Video games give a good demonstration of what it is possible to do with a video card. That is irrelevant to what was demonstrated in these videos.
These videos were a demonstration of the type of thing that is possible because of the composite and damage (and perhaps a few other) extensions recently added to xorg. Before this, you were stuck with fairly static windows and fake transparency if you were using anything but a special X replacement (like XDirectFB or something). These videos show transparent, wobbly windows and real-time previews that weren't possible with regular X before.
Anyone who comes away from this saying, "No shit, graphics cards have been able to animate wobbly stuff for years," is missing the point by a lot. The hardware's been there, but the framework for using it hasn't. Now the framework is there, and people are demonstrating what's possible with it. It's a tech demo of the X extensions, not of whatever old graphics card was running in that guy's laptop. Games aren't a demonstration of that.
First of all, let's separate the world in to two different type of people: normal users, and power users. Normal users will run a web browser, office applications, an e-mail client, etc. Power users are the ones who always need more resources.
Do you really think there's no one in between your theoretical "normal users" and "power users"?
Linux is becoming more and more desktop oriented, and it will eventually reach the state where most users would probably not expected to know about '/etc/security/limits.conf' or wherever.
There are whole classes of people who would probably be considered Windows "power users" who aren't sys admins, and don't consider things like process and memory limits. For example, do you expect an average engineering student to know the intimate details of his operating system, and to understand error messages like, 'could not perform fork: resource not available'?
But instead we clambered around arguing what desktop environment was better... and not actually *doing* anything that the public knows about.
...
Because all the shmucks around here with nothing better to do than post in KDE vs. Gnome flame wars all day are well qualified to write highly polished software for their respective desktop environments?
Apache is written with parallel execution in mind. Forking off separate processes is the most basic and easiest method of parallel programming.
Of course, not all programs can be partitioned into little units that don't need to communicate with each other, and that's where locking and synchronization become important.
I agree, though; this isn't exactly huge news. I thought the idea of hardware SMT (oops, CMT) was around a long time ago (we learned about it in my computer architecture course at university). The newer Pentium 4's have hyperthreading, just not multiple cores to make this really happen.
How is Sun's design different from having multiple cores appear as multiple chips, and then allowing separate threads to be on separate chips (that does happen currently, no?)? How will this be significantly different than using dual-core chips from Intel, AMD and IBM?
I get the Linux kernel mailing list delivered to my inbox, and although I don't read it thoroughly, it does seem that there isn't a lot of "only fix bugs" time before a kernel is released. There are even changes between the final "release candidate" and the final version (when generally, a release candidate is a version that you put out there, and see if there are any bugs, and if not, then it becomes the final version, with no changes in between).
You don't need separate minor or even patch versions to have alternating development and bug fixing. However, that's not how Linux seems to work currently.
And my reasoning for slow: What exactly you have here is Application on top of KDE lib on top of Qt lib on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux
Okay.
Windows? Application on Windows API on Win32 GUI on Win Kernel
Wrong. You left out MFC, or whatever equivalent overlay on top of the Windows API you're using. Most people don't program in the straight Windows API anymore, and even if they don't use MFC, they write their own wrapper around the Windows API.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of stuff in the KDE libs is just KDE standard widgets that aren't part of Qt. So it's more like kdelibs + Qt is one layer if you're developing KDE applications. It's just artificially split in some ways. It's a lot like how some widgets are in the Gnome libs, and others are in GTK+. In fact, I believe some widgets get pushed from Gnome libs into GTK+, because they are more generally useful.
The number of "layers" is irrelevant. For example, Qt can be split into a section that deals with GUI widgets, and a section that deals with making C++ programming nicer. If Trolltech chose to market them separately, would you call that two layers, and say that KDE must be even slower because of this?
By the way, was that your explanation of why you believe the slowness you have actually perceived is happening, or were you saying that "5 layers is too many, therefore it must be slow"? I'm unsure on that point. KDE isn't slow on my computer, and it's more than 3 years old (the computer, that is). What are you running it on?
Finally, I'm curious: What isn't integrated about KDE? And have you filed bugs/wishlists to alert the developers?
When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME? Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave?
I just went into kview, copied part of a picture, and pasted it into the GIMP. Then I went into kpdf, copied part of a page, and pasted that into the GIMP. Then I copied part of a page in kpdf, and pasted it into a konqueror window, and it asked me what filename I'd like, and turned it into a PNG image.
I don't have any sound editing software, so I can't test anything there.
Without configuring 20 various text files?
I haven't used text files to configure printers in a long time. With CUPS and KDE, you can just use their printer install wizard. It's about the same as installing a printer on Windows.
Yes, but if you use the Jabber model, then I can set up a server for myself and my friends to use on my DSL connection. Everyone could get IM services from their favorite computer geek friend.
You don't need a multi-billion dollar corporation to provide the servers. At least, theoretically you don't.
Playing DVDs on Linux requires going around the copy protection on the DVD using software that isn't specifically licensed by the MPAA (unless you buy one of the few DVD players that doesn't use DeCSS), which is illegal under the DMCA, apparently.
Connecting via OSCAR to one of AOL's servers with a non-AOL client doesn't involve circumventing copy protection to access copyrighted material. Thus, it's not illegal.
Reverse engineering has a long history in the computer industry, and as far as I know, it's never been illegal (aside from specific circumstances with the DMCA these days) in and of itself (in the US at least).
It's interesting, but Firefox annoys me for similar reasons, and that's why I made the switch to Konqueror.
For example, way back when I used Mozilla, if I wanted to load a URL on a web page in a new tab (one that wasn't a link, that is), I would highlight the URL, and hit:
Ctrl-C Ctrl-L Ctrl-V Ctrl-Enter
Those are all very easy key combinations to press. Eventually, when I got around to switching to Firefox, I found that the "Open in New Tab" shortcut had changed to Alt-Enter. That seems like a small change, but it totally messed up my flow for months, and Alt-Enter is an intrinsically harder combination to hit, in my opinion.
So I went looking for ways to change the key combinations, and found out there weren't any, in the name of simplicity. And the worst part was what Ctrl-Enter now did: It turns "foo" into "www.foo.com". Why does it do that? Because that's what god-damn IE does (:)). And the Firefox guys had no interest in pleasing existing Mozilla users, because they wanted to provide the nearly useless key combination from IE.
Anyhow, I've since switched over to Konqueror, where I can set any key combination I want, and I'm blissful. Yes, I could retrain my muscle memory if I really wanted (just as you could), but it's a pain, and it'd always be more of a hassle, and not allowing me to change such a simple thing feels like a slap in the face.
I think there's since been an extension written that allows you to change key combinations in Firefox, but I'm not very interested anymore. It's interesting; Firefox went out of its way to placate IE users, irritating the muscles of Mozilla users, but it doesn't match up with IE enough to not irritate the muscles of IE users.:)
It's also true that most users who aren't savvy will get their computers assembled by an "OEM builder," such as Dell, who won't have a problem with drivers either.
You did notice that part of the sentence you quoted, didn't you?
People dual boot between Linux and Windows because of programs that don't work well on one or the other. For example, many games don't run on Linux unless you use wine, which is a real pain. On the other hand, Gnome and KDE, for example, aren't built to work well as a Windows desktop.
The differences between XP Home and Pro are much less severe. I can't name any off hand, in fact (something to do with advanced networking features, I believe). I've never heard of something that runs on XP Home that doesn't run on XP Pro.
People don't dual boot between Windows and Linux to separate their work environment and their play environment. They dual boot because they have no choice. I could see dual booting between 98 and XP, if you need to make sure that the software you write runs under 98, but dual booting between XP Pro and XP Home is, yes, pretty silly.
What distributions did you actually try? You're a little slim on any real details.
How many Windows users have to install their own OS? I assure you it's not many, because most probably couldn't do it. And if you were able to buy a Dell home machine with Linux, you wouldn't be running xf86config and the like. It'd be set up fine from the get-go.
Anyhow, I can't think of any desktop distributions that require you to use xf86config. Gentoo and maybe Debian would force you, but those aren't designed to be out-of-the-box distributions.
He probably means that e17 has been 'up-and-coming' for like 4 years now, but still hasn't made it past the 'e17 is only available via no-guarantees, pre-alpha cvs checkout' stage.
I used to use e16 and love it, and I was excited about e17 like 3 years ago, but it's still not here. More and more I find myself enjoying KDE, where everything integrates nicely, which won't happen with E.
Then again, as people have noted elsewhere, Enlightenment is more of an experimental playground than a contender for a serious, usable, integrated desktop, and it fills that niche quite nicely.
Basically the C# language is built for the masses of lame C / VB / C++ coders that have no sense of style. Seriously, nobody with any self respect could even write in C++ if they knew the difference.
Java is also a language built for the masses. It may be the best out of C, C++ and VB (maybe), but if you think that's all there is to programming languages out there, you're mistaken.
Go learn Ruby or Haskell or OCaml if you want to see a modern, interesting, elegant language. Or alternatively, go and learn Lisp/Scheme or Smalltalk, and realize how poorly Java copies some ideas that have been in languages for decades.
Don't claim Java is for people with senses of style as far as computer languages are concerned. Java is good for corporate style programming and the like, but it isn't beautiful.
So you're too lazy to develop a sense of humor, but you're not too lazy to write a two paragraph, relevantly linked diatribe in response to a one line jibe?
How does that relate to exposé being more or less of a flashy gimmick that compensates for the way OSX desktops are set up by default?
I like eye candy, but excuse me if I don't cream my pants and proclaim a desktop usability revolution because Apple made a prettier, slightly more usable version of alt-tab.
By the way, I don't deal with rpm/dependency hell either. Thanks for making irrelevant digs against Linux and responding to points I never made, though.
Huh? You're joking. Try using Mac OS X for some real work and get your screen a bit busy. Multiple terminal app windows, a brower or two, mail, etc and you'll soon discover just how useful it [expose] is.
Try using Linux for some real work with a window manager that supports virtual desktops (almost every single one), and you'll realize that expose is mostly a flashy compensation for the fact that MacOS X requires (by default, at least) you to have every single window on a space the size of your monitor.
That doesn't work because you haven't submitted your amendments to Microsoft and given them the chance to accept or reject your new terms. You should try reading the stuff you quote in your post. "Offers ammended [sic] terms for consideration," (emphasis mine) does not mean, "makes up an entirely new contract that is automatically and irrevocably accepted by the other party."
> emacs, The editor of choice in the Linux community? I havent seen a machine installed by anyone other than myself that doesn't have emacs, either by default or added in later.... > vim, My editor of choice? And pretty much the defacto standard (I can sit down at ANY *NIX machine and type "vi" and get an editor - it is expected). Again I've yet to see a *NIX machine that doesn't have vim or some other vi clone on it.
I didn't have emacs installed until I finally decided to learn it recently, and I don't have either vi or vim at all. If I'm not going to use something, there's no reason to have it around, so I don't. In fact, as Linux goes more mainstream, there will be less and less people who will need either of these, because they won't be programming.
> ruby, another thing I can live without (entirely).
Try it out. You can get rid of perl then (well, not really. There will still be plenty of heathens out there writing stuff that forces you to use perl).:)
> PHP, Happily provided for you with many "default" prepackaged apache installs. If you're gonna count Apache vulnerabilities as OS holes (which I personally don't - I have several machines that don't have any httpd running b/c they aren't web servers) you need to count PHP holes too.
If we're going to count php and apache holes on Linux, we need to count them on Windows, too. You can install both of them there, yet they're not listed as security vulnerabilities.
gcc, make, et. al.? Even though RedHat Enterprise AS3 doesn't install them by default, *I* sure as hell consider development tools a MUST-HAVE on *NIX systems.
It's only necessary if you're either a programmer or installing stuff from source. Only on Linux are most users (currently) programmers, and you can get anything that's not particularly obscure as a compiled package. So strictly speaking, no, there's no need to have gcc installed by default any more than there is on Windows.
And I can argue just as I did above that you can run gcc and make and so on on Windows as well, yet they're only listed as Linux vulnerabilities.
Anyhow, I'm not saying we should stop patching external apps, or ignore vulnerabilities. I'm saying that the statement being made here: "The number of security advisories in Windows' core products is less than the number of security advisories in a core Linux system + 1000 packages, therefore Windows is more secure," is ridiculous.
Exactly. If you look at the secunia pages, you'll notice that all of the advisories are from things bundled in Windows or MS Office.
The Red Hat advisories include vulnerabilities for Perl, emacs, xpdf, vim, PHP, acroread, ruby, etc.
Red Hat has vulnerabilities for multiple programming languages, multiple mail servers, multiple PDF viewers, and so on. Many of the Linux vulnerabilities are for programs that have Windows versions, but aren't reported as such. Many other Linux vulnerabilities are for programs that aren't included on Windows at all, and are therefore not reported (I don't see any Adobe Acrobat vulnerabilities for Windows).
So comparing the two pages as if they represent equal things is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Every PDF I have renders beautifully on kpdf. Can you post a link to one that doesn't?
Video games give a good demonstration of what it is possible to do with a video card. That is irrelevant to what was demonstrated in these videos.
These videos were a demonstration of the type of thing that is possible because of the composite and damage (and perhaps a few other) extensions recently added to xorg. Before this, you were stuck with fairly static windows and fake transparency if you were using anything but a special X replacement (like XDirectFB or something). These videos show transparent, wobbly windows and real-time previews that weren't possible with regular X before.
Anyone who comes away from this saying, "No shit, graphics cards have been able to animate wobbly stuff for years," is missing the point by a lot. The hardware's been there, but the framework for using it hasn't. Now the framework is there, and people are demonstrating what's possible with it. It's a tech demo of the X extensions, not of whatever old graphics card was running in that guy's laptop. Games aren't a demonstration of that.
First of all, let's separate the world in to two different type of people: normal users, and power users. Normal users will run a web browser, office applications, an e-mail client, etc. Power users are the ones who always need more resources.
Do you really think there's no one in between your theoretical "normal users" and "power users"?
Linux is becoming more and more desktop oriented, and it will eventually reach the state where most users would probably not expected to know about '/etc/security/limits.conf' or wherever.
There are whole classes of people who would probably be considered Windows "power users" who aren't sys admins, and don't consider things like process and memory limits. For example, do you expect an average engineering student to know the intimate details of his operating system, and to understand error messages like, 'could not perform fork: resource not available'?
WTF with trash cans? When I delete something, I want it gone!!
Then enable the delete context menu option that bypasses the trash, and use that.
But instead we clambered around arguing what desktop environment was better... and not actually *doing* anything that the public knows about.
...
Because all the shmucks around here with nothing better to do than post in KDE vs. Gnome flame wars all day are well qualified to write highly polished software for their respective desktop environments?
Apache is written with parallel execution in mind. Forking off separate processes is the most basic and easiest method of parallel programming.
Of course, not all programs can be partitioned into little units that don't need to communicate with each other, and that's where locking and synchronization become important.
I agree, though; this isn't exactly huge news. I thought the idea of hardware SMT (oops, CMT) was around a long time ago (we learned about it in my computer architecture course at university). The newer Pentium 4's have hyperthreading, just not multiple cores to make this really happen.
How is Sun's design different from having multiple cores appear as multiple chips, and then allowing separate threads to be on separate chips (that does happen currently, no?)? How will this be significantly different than using dual-core chips from Intel, AMD and IBM?
I believe he was suggesting that instead of:
2.6.(2n+1) == add features
2.6.(2n) == stabilize
We instead do:
2.6.n-devK == add features
2.6.n-preK == fix bugs
2.6.n == fairly stable
I get the Linux kernel mailing list delivered to my inbox, and although I don't read it thoroughly, it does seem that there isn't a lot of "only fix bugs" time before a kernel is released. There are even changes between the final "release candidate" and the final version (when generally, a release candidate is a version that you put out there, and see if there are any bugs, and if not, then it becomes the final version, with no changes in between).
You don't need separate minor or even patch versions to have alternating development and bug fixing. However, that's not how Linux seems to work currently.
Well, then. I stand corrected. :)
And my reasoning for slow: What exactly you have here is Application on top of KDE lib on top of Qt lib on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux
Okay.
Windows? Application on Windows API on Win32 GUI on Win Kernel
Wrong. You left out MFC, or whatever equivalent overlay on top of the Windows API you're using. Most people don't program in the straight Windows API anymore, and even if they don't use MFC, they write their own wrapper around the Windows API.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of stuff in the KDE libs is just KDE standard widgets that aren't part of Qt. So it's more like kdelibs + Qt is one layer if you're developing KDE applications. It's just artificially split in some ways. It's a lot like how some widgets are in the Gnome libs, and others are in GTK+. In fact, I believe some widgets get pushed from Gnome libs into GTK+, because they are more generally useful.
The number of "layers" is irrelevant. For example, Qt can be split into a section that deals with GUI widgets, and a section that deals with making C++ programming nicer. If Trolltech chose to market them separately, would you call that two layers, and say that KDE must be even slower because of this?
By the way, was that your explanation of why you believe the slowness you have actually perceived is happening, or were you saying that "5 layers is too many, therefore it must be slow"? I'm unsure on that point. KDE isn't slow on my computer, and it's more than 3 years old (the computer, that is). What are you running it on?
Finally, I'm curious: What isn't integrated about KDE? And have you filed bugs/wishlists to alert the developers?
When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME? Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave?
I just went into kview, copied part of a picture, and pasted it into the GIMP. Then I went into kpdf, copied part of a page, and pasted that into the GIMP. Then I copied part of a page in kpdf, and pasted it into a konqueror window, and it asked me what filename I'd like, and turned it into a PNG image.
I don't have any sound editing software, so I can't test anything there.
Without configuring 20 various text files?
I haven't used text files to configure printers in a long time. With CUPS and KDE, you can just use their printer install wizard. It's about the same as installing a printer on Windows.
Yes, but if you use the Jabber model, then I can set up a server for myself and my friends to use on my DSL connection. Everyone could get IM services from their favorite computer geek friend.
You don't need a multi-billion dollar corporation to provide the servers. At least, theoretically you don't.
Playing DVDs on Linux requires going around the copy protection on the DVD using software that isn't specifically licensed by the MPAA (unless you buy one of the few DVD players that doesn't use DeCSS), which is illegal under the DMCA, apparently.
Connecting via OSCAR to one of AOL's servers with a non-AOL client doesn't involve circumventing copy protection to access copyrighted material. Thus, it's not illegal.
Reverse engineering has a long history in the computer industry, and as far as I know, it's never been illegal (aside from specific circumstances with the DMCA these days) in and of itself (in the US at least).
It's interesting, but Firefox annoys me for similar reasons, and that's why I made the switch to Konqueror.
:)
For example, way back when I used Mozilla, if I wanted to load a URL on a web page in a new tab (one that wasn't a link, that is), I would highlight the URL, and hit:
Ctrl-C
Ctrl-L
Ctrl-V
Ctrl-Enter
Those are all very easy key combinations to press. Eventually, when I got around to switching to Firefox, I found that the "Open in New Tab" shortcut had changed to Alt-Enter. That seems like a small change, but it totally messed up my flow for months, and Alt-Enter is an intrinsically harder combination to hit, in my opinion.
So I went looking for ways to change the key combinations, and found out there weren't any, in the name of simplicity. And the worst part was what Ctrl-Enter now did: It turns "foo" into "www.foo.com". Why does it do that? Because that's what god-damn IE does (:)). And the Firefox guys had no interest in pleasing existing Mozilla users, because they wanted to provide the nearly useless key combination from IE.
Anyhow, I've since switched over to Konqueror, where I can set any key combination I want, and I'm blissful. Yes, I could retrain my muscle memory if I really wanted (just as you could), but it's a pain, and it'd always be more of a hassle, and not allowing me to change such a simple thing feels like a slap in the face.
I think there's since been an extension written that allows you to change key combinations in Firefox, but I'm not very interested anymore. It's interesting; Firefox went out of its way to placate IE users, irritating the muscles of Mozilla users, but it doesn't match up with IE enough to not irritate the muscles of IE users.
True, most users aren't savvy.
It's also true that most users who aren't savvy will get their computers assembled by an "OEM builder," such as Dell, who won't have a problem with drivers either.
You did notice that part of the sentence you quoted, didn't you?
People dual boot between Linux and Windows because of programs that don't work well on one or the other. For example, many games don't run on Linux unless you use wine, which is a real pain. On the other hand, Gnome and KDE, for example, aren't built to work well as a Windows desktop.
The differences between XP Home and Pro are much less severe. I can't name any off hand, in fact (something to do with advanced networking features, I believe). I've never heard of something that runs on XP Home that doesn't run on XP Pro.
People don't dual boot between Windows and Linux to separate their work environment and their play environment. They dual boot because they have no choice. I could see dual booting between 98 and XP, if you need to make sure that the software you write runs under 98, but dual booting between XP Pro and XP Home is, yes, pretty silly.
What distributions did you actually try? You're a little slim on any real details.
How many Windows users have to install their own OS? I assure you it's not many, because most probably couldn't do it. And if you were able to buy a Dell home machine with Linux, you wouldn't be running xf86config and the like. It'd be set up fine from the get-go.
Anyhow, I can't think of any desktop distributions that require you to use xf86config. Gentoo and maybe Debian would force you, but those aren't designed to be out-of-the-box distributions.
Maybe you should get the latest version of your ACRONYM DICTIONARY. :)
He probably means that e17 has been 'up-and-coming' for like 4 years now, but still hasn't made it past the 'e17 is only available via no-guarantees, pre-alpha cvs checkout' stage.
I used to use e16 and love it, and I was excited about e17 like 3 years ago, but it's still not here. More and more I find myself enjoying KDE, where everything integrates nicely, which won't happen with E.
Then again, as people have noted elsewhere, Enlightenment is more of an experimental playground than a contender for a serious, usable, integrated desktop, and it fills that niche quite nicely.
Basically the C# language is built for the masses of lame C / VB / C++ coders that have no sense of style. Seriously, nobody with any self respect could even write in C++ if they knew the difference.
Java is also a language built for the masses. It may be the best out of C, C++ and VB (maybe), but if you think that's all there is to programming languages out there, you're mistaken.
Go learn Ruby or Haskell or OCaml if you want to see a modern, interesting, elegant language. Or alternatively, go and learn Lisp/Scheme or Smalltalk, and realize how poorly Java copies some ideas that have been in languages for decades.
Don't claim Java is for people with senses of style as far as computer languages are concerned. Java is good for corporate style programming and the like, but it isn't beautiful.
So you're too lazy to develop a sense of humor, but you're not too lazy to write a two paragraph, relevantly linked diatribe in response to a one line jibe?
Okay, you can get virtual desktops on a Mac.
How does that relate to exposé being more or less of a flashy gimmick that compensates for the way OSX desktops are set up by default?
I like eye candy, but excuse me if I don't cream my pants and proclaim a desktop usability revolution because Apple made a prettier, slightly more usable version of alt-tab.
By the way, I don't deal with rpm/dependency hell either. Thanks for making irrelevant digs against Linux and responding to points I never made, though.
Huh? You're joking. Try using Mac OS X for some real work and get your screen a bit busy. Multiple terminal app windows, a brower or two, mail, etc and you'll soon discover just how useful it [expose] is.
Try using Linux for some real work with a window manager that supports virtual desktops (almost every single one), and you'll realize that expose is mostly a flashy compensation for the fact that MacOS X requires (by default, at least) you to have every single window on a space the size of your monitor.
That doesn't work because you haven't submitted your amendments to Microsoft and given them the chance to accept or reject your new terms. You should try reading the stuff you quote in your post. "Offers ammended [sic] terms for consideration," (emphasis mine) does not mean, "makes up an entirely new contract that is automatically and irrevocably accepted by the other party."
> emacs, ...
:)
The editor of choice in the Linux community? I havent seen a machine installed by anyone other than myself that doesn't have emacs, either by default or added in later.
> vim,
My editor of choice? And pretty much the defacto standard (I can sit down at ANY *NIX machine and type "vi" and get an editor - it is expected).
Again I've yet to see a *NIX machine that doesn't have vim or some other vi clone on it.
I didn't have emacs installed until I finally decided to learn it recently, and I don't have either vi or vim at all. If I'm not going to use something, there's no reason to have it around, so I don't. In fact, as Linux goes more mainstream, there will be less and less people who will need either of these, because they won't be programming.
> ruby,
another thing I can live without (entirely).
Try it out. You can get rid of perl then (well, not really. There will still be plenty of heathens out there writing stuff that forces you to use perl).
> PHP,
Happily provided for you with many "default" prepackaged apache installs. If you're gonna count Apache vulnerabilities as OS holes (which I personally don't - I have several machines that don't have any httpd running b/c they aren't web servers) you need to count PHP holes too.
If we're going to count php and apache holes on Linux, we need to count them on Windows, too. You can install both of them there, yet they're not listed as security vulnerabilities.
gcc, make, et. al.? Even though RedHat Enterprise AS3 doesn't install them by default, *I* sure as hell consider development tools a MUST-HAVE on *NIX systems.
It's only necessary if you're either a programmer or installing stuff from source. Only on Linux are most users (currently) programmers, and you can get anything that's not particularly obscure as a compiled package. So strictly speaking, no, there's no need to have gcc installed by default any more than there is on Windows.
And I can argue just as I did above that you can run gcc and make and so on on Windows as well, yet they're only listed as Linux vulnerabilities.
Anyhow, I'm not saying we should stop patching external apps, or ignore vulnerabilities. I'm saying that the statement being made here: "The number of security advisories in Windows' core products is less than the number of security advisories in a core Linux system + 1000 packages, therefore Windows is more secure," is ridiculous.
Exactly. If you look at the secunia pages, you'll notice that all of the advisories are from things bundled in Windows or MS Office.
The Red Hat advisories include vulnerabilities for Perl, emacs, xpdf, vim, PHP, acroread, ruby, etc.
Red Hat has vulnerabilities for multiple programming languages, multiple mail servers, multiple PDF viewers, and so on. Many of the Linux vulnerabilities are for programs that have Windows versions, but aren't reported as such. Many other Linux vulnerabilities are for programs that aren't included on Windows at all, and are therefore not reported (I don't see any Adobe Acrobat vulnerabilities for Windows).
So comparing the two pages as if they represent equal things is ridiculous.