tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post1199076511672792497..comments2019-07-17T03:41:15.620-07:00Comments on Linux Hater's Redux: Why Linux Is Not More Secure Than WindowsAnti-Tuxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14184665169206392084noreply@blogger.comBlogger173125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-67119293316902115972009-02-10T01:33:00.000-08:002009-02-10T01:33:00.000-08:00Get a fucking life freetards...Get a fucking life freetards...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-25934962507588296072009-01-28T10:46:00.000-08:002009-01-28T10:46:00.000-08:00What the fuck! There must be a lot of bored Wintar...What the fuck! There must be a lot of bored Wintards/Wintrolls/Lintards/lusers/fanboi s/Mactards out there! 785 Comments on linuxhaters.blogspot.com! Hasn't matched adequacy.org though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-1595195024162610262009-01-10T21:33:00.000-08:002009-01-10T21:33:00.000-08:00Good post. But I think you need to do a bit of a r...Good post. But I think you need to do a bit of a recap I've forgotten completely why you hate Linux in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-33932856821635017132008-12-17T08:39:00.000-08:002008-12-17T08:39:00.000-08:00Are you dead, LHR, or just resting?http://www.itwi...Are you dead, LHR, or just resting?<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22362/53/<BR/><BR/>"Windows crushing Linux in netbook market: Acer"<BR/><BR/>Who denied the coming of this? Only the deluded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-9188788351197361662008-12-16T22:20:00.000-08:002008-12-16T22:20:00.000-08:00Ahahahahahahaha check the fix this guy is applying...Ahahahahahahaha check the fix this guy is applying! ROTFL<BR/><BR/>http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/debian-linux-help/135722-debian-router-help-pls.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-64935739128779936272008-12-16T12:34:00.000-08:002008-12-16T12:34:00.000-08:00So is the blog dead or what?Come on, we need more ...So is the blog dead or what?<BR/><BR/>Come on, we need more hatred ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-91140602263531700562008-12-13T11:27:00.000-08:002008-12-13T11:27:00.000-08:00One more Linux haters blog died?One more Linux haters blog died?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-60245859912875259962008-12-12T00:28:00.000-08:002008-12-12T00:28:00.000-08:00Come on! We need moar hate! Fun fact: At the tech ...Come on! We need moar hate! Fun fact: At the tech support shop I work at, we recommend OpenOffice to people who don't have MS Office. I've installed OO for 5 clients. All 5 have returned and requested I install Office 07 for them. Apparently they hate freedom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-87670647320928602562008-12-09T12:57:00.000-08:002008-12-09T12:57:00.000-08:00OMG OMG OMG.This blog is dead as well.Linux is not...OMG OMG OMG.<BR/>This blog is dead as well.<BR/><BR/>Linux is not interesting enough even to produce failure stories.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for trying, congratulation on moving on.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>/EOFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-90885393981444194412008-12-08T15:40:00.000-08:002008-12-08T15:40:00.000-08:00Is LHR dead again? It kinda sucks, though underst...Is LHR dead again? It kinda sucks, though understandable as there barely is anything new and rantworthy out there and we all have lives to live.<BR/><BR/>Eric Raymond gets the clue stick from uber-hacker<BR/>http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=1762263Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-98180791571011532008-12-07T05:01:00.000-08:002008-12-07T05:01:00.000-08:00Fact is: all Microsoft fans are dumbasses. Only du...Fact is: all Microsoft fans are dumbasses. Only dumbasses pay happily a couple of hundreds of dollars for an os with self-corrupting registry, with barely any usable programs (e.g. photo editing? office?) and the need to clutter the computer with "updates", "hotfixes" and "service packs". Especially since that os is a spyware on itself, sending home datas from the user's computer. How pityful...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-54132192859131326712008-12-05T13:07:00.000-08:002008-12-05T13:07:00.000-08:00I can't believe oiaohm is still masturbating here,...I can't believe oiaohm is still masturbating here, all covered in his own undigested puke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-40066323608643683252008-12-05T02:28:00.000-08:002008-12-05T02:28:00.000-08:00Sorry my information is not from slashdot. My info...<I>Sorry my information is not from slashdot. My information is from front line work.</I><BR/><BR/>God help Linux! No, even God can't help Linux. With the kind of blind attitude you have, and your stubborn ways of denying any critics, there is no way you can make it through into a successful project.<BR/><BR/>You are focused to fight me over MS security, and you completely missed the big picture - you don't have anything good to offer to software developers. There are close to zero general purpose applications for Linux, and for 17 years and so much publicity noise you can't even meet the application base of OS/2. In stead, you tell me jokes about distribution independance.<BR/><BR/>I don't care if NT's security allows for fantastic cracks. In real life the situation is that a proper administrated network of Windows stations suffers close to no damage. What I care is that, as software engineer, I have a solid foundation to create applications.<BR/><BR/>Until you start listening to what users (and developers) want, you are doomed to keep playing with your little thingies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-17664962902511533992008-12-04T20:51:00.000-08:002008-12-04T20:51:00.000-08:00I just got here... and I have to say, thanks for s...I just got here... and I have to say, thanks for starting LHR/forking LHB. I was hoping to have more of the Lunix/Freetarded crowd FUD debunked so that I don't have to do the heavy lifting.<BR/><BR/>I've always been a Windows power user, and I've held several Freetard FUD debunking sessions, but they all take too long. (You see, many Freetards seem to have misconceptions on exactly what this "Free" thing means, and what the terms of the GPL are. I end up having to explain what Free and GPL mean. It's pathetic.)<BR/><BR/>'course, I'm an occasional Linux and Unix user, too, since I work in IT. But I only touch Linux when I have to. Linux is only viable when there are support contracts. For the consumer market? You can forget it. Grandma has no idea what this "root" cruft is. Grandma doesn't care about setuid. Grandma doesn't want her computer to look like Ubuntu-poo brown.<BR/><BR/>In the corporate world, things are a bit different, though... you call the hardware/software vendor when issues crop up.<BR/><BR/>Thankfully there's a Lunix fart on the other end to fix the Lunix problems. (And to tell you to migrate off of Windows -- for the sake of his job security.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-89945790797036157932008-12-04T20:13:00.000-08:002008-12-04T20:13:00.000-08:00how are (third-party) developers supposed to devel...<B>how are (third-party) developers supposed to develop?</B><BR/><BR/>Question you just asked is why Linux Standard Base exists to find and develop the answer.<BR/><BR/>LSB 4.0. Your application can ship with all parts it uses that are trust-able across distrobutions. Linux kernel user-space abi is stable, X11 is stable.<BR/><BR/>Audio is the only section where using a wrapper of some form to provide multi-able drivers is required.<BR/><BR/>Simple fact there is no reason for developers to depend on Distrobutions at all in Linux. Its just like saying when windows 3.11 was out developers had to develop for windows 3.11. Ie windows 3.11 instead of all distrobutions out there. Developers did not there were still lower interfaces they could use without issues. Direct kernel calls and X11 are a few of the lower interfaces on Linux that are truly dependable. <BR/><BR/>Really not that much different to what windows developers do so they don't have dll version conflicts. MSVC dll files are some of the most duplicated files on a windows system due to programs always shipping with them.<BR/><BR/>By the way Linux kernel internal ABI will become completely impossible for a closed source kernel binary driver to use safely in 2009. Yes a security alteration is to blame. The alteration is called ksplice. <BR/><BR/>Ksplice killer feature is the means to apply all kernel mode security updates and alterations without need to stop the kernel. So no more reboots.<BR/><BR/>Now simple fact for Ksplice to do this nice magical feature everything operation in kernel space must be known to Ksplice. Ksplice may remove or alter how a function works that a binary kernel module will call causing a crash effectively making the gains of not rebooting lost. So yes for a reboot less OS closed source kernel binary drivers don't work.<BR/><BR/>Sorry this is required to close down the exploit window. Driver developers who want closed source will have to go the user-space or firmware paths there is no other options.<BR/><BR/>Now after its done in kernel space same features as ksplice will be looked at being applied to user space programs. Linux developers are working there way to 100 percent uptime. 99.999 is not good enough. Stopping programs due to security problems is stuffing uptime numbers.<BR/><BR/>People don't want to having to reboot there machines. Price is no binary kernel drivers.<BR/><BR/>People really don't understand how limiting having a kernel mode standard ABI is. Then gains are remove by the limitations.<BR/><BR/>By the way Windows and Linux are mirrors. Kernel internal ABI of windows is stable but Kernel userspace ABI is unstable in windows. The stable kernel internal ABI means defective functions never can be just nuked out of existence.<BR/><BR/>Other issue is performance design defects they cannot be just removed in a stable kernel internal ABI always do they have to stay there for defective parts using them ie closed source drivers. Remember kernel defines the performance shape of your OS. User space Applications on top only can make it worse never better.<BR/><BR/>Why am I posting here simple. I am sick of Tard's spreading myths. If I run my own blog as I have in the past only non Tard's turn up. Expect to see my user-name turn up at the next Tard location I find.<BR/><BR/>I will never lie my way out of a Linux Defect. They do exist. I have listed many over my time here Linux Hater's Redux could have followed up. All of them would have left me without any way to fight back.<BR/><BR/>Linux Hater's Redux could just have a party ripping distrobutions apart for miss treating users. There are a lot I could do nothing about other than join in and rip them apart even worse than Linux Hater's Redux did. So don't complain that Linux Hater's Redux cannot win. Its not my fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-51846349403261483202008-12-04T15:28:00.000-08:002008-12-04T15:28:00.000-08:00how are (third-party) developers supposed to devel...<B>how are (third-party) developers supposed to develop?</B><BR/><BR/>Question you just asked is why Linux Standard Base exists to find and develop the answer.<BR/><BR/>LSB 4.0. Your application can ship with all parts it uses that are trust-able across distrobutions. Linux kernel user-space abi is stable, X11 is stable.<BR/><BR/>Audio is the only section where using a wrapper of some form to provide multi-able drivers is required.<BR/><BR/>Simple fact there is no reason for developers to depend on Distrobutions at all in Linux. Its just like saying when windows 3.11 was out developers had to develop for windows 3.11. Ie windows 3.11 instead of all distrobutions out there. Developers did not there were still lower interfaces they could use without issues. Direct kernel calls and X11 are a few of the lower interfaces on Linux that are truly dependable. <BR/><BR/>Really not that much different to what windows developers do so they don't have dll version conflicts. MSVC dll files are some of the most duplicated files on a windows system due to programs always shipping with them.<BR/><BR/>By the way Linux kernel internal ABI will become completely impossible for a closed source kernel binary driver to use safely in 2009. Yes a security alteration is to blame. The alteration is called ksplice. <BR/><BR/>Ksplice killer feature is the means to apply all kernel mode security updates and alterations without need to stop the kernel. So no more reboots.<BR/><BR/>Now simple fact for Ksplice to do this nice magical feature everything operation in kernel space must be known to Ksplice. Ksplice may remove or alter how a function works that a binary kernel module will call causing a crash effectively making the gains of not rebooting lost. So yes for a reboot less OS closed source kernel binary drivers don't work.<BR/><BR/>Sorry this is required to close down the exploit window. Driver developers who want closed source will have to go the user-space or firmware paths there is no other options.<BR/><BR/>Now after its done in kernel space same features as ksplice will be looked at being applied to user space programs. Linux developers are working there way to 100 percent uptime. 99.999 is not good enough. Stopping programs due to security problems is stuffing uptime numbers.<BR/><BR/>People don't want to having to reboot there machines. Price is no binary kernel drivers.<BR/><BR/>People really don't understand how limiting having a kernel mode standard ABI is. Then gains are remove by the limitations.<BR/><BR/>By the way Windows and Linux are mirrors. Kernel internal ABI of windows is stable but Kernel userspace ABI is unstable in windows. The stable kernel internal ABI means defective functions never can be just nuked out of existence.<BR/><BR/>Other issue is performance design defects they cannot be just removed in a stable kernel internal ABI always do they have to stay there for defective parts using them ie closed source drivers. Remember kernel defines the performance shape of your OS. User space Applications on top only can make it worse never better.<BR/><BR/>Why am I posting here simple. I am sick of Tard's spreading myths. If I run my own blog as I have in the past only non Tard's turn up. Expect to see my user-name turn up at the next Tard location I find.<BR/><BR/>I will never lie my way out of a Linux Defect. They do exist. I have listed many over my time here Linux Hater's Redux could have followed up. All of them would have left me without any way to fight back.<BR/><BR/>Linux Hater's Redux could just have a party ripping distrobutions apart for miss treating users. There are a lot I could do nothing about other than join in and rip them apart even worse than Linux Hater's Redux did. So don't complain that Linux Hater's Redux cannot win. Its not my fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-28915475125180271092008-12-04T15:13:00.000-08:002008-12-04T15:13:00.000-08:00how are (third-party) developers supposed to devel...<B>how are (third-party) developers supposed to develop?</B><BR/><BR/>Question you just asked is why Linux Standard Base exists to find and develop the answer.<BR/><BR/>LSB 4.0. Your application can ship with all parts it uses that are trust-able across distrobutions. Linux kernel user-space abi is stable, X11 is stable.<BR/><BR/>Audio is the only section where using a wrapper of some form to provide multi-able drivers is required.<BR/><BR/>Simple fact there is no reason for developers to depend on Distrobutions at all in Linux. Its just like saying when windows 3.11 was out developers had to develop for windows 3.11. Ie windows 3.11 instead of all distrobutions out there. Developers did not there were still lower interfaces they could use without issues. Direct kernel calls and X11 are a few of the lower interfaces on Linux that are truly dependable. <BR/><BR/>Really not that much different to what windows developers do so they don't have dll version conflicts. MSVC dll files are some of the most duplicated files on a windows system due to programs always shipping with them.<BR/><BR/>By the way Linux kernel internal ABI will become completely impossible for a closed source kernel binary driver to use safely in 2009. Yes a security alteration is to blame. The alteration is called ksplice. <BR/><BR/>Ksplice killer feature is the means to apply all kernel mode security updates and alterations without need to stop the kernel. So no more reboots.<BR/><BR/>Now simple fact for Ksplice to do this nice magical feature everything operation in kernel space must be known to Ksplice. Ksplice may remove or alter how a function works that a binary kernel module will call causing a crash effectively making the gains of not rebooting lost. So yes for a reboot less OS closed source kernel binary drivers don't work.<BR/><BR/>Sorry this is required to close down the exploit window. Driver developers who want closed source will have to go the user-space or firmware paths there is no other options.<BR/><BR/>Now after its done in kernel space same features as ksplice will be looked at being applied to user space programs. Linux developers are working there way to 100 percent uptime. 99.999 is not good enough. Stopping programs due to security problems is stuffing uptime numbers.<BR/><BR/>People don't want to having to reboot there machines. Price is no binary kernel drivers.<BR/><BR/>People really don't understand how limiting having a kernel mode standard ABI is. Then gains are remove by the limitations.<BR/><BR/>By the way Windows and Linux are mirrors. Kernel internal ABI of windows is stable but Kernel userspace ABI is unstable in windows. The stable kernel internal ABI means defective functions never can be just nuked out of existence.<BR/><BR/>Other issue is performance design defects they cannot be just removed in a stable kernel internal ABI always do they have to stay there for defective parts using them ie closed source drivers. Remember kernel defines the performance shape of your OS. User space Applications on top only can make it worse never better.<BR/><BR/>Why am I posting here simple. I am sick of Tard's spreading myths. If I run my own blog as I have in the past only non Tard's turn up. Expect to see my user-name turn up at the next Tard location I find.<BR/><BR/>I will never lie my way out of a Linux Defect. They do exist. I have listed many over my time here Linux Hater's Redux could have followed up. All of them would have left me without any way to fight back.<BR/><BR/>Linux Hater's Redux could just have a party ripping distrobutions apart for miss treating users. There are a lot I could do nothing about other than join in and rip them apart even worse than Linux Hater's Redux did. So don't complain that Linux Hater's Redux cannot win. Its not my fault.oiaohmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718208244445470383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-86200962991850817472008-12-04T15:11:00.000-08:002008-12-04T15:11:00.000-08:00how are (third-party) developers supposed to devel...<B>how are (third-party) developers supposed to develop?</B><BR/><BR/>Question you just asked is why Linux Standard Base exists to find and develop the answer.<BR/><BR/>LSB 4.0. Your application can ship with all parts it uses that are trust-able across distrobutions. Linux kernel user-space abi is stable, X11 is stable.<BR/><BR/>Audio is the only section where using a wrapper of some form to provide multi-able drivers is required.<BR/><BR/>Simple fact there is no reason for developers to depend on Distrobutions at all in Linux. Its just like saying when windows 3.11 was out developers had to develop for windows 3.11. Ie windows 3.11 instead of all distrobutions out there. Developers did not there were still lower interfaces they could use without issues. Direct kernel calls and X11 are a few of the lower interfaces on Linux that are truly dependable. <BR/><BR/>Really not that much different to what windows developers do so they don't have dll version conflicts. MSVC dll files are some of the most duplicated files on a windows system due to programs always shipping with them.<BR/><BR/>By the way Linux kernel internal ABI will become completely impossible for a closed source kernel binary driver to use safely in 2009. Yes a security alteration is to blame. The alteration is called ksplice. <BR/><BR/>Ksplice killer feature is the means to apply all kernel mode security updates and alterations without need to stop the kernel. So no more reboots.<BR/><BR/>Now simple fact for Ksplice to do this nice magical feature everything operation in kernel space must be known to Ksplice. Ksplice may remove or alter how a function works that a binary kernel module will call causing a crash effectively making the gains of not rebooting lost. So yes for a reboot less OS closed source kernel binary drivers don't work.<BR/><BR/>Sorry this is required to close down the exploit window. Driver developers who want closed source will have to go the user-space or firmware paths there is no other options.<BR/><BR/>Now after its done in kernel space same features as ksplice will be looked at being applied to user space programs. Linux developers are working there way to 100 percent uptime. 99.999 is not good enough. Stopping programs due to security problems is stuffing uptime numbers.<BR/><BR/>People don't want to having to reboot there machines. Price is no binary kernel drivers.<BR/><BR/>People really don't understand how limiting having a kernel mode standard ABI is. Then gains are remove by the limitations.<BR/><BR/>By the way Windows and Linux are mirrors. Kernel internal ABI of windows is stable but Kernel userspace ABI is unstable in windows. The stable kernel internal ABI means defective functions never can be just nuked out of existence.<BR/><BR/>Other issue is performance design defects they cannot be just removed in a stable kernel internal ABI always do they have to stay there for defective parts using them ie closed source drivers. Remember kernel defines the performance shape of your OS. User space Applications on top only can make it worse never better.<BR/><BR/>Why am I posting here simple. I am sick of Tard's spreading myths. If I run my own blog as I have in the past only non Tard's turn up. Expect to see my user-name turn up at the next Tard location I find.<BR/><BR/>I will never lie my way out of a Linux Defect. They do exist. I have listed many over my time here Linux Hater's Redux could have followed up. All of them would have left me without any way to fight back.<BR/><BR/>Linux Hater's Redux could just have a party ripping distrobutions apart for miss treating users. There are a lot I could do nothing about other than join in and rip them apart even worse than Linux Hater's Redux did. So don't complain that Linux Hater's Redux cannot win. Its not my fault.oiaohmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718208244445470383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-82298569309814421292008-12-04T12:50:00.000-08:002008-12-04T12:50:00.000-08:00@TomNot everything is about money. 30 years ago ev...@Tom<BR/><BR/>Not everything is about money. 30 years ago even if you were a billionare you couldn't even buy a company like the ones people buy at Walmart now for $500. Innovation is very important.<BR/><BR/>The problem with closed source is it doesn't respect the idea that software is purely a captial labor. When you right a piece of software it takes X amount of effort and then it can be duplicated without boundry. So you have the sititution with closed source that you are to keep reinventing the wheel over and over because no one is sharing their work. <BR/><BR/>Microsoft can get sort of get away with closed source because they are so huge they can hire thousands of developers and force them to share code interally at least. But there are software problems that are much better then writing an operating system or an office suite, like developing general artitical intelligence. Someone like that is likely beyond the scope of a huge Fortune 10 company like Microsoft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-21278491960494659162008-12-04T08:40:00.000-08:002008-12-04T08:40:00.000-08:00@oiaohm: even if the kernel ABI were stable, there...@oiaohm: even if the kernel ABI were stable, there is a whole lot of stuff keeping on changing in userland, like the whole audio stack. <BR/><BR/>The problem with (if you like GNU/)Linux is not (only?) with the kernel itself.<BR/><BR/>And you're admitting it yourself when you say you can't trust distros, you can't just rely on them as platforms, so how are (third-party) developers supposed to develop?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-67119026987822638912008-12-04T06:33:00.000-08:002008-12-04T06:33:00.000-08:00Oiaohm: We really enjoy pointless flames in Commen...Oiaohm: We really enjoy pointless flames in Comments. If you want to write something informative to a sensible audience, f??k off and go write your own blog, rather than talking to people who just want to call each other 'tards here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-13283672504791037512008-12-04T04:37:00.000-08:002008-12-04T04:37:00.000-08:00Nik Were ever Linux kernel user-space ABI is perfe...Nik <B>Were ever Linux kernel user-space ABI is perfectly stable, new releases wouldn't break every existing closed source driver around. And that's even more pathetic.</B><BR/><BR/>Idiot. Kernel user-space ABI is exactly that. The interface from kernel to user space. Kernel internal ABI of Linux is not stable. Reason why drivers that insert themselves into kernel space fail.<BR/><BR/>Sorry there are closed source user space drivers for Linux that don't break. Printer drivers, scanner driver and Embedded control drivers that operate from user space and so on.<BR/><BR/>You can directly talk to a PCI and other bus interfaces from user space to cards that don't have a driver connected to them in Linux. For the common sense reason that the Kernel internal ABI is not stable.<BR/><BR/>Of course Linux has not been targeted at desktop. For a long time targeted at server and super computer class where you buy hardware to match. So there is no need of a stable Kernel internal ABI in that market.<BR/><BR/>Any particular reason why Kernel internal ABI might be keep unstable for a security reason. Same reason windows signs drivers. So attacker have a harder time root kitting at the kernel level.<BR/><BR/>Now the solution to the problem you want is what is being developed now. Called userspace drivers for everything.<BR/><BR/>cuse fusd both are competing frameworks. Allowing userspace programs to create real device interfaces.<BR/><BR/>Linux kernel is going part microkernel as the answer to the need for a driver ABI.<BR/><BR/>As for viruses I am not wrong. You are aware that in 2007 ebay plushing clean up Linux servers were found defeated by worms creating the plushing interfaces.<BR/><BR/>Idea that Linux is always 100 percent virus free is a myth. Idea that running Linux with its OS security disabled as most of the machines in the plushing investigation is safe is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Yes the idea that viruses only target desktop machines is also another bad myth. I have seen windows users believing that one.<BR/><BR/>I deal in real numbers of infections and there causes NIK. Not myths.<BR/><BR/>There are huge numbers of Linux machines out there and they are just as big as target as windows ones if there defenses are not up. At least Linux distrobutions try to provide out box common sense settings and without non fixable flaws in design.<BR/><BR/>When you have done research after systems have been defeated you know a lot more about how the attackers are getting in and taking over systems.<BR/><BR/>OS X is currently at about 9 percent market share head to 10. They doubled there market share this year and the year before both times with no effect in virus numbers on that platform. To be correct the exact other way happened less. The numbers of working OS X viruses has hit the magic number 0 with a peak value of 3 over the last 5 years.<BR/><BR/>Really NIK what are you going to do if OS X gets to 25 percent and numbers have stayed the same way they are now. Researchers have accepted that the idea that percentage market share is the only controlling factor is myth.<BR/><BR/>Even when apple was the most dominate desktop OS. Dos still out numbered it on viruses. History tells us past question that the market share controlling factor should never have been believed. What happens when do do good marketing of a myth it sticks.<BR/><BR/>There are two factors. Quality of OS Security and Market Share. If Quality of OS Security is high enough attackers don't get chances to cause major problems.<BR/><BR/>Linux will most likely do the same. Other than a few stupid admins reducing security and a few stupid distributions with bad OS security.<BR/><BR/>Sorry my information is not from slashdot. My information is from front line work.oiaohmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718208244445470383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-16705095538241509922008-12-04T03:55:00.000-08:002008-12-04T03:55:00.000-08:00Some companies really do forget the importance of ...Some companies really do forget the importance of the developer.<BR/><BR/>Some open source companies are also sneaky. Already developed the feature then find customers who want it when got enough pool of money to cover the development plus make a profit then release it open source. Of course that is betting against someone else doing it first.<BR/><BR/>You are having a real problem getting it. By the time you see the source code most cases the Developers have already been paid. This is why its free. Open Source is not doing the charging over and over and over for the same bit of work. Open Source is very much contract programming style.<BR/><BR/>IBM Redhat Google and so on paying them normal developer rates for there workmanship with nice long term contracts. Better the developer you are the better the contract you get. Notice Google in there they are like the super computer running companies and organizations.<BR/><BR/>Even cases like Oracle they need there database to run faster for there customers so they pay a programmer to go into kernel space of Linux and improve it.<BR/><BR/>Thing is selling a unknown without a track record really does not work in the open source world. You are selling a resume to customer. This developer did the following patches before this one so they do have the skills to complete this task with high quality.<BR/><BR/>If you try selling a unknown product you have a lot of trouble getting money in the open source world. 6 poor developers basically over time will bring you nothing after a while in the open source world. Reason people will not pay for crap code. Unlike closed source they will be able to inspect it and prove that your coders are crap.<BR/><BR/>You are better off with 1 high quality coder than 6 or even 100 crappy ones. The 1 high quality will always be a sell able product. Crappy ones are basically worthless.<BR/><BR/>Doing half a project does work in the open source world. As long as the project can be broken down into goals and documented how the interfacing is to be done. Yes companies needing something done will higher more than 1 firm to get it done at times.<BR/><BR/>Some of the duplication in the open source world comes from this. 2 firms put head to head on a product a company needs winner gets a long support contract. Loser still gets payed for there development time.<BR/><BR/>Open Source world is way more competitive. Now if you are a software company that does for contact projects only switching to open source you really don't notice the difference.<BR/><BR/>Part of it is type of software company. If you are a company that depends on selling your software for profit you need to do major internal redesign before releasing you key product open source. Most likely be sure you have the staff to compete in a software coded to contract model. <BR/><BR/>Closed source developers normally don't have a good resume of working code audited by other highly trusted people in the open source world. Like getting patches past Linus or AJ from code-weavers. Poor code just does not get past them into the mainline most of the time. With Linus if it does it normally has suspect comments.<BR/><BR/>There is a lot more to setup when going open source than a lot of companies dream. Part of it is building credibility of your Developers so you can sell them. Its also building respect from other staff to Developers because after a developer has a good rep you don't want them leaving because the other staff are treating them badly.<BR/><BR/>Yes the double sided sword of open source good developers must be treated with respect since they are your pay check. Poor ones can be disrespected.<BR/><BR/>Hate of MS has to be divided. I hate MS because I am always cleaning up the mess it security causes. Some people get hate because they like the means to operate without fear of getting infected all the time. Does it make me anti closed source no. If the closed source is good quality I will pay for it. If its crap I will not pay for it. Now if people like me are complaining about one of your products worry. Time to go back and look what can be improved.<BR/><BR/>Some of the hate of closed source comes from when people get use to the open source way when something is wrong you can open up the source code and fix it. So closed source becomes an annoyance. Faster response times to problems do help address this as well as keeping people in the loop. The closed source black box to development is aggravating this problem worse than it has to be. Leaving people in the dark on what is going on with no way to find out does not go well with open source people. People only having closed source are more tolerant of it.<BR/><BR/>Then there are a number that develop into true radicals both ways. Hate Linux then hate all open source because it crude. Or love linux and hate all closed source.<BR/><BR/>Remember people in here wanted to call me a Lintard because I seams extremely hostile to Microsoft. Yes I am extremely hostile to them but I do have a really good reasons. Reporting security flaws and watching them sit open for years does not help your frame of mind to a company.<BR/><BR/>Closed Source companies can do a lot to avoid the hostility. As I say some of this hostility is caused.<BR/><BR/>Bundling a group of so call MS hostiles into one large group fails to see the fine details. Human nature causes this problem. When you have a group you don't understand sticking them in one stack avoids having to see that they are not all the same.<BR/><BR/>Note this same human nature thing of grouping kicks in to creates some of the open source and closed source radicals. They just need to see good quality programs on the other side to snap them out of it.<BR/><BR/>Nice myth. OS X is half open Half closed. Graphical Interface closed. Kernel code open to anyone to inspect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)<BR/><BR/>Most closed OS on earth would be one of the RTOS used in embedded where you have to sign a NDA just to get full description of what it can do. Yes they don't want to be cloned ever.oiaohmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718208244445470383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-50663247565929850282008-12-04T03:18:00.000-08:002008-12-04T03:18:00.000-08:00oiaohm, I really wonder have you ever developed an...oiaohm, I really wonder have you ever developed anything except for your own little pleasure?<BR/><BR/>You write complete crap.<BR/><BR/><I>"LOL Sorry its simple follow 3 simple rules.<BR/><BR/>Number 1 Don't depend on the Distrobution to provide anything.<BR/>Number 2 See rule 1.<BR/>Number 3 Really obey rule 1.<BR/><BR/>Linux kernel user-space ABI is perfectly stable. X11 interface calls are perfectly stable."</I><BR/><BR/>Wow, amazing, let me do evertyhing myself! Only sissies use all the services a Windows or Mac OS environment provides ready for use, and focus on the actual problem! But I am a man, I will do everything from the scratch, and if I have time, I will actually come to what would make the program really useful.<BR/><BR/>Pathetic.<BR/><BR/>Were ever Linux kernel user-space ABI is perfectly stable, new releases wouldn't break every existing closed source driver around. And that's even more pathetic.<BR/> <BR/>As for viruses. You are simply wrong. Please come back to earth. On slashdot you may tell yourselves all nice fantasy stories, but not here.<BR/><BR/>The rest is too much words saying nothing. I won't bother. You never learn, indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8295741357281587791.post-27242918182347939022008-12-04T00:46:00.000-08:002008-12-04T00:46:00.000-08:00Linux is by far the best operating system out ther...<B> Linux is by far the best operating system out there</B><BR/><BR/>To set up a cluster, maybe. Not on my laptop, not on my desktop.<BR/><BR/>Next!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com