Linux Sux Redux: A Rebuttal 237
SmooC writes "This is SecurityFocus's reaction to Fred Moody's article, claiming that NT is more secure than Linux. Ran on slashdot last wednesday.
Ben Greenbaum who manages the Microsoft Focus Area, sees it from a different perspective."
Re:We Should Rejoice In Moody's Article... (Score:2)
I'm sure somebody here will brood over this, make Fred Moody dart boards, and send the guy hate mail till he dies. Actually, that's one of the things I love about slashdot... there's always some bitter old fellow waiting to remind you of stuff like this. You know the sort of post:
IBM!?! I was working tech support for an accounting company when they took over Electronic Typewriters... bastards changed the mountings on the platen knobs, wouldn't return our letters, and we wound up having to hire a guy to carve new ones! Cost us nearly $15, and then the guy got drafted... I'm telling you, never buy IBM!
Re:Moody's article (Score:3)
It matter of factly says that he wrote the book:
"I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year with Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier".
Now if that doesn't show bias i don't know what could.
--Justin
Re:Feh (Score:1)
Did ABCNews mention that Fred Moody was a Microsoft employee at one time? He spent 1-2 years with them as Microsoft developed a childrens multimedia guide, reporting on their processes, and state of the team project, etc.
I'd expect a little more journalistic integrity out of ABCNews...
inflated due to ie inclusion? (Score:1)
Re:crap (Score:2)
For the newbie it is (Score:1)
He should be fired, not banned (Score:2)
I wish you had considered your words more carefully. The word "ban" is loaded (and not what you are really trying to say) and using it effectively pushes everyone's buttons, especially in the media. It smacks of censorship.
What Mr. Moody has done is act in an unprofessional manner (by deliberately spreading misinformation). His lack of 2nd grade mathematical skills has demonstrated his lack of qualification to write about any technical subject. Not that it is necessary, as the arguments he uses and the conclusions he draws do this stunningly well also.
He should be fired for incompetence, or at least reassigned to a job more worthy of his skills, perhaps as a movie critic or janatorial assistant.
One thing is certain, by employing him as a technical writer (or pundit) ABC's reputation with respect to technical matters suffers tremendously.
He shouldn't be banned for writing whatever he wants, however, his employment should reflect the quality of his work, i.e. none.
Re:Moody's article (Score:1)
Here is the slashdot article [slashdot.org] on Moody's editorial.
Have a look at ABC's `Linux FAQ' (Score:5)
Some notable cock-ups are:
Linus isn't in charge of Linux any more, but his opinions are taken very seriously by Linux developers
Hmmm, arguably he never was `in charge' of Linux as it's licensed under the GPL. However ABC seem to be implying he's taken a back seat, which will come as a surprise to readers of Kernel Traffic.
The core of Linux is a text-based operating system, like DOS. But several different competing graphical interfaces have sprung up to make it friendlier. They look like a streamlined version of Windows or the Mac, generally with bigger icons and fewer shadows
I can see a DOS / Unix shell comparison being valid given the likely cluelessness of ABC's regular readership, but they clearly haven't got much idea about the X Window system and its relationship to desktop environments, etc.
It may soon become easier to use with a product called Eazel, being developed by several of the original programmers for the Macintosh. They claim that they'll be able to put an easy-to-use face on Linux
Hmmm
Critics of Linux say that the software is a "perpetual beta" - always under development, always mutating, always buggy, and never quite ready for prime time
Critics (like good old Fred Moody) might say that, but most people writing crass editorials aren't experts in any field, let alone Linux. And if it's so buggy, why have I spent the last four years working for big companies where Linux is increasingly the server OS of choice thanks to its stability and flexiblility? My current employer doesn't have anything but Linux on the servers - including file, print and database servers, not just our firewall or web servers.
What applications are available? Lots of server and Internet software, but little else
They might want to check out freshmeat.net - not all that stuff can be vaporware
The three biggest Linux companies are Red Hat (partially owned by Intel), Slackware, and VA/Linux
Now I stand to be corrected on this one, but Slackware - a company? And waht about SuSE or the makers of TurboLinux? Do I detect classic signs of Yankocentricism in this great American institution?
Linux is a complex system, and tech support is usually a must
For a newbie, yup. But I've yet to come across a company or cluefull user that needed tech support.
Chris
Re:It's not the number that counts... (Score:2)
According to Microsoft, this update will let you update drivers, security holes and other updates needed..
I got a windows 2k machine and guess what? from all the fixes that appears on SP1, only 1 appeared here (which wasn't even related to my configuration!)
Give me a break!
bad comparison (Score:1)
A marginally better comparison would be a list of reported bugs in gnome:
http://bugs.gnome.org/db/ix/full.html
At the very least compare apples to apples.
Rah rah Linux *sigh* (Score:1)
Dear Rob Malda: get a clue. It's supposed to be "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." not "Dumb articles from supposed Nerds. Stupid advocacy." "Rah rah Linux" -- fuck it. Give me something that actually matters.
Re:article text since SF is /.ed (Score:1)
Re:Mirror (Score:1)
--
unfortunately... (Score:2)
90% of it is not
...dave
(moderators : correct: Funny, incorrect: Offtopic)
Re:rebuttal? (Score:2)
No, that's not actually what he's saying. He is simply saying, "These numbers don't provide enough foundation for you to conclude that NT is any more secure than Linux is." He isn't implying that Linux is more secure than NT is - he is simply saying that you can't argue NT is more secure than Linux based on the numbers Moody used. That isn't to say you can't make arguments that NT is more secure than Linux, only that misusing a set of BugTraq statistics isn't good proof to back up your claims with.
It's sort of like a court trial - being found "not guilty" is NOT the same as being found "innocent." Being found "not guilty" simply means the evidence didn't meet the burden of proof. Being found "innocent" means you are completely exonerated and that the evidence shows that there is unequivocably no way you could have committed the crime (you were out of the country, in jail, physically incapable of committing the crime, etc.).
Re:Rah rah Linux *sigh* (Score:1)
Comment from ABC (Score:1)
Subject: Re: abcnews.go.com User Feedback (KMM70266C0KM)
Hi Juan,
Thank you for contacting us.
We appreciate your comments and your feedback to improve the quality of
our services. We will forward your e-mail to our Technology Section
Producer for review.
Just to let you know, Fred will be revisiting the subject on August
16th, addressing this and other issues.
Regards,
Alice
ABCNews.com
http://abcnews.go.com/
Re:IE has more bugs (Score:1)
Re:Feh (Score:2)
I'm not criticizing the article; I'm criticizing Slashdot for their editorial choices. Would you ever see such an article linked to a debunking of a 'Linux rulz!!' article? As a matter of fact, I bet that if it ever came across Slashdot's editorial 'desk', it was promptly ignored.
Re:Moody's article (Score:1)
Response from and letter to ABCNews.com follows:
Hi Michael,
Thank you for contacting us.
We appreciate your comments and your feedback to improve the quality of our services. We will forward your e-mail to our Technology Section Producer for review.
Regards,
Alice
ABCNews.com
http://abcnews.go.com/
Original message follows:
-------------------------
attn: Editorial Review Board, abcnews.com
I recently read Fred Moody's article ("Linux Sux Redux") at your abcnews.com site and was displeased to see that Mr. Moody deliberately misrepresented the numbers he gathered at www.bugtraq.com in order to show that Linux is worse than the competing Windows product. I take no issue with the fact that Mr. Moody believes windows to be a better product than Linux, but for him to blatantly twist the facts (in order to come up with his number of 122 bugs, he had to count the Red Hat distribution bugs TWO times) in order to make his point insults me as a reader and should raise serious questions about his journalistic integrity. abcnews.com's toleration of such a violation of ethics brings into question the integrity and bias of the whole news site. As such, unless a public clarification of his data is issued, I will no longer read any content on your site.
Sincerely,
Michael
Troll Troll more troll... (Score:1)
product than it is to go out and be one."
I agree with that statement, and I believe that the Linux community has done an
admirable job in many ways on both counts. In closing, I propose to the security
community and to Mr. Moody that what is true for products is sometimes true for
journalists as well.
Now lets see how moody feels about that satement
rkt
Thanks Ben Greenbaum (Score:1)
It's quite inspiring when civility overcomes what has too often become flame wars between opposing factions.
Would we have reacted similarly has we encountered unjust article smearing microsoft? I'm guessing that most of us would just let it slip under the rug.
Haiku (Score:4)
Eighty-four bugs max.
This also includes RedHat:
Moody cannot count!
Re: WARNING: this looks like an elaborate troll (Score:1)
ouch (Score:1)
"As Linux zealots are beginning to find out, it's a lot easier to masquerade as a better product than it is to go out and be one."
And then Ben said:
I propose to the security community and to Mr. Moody that what is true for products is sometimes true for journalists as well.
Ouch.
ciao,
-rob
Re:Why can I NEVER acccess securityfocus's pages (Score:2)
Re:Address? (Score:1)
Re:This Needs to Be Publicized (Score:2)
Hah, it soudns good on paper..er a web forum, however try making it a reality. It's scraping that line in between impossible and never happening. The "major" news sites aren't going to care what a bunch of intelligent, insightful consumers. They're only going to care about the big majority of the public, all of which doens't seem to concern Linux much (YET). I'd be great if someone big replied with a counter article to one of those news sites. (Hell, wake Katz up. The rest of the world loves him... and so did Slashdot a year or so ago when he was introduced here... Just read back a long, long time ago when Taco posted Katz's welcome. It's quite funny to compare it to how everyone treats him today). But anyways, I'd love to see ABC rebuttle the article and post changes and additions, but I doubt it's going to happen. ;(
I'd be great of Securityfocus would contact ABC or one of the other news sites and proved he had no integrity, and that he was wrong in using those statistics completely :-)
oh welp. Cheers.
I know... (Score:1)
Re:Bullshit (Score:1)
That's redundant...
Re:article text since SF is /.ed (Score:1)
--
WARNING: this looks like an elaborate troll (Score:4)
I'll try and find the relevant Kernel Traffic issue when I've got a spare five minutes.
Chris
Absolutely (Score:2)
Moody wrote the flamebait:
and now Greenbaum has taken the bait. Here is the (justified) flame: It's an open and shut case.---
Re:Some history (Score:2)
I have a secret informant who tells me that Moody's secret informant was a hand named 50ck Pupp37.
--
More secure? (Score:2)
Where can I get what Moody's smoking? Nice name Moody. Does he switch his position to favor Linux security when his Aunt FLOW comes to visit?
You are a unique individual...just like everyone else
NT more secure? (Score:2)
Figures lie, and liars figure (Score:2)
--
Actually, it points out Moody is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
I think it's actually a shame that we even have to respond to this, it's almost like trying to reply to a slashdot troll, you are basically doing excatly what he wants...generating even more buzz...buzz buzz..click click....welcome to the Internet year 2000.
Good rebuttal (Score:2)
We Should Rejoice In Moody's Article... (Score:2)
This is the first anti-Linux article I've read from him which can be so easily rebutted and turned around to debase Windows using his own argument.
The sadest part is that new stories like this don't last in peoples mind longer. For a brief period anyone that cares will know Moody for what he is: a crappy journalist with low integrity. But four or five articles from now, all will be forgoten and we'll just start it all over again.
Re:For the newbie it is (Score:2)
It's also far easier to utilize a newly hacked Linux system for evil than it is to do the same with NT, so Linux tends to be more of a target. And if you stupidly set up an insecure system and advertise its presence to the world, it will be a much more tantalizing target.
comments on ABCnews.com? (Score:2)
Re:Have a look at ABC's `Linux FAQ' (Score:2)
Oh, this kills me. When I read the first phrase a vision popped into mind of an OS kernel that ran text files rather than machine code:And the bit about the "bigger icons and fewer shadows" ripped my gut. Gee, that's important stuff to know when you first hear about a new operating system!
--
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
Damb straight. But it sucks less than most of the competition in my price range, so I'm sticking with it for now.
> All the ditributions are too fat or too skinny.
Well, if you think the Papa Bear and Baby Bear distros have it all wrong, you might be able to get rich by starting a Mother Bear distro.
--
About Credibility... (Score:2)
Who are you going to trust more:
- An ABCNEWS columnist
- The Manager of Microsoft Focus Area for Security Focus?
I don't know, but I'm thinking that them ABCNEWS dudes are pretty savy. Security Focus has nothing on them, man. Especially the ABCNEWS columnists. Whoa, like, dude: The are like, so totally computer smart. I mean, like, who's ever even heard of Security Focus before today?
Dude out, dude, man.
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
Journalism (Score:2)
Unlike present-day mass media, slashdot discourages the posting of stirred dung (well, mostly).
I sincerely hope this model will be developed into something that can be used by the masses. It would probably not work the same way (imagine all the penis birds...), but were going the right way.
Kiwaiti
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
Re:Moody's article--Funny (Score:2)
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
Re:SecurityFocus site... (Score:3)
Update: Changes on the original Moody Article (Score:2)
Further research?
Oh well...
Windows NT bugs (Score:2)
If the total number of Linux bugs is that of RedHat + "other Linux flavors", then the total number of NT bugs should be the total of:
NT 3.51 gold + Sum(j=1 to 18) NT 3.51 SPj + NT 4.0 gold + Sum(i=1 to 6) NT 4 SPi + Win2000
which rounds down to roughly 100,000...let's put it to bugtraq!
This Needs to Be Publicized (Score:2)
Re:Feh (Score:2)
"Here's an article saying Linux sucks. It may not be cool hearing that, but the numbers pretty much hold up... Oh, and that other article about how sucks big donkey balls was actually bogus. Score one for Microsoft."
Before someone says, 'It's because these articles don't exist', know that I don't subscribe to your narrow-minded view of the world.
Re:More secure? (Score:2)
Go on, hack my toaster. If anyone can get root on my toaster, I'll give it to them, and buy them a few beers into the bargain.
But I warn you: it's pretty darn secure.
Re:Actually, it points out Moody is wrong (Score:5)
This is similar to the ad going around from MS about W2k increasing sales from a company by 13% or 5% -- because we can't see all the raw data, there might be something they didn't want to include, or the like, and would make these numbers go the opposite way.
While a pain in the butt, peer-review in scientific journals is a very good thing :D
From the original article (Score:2)
If you look this list over, and measure each system's number of vulnerabilities against the number of its customers, Linux is arguably the worst operating-system product in history, and Microsoft's the best.
Not even. If you go by just the figures he quoted, NetBSD is the best not Microsoft.
Retarted writers
Comment I posted to ABC News feedback form. (Score:2)
Hey guys and gals, I thought I should share my thoughts after reading Mr. Moody's column on Linux. Go take another look at his column; when you do, take a look around the site, you can send feedback.
Don't know who at ABC, if anyone, will read it, or what the reaction will be. But voice your opinions! Be concise, clean, amusing, factual and well-formatted, otherwise the editor won't even bother reading it.
Without further ado, here's what I sent to ABC:
Mr. Moody clearly owns Microsoft shares. Or he enjoys products that perform only with mediocrity. I wonder if Mr. Moody drives a Hyundai and praises its virtues similarily to those of Windows.
I'm new to Linux, but I'm not new to UNIX or to computers. In fact, I signed up for my first Internet access in 1988, at the tender age of 14. Back then, it wasn't called the Internet, it was called ARPANET. I've seen a lot of changes, since I've been online longer than Yahoo.
Now, while I don't think I'm ready to praise the virtues of Linux as a desktop environment - I still run Windows 95B OSR2 for that - but I'm pleased to say that I've formatted my server's hard drive and have replaced Windows NT 4.0 with RedHat Linux 6.2.
Sure, the learning curve has been steep. Sure, I've had frustrations. And sure, the operating system completely lacks the polish and refinement of Windows NT. This is primarily why I don't feel it's ready for mass desktop deployment. But, on the other hand, in a server-duty machine, it really shines.
Linux is an operating system by computer geeks and for computer geeks. It is therefore full of technical tools and features that would cost thousands of dollars to buy from Microsoft. It's far more configurable than Windows. It's a UNIX derivative, meaning it's closely related to the most core architecture of the Internet. Being a UNIX family member, it's also a multi-user operating system, with all the related user sercurity features and sophistication that are inherent to a multi-user platform. Compare that to Windows, which is merely a multi-tasking operating system.
And, I'm sorry, but by nature of the fact that it's an open-source operating system, every bug gets detailed, documented and fixed. While a Microsoft user might have to manage a complex set of variables in order to find a given "undocumented feature" of Windows, a fresh pair of eyes looking over a chunk of source code can in minutes reveal errors that might never be spotted in Windows.
None of today's software can or will ever be perfect. Implementation of libraries, millions of lines of source code, dozens of different platforms and operating system variables all can contribute to creating weird behavior. If there are 10,000,000 lines of code and they're 99.995% right, there will still be 50,000 bugs.
Better to have those bugs discovered in advance of exploits and/or lost data. Better to have those bugs addressed by thousands of developers working together in a collaborative manner, bringing together the best of talents in a relaxed setting. Better to be able to have the source code and not rely on Microsoft's small (in comparison) team of developers.
I'm sorry that Mr. Moody feels the way that he does. I'm sorry he couldn't research his article more objectively. And I'm sorry that ABC's editorial staff apparently don't live up to the image of impartial professionalism that I had expected.
I would have expected to see an article like that coming from the people at MSNBC, who brought us mainstream tabloid journalism like Dateline NBC; not from the fine news agency that brings me Peter Jennings and Ted Koppel every night.
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
If you want to hit ABC where it hurts, you would have to convince the advertisers that you won't buy their products because they advertise on ABC. -- I'm not saying that will be effective, but it would get their attention...
The post has been updated (Score:2)
BugTraq keeps these statistics on 22 different operating systems, from the mainstream Windows NT to various exotic flavors of Unix. Given that Microsoft's product is the runaway market leader, it is not surprising that it leads in vulnerabilities: In 1999, the year it took over the server market in earnest, Windows NT totaled 99 new vulnerabilities on the BugTraq list. (So far in 2000, the count stands at 37.) This looks like an alarmingly high number in comparison with Solaris' 34 or NetBSD's 10, but it is scarcely more than the 84 racked up by Red Hat and the other Linuxes (their 2000 count stands at 30). And the NT number is inflated by BugTraq's inclusion of IE vulnerabilities, since it considers IE part of the operating system. [Please note: Upon further research, I realized that my original numbers were a bit off. The numbers above are new and revised. Fred Moody, 8/4/00.]
Accident? I think not... (Score:3)
My guess as to what prompted this knee-jerk reaction: the IDC server software revenue figures. I don't have a URL but in a nutshell, units have soared but revenue is flat - thanks to the frightening growth in Linux servers. Microsoft are not at all happy about this and are desperately looking around for a reason to gain the upper hand in mindshare.
No doubt our Ed got a call and agreed (or decided) the best way to spearhead this quick FUD campaign was to put out the message that Linux is buggy. Anyone considering getting a Linux-based server would then think "uh-oh" and go back to safe, reliable old NT.
Of course, Microsoft have shot themselves in both feet by rushing this one. First, Moody's credibility has been given a serious dent - not the least of which because he can't (or won't) add properly. Secondly, the author - who's neutral - says he's impressed that the Linux community has "done an admirable job" in making a better product. So exactly the reverse effect has been achieved - Moody is seen as a Microsoft zealot and the Linux community is seen as full of reasonable, honest adherents.
Go Fred go! I look forward to your next piece on why Microsoft license agreements are so easy to understand...
the security issue (Score:2)
Most of the exploitable holes could be avoided by careful planning, firewalling etc...
Choice of operating system is but a small factor in assesing the secureness of a system.
article text since SF is /.ed (Score:4)
by Ben Greenbaum
Thu Aug 03 2000
This is in response to an article posted at abcnews.com by Fred Moody, available at:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/moo
Linux is a far less secure operating system than NT, based on his interpretation of the
Bugtraq vulnerability statistics.
From the very start, I would like to proclaim that I am not a Linux zealot, or for that matter
an ardent defender of any OS. I manage the Microsoft Focus Area here at SecurityFocus. My
personal machines at home run on various flavors of both MS and Unix operating systems.
Different OS'es have different strengths, and I freely and gladly use whatever is best in my
experience for the purpose at hand.
The problem I have with Mr. Moody's article is not the conclusion he comes to, although I do
disagree with it. It is instead a problem with the methods used to reach that conclusion.
The author is writing about the results of the Bugtraq vulnerability statistics page at:
http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/stats.html
These statistics are meant for general interest purposes. The text on the statistics page
clearly states:
"The statistics should not be taken to imply that some particular operating system or
application is more or less secure than another one."
However, these stats are for public use, to be interpreted as the user sees fit. As with any
statistics, they can fairly easily be twisted and misrepresented to support whatever goals the
author may personally have. This is to be expected to some extent any time statistics,
especially unscientific statistics, are used to prove a controversial or questionable point.
The worst situation by far is when the statistics are not only "massaged" to serve personal or
corporate goals, but interpreted incorrectly in the first place. The Bugtraq stats have been
used and referenced in various articles and endeavors, with varying degrees of accuracy. The
most egregious example of misuse and misinterpretation by far to this point is in the article
referenced above, where Mr. Moody states that Linux is the most insecure OS available. This
is based on a gross misreading of the available data.
To wit: (regarding statistics for 1999)
"122 racked up by Red Hat and the other Linuxes "
Whereas the actual statistics are:
[image table here]
All Linuxes combined: 84
RedHat only: 38
Which, as you can see, add up quite neatly to 122, the number of vulnerabilities claimed by
Mr. Moody for "RedHat and the other Linuxes". So now, we pause for a brief explanation of
the word "Aggregate". First, from the text of the page itself:
"Where we display aggregate number of vulnerabilities (Linux and BSD) the number is the
size of the set that results from the union of all vulnerabilities for the components without
duplication. Vulnerabilities are not counted twice."
The numbers for "Linux (aggr.)" reflect the total number of reported vulnerabilities across all
distributions of Linux; if it's a Linux, it's in there, RedHat included. Also, if the same
vulnerability is present in more than one distribution, it counts once. Therefore, for a
representative number of all known Linux security bugs, one would only look at the Linux
(aggr.) statistic.
Therefore, since 84 (for Linux) is demonstrably less than 99 (for NT) I submit that these
statistics can certainly not be used to prove that Linux has more vulnerabilities than NT.
Mr. Moody ends his article with the sentence:
"As Linux zealots are beginning to find out, it's a lot easier to masquerade as a better product
than it is to go out and be one."
I agree with that statement, and I believe that the Linux community has done an admirable
job in many ways on both counts. In closing, I propose to the security community and to Mr.
Moody that what is true for products is sometimes true for journalists as well.
Ben Greenbaum
Director of Site Content
SecurityFocus
bgreenbaum@securityfocus.com
Some history (Score:5)
Um, yes there was, and yes /. covered it. (Score:2)
This will come back and bite us. (Score:5)
Too bad the data used for the report was completely wrong.
Too bad that report is still probably being used to decry the evils of the Internet.
No matter how many rebuttals there are, it won't stop the fact that Moody's article is out there. We must demand a correction from Moody or abcnews.com that also gets linked to the original article. Otherwise, 3 years from now, this will come back and bite us again.
Well then, who *does* have journalistic integrity? (Score:2)
Tell us, oh omnipotent one, who or what is the One True Source of unbiased OS reviews?
I'm waiting....
Still waiting...
Re:Blacklist journalists with hidden agenda (Score:2)
Journalism when taken on a very large average can be considered to reflect community views which are also biased of course. And it reflects them mostly because if it does not noone will read it or listen to it or view it. But there is no such thing as unbiased mass media.
And to conclude IMHO, you are an idiotic fanatic. Grow up.
Somewhat OT, Somewhat Not. (Score:5)
Mirror (Score:3)
Greenbaum article [198.86.162.43]
http://198.86.162.43/greenbaum.html
Which way now? Down.
Re:More secure? (Score:3)
--
Re:The post has been updated (Score:2)
Oh well more scope for moderation
The article now becomes pretty lame - Still stating that Linux Sucks because it has less bugs than NT is not a good argument.
Moody's article (Score:5)
IMHO, while it's good to write a rebuttal to an obvious nonsense article, it's also probably giving Moody's troll a bit more attention than it deserves.
Re:Feh (Score:4)
The guy clearly states that he does not care about the conclusion of Moody's report ("Linux Sux"). In fact, all he did was to criticize the statistical method of taking numbers which clearly overlap and add them together to produce a highly inflated number. That isd all he said. I think that is an extremely fair comment. You don't have to be a journalist with integrity to appreciate that.
How we feel about the conclusion that "Linux Sucks" does not matter at all!
a duck is made of wood (Score:2)
Witches burn
Wood also burns
Witches must be made of wood
Wood floats
Ducks float
Ducks must be made of wood
If a person weighs the same as a duck they are a witch.
If you want to compare bugs between os's then tally the total number of apps/utils provided with each and then compare the bugs as a ratio of bugs to apps/utils. Most Linux distro's come with thousands of apps/utils. How many apps/utils come with NT?
Cease and desist (Score:3)
Dear Mr. Parrot, I am writing to inform you that you are in violation of my client's copyright, and have published trade secrets of their proprietary product, "CobolOS 2000".
Please be advised that my client is prepared to take any legal action necessary to prevent this from occurring again.
Sue D'Helloutayou
Senior Partner
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, P.A.
Re:Moody's article (Score:5)
It is a sad fact of life. "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicy animals... and YOU KNOW IT!"
Individual
Taco knows full well how this kind of article works
"I avoided posting this because it really is pretty lame, but its getting submitted a lot. "
"Stories like this just make me roll my eyes: the thing will get tons of traffic from you guys and his editor will say "Good Job Fred" because they got to sell lots of banner ads on it. *sigh* "
Yeah, but
Plus, I personally don't want
I'd rather see situations like this play out and maybe some of the flamers will get it. No, we won't ever get everyone to control their urge to send profane e-mail to the authors of these articles, but even if only a few learn from the example set by others in showing restraint and dignity in the face of one of these, I think it is worth it.
Who cares? (Score:2)
That is to say, exactly why do we care, again?
However, it is funny that Moody can't even get his statistics right.
I guess he was just being Moody about it...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
IE has more bugs (Score:3)
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
Actually, I had a complaint with a previous article of Mr. Moody's I don't usual read his anymore because I have found him to be more wrong than correct. Freedom of speech is one thing, but I think the media has a responcibility to get the facts right and not worry about the picture they want to paint for you to see. I have talk with a person in the indestry, and this person agrees that the media doesn't always care if the facts are straight--as long as it paints the picture you want to see.
This really isn't a free speech issue. It's a reliablity issue. Mr. Moody is not reliable for honest factual reporting. Even though he does editorials mainly, he should pay more atention to the details and facts before he writes (or types) his words of poor wisdom.
Re:Moody's article (Score:3)
It's virtually impossible to stay up to date with the latest software. When you try compiling application X, it's missing library Y. When you download library Y, you can't compile it because library Z is out of date. Packaging tries to keep things up to date, but the only one that works is Debian, but doing so won't get you anywhere near the cutting edge of technology. Therefore, you have to get out of packaging and have to start breaking the packaging system, etc.
man pages suck ass. There isn't any useful, demonstative information given about commandline tools like cut, grep, and its cousins.
(and from here on out, I'll be complaining about distros, mostly Slackware vs. Red Hat)
All the ditributions are too fat or too skinny. I like Slackware, because it's minimalist, but it would be really nice if I could easily configure it with the Red Hat GNOME desktop.
Who in their right mind would come up with a scheme to start and stop services based on the asciibetical order of filenames? I hate SysV init. BSD init makes more sense, but its configuration ends up being redundant and messy looking. Why not register each daemon in their own file with the instructions to start/stop them, and then have a flat file for each runlevel indicating which daemons should be started and stopped?
Filesystem standards are terrible. I'm aware of LinuxBase (among others), and their rationale is good, but I don't see why there should be a standard on what those directories should be. In Linux, the kernel resides in
Anyway, that's my little rant about Linux. I use it, and I'd like to get more out of it beacuse of all the cool free stuff I can hack on, but getting half of it the way I want is a major PITA.
BTW, I have already gotten these responses: RTFM and STFU. I've heard them before, OK?
Mattheww Troll 7:15-16 (Score:2)
Re:Blacklist journalists with hidden agenda (Score:3)
Not all they want however (Score:2)
Most news websites pull traffic to get visits. Visits turn into banner clicks.
So what to do? Well don't click on the banner ads.
It's a little hard to stop the angry mob from visiting but it's a good idea to tell them not to click on the banners.
What you mean they'll lissen? No not really... they won't click on banners anyway.. but Moody et all will look at the pees and then check banner stats.. and sure enough... the additional traffic generated NO additional banner clicks.
They may even see a significant number of them didn't even load the banners at all (Banner filters are your friend)... and some didn't load ANY GRAPHICS WHAT SO EVER!!! (All hail Lynx)...
Just bandwith and load... increasing costs without generating additional revenue....
Re:NT more secure? (Score:2)
Re:Kill the Niggaz (Score:2)
"Many have said, that the government or the state, is theft. This is true. Even the best of states are a protection racket. These rackets are far more dishonest than unlicensed organized crime (the mafia, etc.). "
"The international style state is inefficient, to the maximum."
"However, a war against the Super State must be fought to the finish. Your ammunition is readily available. Cut economic support for the Beast. In short, starve the bureaucrats out. "
"The greatest help for the White race today, would be state and national legislators, that run on a platform of no new taxes, coupled with no new laws. To enact new laws, guarantees more taxes. Do you see how simple it would be?"
"Logic: Any program or method that circumvents taxes is a White revolutionary act."
"All tax avoidance, in any way, helps to bleed and weaken the Beast. Your sweat and hard earned wages are the source of power that is used against you. In short, the old adage applies. \"The power to tax is the power to destroy.\"" [Heinlein!!! "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"!!!]
"The underground economy is a fabulous mechanism, and well-suited to White survival."
"Remember that the underground economy is seditious to our enemies, but a great weapon for White racial advancement. Again, bleed the Beast. Spread these ideas among even your non-racial contacts, since all tax avoidance and underground economic activity, directly helps our cause. It is easy and it is fun! Use your imagination, and start your war today."
Security Focus is one of the better... (Score:3)
Re:A better solution (Score:2)
Flamebait (Score:4)
windows 2000 gold was shipped with over 10,000 known, documented bugs. and no, they're not listed at bugtraq.
i could go on and on (index the # of windows bugs in the knowledge base, closed source bugs vs open source bugs) but i've already given this flamebait more attention that it deserves.
whatever you do, when you read this article, don't click through the banner ads. then he's won.
Impossible (Score:2)
The only double standard here is from you. (Score:2)
This is not true for several reasons.
Open source leaders are too busy programming and leading the open source movement to actually even care that much about Microsoft. Do you really think that Linux or Alan even think about Microsoft that much?
But I bet you Billy G. was groups comprised of dozens of people that are devoted to monitoring Linux and producing weekly summaries and reports for Microsofts top executives. Linux is cutting into Microsofts server revenue, so it is getting a lot of attention from Redmond.
If our open source leaders ever did spout insane statistics like Mr. Moody then I would be the first to point out the inacurracies. These people are our leaders because they are smart, good with others, and don't lie. If they weren't they wouldn't have very many followers, now would they?
Since the basic primise of your argument is wrong, which you freely admit yourself, then the rest of your arguments are wrong as well.
Free speech doesn't mean that you are free to lie. And editors that allow their writers to continue lying, when the customer is compaining about those lies, don't remain editors for very long.
Clarification? (Score:2)
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
But easily-refuted or flat-out wrong information like Moody is apparently presenting produces a far more visceral and active response.
And why not fix init. There is no reason for the mortal user to rearrange the order of the things that are started. There should be a gui with an array of checkboxes, each column is a run level, each row is a service. And put a comment in the .rc files that this GUI can display so the user knows what they are turning on/off! And also put the turning on/off of net services in that same panel (the etc/inetd file I think it is called?) because most people think those are the same thing! Advanced users can control the start/stop order by renaming the .rc files, there is no reason to do everything in the GUI.
Before anybody complains, I am thinking of writing this myself...
Re:Moody's article (Score:2)
Indeed, if Linus or Alan were to have written that article, and replaced every negative reference to Linux with Windows 2000, chances are we all would be praising the article for its "...accuracy and unbiased analysis of Windows 2000 in comparison with Linux...". Granted, Linus and Alan *wouldn't* write an article of that nature, but we're speaking hypothetically here.
If we make demands of ABC to ban Fred Moody (who is, obviously, not a true journalist, but an editorialist), they'll ignore us, or at best, defend Fred Moody's article as an exercise in free speech.
Uh, oh! Did I say "free speech?" Another point of irony:
So, does free speech only apply to the things that we on
Remember, chums, the journalists are going to defend Fredo, because he's one of their own. Let them. We need to start practicing what we preach. If we're going to be a forum advocating free speech, then we need to advocate that freedom for everyone, including Fred Moody.
I'd have to agree (Score:2)
Isn't this the whole damn reason everyone stopped using windows in the first place? Because their marketing is better than their product. I think Moody got it right, even though he thought he was saying the opposite.
Re:SecurityFocus site... (Score:2)
Linux Sux Redux: A Rebuttal
by Ben Greenbaum
Thu Aug 03 2000
This is in response to an article posted at abcnews.com by
Fred Moody, available at:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/moo
in which he claims that Linux is a far less secure operating
system than NT, based on his interpretation of the Bugtraq
vulnerability statistics.
From the very start, I would like to proclaim that I am not a Linux
zealot, or for that matter an ardent defender of any OS. I manage
the Microsoft Focus Area here at SecurityFocus. My personal
machines at home run on various flavors of both MS and Unix
operating systems. Different OS'es have different strengths, and I
freely and gladly use whatever is best in my experience for the
purpose at hand.
The problem I have with Mr. Moody's article is not the conclusion
he comes to, although I do disagree with it. It is instead a problem
with the methods used to reach that conclusion.
The author is writing about the results of the Bugtraq vulnerability
statistics page at:
http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/stats.html
These statistics are meant for general interest purposes. The text
on the statistics page clearly states:
"The statistics should not be taken to imply that some particular
operating system or application is more or less secure than
another one."
However, these stats are for public use, to be interpreted as the
user sees fit. As with any statistics, they can fairly easily be
twisted and misrepresented to support whatever goals the author
may personally have. This is to be expected to some extent any
time statistics, especially unscientific statistics, are used to prove
a controversial or questionable point.
The worst situation by far is when the statistics are not only
"massaged" to serve personal or corporate goals, but interpreted
incorrectly in the first place. The Bugtraq stats have been used
and referenced in various articles and endeavors, with varying
degrees of accuracy. The most egregious example of misuse and
misinterpretation by far to this point is in the article referenced
above, where Mr. Moody states that Linux is the most insecure
OS available. This is based on a gross misreading of the available
data.
To wit: (regarding statistics for 1999)
"122 racked up by Red Hat and the other Linuxes "
Whereas the actual statistics are:
All Linuxes combined: 84
RedHat only: 38
Which, as you can see, add up quite neatly to 122, the number of
vulnerabilities claimed by Mr. Moody for "RedHat and the other
Linuxes". So now, we pause for a brief explanation of the word
"Aggregate". First, from the text of the page itself:
"Where we display aggregate number of vulnerabilities (Linux and
BSD) the number is the size of the set that results from the union
of all vulnerabilities for the components without duplication.
Vulnerabilities are not counted twice."
The numbers for "Linux (aggr.)" reflect the total number of
reported vulnerabilities across all distributions of Linux; if it's a
Linux, it's in there, RedHat included. Also, if the same
vulnerability is present in more than one distribution, it counts
once. Therefore, for a representative number of all known Linux
security bugs, one would only look at the Linux (aggr.) statistic.
Therefore, since 84 (for Linux) is demonstrably less than 99 (for
NT) I submit that these statistics can certainly not be used to
prove that Linux has more vulnerabilities than NT.
Mr. Moody ends his article with the sentence:
"As Linux zealots are beginning to find out, it's a lot easier to
masquerade as a better product than it is to go out and be one."
I agree with that statement, and I believe that the Linux
community has done an admirable job in many ways on both
counts. In closing, I propose to the security community and to Mr.
Moody that what is true for products is sometimes true for
journalists as well.
Ben Greenbaum
Director of Site Content
SecurityFocus
bgreenbaum@securityfocus.com