Large enterprises should not use Linux because it is not secure enough, has scalability problems and could fork into many different flavours, according to the Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Fuji Xerox, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC.
EDS: Linux is insecure, unscalable
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Next news.
What’s a troll! The article lost its meaning when I saw Microsoft in the member list of that “Agility Alliance”
Cisco and SUN use Linux because of security…
you must admit they have a point. Which version of Linux should you support? Every one of them have different locations for config files and different system tools. Some have different filesystems, you could find JFS on one distro and ReiserFS on another, how about XFS. Choice is great, but you know, it’s too much to handle.
I jumped off the Linux boat years ago, frustrated and annoyed. Nowadays I just bother with the BSD and Solaris. Occassionally I check up on new distros like Ubuntu.
“When McNealy announced that there was one surviving version of UNIX left called Solaris” <- Thats a load of bollocks, for one there are the BSD based UNIX operating systems, AIX, HP-UX.
Secondly on scalability, why do the NSA, NASA and other massive government orginisations use Linux for scalability? Infact even google run linux on hundreds of thousands of servers silmultaniously! It out performs any operating ever created in that arena and dominates it…
Please when the EDS actually get a clue, they can talk… Dell should also be ashamed considering it is supposed to be a linux backer…
Microsoft is getting hurt thats why they are attacking that much. Thi big Giant is falling and he knows it. Microsoft R.I.P!!!!!!!!
Accurate, too:
* CISCO: GPL Violators
* Sun: Forked everything in Linux except the kernel for themselves
* Microsoft: Vested interest in not having Linux compete
* DELL: Microsoft’s bitch
* Fuji Xerox: The original reason for the GPL to exist
* EDS. EMC: Can I get a me too up in here?
Insecure: Linux has three role-based security mechanisms and mandatory access controls (SE-Linux is just the one included), three ACL mechanisms (Trustees, POSIX ACLs and SGI’s XFS security mechanisms), an EAL4 rating with an EAL5 possibly underway, USB or dongle system locking, support for cryptographic and “trusted” hardware, support for IPSec, a very impressive packet filtering system (layers 2, 3 and 7), capabilities and that’s just the kernel. If you want to include the rest of the system, you’ve stack guards, SSL/TLS, Kerberos 5, rootkit detectors, binary modification detectors, TCP wrappers, bayesian intrusion detection systems, root jails, virtualization (which allows you to compartmentalize, and therefore can be used for security), MD5 passwords for the shadow suite, one-time password systems, public key encryption and a host of validation & security auditing tools (TARA, SARA, NMap, Nessus, BASS, etc)
Unscalable: The Linux kernel supports “pure” SMP systems that are respectably large. For larger system, bproc and OpenMOSIX permit scaling up to about 65534 nodes with each node taking perhaps 64 processors. To my way of thinking, that’s pretty damn scalable. Actually, as bproc and OpenMOSIX use different migration systems, it may be possible to build a grid of grids, where you’ve a Beowulf cluster of MOSIX clusters of 64-way SMP nodes. This gives you a theoretical capacity of 274,861,129,984 processors. Microsoft is planning to add clustering, in the future. Let me know when it compares. Linux also supports NUMA, Distributed Shared Memory, Active Ports/Active Messages, gigabit MPI, high-speed network filesystems (Lustre!) abd other key components for scaling. See “first few entries in top 500 supercomputers” for further information.
Prone to forking: There are many Linux distributions, tailored to people’s needs, but only one real “kernel”. There are many Windows kernels (the 3.x tree, the 9x tree, the NT tree, the 200x tree, Windows CE, Longhorn) but the distributions are basically the same components. Who is creating more of a fork – the tailor who makes clothes that fit from standard material, or the tailor who uses the closest material to hand, regardless of what it is?
The alliance comprises a group of IT hardware and software firms that have combined their expertise and products to help EDS create ‘best of breed’ solutions and compete with the likes of IBM Global Services and Hewlett-Packard for the most lucrative government and enterprise contracts.
The Agile Alliance should be renamed ‘IBM haters (not-so)anonymous’. All these companies are ardent MS supporters or have a bone to pick with IBM, hardly an objective group.
Other member include Oracle and Siebel BTW.
It’s not a matter of which distro you support.
This isn’t about support from people who make shrink wrapped software. It’s about supporting yourself and making your own decisions(like google) or having someone else(like ibm) support you. These people can enforce their own standards within their own environments.
From the perspective of most user space tools there is practically no difference between reiserfs and xfs and so on.. You can pretty easily drop in one to replace the other.
This is about enterprise level software.. Ubuntu shouldn’t even be mentioned in this topic.
Is it necessary to publish such crap stories on OS News?
In the mean time, some real news, based on real facts and real figures:
Linux Rules Supercomputers
Daniel Lyons
http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linu…
“A group that keeps track of the top 500 supercomputers in the world estimates that Linux powers 60% of those machines, displacing Unix, which used to be the most popular operating system for high-performance computing.”
IIRC, I haven’t seen that story here on the OS News.
Reality just contradicts the Agility Alliance FUD claims.
I wonder if Sun endorsed this. It’s a bad idea to be a member of a group badmouthing a product you sell… If Linux sucks so much, why do they sell JDS/Linux? Sun really needs to restructure its marketing department, shut the information loopholes (personal blogs of people like McNealy), and hire some people who know how to run PR for a company…
and tomorrows news, McDonalds says that Burger King sucks!
honestly, anyone who actually listens to this needs to be smacked.
I would very much like to see either Solaris x86 or Windows 2003 scale upto 256 CPUs on one node, like Linux on SGI Altix. In fact, the scability is a combined software/hardware (in this case: 32-bit x86) issue. I am disappointed that these companies do not even have the knowledge to realize this. And some of them are actually writing OS without even knowing this?
That picture of Linus with the pinguin made me laugh out loud – what the hell is he doing to that poor thing anyway ?
Interesting though – why didn’t you SUBMIT (http://www.osnews.com/submit.php ) it to osnews ?
this is just another example of suns schizophrenic attitude towards linux.
i think the google cluster would count as enterprise?
how about all the large companys running massive orcale,postgres,mysql databases?
how about comapnys using Linux as front ends to IBM mainframes with web services?
would about all those very large NAS file server devices? that run Linux?
this artical is just hogwash
> Something i have been saying for wuite a
> long time. Linux is not enterprise ready.
Yeah, just jump on every crappy statement you encounter, when it fits you.
> For more reasons than this article listed.
What about actually *listing* your reasons?
Haha this article is quiet funny. Retarded and funny at the same time. I mean come on…M$ is in the alliance and of course they are going to be saying stuff like that. Linux IS suited for most everything if you know what you are doing. But the thing is, M$ can say stuff like this and get away with it because they are confident that the industry listens to them, they have a huge market share and no matter what they do they can’t be stopped. M$ will always be around because of such a wide array of products and offerings they have. M$ is here to stay. And if Longhorn is anything that they say what it is going to be like, well Linux will have a harder time to gain more acceptability IMHO.
I would very much like to see either Solaris x86 or Windows 2003 scale upto 256 CPUs on one node, like Linux on SGI Altix. In fact, the scability is a combined software/hardware (in this case: 32-bit x86) issue. I am disappointed that these companies do not even have the knowledge to realize this. And some of them are actually writing OS without even knowing this?
I would like to see linux be more than just a simple, obsolete monolithic kernel… Unfortunately, that will never happen.
The same EDS that has messed up every single IT project the government and paid it to do?
Righto.
Someone should confront each of the companies, especially Dell and EMC with the claims. I wonder if they will/dare say that they agree with the statement. Maybe Dell should stop selling enterprise servers with Linux preinstalled, and EMC should just abandon Linux support.
Although this definitely is hardly worth reading, they are right about one thing. Too many flavours. The community should really work on standardizing the whole deal. If every enterprise comes with it’s own set of integrated tools, Linux will become scattered, if that isn’t already the case. The biggest strength of Linux could become its most obvious weakness. With the adoption of Linux in the enterprise world this has become more and more obvious.
On the other hand, if the community manages to properly adopt standards, I believe Linux will only come out stronger than ever, since the products ‘an sich’ are mostly superior to those made in Redmond.
I would like to see linux be more than just a simple, obsolete monolithic kernel… Unfortunately, that will never happen.
Linux is not a purely monolithic kernel. And obviously you missed the whole kernel structure developement of recent years. Otherwise you would know that pure microkernel is also a dead end.
I love Linux but I am realistic. You can argue all you want about scalability through clustering, but the simple fact is that Linux does not scale well in non-clustered systems when compared to Solaris or other big Iron Unix. You might argue this is not needed (clustering is enough, etc.) but the simple fact is that Linux cannot scale as well because of code quality and OS capability. I am not saying it won’t ever, but right now we are still far behind. Look at the results below and notice how Linux disappears of the map before reaching terabyte sized database, and Windows starts disappearing soon after.
TPC-W (Database benchmarks)
100 GB Results
1 SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9
2-9 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
10 Suse Linux Enterprise Server 9
300 GB Results
1 SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9
2,3 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Server
4 SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9
5,8 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
1,000 GB Results
1,2 Sun Solaris 9
3,4 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition 64-bit
5 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
3,000 GB Results
1 Sun Solaris 10
2 HP UX 11.i
3-5 Sun Solaris 9
6,7 HP UX 11.i 64-bit
I work for EDS and they are so WRONG! We have nothing but problems keeping anything MS secure. I’m sure this is a executive who does not know what he is talking about. Paper pusher!
You might argue this is not needed (clustering is enough, etc.) but the simple fact is that Linux cannot scale as well because of code quality and OS capability.
No, this is not the whole story. The scalability is also due to the x86 platform limits. Otherwise you are welcomed to try to run the 1 or 3 TB test on Solaris 10 x86.
In fact, Linux scales quite well on Itanium 2. Only very few OS are able to run with more than 256 CPU one one SMP node, and Linux is one of them.
I think pushing for the last quentch of scalability in 32-bit x86 architecture is a waste of energy.
I have two medium printing volume digital copy/printers from Xerox: 490 and 2101.
The 490 has a unix inside (not sure if it’s linux but a technician told me so) Is great to use it and print to it.
The 2101 is a Fuji Xerox machine. Well, where to start….
Though is a machine from 2002 it has a windows NT4 (normal version) in the copy server: an external pc needed BY the machine to be operative.
The RIP for the printing queue is done by a Fiery, with XP Embebbed OS.
In the 2101 you just can’t do anything else while copying or printing.
In the 490 you can check toner left, monthly copies, remaining job, required paper, pause or delete any job in the queue, prepare stuff for next job, etc.
It takes 10 minutes for the 2101 for a cold boot. It’s 3 minutes for the 490.
They both have same features. No big big extras for the 2101.
Using a scanner I can told you that Fiery is using Apache for web server for the 2101 web interface. Doesn’t Microsoft have a IIS embebbed version??
When an upgrade is necessary the man in charge of the 490 connects his portable via a serial cable and in 10 minutes everything is up and running (490 has been upgraded twice in two years), no need to reconfigure.
Upgrading the 2101 requires 4 discs for the Fiery: 30 minutes, and 2 disks for the copy server: another 30 minutes. In one year it has had three full upgrades (erase completely harddisks, configure networking and so again: another 20 minutes).
The color machine is a Xerox Phaser 7750, with a PPC inside and is not a Fuji nor Fiery product. It runs smooth for it’s price.
Ah! I almost forgot, the 490 costs 6600euros, and the 2101 70000euros. And Xerox says using external pcs (the copyserver and Fiery) is to decrease maintenance costs.
Well, I don’t know about world wide finances, but I don’t think my machine is decreasing any cost neither price.
They don’t even have oems versions of windows. After an upgrade they give all disks with licenses with my name.
Fuji Xerox division products sucks as much as their allies.
Yours sincerely: Néstor
I love your credible sources.
Sorry
It’s common knowledge that VMS is more secure and scales better than any *nix, so the article is not wrong at all.
why didn’t you SUBMIT (http://www.osnews.com/submit.php ) it to osnews ?
Ok, and to make you happy, I did submit it. (But my previous experience is that the rare times I’ve submitted news before via the Submit news system here the’ve never made it to the news. Not so big deal to me anyway, there are plenty of others submitting news, I’m sure. And of course OS News does publish lots of good informative news too.)
Anyway, I still think that the the Agility Alliance story is pure FUD and anti-Linux propaganda, not so much bsed on any facts at all, but based on the corporate intererests of a few compnanies who see Linux as a competitor.
Like I said, the reality itself contradicts the whole story.
However, maybe the story could have some news value exacctly because of its non-realistic claims, so in a same way like a case where a man bites a dog is news while a case where a dog bites a man is not…?
The amount of Linux distributions doesn’t seem to be a problem at all for those using Linux for super computing, or heavy enterprise tasks. There are only a few distributions that they could consider anyway. And most Linux distributions, like we all should know, are just derivatives of Redhat/Fedora or Debian (or Slackware) anyway.
Besides, Linux (the kernel) is not in the danger of being forked in any significant way in the foreseeable future. Most Linux distributions can still use the plain vanilla kernel from the kernel.org if they want to.
Besides, Linux (the kernel) is not in the danger of being forked in any significant way in the foreseeable future. Most Linux distributions can still use the plain vanilla kernel from the kernel.org if they want to.
Even with aggressively patching distributions like RHEL, most of the ~ 300 patches (as of version 3 Update 4) was backports of 2.6 features. So even if it doesn’t look like vanilla kernel, it is still not a sign of fork.
“Moreover, Seager says Linux outguns popular Unix operating systems like AIX and Solaris from Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW – news – people ) because those systems contain features that make them great for commercial users but add a lot of system overhead that ends up limiting overall performance. One example: a “virtualization” feature in AIX lets many applications share the same processor but “just hammers performance,” Seager says.”
Embrassed to think I actually work for these guys (EDS)…
Need anyone say more? Anyone who has had anything to do with these people, or seen local government in action especially in the UK, knows exactly what insecure and unscaleable means.
This is just a bit of fear on their part, basically because they’re Microsoft’s bed buddy, and because these companies needed to have something against IBM’s Global Services who have taken wuite a bot off them.
“Something i have been saying for wuite a long time. Linux is not enterprise ready. For more reasons than this article listed.”
Really? Then why are so many enterprises using it? I have a hard time swallowing this article considering the players involved.
In other news, Ford cars are bad, so say Dodge and Chevrolet.
Its scary to think someone might take this article seriously.
I stayed away from the article, and will continue to stay away from all articles posted from zdnet
zdnet are 100% microsoft bitches
And if Longhorn is anything that they say what it is going to be like, well Linux will have a harder time to gain more acceptability IMHO.
Some time should be the first time for everything , but I would be very surprised if Microsoft manages to deliver on all the promises they have made for their next OS.
And whats worse, while Microsoft have been bragging about how great Longhorn will be, their competitors have tried to make their own products competitive in the world where Microsoft dream their dreams. So if the the Microsoft dream doesn’t come true Microsoft will find themself between a rock and a hard place.
The problem for Microsoft is, that if they make new features they need to be backward compatible, this limits what they can do. At the same time they need to give users a reson to upgrade. As far as I can see there was no viable business reason to upgrade to win XP, the same will likely be true for Longhorn.
Linux on the other hand always tries to be as compatible as possible to anything. This may lead to that Linux actually could turn out to be a better upgrade path for XP in 2010 or whenever Microsoft drops support for XP. The same could be said for 2007 when win2k is end of lifed.
By 2007 software like Gnome have evolved 3 more generations, and by the speed usability evolves in that world it will be an extremely usable desktop. Similar things will happen to other Linux desktops and software.
The days when the attitude of the free software community was if it can’t be done in “vi” its not worth doing is long gone. Now usability is cool.
Wake up people! Linux is a hobby-hack OS with no future.
Tell that to IBM, NSA, NASA, Google and the organization has have about 301 linux supercomputers on Top500. Microsoft was caught using Linux on their own server. So much for “hobby-hack OS with no future”.
Wow Dr.BooBoo I cannot believe you seriously think that. What now you are gonna have Windows XP running in mission critical situations now?
Oh BooBoo you might want to check out the other article posted on Osnews about Linux a hobby hack OS running supercomputers….
Although I’m not a large business user, here are my reasons for using Linux.
My friends at uni often ask me “why do you use Linux? What do you actually do with it?”
My response was “well, what do you do with your PCs? I check email, browse the web, talk in IRC, play (some) games…”
Their answer. “Yes, well you can do all that in Windows”.
Back came my reply: “Yes, I could do all those things on a £250 OS that won’t even install on my Shuttle PC. Or I can do it on a free operating system that’s never given me any trouble. Which would you pick?”.
Just some reasons why I use linux at home. I must say, if I even ran a small network (for example an internet cafe etc., I most definitely would not touch Windows with a bargepole.
DoctorFlange (sent from a terminal through lynx while KDE3.4 compiles)
Someone email this guy that article about how linux pwnz super computers.
Microsoft bashing on Linux is nothing new, and we all know Sun isn’t exactly in love with Linux, but has McNeally really declared Solaris the winner of the Unix-wars?
Maybe they think it’s April 1st already?
The thing is, “win the Unix wars” is not about “die as the last Unix”, or similar. It was originally about being the best Unix and then being adopted by other vendors. I am not quite seeing this to happen with Solaris, but rather with Linux.
There is a perception problem, and it keeps coming up.
“Everyone” and I continue to see argued that Linux is “just the kernel”. “Linux” is very ill defined. Kernel, distros, forks, architectures, etc. It’s a swirling dervish going all over the place from palm tops to super computers. That makes “Linux” very difficult to pin down.
Red Hat develops, maintains, sells and support a particular slice of that Linux mass. It can easily be stated that “Linux” is “insecure”, “doesn’t scale”, etc. But, that doesn’t mean that Red Hat (or anyone else) can’t fix those particular issues for their particular versions of Linux that they distribute.
All of these arguments again “Linux” were arguments against “Unix” back in the day. When DEC or IBM or Prime or any of the other marketers of systems would try to compete, they’d flail against “Unix” and its weakness, even though there were several companies developing and lifting their particular Unix platforms up to be more capable, performant, etc.
So, while there may be implementations and versions of Linux that are scalable, secure, etc., the diversity and dynamism of the entire space of “Linux” and the chaos in which it thrives can drown out the successes and capabilities of specific distros.
Frankly, folks should use Red Hat because its Red Hat, or SUSE because it’s SUSE, etc. I think they need to try and seperate themselves a little from “Linux”, while improving the whole to “lift all boats”, because the message of Red Hat can get lost in the messages against “Linux”.
IT staff make money on failure, not success, and are therefore motivated to push Wintel.
That’s right, they should fork out their wallets and spend huge amounts of money on software, instead of using Linux.
===
McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there.
===
“Sun has lost six points of share in the UNIX market with Solaris in the last three years, and AIX has gained 8 points of share.
[…]
Sun has 1% share of the x86 market.”
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-chiphopper/
Anyone want to place bets on when Sun will finally bite the bullet? They cant be in too good of a shape if their CEO has to outright lie about the superiority of their products.
Insecure: Linux has three role-based security mechanisms and mandatory access controls (SE-Linux is just the one included), three ACL mechanisms (Trustees, POSIX ACLs and SGI’s XFS security mechanisms), an EAL4 rating with an EAL5 possibly underway, USB or dongle system locking, support for cryptographic and “trusted” hardware, support for IPSec, a very impressive packet filtering system (layers 2, 3 and 7), capabilities and that’s just the kernel. If you want to include the rest of the system, you’ve stack guards, SSL/TLS, Kerberos 5, rootkit detectors, binary modification detectors, TCP wrappers, bayesian intrusion detection systems, root jails, virtualization (which allows you to compartmentalize, and therefore can be used for security), MD5 passwords for the shadow suite, one-time password systems, public key encryption and a host of validation & security auditing tools (TARA, SARA, NMap, Nessus, BASS, etc)
Those features are available on other operating systems as well. In most cases, they were available on other operating systems first where they are implemented better. Perhaps you should try using other operating systems before announcing Linux the unanimous winner.
http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/03/doomed_to_repea.html
“ “Linux has dominated the marketplace for high-performance computing,” says Mark Seager, assistant department head for advanced technologies at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., which operates ten machines on the Top 500 list, including Blue Gene/L, the world’s most powerful supercomputer, and Thunder, which ranks fifth. ”
http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2005/03/15/cz_dl_0315linu…
Well, at least the experts tell the truth about Linux.
Linux is most certainly scalable.
As for security. The USA’s NSA (National Security Agency) uses it, and have designed their own SELinux (Security Enhanced), which is now becoming embedded in all mainstream distros. Well at least the NSA knows what is a secure OS.
LOL
IT heavyweights Microsoft
You’ve gotta laugh really – a bunch of companies (presumably primarily Microsoft) saying Linux isn’t scalable. Two articles later we see it runs more supercomputers than any other OS.
And it’s not secure? Last time I checked Windows was the OS in which you can get a virus through loading a .jpg in your web browser, or an infected IM display picture.
Honestly, you couldn’t come up with more ridiculous statements if you tried 😀
“I stayed away from the article, and will continue to stay away from all articles posted from zdnet
zdnet are 100% microsoft bitches”
I was once just like you, but in my case I had great difficulty reading and understanding slashdot articles and the respective comment threads. However this article [ http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/children/kidtalk.mspx ] has changed my life and I am now able to read, understand and respond on slashdot. 😛
You know a company is *REALLY* despirate when they start to rely on the advice from EDS – losing money hand over fist, constant stuff ups in their contracts (almost as bad as UNISYS at the banking outsourcing fiasco that happened in Australia).
Sorry, SUN who thinks that some how opensourcing and operating system will actually get software developed for their operating system – yeah, like I’m going to purchase a Solaris support contract only to find that there are zip applications available for it.
Or Xerox, which continues to pound money into R&D, the suddenly they get a CEO who says, “Hmm, how about we use R&D for products! yes! actually USE the R&D facility to research new products so then the spending can be JUSTIFIED to the share holders! amazing!”.
As for Dell, EMC and Microsoft – please don’t mind me, I’m just going to laugh hysterically as they claim that they’re ‘enterprise’ companies. Yeah, you NEED the budget of an enterprise to purchase Microsoft software, but that doesn’t mean the company HAS TO be an enterprise 😉
As for Dell – hmm, someone should *really* introduce them to a thing called R&D and innovation. As for EMC, a hype driven company who only gets sales because most CIOs are clueless fanboys running with what ever is cool for that day.
Sun? Dell? MICROSOFT?
C’mon!
Propaganda, if anything else.
Those features are available on other operating systems as well. In most cases, they were available on other operating systems first where they are implemented better.
1. Mandatory access control (MAC) with enforced state transitions? I do not think so. There are other systems with MAC, but it is not that widespread. Windows, for example, has no MAC at all.
2. The only other vendor selling comparable virtualization to Xen at the moment is IBM. I hope you know what license model z/VM “features”… This feature is certainly not widespread. There is no way to run a completely different kernel image in Solaris Container or HP-UX VSE, for example.
Matt24:Wow that’s the best sentence in this whole article.
Matt24:Wow that’s the best sentence in this whole article.
No, this is:
A large enterprise needs to be sure because it relates to securifying [sic] the environment.
Yes, Rasmussen is talking about securifying. I know I trust an article where there is a good indepth discussion about securifying an OS.
(If you don’t believe me, it’s the fourth paragraph down)
leave *nix to do the heavy horse lifting for major infusturctures,power computer and enterprise servers setups and start supporting skyos or even the newish beos for desktop and then take all those 250 dollar coaster and play a little game of toss and shot
i would rather support a wining company instead of a company who thinks butterflies is a good mascot…linux’s pengiun is cute and is a good mascot
Eugenia,
Why in God’s name do you keep on posting this rubbish when you know it to be rubbish? You don’t have to report every piece of trash that is published just because it might be controversial enough to give you a few more hits.
From reading your article a couple of days ago, I really thought that you wanted a fresh start, but I guess you are back to trolling. And don’t say that you didn’t write the article. It is your responsibility because you posted it. Posting something in the knowledge that it isn’t true is less than honest and you and I know that this article was rubbish and FUD.
The alliance (Envious Dinosaurs Society) comprises a group of huge reptiles that have combined their expertise to help EDS create ‘best of breed’ creatures and compete with basically anything that moves for food and shelter.
“A large monster needs to be sure because it relates to securifyiyiying the environment. Yes, I know it doesnt make much sense even if you only have a walnut-sized brain at the base of your spine. How can you be safe if you’re not covered in thick scales, admittedly pulling you down occasionally in the tar pits, and instead going for soft skin, fur, claws and running around even at low temperatures? We are quite cautious about our relatives evolving into mammals.” said the vice-president.
“We are also concerned about some of the scalability issues that we are seeing on our clients on a global basis. Do you see those tiny rat-like thingies evolving into all different shapes in just a few years? I certainly can’t. Also, and with no contradiction whatsoever, we’re somewhat cautious about what happened with Birds – they splintered into so many different genres — until my friend here finally announced he won the battle and had the best fitting Bird out there: the dodo.” said the vice-president.
“Quite honestly, as we look at what we are with our alliance partners, that is big scaly reptiles, we are not all that favourable to small mammals devouring the eggs from our nests and surviving ice ages we’d all die through.” he added.
and see the posts count go straight to space.
Maybe, thats the reason Eugenia like to post crap articles from time to time.
Hey Mr. Rasmussen, your lips are moving when you talk, but the sound seems to be comming from your ass. Quick everybody, gather around. We have much to learn from the wisdom spewing forth from Rasmussen’s hind-most intellectual insight glands.
Oh the irony. The title of the second story after this one is “Linux Rules Supercomputers”
meaning when I saw Microsoft in the member list of that “Agility Alliance”
”
Same here, mate. I stopped reading as soon as i saw MS is involved.
every single major contract in England
the last being the Benefits Office.
they are as mediocre and incompetent
as a company can be.
bunch of VB5 bafoons
they shouldn’t be given any credit whatsoever.
United Kingdom lost millions and millios with these corporate cowboys
But the government is still pathetic to keep hiring them
I smell corruption somewhere along the chains.
No wonder they are scared of Linux
you have to be competent to do something worthy in this platform.
Eugeeeeniaaaaa?? edit my post please!
Although this EDS is a big spasm from a steerless branch not everything is as shiny.What about the ancient forkbomb,by which a lot of distros are still affected.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/308
EDS sell guys are going to see customers as usual and they arrive there with their project prices:
Machines: x USD
Licences: 10x USD
Labor: 40x USD ( Those are “Specialists” in Oracle, ERP’s, Unixes, and those licenced software so expensive that only EDS can create. No one can learn by itself the programs, not because they are dificult, but because you cannot afford to buy a “training” licence if those exist )
But now customers tell them:
Why not:
Machines: x USD
Licences: x/4 USD (linux, FreBSD, LAMP, OpenOffice, …)
Labor: 15x USD ( in an open environment there is an open market of specialists, because every technician can form himself into the products he is interested into, they cannot charge 600% to the specialist any longer)
Yes sure, Open Source market is still not so mature, but with a difference so high, the customer know he still have 35x USD for any circumstance that can apear!!
So that given. What can the sells guy tell the customer?
Right now they only could tell the customer: “well, microsoft have some studies that shows linux is bad”.
This paper is made so they can say: “and we have run our own study that shows Linux is not very scalable”.
Thanks to OSNews now we can easily rebate it: “Did EDS told you that?… emm… looks strange, given that 301 of the 500 bigest computers on the world run linux and only one their Microsoft farm solution… I wonder if that study you tell me is that one that EDS made in Alliance with Microsoft. Could you ask them for one copy of it?”
Easy.
not to mention Dell, who ship a few Linux boxes, last I heard.
depends on what kind of scaling you are doing. I think running VM on a main frame with Linux as the host OS makes sense. The idea that Linux should be the master of the entire box only makes sense in smaller setups – in big setups, why even Solaris runs in zones, it just doesn’t makes sense to use a single highlevel OS to run an entire big time server
as for security, again as long as it is a host in a VM/zone then it is secure enough