The server category. BSD systems and their derivatives outnumber Linux systems on the internet and power more mission critical sites than does Linux. I would venture to guess that Wall Street doesn't use Linux for its transactions. Maybe a Solaris system but I doubt a Linux system.
The desktop category. If you tell me that Joe Average is safer with a Linux system out of the box than with a Mac OS X system then you are talking out of ignorance. It's a shame Apple doesn't make Mac OS X freely available for x86 then you would know the difference first hand.
One other thing. It's Microsoft is the company who has the billions to waste on slamming Linux. Apple works quietly on its projects, building its reputation and trust among partners, who, also include the open source community. If you used Mac OS X you would know this difference.
Nonetheless, the original post's context was that someone would wage a vendeta on Apple through the Software Update application, implying an inside job (since Apple controls what is distributed through the application).
Call me naive, but I have high confidence this would be unlikely to happen. At least I don't think it would happen with higher probability than it has happened to the open source community already (Sendmail, OpenSSH and GNU to name a few of the hacked distributions of the past).
I think everyone is equally susceptible to this kind of attack.
>>The automatic software updates feature is the perfect distribution system for some buggy code, it seems.
Apple addressed a security vulnerability with Software Update back in 2002. It now connects on an encrypted channel and confirms encrypted signatures before accepting a download. This makes the application very difficult to crack. Let's just put it this way--if it were cracked then Apple wouldn't be the only company in trouble since most of the internet commerce and secure connections these days depend on the same technology.
>>"When the breach is caused by administrator fault, you can't allways blame the o.s."
The weakest link in any system is the human.
If a company wants experienced administrators, they hire Solaris or BSD administrators.
The truth that the Linux corporate interests don't want companies to know is that Linux administrators are inexperienced compared to Solaris and BSD administrators. Talking with a Linux user who has been using Linux since 1.0 was telling me about Kickstart and its benefits. He didn't know what I know, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered sharing the infomation as if it were some revelation. Solaris had Jumpstart ten years ago when this guy was cutting his teeth.
I have never understood why people don't see that companies that opt to use a free operating system will also cut costs by hiring less experienced administrators.
By the way, Apple's strategy is no accident. They deliberately approach Mac OS X with the knowledge that the weakest link in the system is the human. After all, when we talk about the Apple company today, we're really talking about the NeXT core developers who are running the company and who started formulating Mac OS X back in 1986.
Company executive chairman DK Matai said: "The swift adoption of Linux
last year within the online government and non-government server community,
coupled with inadequate training and knowledge on how to keep that environment
secure when running vulnerable third party applications, has contributed to
a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers. Migration to
Open Source can be fool's gold without adequate training and understanding of
the impact that third party applications have on overall safety and security."
Linux is the imposition of the system administrator's concept of computing on the masses. It will never work.
The desktop being referred to is the work place desktop. In this area, of course Linux will gain market share ahead of Mac OS X. It is only natural businesses will keep the hardware and eliminate Windows by switching to Linux. Dollars and cents, that's all.
But in the home, who in their right mind would switch to Linux. Everybody would need an engineering degree and out would go creativity and fun. People instead would opt to stay with Windows at least, or switch to the easiest to use system, Mac OS X. It is because of the tight integeration of hardware and software, that thing you call proprietary, that insures everything works. Who wants to configure drivers and kernels in order to do simple enjoyable things with their computers?
As for the x86 versus PowerPC debate. The Virgina Tech demonstration has shut up x86 fans at last. Try creating the third fastest cluster in the world at an 8th of the cost of the two fastest clusters using x86 and Linux. The researchers who created the G5 cluster decided to use Mac OS X over Linux as well, thus eliminating the myth that Linux is somehow better suited for clusters as well.
Another thing to bear in mind. Linux as a free operating systems will be temporary. Only as long as it serves to gain market share. As soon as it is at a critical mass of adoption, its developers will charge for it. We are seeing the creation of another corporation. Linux can only be floated by companies for so long before they need to start making money on their investment.
I say use what works and what is fun to use. Not what is in vogue or simply free. Nothing is free, nothing.
I'm afaid Linux will suffer from the same contentiousness UNIX has always suffered. Competing versions and pet versions pitted against each other. This is a news item in an otherwise slow news day. When the Microsoft steamroller starts up again with the release of Longhorn Linux better watch out.
Mac OS X at least has a vision of its future. And its users are regular people. Can you imagine artists and grandma running Linux.
This story is about hardware most of all. Everyone running Linux would love to test run Mac OS X on their x86 hardware but they can't.
Apple would switch to x86 (which they can at a moment's notice) if they felt their market share were really being threatended.
I do not think companies switching to Linux do it for the elegance of the solution. But instead for economic reasons. It is an evolutionary step coming from Windows to move to Linux. It's cheaper just keeping the same hardware.
To switch to Mac OS X is revolutionary.
These companies do not need G5 power. They will not dump their hardware investments immediately so they evolve. But for the next hardware buying cycle Apple should be prepared to gain market share by offering a $400 computer just for business use.
Then companies making the switch from Windows can maximize the value out of their investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Two categories can't be confused with each other.
The server category. BSD systems and their derivatives outnumber Linux systems on the internet and power more mission critical sites than does Linux. I would venture to guess that Wall Street doesn't use Linux for its transactions. Maybe a Solaris system but I doubt a Linux system.
The desktop category. If you tell me that Joe Average is safer with a Linux system out of the box than with a Mac OS X system then you are talking out of ignorance. It's a shame Apple doesn't make Mac OS X freely available for x86 then you would know the difference first hand.
One other thing. It's Microsoft is the company who has the billions to waste on slamming Linux. Apple works quietly on its projects, building its reputation and trust among partners, who, also include the open source community. If you used Mac OS X you would know this difference.
You're correct.
Nonetheless, the original post's context was that someone would wage a vendeta on Apple through the Software Update application, implying an inside job (since Apple controls what is distributed through the application).
Call me naive, but I have high confidence this would be unlikely to happen. At least I don't think it would happen with higher probability than it has happened to the open source community already (Sendmail, OpenSSH and GNU to name a few of the hacked distributions of the past).
I think everyone is equally susceptible to this kind of attack.
>>The automatic software updates feature is the perfect distribution system for some buggy code, it seems.
Apple addressed a security vulnerability with Software Update back in 2002. It now connects on an encrypted channel and confirms encrypted signatures before accepting a download. This makes the application very difficult to crack. Let's just put it this way--if it were cracked then Apple wouldn't be the only company in trouble since most of the internet commerce and secure connections these days depend on the same technology.
>>"When the breach is caused by administrator fault, you can't allways blame the o.s."
The weakest link in any system is the human.
If a company wants experienced administrators, they hire Solaris or BSD administrators.
The truth that the Linux corporate interests don't want companies to know is that Linux administrators are inexperienced compared to Solaris and BSD administrators. Talking with a Linux user who has been using Linux since 1.0 was telling me about Kickstart and its benefits. He didn't know what I know, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered sharing the infomation as if it were some revelation. Solaris had Jumpstart ten years ago when this guy was cutting his teeth.
I have never understood why people don't see that companies that opt to use a free operating system will also cut costs by hiring less experienced administrators.
By the way, Apple's strategy is no accident. They deliberately approach Mac OS X with the knowledge that the weakest link in the system is the human. After all, when we talk about the Apple company today, we're really talking about the NeXT core developers who are running the company and who started formulating Mac OS X back in 1986.
Linux + Naivete + Misinformed Management Decisions = Hidden Costs
The Linux culture, like other UNIX culture of the past, is a fractured culture.
An employee base that isn't systematically trained and inevitably turns-over will perpetually be on hand to misconfigure Linux systems.
The same misinformed corporate management class are now exchanging the Microsoft monoculture with the Linux monoculture.
You can see what a mistake it is eliminating diversity every day you receive a myDoom payload in your e-mail.
You can also see that Apple's strategy saves money for the manager who choses wisely in these recent articles...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?http://www.mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/press/190204_2.php
The MacWorld article is worth quoting:
Company executive chairman DK Matai said: "The swift adoption of Linux last year within the online government and non-government server community, coupled with inadequate training and knowledge on how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third party applications, has contributed to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers. Migration to Open Source can be fool's gold without adequate training and understanding of the impact that third party applications have on overall safety and security."
And obviously incapable of making up his own mind.
A lucrative career for the systems adminstrator in the future. Taking care of Linux systems among the elderly.
Linux is the imposition of the system administrator's concept of computing on the masses. It will never work. The desktop being referred to is the work place desktop. In this area, of course Linux will gain market share ahead of Mac OS X. It is only natural businesses will keep the hardware and eliminate Windows by switching to Linux. Dollars and cents, that's all. But in the home, who in their right mind would switch to Linux. Everybody would need an engineering degree and out would go creativity and fun. People instead would opt to stay with Windows at least, or switch to the easiest to use system, Mac OS X. It is because of the tight integeration of hardware and software, that thing you call proprietary, that insures everything works. Who wants to configure drivers and kernels in order to do simple enjoyable things with their computers? As for the x86 versus PowerPC debate. The Virgina Tech demonstration has shut up x86 fans at last. Try creating the third fastest cluster in the world at an 8th of the cost of the two fastest clusters using x86 and Linux. The researchers who created the G5 cluster decided to use Mac OS X over Linux as well, thus eliminating the myth that Linux is somehow better suited for clusters as well. Another thing to bear in mind. Linux as a free operating systems will be temporary. Only as long as it serves to gain market share. As soon as it is at a critical mass of adoption, its developers will charge for it. We are seeing the creation of another corporation. Linux can only be floated by companies for so long before they need to start making money on their investment. I say use what works and what is fun to use. Not what is in vogue or simply free. Nothing is free, nothing.
I'm afaid Linux will suffer from the same contentiousness UNIX has always suffered. Competing versions and pet versions pitted against each other. This is a news item in an otherwise slow news day. When the Microsoft steamroller starts up again with the release of Longhorn Linux better watch out.
Mac OS X at least has a vision of its future. And its users are regular people. Can you imagine artists and grandma running Linux.
This story is about hardware most of all. Everyone running Linux would love to test run Mac OS X on their x86 hardware but they can't.
Apple would switch to x86 (which they can at a moment's notice) if they felt their market share were really being threatended.
I do not think companies switching to Linux do it for the elegance of the solution. But instead for economic reasons.
It is an evolutionary step coming from Windows to move to Linux. It's cheaper just keeping the same hardware.
To switch to Mac OS X is revolutionary.
These companies do not need G5 power. They will not dump their hardware investments immediately so they evolve. But for the next hardware buying cycle Apple should be prepared to gain market share by offering a $400 computer just for business use.
Then companies making the switch from Windows can maximize the value out of their investment.