Now terrorists will know that they can get away with taking bombs in if they put the bombs under the shirt! We'll never be safe until anyone with apparent breasts is required to show them before entering an airport. I have to take my shoes off already, I say its only reasonable to have to take my shirt off to prove my man-boobs aren't explosive devices as well and of course everybody with apparent boobs should have to prove that they actually are breasts. Any that seem especially full should be patted down to ensure they don't contain any surgically implanted electronics or detonators.
My only concern is that this may lead to other suspicious bulges, fortunately I doubt I'll ever be noticed for such a thing. Also, as one of the men who instantly saw the need for this type of security, I volunteer to help keep airports safe by providing random screening services.
Disclaimer: Intentionally moronic, most of the time.
Yup, but I still had to do it for several programs and interfaces built on top of them. I blame it on the UI, but it could be due to inline scripted replacement cowardice as well.
I think that for the purposes of the discussions on a singularity, we must assume that the change is one in which the capabilities are beyond our own, perhaps beyond what we can conceive. We can imagine computers that are self aware, or computers that can predict the future, or computers which can feel emotion, but we cannot build them. Someday, however, we might manage to build someting like that. Whatever we manage, lets say a rat brain hooked into a supercomputer bot-net type system with a robot body, it is almost a certainty that we will intentionally create it and at least initially have control over how it develops. If it can carry on conversations, and interact with the world and have ideas that we don't, then I think we'll call it intelligent. If it happens to be better at making predictions or plans than we are, then I think we'll consider it the singularity, whether it really is or not.
So lets assume everyone agrees it is intelligent, by whatever defination, and focus on possibilities for the singularity and try to come up with meaningful ideas regarding the individual possibilities shall we? I'll throw out a couple of my own thoughts here:
The singularity is:
Machine based only
Can it feel?
Does it have the ability to reproduce?
Does it have a self preservation drive?
Can we create something where we cannot understand exactly how it works?
Organic but machine enhanced
Will it be based on humans?
Will it have the ability to interact with the world physically?
Should it have the option to talk to people outside of carefully structured conversations?
If it is based on a human, is it still a person?
Organic but designed
Could we ever genetically design smarter or more capable humans?
Should we develop better people, and what makes up 'better'?
What if it isn't human, say simian based, but is able to converse, conceive and predict better than we can, and exhibits the traits we consider human, does that make it human?
Of course, I don't claim to be one of the great minds on the subject, so I wonder what those who meet that criteria are mulling over.
That all depends on what the singularity actually is. Many posts here seem fixated on the idea of a super artificial intelligence that replaces the need for human ability, but the article specifically references augmentation as an alternative to replacement:
such as Artificial Intelligence and brain-computer interfaces
Take a genetically engineered human, or group of humans, specifically designed to take advantage of vast specialized computing resources from birth. Certiainly there are many ways to do it, and this is only a guess, but lets take it as the base of a hypothetical that the children have neurons absent from possible present phisology that allow connetion to interfaces which make it possible for them to communicate with a botnet/google/AI mega-system from birth with specialized programming which "learns" their types of interaction. Babies who are hungry can convey their desire before even being able to formulate the words or possessing the self awareness to know that they need to use words to communicate. These children learn to communicate with each other long before they can communicate directly with the outside world, simply because it is possible for a computer program to do much of the learning for them. The software could help them develop characteristics that parents find desirable and discourage the undesirable. You end up with a group of humans, a society in fact, that is the singularity, meeting the defination because, unencumbered by many traditional requirements for communication and understanding, they are able to use the tools we clumsily interface with in ways that we cannot actually conceive of in our present models. Certainly, as any society of super geniuses would, they could be expected to concieve of and create things which we cannot.
Taking this scenario, which is at the edge of what might someday be possible in the foreseeable future, the questions become about how they will view us and what will happen to us unaugmented humans. Ultimately, I suspect the human race as we know it would be supplanted, not out of a desire to replace them, but out of a desire to help them. Just as mothers now take prenatal vitamens, they would view their supplantion as loving nurturing, rather than a competitive challenge. Doubtless there would be many who objected, but eventually they would become like the parents who refuse immunications today, viewed by most of society as misguided and ignorant. (I won't pass judgement myself, I don't believe I have enough information to be sure.)
Now the questions:
What would be the steps that need to be taken in order for it to be possible?
If we develop the technology to make it possible, should we do it?
If we do it, how can we ensure the benevolence of our children?
So what would a society of super-geniuses with virtually unlimited data access, calculation tools and practical technology based telepathy do? I don't know, I can't even get my spell checker to work. Seriously, the point of a singularity is that we cannot conceive of the capabilities it would have.
I probably took an hour the other day going through and pounding the L everywhere I put fufill where I meant fulfill. *sigh* Same way every blasted time! (I can't seem to hit the Q lately either.)
If I want a static IP, I pay more. If I want more bandwidth, I pay more. If I want to run a mail server, you guessed it, I pay more. I think the solution is simple for ISPs if they're not too chicken to try it. Offer a premium "file monster" service for an extra $5/month. Don't phrase it that way of course, just roll out the usual price increases and a couple months later offer a "$5 discounted, non-p2p" service.
I almost feel dirty for posting this, but somebody else has already thought of it who didn't post to/. and seeing it here will make it sound familiar when they start doing it. Doubtless this will come as some vague fine print like ISP reserves the right to terminate disruptive traffic buried at the back of a bill.
As much as I hate to agree with the gp, there is a valid point there, even if calling prosecution of drunk driving modern prohibition is absurd. The valid point is that there are plenty of things that make drivers unsafe and the tests to determine competency are arbitrary. Blood alcohol content doesn't measure competency, it just measures a risk factor, of which there are many including age, rest and mood which are ignored. On any given day, despite the fact that I don't ever drive drunk, there is some reason to question my competency. It might be my eyesight or my mood, or just that I'm giving half of my conscious attention to a programming problem, but the issue is that my focus is rarely completely solely on the task of driving my car. Certainly the level varies between those times when I'm in heavy traffic and the times when I'm alone on the road, but I think it is fair to question whether our society's emphasis on one risk factor is a realistic reflection of the true dangers of the road.
I'm sorry to say that I don't really have a better solution than the standard of hoping that the watchful eyes of law enforcement will pick up on those who endanger the lives of others in the road, at least not a socially acceptable one. If I'm getting to make free suggestions though, I recommend that persons who have exhibited stability, sanity and a tendency to be the safest drivers be issued a permit to shoot up to one bad driver a year. Should such an absurdity come to pass, I just hope that I'm one of the gun toting vigalities rather than one of the careless and dead. Come to think of it, I'd probably get a job where I could use public transportation or bicycle to work if I had to take the risk, so it would be good for the environment too. See, guns do make things better!
Posting from Texas, the only state where "he needed killin" might convince a jury.
I usually use text based torrent clients to download distro isos, but occasionally I'll be using a system where the configuration and setup would be more trouble than firing up a limewire or frostwire app. When asked to scan the drive I always choose 'No' but what if I missed that click one time? What then of all my legally stored music? If I leave my car unlocked with a case of beer, it doesn't mean I'm contributing to the delinquency of minors. Sharing would seem to indicate that there must be demonstrated intent. To say otherwise is to say that you are responsible for locking up well enough to meet someone else's standards or else you're a thief yourself.
I think that is what bothers me most about this debate. You have people arguing that breaking the law should be okay and you have people saying that everyone who doesn't like the system is a lawbreaker. I think that there is a middle ground on this. Don't steal. Don't accuse people of stealing unless you can actually prove they are stealing, and no, accidentally sharing isn't stealing.
Okay, so you don't care for this policy. It makes you irritable, but of course you don't want to show it, so all that gets past is micro-expressions. Naturally, that is exactly what they are looking for, and you probably will spill the beans during interrogation, but I doubt they'll believe you.
As for me, I couldn't care less, and actually think this is a good thing. I doubt it will really lead to many false positives and will hopefully be seen as part of a larger policy which will make it easier in general to get through the airport. So while you're sweating in an interrogation room, I'll be breezing through, flip-flops and all. Have fun.
What the article should have mentioned
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1
I was disappointed in the article as well. I expected more security in general and less distro/package specific advice.
I know enough about security to know I'm no expert but here are some of my personal tips:
Install a hardened distribution instead of hardening one yourself if you have the option. Gentoo Hardened, Annvix and Trustix spring to mind. All are designed to be secure from the outset. For that matter, OpenBSD is a good option for a hardened server if you're not bent on using Linux. See: http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Secure/
Don't install anything you don't need. Default installs from major distros include a lot of stuff you probably don't need. If you're setting up a server that needs to be secure, then doing a custom installation with only the minimum you need installed is probably far better than trying to go back later and pick and choose what you remove. A minimal RHEL install for example comes in at around 700MB. Annvix is around 300MB and it's been a while since I used Trustix, but I'm sure it was under 1G and I think it was under 500MB.
Worry more about what is running than closing ports. Yes, a good firewall configuration is wise, but the main issue should be making sure that your system is doing only what you want which will result in only the ports you intend to be open being open. I haven't used Ubuntu in a bit, but I recall being surprised that it didn't firewall by default and instead relied on not having any listening services by default.
Really use a good package manager. If you install software without it then it makes auditing your server much more difficult.
I'd like to see more done with WORM media. If you have a small server install you can probably back the entire thing up to a single CD and put an md5 (or sha or both) on it. Then you can reinstall it at the drop of a hat and just do updates when it is re-applied.
If you are using a distro that supports it (like RHEL) then learn a little about SELinux. It does tremendous things to make sure that software can only do what it is supposed to. Yes, like many other security approaches it takes a little more work, but it goes a long way toward turning Linux into seriously secure software.
Slashdotters should be able to add quite a bit, in fact hopefully this will turn out to be a discussion I reference later myself.
You have a point, the jerkoff anti-MS zelots seem very ridiculous. That said, there are plenty of "Windows rulz" zelots that seem just as ridiculous. Still though, that's criticizing the communities, not the software or companies. The companies are made up of far too many individuals and there is far too much history for me to offer insight. There are plenty of programs too, but the article was about Microsoft and Linux. Lets zoom in on them for a moment shall we?
I'm an IT professional, and I install and administer Windows servers, mostly 2003, but some 2000 and two NTs in there for good measure. (This week maybe down to one? Here's hoping.)
I also administer Linux servers, and though they weren't mentioned in the article, I must include Unix servers. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about any of them, but I know enough to guide the buying decisions for a pretty good size financial company. Our organization uses DB2, MySQL and MS SQL. We use PHP, Perl, and some older and more arcane stuff as well. We use software from SUN, IBM, EMC, Microsoft and a host of other big names plus a good handful of companies you have hopefully never heard of. Each has its place, strengths and weaknesses. I'd say I'm in a position to be fair minded in comparing them.
We pay a lot for Windows and MS SQL and do functionally the same sorts of things with Red Hat and MySQL. The support is about the same quality from either, but the price is a heck of a lot different and Windows servers take a LOT more babysitting. Unix? Well we pay outrageous amounts for it and more for maintenance and support than I get paid, but it does things for us that would be a nightmare to replicate with Windows and merely terribly, terribly difficult with Linux. Our developers tend to prefer Linux but they use Windows as well and there again, Linux wins in the amount of time and money it takes to manage.
If I had to make a generalization I'd say:
All other things being equal, go with Linux and for mission critical stuff, buy it with support
Go with Windows if you need to hire inexperienced developers for software with a short life-cycle. (If it's long term, you won't save money with inexperienced developers and if you have experienced developers then trust them to tell you what OS they need.)
Go with Unix if you are willing to spend like a drunken sailor with somebody else's wallet. If money is no object, then pay the big bucks and you can get the finest, best supported and most stable systems available. HP-UX, Solaris, AS400 and AIX systems with enough money thrown at them are unbeatable. (I would have said SCO but the future looks ugly, and besides, they are evil.)
If your work is something that won't change much for ten year spans and you can afford good people, go with BSD. If you can support it and do the development right, you can get the same out of it you would a hard core Unix system, but at a fraction of the support cost. It will mean that your support will probably need to come primarily from in house though instead of just paying off the Unix guys.
The problem you will face with any OS choice is a trade off, with good reason. Those that don't have something going for them are unavailable. Windows comes with serious management time and moderately icky pricing, Linux with an unreasonably high quotient of community jerks and Unix with ugly price tags. (Never tried running Apple servers so I can't say one way or the other there, but the desktops are nice. Yes, I have supported the desktops.)
Bottom line: There is no need to be rabidly for or against any OS and that part of TFA makes sense.
Disclaimer: There are exceptions to everything, and if you're doing something like clustering or database development, you should ignore everything here and better know enough not to look to a slashdot post for guidance. If your shop needs Apple, and you've got the expertise, go for it. If you're selling mini-servers with Xenix (don't laugh, it was only a c
I think I said this before Novell partnered with MS, and it made me twitch when that happened, but I'll bring it up again anyway.
Yes, MS sells the heck out of software, even bad software. Several companies out there turn out good versions of Linux (take your pick of Debian, SUSE, Red Hat, Gentoo, Ubuntu or whatever your personal pet distro happens to be.) MS is good at picking up other companies work and selling it as their own, and obviously it works with Linux (see Oracle.)
Microsoft should sell Linux! They can take anything they like, add stuff to it, add in non-oss software to their distro and brand it as MS Snowball Linux. It would sell. Not only would it sell but it would let them leach off of the work of other companies legally. It would let them contribute to the open source community which in turn should improve competition and nobody, but nobody could manage integration with existing Windows networks like MS could.
And that snowball? No, I don't think it has much of a chance.
I respect their software somewhat. I use Outlook, Word and Excel at work. They work about as well as I expect them to, but then the bar isn't really that high. I'll respect Windows when being Administrator is only necessary when I really need to administer the OS, when they replace the registry with something coherent and reliable, when they adopt a decent filesystem (ext3, xfs, jfs or zfs spring to mind, but maybe WinFS will work,) and when I can set up a server and leave it the heck alone for 60 days without worrying that I've got a dozen serious unpatched vulnerabilities. And don't give me that auto-update crap either unless you found some way to use it without going in some morning to find out that your critical systems mysteriously stopped working.
I'd say that there are three important issues that are overlooked from this perspective.
You get what you pay for - It comes with the computer at no additional cost, but has cost otherwise - for your average consumer this is a point in favor of getting Windows with their new computer. In the common marketplace when you have to pay for something it actually has more value than something that you can get for free. To your average inexperienced computer user that means that getting Windows with their computer is a better value than getting it with Linux. If they had to pay more for Ubuntu with the new desktop by $10, you might actually see more sales of Ubuntu Dells.
The bandwagon effect - If everybody else is using something, there must be a good reason. Typically I'm not a crowd follower but most people are. In some circumstances it is even a good idea to follow the crowd. If I'm comparing two similar software products and don't have a good reason to choose one over the other based on software alone or support, I'll probably go with the more used product because there is a good chance I can find forum comments and people to chat with if I need help. It works in traffic too. If everybody seems to be stopping and people are trying hard to get to an exit, then I will try to do the same even if I don't know what is ahead because there is a good chance those people exiting know something I don't.
Rebels and hackers use Linux - This is probably the most overlooked issue for Linux desktop adoption. Hackers use Linux because they can do what they want with it and if you hear about hackers in the news using Linux it makes it seem like something people use for evil more than they do for good. Sure, the news website you visit may be using Apache on SUSE and written by a journalist using Red Hat, but that isn't the headline. The Linux community also has a comparably high percentage of rebels because rebels want to be different and Linux gives them a way to do that. This means that there are far more sarcastic, critical and cynical users of Linux in the same size pool than there would be Windows users. The common man is influenced by this perception so much that most of the people I know who aren't Linux users, but know what it is, see it as just a thing that is used by the kind of people they don't want to be like. They would accept that Linux appreciation is "naive sophomoric you-don't-know-what's-good-for-you crap, with some vague utopian anti-corporate sentiment thrown in," without further consideration.
Microsoft doesn't have to do anything at all to be seen as the preferable OS due to these factors to the majority of buyers, but they spend a good deal on marketing their software anyway. They have the cash to spend and typically Linux doesn't so the misconceptions are unlikely to fade away. I'm actually happy about the Novell deal, though guardedly so, because for a lot of people it will legitimize the Linux PC as an alternative for smart people rather than something for misfits and eggheads.
As for me, I use Linux, BSD, Windows and Unix. I accept the strengths and weaknesses of each. I call myself a Linux user because it is what I use on my PC when I have a choice and I prefer to administer Linux servers. It isn't because Linux is innately better for everything, but because on my PC it is easier to customize to my taste. I use it on servers that are providing web services because they are easy to keep secure while still being easy to configure and work on. I use BSD where I have no need to regularly make changes or very limited resources, Unix on those systems that need enterprise level stability, security, and support, and Windows where I need software that won't work on anything else.
Do I respect MS software? Sure, I appreciate that their software does what I expect it to as well as I expect it to most of the time. The bar isn't that high. It's not worth the price tag to me most of the time, so I don't advocate it. Do I respect MS support? Yes, their support is p
Slashdot Mirror
Now where is my towel?
All I can find is this ugly thing I think I got from my aunt. I don't know what it is. hand the thing to reader
Now terrorists will know that they can get away with taking bombs in if they put the bombs under the shirt! We'll never be safe until anyone with apparent breasts is required to show them before entering an airport. I have to take my shoes off already, I say its only reasonable to have to take my shirt off to prove my man-boobs aren't explosive devices as well and of course everybody with apparent boobs should have to prove that they actually are breasts. Any that seem especially full should be patted down to ensure they don't contain any surgically implanted electronics or detonators.
My only concern is that this may lead to other suspicious bulges, fortunately I doubt I'll ever be noticed for such a thing. Also, as one of the men who instantly saw the need for this type of security, I volunteer to help keep airports safe by providing random screening services.
Disclaimer: Intentionally moronic, most of the time.
Yup, but I still had to do it for several programs and interfaces built on top of them. I blame it on the UI, but it could be due to inline scripted replacement cowardice as well.
I think that for the purposes of the discussions on a singularity, we must assume that the change is one in which the capabilities are beyond our own, perhaps beyond what we can conceive. We can imagine computers that are self aware, or computers that can predict the future, or computers which can feel emotion, but we cannot build them. Someday, however, we might manage to build someting like that. Whatever we manage, lets say a rat brain hooked into a supercomputer bot-net type system with a robot body, it is almost a certainty that we will intentionally create it and at least initially have control over how it develops. If it can carry on conversations, and interact with the world and have ideas that we don't, then I think we'll call it intelligent. If it happens to be better at making predictions or plans than we are, then I think we'll consider it the singularity, whether it really is or not.
So lets assume everyone agrees it is intelligent, by whatever defination, and focus on possibilities for the singularity and try to come up with meaningful ideas regarding the individual possibilities shall we? I'll throw out a couple of my own thoughts here:
The singularity is:
Of course, I don't claim to be one of the great minds on the subject, so I wonder what those who meet that criteria are mulling over.
That all depends on what the singularity actually is. Many posts here seem fixated on the idea of a super artificial intelligence that replaces the need for human ability, but the article specifically references augmentation as an alternative to replacement:
Take a genetically engineered human, or group of humans, specifically designed to take advantage of vast specialized computing resources from birth. Certiainly there are many ways to do it, and this is only a guess, but lets take it as the base of a hypothetical that the children have neurons absent from possible present phisology that allow connetion to interfaces which make it possible for them to communicate with a botnet/google/AI mega-system from birth with specialized programming which "learns" their types of interaction. Babies who are hungry can convey their desire before even being able to formulate the words or possessing the self awareness to know that they need to use words to communicate. These children learn to communicate with each other long before they can communicate directly with the outside world, simply because it is possible for a computer program to do much of the learning for them. The software could help them develop characteristics that parents find desirable and discourage the undesirable. You end up with a group of humans, a society in fact, that is the singularity, meeting the defination because, unencumbered by many traditional requirements for communication and understanding, they are able to use the tools we clumsily interface with in ways that we cannot actually conceive of in our present models. Certainly, as any society of super geniuses would, they could be expected to concieve of and create things which we cannot.
Taking this scenario, which is at the edge of what might someday be possible in the foreseeable future, the questions become about how they will view us and what will happen to us unaugmented humans. Ultimately, I suspect the human race as we know it would be supplanted, not out of a desire to replace them, but out of a desire to help them. Just as mothers now take prenatal vitamens, they would view their supplantion as loving nurturing, rather than a competitive challenge. Doubtless there would be many who objected, but eventually they would become like the parents who refuse immunications today, viewed by most of society as misguided and ignorant. (I won't pass judgement myself, I don't believe I have enough information to be sure.)
Now the questions:So what would a society of super-geniuses with virtually unlimited data access, calculation tools and practical technology based telepathy do? I don't know, I can't even get my spell checker to work. Seriously, the point of a singularity is that we cannot conceive of the capabilities it would have.
I probably took an hour the other day going through and pounding the L everywhere I put fufill where I meant fulfill. *sigh* Same way every blasted time! (I can't seem to hit the Q lately either.)
You don't go to hell for posting stuff, you go to hell for postings that disagree with mine!
Standard disclaimer: Yes, I firmly believe God has a sense of humor, at least I firmly hope so.
If I want a static IP, I pay more. If I want more bandwidth, I pay more. If I want to run a mail server, you guessed it, I pay more. I think the solution is simple for ISPs if they're not too chicken to try it. Offer a premium "file monster" service for an extra $5/month. Don't phrase it that way of course, just roll out the usual price increases and a couple months later offer a "$5 discounted, non-p2p" service.
I almost feel dirty for posting this, but somebody else has already thought of it who didn't post to /. and seeing it here will make it sound familiar when they start doing it. Doubtless this will come as some vague fine print like ISP reserves the right to terminate disruptive traffic buried at the back of a bill.
As much as I hate to agree with the gp, there is a valid point there, even if calling prosecution of drunk driving modern prohibition is absurd. The valid point is that there are plenty of things that make drivers unsafe and the tests to determine competency are arbitrary. Blood alcohol content doesn't measure competency, it just measures a risk factor, of which there are many including age, rest and mood which are ignored. On any given day, despite the fact that I don't ever drive drunk, there is some reason to question my competency. It might be my eyesight or my mood, or just that I'm giving half of my conscious attention to a programming problem, but the issue is that my focus is rarely completely solely on the task of driving my car. Certainly the level varies between those times when I'm in heavy traffic and the times when I'm alone on the road, but I think it is fair to question whether our society's emphasis on one risk factor is a realistic reflection of the true dangers of the road.
I'm sorry to say that I don't really have a better solution than the standard of hoping that the watchful eyes of law enforcement will pick up on those who endanger the lives of others in the road, at least not a socially acceptable one. If I'm getting to make free suggestions though, I recommend that persons who have exhibited stability, sanity and a tendency to be the safest drivers be issued a permit to shoot up to one bad driver a year. Should such an absurdity come to pass, I just hope that I'm one of the gun toting vigalities rather than one of the careless and dead. Come to think of it, I'd probably get a job where I could use public transportation or bicycle to work if I had to take the risk, so it would be good for the environment too. See, guns do make things better!
Posting from Texas, the only state where "he needed killin" might convince a jury.
I usually use text based torrent clients to download distro isos, but occasionally I'll be using a system where the configuration and setup would be more trouble than firing up a limewire or frostwire app. When asked to scan the drive I always choose 'No' but what if I missed that click one time? What then of all my legally stored music? If I leave my car unlocked with a case of beer, it doesn't mean I'm contributing to the delinquency of minors. Sharing would seem to indicate that there must be demonstrated intent. To say otherwise is to say that you are responsible for locking up well enough to meet someone else's standards or else you're a thief yourself.
I think that is what bothers me most about this debate. You have people arguing that breaking the law should be okay and you have people saying that everyone who doesn't like the system is a lawbreaker. I think that there is a middle ground on this. Don't steal. Don't accuse people of stealing unless you can actually prove they are stealing, and no, accidentally sharing isn't stealing.
Freaking brilliant! Everybody wins!
Okay, so you don't care for this policy. It makes you irritable, but of course you don't want to show it, so all that gets past is micro-expressions. Naturally, that is exactly what they are looking for, and you probably will spill the beans during interrogation, but I doubt they'll believe you.
As for me, I couldn't care less, and actually think this is a good thing. I doubt it will really lead to many false positives and will hopefully be seen as part of a larger policy which will make it easier in general to get through the airport. So while you're sweating in an interrogation room, I'll be breezing through, flip-flops and all. Have fun.
I was disappointed in the article as well. I expected more security in general and less distro/package specific advice.
I know enough about security to know I'm no expert but here are some of my personal tips:
Slashdotters should be able to add quite a bit, in fact hopefully this will turn out to be a discussion I reference later myself.
You have a point, the jerkoff anti-MS zelots seem very ridiculous. That said, there are plenty of "Windows rulz" zelots that seem just as ridiculous. Still though, that's criticizing the communities, not the software or companies. The companies are made up of far too many individuals and there is far too much history for me to offer insight. There are plenty of programs too, but the article was about Microsoft and Linux. Lets zoom in on them for a moment shall we?
I'm an IT professional, and I install and administer Windows servers, mostly 2003, but some 2000 and two NTs in there for good measure. (This week maybe down to one? Here's hoping.)
I also administer Linux servers, and though they weren't mentioned in the article, I must include Unix servers. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about any of them, but I know enough to guide the buying decisions for a pretty good size financial company. Our organization uses DB2, MySQL and MS SQL. We use PHP, Perl, and some older and more arcane stuff as well. We use software from SUN, IBM, EMC, Microsoft and a host of other big names plus a good handful of companies you have hopefully never heard of. Each has its place, strengths and weaknesses. I'd say I'm in a position to be fair minded in comparing them.
We pay a lot for Windows and MS SQL and do functionally the same sorts of things with Red Hat and MySQL. The support is about the same quality from either, but the price is a heck of a lot different and Windows servers take a LOT more babysitting. Unix? Well we pay outrageous amounts for it and more for maintenance and support than I get paid, but it does things for us that would be a nightmare to replicate with Windows and merely terribly, terribly difficult with Linux. Our developers tend to prefer Linux but they use Windows as well and there again, Linux wins in the amount of time and money it takes to manage.
If I had to make a generalization I'd say:
The problem you will face with any OS choice is a trade off, with good reason. Those that don't have something going for them are unavailable. Windows comes with serious management time and moderately icky pricing, Linux with an unreasonably high quotient of community jerks and Unix with ugly price tags. (Never tried running Apple servers so I can't say one way or the other there, but the desktops are nice. Yes, I have supported the desktops.)
Bottom line: There is no need to be rabidly for or against any OS and that part of TFA makes sense.
Disclaimer: There are exceptions to everything, and if you're doing something like clustering or database development, you should ignore everything here and better know enough not to look to a slashdot post for guidance. If your shop needs Apple, and you've got the expertise, go for it. If you're selling mini-servers with Xenix (don't laugh, it was only a c
I think I said this before Novell partnered with MS, and it made me twitch when that happened, but I'll bring it up again anyway.
Yes, MS sells the heck out of software, even bad software. Several companies out there turn out good versions of Linux (take your pick of Debian, SUSE, Red Hat, Gentoo, Ubuntu or whatever your personal pet distro happens to be.) MS is good at picking up other companies work and selling it as their own, and obviously it works with Linux (see Oracle.)
Microsoft should sell Linux! They can take anything they like, add stuff to it, add in non-oss software to their distro and brand it as MS Snowball Linux. It would sell. Not only would it sell but it would let them leach off of the work of other companies legally. It would let them contribute to the open source community which in turn should improve competition and nobody, but nobody could manage integration with existing Windows networks like MS could.
And that snowball? No, I don't think it has much of a chance.
I respect their software somewhat. I use Outlook, Word and Excel at work. They work about as well as I expect them to, but then the bar isn't really that high. I'll respect Windows when being Administrator is only necessary when I really need to administer the OS, when they replace the registry with something coherent and reliable, when they adopt a decent filesystem (ext3, xfs, jfs or zfs spring to mind, but maybe WinFS will work,) and when I can set up a server and leave it the heck alone for 60 days without worrying that I've got a dozen serious unpatched vulnerabilities. And don't give me that auto-update crap either unless you found some way to use it without going in some morning to find out that your critical systems mysteriously stopped working.
I'd say that there are three important issues that are overlooked from this perspective.
Microsoft doesn't have to do anything at all to be seen as the preferable OS due to these factors to the majority of buyers, but they spend a good deal on marketing their software anyway. They have the cash to spend and typically Linux doesn't so the misconceptions are unlikely to fade away. I'm actually happy about the Novell deal, though guardedly so, because for a lot of people it will legitimize the Linux PC as an alternative for smart people rather than something for misfits and eggheads.
As for me, I use Linux, BSD, Windows and Unix. I accept the strengths and weaknesses of each. I call myself a Linux user because it is what I use on my PC when I have a choice and I prefer to administer Linux servers. It isn't because Linux is innately better for everything, but because on my PC it is easier to customize to my taste. I use it on servers that are providing web services because they are easy to keep secure while still being easy to configure and work on. I use BSD where I have no need to regularly make changes or very limited resources, Unix on those systems that need enterprise level stability, security, and support, and Windows where I need software that won't work on anything else.
Do I respect MS software? Sure, I appreciate that their software does what I expect it to as well as I expect it to most of the time. The bar isn't that high. It's not worth the price tag to me most of the time, so I don't advocate it. Do I respect MS support? Yes, their support is p