At first, it seems that this article is the usual FUD backed by various opponents of open source. It's not really even attacking Linux when you read between the lines; it's actually attacking open source itself.
However, I do find the last paragraph to be at least a logical observation:
Several operating systems have been DO-178B Level A certified. Until Linux is certified to DO-178B Level A, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be asked to trust their lives with it.
This is something I can readily agree with. For example, on the Space Shuttle they use a QNX-based realtime OS to power many functions of the craft. QNX has been around since 1980, and is by design a stable embedded system. Linux is relatively new, and is a more general-purpose kernel.
This brings me to where I really have a problem with the article: According to the NIST (at least on the word of the author), Linux has had more security vulnerabilities than Windows in the last 10 years. Well, unless by "Linux" they mean the kernel plus EVERY open-source application ever written for the OS, that is just not possible. I think they are using the confusion between Linux the kernel and "Linux" the publicly accepted shorthand for GNU/Linux to spin a bad picture of security in open source.
I also find it interesting that they are not going after BSD. After all, while not GPL, BSD is still under an open source license, right? Is it perhaps because OpenBSD has had ONE security vulnerability in its entire lifespan? Or maybe it's because the BSDs are not (yet) on Microsoft or SCO's radar. I'm interested to know who funded this particular "article".
So just because it will play WMA files, it won't work on Mac?? What kind of screwed up logic is that??? The DJ also plays MP3s and WAVs, and it works just fine on Linux. I have no idea if someone has created or ported a program to the Mac to work with the DJ, but it shouldn't be hard to do. LSongs and Gnomad2/libnjb are both open-source programs designed to connect to the DJ.
My point being, the reason the DJ MIGHT not work on Mac has nothing to do with the fact that it can play a Microsoft file format, but rather with the availability of a file transfer program.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some Microsoft-bashing when it's legitimate, but your post was just retarded. In the future, please turn on your brain before you post.
Besides that, why on earth would I ever get rid of an audio player that actually works well in Linux? I would gladly turn in a perfectly working iPod to get a Dell DJ, if I didn't already have one.
I normally cheer for Apple just because they take 0.1% of desktop market share from Microsoft, but on this I say "screw you Apple" while I listen to MP3's transferred to my Dell DJ from my Slackware Linux box using Gnomad2.
Flame me if you will, but he's pretty much right on the money. I was ecstatic when 2.4 came out. I think it was a vast improvement over 2.2. I was even more excited when I got a chance to try out 2.6, but it took me only a few hours to decide that I was better off with 2.4.
With 2.6, I felt, as Mr. Petreley did, that I had gone backwards in time. I am back in 2.4 now, and I'm much happier for it. My biggest fear is that I may not be able to upgrade to Slackware 10 because it will surely contain 2.6. I'd love to be able to run 2.4 on Slackware 10, but not if it means installing it without GNOME and then attempting to download and install 2.4, assuming that it would even be possible.
Basically, thanks to GNOME's design decisions, my next GNU/Linux OS desktop will be either KDE (horrors!), XFCE (not bad), or Fluxbox (fast but too minimal).
Grungy old men? I'm 26, and I got my ham license when I was 21. There are a lot more middle-aged-and-up hams than us young guys, though...
Morgan
KF4YTR
Slashdot Mirror
Knowing that WegianWarrior still lives with his mom...priceless
Man, I wish I could mod to +10,Funny!
At first, it seems that this article is the usual FUD backed by various opponents of open source. It's not really even attacking Linux when you read between the lines; it's actually attacking open source itself.
However, I do find the last paragraph to be at least a logical observation:
Several operating systems have been DO-178B Level A certified. Until Linux is certified to DO-178B Level A, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be asked to trust their lives with it.
This is something I can readily agree with. For example, on the Space Shuttle they use a QNX-based realtime OS to power many functions of the craft. QNX has been around since 1980, and is by design a stable embedded system. Linux is relatively new, and is a more general-purpose kernel.
This brings me to where I really have a problem with the article: According to the NIST (at least on the word of the author), Linux has had more security vulnerabilities than Windows in the last 10 years. Well, unless by "Linux" they mean the kernel plus EVERY open-source application ever written for the OS, that is just not possible. I think they are using the confusion between Linux the kernel and "Linux" the publicly accepted shorthand for GNU/Linux to spin a bad picture of security in open source.
I also find it interesting that they are not going after BSD. After all, while not GPL, BSD is still under an open source license, right? Is it perhaps because OpenBSD has had ONE security vulnerability in its entire lifespan? Or maybe it's because the BSDs are not (yet) on Microsoft or SCO's radar. I'm interested to know who funded this particular "article".
Morgan
So just because it will play WMA files, it won't work on Mac?? What kind of screwed up logic is that??? The DJ also plays MP3s and WAVs, and it works just fine on Linux. I have no idea if someone has created or ported a program to the Mac to work with the DJ, but it shouldn't be hard to do. LSongs and Gnomad2/libnjb are both open-source programs designed to connect to the DJ.
My point being, the reason the DJ MIGHT not work on Mac has nothing to do with the fact that it can play a Microsoft file format, but rather with the availability of a file transfer program.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some Microsoft-bashing when it's legitimate, but your post was just retarded. In the future, please turn on your brain before you post.
Besides that, why on earth would I ever get rid of an audio player that actually works well in Linux? I would gladly turn in a perfectly working iPod to get a Dell DJ, if I didn't already have one.
I normally cheer for Apple just because they take 0.1% of desktop market share from Microsoft, but on this I say "screw you Apple" while I listen to MP3's transferred to my Dell DJ from my Slackware Linux box using Gnomad2.
Umm...let's see...you're an avid BeOS user but you are complaining about multiple window browsing being the default for the OS?? Mmmkay...
With 2.6, I felt, as Mr. Petreley did, that I had gone backwards in time. I am back in 2.4 now, and I'm much happier for it. My biggest fear is that I may not be able to upgrade to Slackware 10 because it will surely contain 2.6. I'd love to be able to run 2.4 on Slackware 10, but not if it means installing it without GNOME and then attempting to download and install 2.4, assuming that it would even be possible.
Basically, thanks to GNOME's design decisions, my next GNU/Linux OS desktop will be either KDE (horrors!), XFCE (not bad), or Fluxbox (fast but too minimal).
Grungy old men? I'm 26, and I got my ham license when I was 21. There are a lot more middle-aged-and-up hams than us young guys, though... Morgan KF4YTR