired into an RHEL environment. That's needlessly limiting an already limited candidate pool.
Did you ever see an ActiveX control on a web page in a browser install itself quietly, with no confirmation from the user,[...]
Yes; I've seen that regularly, with default corporate desktops. I've also seen that with people who turn off security checks following instructions from the internet when they find that "their site doesn't work without that".
[...] with default security settings?
hmm.. as I said; not for the first time they do it, but probably the one after. However, you've completely missed the point. When ActiveX came out it installed and worked automatically. Later, when it was too late to get rid of it, but it started being exploited Microsoft enabled opt-out security and then even later opt-in. This does not take away from the fact that their original design was a disaster.
This time round, they are doing the same thing. Automatically installing .NET frameworks to firefox etc. etc. Later, when the malware community gets sufficient Silverlight experience, MS will start letting people opt out. However, by then Microsoft will have cornered the market and the the next generation of malware will have developed.
A more ethical company would make sure that you had to explicitly install .NET/Silverlight and that .NET/Silverlight applications had to be explicitly installed. Microsoft's decision to do it differently exactly mirrors their early ActiveX decisions and shows that they haven't changed ActiveX policies because they decided to protect you. They changed them because they were forced to by a high level of malware. Microsoft will only stop installing .NET in similar circumstances.
ActiveX only shows that Microsoft has learned if you completely ignore everything they have done since.
This time round, they are doing the same thing. Automatically installing .NET frameworks to firefox etc. etc.
.NET framework installs Firefox plugin automatically, just as Java runtime does for applets. However, unlike Java applets, application types enabled by .NET plugin - ClickOnce and XBAP - are not run automatically. User has to confirm if he wants them to run. Well, a slight correction - XBAP can be run automatically, but in that case it's sandboxed, with exact same limitations as a Java applet (and it's also bytecode, not native code like ActiveX, so the sandbox actually works).
A more ethical company would make sure that you had to explicitly install .NET/Silverlight and that .NET/Silverlight applications had to be explicitly installed.
Silverlight is not any more (or less) insecure than Flash - it's sandboxed just as much - and Flash doesn't ask for permission, which is part of its appeal. If Silverlight wants to compete with Flash, it has to follow suit.
Actually DEC's lawyers did manage. They got "millions of dollars" in an out-of-court settlement from Microsoft. The reason that "Dave Cutler, Microsoft, DEC and just about everyone that has been within a mile of a VMS system would strongly disagree with" me is that the terms of the settlement probably tell them pretty forcefully that they must do so.
Hell; if Microsoft just gives me 10% of what they gave DEC, I'll happily deny that there's any similarity between VMS and NT too.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
N.B. anon grandparent was me by accident. I must have clicked the post anon box 'cos I was logged in both before and after.
and Flash doesn't ask for permission, which is part of its appeal.
You'll note that I specifically excluded flash from the category of well behaved software in my original post. I don't think that "flash did it so we can too" is a good justification for MS.
and it's also bytecode, not native code like ActiveX, so the sandbox actually works).
let's come back to this discussion in a couple of years when the malware writers have had a chance to come to grips with this. In the meantime I'll just note that Java sandboxing is not nearly 100%.
User has to confirm if he wants them to run.
And this is the worst bit of all. "confirm" means a dialog comes up equivalent to "do you want the thing you just asked for to work? yes/no". The user fails to read it and, of course, says yes. The correct thing to do is to kick up an error message and just fail.
Of course; just failing is not "user friendly" in the sense that it stops something happening, however if you have a policy that 99% of the features the user need; the ones which are secure; are just already there and work without question and the other 1% just fail, the overall system is much more friendly than Microsofts 50% work / 50% ask and for 10% of those that ask you should know to say no.
The kick up a dialog that you know the user will click yes to system is only useful for companies that know they are doing something insecure but want to have 100% CYA ability to blame the user. That is evil.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Let's come back to this discussion in a couple of years when the malware writers have had a chance to come to grips with this. In the meantime I'll just note that Java sandboxing is not nearly 100%
It's not, and neither is .NET (I've personally discovered and reported a vulnerability in .NET verifier that allows to escape the minimal-privilege sandbox by hijacking the callstack, patching object vtables with arbitrary pointers, and consequently executing arbitrary code, about 2 years ago).
However, unlike ActiveX, it is at least provably possible to have a secure .NET/Java bytecode sandbox. Any existing holes are bugs, and are not fundamentally different from buffer overflow exploits in HTML parsers or JS interpreters, for example. And with new JIT-based JS engines, such as Chrome's V8, I foresee very interesting possibilities for arbitrary code execution exploits via JS. I hope you aren't proposing to introduce user prompts for HTML parsing and JS execution?
Of course; just failing is not "user friendly" in the sense that it stops something happening, however if you have a policy that 99% of the features the user need; the ones which are secure
But they are secure. Even with approval, both ClickOnce and XBAP are run in a sandbox (and see above for the discussion on that).
Now both kinds of apps can request elevation to "full trust" level, but for that they need to be signed, and the certificate has to be trusted by the user - and this is no longer a matter of clicking "Yes, just get it over with!" in a "Do you want to blah blah blah?" dialog somewhere. It will actually fail, just as you describe, and require the user to manually go into IE settings and set certificate trust level before retrying (or for his admin to deploy said certificate with desired settings via AD).
I suggest you look up what the case was about and actually compare the two things before making wild accusations about why the case was settled. It's also funny that the above poster thought the "entire VMS team" was as small as the group that Microsoft employed.
It's all on the net now, look it up. VMS was incredibly well documented and there's a lot about early NT even if you don't pay the fees for the real MS developer info.
In other words, bullshit from those that can't be bothered to find out wins again.
unlike ActiveX, it is at least provably possible
I don't think this is really the question. Since both .NET and i686 assembly are turing machine equivalent and so can emulate each other; if you can build a secure sandbox in your .NET then I can build my ActiveX emulator inside your sandbox and also be secure.
However, the practical fact is that .NET and Java are easier to control because the outside interfaces are simpler and better defined and because they will run close to full speed in a sensible interpreter.
I hope you aren't proposing to introduce user prompts for HTML parsing and JS execution?
god no.
But they are secure....[they]..are run in a sandbox (and see above for the discussion on that).
and I'll refer the honourable gentleman to the response I gave in the grandparent (let's come back to this discussion in a couple of years....)
this is no longer a matter of clicking "Yes, just get it over with!" [..] it will actually fail [..]
I agree that this is better than ActiveX, however my claim has never been otherwise. My claim is that it will be worse than without .NET. I'll now go into the bit I wanted to avoid and speculate what might cause .NET to be a security problem which is microsoft's fault.
increased, lower quality attack surface: systems with .NET will still have Java installed. Not only will we have two VMs and thus (approximately) twice the attack surface, also less time will be spent on each VM making there more holes per line of code. Microsoft should have worked with Sun, keeping with the original Sun JVM instead of trying to trick them for commercial gain. This means that we will get both traditional problems with the VMs themselves as well as badly defined and complex interactions where programmers will think that the VM should protect their sandboxed application but it won't.
stronger O/S integration the JVM was designed to be quite OS independent. I'm not sure I liked that, but it meant more ability to rely on the consistency of the functions. .Net will be more tightly integrated to the OS and will show inconsistency which will lead to security problems (e.g. you show one thing on a testing PC and a different thing on the PC of the person you want to trick). Again, this is precisely about MS being able to leverage it's Windows monopoly.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
systems with .NET will still have Java installed
Not really. I've seen plenty systems with .NET (especially now that NVidia and ATI control panels require it) and without Java. In fact, any fresh install of Vista and above is such a system (Vista has .NET 3.0 out of the box, Win7 has 3.5 SP1).
Microsoft should have worked with Sun, keeping with the original Sun JVM instead of trying to trick them for commercial gain.
There are plenty of reasons why MS went for its own VM, not the least of it is that it is not restricted to a sandbox - e.g. it has raw data and function pointers and arithmetic, unions, and other nifty things. It's possible to efficiently implement the entire ISO C++ on top of CLR (and MSVC does just that), but not so for JVM. There are other things that JVM is lacking - generics would be a fairly major point, and first-class functions ("delegates" in .NET parlance) is another. And Sun is very conservative about changing JVM, and as you recall it was MS adding delegates to their own JVM implementation that triggered Sun lawsuit against MS over it... and Sun made it perfectly clear that they do not want delegates in JVM because they're "not object oriented" (huh...) - well, many years later first-class functions are still not even in Java-the-language, much less JVM, so I guess MS was right in making their own platform so that they don't have to move with the glacial pace of Java VM evolution...
.Net will be more tightly integrated to the OS
Do you mean implementation details, or APIs exposed to .NET developers here?