| 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 |
 |
Lineo: MS 'lied' about embedded Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 14:40 EST/19:40 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Lineo, the embedded Linux developer, has delivered a scathing attack on Microsoft's recently released white paper comparing Windows XP Embedded and embedded Linux. Lineo points out what it says are numerous inaccuracies and distortions designed to improve the image of Windows. At worst, the paper includes "lies," says Lineo. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 522 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:20:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 12/17/2001 3:14:45 PM |
|
I've read both the Lineo reply and the original MS white paper, and while it is obviously misleading and meant in part as a marketing tool, I don't see any "lies".
How ironic that the Linux community criticizes Microsoft for distorting the truth when Slashdot, the pinnacle of the Linux front, is one of the most biased, misleading, misinformative sites on the Internet. At any rate, it doesn't matter much. I don't see XP Embedded taking off... if there is one place Java does well, its embedded devices. It's fairly entrenched, and for relatively good reason. (Unlike it's entrenchment in the server environment, which is pure insanity.) |
| #2 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/17/2001 5:36:04 PM |
| Of course they lied. Linux is perfect in every way and has no inadequacies, so therefore, anyone who disparages it, especially the evil, horrible, nasty, dastardly Microsoft, must be lying! |
| #3 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/17/2001 5:54:16 PM |
|
Ok, so after reading this rediculous article, I felt it necessary to make a real comment. Let's go through this, shall we?
Microsoft claims, "from a list of over 300 network card drivers available for Linux, Red Hat's v7.1 Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) currently indicates support for only two 'Red Hat Ready' drivers and only 27 'compatible' drivers.'" Lineo's Response: " can't believe Microsoft doesn't understand that in the embedded world, support for discrete network cards is generally not required. Instead, networking hardware is generally provided directly on board (rather than via a separate network card," Very childish, combative, and not very poignant. So basically, Lineo is saying the Standard Linux Response (SLR): Linux can't do it, so why would anyone want to do it? There is a lack of drivers and this could become a problem. Whether Lineo thinks that it won't be is irrelevant. Score 1 for Microsoft. "Microsoft repeatedly attacks the pricing model for embedded Linux, which generally charges based on what developers want to use, as opposed to Microsoft's flat-rate policy, which, Lineo asserts, charges developers even for features they don't need." So basically, Microsoft offers an economical price for everything, and Lineo will charge you al-a-carte. From what I understand, MS charges flat-rates because customers got tired of dealing with piecemeal deals with older Unix embedded vendors, the flat-rate was a welcome change. Now Lineo is sporting the old Unix line again. It's unclear who is right in this, but it seems MS is doing a whole lot more business than Lineo is, so I say: Score 2 for Microsoft. "Microsoft says that embedded Linux 'offers nothing comparable to Windows XP Embedded's driver signing functionality,' a process by which Microsoft certifies that drivers are bug-free. " To which Lineo responds: "'Linux, unlike a closed operating system, does not need to provide a list of certified drivers. Why? Because with Linux, the source code is open, allowing anyone (you, me, your development team) to fully test and validate the driver in a specific application space,' said Beal. 'No one has to take the word of a vendor regarding the stability or suitability of their software for a potentially mission-critical application.'" Indeed. So basically, rather than having MS spend the millions of dollars for a quality lab, thorough continuous testing and certification, you have to do it all yourself. Sounds like a good to me, how 'bout you? No. Score 3 for Microsoft. (continued in next post) This post was edited by daz on Monday, December 17, 2001 at 17:56. |
| #4 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/17/2001 5:55:38 PM |
|
(Part 2, since the whole thing was too long for one post)
"Microsoft states that Lineo's software development kit supports 'only four preconfigurations,' compared with greater flexibility from Microsoft, and that it supports only PowerPC and x86 processors. However, Lineo now says it supports most embedded chips and that there are several preconfigurations for each chip. " Really. I'm sure Microsoft makes a habit of flat-out lying in their statements. Considering that's illegal, I highly doubt it. This is much more likely a matter of timing. Since the document came out in Nov, it's possible that Lineo got their crap together and finally released some support for new chipsets. But, what the hell: Score 1 for Lineo. "Lineo takes particular issue with Microsoft's claims to better security and an easier model for dealing with intellectual property. "Microsoft asserts that it has teams devoted to patching security holes, whereas Linux relies on the open source community for bug fixes, as though the open source model posed a risk. However, 'the reality of Open Source software and the 'many eyes' theory is realised by comparing the track record of security reports for Microsoft OSes and Linux,' said Lineo Chief Technology Officer Tim Bird. " Ah, the old OSS is better at security nonsense. I love the trick they pull with comparing the security record. If you look, you'll notice that MS has as many or fewer bugs than the leading Linux vendors combined, it also releases patches faster, on average, than Red Hat, the leading Linux vendor. Various statistics might conflict this, but usually what they do is compare MS with only one vendor, or lump all Windows in against one version of Linux. If you do the real research, you'll see. Add to this the fact that patches for Linux are not fully regression tested (if tested at all!) and you realize that MS has a better security response framework. Lineo also failed completely to address the Intellectual Property management. Since IP is a dirty word in the OSS community, this comes as no suprise. Score 4 for Microsoft. "Microsoft claims that Linux can pose a risk for developers because its software often uses the GNU Public Licence, which requres that any software using GPL-protected code must be freely released itself to the public under the GPL. "'Pretending that this is a situation unique to open source development is one of Microsoft's worst lies,' said Bird. 'Doing ANY software engineering work requires responsible engineering practices and some oversight to avoid copying or utilising unfairly the work of others, or infringing on another party's intellectual property.' Ah, nice dodge. What Bird fails to mention is that no other license attaches itself to your work and forces you to license YOUR work like their work! Score 5 for Microsoft. Final Tally: Microsoft: 5 Lineo: 1 All in all a poor showing by Lineo. Childish, combative responses, poor citation of fact, and general arrogance have cost them this debate. Better luck next time, although I doubt it'll chance because all Penguinistas are the same and use the same self-defeating tactics. |
| #5 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/17/2001 6:01:48 PM |
| #7 (Anonymous Coward): Are you then contending that Linux is perfect in every way and has no flaws? |
| #6 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 12/17/2001 6:19:52 PM |
| We need more Linux zealots to keep us sharp. Let's head over to Slashdot and start a riot, then invite them back here. Sound good? :-) |
| #7 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 12/17/2001 8:02:57 PM |
|
I agree RMD. I haven't seen a good flame here in a while from some poor linux sap.
I am up for the slashdot right if anyone else is. |
| #8 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 12/17/2001 11:50:36 PM |
|
Bwahahaha....
Anyway. #18 - I know this is bait, but as with the nature of most bait, I can't resist: "Microsoft lies all the time! Why should this be considered news?" Ok... I'll bite, how does Microsoft lie? "I'll bet that Lineo's pricing is still cheaper than Micro$oft Windoze, even though Lineo appears to have hidden their pricing from their website so I can't find out for sure." Good job at showing your ignorance and prejudice. You're not interested in the truth anymore than Jerry Fallwell is interested in saving people from "hell". "Nobody needs driver signing anyway! The only reason you do under Windoze is because you can't trust anything since the source is hidden. If you have the source you can rely upon the thousands of other Linux users to go and review it and prove it works! If not, they'll fix it and have a patch out within an hour!" BwhaHAHhahAhAHAHAhahaH! I don't even know where to start with that retarded notion. "Mickeysoft can never hope to match the security track record of Linux!!!! With Microsoft all you get is a new security bulletin twice a day. Well how do you expect to apply all these patches to embedded devices? You will be a busy beaver indeed." Actually, Microsoft has both matched and beaten it. Just ask your doppelganger. "Since all source code should be available anyway, and not doing so is a violation of human rights according to Richard StAllman himself... why does it matter if your code is impregnated with the GPL? It's a non-issue! Only the evil Marcos$oft would claim otherwise." Wait a minute... this can't possibly be real. I think I fell for some kinda trick here. "How much does M$ pay you to astroturf, daz? You and those other Micro$oft shills should leave us poor Linux guys alone because you know we REWL your world!" Ok... fine... I give up. Could this be the real soda in disguise? Ya know, I would be convinced if it weren't for so many Linux zealots that act just like you. Hmmm... :-) |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/18/2001 2:15:20 AM |
|
Imagine Eliza... Imagine Eliza as a Linux zealot.
Wouldn't be hard to write. :) http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3 |
| #10 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/18/2001 10:23:01 AM |
|
#23:
(network devices) Actually, most embedded devices use the chipset from one of the major network card manufacturers. So a large cache of drivers helps with this. (bugs): So you're lumping IIS, and IE in with Windows? Perhaps we should lump in all the apps for Linux in with Linux? Linux would have like 20x the bugs that MS has then. The sad truth that you must face is that both pieces of software have bugs. Both have thousands of bugs before release, and dozens afterwards. There may be only 6-10 difference between the two (advantage Linux or Windows), and its irrelevant. The promises of OSS perfection are grossly exaggerated. There are just as many root compromising bugs as there are in Windows. In fact, there have been very few root-compromising bugs in Windows 2000. Most of them have been in IIS, and even then, only a few. There were a rash of root compromising bugs in RH 7 and 7.1 (not to mention Debian, SuSE and others). Both pieces of software are built by humans and therefore flawed. The cockiness of Linux developers and their proclaiming victory in Security is laughable. Less intelligent people (like #18) see all the attacks on IIS and therefore assume that Windows/IIS is somehow less secure than Linux. What they don't realize is that simply because another system is ATTACKED more doesn't mean it is any less secure than a system who is attacked less. Yes, what I'm saying is that Linux installations out there are ripe for attack, but no one (or very few) are attacking them. In the Summer of 2000 there was a worm that was used to set up a large group of Linux boxes for a massive DDoS attack on popular web sites like eBay, Amazon, and similar. Almost all boxes involved were Linux, and of those 100% were compromised boxes running the worm. The moral of the story is, the software is mostly unsecure. A knowledgable person must install, configure and maintain the system for maximum security. Sadly, in most cases, this is not true. Patches are not installed (the patch for Code Red had been out months before it ever hit), guidelines and checklists are not followed (had everyone followed MS' simple IIS Security Checklist, Code Red never would've worked), and simple practices are not adhered to. If Linux's popularity continues to grow, it will face the same types of attacks and fail just as miserably as every other OS which has suffered these types of attacks (Windows, Solaris, and even earlier Linuxes). Only ignorant boffs like you would claim victory. |
| #11 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/18/2001 1:20:35 PM |
|
#26: Surely you're not so ignorant as to compare the security of a system by whether an exploit was written for a vulnerability or not?
Just because there hasn't been as many worms written for Linux does NOT mean it's more secure. You guys constantly harp on MS for the security-through-obscurity bit, but then you seem to imply the same thing for Linux. I'm glad you don't design pads for football players. According to your logic, no football player would require a cup because that area of the body doesn't receive many blows. Just because no one has hit you there doesn't mean that it isn't vulnerable. There are tons of vulnerabilities in Linux. There are many every week. There was a rash of exploits for IIS earlier this year, but in general, Win2K has remained solid with only a few vulnerabilities found in the core. So, in terms of vulnerabilities and fixes, Windows is on par or better than Linux. Now, if you want to discuss security infrastructure, Linux is laughable. It still uses the antiquated and unsecure Permission Bits method which is archaic and childish. All the major Unixes have moved to DAC (which Windows NT 3.1 had back in 1992 or so) which is much more secure and elegant. Let us know when Linux grows up and become an enterprise player. It should be a long time since the conventional wisdom of Linux prevents it from growing up. All the infighting and head-in-the-sand mentalities prevent it from being fixed of its major failures. |
| #12 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/18/2001 1:21:03 PM |
| #27: I guess I don't even need to answer your question. You have sufficiently answered it yourself, I believe. |
| #13 By 2960 (156.80.64.164) at 12/18/2001 1:30:25 PM |
|
Just a note...
The Anonymous poster using the signature initials TL above IS NOT ME! TL (As In TechLarry) |
| #14 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 12/18/2001 2:20:12 PM |
| Glad you said that TechLarry, I was beginning to think I'd never find common ground with you. |
| #15 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 12/18/2001 3:10:08 PM |
|
Britney Spears prefers linux?
Dude we need to talk. I have some prime real estate for sale in this exotic location name Afghanistan. Are you interested in that at all? |
| #16 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/18/2001 3:52:13 PM |
| RedAvenger: Is that that ocean-front cottage you were telling me about? |
| #17 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/19/2001 10:46:52 AM |
| hrm. Edit works for me. |
| #18 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 12/19/2001 10:47:53 AM |
| Oh wait, nevermind. It's not any more. My guess is that edit works fine on the first page of comments (note my two posts on the first page of this comment thread), but it doesn't on subsequent pages. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 522 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:20:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
