BSD has always been more secure than Linux, so where is the surprise???
I've been using Slackware since version 1, so don't think this is just another anti-Linux comment.
"Total domination is bad. The Microsoft dominance already badly misled people about how to choose systems. Instead of 'what tool do I use for the job' it's 'well it was shipped with the box'. Linux is a tool, Windows is a tool and so are numerous other systems. It's really important people go back to looking for the right tool for the job. That will never always be Linux. No single tool can do everything well."
Alan Cox
I faxed the following to a dozen members of the Senate/House and the Whitehouse. I would suggest/. users do the same, but PLEASE do not undercut our credibility with flaming rants about Open Source being the cure for everything:)
I just got finished reading Darl McBride's letter to Congress about the evils of Open Source software and would like to provide an alternative view.
I've been working with different flavors of UNIX since the early 80s. I graduated from my first computer school while serving in the U.S. Army in the early 70s.
Darl McBride's assertions are the most outlandish use of "national security" claims I have ever seen.
SCO (formerly Caldera Linux) has become a litigation company starting with their purchase of DR-DOS, which they sued Microsoft over immediately. Now they have purchased SCO's UNIX assets and again filed law suits to make a profit.
The President says we need tort reform because run-away litigation is hurting the economy, and SCO would be a perfect example to make that case.
Addressing his assertion that "free software" hurts the economy and companies that publish commercial software I suggest the following. There is another popular free software license called BSD, which doesn't restrict commercial vendors like SCO and Microsoft from integrating code into their products without "giving back to the free software community", which both MS and SCO have done repeatedly. What Darl McBride really doesn't like about the GNU GPL license is it doesn't allow him to tap this large resource of free programmers.
SCO still distributes free software (SAMBA, SENDMAIL, etc) with it's commercial flavors of UNIX, which brings into question his assertions about the dangers of free software.
Sun Microsystems realized this and manages to stay in business giving away copies of Solaris knowing that people calling in for "paid support" and/or buying their hardware will be the real cash cow. Also they will gain new customers and software developers that they would otherwise not have with pricing like SCO has on it's products.
Now to explain how free software has had a positive effect on my computer career. As a UNIX devotee I found it a bit frustrating that I could not make a decent living writing software for UNIX because my customer base (small to medium size businesses) could not afford my software and an expensive copy of commercial UNIX (often $1000 to $2000). This left me writing my applications for Microsoft Operating Systems because they are low priced in comparison.
Since "available applications" is a selling point for any Operating System commercial UNIX has often been hurt by it's own pricing.
Once free flavors of UNIX became available I was finally able to work on my OS of choice, and give my customers a superior product in the process (anyone who has used Windows knows about how it likes to crash).
In my humble opinion Free Software has created many more jobs that it may have displaced, so PLEASE don't let one company that loves to litigate it's profits ruin the fastest growing software market in the USA today.
Note: Since 1987 (and currently) I have made part of my living supporting SCO based commercial applications (Lightspeed, medical management apps, etc) written by other programmers, so assuming I'm just anti-SCO would be reaching.
However, I am NOT happy with their current business model of suing for profit.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using Slackware since version 1, so don't think this is just another anti-Linux comment.
"Total domination is bad. The Microsoft dominance already badly misled people about how to choose systems. Instead of 'what tool do I use for the job' it's 'well it was shipped with the box'. Linux is a tool, Windows is a tool and so are numerous other systems. It's really important people go back to looking for the right tool for the job. That will never always be Linux. No single tool can do everything well." Alan Cox
I just got finished reading Darl McBride's letter to Congress about the evils of Open Source software and would like to provide an alternative view. I've been working with different flavors of UNIX since the early 80s. I graduated from my first computer school while serving in the U.S. Army in the early 70s.
Darl McBride's assertions are the most outlandish use of "national security" claims I have ever seen.
SCO (formerly Caldera Linux) has become a litigation company starting with their purchase of DR-DOS, which they sued Microsoft over immediately. Now they have purchased SCO's UNIX assets and again filed law suits to make a profit.
The President says we need tort reform because run-away litigation is hurting the economy, and SCO would be a perfect example to make that case.
Addressing his assertion that "free software" hurts the economy and companies that publish commercial software I suggest the following. There is another popular free software license called BSD, which doesn't restrict commercial vendors like SCO and Microsoft from integrating code into their products without "giving back to the free software community", which both MS and SCO have done repeatedly. What Darl McBride really doesn't like about the GNU GPL license is it doesn't allow him to tap this large resource of free programmers.
SCO still distributes free software (SAMBA, SENDMAIL, etc) with it's commercial flavors of UNIX, which brings into question his assertions about the dangers of free software.
Sun Microsystems realized this and manages to stay in business giving away copies of Solaris knowing that people calling in for "paid support" and/or buying their hardware will be the real cash cow. Also they will gain new customers and software developers that they would otherwise not have with pricing like SCO has on it's products.
Now to explain how free software has had a positive effect on my computer career. As a UNIX devotee I found it a bit frustrating that I could not make a decent living writing software for UNIX because my customer base (small to medium size businesses) could not afford my software and an expensive copy of commercial UNIX (often $1000 to $2000). This left me writing my applications for Microsoft Operating Systems because they are low priced in comparison.
Since "available applications" is a selling point for any Operating System commercial UNIX has often been hurt by it's own pricing.
Once free flavors of UNIX became available I was finally able to work on my OS of choice, and give my customers a superior product in the process (anyone who has used Windows knows about how it likes to crash).
In my humble opinion Free Software has created many more jobs that it may have displaced, so PLEASE don't let one company that loves to litigate it's profits ruin the fastest growing software market in the USA today.
Note: Since 1987 (and currently) I have made part of my living supporting SCO based commercial applications (Lightspeed, medical management apps, etc) written by other programmers, so assuming I'm just anti-SCO would be reaching. However, I am NOT happy with their current business model of suing for profit.