Which is quite interesting. One of the first things I tend to do with a *nix install is replace the provided utilities with GNU versions. I usually prefer the GNU version. I suspect anything coming from SCO's code base is a down-grade.
From another angle - expect this to be fertile ground for FUD. I've always found it amusing how much Microsoft likes to claim the GPL is dangerous while providing a product (SFU) full of GPL'd utilities. It seems they're taking steps to correct this oversight. And I expect MS' marketing department already have statements prepared on how incompatible GPL code was with a commercial product and what a chore (and expense) it was ripping all that code out.
Technical revolutions don't happen over night or all at once. What was the year of the microcomputer? What was the year of the IBM clone? How about the year of the Internet? Each of these are major influences on the IT industry. However, they all happened over a period of time.
This isn't to say Linux is "here" or will ever be "there". But something is certainly happening. This article, and the fact that I watched a segment on Linux adoption in Asia on CNN tonight, are good examples of it.
>As these browsers gain market share, they will be everyone's new favorite target, and there for no better off Wrong. See Apache v. IIS. Far more Apache servers, and its attacked far less than IIS, and far less effectively. Market share != vulnerability. Even if it did, alternative browsers wont reach "majority" status for AT LEAST two years - even at the current-this-week migration %'s.
I agree with the general idea. But not the details.
Apache gets considerable attention. If you can trust Zone-H's stats, Linux is showing a lead of 83% over Window's 16.1%. We'll make the assumption that Linux systems are running Apache while Windows are running IIS.
Now, the issue with these stats is that they track defacements. The trouble with this is that defacements are commonly done via exploits of the overlaying application rather than the server architecture itself. So we have little information when comparing Apache to IIS.
However, this does show that Apache (and Linux) is getting the kind of attention that brings to question the theory of vulnerability due to market share.
Yep. He did this as a part of the reconstruction of the Japanese economy after WWII. And it wasn't an immediate success. It took a while to catch on - as well as some forward-thinking Japanese industrialists and cultural shifts (although some claim Total Quality Management is a better fit to Japanese culture than, say, American). There was a time when "made in Japan" denoted a cheap, shoddy product.
The Japanese approached innovation with a single-minded, extremely rigourous and well thought out approach to making quality affordable. Linux currently has no focus, no rigour and isn't well thought out. Where the Japanese found the set of qualities that made their products universally accepted, Linux is busy finding the qualities that make it accepted for infinite variety.
The success of Japanese products has more to do with quality control and less to do with innovation. This dedication to quality control is applied in the manufactoring process. And because Quality is applied at all levels of manufactoring, the Japanese has been able to attack various markets with inexpensive but superior products.
That's not to say the Japanese aren't innovative. But if you look at early commercial successes (such as the motorcycle example of this thread), you'll note that quality is the first issue. And any differences in engineering design tends to rely on tighter tolerances, etc. allowed for by Quality processes.
The question to ask is whether coding is a manufactoring process or a research / engineering process? I would suggest it has less to do with manufactoring where the challenge is to consistantly repeat a proccess that produces a widget within tight specifications.
It might be interesting to note that Quality was mentioned in the CAIB Report (Columbia Accident Investigation Board). ISO 9000/9001 is an international standard developed to implement Quality in various organizations. The CAIB Report was critical of the attenion to ISO 9000/9001 by NASA:
While ISO 9000/9001 expresses strong principles, they are more applicable to manufacturing and repetitive-procedure industries, such as running a major airline, than to a research-and-development, non-operational flight test environment like that of the Space Shuttle.
If coding is more about research-and-development than repetitive procedure, are there actually any lessons to be learned from Japanese successes?
Been there. Tried that. It was the group my account was a member of before I finally gave up and went with Administrators. Just too many problems. And although Win2K has the handy "Run As...", it just doesn't seem to be as easy to use as "sudo" or "su".
*nix systems tend to handle mutli-user environments much more gracefully. I run as a non-privilidged user on all *nix machines I touch. I tried to do the same thing in Win2K but ran in to so many hassles with it that I eventually gave up and followed the advice of more experienced Windows users - added my account to Administrators.
Start to realize Mozilla is a tool for us geeks and our families, nothing else so far.
Unless outfits like Dell are able to install a Mozilla-based browser (probably Netscape) and configure it as a default browsing environment. Without fear of reprocussions from Microsoft.
If this other vendor is right that people want no more than monthly patches, such a fix may have to wait weeks.
It would help if this other vendor put out patches that didn't have a history of instability, changing legal agreements, etc. As it is, their user base have to put aside a large chunk of time to analyze and test each and every patch or grouping of patches. Any admin in this situation will obviously feel inundated by a frequent patch cycle and prefer large patch clusters.
i think you'll find few sites that depend on ad revenue are going to recommend ways to block ads.
Slashdot wouldn't be too bad off suggesting Adblock. It's user base is technically savvy and well aware of various methods to block ads. However, Adblock might end up being a better method.
Before using Adblock, I used privoxy. The default config wiped out all ads. The thing is, I don't mind ads per se. But I despise Flash banners, stupid java tricks, tracking cookies, etc. So instead of taking time to block only the offending ads, they all suffered.
Now I use adaware and only remove the small subset of ads that I find annoying. Most ad banners make it to my browser unmolested. And that includes the majority of Slashdot ads.
In my packrat punk youth, I used to swap copies of anything I didn't already have. Heck - a large chunk of the software I had squirreled away was never touched after the initial copy (much less used). Yet I grabbed a copy. If the BSA had gotten their hands on me back then... I would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand dollars in "damages".
Now I'm an adult with a profession in IT. The projects I have spearheaded and pushed myself have lead to easily more than 3 million dollars in purchases. That doesn't include purchases made for projects by a team which I was a member or purchases that I've generally supported or not outright objected to.
All things considered, I would say the IT industry has done fairly well by my dicking around with illicit data as a kid.
Unfortunately, the typical "pro-piracy" argument pretends that these people don't exist, which tends to make it lose lots of credibility.
Fair enough.
However, at the same time, you have to consider which assumptions present the greater degree of deviation. The "pro-piracy" argument that doesn't get around to admiting there are individuals who would have purchased software if they hadn't gotten illicit copies? Or the BSA who makes broad assumptions to represent every case an instance of an individual who would have made a legal purchase if they didn't have access to illicit copies?
Close. Al Gore invented the Internet. And Linux was spontaniously formed by the Internet. So in a round-about way... you're right. It's better than admiting that there is a rogue AI presence inhabiting the Internet.
have you ever looked at Linux source code in order to hack into some Linux system? (well, maybe _you_ have and maybe _you_ haven't -- irrelevant).. what i'm trying to say, is that Linux with its cryptic source code would be no help to Joe Sixpack or Granny Milk'n'cookies in order to hack into some Linux server.
So... providing source code that is incomprehensible to the neophyte user is security through obscurity. While.. say... providing just binaries while keeping the source code locked away and hidden (aka proprietary) is... what?
You clearly do not understand the concept. If anything, providing source code to the system is the exact oposite of security through obscurity.
The article is lacking a certain degree of depth. But let's not go off the deep end ourselves.
1. you can't install/run them easily
Welcome to the modern Linux distribution. They come with an application providing a complete catalog of available software. Selecting the software tittle automagically selects all the needed libraries and support applications. Once you're done making your selections, it downloads everything, installs it, and voila... the app appears in your application menu (or you can always use the command-line to start it if you so desire).
Third party application not available in your disto's listing? Most commercial Linux software runs much the same way Windows installers work. And they'll even make entries in your applications menu.
Is Linux perfect on this? No. The more bleeding-edge you go... the further you stray from your distro's offerings... the better chance you're going to run in to problems. The same can be said to Windows equivilants. However, over the years of using Linux, I've found that these instances are fairly uncommon.
If this isn't your experience, it may be your choice in Linux distribution.
2. define a standard of usability among them all
Ahhh yes. The standard interface. Ignored liberally in every environment that one has been defined. Even by the organizations who created them.
Linux has these usability standards also. Quite a few applications are written under them. However, I find it hard to buy that the numerous apps that don't closely conform to these standards are causing that much of a roadblock to adoption... considering how Windows and MacOS users are able to deal with their own upstarts.
3. coordinate thier appearance and setup
Pick a distro and stick with it. Most handle things at the base level in the same manner. But if you want a nice GUI, go with a distro known to supply one.
Sure - powerusers like to tweak their desktops. But a Linux neophyte will likely stick to whatever comes default. And that default tends to be very familiar to any other modern computing desktop.
You don't like Word...fine, but guess what, there's no learning curve practically.If you can't figure out how to download a program and install it (a task infinatly more easy in windows) I don't care how long your desktop has been up.
Bull. There's a good learning curve involved. Back when I did desktop support, I would constantly get questions (if not outright trouble tickets) from users asking various Word or Excel questions.
Heck - just a few sentances ago, you were noting your sister is challenged with the concept of a right-click. Guess what. Simple interface... still a learning curve. So much for that infinately more easy environment Windows presents.
What I find interesting is the number of issues Windows-centric critics toss at Linux while ignoring simular issues in their own platform of choice. If a user can't handle doing a task in Windows, it doesn't really matter if they can't do it in Linux either. In either case, this class of user is either going to follow instructions or (more likely) plead or pay for someone to do it for them.
Security thru obscurity is a lousy thing to brag about.
And having something so easy that it's easily compromised doesn't make much of a selling point either. Having said that - care to point out what about Linux is "security through obscurity"?
You sound like one of those fools who show up in a tech support forum and demand assistance without puting forth any effort themselves. It's fairly unlikely that I'll work for you at $0/hr. However, I have been known to donating my time to certain individuals or organizations. And I don't charge myself when working on a personal project.
None the less, whatever hourly rate I'm currently working under... it's going to be the same whether I'm working on Windows, Linux, or any other platform I've agreed to tackle. So given that my time is already paid for, it hardly matters that the time was spent working on one platform versus another.
1. Security ' Windows is much more popular and thus more targetted. It can also be locked down by any competent system admin.
Sure. But at the same time, Windows makes mistakes that create a platform especially suitable to malware attack. Also, Windows can be locked down. But it's not always so easy thanks to Microsoft's intermixing components. 'Nix is considerably more modular and configurable - perfect for hardening.
2. Philosophy ' Purchasing proprietary software usually guarantees a level of support, as opposed to relying on the "good will" nature of the community.
Just because you purchased software, doesn't mean you get support. Try getting support for your Windows install without relying on additional expense. Want better support for Linux? Buy it just like you do for any other system.
3. Stability ' Poorly written applications will crash regardless of the OS.
After years of claims and promises, Microsoft has finally come through. Win2K was the beginning of an appreciably stable platform. Having said that - it is very rare that I've had an entire Linux system crash because of a poorly written application. I've had applications take out Windows far more often. Even recently.
4. Cost ' Support, training and service fees all need to be considered.
Fair enough. But the whole TCO report thing seems to be as reliable as bench marks; industry tools to sell something with half-truths.
you work for free you charge nothing for support your time an the time used to aquire the knowledge needed to administrate andinstall linux was at a ZERO cost
When you highlight that as a cost, it seems to imply that there isn't a simular cost for any other OS. Windows included.
So... what was pre-loaded on this Walmart or Best Buy box? Does it boot? Can you get a network connection with it? Enough to download a small app and a few megs of floppy images?
That's enough to get a bootable starter disk set that'll handle the rest of your install via your net connection.
Granted - there's a certain degree of faith going on there that many neophytes wouldn't be comfortable with.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider that, while compatible, GNU apps are non-standard to the traditional Solaris install. Also, these are not apps that most Mac users will use.
Which is quite interesting. One of the first things I tend to do with a *nix install is replace the provided utilities with GNU versions. I usually prefer the GNU version. I suspect anything coming from SCO's code base is a down-grade.
From another angle - expect this to be fertile ground for FUD. I've always found it amusing how much Microsoft likes to claim the GPL is dangerous while providing a product (SFU) full of GPL'd utilities. It seems they're taking steps to correct this oversight. And I expect MS' marketing department already have statements prepared on how incompatible GPL code was with a commercial product and what a chore (and expense) it was ripping all that code out.
Technical revolutions don't happen over night or all at once. What was the year of the microcomputer? What was the year of the IBM clone? How about the year of the Internet? Each of these are major influences on the IT industry. However, they all happened over a period of time.
This isn't to say Linux is "here" or will ever be "there". But something is certainly happening. This article, and the fact that I watched a segment on Linux adoption in Asia on CNN tonight, are good examples of it.
Google's Zeitgeist reports that of all OSes used to access Google, 1% is Linux. Oddly enough, it's the same level as Win95.
I agree with the general idea. But not the details.
Apache gets considerable attention. If you can trust Zone-H's stats, Linux is showing a lead of 83% over Window's 16.1%. We'll make the assumption that Linux systems are running Apache while Windows are running IIS.
Now, the issue with these stats is that they track defacements. The trouble with this is that defacements are commonly done via exploits of the overlaying application rather than the server architecture itself. So we have little information when comparing Apache to IIS.
However, this does show that Apache (and Linux) is getting the kind of attention that brings to question the theory of vulnerability due to market share.
Yep. He did this as a part of the reconstruction of the Japanese economy after WWII. And it wasn't an immediate success. It took a while to catch on - as well as some forward-thinking Japanese industrialists and cultural shifts (although some claim Total Quality Management is a better fit to Japanese culture than, say, American). There was a time when "made in Japan" denoted a cheap, shoddy product.
The success of Japanese products has more to do with quality control and less to do with innovation. This dedication to quality control is applied in the manufactoring process. And because Quality is applied at all levels of manufactoring, the Japanese has been able to attack various markets with inexpensive but superior products.
That's not to say the Japanese aren't innovative. But if you look at early commercial successes (such as the motorcycle example of this thread), you'll note that quality is the first issue. And any differences in engineering design tends to rely on tighter tolerances, etc. allowed for by Quality processes.
The question to ask is whether coding is a manufactoring process or a research / engineering process? I would suggest it has less to do with manufactoring where the challenge is to consistantly repeat a proccess that produces a widget within tight specifications.
It might be interesting to note that Quality was mentioned in the CAIB Report (Columbia Accident Investigation Board). ISO 9000/9001 is an international standard developed to implement Quality in various organizations. The CAIB Report was critical of the attenion to ISO 9000/9001 by NASA:
If coding is more about research-and-development than repetitive procedure, are there actually any lessons to be learned from Japanese successes?
Been there. Tried that. It was the group my account was a member of before I finally gave up and went with Administrators. Just too many problems. And although Win2K has the handy "Run As...", it just doesn't seem to be as easy to use as "sudo" or "su".
That's why there's the Internet.
*nix systems tend to handle mutli-user environments much more gracefully. I run as a non-privilidged user on all *nix machines I touch. I tried to do the same thing in Win2K but ran in to so many hassles with it that I eventually gave up and followed the advice of more experienced Windows users - added my account to Administrators.
Unless outfits like Dell are able to install a Mozilla-based browser (probably Netscape) and configure it as a default browsing environment. Without fear of reprocussions from Microsoft.
It would help if this other vendor put out patches that didn't have a history of instability, changing legal agreements, etc. As it is, their user base have to put aside a large chunk of time to analyze and test each and every patch or grouping of patches. Any admin in this situation will obviously feel inundated by a frequent patch cycle and prefer large patch clusters.
Slashdot wouldn't be too bad off suggesting Adblock. It's user base is technically savvy and well aware of various methods to block ads. However, Adblock might end up being a better method.
Before using Adblock, I used privoxy. The default config wiped out all ads. The thing is, I don't mind ads per se. But I despise Flash banners, stupid java tricks, tracking cookies, etc. So instead of taking time to block only the offending ads, they all suffered.
Now I use adaware and only remove the small subset of ads that I find annoying. Most ad banners make it to my browser unmolested. And that includes the majority of Slashdot ads.
A stray thought...
In my packrat punk youth, I used to swap copies of anything I didn't already have. Heck - a large chunk of the software I had squirreled away was never touched after the initial copy (much less used). Yet I grabbed a copy. If the BSA had gotten their hands on me back then... I would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand dollars in "damages".
Now I'm an adult with a profession in IT. The projects I have spearheaded and pushed myself have lead to easily more than 3 million dollars in purchases. That doesn't include purchases made for projects by a team which I was a member or purchases that I've generally supported or not outright objected to.
All things considered, I would say the IT industry has done fairly well by my dicking around with illicit data as a kid.
Fair enough.
However, at the same time, you have to consider which assumptions present the greater degree of deviation. The "pro-piracy" argument that doesn't get around to admiting there are individuals who would have purchased software if they hadn't gotten illicit copies? Or the BSA who makes broad assumptions to represent every case an instance of an individual who would have made a legal purchase if they didn't have access to illicit copies?
If you repent first, you can continue using Unix under the watchfull eyes of Santa instead.
Close. Al Gore invented the Internet. And Linux was spontaniously formed by the Internet. So in a round-about way... you're right. It's better than admiting that there is a rogue AI presence inhabiting the Internet.
So... providing source code that is incomprehensible to the neophyte user is security through obscurity. While.. say... providing just binaries while keeping the source code locked away and hidden (aka proprietary) is... what?
You clearly do not understand the concept. If anything, providing source code to the system is the exact oposite of security through obscurity.
Welcome to the modern Linux distribution. They come with an application providing a complete catalog of available software. Selecting the software tittle automagically selects all the needed libraries and support applications. Once you're done making your selections, it downloads everything, installs it, and voila... the app appears in your application menu (or you can always use the command-line to start it if you so desire).
Third party application not available in your disto's listing? Most commercial Linux software runs much the same way Windows installers work. And they'll even make entries in your applications menu.
Is Linux perfect on this? No. The more bleeding-edge you go... the further you stray from your distro's offerings... the better chance you're going to run in to problems. The same can be said to Windows equivilants. However, over the years of using Linux, I've found that these instances are fairly uncommon.
If this isn't your experience, it may be your choice in Linux distribution.
Ahhh yes. The standard interface. Ignored liberally in every environment that one has been defined. Even by the organizations who created them.
Linux has these usability standards also. Quite a few applications are written under them. However, I find it hard to buy that the numerous apps that don't closely conform to these standards are causing that much of a roadblock to adoption... considering how Windows and MacOS users are able to deal with their own upstarts.
Pick a distro and stick with it. Most handle things at the base level in the same manner. But if you want a nice GUI, go with a distro known to supply one.
Sure - powerusers like to tweak their desktops. But a Linux neophyte will likely stick to whatever comes default. And that default tends to be very familiar to any other modern computing desktop.
Bull. There's a good learning curve involved. Back when I did desktop support, I would constantly get questions (if not outright trouble tickets) from users asking various Word or Excel questions.
Heck - just a few sentances ago, you were noting your sister is challenged with the concept of a right-click. Guess what. Simple interface... still a learning curve. So much for that infinately more easy environment Windows presents.
What I find interesting is the number of issues Windows-centric critics toss at Linux while ignoring simular issues in their own platform of choice. If a user can't handle doing a task in Windows, it doesn't really matter if they can't do it in Linux either. In either case, this class of user is either going to follow instructions or (more likely) plead or pay for someone to do it for them.
And having something so easy that it's easily compromised doesn't make much of a selling point either. Having said that - care to point out what about Linux is "security through obscurity"?
You sound like one of those fools who show up in a tech support forum and demand assistance without puting forth any effort themselves. It's fairly unlikely that I'll work for you at $0/hr. However, I have been known to donating my time to certain individuals or organizations. And I don't charge myself when working on a personal project.
None the less, whatever hourly rate I'm currently working under... it's going to be the same whether I'm working on Windows, Linux, or any other platform I've agreed to tackle. So given that my time is already paid for, it hardly matters that the time was spent working on one platform versus another.
Get an extension that disables tabs: Tab Killer.
Oddly enough... Services For Unix includes GNU tools. That's right - GPL code.
Sure. But at the same time, Windows makes mistakes that create a platform especially suitable to malware attack. Also, Windows can be locked down. But it's not always so easy thanks to Microsoft's intermixing components. 'Nix is considerably more modular and configurable - perfect for hardening.
Just because you purchased software, doesn't mean you get support. Try getting support for your Windows install without relying on additional expense. Want better support for Linux? Buy it just like you do for any other system.
After years of claims and promises, Microsoft has finally come through. Win2K was the beginning of an appreciably stable platform. Having said that - it is very rare that I've had an entire Linux system crash because of a poorly written application. I've had applications take out Windows far more often. Even recently.
Fair enough. But the whole TCO report thing seems to be as reliable as bench marks; industry tools to sell something with half-truths.
When you highlight that as a cost, it seems to imply that there isn't a simular cost for any other OS. Windows included.
So... what was pre-loaded on this Walmart or Best Buy box? Does it boot? Can you get a network connection with it? Enough to download a small app and a few megs of floppy images?
That's enough to get a bootable starter disk set that'll handle the rest of your install via your net connection.
Granted - there's a certain degree of faith going on there that many neophytes wouldn't be comfortable with.