Re: Correction to "More on Alas and Alack'

["Joseph E. DeGraw" <coffee412 attbi com>]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:09, alex wrote:


> 
> Or maybe---just maybe--- some Linux users are just a teensy 
> bit oversensitive about anything that remotely resembles 
> criticism of their favored operating system.
> 
Im not. I accept criticism of linux. However, Alot of criticism comes
from people that have never even used it or know much about it. 


> My "crime," in the eyes of some Linuxen, is in the article 
> at http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030124S0013 . 
> You see, I counted the number of patches, bug fixes and 
> updates released for Red Hat Linux 7.2, and compared that to 
> the number of patches, bug fixes and updates released for 
> Windows XP. Even though both OSes have been out almost 
> exactly the same amount of time, and even though I 
> explicitly stated the caveats and conditions necessary for 
> the stats to make sense, some Linux fans simply couldn't 
> accept the numbers, which show that Linux has its own full 
> share of bugs--- some 151 patches to date.

Your crime is trying to compare Linux to Windows. Also keep in mind that
drivers are usually not released to Linux. They are backwards engineered
by very great programmers. Microsoft seems to have a clause on sharing
info with other operating systems. 

I would feel alot better about an operating system if it had more
patches. Atlease Linux takes the time to release them. Also, You dont
have to pay for them either (in the case of moving from win95 to 98 and
then 2000). 

> 
> But--- this is important--- there's lots more to this than 
> the raw numbers. For example, patches may be "ganged" to fix 
> more than one bug at a time, so (say) one Microsoft patch 
> may actually reflect several different bugs. Plus, there's 
> no exact, one-for-one correlation between even the base, 
> low-level services in the different OSes. And both systems 
> usually ship with many additional bundled high-level 
> components that carry their own, separate load of bugs, and 
> that may required their own patches.
> 

How do I know that a MS patch isnt something that provides more personal
information about me. In the case of MS's latest DVD player it collects
info about you and sends it on to MS. 





> So, the point wasn't the exact numbers per se. The point was 
> to get a rough comparison between operating systems to show 
> that--- despite the extravagant claims of some Linuxen--- no 
> OS is immune to bugs and security issues: As Linux grows in 
> popularity, it will have its own full share of problems. 
> Indeed, it has that full share even now.
> 
This point is argued time and time again to help preserve the Microsoft
image. The truth of the matter is Linux is not as old as MS and doesnt
have hardware companies writing drivers for it. Dedicated individuals
spend their valuable time doing this thru reverse engineering or thru
constant comunication with manufactuers. Of course there are going to be
some bugs! Ever write a hardware device driver?

> But some (actually many) among the Linux user base can't 
> admit this: Anything that suggests that Linux has some 
> serious warts, or that not all Microsoft products are 
> Absolute Evil Encoded, gets denied or rejected out of hand: 
> One poster actually tried to argue that my analysis was 
> flawed because "Red Hat Linux isn't Linux." (What?) Another 

It isnt. I know this is hard but heres the scoop: Linux is the kernel
not the operating system. Ok? So, SuSie isnt linux, Redhat isnt linux,
Slackware isnt linux ect.... Understand now?

> took the tack of arguing that I'm simply a "bootlicking 
> shill." (Yes, ad hominem arguments and 
> debate-by-name-calling are staples of discourse in the Linux 
> community.)

I dont. But Im sure there are those that do on both sides of the fence.

> 
> So, am I a bootlicking shill? Decide for yourself: Come 
> check out 
> http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030124S0013 . You 
> can follow the links in that article back to the actual 
> bug-report pages and judge the number and seriousness of 
> various bugs for yourself, so you can make your own informed 
> assessment as to what's real and what's not in this ongoing 
> debate about the quality of Open Source software. The 
> firestorm of comment appears in the associated discussion area.

Your argument doesnt hold water at all. So, If I came up with a new
operating system and decided I would not bother to write bug fixes then
I would have no bug fixes! Now compare that to MS. Is mine better???

Writing bug fixes shows a concern for the user especially when they are
released in a timely mannor. Not like MS where they just dont mention it
and hope no one asks.

> 
> (And please excuse the sulfurous smell. I had an itch behind 
> one horn, and ended up stabbing myself in the cloven foot 
> with my pointed tail. It ain't easy being Satan's spawn...)
> ------------------------
Also, Dont put yourself down. Just come back from the dark side luke
<grin>.



> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-install-list mailing list
> Redhat-install-list redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-install-list
> To Unsubscribe Go To ABOVE URL or send a message to:
> redhat-install-list-request redhat com
> Subject: unsubscribe
-- 
jDeGraw
Mishawaka, Indiana
coffee four one two @ attbi dot com