Re: You mean it isn't PERFECT? ;-)

[Bruce Smith <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Would any sysadmins (or anyone, for that matter) care to comment on this
> article?
> 
> ***************************************************************
> http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/moody981120.html
> ***************************************************************

Sure, how can I resist!   :{)

> Are the 'shortcomings' cited as bad as they sound?  Just curious...

The first thing that makes me wonder if this guy knows 
anything about Linux is the statement that Linux is
"loosely based on Unix".  I've use commercial Unix systems
every day at work, and there is nothing "loose" about it.
The difference is Linux didn't pay to use the commercial
trademark name "Unix", so it has to be called "Unix-like".

I really would like something specific in the article, 
instead of just "unstable" and "security holes".  This 
is a very vague attack with nothing to substantiate it.

As far as unstable, the ONLY time I've EVER had a stable
release of Linux crash was do to hardware problems!
(disk drive crash or memory parity errors).

The KLUG 486 server which runs Apache web server, a FTP
server, and the mailing list server software has been 
running since I updated it to Redhat 5.1.  84 days so far.

Here is a Armstrong DNS server running Redhat 5.0
has been up for 221 days!  Stories of much longer
uptimes are very common in the Linux community.

As far as "security holes", I don't know of anything 
that makes it less secure than a commercial Unix system.

On HP-UX, I get frequent security advisories and
patches because hackers are always looking for new 
holes to exploit.  The same is true for Linux.  Redhat 
posts a lot of security updates on their errata.
I've noticed that if you read the details on these
advisories, most (but not all) are relatively minor
"security" holes.  Most I wouldn't even classify as
security problems myself.

Personally I've been using Linux, almost exclusively,
on all of my PC's at home, work, and mobile for years.
I've tried Solaris and SCO commercial Unix systems on
PCs, and much prefer Linux.  I would gladly welcome
the day when the commercial software we run at work
supports Linux and I can replace all our HP-UX boxes
with Linux.  I find Linux easier to support than any
commercial Unix system I've used, with at least as
much functionality (usually more), than commercial
Unix systems.

As far as the article, the author has obviously never
used Linux, and it sounds like it's talking to a
Microsoft employee pretending to be a Linux Advocate.
This just sounds like someone trying to discredit Linux
by taking a cheap shot at Linux's proven strong points.

Linux does have it's problems (as Adam pointed out),
a lot of which go back to the lack of commercial support
by software and hardware vendors.  Luckally this is 
starting to change.  When you start seeing Linux drivers 
in the video/network/sound cards you buy, that will be 
the beginning of world domination!

--------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith                bruce@armintl.com
System Administrator / Network Administrator
Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, Michigan  49093  USA
http://www.armstrong-intl.com/
--------------------------------------------