Letters to the editor

Why the focus on obscure and ephemere distributions ?

I'm a bit disappointed on LWN's focus on full distributions.
 
Not that I do not like having a reference on the birth of death of
distributions in the Linux world, but because for most users they are
simply irrelevant. Specialised distribution are just that - specialised.
Their intended audience is necessarily limited. More general efforts
OTOH directly compete with big Linux names and almost always fail after
the initial burst of energy (as this week review rightfully notes).
 
A smart/informed Linux user will stay clear of the latest experiments in
installer technology/recompilation with more cutting edge gcc flags and
use instead a proven mainstream distribution, focusing on reliable
sources of high-quality third-party addons. This way he will get the
advantages of a well supported, upgradable system core with the ability
to easily install cool new stuff.
 
RedHat's move out of the retail channel for example shows
all-encompassing distributions packaged in a single box at a single
point in time may soon be a thing of the past, and the future is a disc
seed that is then updated/completed using a network installer.
 
For most users now the action is not in new distributions that require
you to dump your existing installation to try a few applications you do
not have yet, but in projects like PLF, Fedora, JPackage, Freshrpms,
Dag, Ximian desktop... that enable you to complete your existing setup
with minimal fuss (I'm writing about the rpm world now because that's
what I know best). This is what LWN should be reviewing today.
 
Connectiva's port of apt to rpm and broadband completely changed the
linux software distribution patterns in the last years. The use of a
common packaging format always enabled contacts between distributions
(see RedHat/Mandrake, rpmfind...). What's new is the large community
projects that now try to complete vendors offerings. It's a shame LWN
still seems to overlook it.
 
Regards,
 
--
Nicolas Mailhot

Comments (3 posted)

Mohammed Kateeb, you have been telling lies!

Here...
 
    http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=97436
 
...you say:
 
> Linux people don't believe in Intellectual Property Rights.
 
That's a direct lie, one you need to retract. Linux is licenced under
the GNU GPL, General Public Licence, which _depends_ on copyright law
for its operation. And see below.
 
> How can one be sure that the code of software that has been
> contributed by programmers across the world to create this
> Linux software is unique and is not lifted from somewhere
> else? This is a big legal concern.
 
This is chutzpah (no, I'm not Jewish but it's a singularly appropriate
word). Would you care to explain how Microsoft's SQL Server developers
were exposed to suit from TimeLine over improper dealing with imported
IP if Microsoft's own source control is so good?
 
> That is what the latest SCO-Linux lawsuit is all about. Now
> SCO is suing every single user of Linux because they believe
> parts of their UNIX code is being used in Linux.
 
No, they don't. This is a stock "pump-and-dump" operation, they say
these things primarily to inflate their stock value - and one of the
companies assisting with the pumping has Melinda Gates (yes, the wife
of William Henry "Trey" Gates III) on its board. Can you explain her
involvement?
 
*ALL* of the supposed evidence from The SCO Group so far revealed has
been either a false match (the Linux programmers rewrote it from
scratch "clean room" style so the code really is de novo) or a false
ownership claim (the code is BSD licenced or Public Domain and so
legitimately available for relicencing under the GPL).
 
It seems fairly obvious from what has been revealed that The SCO Group
have been stripping BSD licence headers from code and illegally
incorporating it into their own UnixWare without attribution.
 
Worse than that, practically all of UnixWare's latest drivers are
version-number and spelling-error compatible with the drivers shipped
in SuSE's Enterprise Linux 8, so it looks very much like The SCO Group
have been stealing Linux code only available through the GPL.
 
All of this eventually spells jail time for the officers of The SCO
Group, and massive losses for the stock speculators involved.
 
Finally, you really shouldn't go shooting off your mouth about purported
risks in the GPL when Microsoft themselves sell product under a GPL
licence, notably the majority of your SFU (Services For Unix) package.
 
On top of all of this, you've told many other half-truths in your
interview, and made much unfair and misleading innuendo. You may regard
this as valid competitive behaviour, but that doesn't stop it from
being false and misleading. If you live in ignorance of the conditions
surrounding your business, then you are delinquent in your obligation
to stay informed. None of this is up to the standards proclaimed by the
Emirates.
 
I write only for myself when I ask that you publish a retraction, at
least of your most blatantly errant statements. Bear in mind when
formulating an answer that as you gave the interview to be published,
so you are giving your answer to be published.
 
Cheers; Leon
 
 
PS, Note to the Editor, Gulf News: feel free to publish this in your
Letters section. Could you publish an interview with a suitable
candidate from a local Open Source group? Perhaps the organisations at
http://goldensun.com/linux/ or http://geocities.com/dubailug can supply
an interviewee.
 
--
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/ Committee Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://slpwa.asn.au/ Committee Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://linux.org.au/ Committee Member, Linux Australia

Comments (none posted)

Servers are attacked on a statistical basis, film at eleven?

Hi Ryan!
 
From http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3076701 -
 
> Mi2g, which provides digital risk management research, said 67
> percent of all successful overt digital attacks was done against
> the Linux OS
 
Linux == 67% of breaches.
 
> the company found that 12,892 Linux online servers [...] were
> successfully breached. During the same period, 4,626 Windows
> servers were victims
 
Ergo, Windows == 24% of breaches.
 
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/01/september_2003_web_server_survey.html
 
> Active Sites
 
> Developer [...] September 2003 Percent Change
> Apache [...] 13371621 67.45 0.17
> Microsoft [...] 4839624 24.23 -0.21
 
Do you notice any striking similarities here?
 
Would you care to republish that article, noting that the attacks are on
a statistically one-for-one basis despite the fact that the Linux
servers are a more attractive target, often being loaded gunwhale-down
with useful tools as they are?
 
Cheers; Leon
 
--
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/ Committee Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://slpwa.asn.au/ Committee Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://linux.org.au/ Committee Member, Linux Australia

Comments (1 posted)

Page editor: Jonathan Corbet