> Mark N. Hattarki wrote:
> > This article can't
> > even be labeled as propoganda, because it's very explicitly lying about
> > things like "the number of outstanding security holes and lack of stable
> > functionality is monumental". This is just basic slander.
>
> OK, at the risk of being flamed and having my mailbox exploded, I'd like
> to disagree. My disagreement can take two forms: 1. Libel (that is,
> slander in a published forum) would be very difficult to prove. That's
> mostly the case because the quotations in the article are mostly
> opinion, and a person can't be sued for their opinion.
They're claiming it's monumental ( which loosely translates to
extraordinary, in this context). This is a claim of fact, not opinion.
>
> More to the point however, I'm not sure how false the statement really
> is. I would actually agree with the former half (that linux has a
> monumental number of outstanding security holes). I don't know if any
> of you are subscribed to BUGTRAQ, but they are constantly finding
> security holes in either the linux kernel, some library, or some fairly
> common piece of software. Now, I wouldn't say that linux is
> particularly better or worse than other OSes regarding security holes,
> but strictly speaking I would agree that linux has a fairly large number
> of outstanding security holes.
>
That's the point. It fairs better than most OS'es that I know, with amybe
freeBSD being the exception. But, this guy's claiming that it's
"monumental".
In a court of law, you can certainly streach definitions for a defense.
However, a judge is going to interprete the phrase according to context.
Most judges will bawk at such a defense.
> The second half of the statement is harder to defend (that there is a
> lack of stable functionality), but given the benefit of the doubt, I can
> actually see where someone would think so. As the article points out in
> its low-detail way, the linux kernel does change quite often. Even the
> "stable" as opposed to the "developer's" version changes with a fair
> amount of frequency.
Again, this defense won't fly. The statement needs to be interpreted as it
was intended. Lawyers are notorious for tapdancing around issues like
this, but this is pretty straight forward.
>
> In addition, one point the article doesn't mention specifically, but
> that I think certainly qualifies as unstable is the standard libraries
> for linux. Depending on how long you've been using linux, you may or
> may not realize that the linux community has changed its mind several
> times about what libraries to use. When I first started using linux
> (1995), the standard libraries were a.out. Shortly thereafter, linux
> decide to go the ELF route. So, I upgraded my system and subsequently
> broke a number of apps that could no longer find their libs. Currently,
> linux has decided to move to glibc, which is not really compatible with
> the old libc. So, I upgraded my system and subsequently broke a number
> of apps that couldn't find their libs. Further, it now takes me twice
> as long to compile new programs because I cannot for the life of me make
> glibc and a c++ compiler play nice. Plus, I had to upgrade my XFree
> recently, and stupidly compiled it with glibc, so now a number of my X
> apps are confused because they were comiled with the old libc. Now,
> once it all works, it works with a good amount of stability (ie. doesn't
> crash), but that's of limited utility when the stability of the
> underlying libraries is such that I can't compile it in the first place.
come on, man. I could also argue that linux is unstable because every time
I unplug my box, the damn thing crashes. I too, have had many problems
with library compatability, but this is not what is meant. If I sell you a
copy of OS X, and you fuck it up, it's not a problem with the OS! This is
a policy mistake on the part of the admin.
For example, I can't claim linux is insucure if I post the root passwd to
some newsgroup somewhere.
>
> Mostly, I just think the linux community should be wary of buying into
> its own positive press too much. The reality of the situation is that
> linux is not perfect, and if we get upset and defensive every time
> somebody criticizes this or that about the OS, we start to sound a lot
> like certain large companies that explain that, "that's a feature, not a
> bug." We would be better served to listen to their complaints
> rationally, determine their possible validity, and make the OS better
> because of it.
>
That's not what's happening here.
> > If the linux community were an corporation, we could sue and win.
>
> As I explained above, probably not.
>
Go talk to a lawyer, they'll tell you otherwise. In addition to my
comments above, I also want to say that all os'es that I know of have
outstanding bugs and security holes, linux is no exception. But, saying
that linux has a "monumental" number of these is clearly false. Linux
fairs better than most os'es, esp the ones from redmond.
namaste,
Mark
--
Mark N. Hattarki
Voice : (512) 493-7342
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
