[aclug-L] Re: There are still some monkeys in the CEO chair

[ironrose <ironrose@xxxxxxx>]

And the Bill Gates clan calls the open-source programmers "hobbyists"-- 
M$ may make more money than other software companies, but they don't 
have a more stable product.  M$ OS is easy to crash, but the OS is 
getting better.  What makes linux "unstable" or "vunerable" is the user 
when they choose the wrong settings (try the defaults when in doubt) or 
leave services open.  I learned the hard way not to have services 
running like FTP, where someone can connect to my computer and use it 
for a jump for whatever project they are doing.  Every OS connected to 
the internet or network is vunerable until it is locked down.  ~Anne

Carl D Cravens wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, jeffrey l koehn wrote:
>
>  
>
>>"Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus
>>years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a
>>clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have
>>some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative
>>proposition."
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>"Some people say it is an advantage that Linux gets built in all of
>>these little pieces. The fact is that if you want to do some kind
>>of integrated innovation that touches the kernel, that touches the
>>user interface--there is no way. Maybe Linus (Torvalds) can control
>>the innovation in the piece called the kernel, but there are many
>>pieces."
>>    
>>
>
>Maybe it's the integrated innovation that drives me nuts about Windows...
>the fact that a user interface bit can crash the kernel, instead of just
>the user interface.  My biggest gripe about Windows is that the graphical
>interface is so heavily integrated into the OS, instead of being a proper
>"shell" on top of the OS where it belongs.  (I mean, what kind of _useful_
>innovation in the user interface requires messing with the kernel anyway?)
>
>And isn't integrated innovation wonderful, where installing some bit of
>driver requires rebooting the machine a couple times?  I mean, this "clone
>of a 20-year old OS" can dynamically load driver modules without needing
>to close all the applications, let alone reboot the system.  Quite
>innovative, I think.  (Heh... HP-UX _still_ doesn't dynamically load
>driver modules.  The code's supposedly in the kernel, but they just
>haven't made their modules loadable.  Linux is a lot more advanced than
>that 20-year old Unix.)
>
>But, contrary to his statement, cross-"piece" innovation is quite
>possible.  If someone came up with a useful integrated solution that
>required kernel mods, I don't think it would be difficult to get those
>changes into the kernel.  It's not like each piece is "closed" and not
>open to cooperation with other development teams.
>
>  
>
>>Of course, the "piece called the kernel" is Linux and
>>Linux is not an operating system, nor is Linux a clone.
>>    
>>
>
>Not a "clone", per se, but it is essentially a Unix kernel.  A kernel
>building on 20+ years of experience... can Microsoft claim that Windows
>has built on 20 years of experience gained from multiple vendors and
>development groups, and people driven not by profit but by the desire to
>build the best OS they can?
>
>It's all marketing spin here... you can hold a facet up and, in the right
>light, it looks like either a benefit or a fault.
>
>--
>Carl D Cravens (raven@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>And old UNIX programmers never die, they just lose their grep.
>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>
>
>  
>


-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi