Microsoft Proclaims Death of Free Software Model 750
geoff313 writes "
As previously mentioned here,
Microsoft's new wave of FUD has begun to arrive. This time it is
courtesy of Bradley Tipp, Microsoft's UK national systems engineer, who
spoke at the Microsoft IT Forum in Copenhagen. In this article
from ZDNet UK, he is quoted as saying that 'Linux is great' and 'there
are a lot of things we should learn from open source' but then is quick
to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said
they're using [open source] because it's better.' Another Microsoft employee was quoted as
saying 'At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and
we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.' I for one am happy to see that they are taking their new interest in security seriously, and I'm
sure you all are too. Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red
Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's
aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software,
but actually is a validation of Microsoft's business model. Does anyone
besides Microsoft see these events as the end of Free software?" I use Free software because it's better; they just didn't ask.
in other news.. (Score:5, Funny)
Huh??? (Score:5, Funny)
I use it because M$ software is worster
Re:Huh??? (Score:5, Funny)
I use it because it is the only sane alternative (Score:4, Informative)
Linux, Apache and Postgres is stable and secure thank you very much.
Re:Better at what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's correct then the basic premise of Microsoft is wrong... The point being that open source projects can - and often do - outperform their closed competitors in most every way. You're right that out-of-the-box, they are not as user friendly - yet. But you can have Apple or Suse package them nicely.
Mind you, the same goes for furniture: you can buy the wood yourself, put it together and make furniture. But it won't be as user friendly as a furniture building packet that you can buy at Ikea's. People who don't want to bother with all this can just buy the same Ikea furniture already put together. And you'll have people who just want nice furniture, no matter what the cost or the supplier and they'll go to the nearest retail shop. That's what happens to commodities: easy to get, lots of choice.
Here you can see a job for open source: people want choice. But of course Microsoft doesn't want software to become a commodity, it'll destroy their market monopoly.
Re:Better at what? (Score:3, Interesting)
The furniture analogy is one I haven't heard before but it seems much better than the ones I usually come up with (deck work and siding for the house) in that furniture does indeed come in many forms all the way from very expensive designer furniture all the way to completely do-it-yourself.
Cars don't do well as an analogy because of the high manufacturing costs that make building economy cars on a small scale impossible.
In fact, looking fo
Re:Better at what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better at what? (Score:3, Informative)
That's just not true. I'm a Microsoft customer, and granted, some of their products are a reasonable choice. But such a blanket statement is just absurd and diminishes Microsoft's credibility.
Microsoft says:
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Incorrect and absolutely false. At the past three companies I've worked with, I've met with regional Microsoft reps and discussed this very topic in
Re:Better at what? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, would you believe that there are no current versions of Windows that support multiple desktops within a user session? I hear they're finally adding something like that to longhorn, but Linux has had it forever now.
I don't feel one way or the other about Microsoft. I could care less about ho
Re:Better at what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are absolutely, 100% correct. Unfortunately it's irrelevant. Ease-of-use-through-familiarity (and that's all it is, Linux is as easy or easier once you know it) is no guarantee a competitor won't eat your lunch. If free software based on paid support truly has a lower cost and higher reliability, that
Areopagetica (Score:5, Insightful)
John Milton [rowan.edu] wrote an essay [bartleby.com] about this freedom (in a broader sense) called Areopagetica. It's one of those things journalism majors usually have to wade through their senior year in mass communication history.
In his time, one in Britain could not print without prior authorization from the crown. The King's official reason for this prohibition was to "protect libel from being spread." Milton argued that it took the public grappling of truth against falsehood to determine what really was true. Without this public airing, you simply could not know whether the facts you had were true or not.
The closed source vs. open source issue, especially from the perspective of code security and reliability, is inherently linked to this issue argued nearly 400 years ago by Milton. There simply is no way Microsoft can expose its proprietary code to the inspections open source benefits from. The result is horribly broken, insecure and crash-prone Microsoft code vs. a base of increasingly stable open source.
And the future gets worse for Microsoft. Complexity is the instigator of this dynamic; as software complexity grows, the ability of closed source to hang on evaporates.
*scoove*
Crash of the day (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll preface that my system usage may not be a fair comparison. My Linux and freeBSD systems provide qmail, dns, radius, mrtg, httpd, webmail, snmp management, etc. for tens to thousands of users, many under constant heavy loads.
My Linux desktops are used for network engineering, management, as well as the obligatory
Re:Huh??? Huh??? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. it's safer.
2. it's faster.
3. it's more customizable.
4. it's so customizable that, if looks are the only thing that matters and if you really love the way Luna looks, you can make your desktop the same as Luna (not that I would want to)
5. I have the choice. this means that, if NetBSD continues improving its scalability, as they did last two weeks, maybe it will be a better KDE desktop than Linux, and I will migrate with much less pain, and generally using the same applications that I used under Linux. Means that, if I want to run a web server or a router in the old 386 I have under my bed, I can do so, because I can customize it easily.
I don't even know why I am feeding an obvious troll, but... so be it.
When have I ever ... (Score:3, Interesting)
You do realize that the Selected President*, his cadre of debt-exploding, job-decimating, occupation-failing chicken hawks and their AC flunkies like yourself don't equal the US, don't you? Even though the Selected President* has worked so hard to advance the notion of the imperial Presidency:
"I get to decide who's an enemy combatant.
Nobody has the right to judge me.
Everyone who advises me is free from oversight."
And even though the Selected President*, who was actually selected by th
Isn't Rock-n-Roll dead as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about DOS? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah...right...
Elvis, Jim, Jimi and Janice would like to ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Isn't Rock-n-Roll dead as well? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Rock-n-Roll dead as well? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Rock-n-Roll dead as well? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that's why they call it the Free software movement.
The corporate versions of Linux are far from free.
Really? Then why can I download Red Hat AS, ES, or WS and install them on any of the computers I own for free. The support you have to pay for if you want it, the software however remains free, and freely distributable.
Re:Isn't Rock-n-Roll dead as well? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, no, you can't download binaries for AS, ES or WS. (Sources, yes. Binaries, no -- so the process is more like "download onto a separate computer, recompile and install" -- a rather different thing from "download and install").
Re:Isn't Rock-n-Roll dead as well? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be so inflexible. In the article there is this string:
That magpie attitude, according to Microsoft, is mutual. Red Hat's decision to end support for its free software and the Novell-SuSE link-up have put the last nail in the coffin of the free-software model, the Redmond behemoth believes -- even going so far as to speculate that the move from free to paid-for open-source software is a validation of Microsoft's way of doing business and the
Re:Isn't Rock-n-Roll dead as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been here for five years, though mostly lurking. I've seen the yro stories get 800 comments and the "Announcing the AMD N+1 chip!" get, deservedly, 53. Semi-political stuff is what slashdot has always been popular for, and Microsoft has always been bashed. Now people are feeling that Linux is more ready for the desktop, and that future Microsoft OSes will be so horribly DRM'd that we, if not joe six-pack, will be migrating, so it's no wonder the conflict heats up more than it did in the past.
Spare me your va-linux conspiracy theories. Slashdot runs stories that get the most comments and get the most page views. It is driven by what we want.
Re:Isn't Rock-n-Roll dead as well? (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment noted. However, a lot has changed in the last five years. Most of the web innovation is not being driven by a handful of companies, but is being controlled and, frankly, bitch slapped by
Re:Astroturfer (Score:3, Insightful)
There are markets where REGULATED monopolies are probably a good idea.
Software is not one of them.
For... GODs SAKE! (Score:2)
Ouch... i thought you were about to say "something" else...
The King is Dead!!! (Score:2)
MS is forgetting a major *distribution* model... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MS is forgetting a major *distribution* model.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be gratis (i.e. Free Beer), but it won't be libre (i.e. Free Speech) until they let users modify and share the source.
I've hear this... (Score:4, Insightful)
How to get an article accepted on /. (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Submit to
3. ???
4. Accepted!!
5. Sit back and watch as the flames fly!!
Imminent death of OSS predicted!!!!!!!11!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Imminent death of OSS predicted!!!!!!!11!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Pepsi commented that it hasn't spoken to a single customer who said they drank Coca Cola because it tasted better. A senator from Maine said he hadn't spoken to a single constituent who lived in Hawaii because it was warmer. A doctor said she hadn't spoken to a single patient who had never been sick.
Or...could it be that people who use free software because it is better are not Microsoft users? Nah.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
A patient who had never been sick?
So long as a single OSS Coder lives... (Score:5, Insightful)
We need not, nor care not, about the opinions of the world regarding our existance, relevance, or lack thereof of both.
Re:So long as a single OSS Coder lives... (Score:5, Funny)
The OSS movement is harder to kill than cockroaches.
Correct, that is our strength... (Score:4, Insightful)
That will never change.
They cannot break our spirit, for we do not care if they like us. They cannot run us out of business, for it is our passion not our livelihood. They cannot deceive us, because it is in the open. They cannot lie about us, for we hide nothing. They cannot fight us, for we are legion.
Someday, the OSS movement will be looked upon as an emergent enlightenment comparable to the expression of the scientific principal and the enlightenment that occured as the result of the unencumbered distribution of scientific knowledge.
Companies like Microsoft will be remembered as malicious entities, profiteering on ignorance, with a great deal to loose from any "enlightenment".
Re:So long as a single OSS Coder lives... (Score:4, Funny)
Sharpening my Skates (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone wanna go ice skating? Hell just froze over.
Oh wait a minute, they didn't mean it. They were hoping I'd hop onto Haydes and be burned to death. Oooo! You are a sly one, Mr. Gates!
Re:Sharpening my Skates (Score:2)
Re:Sharpening my Skates (Score:2)
Too late. [slashdot.org].
different goals (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:different goals (Score:3, Insightful)
The users ARE QA teams for both open source projects AND commercial products. Commercial software is released with unpreviously recognized bugs because in-house QA is a synthetic process that will never be able t
I'm suing (Score:2)
Well.... (Score:2)
This could happen (Score:2, Interesting)
Since Reagan we have been seeing more and more acquiescence of the law to the bottom line of big business. Illegality of Open Source Software is not too much to imagine.
After all - TERRORISTS could get access to it, right? That's the root password to the Constitution these days, right? All
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Absolutely not.
I use free software because it is often developed and a more agressive pace, and the features I want are more likely to be implemented. Free software also cuts out the middleman a lot of the time as far as getting help with some software. Numerous times I have had a problems compiling x program and emailed the developer and gotten the help I needed to get it working, not to mention clued the developer into the fact that there is an issue getting their software to work on insert my platform here.
Compare, for example, the MSN Messenger, and Gaim. Gaim has more features, has an extensible architecture so that even non-geniuses can write plugins, and no advertisements.
Free software is better because it does what paid developers can't.
What the F@#$ are they talking about ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pure high quality top management PR bull$hit. I don't see free software dying anytime soon, as long as debain, gentoo, slackware, LFS are around.
And if Microsoft's business model is indeed true and going by their word, that s/w amounts to only a fraction of total cost, then whether linux is free or not, really doesn't matter does it ?
So going by microsoft's argument, it really doesn't matter costwise (only software) whether you are using linux or Windows. But by using linux you get a much stable, scalable, SECURE, reliable , easily configurable, accountable s/w, instead of propritory, unsecure, un-scalable, s/w.
RedHat's business model (Score:3, Insightful)
* is dying trolls (Score:3, Funny)
Now we know who the AC posting all those "* is dying" trolls is: Bill Gates.
apache (Score:3, Insightful)
heh, no.
Choose your respondents carefully (Score:2)
Simon
(I use OS because it's better, too)
The birth of bartered software (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The birth of bartered software (Score:2)
But what if we don't buy our OSS? (Score:2)
"Do we lie awake at night and worry? You know Microsoft, it's the paranoid company. If someone buys just one copy of something else, we worry," Tipp said.
Guess they're not worried about free (as in beer) software after all..
I use ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux
cygwin
OpenOffice
I also think that Free software is better for humanity as a whole, but I'm not dogmatic about it.
I still use Windows on the desktop, because I didn't yet have time to move everything over to Linux (f*ck NTFS, otherwise I wouldn't have to), and because Soulseek works much better under Windows.
Re:I use ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Two examples:
Mozilla Firebird - leaner, nicer and more configurable than IE, and actually supports HTML and transparent PNGs properly.
OpenOffice - because I don't want to pay $400 to edit my letters to Grandma and to b
Licensing is the death of MS's business model (Score:2)
Better? I wouldn't push it that far for every computer user, but OSS does offer me the control I desire.
Well said Tim... (Score:2)
Attack not wide enough (Score:2)
Waves frantically!!! "Yo! Microsoft! Here, here!"
It seems that MS is concentrating on Linux as the single source of its marketing campaign. Though Linux poses a 'threat' in their minds, I firmly believe that is other non-OS opensource stuff that is 'threatening' them. Yeah, Linux is kind of pe
Well.. (Score:2)
Funny, I don't know anyone who uses Windows because it's better.
Oh yeah (Score:2)
Yup, RIP Free Software.
In other news, a Nike spokesperson spoke of a poll where 10/10 people prefer using Nike than that of their competitives. More MS Fud...move along, nothing to see here.
Free software? Always has been, always will (Score:3, Insightful)
Free software has been common and useful during the Microsoft era (from DOS to Windows), and freeware for Windows PC's and other platforms abounds on Sourceforge and www.download.com (once you look past the crippleware falsely labelled as "Free").
There is no reason to believe that this will change, and we have Microsoft partially to thank for this: they promote Visual Basic, which is used to write a lot of programs which are given away to run on the Windows platform.
Hmm... (Score:2)
How many user did they actually ask? Is there any actual data to back up their claims? Or is this assertion just another assumption/pipedream of M$? Oh, and by the way Bill, two failed implementation does not an absolute failure make. Just because certain companies are moving away from free open source (in a one of the worst tech economies ever) does not mean open source is a bad model. For all the companies
Umm, those points -validate- free software (Score:2, Insightful)
SuSE was worth $210 million to Novell for doing the same thing.
Both of those points -validate- the free software model, they don't prove it is dead at all.
Free software is free (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not a corporation, and I can't afford thousands of dollars in license fees to run a web server + mail server + database server for my personal use at home.
"better" isn't even the criterion (Score:3, Insightful)
It's now twenty years later... how many people do you know that use a Beta deck?
The giant roars before falling. (Score:2)
They are scared of Open Source Software. They see that as OSS gets better, the reasons for using Microsoft products (steadily and slowly) disappear.
the rest of the dialog we didn't get to see... (Score:5, Funny)
millions of people: "Ah, but there are millions of us here, and we all use open source solutions because they're better, cheaper, faster, more secure, and easier to maintain."
Microsoft: "What's that? You say that open source is better?"
millions of people: "Yes"
Microsoft: "Right! Then we're not going to talk to you. Now, as we were saying, we haven't talked to a single user..."
or maybe it was the other way around, and the pro-open source people didn't want to talk to Microsoft, because you know, why bother. And then Microsoft says "we haven't talked to a single user..."
Re:the rest of the dialog we didn't get to see... (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps I don't count because I'm married, not "single"
Problems at my office... (Score:3, Interesting)
In my office, for example, the slickest and most popular install was a simple Red Hat base, compiled software to fit the needs of that workstation or server, and a Ximian install on top, with Red Carpet managing packages and keeping the RH stuff up-to-date. The key to this system, all around, was simplicity. When RedHat decided to focus only Enterprise (which we did not need) and trust everything else on an unproven community, they lost me and my company as a customer. They've probably also lost a ton of support among those who've provided mirrors for their repackaging of our software, because this is nothing but a slap in their face and the disavowal of a long-term relationship with many schools and businesses.
However, it looks like RHAT's up around 4%.
Free software is not dead, but it could really use more polish and coordination among groups like Debian and less public focus on these repackaging companies...
MS's FUD can be pretty funny ... (Score:3, Insightful)
So by way of association does that also mean that Microsoft's acquisition of Great Plains Software marks the death of small business ???
A telling quote (Score:3, Insightful)
And thus, by extension, if YOU say open source software is better, we won't talk to you either.
-fred
I feel so enlightened... (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft UK have not talked to us! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft tried to sell us on their mail systems - cost would have been no object as far as software was concerned since they would bury us in software to do this one fairly simple (but large scale function) because they were desparate to get a big ISP on board their bandwagon.
We looked at the stuff, but walked away. Actually we ran away screaming. We just didn't have enough data centre space to handle the number of boxes it would take to run their unproven messaging system for our userbase of 3 million (and expecting growth) users.
Instead we implemented an open-source based mail system - exim as the MTA, a set of pop servers, an open source radius system for authentication - all the normal stuff. Becuase it was better. Because it worked. Because we could fix it when it broke. Because we knew how it scaled, how to make it scale better. Because it didn't have the possibility of us getting a buttload of licensing additional costs at a later date. Because it was better in every way than the MS option other than having a point-and-drool interface that a monkey could use to completely shaft a million users at a time.
why all the suprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
They are a company that is attacking their biggest competitor.. of course they will talk bad...they want to increase market share, and marketing is a big part of accomplishing this... ( which they do a much better job then we do, in this one subject...
No real news here.. just smile and look the other direction, and keep plugging along.....How we react can also reflect how people perceive us... Be it as adults, or sniveling children...
What OSS is not (Score:3, Insightful)
OSS is not a business model. It's a bunch of different things: a community, a way of developing software, a way of distributing software, a way of thinking about information. But not a business model. Business models can be built on top of OSS, but OSS doesn't care. If those business models crumble--and indeed, many will--OSS will remain, to build on again.
Microsoft is dreaming (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's business model involves black box software, undocumented API's, and sloppy implementations. You want to be compatible with Microsoft? You have to reverse engineer everything. If that can't be done, guess what, you have to buy their software. Microsoft worries that reavealing their source code will destroy them.
Open source lays all out for anyone to see. This won't change with RedHat Enterprise...The GPL forbids it. But yet they are still making money. So tell me again, Microsoft, why open source is dead?
And now for the next round (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some interesting and ironic underpinnings to this story:
Microsoft is terrified. They have no real reason to be terrified because they own somehwere around 97% of all desktop machines and they make money on every damn PC sold with OEM software on it. But that is not Microsoft's problem. Microsoft's problem is that Microsoft is the epitomy of greed and the mother of all control freaks. There has never been another company, apart perhaps from IBM in earlier years, which was so absolutely mindlessly terrified in losing a single percentage point in marketshare. There is no other company that is willing to rack up huge losses in a single market segment, and that over years (xbox, PocketPC anyone?) until, due to simply having thrown enough money and resources at the problem over years, they finally start making gains. It's a fucking minddead approach and one that only Microsoft could afford to do, but it often works in their case.
The ironic bit in this newest FUD campaign is that the same thing backfired on them badly when they did it in 2001. But Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft if they didn't think they could do the same thing again some years later, only this time they'll try to be more clever about it, including faked security benchmarks and other things. Microsoft cannot resist detracting anyone they are scared of, be it Apple's iTunes, Linux.
They are however extremely quiet and polite in markets where they are clearly the losers, be it in the xbox or mobile phone market.
And why are they the big losers in the mobile phone market? Because Microsoft has a track record of fucking every single partner over that they've ever worked with and apart from Microsoft marketing money dependant shitrag journalists like the creeps at ZDNet and CNet, almost everybody in the branch knows this and won't touch Microsoft with a 10 foot pole if they can avoid it.
This new campaign will almost assuredly fail, just give them time.
When translated from marketspeak, we get: (Score:3, Insightful)
Replace XP? Not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Replace XP? Not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because it is fully capable and so some people will use it for this goal. OSS is about people working together to meet their needs efficiently, not specific goals.
Although this is a worthy goal, IMHO.
Re:Bull. (Score:2)
Re:Bull. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
Folks who claim Linux isn't ready for the desktop are poorly informed. I've been using Linux as my main OS for several years now, and for my work (writing) it is much better than Windows.
Why? Well, here's a little personal history. I started writing oh so many years ago on an Atari ST. When the time finally came to admit that Atari was never going to overtake the PC clone, I bought a Pentium 60 and Wordperfect. I kept Wordperfect through a succession of clones, since it was perfectly adequate for writing professionally.
As an sf writer and general techfreak, I was almost immediately intrigued with Linux and the open source model. Also, when the web first appeared, you had to know a little Unix to put up a site (my first site was hosted by UNC, like a lot of web pioneers.) So I experimented with a Slackware installation, but at that time, Linux really wasn't ready for the desktop.
Time passed, Windows progressed, I started building my own boxes and had to actually start paying actual money to put Windows on them. I kept reusing Wordperfect in each new box, even though I worried that someday the big box of floppies might not work. Eventually I tried Redhat 6.1 and discovered that Linux was now ready for the desktop, or at least the desktop of a writer who wasn't much interested in games. I found a copy of Wordperfect for Linux and thought I was set for life. But it got even better when I started using OpenOffice, and knew that my files would be eternally transportable to new machines.
Couple that eternal transportability with the worry-free nature of Linux online (much less danger of virii, worms, etc.) and with the flexibility of Linux (I can run an Atari emulator and access files from 15 years ago written on the ST) and with the availability of all kinds of software to play with that would cost me an arm and a leg in a Windows environment. It's more fun for me to use Linux on my desktop and more practical.
Re:Bull. (Score:3, Informative)
The reason why it has been perfect for your needs is that it doesn't appear that you do that much with it. Word processing isn't an extraordinarily difficult task. There are many other things, however, that the average desktop user uses their system for, such
Re:Bull. (Score:5, Interesting)
More on Topic: What MS is most worried about is servers. They aren't gaining much ground in that area and Linux is poised to become the dominent player in that area. So MS does what they do best, the spread FUD, in hopes that some PHBs will get scared and stop considering Linux for deployment.
MS also knows that Corporate embracement of Linux is good for it (and thus bad for them). RedHat is focusing large companies who want top-level support. There isn't anything at all wrong with that as so go the bigger companies the smaller ones follow, until eventually you start seeing it on people's desktops.
FUD isn't making Linux or free software go away anytime soon.
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
On second thought, I think it has a few pseudopods in the mainstream media too.
The only image the comes to mind is that creature from STTOS that fed off of terrorizing people to death.
Re:Well guess what MS marketdroids... (Score:2, Insightful)
I know every single server I manage, every single workstation in my house is linux. But I support sales people. I must use Windows on a workstation to natively support those guys - yes I have many "workstaions" for various projects - only one with windows. So I am paid to use MS. If you were PAID to use MS, you would as well. Don't kid yourself and don't even think of calling me a sellout.
Re:Microsoft are bad guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you did a search for it, you'd find that there are. However they are mostly "theoretical" and nobody has yet seriously sat down to design a fast-spreading, damaging Linux virus. (As an aside: there are experimental viruses that are able to infect cross-platform -- i.e., they run on both Windows and Linux. Pretty crazy, huh?)
Microsoft's point is fundamentally correct however: there are no serious Linux viruses not because they are impossible on Linux, but because Linux just isn't popular enough yet to make it worth the virus writer's time. It makes much more sense to exploit that vast majority of Windows machines. (If you look at Google's Zeitgeist page, you'll see that only 1% of Google queries come from Linux boxes. I consider that a fairly good indicator of the popularity of Linux.)
None of what I just said should be construed to mean that Microsoft isn't responsible for the security of their operating system. There is a major difference between Windows and Linux viruses: on Windows it is very easy to obtain administrator priviledges, which makes Windows viruses much more dangerous. However, it is dishonest for people to claim that Linux is impervious to viruses. It's not true, and to boastfully make that claim is to court disaster.
Re:Microsoft are bad guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
1% of Google queries come from Linux boxes. I consider that a fairly good indicator of the popularity of Linux.
Don't make the same kind of mistake as MS.
That is an indicator of the popularity of browsers hitting Google that provide a UserAgent string that identifies the system as Linux.
On topic, though, I think there have been (cheese, lion) worms that have exploited applications typically run on Linux.
Public marketing security comparions are always suspicious, though: Linux the OS has been much less vulnerable than applications overlying, such as PHP on top of Apache, or sendmail, etc.
Likewise, Windows security looks worse because of overlying misconfigured misdesigned applications such as IIS, Outlook. Since Win2K, the OS per se has been much less vulnerable than in the Win 9x days.
Re:Microsoft are bad guys? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of cours
Re:Microsoft are bad guys? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not agree, while win2k made advances in basic things like user authentication and file permissions, it combined default network services of questionable value for desktops (messenger, rpc portmap) with a lack of a firewall.
The combination of these monumental design blunders produced a machine that had all sorts of entry points just waiting for an exploit.
At least win9x was so useless that it didn't have any
Re:Microsoft are bad guys? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to re-phrase that a little better:
"there are no serious attempts at Linux viruses not because they are impossible on Linux, but because Linux just isn't popular enough yet to make it worth the virus writer's time."
If Linux magically took over 90% of the desktop tomorrow, sure, there would be an assload of activity going towards writing viruses for it.
The damage that would come out of this is less certain.
In order to create such wonderful things as Blaster or Slammer in this imaginary Linux world, we'd have to see every major distro start shipping with an SSH daemon or Apache running by default. And running as root, or a lot more local root exploits.
It's certainly possible, just a lot less likely.
Re:Microsoft are bad guys? (Score:3, Insightful)
They chose not to. They chose to forgot security in favor of "ease of use". That was their conscious decision to make.
No; this is just more FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
The only real opportunity would be through some single flawed release of one certain distribution, but even this is far-fetched and questionable. Most distributions are now using sensible alternatives to traditionally flawed services (sendmail being replaced by postfix, exim or qmail for example, even diversity there) and a few are shipping with basic firewall functionality by default. Also bear in mind that servers (where Linux really figures in terms of installation counts) don't search Google....
Re:No; this is just more FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is, it's very possible for local exploit conditions to exist in the kernel itself. That means it doesn't matter what software you might or might not have installed -- you are always potentially vulnerable. All it takes is a single point of weakness to get local access, and then the story's over.
It is a critical misjudgment to assume that Linux itself is somehow invincible.
Re:crown jewels (Score:2)
the stuffed penguin Steve Ballmer talks to every night before he goes home. it's in his upper-right desk drawer.
Re:What he meant to say (Score:3, Funny)