Mark N. Hattarki wrote:
> This article can't
> even be labeled as propoganda, because it's very explicitly lying about
> things like "the number of outstanding security holes and lack of stable
> functionality is monumental". This is just basic slander.
OK, at the risk of being flamed and having my mailbox exploded, I'd like
to disagree. My disagreement can take two forms: 1. Libel (that is,
slander in a published forum) would be very difficult to prove. That's
mostly the case because the quotations in the article are mostly
opinion, and a person can't be sued for their opinion.
More to the point however, I'm not sure how false the statement really
is. I would actually agree with the former half (that linux has a
monumental number of outstanding security holes). I don't know if any
of you are subscribed to BUGTRAQ, but they are constantly finding
security holes in either the linux kernel, some library, or some fairly
common piece of software. Now, I wouldn't say that linux is
particularly better or worse than other OSes regarding security holes,
but strictly speaking I would agree that linux has a fairly large number
of outstanding security holes.
The second half of the statement is harder to defend (that there is a
lack of stable functionality), but given the benefit of the doubt, I can
actually see where someone would think so. As the article points out in
its low-detail way, the linux kernel does change quite often. Even the
"stable" as opposed to the "developer's" version changes with a fair
amount of frequency.
In addition, one point the article doesn't mention specifically, but
that I think certainly qualifies as unstable is the standard libraries
for linux. Depending on how long you've been using linux, you may or
may not realize that the linux community has changed its mind several
times about what libraries to use. When I first started using linux
(1995), the standard libraries were a.out. Shortly thereafter, linux
decide to go the ELF route. So, I upgraded my system and subsequently
broke a number of apps that could no longer find their libs. Currently,
linux has decided to move to glibc, which is not really compatible with
the old libc. So, I upgraded my system and subsequently broke a number
of apps that couldn't find their libs. Further, it now takes me twice
as long to compile new programs because I cannot for the life of me make
glibc and a c++ compiler play nice. Plus, I had to upgrade my XFree
recently, and stupidly compiled it with glibc, so now a number of my X
apps are confused because they were comiled with the old libc. Now,
once it all works, it works with a good amount of stability (ie. doesn't
crash), but that's of limited utility when the stability of the
underlying libraries is such that I can't compile it in the first place.
Mostly, I just think the linux community should be wary of buying into
its own positive press too much. The reality of the situation is that
linux is not perfect, and if we get upset and defensive every time
somebody criticizes this or that about the OS, we start to sound a lot
like certain large companies that explain that, "that's a feature, not a
bug." We would be better served to listen to their complaints
rationally, determine their possible validity, and make the OS better
because of it.
> If the linux community were an corporation, we could sue and win.
As I explained above, probably not.
--
Public key at www-swiss.ai.mit.edu | Shane Williams
/~bal/pks-toplev.html | Systems Administrator UT-GSLIS
=----------------------------------+-------------------------------
All syllogisms contain three lines | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.gslis.utexas.edu/~shanew
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
