Ray Bowles said:
> *** On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 at 1:24pm Derek D. Martin shared this with the class::
Interesting attribution... ;-)
> > Ray, I really hate when people do this. The numbers presented are
> > very deceptive, because for Microsoft products, the numbers include
> > ONLY the core OS. Linux distributions come with a multitude of
>
> I completely understand
I don't think you do. If you did, you wouldn't have posted your
original, inflamatory message. Red Hat isn't perfect, but they're WAY
better than Microsoft; both in terms of releasing buggy code, and more
importantly in how they handle the situation. Unlike Microsoft, they
don't try to denounce bug reports, they just fix them. Microsoft has
a history of saying "oh, that's not really a bug," or, "but that's
only a theoretical vulnerability." The guys at L0pht et. al. have had
numerous feild days over such comments from them. Bugtraq archives
are littered with messages from Microsoft's Scott Culp, et. al.,
saying many such things, which only serves to prove that Microsoft
DOES NOT GET security. Though I'll admit they do seem to be getting
better about it.
> but I was refering more to the relation of problems in RedHat's
> "CRAP" distro
Nooooo, calling Red Hat a "'CRAP' distro" isn't bashing it at all, and
certainly isn't inflamatory. How could it be?
> numbers. Everybody knows how the results are computed.
Unfortunately, NOT everyone UNDERSTANDS the results. And this is
exactly why this report shows up on Windows Informer and other such
sites as evidence that Windows is "better" than Linux. That's
poppycock. Utter bull$4!t. The numbers are largely meaningless.
They fail to reflect the different goals, release strategies, and
product offerings of each.
> So regardless of what numbers M$ is showing RH is still following in
> there footsteps of putting out software before it is ready (or
> secure)
While Red Hat and other Linux distributors do this, there is a major
difference between what they do and what Microsoft does. Distributors
of Linux provide DEVELOPMENT versions of software, because often they
provide functionality that people need and are generally usable, but
they are generally quite clear that they are DEVELOPMENT versions, if
you look at the software's documentation. This is also widely
understood in the free software world. And, while you *can* buy this
software from the distributor, it should always be remembered that it
is FREE software. Free as in speech, AND free as in beer. You're
welcome to download it for yourself, free of charge, if you like.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is selling a product that they have
developed and marketed as the solution to all your problems, when the
reality is that the product IS all your problems. They're supposed to
have the best programmers in the world working for them (if you ask
them, that's what they'll tell you), but still they can't turn out a
product that won't crash every 30 minutes on a fair number of
configurations. Their operating system crashes often and takes all
your work with it, even under virtually zero load. Linux systems
rarely, if ever encounter such problems. And the best part is, you
have to PAY Microsoft for the priviledge of having their products
destroy your work for you. Linux is FREE.
I used to like Windows. Honestly. My experience working with it is
what turned me off to it. That, and numerous experiences where
installing a new piece of software trashed my system completely. Such
stories about Windows and related products are numerous all over the
Internet and amongst people you know... I have never heard such a
story about anyone using a Linux system, excepting:
1) an initial install of Linux, over an existing Windows machine
2) when someone inexperienced was playing around as root but
shouldn't have been.
These two exceptions ARE important ones. The first experience is also
common for people who are (re)installing Windows for the first time,
as well. Especially if they are not overly familiar with computers.
The second case is a failure on the user's part to follow directions
(including the possibility of not READING them in the first place).
You can not blame Linux for either of these cases. They are human
failures, not software failures. And in those instances, the same is
true of Windows... The problem is, of course, that Windows fails so
often in a wide variety of OTHER situations. Linux generally
doesn't.
> Everything isn't about bashing linux so stop looking for a
> fight.
See above. I'm not looking for a fight, but I do admit I like to
argue, so I'll happily give you one if you ask for one. However, what
I'm hoping to offer you instead is a (hopefully) clearer perspective
about a) Linux, b) Windows being more secure than Linux based on
statistics such as those you referenced, and c) why many of the people
on this list DO bash Windows. In the latter case, when it is done, it
is done for very good reason, and frankly has to do with frustration
over not only bugs in their (rather expensive) software, but more
importantly Microsoft's poor attitude about their bugs and towards its
customers. If they had a more healthy attitude toward the problems in
their software, and a more customer-friendly response, I'd venture a
guess that many of us Microsoft haters (and I do not mean to suggest
that everyone, nor even a large percentage, of people on this list
hate Microsoft -- but there certainly are those among us here who do)
would not have nearly so much of a problem with them. I certainly
wouldn't.
> There will always be poorly run companies and unfortunately
> for their users I see RH being one of those companies.
I'm curious what you know about how RH's management operates, their
mission statement and business strategy that brings you to that
conclusion...
> > Try adding up the vulnerabilities for NT/2000, Microsoft office,
> > Microsoft Outlook, Internet Explorer, IIS, Exchange, and FrontPage.
> > Compare THAT number to Red Hat's, and now you've got something. What
> > else does Microsoft sell that we can include in that figure, anyone?
>
> Now compare RH's numbers to BSD or Debian.
But you still don't seem to get the point. It's STILL comparing
apples to oranges.
BSD ships far fewer applications in their core OS than virtually
EVERYONE. And Debian's release schedule/strategy is way different
than EVERYONE. You really can't compare them.
> And I will remind you that this is a Linux Mailing list NOT and
> Anti-Microsoft mailing list. There is a difference!
There IS a difference. But there is also a tendency for the two to go
hand-in-hand. Many people who use Linux and other "alternative"
operating systems do so because of a long history of bad experiences
with Microsoft.
--
Derek Martin
Senior System Administrator
Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*****************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*****************************************************************
