Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

More on Masterbaiting Monkeys

Filed under
Linux




Why give this fanboy nonsense publicity?

It's a blatant untruth on Torvalds's part, born of complete ignorance of the way in which OpenBSD's actually maintained, made in full knowledge of the fact that anything he says about the *BSDs (and OpenBSD in particular) will be parroted by every idiot who fancies he might have something to gain by blindly uncritical Linux advocacy.

re: nonsense

Well, I think the first article I saw on the subject sums it up for me:

Linus is known for being the best coder he can be, and backing his words up. When Linus went after the Gnome developers and their clique, he backed up his firestorm with actual code. Linus is seen as being rude in the light that there is something behind the rudeness.

And I just happen to agree with him. So many times security issues are blown out of proportion. Most of the time they are obscure issues that would never be exploited in the every day life, but let's make a big deal out of them giving crackers more information to use against us. Yes, the security issues should be known and fixed, but as Linus said, just as any other bug. Many other times they are used by Microsoft people to prove Linux isn't any more secure than Windows.

Should Linus have used that metaphor? Well, no, probably not. But he is entitled to express his opinion and make his point. I just wouldn't have been so rude about it.

As far as linking to the headlines - that's what I do. I don't have to agree with them and many times I don't like the articles I link to. But I'm not into censorship. I'm always catching hell for linking to articles that "insult" Linux or OSS. But folks need to know the good and the bad. They need to know what other folks are saying. Some may want to go to the site and comment. It'd get pretty boring around here if I ignored everything somebody thinks I shouldn't link to. I try to please the crowd, but you can't. You can't please everybody all the time. I just do the best I can with what I know how.

re: re: nonsense

Well I pretty much side with Security.

If you're driving down the road at 70 mph, and your tire blows out just as you notice your glovebox won't stay shut, are you: A) more worried about the blown out tire that might cause you to careen out of control and maybe die, or Cool more worried about the glovebox because that annoys your passenger? Obviously some problems are more important then others.

Security - especially at the enterprise level - is the PRIMARY concern. PERIOD. And the fact that it's obscure and MIGHT not be exploited is a very weak (and stupid) security practice (if your business has 15 entrances - do you leave one door unlocked because maybe a thief is too lazy to check all 15 doors?)

Also, it's sad when the developer of Linux states that "all bugs" are equal. Since they are pretty much are all equally IGNORED, for proof, look at pretty much any 6 month rush-to-release distro.

Because of that, I for one, am GLAD that security problems get the hype and attention. I don't want a possible exploit vector ignored for 3 or 4 releases because it's just another bug.

re: re: nonsense

Yes, of course, you're right. I was a bit flippant with that original remark due to being on the defensive. I went too far the other way to try and justify my actions.

re: nonsense

> But folks need to know the good and the bad.

No, they just need to be well-informed. Isn't the fact that you can apply years of knowledge and judgement (and therefore a measure of discrimination) what distinguishes tuxmachines.org from automated aggregators?

> So many times security issues are blown out of proportion. Most of the time they are obscure issues that
> would never be exploited in the every day life, but let's make a big deal out of them giving crackers
> more information to use against us.

I'd have thought full disclosure was necessary to any serious, open source security auditing. It's certainly established policy with every other major FLOSS OS.

In any event, the distinction between (in Torvalds's words) "boring normal bugs" and security bugs is ultimately unfounded, provided, that is, your security policy's proactive (as in the case of OpenBSD) rather than than reactive (as is largely the case with Linux). I quote:

"During our ongoing auditing process we find many bugs, and endeavor to fix them even though exploitability is not proven. We fix the bug, and we move on to find other bugs to fix. We have fixed many simple and obvious careless programming errors in code and only months later discovered that the problems were in fact exploitable."

re: re: nonsense

well, "well-informed" was exactly what I meant. It's what I try to do.

> I'd have thought full disclosure was necessary to any serious, open source security auditing. It's certainly established policy with every other major FLOSS OS.

yes, you're right. Of course it is.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Defending the Free Linux World

Co-opetition is a part of open source. The Open Invention Network model allows companies to decide where they will compete and where they will collaborate, explained OIN CEO Keith Bergelt. As open source evolved, "we had to create channels for collaboration. Otherwise, we would have hundreds of entities spending billions of dollars on the same technology." Read more

And the best distro of 2014 is ...

Looking back at my 2013 summary, I just realized I'm a bloody prophet. I wanted openSUSE to make a nice comeback, and it did. And I wanted Fedora to shine, and it did, and it's version 20 no less. The utter and total dominance of the Ubuntu family has been shattered, and this is a very good thing. Competition is always good. What about Mint, you ask? Well, Linux Mint behaved splendidly, but this year, the few spins I tried weren't as sharp and spectacular as what we saw in 2013. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the best-of is more than just a list of grades. It also packs an emotional element, a surprise element, as well as the overall combination of what the selected distributions have achieved with their given parameters. For instance, CentOS is not supposed to be a desktop system, so when it does that well, it's more interesting than similar results with the stock Ubuntu family members and cousins. Hence, this list and its players. Of course, this is entirely my private, subjective observation, but I think it fits the global shift in the Linux field. With the Mir vs Wayland game, a big delay in Ubuntu Edge, and a general cooling off in the distro space, seeing more effort from outside the Ubuntu range is only natural. And welcome. That said, the big winner is still Trusty, and it shows that even though some years may be rougher than others, Ubuntu has its merit and cannot be easily disregarded, no matter how we feel, or want to feel, even if purely on a reactionary basis. And to prove us all wrong, Canonical has baked a phenomenal LTS release, which should bring much joy and fun to Linux users worldwide for years to come. I hope you've liked this compilation. See you next year. Read more

Judge spanks SCO in ancient ownership of Unix lawsuit

IBM has had a win in its long court battle with SCO over just who owns Unix and, by extension, whether Linux is an unauthorised clone. Some quick and simplified history: SCO – short for The Santa Cruz Operation – was a software company that offered a version of Unix for x86 chippery. When Linux came along in the late 90s and started turning into a business, SCO more or less sank and it attacked both Novell and IBM for their role in helping to spread Linus Torvalds' brainchild. At stake was whether those who distribute and profit from Linux should share some of their bounty with SCO. If a court had found in SCO's favour, it would have been bad news for Linux. The Novell suit ran for about six years, but SCO lost. After that, SCO endured all manner of financial strife, but managed to crawl from the crypt more than once. Last year, SCO managed to secure approval to re-open the case against IBM. Read more Also: ENOUGH! Says Nuffer

Hands-On with Tanglu 2.0 Bartholomea annulata

Tanglu GNU/Linux is a distribution based on Debian Testing. When I wrote recently about the future of Linux Mint Debian Edition and other distributions based on Debian Testing, what I was concerned about was the fact that they will be changing their base to Debian Stable in the near future. Tanglu has not given any indication that they intend to change, so this could be a good alternative for the future. Read more