The marketing from Redmond back in the Windows NT 3.1 days was that, given the power of workstations, the running the application on a big box and just giving your graphics was dead. (the mantra was 'a better Unix than Unix')
Looks like the graphics on a local server, and the app elsewhere isn't so dead.
And, no one here knows if Micro$oft gave them a deal to switch.
Like the $5 billion 'investment' AT&T got for making their set-top box program with CE.
Or, how state/local government waves taxes for years to get companies to locate there.
For all any of us know, M$ waived licencing fees for X years or Y units shipped, and is sending over 10 software engineers to help them get the product to market.
In the short-term, bottom line, market driven economy, getting $ or talent from Micro$oft is hard to pass up.
Linux is so magnificent that 6 people in the world use it.
THAT IS EXACLTY MY FUCKING POINT!
NO ONE in their RIGHT FUCKING MIND uses Linux. NO ONE knows how to fucking install it. There are NO fucking APPLICATIONS. You want shit? You FUCKING CODE IT YOURSELF.
You must be wondering, then, why anyone would want to use it, or why I advocate it so strongly. Since you're obviously new to the "game" let me explain the rules:
Rule 1 The harder something is to use, the more l33t it is. Rule 2 The less number of people that use something, the more l33t it is. Rule 3 To win the "game", you must become the most l33t0 d00d of them all.
For example, NetBSD used to be hard to use. And few people used to use it. In those days, NetBSD was what we in the industry call 'l33t'. Charles Hannum was 'l33t'. Alan Cox was 'l33t'. Neither of them are anymore, because NetBSD is so incredibly simple to use that any drug-addled adolescent who takes five minutes from downloading britney spears pr0n can install NetBSD on his fucking Pee Cee. l33tness is not cumulative. It is always changing. You must seek out sources of l33tness as the old ones dry up. NetBSD is drying up. It is not l33t. Abandon it while you still can.
Linux, with its six users and no applications (not to mention drives; you want color graphics? Write it yourself) is very l33t. In fact, it is sucking all the l33tness out of NetBSD, FreeBSD, and now even OpenBSD (the choice of the highly paranoid, criminally sociopathic, or in the case of Theo deRaadt, both). The only way to be l33t is to use Linux. No companies use Linux. There are no Linux PDAs. No Linux in my fucking toaster. No "Teach yourself Linux in 12 minute" bullshit either. Linux is l33t. NetBSD is not.
To win the "game", you need l33tness. To win the "game", you need Linux.
(And if you didn't consider this funny, then why was the 1st one funny?)
qmail has its place. Sendmail won't work with coda, but qmail will, so qmail is a good choice for a coda filesystem.
Being I used to hand hack sendmail rules, I have no problems with sendmail. In fact, ORBS automated system said my host was OK one day later than the humans had manually blacklisted my site because I send them e-mail asking them why in the hell they were probing me, told them I was going to block their IP range, and asked for proof of the SPAM that got me listed in the 1st place.
In this case, it is not a problem with mail configs, the problem is with the people behind the ORBS site launching an attack against my host without any reason, other than to find an open relay.
Which is exactly what spammers do, except spammers don't try 17+ times. Spammers try once and sometimes twice. So that makes ORBS 8-17 times as bad as a spammer.
My host is not open, and has never (to the best of my knowledge senator) BEEN open.
Yet, I have spammers try TESTING my system with e-mail ATTACKS on a regular basis. Their action is a RUDE and makes them as much a net-terrorist as ORBS. Difference? A spammer tries once. ORBS is ABUSIVE and tries 17 times.
If ORBS wants to be better than the spammers they claim they are, they should modify their methodology.
1) provide proof that the site being used for spam 2) contact the sysadmin 3) Ask if they want to be terrorized
The purpose of the 17+ different emails is to SCAN and PROBE port 25 for holes.
This behaviour is as annoying and rude when a spammer does it, as it is when ORBS does it. The difference is the spammer tries once. ORBS keeps trying.
A SPAMMER is unable to send mail from my host, so there would be no REASON for me to show up on ORBS, *YET* ORBS attacked my box. When asked for the REASON behind the attack, and PROOF in the form of spam-email from my host...no response was forthcoming.
Your on-going defense of ORBS is sad and pathetic. They are net terrorists, just like spammers.
>As long as they don't break any laws, there is no reason for me to do anything. If you are talking about the door-knob turner, they ARE breaking the law. It is called prowling. And Trespass. And if they keep doing it, stalking http://www.wwlia.org/ca-stalk.htm
>you should try to resolv this matter Resolution is possible with reasonable people. ORBS are not reasonable with their methology. They blindly attack hosts, and when asked for proof as to why my host was attacked, they can provide NO PROOF OF SPAM so that I might figure out how to stop that 'alledged spam' in the future.
Go on NANOG's lists. Look around, and you will see that ORBS is believed to do more harm than good. Because ORBS is no better than the spammers who probe hosts. And because ORBS is a net terrorist.
You want change? Then get ORBS to modify their methods. Get them to contact the admins before they test. And provide proof of the SPAM from a site. Have ORBS be REASONABLE, and they won't generate all this ill-will they have.
>This is the reality. If you want, I'll bet anyone $10 that there will be Net taxes (not on ISPs, but on sales and e-commerce) for municipal, county, and states, in existence by 2010
Sorry. It is already the case that you OWE the taxes. But, people choose to not answer that blank that says "did you buy anything you would owe sales tax for"
>The wording net-terrorist is in itself rude, calling ORBS's actions rude in several of your postings today doesn't realy make me take your case seriously.
It is obvious you have some blind devotion to ORBS. So why don't you take your devotion to NANOG list and convince them that you are right.
Go nutz on blocking my B/c blocks or my AS numbers. While you are att it, be sure to block all the netblocks of the people I work with. And when asked, you can tell people that you put on a block because *YOU* can't handle the truth-ORBS is a net terrorist.
>> In the physical world, someone who goes from house to house trying doorknobs is called a prowler. >Strange, someone doing that in MY world is usualy called friendly neightbor,
Please let us all know what your address is so we can send people by to be friendly and try your door knobs and check to see if your windows are open. And, if the freindly people we send by announces to the world that your house is opne, you won't mind that at all, now will you?
How about this: If you write the ORBS terrorists telling them you find them rude and will be blocking their rude behaviour, they say you make 'cartooney threats'.
Cartooney threats are normally an anvel on the head, or falling through a ACME portable hole placed on the floor.
>2. ORBS perform SMTP relay checks on mail-servers which users nominate after suspect behaviour.
ORBS is unable to provide any PROOF that my host was used for spam.
>3. ORBS only block proven Open Relay servers, and server which ORBS can't check.
And telling the admins at ORBS you are going to block them because you find their behavoir rude gets you listed in the ORBS database.
Note that my server is now listed as a open relay, even though it is not, all because I TOLD them I find their actions rude, and no better than any spammers.
>BOZO-admins who treaten ORBS with lawsuits and other bogus stuff Oh, so if you find ORBS rude, you should get blocked?
>as it should be if you ask me. "Agree with us, or we will have you blocked. Oh, and if you don't like it just sit down and shut up and we won't block you."
>I like ORBS, MAPS is far from sufficient. That is nice Mr. Alan Brown.
>They first send you a note saying your door is unlocked,
And what gives them the right to even be TRYING my door? In the physical world, someone who goes from house to house trying doorknobs is called a prowler.
>They don't need a spam complaint, all they need to see is your open relay.
Ahh, so the claims of testing based on spam complaints is bogus. Hence the inability to provide the spam that got my system on their list. Given you are from NL, are you defending them because you know Alan Brown?
>You don't like it, live with it. If you don't like the fact that *I* find them to be net-terrorists, and as slimey as the spammers they claim to be helping solve the problem of, might I suggest *YOU* live with the fact that ORBS is slime?
I manage a mail hub that was probed by ORBS. If you insist that you manage the box, fine.
They provided the service of informing me of the security hole, for which I am grateful. Thanks to them, I secured my server against spam relaying. Strange. I read my mail log files, and I notice things like people sending e-mail through my system. It is called SYSTEM MANAGEMENT. If YOU needed ORBS to tell you that you had an open relay, and ORBS only probes machines that have been used for spamming, then it looks like you need some help with the concept of system management.
Besides the obvious desire to provoke No if I want to provoke I do something like this: You sir, are an incompentent Sysadmin if you need to have an outside service tell you you have a problem. Looking at your own log files and having a basic knowledge of how to admin a Unix box should let you know you have a problem. You may not know HOW to fix the problem, but your post indicates that you were obvlious to the use of your box by relayers. Instead of spending time here on/., you should spend your time and energy reading some books on Unix Sysadminning, or taking a few courses on it at the local college. Feeling provoked yet? All I'm willing to do is point out how the people at ORBS are net-terrorists, pretending to be 'offering a service'.
why would you call their probes an "attack"? Because it is. Looks like a probe attack, smells like a probe attack, LOGS like a probe attack, its a probe attack.
They test using legitimate SMTP requests, and they are entitled to do so once you put your SMTP server on the net. And I bet if you were busy working on your next/. post, and some clown walked in because your door was unlocked, you would find this OK? ORBS is no better than someone who walks about the neighborhood, looking for unlocked doors or keys under the entry mat. Then they place up a billboard saying "Open door at 321 Evergreen". What shocks me is that you, as a systems manager are not outraged at such behavior.
and a spammer pounding on your unsecured server with thousands of requests for relayed email. Amazing. You CLAIM to be an administrator of a box, yet you don't understand the concept of reading your maillog. Funny, my mail log lets me know when people are using it who should not be using it.
See their site for details. I did read their site. And, they STILL are net-terrorists.
only test when a suspected unsecured site is nominated by someone. BULLSHIT If this was the case, why was a request for the basis of spam claim ignored? Because they can not provide it. I'd LOVE to see the claimed spam mail for my source....yet, this is not forthcoming.
Terroists who are unable to back up their terror campaign when caught read-handed.
They attack your host with 17+ attacks to check if your host is used as a SPAM site.
No attempt is made to ask the admin if they are a spam site, they just launch the probe attack. They are as RUDE as the spammers they claim to be 'defending the net against' with their unwanted probe attacks.
At least the Real-time black hole list tries to talk to the host accused.
ORBS is an example of how the 'cure' is as bad as the 'curse'.
And if it was under a BSD licence, it would not matter either. And making it public domain would not have mattered.
All the GPL does in this is give a possible chance to 'test' the 'untested' GPL.
What ever the licence YOU got the software under is the licence it has. If the licence has no clause for the revocation, the only way it can be revoked is by a judge/law. And then the revocation is for where you are. If you were on a barge in international waters, someone with international juristiction would have to come and revoke your licence.
So, all 50 states could make a law outlawing said code. Or the federal level. They can then take away your right to HAVE the code.
Think about this in Microsoft terms: They KNEW the actions they were taking were anti-competive/monopolistic. Yet they did them until a judge said stop.
If you have this software, you can do what you want. But, be aware, that *IF* a judge/law catches up to you, the previous court case sets the stage for your damages. And, at this time, it looks like you are damaging Mattel if you USE this software.
The article is your typical short-sighted Pro-Linux article.
Rather than writing about UNIX OSes, and pointing out how ALL the Unixes and Unix community have the traditions of 'availability of source code', the seperation of UID 0 from userland, the lack of macro-languages in applications, etc the author chose to make what could have been an inclusive article about Unix into a Linux-only article.
Go back to his article and ask...if I put in the word Unix for Linux, would any of that article have changed?
The Linux-centric community can choose to use the rising tide of interest to raise ALL the Unix and ALL the OpenSource boats, or can choose to just be concerend about their own Linux-centered views. The author Ray, through either ignorance of Unix and what Unix-like OSes do, or because he has a linux only adjenda, has chosen to be exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
The marketing from Redmond back in the Windows NT 3.1 days was that, given the power of workstations, the running the application on a big box and just giving your graphics was dead. (the mantra was 'a better Unix than Unix')
Looks like the graphics on a local server, and the app elsewhere isn't so dead.
And, no one here knows if Micro$oft gave them a deal to switch.
Like the $5 billion 'investment' AT&T got for making their set-top box program with CE.
Or, how state/local government waves taxes for years to get companies to locate there.
For all any of us know, M$ waived licencing fees for X years or Y units shipped, and is sending over 10 software engineers to help them get the product to market.
In the short-term, bottom line, market driven economy, getting $ or talent from Micro$oft is hard to pass up.
Apple's Mac line is made by a company, yet you can see the 'community' get up in arms whenever a customer makes a decision to stop using Macs.
Motorola and a few universities are examples of this behavior.
RL has very little to do with OS zelotry.
Linux is so magnificent that 6 people in the world use it.
THAT IS EXACLTY MY FUCKING POINT!
NO ONE in their RIGHT FUCKING MIND uses Linux. NO ONE knows how
to fucking install it. There are NO fucking APPLICATIONS. You want shit? You
FUCKING CODE IT YOURSELF.
You must be wondering, then, why anyone would want to use it, or why I advocate it
so strongly. Since you're obviously new to the "game" let me explain the rules:
Rule 1 The harder something is to use, the more l33t it is.
Rule 2 The less number of people that use something, the more l33t it is.
Rule 3 To win the "game", you must become the most l33t0 d00d of them all.
For example, NetBSD used to be hard to use. And few people used to use it. In those
days, NetBSD was what we in the industry call 'l33t'. Charles Hannum was 'l33t'. Alan Cox
was 'l33t'. Neither of them are anymore, because NetBSD is so incredibly simple to use
that any drug-addled adolescent who takes five minutes from downloading britney
spears pr0n can install NetBSD on his fucking Pee Cee. l33tness is not cumulative. It is
always changing. You must seek out sources of l33tness as the old ones dry up. NetBSD
is drying up. It is not l33t. Abandon it while you still can.
Linux, with its six users and no applications (not to mention drives; you want color
graphics? Write it yourself) is very l33t. In fact, it is sucking all the l33tness out of
NetBSD, FreeBSD, and now even OpenBSD (the choice of the highly paranoid,
criminally sociopathic, or in the case of Theo deRaadt, both). The only way to be l33t
is to use Linux. No companies use Linux. There are no Linux PDAs. No
Linux in my fucking toaster. No "Teach yourself Linux in 12 minute" bullshit
either. Linux is l33t. NetBSD is not.
To win the "game", you need l33tness.
To win the "game", you need Linux.
(And if you didn't consider this funny, then why was the 1st one funny?)
qmail has its place. Sendmail won't work with coda, but qmail will, so qmail is a good choice for a coda filesystem.
Being I used to hand hack sendmail rules, I have no problems with sendmail. In fact, ORBS automated system said my host was OK one day later than the humans had manually blacklisted my site because I send them e-mail asking them why in the hell they were probing me, told them I was going to block their IP range, and asked for proof of the SPAM that got me listed in the 1st place.
In this case, it is not a problem with mail configs, the problem is with the people behind the ORBS site launching an attack against my host without any reason, other than to find an open relay.
Which is exactly what spammers do, except spammers don't try 17+ times. Spammers try once and sometimes twice. So that makes ORBS 8-17 times as bad as a spammer.
My host is not open, and has never (to the best of my knowledge senator) BEEN open.
Yet, I have spammers try TESTING my system with e-mail ATTACKS on a regular basis. Their action is a RUDE and makes them as much a net-terrorist as ORBS. Difference? A spammer tries once. ORBS is ABUSIVE and tries 17 times.
If ORBS wants to be better than the spammers they claim they are, they should modify their methodology.
1) provide proof that the site being used for spam
2) contact the sysadmin
3) Ask if they want to be terrorized
ORBS does none of these.
ORBS is a net terrorist.
It is YOU who can not make the differentation.
The purpose of the 17+ different emails is to SCAN and PROBE port 25 for holes.
This behaviour is as annoying and rude when a spammer does it, as it is when ORBS does it. The difference is the spammer tries once. ORBS keeps trying.
A SPAMMER is unable to send mail from my host, so there would be no REASON for me to show up on ORBS, *YET* ORBS attacked my box. When asked for the REASON behind the attack, and PROOF in the form of spam-email from my host...no response was forthcoming.
Your on-going defense of ORBS is sad and pathetic. They are net terrorists, just like spammers.
>As long as they don't break any laws, there is no reason for me to do anything.
If you are talking about the door-knob turner, they ARE breaking the law. It is called prowling. And Trespass. And if they keep doing it, stalking
http://www.wwlia.org/ca-stalk.htm
>you should try to resolv this matter
Resolution is possible with reasonable people. ORBS are not reasonable with their methology. They blindly attack hosts, and when asked for proof as to why my host was attacked, they can provide NO PROOF OF SPAM so that I might figure out how to stop that 'alledged spam' in the future.
Go on NANOG's lists. Look around, and you will see that ORBS is believed to do more harm than good. Because ORBS is no better than the spammers who probe hosts. And because ORBS is a net terrorist.
You want change? Then get ORBS to modify their methods. Get them to contact the admins before they test. And provide proof of the SPAM from a site. Have ORBS be REASONABLE, and they won't generate all this ill-will they have.
Right now, ORBS is a net-terrorist.
>This is the reality. If you want, I'll bet anyone $10 that there will be Net taxes (not on ISPs, but on sales and e-commerce) for municipal, county, and states, in existence by 2010
Sorry. It is already the case that you OWE the taxes. But, people choose to not answer that blank that says "did you buy anything you would owe sales tax for"
Terrorist do not have to have a reason.
If ORBS were anything more than a group of terrorists, they woudn't be blindly attacking amchines like they do.
They would:
1) Have contacted me (postmaster) with the headers indicating my machine was used for spam.
2) ASKED if they could test the host.
That is how a REASONABLE group would have done. And my oppinion of them would be far different than it is.
Instead, they just launch an attack.
Like the terrorists that they are.
Looks like they DID contact ORBS, and ORBS blew them off.
But what do you expect from net-terrorists?
>The wording net-terrorist is in itself rude, calling ORBS's actions rude in several of your postings today doesn't realy make me take your case seriously.
It is obvious you have some blind devotion to ORBS. So why don't you take your devotion to NANOG list and convince them that you are right.
Go nutz on blocking my B/c blocks or my AS numbers. While you are att it, be sure to block all the netblocks of the people I work with. And when asked, you can tell people that you put on a block because *YOU* can't handle the truth-ORBS is a net terrorist.
>> In the physical world, someone who goes from house to house trying doorknobs is called a prowler.
>Strange, someone doing that in MY world is usualy called friendly neightbor,
Please let us all know what your address is so we can send people by to be friendly and try your door knobs and check to see if your windows are open.
And, if the freindly people we send by announces to the world that your house is opne, you won't mind that at all, now will you?
Then why won't they provide proof of the reason for the nomination?
Becasue they can't....they are net-terrorists.
They scan the SMTP port for a hole, and when *I* asked for the reason why, I was not given any proof.
Hence BASELESS (No reason was ever given for the scanning attack when asked) and a PORT SCAN (17+ attack scan of a port).
Looks like you are unwilling to accept the truth that ORBS is a net-terrorist.
>The more serveres using ORBS protection, the faster/better the result will come.
The endorsement of rude behavior (baseless port scans) helps no one.
>The reasons for listing those who deny or block ORBS tester is obvious, if you can't determind if their secure they are presumed unsecure.
Your logic is flawed.
I block ORBS because I find what they do to be no better than any of the spammers who attemt to use my box as a relay host.
Nothing insecure about MY host...yet you think if you don't allow rude behavior, you have an open relay.
How about this:
If you write the ORBS terrorists telling them you find them rude and will be blocking their rude behaviour, they say you make 'cartooney threats'.
Cartooney threats are normally an anvel on the head, or falling through a ACME portable hole placed on the floor.
ORBS is run by a bunch of net terrorists.
>2. ORBS perform SMTP relay checks on mail-servers which users nominate after suspect behaviour.
ORBS is unable to provide any PROOF that my host was used for spam.
>3. ORBS only block proven Open Relay servers, and server which ORBS can't check.
And telling the admins at ORBS you are going to block them because you find their behavoir rude gets you listed in the ORBS database.
Note that my server is now listed as a open relay, even though it is not, all because I TOLD them I find their actions rude, and no better than any spammers.
>BOZO-admins who treaten ORBS with lawsuits and other bogus stuff
Oh, so if you find ORBS rude, you should get blocked?
>as it should be if you ask me.
"Agree with us, or we will have you blocked. Oh, and if you don't like it just sit down and shut up and we won't block you."
>I like ORBS, MAPS is far from sufficient.
That is nice Mr. Alan Brown.
Hello? Clue phone rininging.
Some MTA's will crash under the testing they do. It has nothing to do with the software, not the sysadmin.
Some people have to run things other than sendmail. Or Unix.
The only setup issue for the sysadmin in such cases is to pick a better MTA, or go beat up the MTA programmers.
>They first send you a note saying your door is unlocked,
And what gives them the right to even be TRYING my door?
In the physical world, someone who goes from house to house trying doorknobs is called a prowler.
>They don't need a spam complaint, all they need to see is your open relay.
Ahh, so the claims of testing based on spam complaints is bogus. Hence the inability to provide the spam that got my system on their list.
Given you are from NL, are you defending them because you know Alan Brown?
>You don't like it, live with it.
If you don't like the fact that *I* find them to be net-terrorists, and as slimey as the spammers they claim to be helping solve the problem of, might I suggest *YOU* live with the fact that ORBS is slime?
If you insist that you manage the box, fine.
They provided the service of informing me of the security hole, for which I am grateful. Thanks to them, I secured my server against spam relaying.
Strange. I read my mail log files, and I notice things like people sending e-mail through my system. It is called SYSTEM MANAGEMENT. If YOU needed ORBS to tell you that you had an open relay, and ORBS only probes machines that have been used for spamming, then it looks like you need some help with the concept of system management.
Besides the obvious desire to provoke /., you should spend your time and energy reading some books on Unix Sysadminning, or taking a few courses on it at the local college. Feeling provoked yet? All I'm willing to do is point out how the people at ORBS are net-terrorists, pretending to be 'offering a service'.
No if I want to provoke I do something like this:
You sir, are an incompentent Sysadmin if you need to have an outside service tell you you have a problem. Looking at your own log files and having a basic knowledge of how to admin a Unix box should let you know you have a problem. You may not know HOW to fix the problem, but your post indicates that you were obvlious to the use of your box by relayers. Instead of spending time here on
why would you call their probes an "attack"?
Because it is. Looks like a probe attack, smells like a probe attack, LOGS like a probe attack, its a probe attack.
They test using legitimate SMTP requests, and they are entitled to do so once you put your SMTP server on the net. /. post, and some clown walked in because your door was unlocked, you would find this OK? ORBS is no better than someone who walks about the neighborhood, looking for unlocked doors or keys under the entry mat. Then they place up a billboard saying "Open door at 321 Evergreen". What shocks me is that you, as a systems manager are not outraged at such behavior.
And I bet if you were busy working on your next
and a spammer pounding on your unsecured server with thousands of requests for relayed email.
Amazing. You CLAIM to be an administrator of a box, yet you don't understand the concept of reading your maillog. Funny, my mail log lets me know when people are using it who should not be using it.
See their site for details.
I did read their site. And, they STILL are net-terrorists.
only test when a suspected unsecured site is nominated by someone.
BULLSHIT If this was the case, why was a request for the basis of spam claim ignored? Because they can not provide it. I'd LOVE to see the claimed spam mail for my source....yet, this is not forthcoming.
Terroists who are unable to back up their terror campaign when caught read-handed.
They attack your host with 17+ attacks to check if your host is used as a SPAM site.
No attempt is made to ask the admin if they are a spam site, they just launch the probe attack. They are as RUDE as the spammers they claim to be 'defending the net against' with their unwanted probe attacks.
At least the Real-time black hole list tries to talk to the host accused.
ORBS is an example of how the 'cure' is as bad as the 'curse'.
And if it was under a BSD licence, it would not matter either. And making it public domain would not have mattered.
All the GPL does in this is give a possible chance to 'test' the 'untested' GPL.
What ever the licence YOU got the software under is the licence it has. If the licence has no clause for the revocation, the only way it can be revoked is by a judge/law. And then the revocation is for where you are. If you were on a barge in international waters, someone with international juristiction would have to come and revoke your licence.
So, all 50 states could make a law outlawing said code. Or the federal level. They can then take away your right to HAVE the code.
Think about this in Microsoft terms:
They KNEW the actions they were taking were anti-competive/monopolistic. Yet they did them until a judge said stop.
If you have this software, you can do what you want. But, be aware, that *IF* a judge/law catches up to you, the previous court case sets the stage for your damages. And, at this time, it looks like you are damaging Mattel if you USE this software.
The article is your typical short-sighted Pro-Linux article.
Rather than writing about UNIX OSes, and pointing out how ALL the Unixes and Unix community have the traditions of 'availability of source code', the seperation of UID 0 from userland, the lack of macro-languages in applications, etc the author chose to make what could have been an inclusive article about Unix into a Linux-only article.
Go back to his article and ask...if I put in the word Unix for Linux, would any of that article have changed?
The Linux-centric community can choose to use the rising tide of interest to raise ALL the Unix and ALL the OpenSource boats, or can choose to just be concerend about their own Linux-centered views. The author Ray, through either ignorance of Unix and what Unix-like OSes do, or because he has a linux only adjenda, has chosen to be exclusive.