To many, an easily obtained, free pirated copy of XP is better than a truly free copy of GNU/Linux.
Obviously, based on sales, a full priced version of XP or W2K is better than a truly free copy of Linux. Hell, it is to me. I guess that that proves that you literally cannot *give* Linux away!
Linux is unusable. Look, I can give you a pile of cow shit for FREE instead of you having to buy lunch. Is that a deal? Why would you BUY lunch when I'm willing to give you cow shit instead for FREE? There's a difference between price and value. People keep paying for software because it offers them a good value. Linux is useless to me because I can't get the goddamned thing to work. Thus, W2K or XP is very much worth the price to me. The utility that I get from W2K or XP far exceeds the price, so I buy it. When you get to high school, hopefully, you'll have to take Economics. Any basics Economics class will explain the difference ebtween price and value. A good teacher will be able to explain it to you better than I can.
That's what we use at our business. We have an old notebook running W2K that does everything for us. It's out gateway, firewall, file server (frequently backed up), etc.
Once markets devolve into oligopolies, they no longer give us the full benefits of capitalism and end up being little better than communism.
But when has that happened? What industry has gotten stuck in an oligopy or monopoly due to those large companies exertign their influence and NOT due to a lack of competitors? I personally can't think of any. I could be wrong, but in most markets, even those that have large barriers to entry (like capital intensive businesses), new companies have come in to shake things up and unseat the big guys.
In most industries, I'd guess, open source is a moot point. There simply is no open source software comprable to the vast majority of business related applications out there. For example, there's no open source point of sale product that even comes close to what's out there in the proprietary market.
It's not that I support "capitalism run amok". I support capitalism, meaning that if you create a product that provides such a good value that you get a large majority of market share, that you are entitled to keep that market share, and not have the government step in to take that away from you. That works on a large or a small scale. I don't differentiate between small and large companies. That's hypocrisy to think that small companies deserve to keep what they earn, but once you reach some arbitrary point as far as revenue or market share or whatever, then you start to become penalized for it.
It helps that I actually know what it takes to make a successful business. If anybody ever tried to take any of it from me forcefully, they're gonna have to kill me first, it's that simple.
In this case, MS is #1 because there aren't any reasonable alternatives in their market (low-mid end PC operating systems). If there were, then they wouldn't necessarily have the market share they do. The only competition they have right now in their market is Apple, and Apple continues to shoot itself in the foot with all of its proprietary hardware lock-in and its high prices.
First off, MS is not the only proprietary software company out there. There are thousands. Secondly, your #2 isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be. If our small company moved to all open source, we'd go bankrupt. 1. We'd have to hire a system admin that now we don't need with Windows systems. 2. The software we need would have to be written from scratch.
This really should not be modded as "+1 Interesting", but instead "-1 Troll"
Hang on a second here.... (Sun is not a stable company, and its survival is questionable.)
Sun had a 2003 profit of $312,000,000. But then you go on to say that Linux has the backing of stable commercial companies. What Linux companies, might I ask, are more financially sound than Sun?
Just FYI, this phrase is pretty damn silly. It sounds like you're a 100% government supporter. I mean, I'm a "convicted speeder" but I don't have people referring to me as "Dogdude, the convicted speeder". Calling somebody a "convicted monopolist" implies that you back the government's ridiculous, unenforced, useless monopoly laws. But of course, if you do, then that renders your post to hold no water, whatsoever.
I reckon you've got to think outside the box to find security problems anyway
Not really. What most OSS hackers don't realize is that in commercial software companies, they have whole departments, hell, whole divisions that do nothing but QA. They use special programs that are designed solely to root out common problems (like the famous Rational Rose). Any good software company does have people who do nothing but look for security problems, so it's not outside the box thinking... it's a rational, structured method for doing QA, as opposed to the OSS approach which is 'Have a lot of people use the program, 99% of which will use it the exact same way, and use the same subset of features, and hope that they stumble across problems'. Commercial software generally has a very proactive approach, while OSS has a very reactive approach to problems.
What does how long it's been around have to do with anything?
That's the whole point of this article. The point is that OSS security holes are NOT being found at all because nobody is looking for them! You should probably read the article...
For example, WU-FTPD had several complex buffer overflows that survived for more than a decade, despite the code base being tiny (around 10,000 lines). This code was heavily audited and was popular as a test bed for early static vulnerability analysis tools due to its size and its history of security issues.
But again, the problem is the problems are not being found in the first place. Look for example, at Sendmail. It's 25 years old, but is *still* a buggy, buggy app. It STILL isn't secure and bug-free. The inevitable comparison with MS willl come up, so let's look at that. First off, MS hasn't even been *around* for 25 years. As far as specific products go... with all of its patches, W2K is generally considered quite stable, and relatively secure (again, with all of its patches in place). W2K is about 5 years old at this point.
SuSE, Mandrake, Xandros, Linspire, Knoppix, TurboLinux, Ark, Mepis and more have had those three points solved ages ago.
I wish you'd tell me computer that. I tried SUSE and Mandrake just in the last few weeks, and neither of them could see my shared printer, and in neither of them, could I install even Firefox, and have a usable copy after the install (no shortcuts for it... anywhere!!). And while Mandrake found it, SUSE didn't find my sound card. So, I wish that what you were saying was true, but in my experience, these distributions still have a long way to go, just to get to the functionality that Windows 95 had. Once I can print, listen to music, and install programs, then it's time to start working on usability.
I can assure you, that if I didn't have a good, up to date anti-virus program running, that my machine would be filled with trojans and backdoors. Firefox lets plenty straight through. I know I'm not imagining thing, when my computer makes a bizarre beep, and my virus checker pops up a window asking what I'd like to do about WormX.
I don't have specific sites. Random porn sites that are transitory, most DEFINATELY have various trojans. Firefox lets them through, and my virus checker (http://free-av.com) picks them up. All kinds of trojans. Granted, there are probably fewer because Active X doesn't work, but depending on how much time I spend surfing, I average catching between 1-3 trojans a day that come by way of Firefox.
I hate to burst your bubble, but Firefox won't help. I've seen the same number of viruses and spyware attempts go through Firefox, only to be stopped by my anti-virus software. Firefox may have some nifty features, but I wouldn't call it any more secure than IE.
With Windows there is no way to determine the real cause of an Application Crash and so you have no way of fixing the issue without a reboot.
That's not true at all. The Event Viewer has been around since at least NT 3.51 You can always check the system, security, and application logs there, and it's got all of the error information that is available from the application.
IE What I don't understand is why an internet browser or mail reader can't have an automatic version checker.
I was thinking the same thing about Firefox this morning when I noticed that all of our business machines had an IE update downloaded and ready to install.
Personally, I wouldn't mind one bit if Mozilla users and Open Source developers found a security problem once per hour and got the problem fixed quickly
And what job do you have that allows you do do hourly, hell, even daily software updates, pray tell? That's totally and utterly unrealistic for 99.999% of the population that has to work for a living, unfortunately.
Actually the check for updates seems to be working in 1.0PR for Firebird and.8 for Thunderbird
Well, we still don't know if they work because there is nothing to update to. I *hope* that they get something automatic going ASAP so I can recommend the programs to family and friends without having to physically go over to their houses and do the weekly(?) updates.
Not really. If you update any Mozilla programs, they say very clearly that you should not install on top of an existing install because it will probably break. And in fact, every time you try to update any Mozilla program, the extensions break, too.
So will it be Mozilla's fault... when people don't upgrade to versions that aren't vulnerable?
No. Then it'll be the stupid user's fault. Only MS is at fault for not actively coming to each users' house and business and physically installing the update for them, even though MS's Automatic Update feature works great. Even though Firefox/Thunderbird/SunBird's manual "check for updates" feature doesn't even work, it's definitely the *stupid* user's problem when it comes to any non-MS program.
No, Windows Update is great. I've got it running on all of our machines here in my business. I saw that I think (Mandrake?) has something similar. I was just looking for an easy way to install stuff, not necessarily do updates. So then this "Synaptic Package Manager"... does it come with Debian, or is it something else I have to install. And if I have to install it, how do I install it and still be able to run it again (back to the same problem)?
Slashdot Mirror
To many, an easily obtained, free pirated copy of XP is better than a truly free copy of GNU/Linux.
Obviously, based on sales, a full priced version of XP or W2K is better than a truly free copy of Linux. Hell, it is to me. I guess that that proves that you literally cannot *give* Linux away!
Linux is free.
Linux is unusable. Look, I can give you a pile of cow shit for FREE instead of you having to buy lunch. Is that a deal? Why would you BUY lunch when I'm willing to give you cow shit instead for FREE? There's a difference between price and value. People keep paying for software because it offers them a good value. Linux is useless to me because I can't get the goddamned thing to work. Thus, W2K or XP is very much worth the price to me. The utility that I get from W2K or XP far exceeds the price, so I buy it. When you get to high school, hopefully, you'll have to take Economics. Any basics Economics class will explain the difference ebtween price and value. A good teacher will be able to explain it to you better than I can.
That's what we use at our business. We have an old notebook running W2K that does everything for us. It's out gateway, firewall, file server (frequently backed up), etc.
Once markets devolve into oligopolies, they no longer give us the full benefits of capitalism and end up being little better than communism.
But when has that happened? What industry has gotten stuck in an oligopy or monopoly due to those large companies exertign their influence and NOT due to a lack of competitors? I personally can't think of any. I could be wrong, but in most markets, even those that have large barriers to entry (like capital intensive businesses), new companies have come in to shake things up and unseat the big guys.
You forgot...
2a. Figure out why half of your hardware doesn't work.
2b. Look for apps to replace your current business apps.
2c. Discover that they either don't exist or are bug rdden pre-betas.
2d. Install them.
2e. Figure out how to run them (I just found out that you can't just install something in Linux and expect it to show up on any menu).
2f. Spend hours banging away at some application with little to no documentation.
2g. Realize that you have a machine that can browse the web and send email and create documents (good luck with printing), and that's about it.
2h. Expense your 100 hours of wasted time, and format and re-install Windows and your business apps.
2i. Kick yourself for wasting so much time and money on substandard, amateur software that is overly hyped.
Or at least, that was my experience.
In most industries, I'd guess, open source is a moot point. There simply is no open source software comprable to the vast majority of business related applications out there. For example, there's no open source point of sale product that even comes close to what's out there in the proprietary market.
It's not that I support "capitalism run amok". I support capitalism, meaning that if you create a product that provides such a good value that you get a large majority of market share, that you are entitled to keep that market share, and not have the government step in to take that away from you. That works on a large or a small scale. I don't differentiate between small and large companies. That's hypocrisy to think that small companies deserve to keep what they earn, but once you reach some arbitrary point as far as revenue or market share or whatever, then you start to become penalized for it.
It helps that I actually know what it takes to make a successful business. If anybody ever tried to take any of it from me forcefully, they're gonna have to kill me first, it's that simple.
In this case, MS is #1 because there aren't any reasonable alternatives in their market (low-mid end PC operating systems). If there were, then they wouldn't necessarily have the market share they do. The only competition they have right now in their market is Apple, and Apple continues to shoot itself in the foot with all of its proprietary hardware lock-in and its high prices.
First off, MS is not the only proprietary software company out there. There are thousands. Secondly, your #2 isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be. If our small company moved to all open source, we'd go bankrupt. 1. We'd have to hire a system admin that now we don't need with Windows systems. 2. The software we need would have to be written from scratch.
This really should not be modded as "+1 Interesting", but instead "-1 Troll"
Hang on a second here. ...
(Sun is not a stable company, and its survival is questionable.)
Sun had a 2003 profit of $312,000,000. But then you go on to say that Linux has the backing of stable commercial companies. What Linux companies, might I ask, are more financially sound than Sun?
convicted monolopist
Just FYI, this phrase is pretty damn silly. It sounds like you're a 100% government supporter. I mean, I'm a "convicted speeder" but I don't have people referring to me as "Dogdude, the convicted speeder". Calling somebody a "convicted monopolist" implies that you back the government's ridiculous, unenforced, useless monopoly laws. But of course, if you do, then that renders your post to hold no water, whatsoever.
I reckon you've got to think outside the box to find security problems anyway
Not really. What most OSS hackers don't realize is that in commercial software companies, they have whole departments, hell, whole divisions that do nothing but QA. They use special programs that are designed solely to root out common problems (like the famous Rational Rose). Any good software company does have people who do nothing but look for security problems, so it's not outside the box thinking... it's a rational, structured method for doing QA, as opposed to the OSS approach which is 'Have a lot of people use the program, 99% of which will use it the exact same way, and use the same subset of features, and hope that they stumble across problems'. Commercial software generally has a very proactive approach, while OSS has a very reactive approach to problems.
What does how long it's been around have to do with anything?
That's the whole point of this article. The point is that OSS security holes are NOT being found at all because nobody is looking for them! You should probably read the article...
For example, WU-FTPD had several complex buffer overflows that survived for more than a decade, despite the code base being tiny (around 10,000 lines). This code was heavily audited and was popular as a test bed for early static vulnerability analysis tools due to its size and its history of security issues.
What about more eyeballs meaning a faster fix?
But again, the problem is the problems are not being found in the first place. Look for example, at Sendmail. It's 25 years old, but is *still* a buggy, buggy app. It STILL isn't secure and bug-free. The inevitable comparison with MS willl come up, so let's look at that. First off, MS hasn't even been *around* for 25 years. As far as specific products go... with all of its patches, W2K is generally considered quite stable, and relatively secure (again, with all of its patches in place). W2K is about 5 years old at this point.
So, I think that this article has some merit.
SuSE, Mandrake, Xandros, Linspire, Knoppix, TurboLinux, Ark, Mepis and more have had those three points solved ages ago.
I wish you'd tell me computer that. I tried SUSE and Mandrake just in the last few weeks, and neither of them could see my shared printer, and in neither of them, could I install even Firefox, and have a usable copy after the install (no shortcuts for it... anywhere!!). And while Mandrake found it, SUSE didn't find my sound card. So, I wish that what you were saying was true, but in my experience, these distributions still have a long way to go, just to get to the functionality that Windows 95 had. Once I can print, listen to music, and install programs, then it's time to start working on usability.
I can assure you, that if I didn't have a good, up to date anti-virus program running, that my machine would be filled with trojans and backdoors. Firefox lets plenty straight through. I know I'm not imagining thing, when my computer makes a bizarre beep, and my virus checker pops up a window asking what I'd like to do about WormX.
I don't have specific sites. Random porn sites that are transitory, most DEFINATELY have various trojans. Firefox lets them through, and my virus checker (http://free-av.com) picks them up. All kinds of trojans. Granted, there are probably fewer because Active X doesn't work, but depending on how much time I spend surfing, I average catching between 1-3 trojans a day that come by way of Firefox.
I hate to burst your bubble, but Firefox won't help. I've seen the same number of viruses and spyware attempts go through Firefox, only to be stopped by my anti-virus software. Firefox may have some nifty features, but I wouldn't call it any more secure than IE.
With Windows there is no way to determine the real cause of an Application Crash and so you have no way of fixing the issue without a reboot.
That's not true at all. The Event Viewer has been around since at least NT 3.51 You can always check the system, security, and application logs there, and it's got all of the error information that is available from the application.
This guy started https://thawte.com! I've always wondered why I had to deal with South Africa for our SSL! You learn something new every day.
IE What I don't understand is why an internet browser or mail reader can't have an automatic version checker.
I was thinking the same thing about Firefox this morning when I noticed that all of our business machines had an IE update downloaded and ready to install.
Personally, I wouldn't mind one bit if Mozilla users and Open Source developers found a security problem once per hour and got the problem fixed quickly
And what job do you have that allows you do do hourly, hell, even daily software updates, pray tell? That's totally and utterly unrealistic for 99.999% of the population that has to work for a living, unfortunately.
Actually the check for updates seems to be working in 1.0PR for Firebird and .8 for Thunderbird
Well, we still don't know if they work because there is nothing to update to. I *hope* that they get something automatic going ASAP so I can recommend the programs to family and friends without having to physically go over to their houses and do the weekly(?) updates.
Not really. If you update any Mozilla programs, they say very clearly that you should not install on top of an existing install because it will probably break. And in fact, every time you try to update any Mozilla program, the extensions break, too.
So will it be Mozilla's fault... when people don't upgrade to versions that aren't vulnerable?
No. Then it'll be the stupid user's fault. Only MS is at fault for not actively coming to each users' house and business and physically installing the update for them, even though MS's Automatic Update feature works great. Even though Firefox/Thunderbird/SunBird's manual "check for updates" feature doesn't even work, it's definitely the *stupid* user's problem when it comes to any non-MS program.
No, Windows Update is great. I've got it running on all of our machines here in my business. I saw that I think (Mandrake?) has something similar. I was just looking for an easy way to install stuff, not necessarily do updates. So then this "Synaptic Package Manager"... does it come with Debian, or is it something else I have to install. And if I have to install it, how do I install it and still be able to run it again (back to the same problem)?