ESR's Halloween XI -- Get the FUD 771
dave writes "In the newest Halloween Document (mirror), Eric Raymond analyzes Microsoft's 'Get The Facts' road show. The anti-Linux arguments they are using now -- and, even more, the arguments they're *not* using -- reveal how desperate Microsoft is getting. He explains why he thinks we need to focus more on government adoptions, and predicts serious ugliness during the next year."
The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:1, Insightful)
None, because they weren't created for Linux (as it doesn't have the market share that Windows machines do) *and* because *currently* Linux doesn't have the clueless userbase that Windows does (I won't go into the discussion of management telling IT what to do and IT saying "yes sir" and not deploying patches).
If Linux ever attains the userbase that Windows has the clueless users will outnumber those w/half a brain. That is when the worms and whatnot will spread like wildfire.
You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux IS free.
It's just not neccessarily "free as in beer". It may cost you some money, but you're free to do with it (to a degree) what you wish, so long as you contribute any changes back.
Over-simplified, sure. But go download the windows source code, add a few features to explorer (heck, squash some bugs and security flaws while you're in there), and re-release the source back out there with a Makefile.
Let's see how long until your pants are sued right off of your legs.
Too desperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Halloween Documents? (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think while his points may be valid he just ruined the value of the Halloween series.
The Halloween series worked because it was criticism of real leaked Microsoft memos.
This so-called "Halloween" memo is just counter-fud.
Re:In case of slashdotting (Score:2, Insightful)
We need more "freedom" emphasis (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux isn't free. Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention. Because what Microsoft is doing here is exploiting the old familiar gratis/libre ambiguity of the word free in yet another way. They're setting up for a claim that free software advocates are lying or deluded because Linux has a nonzero TCO. Therefore, goes the implication, you can't really trust them about that other freedom thing, can you?
Maybe we need a better / more effective / less easily confused way to talk about the "freedom" aspect. I'd be interested in constructive discussion of this. But there is a logical flaw in ESR's argument here. It's wrong to conclude that using the term "free software" is a bad idea just because MS tries to muddy the waters. MS may or may not succeed in making our current way of communicating the freedom aspect of Free Software less effective, but this is certainly not a reason to stop talking about "Free Foftware". Quite on the contrary, if after all their studying Microsoft is now trying to discredit the "freedom thing", isn't that an indication that emphasis on the freedom aspect is important, and should be increased rather than diminished!
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:5, Insightful)
If the DoD switches in near totality to OpenOffice, hundreds of corporations will switch too for the sake of compatability with their primary source of bread and butter. Microsoft is terrified at the idea of losing not just approximately 1-1.5 million defense desktops (not counting the other, smaller, departments) but the corporations that sell to them. A mass move to Linux, or better yet in 2 years, HaikuOS would be a disaster for Microsoft.
Good luck. The generals and admirals want their Exchange/Outlook combo and Active Directory. At least in the Air Force there is a huge push to make Outlook the standard with a truly global address book and all the stupid little "features" it adds that I just turn off because they are annoying. Sigh. This will be an uphill battle. I hope open source can make inroads into the U.S. government, especially the DOD, but it will be a battle fiercer than any we have fought.
Steve Ballmer spoke at a recent Air Force conference that I attended. He let us know that the U.S. Air Force is the single largest customer of Microsoft. Do you really think we can "just switch the whole DOD" that easily? The military/DOD is a huge customer for Microsoft and one they will not give up without an epic battle.
Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
(Yeah, OK, that's probably not quite mathematically correct. Here's a proposition -- if you explain that zeta function story from last week, feel free to then go ahead and flame over "asymptotically".)
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:3, Insightful)
If the apps are the same acros platforms, the underlying doesnt matter, except for cost and stability.. Guess who wins out on that?
Re:Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it dishonest to use a title made famous by leaked internal memos to promote what is, when you get right down to it, a rant? Or, if you're being generous, an essay, maybe even a white paper?
We're winning, people. (Score:2, Insightful)
We're winning because MS isn't banging on about the same arguments year after year?
We're winning because MS is creating in the minds of the public a wide variety of flaws in the idea of open source?
We're winning because MS still has the same market share?
We're winning because we've driven out the smaller OS's without making a dent on MS?
We're winning because we still have ESR as our spokesperson?
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to argue that, despite MS's other claims, I agree that TCO will be higher, primarily because most linux programs require a lot more user support than your average windows program, installed and patched with "software wizards". If you're a user installing openoffice and you don't have a certain library, or you have an outdated one, you're going to spend a lot of time learning about ldd and ldconfig. Personally I think the library linking issue is one of Linux's biggest achilles heels, despite a few relatively intelligent attempts to fix it.
I also think that the linux office products out there are simply substandard to Microsoft. That probably has to do with the fact that MS has been at that game for a long time. But nevertheless, linux office products like openoffice, while reasonable facsimiles, simply don't reach MS in terms of functionality and behavior. I spent four hours writing up a macro-enabled, data-validity-using spreadsheet for my company's linux users, while the identical spreadsheet in Excel took me about 45 minutes, and the linux version just didn't compare, and I'm not even a spreadsheet power user.
MS's dominance might be eroding, but it's not simply due to their being entrenched in the marketplace.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stunningly accurate predictions, like MS's monopoly collapsing in 2001, and Windows becoming obsolete when computer prices dipped below $350.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/13/216
http://slashdot.org/article.
He's got a knack for predicting the future. You can rest assured that MS really is getting *DESPERATE* now, especially now that they're obsolete and their monopoly had collapsed years ago.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:2, Insightful)
They spread as
to take effect.
Neither windows nor linux will protect against idiots.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its name?
No. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you are wrong. The flawed security in Windows is a result of closed source. It has absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge level of the user base. Open Source means more eyes are fixed upon the project, following the bouncing ball, and that can only spell tight security for Open Source. Closed source has to compete with inner-office power struggles, funding diversions, corporate shenanigans, ad nauseum, and the user base remains clueless perhaps to how insecure their systems are, but that's not the point of it all. That's not why systems are being zombied. Spam, anyone?
Security is not compromised by the inept or idiotic, either, and any security system can be bypassed, so it must be about the will to do so, which *is* lacking in the Open Source community, for obvious reasons. Virus writers are actually intelligent people, with a wide variety of skills (read: m4dsk1llz), and they hate Microsoft, or they are bored, so they program destructively. There has to be something said about how corporations treat their programmers, in layoffs or forced overtime without pay, and this stress adds up to malicious rubuttals in the form of crushed company networks. Obviously not all viruses are written to get back at The Man, but many are. I may be an insensitive clod for pointing out how poorly us programmers are treated, but that truly is the reason malicious code is written -- because people simply don't like eachother, or they mistreat people who have a little knowledge and a lot of animosity piling up.
Re:Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:1, Insightful)
Right because no avergae use would be running in root right? And if you believe that, you are as dumb as I thought.
Microsoft survival (Score:2, Insightful)
MS has made some nice stuff. They have some skilled people and good marketing. They just need to create value.
There have been some good things they have done.
MS Flight simulator, long history of an excellent product here.
Defined a standard window system, does anyone else remember back in the DOS days with a new GUI system for every app?
MS also did a good job with VB making it trivial to hack together a quick GUI app.
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I've been trying to switch but find little things that make it harder to do - incompatibilities with my clients, things that aren't as usable as I'd like, etc. Without getting too much into it, I just think that MSOffice has had the benefit of time (which has good and bad consequences).
Re:Too desperate (Score:3, Insightful)
To my main point, Microsoft isn't "afraid" or "desperate". Perhaps they've been a bit shallow on innovation of late, but they're not losing any significant market share. Most of these places that Slashdot often reports as "switching to Linux" are either switching from another *NIX, or are only considering Linux.
Microsoft may be running out of ideas (other than finding new ways to keep their stranglehold on the home PC user), but they are by no means desperate.
Re:Too desperate (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if Governments (especially the United States Gov't) start using more OSS-based applications / operating systems there will probably be a marked increase in viruses / worms that affect those platforms. Well, other than infecting OSS with a mostly clueless user base.
P.S. I'm mostly joking about Gov't employees, there are quite a few adept Government people, but I'm sure even you guys know about the "lifers" who still pine for their typewriters...
Re:Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:1, Insightful)
But you certainly have enough permission to delete all the files that matter to you, to connect outbound on the internet, to start a backdoor running in the background listening for someone to connect in later, to run a local root explot, and many other fun and exciting things. H4X0r3D!!1!
Re:M$ vs. Linux "Roadshow" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I wrong?
--
Phil
ESR on the attack again (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't go one whole article without attacking the ideals of Free Software, can you?
No one thinks the term "Free Software" is a good one, the issue has always been that there's nothing better. I can't use Open Source since the term doesn't mean the same thing.
The only other term I can use is Digital Commons, but Digitial Commons is a larger movement than Free Software.
Anyway, ESR, you can't go one whole article without going on the attack against Free Software, can you? You can't accept that many of the ideals of Open Source haven't panned out, and that with the recent legal attacks, the commitement and idealism of Free Software is what's driving so many to resist so strongly.
You're using such similar tactics to MS that it's startling. At first you ignored Free Software- refused to talk about it in many articles. Then you attacked it. Now you make subtle arguments aginst it in each thing you put out.
If you really wanted a unified movement- you'd stop with the blatant attacks.
Somebody explain to me... (Score:1, Insightful)
BTW, Sun Micro has the best commercial Linux desktop package according to an article published by eWeek last week, beating out RedHat's. I thought Slashdot was obligated to link to any article on the web with the word "linux" in it, guess they missed that one.
Re:Apache runs on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
>Apche vs. IIS differences when Microsoft could
>come back by pointing out you can always run
>Apache on Windows if you want to.
Irrelevant. The point is whether Open Source is a viable alternative or not. MS absolutely doesn't want you messing with Apache on any platform, because if all your apps are open source, you are no longer locked into Windows OS.
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine, but that's the sort of "free" that this particular audience is mainly concerned about - the corporate world does not generally set out to make a political statement via their choice of operating system, not at the expense of the bottom line. For MS to point out that Linux is not free beer is both an accurate and effective talking point, considering who they're talking to. Linux beer may or may not be cheaper than MS beer, but it ain't free, and Microsoft would be a gang of fools to not point that out.
Eschew Obfuscation! (Score:4, Insightful)
Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.
Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
From Don't Use Big Words... [abcsmallbiz.com]
So let me guess... (Score:1, Insightful)
MS official: We plan to fix Windows
ESR: Translation, We will kill Linus Torvalds and everyone in Open source world.
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even assuming that Linux is inherently safer than Windows (and I will not argue that point), you cannot just discount user stupidity like that and claim superiority because you think you can engineer a solution for it.
The current Windows worm du jour requires the user to open a ZIP archive and provide a password before extracting the executable.
A password.
If you think you're going to engineer away that with open source and still provide users with a decent computing experience, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
This whole "we're so much better than them because there are many eyes looking at the code blah blah" deal gets more tiresome every time I hear it. If it were true, open source software would have zero bugs. Zero vulnerabilities. It would be approaching 99% of perfection. And it's not. Aside from a few choice projects, it's not even beyond what commercial software provides.
Software libre (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention. Because what Microsoft is doing here is exploiting the old familiar gratis/libre ambiguity of the word free in yet another way.
Raymond should be less glib and contrive a better argument against the term free software than mere coersion. I see no reason why Micro$oft's perverse attacks should affect my philosophy the freedom of ideas, or dictate which terms are acceptable in discussing it. In these dark days of ever expanding corporatism we need more discussion of freedom, not less.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you explain to us how using "software wizards" instead of package manager (yum, apt, urpmi, whatever your distro is based on) and related GUI for software installation and patching could translate into TCO saving ? Remember, most software installation and patching is not being done by the end-user anyway, but by their IT departement.
If you would be equally proficient with both MS Office and OO.org, that would be telling something. However, I am pretty sure you are not. With that assumption, the only conclusion I can draw ATM is that using software you are not familiar with take more time, especially for advanced stuff like data validation. Duh.
Re:We're winning, people. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we are.
We're winning because MS isn't banging on about the same arguments year after year?
Sure. They're wasting resources trying to follow Linux. And refute what the project is about. And give massive discounts to companies that consider going to Linux. Any cut in revenue for MSFT I consider a good thing.
We're winning because MS is creating in the minds of the public a wide variety of flaws in the idea of open source?
Trying to. The simplistic reasoning that MSFT gives for not going to Linux can be easily refuted. I was given the "there's fewer viruses for Linux and MSFT because of usage". If that were the case, then Apache would have more vulnerabilities than IIS, right? Right??
We're winning because MS still has the same market share?
For desktops? Sure they do. Linux has a long way to go before it can pass the Non-tech-spouse test. For servers, that's harder to figure out. I can build one Linux box that handles e-mail while Windows needs 3 to do the same task. Does this mean that Windows has 3X the servers as Linux? Well yea, but what else does it say?
We're winning because we've driven out the smaller OS's without making a dent on MS?
No, but we've made other companies (Sun, IBM, SGI, HP) realize that they can either work with Linux to compete with MSFT, or go it alone. The UNIX wars showed that companies can't go it alone.
We're winning because we still have ESR as our spokesperson?
Ha. Uhm. Well. You got me there.
Re:Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:1, Insightful)
Which is exactly how a typical Dumb Person trojan horse could spread.
If some percentage of Windows users will open an encrypted zip file containing malware, some percentage of Unix users will type in their root password when prompted.
Re:Apache runs on Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:1, Insightful)
Linux ISN'T free (Score:1, Insightful)
Aside from that, you can't ignore support costs, training, and maintenance and claim something is completely free. That's spinning it.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:4, Insightful)
So your point is.. what exactly? My point would be that *right now* you could use Linux and not have all of these problems *right at this moment*.
Whereas if you'd continue to use Windows you *do* have all these spyware and worm problems right at this moment.
Maybe in 5 years Linux will have many more (clueless) users, and also more problems like Windows currently has. That still leaves me with the period between now and 5 years in the future where I can just run it and see if the problems get worse. Whereas in Windows it's hell already so I don't need to wait 5 years to make up my mind about that.
Maybe in 5 years Microsoft will finally have their security act together and you could consider switching back if Linux really starts to suck by then. Not that I think this would happen, but by looking at it pragmatically this is what I'd say.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, his ability to prognosticate is badly flawed when predicting end results. OTOH, I think he's been pretty accurate in how MS would fight the war, don't you? Go back and re-read the Halloween docs and you'll see what I mean.
Re:ESR, again. (Score:3, Insightful)
software anyway.
Re:I think you misunderstood me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has a consumer OS they're trying to secure. You have a server OS that you're trying to make usable as a workstation. You can argue endlessly about how each side could have done things differently, but most of the time most people who attack Microsoft because they're (in your words) "unable to write good code" also discount the fact that they have to deal with a huge user and legacy application base. They can't just change the default shell action of a VB script from "Run" to "Edit" (which pretty much eliminates script worms) without getting themselves into a hell of a bind. There is no easy solution. But the attitude from people like you is mostly "lock it down and let the user fight it". You won't sell a lot of anything like that, unfortunately. As long as open source continues to think of users as developers who don't mind opening a console and typing 'su' to get anything done Linux won't get far in the desktop.
The Apple comparison is dumb, as always. Just by virtue of sheer user base size.
You just wait until Linux gains some market share in the desktop thanks to IBM or Novell. The day some fuck starts sending tarballs with bash scripts that delete ~/ or zombie the box to send spam we'll have another chat. There's no need to run as root to do damage to a machine.
Motivation for the anti-ESR movement (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently people like to cling to all the things they consider personality flaws like starving worms, using them at all opportunities to attack the persons other opinions and activities.
It kinda pisses me off to see valid Microsoft criticism from an Open Source evangelist being attacked just because some asshat takes ESR's hackers dictionary too seriously. Do you really think someone is just trapped in the shadow of ESR, mourning that if ESR was taken down just a notch, he could steal the limelight and rescue the true spirit of open source?
You guys should just pause for a while, and think whether petty arguing among ourselves is more important than the war of spin & fud between us and microsoft. Unless you are working for AdTI, of course - in that case I understand your motivations perfectly.
Grow up. Your mom still lives you more than she loves ESR, no need to feel all sad and droopy.
Re:We need more "freedom" emphasis (Score:2, Insightful)
So I belive that ESR is arguing that the term Free Software is a bad idea. And I have a direct quote in support.
Did you notice that the grandparent gave this same quote?
-Peter
Very disingenuous (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Claim that linux isn't free.
ESR seems to think all MS is talking about here is that it isn't free because it "has a nonzero TCO." Sure, that's part of it, but I think the argument goes deeper. The point is that the majority of corporate customers are not going to just download a freely available distribution of Linux, because most enterprise customers NEED support. Therefore, they are going to buy a supported distribution from a major Linux vendor, and that most certainly costs money. In that case it's most certainly not free (as in beer), and while it is still free (as in speech), those companies are not going to really exercise that freedom because they can't just modify their distribution and still expect support from the vendor.
2. Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source.
ESR's basically just belittles this statement, but again, there's some truth behind it. If you consider a company as above, namely, that they have bought a Linux vendor's distribution with support and they are not going to modify that distribution and lose their support. At that point, what IS the difference between 'Shared Source' and 'Open Source'? Either way, they're only looking at the source code and not modifying it. The only real difference I can see is that with Open Source (or really, Free Software) they could try to create a patch and get it into a future release in the hope that their vendor will pick it up and support it. This is really only marginally better than relying on your commercial software vendor for new features, because you're still dependent on some external entity (in this case, your vendor) and their decision making process to get that feature.
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:2, Insightful)
I know this post isn't going to earn me any popularity here. That's fine. All I ask is that you take away this one little statement from me: if the word free dynamically changes and confuses people, stop using it. Don't use free when one person's thinking licensing cost and another's thinking about source code. Everybody values each of those factors seperately.
Re:Too desperate (Score:4, Insightful)
This is truly an important point.
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowing your baseline is now 0$ per OS (if you go with internal support.. who calls MS centers anyways), that gets you more customisation of your environment.
And the way Linux works, you can have a smart-card system of semi-dumb terminals that Sun employees have. And of couse, use the good ol' NSA Trusted Kernel, now in 2.6 verison of kernel by default.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apache has a much larger base than IIS, yet most of the exploits are for IIS.
Re:Linux ISN'T free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:3, Insightful)
my experience across 8 years has been that commercial support from a specific vendor can be hit or miss. Sometimes great (really great... Cisco comes to mind). Sometimes really really bad.
At my old job, they still had to hire independent consultants for some Microsoft tasks.
Re:Say it ain't so! (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine, but that's the sort of "free" that this particular audience is mainly concerned about - the corporate world does not generally set out to make a political statement via their choice of operating system, not at the expense of the bottom line.
Corporations cannot run their companies for free. Every bit of maintenance and operational activity costs money. The free as in speech aspect of OSS benefits them by offering choice: it's difficult to lock a company into an upgrade cycle (with its caascading effects) when that company can choose to continue using an old version indefinitely. You can't EOL an OSS product, and you can't hold them hostage with bugfixes.
yeah, yeah, yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
1) good code isn't propoganda
2) destroying Microsoft shouldn't be a goal
3) beggars can't be choosers - (I won't beg people to use Linux)
not to mention...
Using patents as anything other than a form of insurance or a form of fake currency is entirely unproductive and will only serve to reduce their value as a fake currency and as a modern-day form of insurance. Unless, of course, people would choose to use them for what they are meant to be used for...
The DMCA is going to be rewritten
Someone is going to take what this Halloween document says and twist it and try to prove that Linux is out to destroy proprietary software and your paycheck, which will generate more arguments back and forth.
Just because Red Hat might be right doesn't mean that they are the best choice in software for your organization.
Imagine a cool, calm, peaceful, beautiful, and very blue body of water - a fresh cool breeze blowing through your hair; the smell of flowers and other good-smelling things; the sounds of birds and leaves blowing in the breeze.
Microsoft is a company. What is a company but a collection of individuals. The problem is not Microsoft, the problem is individuals who work, used to work, know people who work, etc... at Microsoft. The same thing can be said for government. It's not Microsoft + the government out to destroy Linux, it's individuals + individuals being selfish, greedy and stupid.
The first thing that can be done is to show respect for Microsoft. Sure, Linux costs more, but IT'S BETTER. (which is true). Linux is more expensive because it's better. (it's actually less expensive). Now all the rich folks will want Linux because it's the "Cadillac" of operating systems. Microsoft gets Chevrolet status by their own request.
I recently though of an analogy after reading Stephen Hawking's book - it's about entropy, or the direction of time. Glasses fall off of tables and shatter, they don't pick themselves up from pieces on the floor and magically un-break themselves and fall "up" back on the table in one piece.
But God, or in this case, let's compare God to the public - to the individual who is observing what is going on, and making a decision, a judgement, as to which software solution is the best to buy.
Can God, or the observer, in this case, press "rewind", and have the glass re-assemble itself? If this is true, does it really matter who threw the first punch? For all anyone cares, they are just "fighting". It doesn't matter who started it.
Imagine a cool, calm, peaceful, beautiful, and very blue body of water - a fresh cool breeze blowing through your hair; the smell of flowers and other good-smelling things; the sounds of birds and leaves blowing in the breeze.
Re:I made a little chart... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Something like Meeting Maker wd be cool (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the other part of it - honestly, Outlook/Exchange is a pretty decent setup. Outlook as an email client is awful, but Outlook/Exchange as a group calendaring/room reservation/resource reservation setup (yes, we reserve a conference room by adding it to our meeting request on Outlook, and resources similarly for those that are tracked) is a decent solution. It would take a lot of work for an OS developer to come up with something as good, and the companies that most need that sort of solution (giant corporations; IBMs, Intels, Motorolas, Walmarts) are the ones who are most able to deal with both the cost of licenses.
Basically, the problem is that its a big problem that has no use for home users, and none of the big corporates has shown a desire to move away from the 'good enough' solution O/Ex provides.
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:3, Insightful)
My best guess is that the US gov't pays less than $25 per license. Probably around $10. The actual number depends on where the purchasing happens - the higher the level of purchasing, the higher the volume, the lower the per-license that can be negotiated. Also, remember that its the government, which means they likely receive a discount for that as well.
Re:Aunt Tillie mods you down (Score:2, Insightful)
Software should be treated like firearms. You should be allowed to shoot yourself in the foot, but only if you know how to remove the safety.
Re:The clueless userbase to propagates the worms. (Score:4, Insightful)
While you make a valid observation, you are talking about something that has not happened, and that you cannot prove will ever happen.
In an argument, the hypothetical must take back-seat to the reality of here-and-now.
TCO for MS systems must include the cost of viruses and other malware. Linux does not currently suffer from this problem. Maybe, at some future time, that will not be the case. However, we can't use the future as an argument because it hasn't happened yet.
Re:ESR, a factual case is the best case. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point of gov't adoptions (Score:5, Insightful)
---You're leaving out the cost of additional internal support. You're forgetting that customization of your environment leads to additional hassles applying patches and upgrades. Finally, you're forgetting that switching hardware costs money.
Hmm, switching to Linux requires no hardware changes (except for some wacky modems and weird stuff). It runs on mnay more platforms than Windows EVER ran on (thinking of old Mips, Alpha, X86, hmmm days, forget that last one).
---Ask yourself this: On how many thousands of computers would I have to save $100 per license to pay for a small team of programmers with secret or better security clearances for three years? If you figure a small team is 5-6 programmers, it works out to around 20,000 computers.
You assume programmers. Oh, and I manage all my computers from a nice shell script. It updates them all at once, and can give basic commmandline prompt through ssh. And if you NEED clearance, you're doing megabucks of something. Might as well do it right anyways. You'll need those programmers on Windows OR Linux.
---On how many more thousands of computers would I have to save $100 per license to pay the additional sysadmins, QA, and help desk personnel? What about the project managers that coordinate all these efforts? What about the additional oversight and compliance officers that ensure all of these activities meet regulations and standards?
I can easily handle 5000 clients. Its the servers I tend to want more people on. Perhaps 1 person per 20 servers or so.. Depends how much uptime is worth. Im not quoting Windows numbers either.
----As you can see, it quickly gets to a point where using a free as in beer product and supporting yourself is more expensive than buying from a vendor and getting a support contract.
Funny. Now count how much downtime costs under windows. Now license costs. Now finding INTELLIGENT admins in the windows world (there's not many). There's a good chance if you hire a Linux admin, youre getting more intelligence, problem solving and generally more expertise.
----A small to medium size business may save some money, but once you grow past that, it just makes more sense to pay for support.
Yet more unfounded statements. Why not hire more intelligent people for IT staff. Yes, it costs more, but thats what IT is for... Reducing the amount of Downtime of network and services. IT is NOT for making money (unless youre a software dev)
Re:Very disingenuous (Score:3, Insightful)
If you consider a company as above, namely, that they have bought a Linux vendor's distribution with support and they are not going to modify that distribution and lose their support. At that point, what IS the difference between 'Shared Source' and 'Open Source'?
Well, one difference is that someone [fedoralegacy.org] else [progeny.com] can come along and support the Open Source product if the original vendor chooses not to do so.
Try that with code released under "Shared Source". Equating "Shared Source" with software libre is what it is disingenuous - it isn't the availability of source code that counts, it is what you can do with it.
You are right that this ESR piece is poorly written though. I'm not quite sure how one of his rants qualifies as a "Halloween document".
be serious (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think there's a CIO out there who hasn't yet heard of Linux? That's like suggesting that there's a CFO somewhere who's never heard of SAP or Peoplesoft.
CIOs may not use Linux, they may not even have any interest in using Linux, but by now certainly every CIO has at least heard of it and can probably describe Linux better than half the people on Slashdot.
Re:Hey, FUD-packer. (Score:2, Insightful)
You must be on crack.
How is this script going to launch if it is saved as read and write only as Linux/Unix OS's routinely handle such events? How is it going to initiate a daemon without being root? It can't execute, so it can't make a copy of itself: only the user can make that file executable and then any putative damage is restricted to the user's space, so it can't install, so it can't exploit anything.
And if you administer a Linux machine that permits users in your "Windows/Linux/Solaris/Netware" environment to allow scripts and executable to be set as executable automatically or casually as a user, you are a scary security administrator.
Re:I gotta wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple: having all that, and realizing that it's all going to go away, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Focus on government adoption? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too desperate (Score:3, Insightful)
You need not worry about that. Top level MS executives have called us terrorists, cancer, anti american, communists etc. Didn't seem to change peoples opinion of them much. They have lately taken to calling us thieves.
I think writing M$ pales in comparison to paying thinktanks to write deragetory articles or funding SCO to file lawsuits don't you?
Trust me "we" will never be able to match the vitriol MS (and their shills) spew every day.