Quoting Andre John Cruz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8505
Occasionally, one does see insightful articles about corporate migration experiences and strategies. Alas, this _doesn't_ strike me as one of them. Quotations that follow are from the unnamed author. > In general, there does not appear to be a huge difference in stability > of the two systems when it comes to commercial work and stability > alone is not a terribly persuasive reason for Linux to displace > Windows. To support this conclusion, he talks at length about his experience with Win2k and XP. Curiously, he says nothing whatsoever about experience with Linux. We'll return to this point further on: It's abundantly clear from his remarks throughout the piece that the author has little or no acquaintance with Linux, and was chosen to write this piece of punditry based on no better qualifications than experience as a corporate Microsoft-oriented IT guy. > The Bugtraq database reports that in the last 15 months there have > been a similar number of vulnerabilities reported for Linux and > Windows XP Pro. [...] The number of Bugtraq reports can't be taken at > face value because there is the potential for Linux bugs to have > multiple entries in Bugtraq and the severity of any bug in a > particular IT site may be quite different to the severity for another > site. He says not to take them at face value, but he seems to do just that by implication, doing little further analysis beyond the relative numbers of Bugtraq posts. I posted to PLUG a dissection of a similar claim, but an Aberdeen Group analyst based on CERT advisories, here: http://lists.q-linux.com/pipermail/plug/2002-December/023265.html And also a similar claim based on the redhat-watch-list mailing list: http://www.linux.ie/old-list/53296.html To be charitable, the current author is a bit more sophisticated about his data than was the Aberdeen Group analyst. But he really makes no real effort to analyse this data, or arrive at any conclusions about the relative extent of security problem in likely corporate deployments. My surmise: This partly owes to the piece being basically a shallow opinion piece, and partly to the author seldom getting closer to a Linux host than reading Bugtraq. > Linux aficianados claim that the Linux world responds quickly when > vulnerabilities are reported and that's certainly correct. This is > because the testing of application software after these Linux patches > are applied is left to users of the OS. It is of course _not_ true that patches are left to the users: At worst, it is left to the sysadmins, and is easily and effectively done by central administration from inside IT Department headquarters. If the author had even a _little_ experience with mechanisms such as apt-get, SuSE Update, Red Hat Network, etc., he would not have said that. Again, the obvious inference is that he's completely ignorant of the Linux side of the comparison. > Microsoft has a reputation for being rather slow to provide patches > for certain software problems. On the other hand these patches are > probably tested against a whole range of Microsoft applications > before the patch is released to users. On real operating systems, it's not _necessary_ to "test against a whole range of applications" when you apply a fix, because of proper abstraction between levels of functionality. Only on OSes where, say, a gratuitously interconnected Web browser and screensavers that needlessly run in CPU ring zero can bring down the entire OS, is such testing necessary. And isn't it interesting that he talks about testing against a whole range of _Microsoft_ applications? This truly is an all-Microsoft drone, speaking. > If a fast solution is needed and the risk of application problems is > acceptable, then the Linux method is suitable. Some companies are > quite satisfied to wait for the fully tested patch especially if their > business is not being badly impacted by the problems or they lack the > skilled staff to manage them. It is apparent from the above that he sees no alternative on Linux to leaving OS and application patching to individual users. Again, he's completely out of his depth. At my former firm, a couple of hundred Debian GNU/Linux-based desktop machines were all automatically updated via a cronjob, every night, copying down the revised system build from the "golden master" prototype workstation in the IT Department's laboratory. It worked beautifully. People using those workstations didn't even have admin rights to their machines, let alone go around ideosyncratically applying patches. > It is exceptionally reassuring that the computer companies are in a > position where they can throw resources at an urgent problem. [...] > At the moment this kind of support for Linux is not easy to find.... Which is a ridiculous assertion. Problem solutions can be and are furnished by whichever of many businesses you have contracted with to do so. That can be IBM Corporation, it can be Linuxcare, it can be a local consultant, it can be a support contract from your distribution vendor. And he fails to answer the same question for MS-Windows deployments, where the lack of a good answer _is_ truly damning. It's very typical for the MS-Windows-using business to hear that desired functionality is simply not provided / broken, and that it's expected to live with that. Theoretically, you could sue a giant, rapacious monopoly for satisfaction: Oddly, some executives seem to think this is a valuable option. > The unfortunate downside of this is that computer companies such as IBM, > Dell, HP, Sun and even Oracle others may "fork" the Linux code base and > modify it to suit themselves, thus creating exactly the same problems > that Unix suffers from. Oh, please fork and improve our copylefted code. We'd love to automatically gain back the resulting contribution: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/essays/forking.html I thought I'd killed this bit of pathetic misinformation back in 1999, but some people are a bit slow on the uptake. > At the application level, things are not so different. Packages like > Star Office were free for a while, but no longer. Showing ignorance of OpenOffice.org. Moreover, typical deployments of Star Office in corporate environments have much lower licensing costs than do the usual run of Win32 competition. (Star Office is of course an attractive option on Win32, too.) > When the cost of Windows at a company level is annualised over several > years it reduces to just a few hundred dollars per desktop - abou the > cost of a skilled engineer on site for an hour or two. With good > support practices in place, the effective annual cost of these desktop > systems can be kept quite low. In my experience in the IT business, this tends to look true, only because of the many costs that are artificially kept off the income statement: downtime, needed functionality that is simply not possible, support and rebuilding costs simply not billed to the departments that consume the related IT services. > Installation: [...] Each PC will require individual attention and > even though special installation CDs can be used, there will be some > amount of manual intervention required on all systems. With netbooting and automated hardware recognition, the above is no longer true. Again, an IT director acquainted with Linux would know that. A _modern_ IT director would have long since done away with attended installations from CDs. That's what we have networks, "golden master" deployment hosts, and rsync for. > Well-organised Windows sites have management tools that can handle the > roll-out of new applications or application upgrades, and they can do > it in the evening or overnight. Similar tools need to be in place for > Linux support and of course the skills to use those tools must be > acquired. Again, he makes the error of assuming that corporate general staff would be in charge of installing software on their IT-supported workstations, and evidently has never encountered any of the time-tested Linux systems for deploying and updating software. > The removal of Windows will also mean the removal and replacement of > all software that uses APIs or DLL files, incompatible with Linux. As anyone who's ever used WINE, Crossover Office, ReWind, Wine Preview, Crossover Plugin, Win4Lin, VMware, WineX, Bochs, VNC, or rdesktop knows, this is untrue. > In some cases here we also strike the problem of "business crediblity" > because the alternative software might only be available from a small > software house and a commercial enterprise may be reluctant to risk > dealing with a company that might disappear. Surely, this is much more of a problem on MS-Windows. The list of companies driven out of business and their products orphaned by Microsoft Corporation's direct action alone would be quite impressive. The author realises that fact: > There are no guarantees that any large software company that writes > software for Windows will also continue to exist but the risk of them > failing is perceived as being rather less. So, realising that the prejudice is irrational, he nonetheless feels obliged to point to it as being "perceived". > Before we look at the impact on users, there are certain peripherals > designed specifically to work with Windows and drivers for these are > only available via Microsoft. That "design" almost always reflects omission of crucial parts and their emulation of software, a compromise that _also_ makes them unsuitable for use under MS-Windows in business. That fact notwithstanding, practically all of them _have_ been reverse-engineered and made to work with Linux, through sheer determination. Information about various hardware categories' support is available via http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/help-resources . In short, it seems likely that the author was entirely unqualified to address the subject, and sadly had nothing substantive to say, and so mouthed what he imagined to be unobjectionable platitudes from a 100% Microsoft-centric perspective and apparently no acquaintance at all with Linux. -- Cheers, It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. Rick Moen It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, rick@ The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, linuxmafia.com It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
