Stupid, stupid, stupid (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @06:43PM EDT (#109)
I mean, can someone get any lamer than that? Oh wait. There's that client asking me why the heck does his Windows box freeze every hour. And you know what? I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. Now, IF i had the code, and IF it was readable, I might stand a chance of finding it out (MS tech support? I think they don't have the code either). So which is better? Control your OS? Or get controlled by it?
Re:Tinkering with software should be banned? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:01AM EDT (#453)
Ever read a license for proprietary software? What you get is what they feel like giving you, regardless of what you may have thought you paid for. Word has serious interoperability problems with nearly everything else, and I dispute the notion that it's more appropriate than a HTML editor for memoranda and specifications. Staff just use it because it's there, and because nobody cares the organization's information is held hostage.
Re:Linux should be shunned... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:28PM EDT (#166)
You got it backward.
Linux is the standard Unix for the new Millennium. If you are using a Unix variant that is missing Linux features, then you are out of step. Remember 1/3 of web sites are now running Linux (see Netcraft). IDC reports that 29% of all business servers are running Linux.
Linux is the future of Unix. Deal.org it, and get with the program.
Linux should be shunned... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @06:49PM EDT (#115)
...but not for that reason. I thought we were breaking away from Windows because it is so unportable? Well, what about/usr/include/linux? I don't see that on my BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, etc etc etc *NIX boxes... and how about/proc? I mean, come ON, Linux is OK and all, but those are a few of MANY issues that MUST be addressed.
Oh, and another thing, what's with no wheel group? Just because sysadmins don't want to let users su doesn't mean they're facist, it means they want to be a little bit more secure.
http://www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src has some more information why Linux should be shunned.
A valid point (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @06:58PM EDT (#127)
It is a valid point to be worried about modifications. As one post pointed out, you can change IBM mainframe/mini OS code and I've heard more than one story about people who had made modifications to the point to where a company couldn't switch to anything else because they were so reliant on the people who did that changes. For the most part these people were contractors and they wanted to keep people using thier company, but it is a valid point to concider.
If there was a mechanic who could fix your car but then your car would use non-standard gas so you could only fuel at their location would you do it? And if you brought up that point to them and they said "yeah, well the guy over there uses non-standard oil also" would that really address the point?
to defend him (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @06:59PM EDT (#132)
To defend the poort guy, It sounds like he sees Linux as a system where some guy can make a change submit it and BAM it's in the next release of Linux. Unfortunately he is wrong. If I go through and modify some Linux distribution, I'm going to have to submit it in and odds are they'll be checking my change before they add it to their distribution.
Totally unprofessional analysis (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:03PM EDT (#136)
I am a regular slashdot reader and have seen a lot of untrue crap written about Linux in the past, but this has gone a little too far.
void rant(void) {
Sorry to rant folks, but do any of you really think that this "anal-yst" dude Peter Firstbrook sounds professional at all? He is just whimpering like a little 3 yr old.
He goes on saying that nothing is undocumented, or that if something is changed it will go undocumented.
Well, I can bet you that if all vendors had documented anything and everything about their products, nobody would buy them in the first place! I wonder how many people read documents to start with...
IF somebody had found a change that was inappropriate in LINUX code, they could also change it. The whole point is that it could be changed. The source _is_ the document.
We (slash-dotters et al) all know that. And how about commercial-proprietary venders and their audience?
Go figure.
Gee, NICE PROFESSIONAL ANAL-YSIS Pete...
It scares me that people like these are ball players in society.
}
Fortuneately, I don't (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:44PM EDT (#181)
NT administration is bullshit. Just looking at my company, we have four people looking after NT boxes and it is an endless nightmare of misconfiguration and stupidity. The linux boxes I set up in my spare time required ZERO cost and no tweaking or supervision. The NT admins's solution to the I LOVE YOU VIRUS was to shut off e-mail and DNS services for a day, despite my recommendation to counsel users on not opening the questionable emails and cleaning up the machines one by one. We could have been back up in 30 minutes. Fuck that, I just pointed to another DNS server and went about my merry way. NT admins are a big cost item. CFOs should reconsider paying these fools.
everyone can tweak the code? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:33PM EDT (#172)
He is trying to give the impression that once linux is installed on your computer, the code can be altered! What horse crap! Sure programmers can modify the source code on the internet via cvs, but not on a company's system! I guess if you are a decision maker ceo big wig and you don't know the difference between binaries and source, you'd be afraid too! Of coarse you readers at/. already knew this.
No Objectivity (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @08:07PM EDT (#199)
Linux is an OS, not a religion. People who don't want to use it aren't infidels, just making a choice. This site needs to have a little perspective. A lot of people who read/. will never use Linux. Get a life.
Emmett has tunnel vision (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @08:23PM EDT (#213)
Just because Emmett doesn't like what CFO Mag has to say doesn't mean that they don't make a valid point.
Although, Linux has many pluses, it has many minuses. The fact that the code can be changed at will would give me second thoughts unless I can be sure that I'm not getting bad code.
The fix is as easy as having some kind code certification program. This program could give a certification level once certain requirements are met
Headline: Some guy sorta kinda doesn't like linux (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @09:15PM EDT (#251)
It has been confirmed that some guy, somewhere, somehow sorta kinda doesn't think Linux is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
"I dunno... I like sliced bread," exclaimed the obviously misguided soul.
"It's just ridiculous. We can't believe that John Smith here doesn't like Linux. This whole fiasco just has the Slashdot community in an uproar," said Dr. Michael Van Boogity.
"Obviously, we were shocked to learn of this crazy character that doesn't like Linux," he explained. "I mean, gimme a break..."
The contraversial opinion that sliced bread is "[better] than linux" expressed by some guy who lives, like, somewhere were enough to make front page news on slashdot.org, a popular technology news site.
"We just felt it was something that the world needed to know about," commented [whoever-the-hell-posted-this-stupid-story].
Re:people can do good or bad regardless of OS (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:14AM EDT (#461)
I don't know how many times I've heard that particular horror story--broken drives, bad media, useless config, whatever. A tape that hasn't been verified contains nothing but wishful thinking, not a real backup.
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:34AM EDT (#468)
Modularity--GNU doesn't specifically require a Linux kernel (much of it was written to support HURD) or vice versa. Competition improves design and engineering of almost anything. And one size does not fit all.
Why do people generally show such poor judgment about computers? Nobody drives a Yugo once and then decides all cars must suck because they don't steer themselves.
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @01:48AM EDT (#442)
Why blame the Linux kernel for bugs in Red Hat admin utilities? You did explain to these guys that Red Hat is neither the only nor the most robust GNU system distribution, right?
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:29AM EDT (#465)
Hmm. I guess my final sentence was a little bit inflammatory. I was referring to the generic "you", not to schlong personally. I sure don't want to get into a dick-size war with a guy named "schlong".:-)
If one uses the debugger as a substitute for carefully selected printfs, I [fwiw] see no problem with that. The point being that they are "carefully selected", through understanding the code sufficiently to have, a priori, a good hypothesis as to the problem (as opposed to casting about blindly).
As to "saving time", all I can say is that if using a debugger saves you [generic], on balance, a significant amount of time, then, by all means, keep using it.:-) But think about why it is that debugging takes up a significant amount of your time in the first place.
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @01:09AM EDT (#423)
I was surprised to read that "Linus [...] has some attitudes that most serious software engineers would regard as eccentric at best (e.g. his well-publicized disdain for debuggers)." I don't know anything about Linus' attitude toward debuggers, so, for the sake of the argument, I'll assume his disdain is similar to mine.
The debugger is the first refuge of the incompetent (with apologies to Sam Johnson). I admit it's handy to have a stack trace when your code bombs, but the notion of groveling around in the entrails, single-stepping the corpse, etc., does not comport with "serious software engineering" in my book. I can find the vast majority of my bugs by reading the code carefully, thinking about what's going on as it is being executed, and inserting a few strategically-placed "printfs" (or whatever the language provides). If you use a debugger enough to become proficient with it, then maybe you're not spending enough time up front getting your code right.
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:48AM EDT (#473)
This "bad culture" is directly related to the bad example set by Linus himself, who has some attitudes that most serious software engineers would regard as eccentric at best (e.g. his well-publicized disdain for debuggers).
System programming != application programming. That small sentence illustrates the entire difference.
Read the linux-kernel notes at linuxcare.com. His eccentricities are well-considered; when programming a kernel, you don't use 'best practices'; you use understanding. And lots of xterms, probably.
And they ignore the protection of IP. (Score:0, Troll)
by mr on Sunday August 13, @11:41PM EDT (#354)
(User #88570 Info)
I note how the author did not touch on how the GPL that Linux uses can place your IP as expressed as code so that all can see it.
I guess having the IP you base your business on, being forced to release it, doesn't matter.
why go commercial (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @01:04AM EDT (#417)
Linux shouldn't be in commercial at all. Why somebody pursuaded their boss to install a Linux server and got all the flames from his colleagues.
I think Linux will thrive in uni labs and garages, at most in some embedded systems. so, dont bother try using linux, IT managers.
Re:Emmett's comment... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:25AM EDT (#464)
Proprietary software doesn't cause bugs, but it does prevent anyone (other than the original author) from fixing them. And it prevents progress in software engineering, which I regard as a mistake all by itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupid, stupid, stupid (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @06:43PM EDT (#109)
I mean, can someone get any lamer than that? Oh wait. There's that client asking me why the heck does his Windows box freeze every hour. And you know what? I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. Now, IF i had the code, and IF it was readable, I might stand a chance of finding it out (MS tech support? I think they don't have the code either). So which is better? Control your OS? Or get controlled by it?
Re:Tinkering with software should be banned? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:01AM EDT (#453)
Ever read a license for proprietary software? What you get is what they feel like giving you, regardless of what you may have thought you paid for. Word has serious interoperability problems with nearly everything else, and I dispute the notion that it's more appropriate than a HTML editor for memoranda and specifications. Staff just use it because it's there, and because nobody cares the organization's information is held hostage.
Re:Linux should be shunned... (Score:0)
.org it, and get with the program.
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:28PM EDT (#166)
You got it backward.
Linux is the standard Unix for the new Millennium. If you are using a Unix variant that is missing Linux features, then you are out of step. Remember 1/3 of web sites are now running Linux (see Netcraft). IDC reports that 29% of all business servers are running Linux.
Linux is the future of Unix. Deal
http://www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src has some more information why Linux should be shunned.
A valid point (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @06:58PM EDT (#127)
It is a valid point to be worried about modifications. As one post pointed out, you can change IBM mainframe/mini OS code and I've heard more than one story about people who had made modifications to the point to where a company couldn't switch to anything else because they were so reliant on the people who did that changes. For the most part these people were contractors and they wanted to keep people using thier company, but it is a valid point to concider.
If there was a mechanic who could fix your car but then your car would use non-standard gas so you could only fuel at their location would you do it? And if you brought up that point to them and they said "yeah, well the guy over there uses non-standard oil also" would that really address the point?
to defend him (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @06:59PM EDT (#132)
To defend the poort guy, It sounds like he sees Linux as a system where some guy can make a change submit it and BAM it's in the next release of Linux. Unfortunately he is wrong. If I go through and modify some Linux distribution, I'm going to have to submit it in and odds are they'll be checking my change before they add it to their distribution.
Totally unprofessional analysis (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:03PM EDT (#136)
I am a regular slashdot reader and have seen a lot of untrue crap written about Linux in the past, but this has gone a little too far.
void rant(void) {
Sorry to rant folks, but do any of you really think that this "anal-yst" dude Peter Firstbrook sounds professional at all? He is just whimpering like a little 3 yr old.
He goes on saying that nothing is undocumented, or that if something is changed it will go undocumented.
Well, I can bet you that if all vendors had documented anything and everything about their products, nobody would buy them in the first place! I wonder how many people read documents to start with...
IF somebody had found a change that was inappropriate in LINUX code, they could also change it. The whole point is that it could be changed. The source _is_ the document.
We (slash-dotters et al) all know that. And how about commercial-proprietary venders and their audience?
Go figure.
Gee, NICE PROFESSIONAL ANAL-YSIS Pete...
It scares me that people like these are ball players in society.
}
Fortuneately, I don't (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:44PM EDT (#181)
NT administration is bullshit. Just looking at my company, we have four people looking after NT boxes and it is an endless nightmare of misconfiguration and stupidity. The linux boxes I set up in my spare time required ZERO cost and no tweaking or supervision. The NT admins's solution to the I LOVE YOU VIRUS was to shut off e-mail and DNS services for a day, despite my recommendation to counsel users on not opening the questionable emails and cleaning up the machines one by one. We could have been back up in 30 minutes. Fuck that, I just pointed to another DNS server and went about my merry way. NT admins are a big cost item. CFOs should reconsider paying these fools.
Re:everyone can tweak the code? (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:39PM EDT (#177)
You're an idiot. Shut up.
everyone can tweak the code? (Score:0)
/. already knew this.
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @07:33PM EDT (#172)
He is trying to give the impression that once linux is installed on your computer, the code can be altered! What horse crap! Sure programmers can modify the source code on the internet via cvs, but not on a company's system! I guess if you are a decision maker ceo big wig and you don't know the difference between binaries and source, you'd be afraid too! Of coarse you readers at
No Objectivity (Score:0)
/. will never use Linux. Get a life.
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @08:07PM EDT (#199)
Linux is an OS, not a religion. People who don't want to use it aren't infidels, just making a choice. This site needs to have a little perspective. A lot of people who read
Emmett has tunnel vision (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @08:23PM EDT (#213)
Just because Emmett doesn't like what CFO Mag has to say doesn't mean that they don't make a valid point.
Although, Linux has many pluses, it has many minuses. The fact that the code can be changed at will would give me second thoughts unless I can be sure that I'm not getting bad code.
The fix is as easy as having some kind code certification program. This program could give a certification level once certain requirements are met
forget comments... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @08:33PM EDT (#225)
how do you moderate an article -1, Flamebait?
This is what happens when you mix idiots with keyboards.
Headline: Some guy sorta kinda doesn't like linux (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13, @09:15PM EDT (#251)
It has been confirmed that some guy, somewhere, somehow sorta kinda doesn't think Linux is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
"I dunno... I like sliced bread," exclaimed the obviously misguided soul.
"It's just ridiculous. We can't believe that John Smith here doesn't like Linux. This whole fiasco just has the Slashdot community in an uproar," said Dr. Michael Van Boogity.
"Obviously, we were shocked to learn of this crazy character that doesn't like Linux," he explained. "I mean, gimme a break..."
The contraversial opinion that sliced bread is "[better] than linux" expressed by some guy who lives, like, somewhere were enough to make front page news on slashdot.org, a popular technology news site.
"We just felt it was something that the world needed to know about," commented [whoever-the-hell-posted-this-stupid-story].
phrost@happybox.nu
Re:people can do good or bad regardless of OS (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:14AM EDT (#461)
I don't know how many times I've heard that particular horror story--broken drives, bad media, useless config, whatever. A tape that hasn't been verified contains nothing but wishful thinking, not a real backup.
thier is a funny word.
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:34AM EDT (#468)
Modularity--GNU doesn't specifically require a Linux kernel (much of it was written to support HURD) or vice versa. Competition improves design and engineering of almost anything. And one size does not fit all.
Why do people generally show such poor judgment about computers? Nobody drives a Yugo once and then decides all cars must suck because they don't steer themselves.
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @01:48AM EDT (#442)
Why blame the Linux kernel for bugs in Red Hat admin utilities? You did explain to these guys that Red Hat is neither the only nor the most robust GNU system distribution, right?
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
:-)
:-) But think about why it is that debugging takes up a significant amount of your time in the first place.
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:29AM EDT (#465)
Hmm. I guess my final sentence was a little bit inflammatory. I was referring to the generic "you", not to schlong personally. I sure don't want to get into a dick-size war with a guy named "schlong".
If one uses the debugger as a substitute for carefully selected printfs, I [fwiw] see no problem with that. The point being that they are "carefully selected", through understanding the code sufficiently to have, a priori, a good hypothesis as to the problem (as opposed to casting about blindly).
As to "saving time", all I can say is that if using a debugger saves you [generic], on balance, a significant amount of time, then, by all means, keep using it.
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @01:09AM EDT (#423)
I was surprised to read that "Linus [...] has some attitudes that most serious software engineers would regard as eccentric at best (e.g. his well-publicized disdain for debuggers)." I don't know anything about Linus' attitude toward debuggers, so, for the sake of the argument, I'll assume his disdain is similar to mine.
The debugger is the first refuge of the incompetent (with apologies to Sam Johnson). I admit it's handy to have a stack trace when your code bombs, but the notion of groveling around in the entrails, single-stepping the corpse, etc., does not comport with "serious software engineering" in my book. I can find the vast majority of my bugs by reading the code carefully, thinking about what's going on as it is being executed, and inserting a few strategically-placed "printfs" (or whatever the language provides). If you use a debugger enough to become proficient with it, then maybe you're not spending enough time up front getting your code right.
Re:A grain of truth (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:48AM EDT (#473)
This "bad culture" is directly related to the bad example set by Linus himself, who has some attitudes that most serious software engineers would regard as eccentric at best (e.g. his well-publicized disdain for debuggers).
System programming != application programming. That small sentence illustrates the entire difference.
Read the linux-kernel notes at linuxcare.com. His eccentricities are well-considered; when programming a kernel, you don't use 'best practices'; you use understanding. And lots of xterms, probably.
And they ignore the protection of IP. (Score:0, Troll)
by mr on Sunday August 13, @11:41PM EDT (#354)
(User #88570 Info)
I note how the author did not touch on how the GPL that Linux uses can place your IP as expressed as code so that all can see it.
I guess having the IP you base your business on, being forced to release it, doesn't matter.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
why go commercial (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @01:04AM EDT (#417)
Linux shouldn't be in commercial at all. Why somebody pursuaded their boss to install a Linux server and got all the flames from his colleagues.
I think Linux will thrive in uni labs and garages, at most in some embedded systems. so, dont bother try using linux, IT managers.
Re:Emmett's comment... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, @02:25AM EDT (#464)
Proprietary software doesn't cause bugs, but it does prevent anyone (other than the original author) from fixing them. And it prevents progress in software engineering, which I regard as a mistake all by itself.