Exactly how many eyes have analyzed Linux "relentlessly?"
I have worked with/for a number of companies that build both Linux and Windows versions of utility software. With all the gurus on the Linux team zealously evangelizing the intense scrutiny Linux comes under, none had ever done more than peek under the hood when they needed an answer to a specific "how does this work" question.
The ability to "peek under the hood" comes in very handy and makes software development a lot easier sometimes. But as for "relentless analysis," I haven't seen it or ever known anyone who has seen it. The constant influx of Linux security flaws (not making a comparison to Window$, just absolute numbers) indicates that we have a ways to go.
Linux may well be more secure. But prove it. I don't buy arguments based on "everyone knows that" or "it stands to reason that there is more scrutiny." The modern myth is that there are millions of developers pouring over Linux source code everyday and when a bug is found, they pool their collective resources and fix the bug in mere minutes. They then ensure that all worldwide Linux distributions are patched before there is an opportunity for an exploit.
Given the fact that half of the software developers in the world work for Micro$oft and the other half write software for Windows (with the remainder divided up evenly between the remaining hundred and some odd platforms), it may well be argued that there is more "relentless" scrutiny on that platform...
(By the way, I don't have specific numbers on how many software developers work at Microsoft, but I think "everyone knows" that this is an accurate estimate.)
I have seen time and again people do things in a corporate environment that they would never do as indviduals.
But they *are* doing it as individuals. The corporation certainly can't "lie, steal, backstab, expose people to hazardous materials...." People make those decisions. It may be that people use the mask of a corporation to shield their behaviors. But maybe it's the anonymity of the corporation that reveals who those people really are.
Having worked for several Fortune 1000 corporations, I meet people who would cut off their arm before they work violate their ethics; and I meet people who would sell out their mother for a buck. But the ethics of a corporation are inherently the ethics of the people who make up the corporation. Corporations don't make decisions. People do.
When I mentioned that I was a major shareholder of a corporation, I didn't mean that I invest in a company and they tell me they are good. I mean I actively participate in the functioning of a midsided corporation. And I know first hand that we regularly make decisions that negatively impact the bottom line because our corporate values specify that we exist to benefit the employees, the community, and the shareholders. Obviously, we are not going to allow ourselves to lose money on a regular basis. We created the company many years ago to make money. But we also won't violate our ethics to make $12 instead of $10.
I understand that many corporations don't operate with this type of philosophy. But many do. In both cases, it is the people (primarily the shareholders and the executives) that set that tone and define those ethics and make those decisions.
The corporation can neither shine a lighter brighter for helping another person, nor be pissed by not receiving any attention. The corporation is an artificial entity. There are only people who can feel and behave one way or another. The people are the employees, the shareholders, and the consumers. And all are free to be as altruistic as their conscience dictates.
I happen to be a major shareholder of a mid-sized corporation. We do a lot of charity work that doesn't get us any pub or mind share. We do it because we (the owners and executives) are also members of our community and want things to be well here.
The idea that corporations are sick, twisted, self-serving entities is as absurd as the idea that they are caring, giving entities. There are only people. Everything else if fiction.
Why does "religion" need an answer to this? "Religion" is rife with stories like David and Goliath, depicting distinctions between populations. When populations are not terribly mobile and tend to procreate within a fixed population, specializations and population distinctions occur.
Every region in the world has historical distinctions that physically differentiate its people from other populations. (The English have bad teeth. Canadians are genetically programed to say "eh" a lot...) I don't think "religion" has a problem with that. Some *people* may have a problem with that. But maybe you should be asking what their answer to this is.
As for the failed first prototype of early man, I think we can all agree that intellectual propery lawyers are the decendents of the failed first prototype of early man. Based on that experiment, it was decided that common sense and compassion would be added to the next iteration.
It would sure be nice to have all of those things at a little startup. But it is not necessary.
Some of my buddies and I were laid-off a couple of years ago from a company that made some bad decisions. We decided we could do better and started our own company. No seed money. No exclusive contracts. No investors. All married with children. None of our wives are employed.
Bottom line - 2 1/2 years later and we have set a trend of doubling our revenue every twelve months. We are making millions of dollars a year (almost all of it goes back into the company). We have hired aggressively from the pool skilled developers we knew who got laid off. And we are looking to move to a bigger office (for the second time). And the four of us who started the company still own 100% of the company.
You have to think of things differently to be a non-funded startup. You can't try to operate in the same way as the company who just canned you.
I once escaped the sea of boxes and actually landed an office.
The "office" had been converted from a janitor's closet. My machine was the only one that wasn't on the UPS system. And I actually (no lie) had to climb over my desk to get into and out of the office. (George Kastansa has nothing on me!)
Now I'm back in my grey box, and GRATEFUL!
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly how many eyes have analyzed Linux "relentlessly?"
I have worked with/for a number of companies that build both Linux and Windows versions of utility software. With all the gurus on the Linux team zealously evangelizing the intense scrutiny Linux comes under, none had ever done more than peek under the hood when they needed an answer to a specific "how does this work" question.
The ability to "peek under the hood" comes in very handy and makes software development a lot easier sometimes. But as for "relentless analysis," I haven't seen it or ever known anyone who has seen it. The constant influx of Linux security flaws (not making a comparison to Window$, just absolute numbers) indicates that we have a ways to go.
Linux may well be more secure. But prove it. I don't buy arguments based on "everyone knows that" or "it stands to reason that there is more scrutiny." The modern myth is that there are millions of developers pouring over Linux source code everyday and when a bug is found, they pool their collective resources and fix the bug in mere minutes. They then ensure that all worldwide Linux distributions are patched before there is an opportunity for an exploit.
Given the fact that half of the software developers in the world work for Micro$oft and the other half write software for Windows (with the remainder divided up evenly between the remaining hundred and some odd platforms), it may well be argued that there is more "relentless" scrutiny on that platform...
(By the way, I don't have specific numbers on how many software developers work at Microsoft, but I think "everyone knows" that this is an accurate estimate.)
But they *are* doing it as individuals. The corporation certainly can't "lie, steal, backstab, expose people to hazardous materials...." People make those decisions. It may be that people use the mask of a corporation to shield their behaviors. But maybe it's the anonymity of the corporation that reveals who those people really are.
Having worked for several Fortune 1000 corporations, I meet people who would cut off their arm before they work violate their ethics; and I meet people who would sell out their mother for a buck. But the ethics of a corporation are inherently the ethics of the people who make up the corporation. Corporations don't make decisions. People do.
When I mentioned that I was a major shareholder of a corporation, I didn't mean that I invest in a company and they tell me they are good. I mean I actively participate in the functioning of a midsided corporation. And I know first hand that we regularly make decisions that negatively impact the bottom line because our corporate values specify that we exist to benefit the employees, the community, and the shareholders. Obviously, we are not going to allow ourselves to lose money on a regular basis. We created the company many years ago to make money. But we also won't violate our ethics to make $12 instead of $10.
I understand that many corporations don't operate with this type of philosophy. But many do. In both cases, it is the people (primarily the shareholders and the executives) that set that tone and define those ethics and make those decisions.
The corporation can neither shine a lighter brighter for helping another person, nor be pissed by not receiving any attention. The corporation is an artificial entity. There are only people who can feel and behave one way or another. The people are the employees, the shareholders, and the consumers. And all are free to be as altruistic as their conscience dictates.
I happen to be a major shareholder of a mid-sized corporation. We do a lot of charity work that doesn't get us any pub or mind share. We do it because we (the owners and executives) are also members of our community and want things to be well here.
The idea that corporations are sick, twisted, self-serving entities is as absurd as the idea that they are caring, giving entities. There are only people. Everything else if fiction.
Why does "religion" need an answer to this? "Religion" is rife with stories like David and Goliath, depicting distinctions between populations. When populations are not terribly mobile and tend to procreate within a fixed population, specializations and population distinctions occur.
Every region in the world has historical distinctions that physically differentiate its people from other populations. (The English have bad teeth. Canadians are genetically programed to say "eh" a lot...) I don't think "religion" has a problem with that. Some *people* may have a problem with that. But maybe you should be asking what their answer to this is.
As for the failed first prototype of early man, I think we can all agree that intellectual propery lawyers are the decendents of the failed first prototype of early man. Based on that experiment, it was decided that common sense and compassion would be added to the next iteration.
Has anyone heard Hatch's songs? He should be so lucky that people would want to steal them!
I understand we'll see this kind of capability in Longhorn...
Imagine a Beowolf cluster of people trying to get to Mars...
It would sure be nice to have all of those things at a little startup. But it is not necessary.
Some of my buddies and I were laid-off a couple of years ago from a company that made some bad decisions. We decided we could do better and started our own company. No seed money. No exclusive contracts. No investors. All married with children. None of our wives are employed.
Bottom line - 2 1/2 years later and we have set a trend of doubling our revenue every twelve months. We are making millions of dollars a year (almost all of it goes back into the company). We have hired aggressively from the pool skilled developers we knew who got laid off. And we are looking to move to a bigger office (for the second time). And the four of us who started the company still own 100% of the company.
You have to think of things differently to be a non-funded startup. You can't try to operate in the same way as the company who just canned you.
I once escaped the sea of boxes and actually landed an office. The "office" had been converted from a janitor's closet. My machine was the only one that wasn't on the UPS system. And I actually (no lie) had to climb over my desk to get into and out of the office. (George Kastansa has nothing on me!) Now I'm back in my grey box, and GRATEFUL!
They put you up at a brothel? Interesting benefits package...