10 March 2007
Daring Article About Linux Shortcomings
Recently an article was written by Rob Enderle discussing in his opinion the shortcomings of Linux.
As a someone who has worked in IT for over 10 years evaluating solutions, I encourage such discussions as a way for people to find out more information and make better choices, but as a Linux user there are some areas that I have to disagree with and others that I agree completely with.
The first is his idea that Linux is not one thing but many different things distributions that are all different. There is only one Linux kernel released by Linus Torvalds. That is Linux, the distributions are based on the software and customizations that are on top of that kernel. To say that the distributions make the Linux a different breed is like saying a Windows computer running the MS Office Suite is not the same Windows as a Windows computer running the MS Works Suite. There is no difference in the kernel and core of those two Windows machines and there is no difference in the core and kernel between any of the Linux distributions. Linux as one unit then can be compared to Windows as one unit. Distributions come in when you look at which software you want on the machines.
I will agree that Linux is not for everything or everyone. The distributions succeed in making it more 'universal' by customizing it for specific purposes.
From a security point of view, Linux's security model is from Unix making it very secure As to the point made about no identity checks on Open Source developers and the possibility of someone with not so admirable intentions being able to work within the group and write bugs intentionally into the software, I completely agree with the possibility. Looking at it though, while it is possible one has to remember that software should also be tested before being deployed both by hand executing the code and by actually running it. With hundreds or thousands of people working on popular projects the ability for such a malicious bug to make it through testing is very small, albeit possible. Using the fact that this hasn't happened so far in Open Source software, I would put this risk as negligible.
Again I also agree that no operating system should be considered so secure to ignore good security practices. All operating systems are crackable, I just wouldn't want to be the one trying to crack a hardened Linux or Unix box. All networks need some sort of auditing practice to lead network admins to possible attempts at cracking the network to stop the perpetrator(s) before they get in.
I also agree completely that some people in the community of Linux users tend to be rather cult-ish putting the OS as a type of god and can be very standoffish when someone says anything negative about it. I think every 'normal' person using the OS would agree that these are the types of people who keep others away from Linux (Mac has similar people too causing the same problem). These fundamental users hinder the normal discussion process which is exactly what Linux (Mac OS) needs to become more popular and more widely accepted.
I will make no statements in regard to Groklaw as it is not Linux but an open advocacy group that was formed in some way of protecting Linux. It is very young and probably immature yet. In five or ten years time it will be interesting to see how it developed.
This is perfectly said. The role of any analyst is to be open to all options not only Microsoft or Apple or Open Source. When giving opinions preferences do not apply, what is the best option for the situation is the only thing that applies. Recently I was asked my opinion of Mac computers from someone who had been shown one in an shop. The person was impressed with what they had seen and I added to it what I liked about them. Along with this, I gave the disadvantage of cost. This point we both agreed on. I told him the options in local shops of Windows, Mac OS and Linux all of which can be found pre-installed on computers. He had already seen Mac OS and had already used Windows so I gave him a Live CD of a popular Linux distribution and told him to play around with it before making a decision. I didn't tell him one option was better or worse, just gave him the tools to make the decision himself.
As a someone who has worked in IT for over 10 years evaluating solutions, I encourage such discussions as a way for people to find out more information and make better choices, but as a Linux user there are some areas that I have to disagree with and others that I agree completely with.
The first is his idea that Linux is not one thing but many different things distributions that are all different. There is only one Linux kernel released by Linus Torvalds. That is Linux, the distributions are based on the software and customizations that are on top of that kernel. To say that the distributions make the Linux a different breed is like saying a Windows computer running the MS Office Suite is not the same Windows as a Windows computer running the MS Works Suite. There is no difference in the kernel and core of those two Windows machines and there is no difference in the core and kernel between any of the Linux distributions. Linux as one unit then can be compared to Windows as one unit. Distributions come in when you look at which software you want on the machines.
I will agree that Linux is not for everything or everyone. The distributions succeed in making it more 'universal' by customizing it for specific purposes.
From a security point of view, Linux's security model is from Unix making it very secure As to the point made about no identity checks on Open Source developers and the possibility of someone with not so admirable intentions being able to work within the group and write bugs intentionally into the software, I completely agree with the possibility. Looking at it though, while it is possible one has to remember that software should also be tested before being deployed both by hand executing the code and by actually running it. With hundreds or thousands of people working on popular projects the ability for such a malicious bug to make it through testing is very small, albeit possible. Using the fact that this hasn't happened so far in Open Source software, I would put this risk as negligible.
Again I also agree that no operating system should be considered so secure to ignore good security practices. All operating systems are crackable, I just wouldn't want to be the one trying to crack a hardened Linux or Unix box. All networks need some sort of auditing practice to lead network admins to possible attempts at cracking the network to stop the perpetrator(s) before they get in.
I also agree completely that some people in the community of Linux users tend to be rather cult-ish putting the OS as a type of god and can be very standoffish when someone says anything negative about it. I think every 'normal' person using the OS would agree that these are the types of people who keep others away from Linux (Mac has similar people too causing the same problem). These fundamental users hinder the normal discussion process which is exactly what Linux (Mac OS) needs to become more popular and more widely accepted.
I will make no statements in regard to Groklaw as it is not Linux but an open advocacy group that was formed in some way of protecting Linux. It is very young and probably immature yet. In five or ten years time it will be interesting to see how it developed.
I think the thing that bothers me the most about Linux is IT advocacy. IT shouldn’t be an advocate of any product, because it needs to make determinations between them. Whether it is Microsoft, Apple, or Linux, once IT takes a side it is no longer capable of properly assessing a solution based on the needs of the business. And that is the job.
This is perfectly said. The role of any analyst is to be open to all options not only Microsoft or Apple or Open Source. When giving opinions preferences do not apply, what is the best option for the situation is the only thing that applies. Recently I was asked my opinion of Mac computers from someone who had been shown one in an shop. The person was impressed with what they had seen and I added to it what I liked about them. Along with this, I gave the disadvantage of cost. This point we both agreed on. I told him the options in local shops of Windows, Mac OS and Linux all of which can be found pre-installed on computers. He had already seen Mac OS and had already used Windows so I gave him a Live CD of a popular Linux distribution and told him to play around with it before making a decision. I didn't tell him one option was better or worse, just gave him the tools to make the decision himself.
