Is Open Source Insecure?

Roaring Penguin Software ^ | 6-10-2002 | David F. Skoll

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Downtime? Please. You're thinking NT, not Win2K Advanced Server.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Why don't you go to www.tpc.org yourself. You can view the clustered vs non-clustered results. Unix doesn't come close anymore, guys. MS wins with clustered or non-clustered.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Whatever

@masm,ies ,rel
    axr$
    $info 1 3
$(0).
dhereticmsg 'assembler is my native language, fella.'
dhmsgl  $equ  $-dhereticmsg
$(1),st
    l,u   r1,99999
    l     a0,($gform 12,1,6,dhmsgl,18,dhereticmsg)
sitandspin.
    er    aprint$
    jgd   r1,sitandspin
    er    exit$
    end   st
@eof
@map,ie rel,dheretic
ibank,m i1,01000
in rel
dbank,m d1(i1)
in rel
end
@xqt
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
assembler is my native language, fella.
etc.

[stainlessbanner]

open-source ping

[Askel5]

lol ... I do adore Google.

Not what I expected at all, actually. Reading this thread, I figure they're missing the second "D" that's Denial.

[rdb3]

Unix doesn't come close anymore, guys. MS wins with clustered or non-clustered.

You are hereby awarded Funniest Line of the Day!

Can't stop giggling!

[Knitebane]

And exactly where in your FUD sheet does it show that Apache was even tested?

[rdb3]

And exactly where in your FUD sheet does it show that Apache was even tested?

Rather conspicuous absence, isn't it?

[Knitebane]

Interesting. Of course, I don't see an Open Source operating system anywhere in your list. Why doesn't TPC test Linux? And why doesn't TPC list how the tested systems are tweaked and configured? Did someone pay them not to?

I'm not just being a doubter. I'm asking based on past Microsoft actions.

Is this another Mindcraft study?

The question isn't whether Microsoft operating systems perform well on tests. The question is whether such tests can be trusted since Microsoft has consistantly faked test results.

The TPC tests may indeed be accurate. But since past behavior is indicative of future performance, the validity of such tests must be ascertained before they can be accepted.

As such, the burden of proof that the TPC tests are worth anything is on those people who spew them out as some kind of proof that Microsoft has any technical edge.

Microsoft has been caught falsifying such tests in the past. Why should we trust the TPC data?

[rdb3]

B²!

[Knitebane]

He must think we're in marketing.

Sorry, I'm not quite that gullible.

[ken in texas]

Why doesn't TPC test Linux?

Just a minor point... the TPC doesn't run the tests. It defines the standards for the benchmark tests and certifies the results submitted to it. Vendors are usually the ones who run the tests. After certification, TPC releases the results. A full disclosure document is also available for each certified benchmark, but I don't know if they're available for public download.

Some TPC benchmarks are very expensive to run, upwards of $750,000 in some cases. Linux benchmarks will be run once someone decides to spend the time and money on them.

[TechJunkYard]

Bump!

[Knitebane]

So, for the present time, what the TPC tests show is that Microsoft boxes are faster than...other Microsoft boxes.

The tests are expensive to run, so who ever has deeper pockets gets to run tests, tweak their machines to run the tests better and then run them again.

If Microsoft really wanted to show that their technology was superior, they would pony up the cash to have someone test Linux. They haven't, and to me that suggests one of two possiblities.

Either they aren't serious and it's just a marketing scheme. Or, they are afraid to do it because they would look bad.

Either way, the benchmark is useless unless it makes a realistic comparison.

[Bush2000]

Hilarious. The ABM bigots have already decided that this study was funded by MS. Oh, yeah: Without any proof.

[Bush2000]

Open source software is "so insecure" that the NSA is using it as a platform to develop super-secure Linux via the SELinux innitiative (see Wired's article). And they are SO AFRAID of the damage that open source can have on security that you can already download a version of it...

And you're just enough of a rube to use it, too. I can't imagine that the NSA would have any interest in doing domestic surveillance on your machine... /sarcasm.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I dual boot win2k pro and adv. server. Wouldnt trade it for anything. Was able to take Redhat off and no need for anything additional (netware, etc). Anyone who disses win2k adv server does so out of ignorance.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Interesting. I had heard NSA was switching over to Windows2000. Maybe that was just the end users.

[Bush2000]

Thanks for listing the fake benchmarks to which Knitebane referred. Fake in the sense that the money that Microsoft and Intel, in concert, can throw at this particular benchmark is now shown to be sufficient to get the highest score. Anything can be gamed, for a price.

You don't know what you're talking about. Vendors participate in running the TPC benchmarks. They have every incentive to optimize and use their best configurations. I understand that you don't like the results -- that MS came out on top -- but you're gonna have to cry in your free beer.

[Bush2000]

Yup - Linux will take Intel to the high end systems, with dozens or hundreds of processors connected with cache coherent memory much faster than Microsoft.

Of course, unless anybody (like IBM) benchmarks these systems running Linux, nobody's gonna buy them.