Linux Freeware

[Max Quordlepleen]

Most of the security holes "in Linux" are in the various UNIX
applications that run on top of the Linux kernel. The kernel
itself rarely has security problems (though it has had them).
There is no comparison to Windows which allows apps deep access to
the kernel.

In any event, while Linux has security problems, they are fixed
much more quickly than Microsoft security holes, and there
certainly is not anywhere near as many malware programs running
around.

I agree. I am not anti-Linux, I dual-boot between W2K and Mandrake 9.2.
What I am against is the tactic of attacking M$ by making exaggerated
claims about Linux. It is unnecessary, since Linux stands on its own
merits, and the sort of infantile twaddle to which I was responding
only serves to impugn *NIX's viability as an option to M$. Your post,
on the other hand, detailed factual areas of difference. That is how it
should be. In one NG I subscribe too, there is a never-ending war
bewtween the "Linux sux!" crowd and the "M$ sux" gang. Neither side
lets the facts get in the way of their trolling, and when I see that
sort of uncritical propaganda elsewhere, I tend to feel a desire to
counter it.

 

[Kevin Davis³]

Most of the security holes "in Linux" are in the various UNIX
applications that run on top of the Linux kernel. The kernel itself
rarely has security problems (though it has had them). There is no
comparison to Windows which allows apps deep access to the kernel.

That's not a good argument, IMHO. IE, OE, MSOffice, IIS, etc has tons
of vulnerabilities and nobody, particularly Linux users have a problem
with them being categorized as "Windows" vulnerabilities. Yes, they
are written by Microsoft, but they are not part of the kernel either.
You have to be consistent. I think anything that is chosen to
generally be bundled by the OS distribution(s) is fair game on both
sides. To do much of anything else ends up ultimately being an
exercise in who can manipulate the data the best to support their own
bias.

 

[Kevin Davis³]

more than ten or twenty worms and less than ten viruses, IIRC.
Compare that to several score thousand trojans and viruses for
Windows

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. While several thousand
Windows based viruses exist, the vast majority of these viruses are
considered "zoo" viruses. The "zoo" viruses consist of viruses that
have either never been released or discovered in the "wild" or are so
old and obsolete that they no longer pose a serious threat. I just
read a security bulletin recently that I believe stated that there are
roughly 600 viruses out of the several thousand that are legitimate
threats.

But I'm not trying to imply that 600 is not a significant number more
than a couple dozen. It is, it's just not as bad as the raw numbers
would lead one to believe.

 

[Offbreed]

The "work in progress" claim is a cop out to own up to the flaws.
Funny how people on one hand are pushing Linux to be the
desktop/server/enterprise replacements for Windows *NOW*, but when the
flaws are mentioned, the "work in progress" excuse is made which
somehow does not apply to the others. Can't have it both ways.

I want Linux to succeed and present stiff competition to Microsoft,
but no double-standards, please.

This is why I'm looking at OpenBSD.

 

[Richard Steven Hack]

That's not a good argument, IMHO. IE, OE, MSOffice, IIS, etc has tons
of vulnerabilities and nobody, particularly Linux users have a problem
with them being categorized as "Windows" vulnerabilities. Yes, they
are written by Microsoft, but they are not part of the kernel either.

BUT they are mostly dependent on the fact that these utilities are
deeply connected to the kernel. That has been Microsoft's problem all
along. Their utilities allow penetration of the kernel too easily.
Granted, there are cases where Linux utilities allow one to obtain
root access, but even there the kernel itself is not penetrated - it
is merely tricked into granting root access.

Actually I've always thought the fact that in UNIX root has complete
power is a bad design decision. The kernel should have supreme power
and root should have less - although much more than an ordinary user.

 

[Richard Steven Hack]

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. While several thousand
Windows based viruses exist, the vast majority of these viruses are
considered "zoo" viruses. The "zoo" viruses consist of viruses that
have either never been released or discovered in the "wild" or are so
old and obsolete that they no longer pose a serious threat. I just
read a security bulletin recently that I believe stated that there are
roughly 600 viruses out of the several thousand that are legitimate
threats.

But I'm not trying to imply that 600 is not a significant number more
than a couple dozen. It is, it's just not as bad as the raw numbers
would lead one to believe.

Well, according to this article in Security Focus, this is the
situation:
======================================================
According to Dr. Nic Peeling and Dr Julian Satchell's Analysis of the
Impact of Open Source Software

"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the
Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for
Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many
hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh
viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix
or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the
laboratory."
========================================================

While they agree with you that most Windows viruses are not prevalent
enough to be important, NONE of the UNIX and Linux viruses are
important.

The one caveat I would have about the above statement is, they seem to
conflate worms with viruses, since I doubt there are actually 40
viruses for Linux. The last "virus" list for Linux I saw listed
sixteen - and most of those were actually worms. Worms are only
dangerous if they utilize a root exploit and even then most of them do
no direct damage to the system - their goal is to continue traveling
and they require a functional system to do this.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

I am planning to migrate to Lindows in the new year with a dual boot
system which will allow me to eventually remove Wundoze.

Lindows appear to have a lot of "standard" freeware, but I was
wondering about not so common tasks.

eg. Audio & Movie editing software. CAD, CFD, Flight Simulation

Suggestions, URL's please?

Thank you,

I would NOT recommend Lindows. Any Linux distro that defaults to installing
one ruser, and as root, is not following safe practice. For a painless
conversion to Linux, with heaps of software, try the Mandrake PowerPack. I
just got mine yesterday, for the equivalent of of $48US. 7CDs, hundreds of
app., including CAD and Flight simulator, along with multimedia editing
software.

 

[Kevin Davis³]

BUT they are mostly dependent on the fact that these utilities are
deeply connected to the kernel. That has been Microsoft's problem all
along. Their utilities allow penetration of the kernel too easily.
Granted, there are cases where Linux utilities allow one to obtain
root access, but even there the kernel itself is not penetrated - it
is merely tricked into granting root access.

Actually I've always thought the fact that in UNIX root has complete
power is a bad design decision. The kernel should have supreme power
and root should have less - although much more than an ordinary user.

I would generally agree that the basic design Microsoft has adopted is
more susceptible to weakness. But I don't agree that most of the
above mentioned vulnerability types are "deeply connected to the
kernel". In any case, here is the problem from my point of view. One
of the reasons (certainly not the only one) that Windows is a very
popular OS is that the design allows for such flexibility and use from
the end user standpoint. Linux is generally more restrictive and thus
less susceptible. However, for Linux to mount a serious challenge to
the desktop, it will have to make some tradeoffs in this area and if
so will likely be facing many of the same issues that Microsoft has.
If it doesn't it faces the distinct possibility that it will remain in
a distant 3rd place in the desktop market.

 

[Kevin Davis³]

While they agree with you that most Windows viruses are not prevalent
enough to be important, NONE of the UNIX and Linux viruses are
important.

The one caveat I would have about the above statement is, they seem to
conflate worms with viruses, since I doubt there are actually 40
viruses for Linux. The last "virus" list for Linux I saw listed
sixteen - and most of those were actually worms. Worms are only
dangerous if they utilize a root exploit and even then most of them do
no direct damage to the system - their goal is to continue traveling
and they require a functional system to do this.

IMO, there are a couple primary points that contribute to the effect.

First, I do think there is merit in the suggestion that the magnitude
(in number) of viruses/worms written is generally affected by the
popularity of the platform. People who write these things want them
to proliferate across the net as much as possible. The most appealing
platform to do this would be the most popular one.

Second, user expertise. Most users who are using Linux are more
knowledgable and savvy to configure their systems more securely and
are less likely to succumb to social engineering (like the email
attachments) than grandma running Windows 98. This is a tribute to
the users of Linux but says little about the general susceptibility of
the OS's with all other things being equal. This could explain some
of the reason why most of the Linux viruses/worms don't gain much
traction. We've got tons of technology clueless people using Windows.
People who have no concept that they need to keep their system updated
with the latest security patches and run virus scanners.

When and if Linux becomes a serious competitor (in market-share) in
the desktop market and we have countless grandmas and technology
clueless people using Linux and 20x the malware being written for
Linux, we may see a different set of statistics. One could also
speculate that to get to be a serious desktop competitor, Linux may
have to make more compromises and leave themselves a bit more open to
this stuff as well.

Third, Windows has more susceptibility for things like this. How much
so is difficult to objectively measure. It is clear, IMO, that the
difference is nowhere near the implication of 10,000 Windows viruses
versus 20 Linux.

Fourth, related to # 2 and #3, above - default configuration settings.
A knowledgable Windows user can make a Windows box almost as secure as
a Linux box. I do think Linux has the edge, though. One of the
problems is that with Windows it takes more work to make it fairly
secure. There are a lot of default configuration settings in Windows
that makes for an insecure system. There are (or used to be) some
like that in Linux too, but not as many. Microsoft is finally making
some changes in this area. One of the primary reasons they were
touting Windows 2003 Server as their most secure was because of them
changing default configurations. On the desktop scene they are going
to start doing stuff like enabling their (slightly better than
worthless) built in firewall and turning off mostly useless services
like the Messenger Service.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

it faces the distinct possibility that it will remain in
a distant 3rd place in the desktop market.

Third? behind MS and who else? Surely not Mac, since there are almost
certainly already more Linux desktops than Mac. Unless, of course,
you're restricting the statement to a strictly US-centric POV. In
countries like Brazil, India, China and Thailand, government support of
Linux will definitely see it established as at the least the second-
place holder, quite possibly first. The great thing about the growth in
these countries, especially the THai situation, is that for thousands
and thousands of people, Linux is their first introduction to
computing. This means that they will "grow up" familiar with the *NIX
way of doing things, and won't feel the need to adopt the less secure
Microsoft approach, IMO.

 

[techie]

One of the problems is that with Windows it takes more work to make it
fairly secure.

Another is that once you get Windows as secure as you can, you can never
count on it remaining that way through later installations of updates
and patches. I never worry about this with Linux where updates and
patches do exactly what they say, and with great respect for current
security configuration.

 

[Kevin Davis³]

Third? behind MS and who else? Surely not Mac, since there are almost
certainly already more Linux desktops than Mac. Unless, of course,
you're restricting the statement to a strictly US-centric POV. In
countries like Brazil, India, China and Thailand, government support of
Linux will definitely see it established as at the least the second-
place holder, quite possibly first. The great thing about the growth in
these countries, especially the THai situation, is that for thousands
and thousands of people, Linux is their first introduction to
computing. This means that they will "grow up" familiar with the *NIX
way of doing things, and won't feel the need to adopt the less secure
Microsoft approach, IMO.

It is possible that Linux has surpassed the Mac on the desktop. Last
time I checked market shares may have been over 6 months to a year ago
where the Mac had maybe 5 - 8% and Linux had something like 2 - 3%. I
would be willing to be corrected if some facts were presented.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

I
would be willing to be corrected if some facts were presented.

Facts? We don' need no steenkin' facts! I gave you a WAG, that should
be good enough, surely? <g>

 

[Richard Steven Hack]

It is possible that Linux has surpassed the Mac on the desktop. Last
time I checked market shares may have been over 6 months to a year ago
where the Mac had maybe 5 - 8% and Linux had something like 2 - 3%. I
would be willing to be corrected if some facts were presented.

From an Internation Herald Tribune article:

Dan Kusnetzky, an analyst for International Data Corp., said Linux had
a 3.9 percent share of desktops worldwide, outpacing Macintosh's 3.1
percent.

 

[Richard Steven Hack]

When and if Linux becomes a serious competitor (in market-share) in
the desktop market and we have countless grandmas and technology
clueless people using Linux and 20x the malware being written for
Linux, we may see a different set of statistics. One could also
speculate that to get to be a serious desktop competitor, Linux may
have to make more compromises and leave themselves a bit more open to
this stuff as well.

I doubt it. Linux can do just about everything Windows can do now -
unless you're counting things like embedded ActiveX controls and COM
stuff which I doubt even most of the corporations are bothering to
use. Certainly naive end users aren't doing anything with that stuff.
Most end users use a very small percentage of the capabilities of any
OS. I've seen nothing to suggest Linux needs to change its approach.
If anything, it could go the other way - things like "user mode Linux"
which allows one to run a kernel on top of another kernel and lock
users into using the uppermost kernel as a security measure.

Third, Windows has more susceptibility for things like this. How much
so is difficult to objectively measure. It is clear, IMO, that the
difference is nowhere near the implication of 10,000 Windows viruses
versus 20 Linux.

Objectively measuring it is indeed difficult. However, the fact
remains that the bulk of malware is on Windows, not Linux. While I
believe the main reason for that is the relative abundance of Windows
vrs. Linux, and I do believe the situation will eventually get worse
for Linux, the bottom line is that Linux and UNIX in general has been
DESIGNED for better security than Windows. Even Microsoft's own
corporate security people have acknowledged this in the past publicly.

And if Linux is ever used by half a billion people, I suspect the
amount of effort put into supporting that by the open source community
will benefit from the "eyeball" effect and render Linux even MORE
secure. It's not clear whether more users means exposing more
vulnerabilities faster than they can be fixed or not. I think it
depends on the development method - and here open source has an edge
on proprietary since more people are involved in development and code
review. While this is not a guarantee against vulnerabilities in the
first place, as some may claim, it does seem very true that fixes are
faster in the open source community than in proprietary development.
There was a recent article somewhere that analyzed the time between
discovery of a vulnerability and availability of a patch, and I think
Linux came in ahead of Microsoft by some days on average.

Fourth, related to # 2 and #3, above - default configuration settings.
A knowledgable Windows user can make a Windows box almost as secure as
a Linux box. I do think Linux has the edge, though. One of the
problems is that with Windows it takes more work to make it fairly
secure. There are a lot of default configuration settings in Windows
that makes for an insecure system. There are (or used to be) some
like that in Linux too, but not as many. Microsoft is finally making
some changes in this area. One of the primary reasons they were
touting Windows 2003 Server as their most secure was because of them
changing default configurations. On the desktop scene they are going
to start doing stuff like enabling their (slightly better than
worthless) built in firewall and turning off mostly useless services
like the Messenger Service.

If you look at most of the Windows problems, it does not seem like
they depend on default configurations. Some do, more in the past than
now, true. But many of them clearly depend on Windows services being
coded insecurely - buffer overflows and the like. The same is true in
Linux - most of the vulnerabilities you see are the result of poor
security coding practices. I suspect Linux has better security
primarily because people who code for Linux are more competent than
the college grads Microsoft hired with no real-world coding
experience.

And if you turn off all the vulnerable services, there goes Windows
so-called "flexibility".

And TWO - almost THREE - YEARS after Microsoft promised an intensified
concentration on security and instituted a code freeze to re-examine
all their code, there are still new vulnerabilities cropping up on a
weekly, if not daily, basis. Microsoft has now announced yet ANOTHER
round of "devotion to security". Meanwhile, Gates himself was
recently quoted as saying security was no big deal and users should
just apply their patches and shut up. It should be obvious that the
corporate hierarchy in Microsoft simply is NOT interested in security.

In any event, Linux is far more secure against at least viruses now
and for the foreseeable future than Windows will ever be.

 

[Richard Steven Hack]

In any case, here is the problem from my point of view. One
of the reasons (certainly not the only one) that Windows is a very
popular OS is that the design allows for such flexibility and use from
the end user standpoint. Linux is generally more restrictive and thus
less susceptible. However, for Linux to mount a serious challenge to
the desktop, it will have to make some tradeoffs in this area and if
so will likely be facing many of the same issues that Microsoft has.
If it doesn't it faces the distinct possibility that it will remain in
a distant 3rd place in the desktop market.

Windows is no more flexible in that regard than Linux - in fact, less
so. From a naive end user standpoint, most of the "flexibility" is
never used in either OS. From the sophisticated user standpoint,
Linux is FAR more configurable and modifiable than Windows will ever
be. Linux runs on everything from PDAs to supercomputers which is a
direct result of its configurability and flexibiliy. WIndows can't
possibly match Linux's range of systems or "tweakability".

From the naive end user standpoint, Linux is no more restrictive than
Windows. In fact, less so again. Linux can do anything Windows can
do. If, however, you want Linux to do something exactly the way
Windows does it, or if you want Linux to do something that is
Microsoft proprietary, then you have a problem. But even here, it is
amazing how flexible Linux can be. For instance, Linux can read
FAT16, FAT32, and NTFS partitions, whereas Windows has no clue about
the Linux file system (although you can get utilities written for
Windows that can read Linux file systems). Not to mention things like
Samba which acts as a Windows file server better than NT used to do.

The main restriction on Linux today is that there are still many
hardware manufacturers who don't bother to write Linux drivers for
their hardware. The Linux community is still able to support most
common hardware (varies by distro with SuSE being the most cutting
edge in this regard) and can frequently be tweaked to support the less
common hardware. Some things, like internal DSL modems, are too
complex to be supported this way, unfortunately. But usually there is
a workaround, e.g., in the DSL case, use an external modem. People
who switch to Linux simply need to be aware of possible problems with
highly specialized hardware. and the alternatives.

 

[Kevin Davis³]

I doubt it. Linux can do just about everything Windows can do now -
unless you're counting things like embedded ActiveX controls and COM
stuff which I doubt even most of the corporations are bothering to
use. Certainly naive end users aren't doing anything with that stuff.
Most end users use a very small percentage of the capabilities of any
OS. I've seen nothing to suggest Linux needs to change its approach.
If anything, it could go the other way - things like "user mode Linux"
which allows one to run a kernel on top of another kernel and lock
users into using the uppermost kernel as a security measure.

One example - I've heard OpenOffice (maybe StarOffice) is going to or
already supports MS Office Macros which has been a vulnerable area.

Also, there have been accounts of people become susceptible to Windows
based viruses by running Windows apps under WINE. IMO, WINE and those
like it are a bad idea. I think it's a losing battle to try to take
market share from an OS by providing emulators to allow users to do
this. As good as some emulators are, they typically are noticeably
less stable and more sluggish than the real thing. I think a
brilliant example of how this approach fails is OS/2.

I hope that you are correct. I have my doubts, though. Only time
will tell.

Objectively measuring it is indeed difficult. However, the fact
remains that the bulk of malware is on Windows, not Linux. While I
believe the main reason for that is the relative abundance of Windows
vrs. Linux, and I do believe the situation will eventually get worse
for Linux, the bottom line is that Linux and UNIX in general has been
DESIGNED for better security than Windows. Even Microsoft's own
corporate security people have acknowledged this in the past publicly.

And I acknowledge it as well. I just happen to feel that the
magnitude of this difference is not a large as commonly "advertised".

And if Linux is ever used by half a billion people, I suspect the
amount of effort put into supporting that by the open source community
will benefit from the "eyeball" effect and render Linux even MORE
secure. It's not clear whether more users means exposing more
vulnerabilities faster than they can be fixed or not. I think it
depends on the development method - and here open source has an edge
on proprietary since more people are involved in development and code
review. While this is not a guarantee against vulnerabilities in the
first place, as some may claim, it does seem very true that fixes are
faster in the open source community than in proprietary development.
There was a recent article somewhere that analyzed the time between
discovery of a vulnerability and availability of a patch, and I think
Linux came in ahead of Microsoft by some days on average.

Possibly. I think in both systems there are tradeoffs to be sure.
I'm not convinced at this time that one is inherently better than the
other. I'm partially convinced that one may never objectively know
since there are so many other variables that are involved. One issue
is that at the current time, proprietary projects definitely have more
pressure due to schedule. But I also think that open source can also
feel some pressure in that area. It doesn't so much now because there
aren't a half billion people using the product. But when and if they
do, I think there will be a big difference in the pressure that is
"felt" to get something out to appease the masses. It may not be
based on an official schedule, but I think it will be there
nonetheless. And we'll see how well the Open Source community reacts
to 500 million users constantly clamoring at them to fix this , add
that, etc. And for them to do it all for free. Up until recently the
users have been mostly confined to themselves and a small collective
of people very sympathetic to them (brought together by a common
"enemy"). It will be interesting to see how this all pans out when
this no longer is the case. Maybe nothing will change. I hope it
doesn't.

In either case, I am grateful for the Open Source community and the
products it puts out. It forces faster evolution in technology in the
commercial sector particularly.

If you look at most of the Windows problems, it does not seem like
they depend on default configurations. Some do, more in the past than
now, true. But many of them clearly depend on Windows services being
coded insecurely - buffer overflows and the like. The same is true in
Linux - most of the vulnerabilities you see are the result of poor
security coding practices. I suspect Linux has better security
primarily because people who code for Linux are more competent than
the college grads Microsoft hired with no real-world coding
experience.

To be sure there are plenty of insecure code going on. However, there
is also plenty of problems with default settings. I don't think that
there is any merit in claiming that Microsoft's developers are
inherently worse than Open Source developers. I think that again -
schedule pressures play a large part in the coding errors.

And if you turn off all the vulnerable services, there goes Windows
so-called "flexibility".

Not all of it. In general, I would without a doubt say that Windows
as far as ease of use for the typical user is still significantly
ahead. There are possible two types of users that this would not be
true of. First, the super geek who would prefer the CLI over the GUI
and second, the user who never, ever diverges from clicking on two,
maybe three icons - email and web browsing. But that's really a
different debate.

And TWO - almost THREE - YEARS after Microsoft promised an intensified
concentration on security and instituted a code freeze to re-examine
all their code, there are still new vulnerabilities cropping up on a
weekly, if not daily, basis. Microsoft has now announced yet ANOTHER
round of "devotion to security". Meanwhile, Gates himself was
recently quoted as saying security was no big deal and users should
just apply their patches and shut up. It should be obvious that the
corporate hierarchy in Microsoft simply is NOT interested in security.

Completely valid criticism, IMO. They need to get their act together.

 

[Kevin Davis³]

From an Internation Herald Tribune article:

Dan Kusnetzky, an analyst for International Data Corp., said Linux had
a 3.9 percent share of desktops worldwide, outpacing Macintosh's 3.1
percent.

Can you provide a link?

Thanks

 

[Kevin Davis³]

Windows is no more flexible in that regard than Linux - in fact, less
so. From a naive end user standpoint, most of the "flexibility" is
never used in either OS. From the sophisticated user standpoint,
Linux is FAR more configurable and modifiable than Windows will ever
be. Linux runs on everything from PDAs to supercomputers which is a
direct result of its configurability and flexibiliy. WIndows can't
possibly match Linux's range of systems or "tweakability".

From the naive end user standpoint, Linux is no more restrictive than
Windows. In fact, less so again. Linux can do anything Windows can
do. If, however, you want Linux to do something exactly the way
Windows does it, or if you want Linux to do something that is
Microsoft proprietary, then you have a problem. But even here, it is
amazing how flexible Linux can be. For instance, Linux can read
FAT16, FAT32, and NTFS partitions, whereas Windows has no clue about
the Linux file system (although you can get utilities written for
Windows that can read Linux file systems). Not to mention things like
Samba which acts as a Windows file server better than NT used to do.

The main restriction on Linux today is that there are still many
hardware manufacturers who don't bother to write Linux drivers for
their hardware. The Linux community is still able to support most
common hardware (varies by distro with SuSE being the most cutting
edge in this regard) and can frequently be tweaked to support the less
common hardware. Some things, like internal DSL modems, are too
complex to be supported this way, unfortunately. But usually there is
a workaround, e.g., in the DSL case, use an external modem. People
who switch to Linux simply need to be aware of possible problems with
highly specialized hardware. and the alternatives.

Let me correct that. I mostly meant usability. To be sure, this can
be much different than flexibility. I mean this in the context of the
typical user, not some uber geek. Virtually everyone who has argued
with me on this was such that they felt GUIs at best were necessary
evils to allow idiots to use Linux. And when examining many of the
GUIs designed for Linux/Open Source, it appears to me that this
mentality is common.

I also am confronted with anecdotal stories of how someone set up
their Grandma with Linux and she does just fine. I don't doubt that
there are cases like this out there, but to extrapolate that out to
cover the majority of users like this is, IMO, a total pipe dream.
And it is regrettable that this is so. I see a lot of denial that
there is a problem here - much like the denial you hear from Microsoft
about their security problems. IMO, what would give Linux a big boost
is some top notch GUI and usability improvements. Now, I'm not saying
that the usability is awful. It is not. In fact it has improved
dramatically in the last 3 years. But I feel it still falls short.

And this is the rub. I have been reading the newsgroups. forums, and
sites like slashdot for years and my observations of those advocating
competing OS's (to Microsoft) have seen one commonality that is a big
problem. The larger - or at least most vocal representatives of these
groups seem to adopt a very defensive position. Any criticism of
their preferred OS is instantly viewed as an attack by the enemy and
without merit. There is no concept of constructive criticism. The
idea that their choice may need some improvements to really be a
serious consideration is anathema. This frustrates me to no end.
There is nothing I would like better than for there to be 2 or 3
affordable OS's out there competing with each other.

As far as the Mac goes, I am surprised it remained at #2 as long as it
did. They killed themselves by being greedy and not allowing any
clones which would have made them affordable. The window closed on
them and they lost market share big time. Now they are still more
expensive, but not outrageously so. The problem being that there is
not that much of a compelling reason for the typical user to spend any
more money to buy a Mac. And of course now they are charging $130
every 6 months for OS upgrades. I don't think they'll ever exceed the
roughly 5 - 8 % market share.

 

[Glenn]

Cropped

I just did a Google search on Linus Freeware out of curiosity wondering if
it could be loaded on my unpartitioned hd just to look at and see what all
the conversation was about. I found this on the first page up........

Linux: freeware--at a price
Last modified: February 8, 1999, 6:35 AM PST
By Stephen Shankland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


news analysis Linux is leaving its freeware image behind as companies try to
make money off the operating system's growing popularity.



Note that is 4 years old. What has happened in the meantime?

Glenn