EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
2 edits |  Article - Open Source and FUD marketing
Interesting article, and applicable since we are seeing some of that kind of stuff being posted here. Note that the blog article is an editorial rebuttal of some commonly held arguments concerning open source software.
... in order to protect their enormous revenue streams, large software corporations have invested millions in spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about the security of open source software. In this post, I will examine and debunk five commonly held myths about open source security and why large corporations are promoting a “fear factor” mentality around open source software. ...
Article here.
I think it's a service to post vulnerability advisories, but when they are misrepresented by obviously incomplete, erroneous or selectively edited information, then it does little good for the reader and exposes the poster as unreliable and dishonest when eagle eyes set the record straight.
Of course, such postings do have a backfire effect when a poster's assertions are refuted by documentation of facts and additional data. So, the astroturfer's effort is often negated, especially in this forum.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL | Good article.
Thanks for posting. |
|
BandHeight
join:2004-08-30
Portland, TX
| reply to EGeezer
said by ZDNet Article posted by EGeezer :
* Emma McGrattan is senior vice president of engineering at Ingres and a member of the board of directors for the Eclipse Foundation. Born in Ireland, Emma earned a Bachelor of Electronic Engineering from Dublin City University.
Yes, it's true that commercial enterprises have a stake in FUDing up open source, but I'm not so sure it's entirely effective to post rebuttal articles to this FUD written by people who have an equal stake in spreading their own FUD.
I found the article to be overly simplified and too generalized in its seeming assessment that all open source projects escape the "myths" outlined.
It's much better to assess the individual projects rather than their status as closed or open-source, thus the author's statement:
said by ZDNet Article posted by EGeezer :
The open source market has evolved and grown to a point where many customers do not see a software purchase as being a choice between open and closed, but a question of which product meets their needs, will deliver the best performance, and receive the best support.
is the most relevant and pointed in the entire article.
---
I am posting from Arch Linux.  |
|
Vampirefo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-11
Huntington, WV | reply to EGeezer
Good read thanks for posting.
--
Best RegardsVampirefo |
|
GentoooooMan
@comcast.net
| reply to BandHeight
Good article, thanks for posting.
I must say that some of the people posting in the comments section on that blog are either purposely spreading FUD or are complete imbeciles. This is especially true with the one guy who claims to have years of Unix admin experience and claims Windows is more secure and easier to implement in a mission-critical situation. I suppose that's why Google and 60% of other major online companies run UNIX and LINUX? The Windows fanboys seem to forget this inconvenient fact. *nix has already (a long time ago) won the battle for mission-critical servers world-wide.
Another guy said Linux is expensive after you factor in licensing fees and software costs. Pardon me, but what "software" is he referring to that costs so much money? With RHEL and SUSE Enterprise you are paying ONLY for support. You don't pay a dime for any software (unless you have some programmer create custom software for you or something). This is just an example of the Windows mentality -- pay for the OS, pay for the support, pay for 3rd party software. Can anyone think of any such "expensive" software needed to run on *nix?
And finally, another guy said "many are shocked when they check the billing for service and any non-trivial tweaking of source code, and then realize they are fooled by the myth of being "Free"." FUD. No one has ever claimed that enterprise Linux distros are "free as in beer." However, any company, no matter the size, doesn't have to pay a dime in licensing fees to use Linux (or BSD) on their infrastructure if they don't want to. However, most CHOOSE to pay the fees for official support. There are many completely "free as in beer" alternatives (CentOS for one). Second, anyone can tweak the source code to his heart's desire without having to pay a penny to do it. Further, there is no fear of IP lawsuits if one chooses to do it. |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by GentoooooMan :
The Windows fanboys seem to forget this inconvenient fact. *nix has already (a long time ago) won the battle for mission-critical servers world-wide. Of course, the *nix fanboys seem to forget the inconvenient fact that *nix is not an operating system. |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
1 edit | said by dave  :*nix fanboys seem to forget the inconvenient fact that *nix is not an operating system Well, Dave, yes it is.
A Unix-like (sometimes shortened to *nix) operating system is one that behaves in a manner similar to a Unix system, while not necessarily conforming to or being certified to any version of the Single UNIX Specification. The term can include free software / open source operating systems inspired by Bell Labs’ Unix or designed to emulate its features, commercial and proprietary work-alikes, and even versions based on the licensed UNIX source code (which may be deemed so “Unix-like” that they are certified to bear the “UNIX” trademark).
Edit - Just thought that I'd come back and toss this in from the same above link...
Unix-like systems often have Unix-like names such as AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Linux, Minix, Ultrix, and Xenix. These patterns do not literally match many system names, but are still generally recognized to refer to any UNIX descendant system, even those with completely dissimilar names such as Solaris, FreeBSD or Mac OS X. |
|
BeesTea
Network Janitor
Premium,VIP
join:2003-03-08
00000
| reply to dave
said by dave :Of course, the *nix fanboys seem to forget the inconvenient fact that *nix is not an operating system. Haha, indeed.
Let's see.. there's Minix and ummm.... Xenix.. and umm... Dynix.. and... That's all I can come up with. Interestingly, none of these are what people are referring to when they say "*nix". What boggles me is why not just add the "U" and be done with it.
Anyway, thanks for the laugh Dave.
--
Overpower, overcome. |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | reply to SUMware
It doesn't matter. The point is that it's meaningless to say that, given N Solaris installations and N Linux installations, that something called "*nix" has "won".
Ask the guys at Sun whether they think they're the winners when someone chooses NetBSD instead of Windows Server, for example.
P.S. You should know by now that when I so choose, I pick my words carefully. I wrote "*nix is not an operating system". In fact, *nix is a whole lot of different operating systems. |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| said by dave :I wrote "*nix is not an operating system". In fact, *nix is a whole lot of different operating systems. That should quell any nix-picking post replies. |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
1 edit | reply to dave
said by dave :It doesn't matter. Perhaps only to you, at this point. LOL.said by dave :You should know by now that when I so choose, I pick my words carefully. I wrote "*nix is not an operating system". In fact, *nix is a whole lot of different operating systems. Sure, Dave. Whatever you say (you happen to be right in this case). |
|
WeenieBoy
join:2003-06-25
Pasadena, MD | reply to EGeezer
Good Article, I can can think of a few who selectively post mis information and even have the go nads to edit and remove offending information posted to attempt to cover their mistakes. |
|
