| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Smear Factor | |
|
||
| Time: 11:17 EST/16:17 GMT | News Source: ABC News | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Could Microsoft be behind a smear campaign aimed at Linux? If not Microsoft, then who? Let's look at the continued attacks against Linux. The media is peppered with them. When one starts to die down, another one crops up. While every single one of these assertions is laughable, the never-ending barrage of anti-Linux propaganda has got to take its toll on potential users. Here are a few of the accusations you might find in articles planted here and there in the media. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 222 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:54:01 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/15/2004 12:56:14 PM |
|
That is dead-on #1.
I run all of these and in production. I run and support what my clients have chosen to run. Each of them, after years of working with the Linuces, has grown to despise them - the people paying for these decisions, that is. The developers in the J2EE, too - they each engage us to port these applciation to W2K3 Server and the .NET VS IDE. Supporting them is very tough, opposite inconsistencies that cost real and large dollars. Business people talk, they have lunch, they play golf, they share applications and costs - and each has seen that the Linuces is not what the OSS community held it out to be - for many, it is costing them their businesses. Enterprises will noy allow purely open source packages ot be used - they demand support from a single credible source - in the case Red Hat that is very costly - per server, and much higher that W2K3 Server. These are facts that business people face. They are not OS or tech gurus, just people like me who sign checks everyday and they have seen and counted the actual costs of the Linuces - much higher. Those numbers do not lie - they are evidence. |
| #2 By 2332 (66.228.91.12) at 7/15/2004 1:17:11 PM |
|
Linux is not at all secure and poses a major security risk.
I don't recall ever reading that. I recall reading that Linux has more security holes than Windows, which is completely true. If that makes it a "major security risk", the so be it.. Linux is not cheap. Despite being free, it actually costs more to implement and maintain. Whether or not this is true is a good topic for argument, but it's hardly laughable. Linux is prone to hackers and viruses, because the code is easily available. Is it not easier to break into a bank that has its floor plan and security system manual publically available than it is to break into a highl secretive bank? Just seems like common sense to me. The argument that open source has more people looking at it to fix bugs has never been substantiated. Linus Torvalds didn't write Linux; it is in fact a compendium of old code that was cobbled together. Linus Torvalds based his code on Minix (Minux?), but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. How is this an attack? Bill Gates didn't write Windows, either! Pretty much everybody builds on everybody else. Get over it. Linux is next to impossible to support, because no one company is responsible for it. Next to impossible to support? Hardly. It's just really, really expensive. That's how most Linux companies make their money! As there are no profits to be made from distributing or supporting Linux, it must die from eventual neglect. Dvorak, you're a schmuck. You take a true statement (no money from distributing Linux) and an obviously false statement (supporting Linux), and then combine them and hope people won't notice. Much of Linux is stolen proprietary code, and you could be liable if you use it. Furthermore, SCO will sue you if you use it. Again, it remains to be seen how much of Linux code is stolen. This is hardly laughable. |
| #3 By 7797 (63.76.44.66) at 7/15/2004 3:38:17 PM |
|
RMD,
I appreciate your post because it is one of the most levelheaded responses i've seen here in a while. I don't agree with all of what you say but at least you made your point without sounding like a zealot. (I hate that word) "I recall reading that Linux has more security holes than Windows, which is completely true." Linux has holes thats true. Whether or not it has more or less than Windows is still up to discussion. I havent yet read an article that convinced me as to what OS has more holes. If the sheer number of holes that come with any given Linux distribution is used as the basis for comparison you are correct. There is no dispute in that. Whether this comparison is organges and apples is up to further discussion as well. "Linus Torvalds based his code on Minix" This is actually not correct. Even Andrew Tannenbaum the author of Minix agrees that Linux is NOT based on Minix code. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/rebuttal/ "First, Linux 0.01 does not contain any MINIX code, as Alexey Toptygin's code comparison shows. Second, even if it had, there was no prohibition in using MINIX code for noncommercial purposes, even in the beginning. I find it dishonest in the extreme for Brown to have hired Toptygin to compare the Linux and MINIX code, get a report saying they were completely different, and then merrily continue claiming Linux was based on MINIX. I don't know if Brown used MS-Word to write his book, but saying Linux is based on MINIX is like saying Brown's book is based on MS-Word." "Next to impossible to support? Hardly. It's just really, really expensive." For some reason some companies (Autozone) are happy to bear the extra cost. Maybe because they have figured out a way to save elsewhere to make up for the extra cost in support? Truth is that Linux is probably more expensive to support. But in a bigger picture some companies have started to figure out how to offset this extra cost using some of the other benefits they gain using linux. Linux isn't for everyone. Windows isnt for everyone. "Again, it remains to be seen how much of Linux code is stolen. This is hardly laughable." So far SCO has not come up with ANY proof of stolen code in Linux even after being compelled twice by the court to show their evidence. Because SCO has not come up with ANY code showing linux contains stolen code, IBM is now going for a partial Summary Judgement as well as a Delclaratory Judgement of Non-Infringement as to their Linux activities. |
| #4 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 7/15/2004 6:37:48 PM |
|
Parker for once i agree with you:
By your logic everythign is based on something else. This is true and normal throughout science. People build on other's ideas. This is a good thing. Minix was an educational OS written by a teacher. It was created for the specific purpose of teaching others soemthing. Would you expect the students NOT to use the knowledge they learned in class? Linux is therefore by your definition also based on a lot of other things Linus learned throughout his life from various places. However RMD stated that Linux was based on Minix code, which is incorrect. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 18:39. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/15/2004 11:32:01 PM |
|
I thought I posted, ohwell.
TerraKhan makes my main point for me. As for Linux being based upon other things... That depends on context. Richard Stallman believes that Linux is based upon the GNU tools and he prefers you call it GNU/Linux to show that relationship. Further Linux has always been an implementation of a Unix like OS, so there isn't anything particularly original there. I guess I don't understand why this argument get's the zealots undies in a bunch. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/16/2004 12:04:25 AM |
|
I was wondering why I was thinking, "Man, this guy is really over the top with the bias and sensationalism." Then I saw that the author is Dvorak (which is an appropriate last name, really, when you consider the history of the whole Dvorak keyboard layout debacle...). Those "laughable" assertions are hardly mere FUD, and the issue is far from settled, as he would make it to be. Or perhaps he too thinks that we should all be using desktop Linux? After watching and hearing so many people struggle and waste time trying to make Linux work for them, at some point you just have to say, "why bother?"
Maybe in 5 years the story will be different. Of course, Microsoft won't stand still, and Longhorn will be out. Maybe Microsoft should take a cue from Apple and produce some "OSS, start your photocopiers" ads.... If Linux conquers the desktop, then who will they copy? |
| #7 By 8556 (12.217.111.74) at 7/16/2004 12:35:09 AM |
|
John Dvorak is an entertaining writer who knows how to stir the pot and occasionally boil it. He did a fine job writing this article. Not his best work, but still acceptable for what it is. A lot of his writing seems a bit on the paranoid side. Some of it turns out to be accurate. Dvorak works to get a paycheck, just like the rest of us, and nothing more. Remember that he starts this article by reporting accusations aimed at Linux. His tone is neutral at this point. Next, he puts forth negative PR tactics believed to have been used historically by MS with a slight paranoia in his tone. Next is a presumption, not stated as fact, that MS is possibly behind the new Linux attacks. In his grand finale you’re hooked with a doomsday scenario designed to get both Linux and Windows users adrenaline pumping. It’s great entertainment, as are the comments about it.
I love this guys writing. |
| #8 By 3653 (68.54.230.116) at 7/16/2004 1:09:18 AM |
| Eddie Murphy is entertaining too, but I appreciate ActiveWin for not wasting my time by linking to Eddie's comedy. |
| #9 By 5912 (145.222.138.61) at 7/16/2004 2:45:26 AM |
| I wouldn't call it a smear campaign when the 'smear' is so easy to dismiss. Especially the points about the costs of maintaining Linux and the whole SCO debacle are laughable. Noone with a serious interest in ICT would write off Linux on the points mentioned in the article. People are not THAT easily manipulated. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 7/16/2004 4:18:29 AM |
| No #5, they are people who bought into the idea that the Linuces were a lower cost alternative to W2K3. They found out otherwise, fired guys like you and hired companies like mine. They represented investors, investor interest and have moved on - precisely because they could no longer afford of the hidden costs of running Linux - which were no less than running most unices. They needed and need lower cost, and more flexible platforms that are easier to support. They need consistency, flexibility and clear estimates as to what costs will be. They also need access to a richer pool of resources to run them and develop on them. They are 92% of our economy and hire and fire nearly 95% of all people working in this country. They are the men and women who risk everything they have worked for to fund and run companies. Most are not wealthy - like myself most leveraged homes, take no money out of their companies and live off of their savings. They employ a lot of people, give them a lot of opportunities and ownership. And they are tired of the arguments, false promises and closed mindedness of people who profess to be so open. They are people who like facts and people who can deliver, quickly. They come back to Microsoft, because is it everything Linux isn't - it isn't free, but it is a better and more lasting value. We help companies do that - we also help their developers and operate a truly heterogeneous environment that is very busy moving as fast as it can from any Linuces distro. This may not be the case everywhere, but it is what we see each day. |
| #11 By 7797 (63.76.44.62) at 7/16/2004 8:31:20 AM |
|
Parkker, I think if RMD had a problem with my correction or if I incorrectly interpreted what he meant to say he'd speak up for himself.
I'm starting to think it might be best to just ignore your trolling. |
| #12 By 18227 (68.98.156.77) at 7/16/2004 10:23:36 AM |
|
That's "journalism"?
("Is John Dvorak a plagiarist? Shoplifter? Someone who forgets to send Mom a card on Mother's Day? If not John, then who? Let's make a totally unsubstantiated allegation without a shred of evidence to back it up, postulated in the form of a question that we ask but never answer!") Yeesh. |
| #13 By 7797 (63.76.44.62) at 7/16/2004 12:53:08 PM |
|
".....Thats what Linus did."
Did you read my response? Minix is an educational OS. The whole purpose of Minix was to teach people how to write an OS. I guess it served its purpose perfectly! |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/16/2004 2:23:00 PM |
|
"Why all the whining and snivelling? "
Linus is God. Those who question him are heretics! |
| #15 By 7797 (63.76.44.62) at 7/16/2004 6:23:13 PM |
|
"Then why get so defensive about how much of it Linus borrowed? Why all the whining and snivelling?"
Parkker i'm not going to answer this because I confidently believe that most people here don't find what i wrote above is whining and snivelling... And I could care less what YOU think in that respect. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 222 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:54:01 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
