- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open source renders patching a problem
|
|
|
Comments (19)
Microsoft renders patching a problem
I think the guy who wrote this smoked crack or had a bad virus and couldn't think straight. Or, his real name is Jayson Blair.
hey, let's start a Jason Blair series.
hey, let's start a Jason Blair series.
Guys, that's mean! This guy has expenses to meet, his habits are expensive even if he only retained the alcohol addiction alone. Give him a break, please. Even nickel crack habit adds up to real cash drain.
Who is Jason Blair? Yeah, I could Google, but I'm counting on you for the inside dish. :)
tuxchick: stop googling it's bad for your health
That's Jason from the horror flick and Blair from the 'Blair witch project'... Quite a suitable pseudonym really.
I'm really convinced that over half of these guys have never run Linux and are taking the subject matter and flaws to emphasise from an approved MS pick list.
I'm really convinced that over half of these guys have never run Linux and are taking the subject matter and flaws to emphasise from an approved MS pick list.
Can I google till I just need glasses?
Jason Blair? You're kidding. The writer for the New York Times who invented articles, facts, events, trips, interviews, etc. Got a book deal to disclose how he fooled his editors for a number of years. You know, that Jason Blair.
Mild mannered reporter for the Daily Planet, who by day, masquarades as Lois Lane's side kick, but by at night becomes SUPERMAN. Able to leap tall buildings with a single bound!
Mild mannered reporter for the Daily Planet, who by day, masquarades as Lois Lane's side kick, but by at night becomes SUPERMAN. Able to leap tall buildings with a single bound!
A Plethora of Patch Managment
While I've heard it argued that Linux OS's have too many ways of doing any given task, this is the first mention that there are too few package managers. I thought that Yast, Urpmi, Emerge, Apt-Get, and Yum (just to name a few) were what we collectively refer to as package managers. They even have auto update ancillary programs.. to do exactly what the author of this article states isn't available on Linux.
This one reads like a professional troll. Or like an article written by someone that didn't even look at the subject matter. Anyone writing "don't flame me, I'm not advocating for Microsoft" as an excuse for not researching what they write should have their keyboard revoked.
This one reads like a professional troll. Or like an article written by someone that didn't even look at the subject matter. Anyone writing "don't flame me, I'm not advocating for Microsoft" as an excuse for not researching what they write should have their keyboard revoked.
Complete and utter rubbish!
Gawdlmighty dang, this article sets a new low, even for ZDNet. It's disorganized, illogical, and devoid of pertinent facts- such as the fact that Linux has long had superior patch management. Geez, I wish I could get paid to be that ignorant and idiotic.
OK. I know being polite is rule #1 of good advocacy, but I felt like breaking the rules today.
Below is my emailed response to Mr. Mullins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand your story "Open source renders patching a problem".
Could you please explain how patching is a problem with Open Source software? Why is it important that they use third party software?
You do understand that all major Linux distros come with automated patch management, right? Fedora uses yum and an automatic yum nightly updates. Debian uses APT. Mandrake uses urpmi. Suse uses yast2. RedHat uses up2date and their RedHat Network allows the administrator to control and customize automated, fault tolerant patching of thousands of RHEL servers from a central web interface. The list goes on.
And you do understand that there is no "RedHat Linux" product anymore. Right?
Also, since you don't seem well informed on Open Source security, I should mention that distributions do not always upgrade to the latest package in their security patches. Often they back port the patch to an earlier version so as to make the smallest change possible while still patching the vulnerability. I only mention that because I suspect it could be a source of confusion to you.
Before asking that people think before sending you angry comments, you should start doing proper research before writing your articles. It's what you are getting paid to do. And it is what your readers have a right to expect.
Sincerely, Steve Bergman
Below is my emailed response to Mr. Mullins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand your story "Open source renders patching a problem".
Could you please explain how patching is a problem with Open Source software? Why is it important that they use third party software?
You do understand that all major Linux distros come with automated patch management, right? Fedora uses yum and an automatic yum nightly updates. Debian uses APT. Mandrake uses urpmi. Suse uses yast2. RedHat uses up2date and their RedHat Network allows the administrator to control and customize automated, fault tolerant patching of thousands of RHEL servers from a central web interface. The list goes on.
And you do understand that there is no "RedHat Linux" product anymore. Right?
Also, since you don't seem well informed on Open Source security, I should mention that distributions do not always upgrade to the latest package in their security patches. Often they back port the patch to an earlier version so as to make the smallest change possible while still patching the vulnerability. I only mention that because I suspect it could be a source of confusion to you.
Before asking that people think before sending you angry comments, you should start doing proper research before writing your articles. It's what you are getting paid to do. And it is what your readers have a right to expect.
Sincerely, Steve Bergman
If that's your idea of a flame, well, it barely emitted warmth. :)
That's a very good response. I submitted a Talkback, we'll see if they deign to post it.
That's a very good response. I submitted a Talkback, we'll see if they deign to post it.
Well, it was one of those politely worded, politically correct emails that basically says "I think you are an ignoramous". The packaging was good advocacy. The message was not. But today... I DON'T CARE. ;-)
-Steve
-Steve
haha, no Talkbacks posted
They usually get Talkbacks up quickly. I wonder if they got only negative ones, and are ignoring them.
Tuxchick, Tuxchick.... "http://insight.zdnet.co.uk" runs Linux/Apache. ( http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://insight.z... ) It is more likely that they are too busy pouring over the source code and rolling their own security patches to post the talkbacks. You know how open-source vendors are. Once they've got your money for the initial purchase they don't care about you anymore. With OSS, its all about the purchase. And service doesn't really matter.
Look at the two most popular Linux distros: SLS and Yggdrasil. Neither one provides an automated patch management system, whereas Microsoft has had that feature for years.
OSS has a lot of catching up to do if they want to match Microsoft's security record.
Before sending me angry flames, please stop and consider that I'm not advocating that we replace Open-Source software with Microsoft. But we really do need to introduce some 3rd party proprietary security solutions into Linux distros to fix the problems.
Look at the two most popular Linux distros: SLS and Yggdrasil. Neither one provides an automated patch management system, whereas Microsoft has had that feature for years.
OSS has a lot of catching up to do if they want to match Microsoft's security record.
Before sending me angry flames, please stop and consider that I'm not advocating that we replace Open-Source software with Microsoft. But we really do need to introduce some 3rd party proprietary security solutions into Linux distros to fix the problems.
Tom Aldestein asked:
> Is this a joke or what?
Yes. :-)
No one has sent me angry flames. The author of the original article made a plea for us not to send them. He was obviously expecting some...
> Is this a joke or what?
Yes. :-)
No one has sent me angry flames. The author of the original article made a plea for us not to send them. He was obviously expecting some...
I understand SCO is innovating some global-solution patch managers for Linux.
understand SCO is innovating some global-solution patch managers for Linux. .....
Did they get any of the code from sony?
Did they get any of the code from sony?
Still no Talkbacks posted. What lamers.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
And what does the author think? That someone building a production server is going to get every piece of software directly from its creator and work from there, patching along by hand everything they installed, rather than install a distribution which packs everything nicely, and provides a security update service? I'm sorry, but what does the author think people use as a server OS? Linux From Scratch?!
I have only a few words to add: Debian GNU/Linux, cron-apt, security repository. Patches rounds around Microsoft Automatic Update any day.