On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:20:55PM +0545, Bipin Gautam wrote: > > kudos to your FOSS spirit but its NOT logical to defend Linux on > BASELESS grounds. It is not baseless. Please read on.
> > That's an insult! Get that.... Finally here comes some response. :) > > > >Say, tomorrow Microsoft starts updating your system, without your consent. > > What are you going to do? > > strange conspiracy theory! lol I have never believed in conspiracy theory and neither intend to in the future - http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-without-users-consent http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/137208/microsoft_downplays_stealth_update_concerns.html > There is something called MARKET REPUTATION & MOTIVE FOR AN ACTION. > Microsoft isn't stupid to do something completely crazy again the > interest of their customers. What has Microsoft been doing then all these years? Playing bollocks? > > But i can imagine Alen or Linus being held as hostage and forced to > insert a bug in the kernel while rest of the world is in hurry to yum > the update. Arguments can be made either way. It seems till today, the culprit has never been the free software developers inserting nasty stuffs into the kernel. On top of that, free software packaging go through rigorous checking process by "sponsor" who use lot of nifty tools to isolate the package and THEN only run it (e.g., chroot jail, valgrind etc..). for e.g.- debian mentors could do this. > >Let's pretend that you are asleep and the next thing > >you know is that your system is controlled by some > >botnet and what not down in Russia. what will you > >do? What will be your reaction? > > It was Debian repository that got hacked and malicious code inserted > in the kernel successfully, left to be discovered later. Occupational hazard. Tell me these days, whose system is not vulnerable? That is why they have security professionals like you working on their broken system 24/7, isn't it? And please Bipin :-), don't tell me Microsoft kernel is more robust,secure than Linux. > So lets not imagine, just ask someone in the community, what did they > do? how did they react? But Microsoft clients can just imagine, > ooohhhh ya! ??? Are you making some points or just bashing Microsoft? kind of confused. seriously. It was a hypothetical situation and we frequently make hypothetical arguments to try and not reflect ANY ONE person in particular. > > >Microsoft says that it redesigned Vista's security from bottom up (TCP Stack, > >Firewall, the anti-spyware software etc...) but is it so? I have > played a full day with > >Microsoft Vista and while like all other "products" in it's line, it > was fancy with lots > >of eye-soothing technology in-built but ask yourself this: how much $$$ do > >you > >have to spend to get Vista running properly? how much RAM, new-CPU+maybe > >mobo+ GPU upgrades do you have to spend even before you can enjoy the eye > >-soothing Microsoft Vista? > > > > You can always disable eye-candy resource hungry stuffs and get things > locked pretty good. Microsoft maybe exaggerating and magnifying on the > claims but that's marketing.... a fair game..... like we do to promote > FOSS, FOSS as a solution for everything. That "pretty good" is not good enough for me and lot of foss enthusiasts like me. Why does Apache server (Apache license) comparatively run on more servers than IIS (Microsoft proprietary server)? Why does Windows XP run on more desktops than Linux? (answer: viral marketing of Microsoft). Now, why are businesses fed into the bull**it that Microsoft Windows is *the* solution for their day-to-day enterprise need? ;) Does Microsoft come free as in freedom? > But Microsoft has improved its track record on security.... go figure out, > securityfocus.com/bid/ and compare it yourself. Will do. > to keep things simple; DEP, TPM, IE in jail, better privilege Treacherous Platform Module - TPM. There might be added value and benefit with hardware based solution to security (encryption keys, smart cards etc..) but one has to think in terms of monopoly. Who's running the show? the hardware vendors+ microsoft. And how it affects me (a foss enthusiast)?- If there's certain level of privacy that's lost in using the so called TPM, I'll be crying fowl at that point in time. Better for me to cry now. ;( On top of that, there is your notion of "inserting nasty LKM" thingy in kernel by the kernel developers; Same anology applies here. Bottomline- TPM is trecherous and Microsoft wants to run the show as it's always been doing. Then when it's gets the upperhand, do everything/anything it can with Windows- i.e., hardware companies that were age-old enemies suddenly become their friends?? Just a side note, why do you think EU is suing Microsoft for class-action lawsuit? Do you think EU is nuts? > management and more.... are good things about vista. In next > generation of the OS things will be in .NET and other legacy apps in > virtual machine. Microsoft is heading the right way. But does your $$$ Maybe. Maybe not. I happen to be skeptic like you Bipin. Except I stand on the OSS side of the road. > worth the right investment now depends on your requirement or maybe > later or never. Ofcourse, it depends on the requirements Bipin bro. But that was a mere an analogy if you could get the gist of it. > Microsoft set security as primary goal and started working on it and > that input comes with a price tag to pay and enjoy if it worths it for > you. > > I know Linux fans... gamers.... who don't mind going shopping every > year-so to buy graphics card or adding some more ram to play the > latest games. Don't you? I am poor guy running off Linux on donated hardware. :( But I do play www.sauerbraten.org from time to time. :) > But when a new OS was released...(vista) OS supposed to be more > stable, secure, next generation of most popular windows OS Microsoft > had to offer these were people crying because it was pricey and not > suitable for older PC. Easy, hardware technology is getting better I don't believe it was because of old hardware or price. It was mostly because Vista's device driver sucked big time. OEM vendors didn't like it a bit because people were calling up long in queue for their drivers issue, meaning they had to get hardware vendor programmers to actually write a compatibility layer on top of already available windows XP drivers. This was wasted resource for the OEM vendors. Secondly, it doesn't add any value-benefit to enterprise customers who use Windows XP so the adoption rate is very low (http://searchsmb.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid44_gci1241536,00.html) in enterprise market. > rapidly so as the software.7 years ago i wanted a 1 gb hdd so badly. 4 > years ago my 20 gb hdd was big enough for me for a year ,currently i > am finding my 250 gb not inadequate. Like, right now i would find it > hard to fit my important datas, some music, debain installation and > backup on the hard disk i had 4 years ago. True. Hardware are cheap but you wouldn't expect everyone to upgrade their hardware every 5 years, would you? Think in broader sense; FOSS is for the en masse and not restricted to elites. Everyone is not motivated enough (financially or otherwise) to upgrade their hardware every 5 year. > > Hardware isn't very costly these days and its fair deal to have to > upgrade your hardware to something current in every 5 years. I take > hardware cost as as medium price to pay considering software cost, wrt > productivity loss and so on.... with FOSS solutions not being backward > compatible, problems with drivers etc. I wouldn't doubt too much about > installing a software in any version of windows and doubt about > functionality. > > > The point I am trying to make is this: Linux saves you money too! > > This was an intentional rant not aimed at anyone in particular but a group > > of people I know who usually makes fun of fossnepal in Nepal, in KTM to be > > precise. Grow up. Please. > > > > The point I am trying to make is this: Spread the word of FOSS but > with a strong technical and logical blackened when it comes to > convincing people. Yes, FOSS holds strong grounds but i am tooooo sick > of hearing illogical, kiddish and half-Witt rants about Microsoft > technology in name of promoting FOSS. Above all, most of things what > people talk against Microsoft and for Linux over here is mostly based > on heir re-write of news on their words they read online NOT based on > self analysis. The mail was reflected on people who are not technically interested in FOSS, people who think FOSS as a propoganda, and sided more on the freedom side of things. I believe nothing I have said is invalid too. Those news that are credible enough, deserves to be spread. If someone can't research, they will obviously read up an article and say on the basis of that. Did you know about ssh1 vulnerability before you read research paper or an article? It works either way, in academia, you research and then have a credible view of what to adopt and what not to adopt. Same in commercial market space but with practicality in mind and Microsoft's way isn't the highway to me. > congrach, character of most Nepali. Thanks. That says it all about you and your stance on FOSS. > This was an intentional rant not aimed at anyone in particular but a > group of people. > > -bipin -- Cheers, Bikal. GPG: 0D8EAFB6
pgpZTHWYxMoUC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
