Linux code is gloriously defect-free Same can't be said of its OS rivals...

Silicon.com ^ | Thu 20 February 2003 11:14AM GMT | Silicon.com

[mpresley72]

That's good service from RH, I'd say. And I'm sure that most of the security fixes deal with server processes. In any case, with Linux, as long as you don't run as root there's not much to worry about.

[mpresley72]

The "study" is pretty useless without details. As discussed on Slashdot, we could be talking about any OS with a TCP-IP stack. It's like the garbage M$ spews about TCO with their own paid for studies. That being said, Linux has so much going for it why anyone would deliberately use anything from M$ is beyond me. The only time my Linux box is down is when I'm doing kernel work. I installed Win XP pro on my wife's machine (because 98 was always locking up and because I got a free copy of the software). XP is nice and pretty, and much more stable than 98, but after working with Linux I really can't get enthused over Bill "my way or the highway" Gates' software anymore.

[Salo]

No such thing as defect-free code. Linux has security bugs, Windows has security bugs. This is why they make patches.

[mpresley72]

>No such thing as defect-free code

Thus spake the master programmer:

Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

>>No such thing as defect-free code

>Thus spake the master programmer:

>Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will >have to be maintained.

Brings to mind one of my favorite stories from my career.

The manager was a master programmer. He was famous for writing code that worked the first time. He directed one of my coworkers in writing the invoicing program. Due to some bug, the program had to change ONE line. There was tremendous time pressure to run the program to issue the invoices on time. He agreed to let her release the program WITHOUT testing it. (A test run would take about 10 hours, and force the invoices to be late).

There was a bug in it.

;)

[ShadowAce]

When they release patches, you bitch that the code is buggy and needs the patches, and if they don't release patches, you bitch that they are not responsive enough.

Sorry--not true. I always welcome patches, and I wish that MS would release them as the problems show up.

But they don't.

My problem with MS is not their buggy code--as several people here are fond of saying, all code has bugs. My problem is MS' attitude toward their code. If a problem is found, then FIX IT!!! Don't sit around, claiming it's not important, or that it's someone else's problem

[John Jorsett]

I don't want to move on past Windows 2k because I heard that newer versions of Windows don't want to work with files created under earlier versions of Windows and I have a LOT of files dating back to as early as pre-Windows 3.1 on my system right now and I will NOT use an OS that won't cooperate with them.

I've used PCs since the beginning of time, and I haven't found any of my old programs (excepting games) that wouldn't run under Windows 2K after a little fiddling with settings. Try your programs on a borrowed machine before you commit, but you might find that there's no problem.

[Salo]

Me not programmer. Me network guy. Me patch all systems: aix, netware, linux, windows (a lot) and even (gasp) my imac. Not patching your systems is the sure sign of a jackass. I'm no fan of MS: they play dirty, but there's no way any credible person can say open source code is error free.

[B Knotts]

No, Linux is not "defect free," but it's pretty good.

I use Debian; I find it to be much easier to keep up-to-date than Red Hat.

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

And they stay on top of stuff pretty good. There's a special server for security updates (security.debian.org).

[yevgenie]

LOL. Good point, B. Knotts. I used to run FreeBSD and Mandrake (more secure out of the box than RedHat). I now run multiple OSes, including my own Linux distrib. (It has some "special" code that I added at the kernel level.)

[B Knotts]

I used to run FreeBSD and Mandrake (more secure out of the box than RedHat).

Re: Mandrake...that's true...as long as you picked the proper default security level.

In Mandrake 7.2, there was actually a security option called "Welcome to Crackers!" :-D

[ShadowAce]

I always liked the theory of apt. Now there is a rpm tool very similar--yum. It's got some pretty smart people working on it as well, from what I understand.

[American in Israel]

So, what am I missing? Why is my experience so different from linux users?

Actualy I run windows on my home machine for the same reasons you do. Games. My favorite network is a windows at the user level and Linux for the servers. Windows is great for a user, it is easy to use, and everyone is familiar with it. It is a bit hard to maintain cause it is a kluge of garbage software that is as profesional as a hooker. But its pretty, and people like it.

Linux on the other hand is a absolute Bitch to set up compared to windows. And you have to break your back to play games on it. But if you set it up, it stays up day after day after day.

So most linux guys are network administrators. Where linux shines that it is a tank and windows is a dixi-cup. A windows NT server under full load gets rebooted to "fix" it around once a week. A linux server does not. A windows server is a virus breeding ground and a linux server due to its inherent design is almost virus proof.

When you have 300 computers linked to the server and one of them crash a day, who cares? Format and reload windows and away you go. But when the server goes down you got 300 pissed off users breathing down your neck. Have that happen to you every week and you tend to dislike the source of the problem, windows.

Linux is IMHO 100 to 1 the winner in a server enviroment, and windows is 10 to 1 a favorite in a user enviroment. If all you want to do is type letters and play games, in a single user enviroment windows, who cares if it locks up or takes a second to change screens. It is a lot easier to use. But if you HAVE to rely on it, or need to do some serious number crunching use linux, the job will get done, a heck of a lot faster and will even be accurate.

I would not fly a plane running windows without a parachute. I would sleep, feet up with my shoes off in a linux box. I will get flamed by the windows guys for this, and for the linux guys I will get flamed for saying that using linux for a user terminal is like using a jackhammer to drive tacks. A tack hammer does a much better job.

To each his own...

[mpresley72]

>>I don't want to move on past Windows 2k because I heard that newer versions of Windows don't want to work with files created under earlier versions of Windows>>

The best reason not to "move beyond" W2k is that you don't have to ask Gates' permission to use your computer when you install it. M$ draconian licensing terms and "product activation" were, for me, the last straw. I have 3 computers at home and I'm not going to pay $300.00 to upgrade. When M$ was the only game in town there wasn't much one could do, but at least until recently the homeowner could buy one copy of his crummy software for all machines. Now, with product activation Gates has pretty much priced himself out of my market.

[Republicanus_Tyrannus]

Thank you. I begin to see.

My supernatural ability to use Windows without crashing seems much less unearthly now. I tend to run my systems very cleanly (I have to, since I beta test so many games) and I tend to shut down my machine daily in order to save on electricity (at home). At work I shut down my W2K system once a week.

Thanks for your succinct and complete explaination.

[B Knotts]

Linux on the other hand is a absolute Bitch to set up compared to windows.

I disagree; in some cases, Linux can be easier. Check this out: Knoppix - a Linux you don't even have to install! Just run it from the CD.

[American in Israel]

Indeed, but the kicker is getting any linux to be the same as windows. My Redhat desktop is a windows replacement. It word processes, handles all my email functions (trust me, no easy task) duplicates and makes my CD's plus is my terminal to the servers. It also plays games that are equal to what a windows user sees. But it was a holy terror to get that way. It does all these functions as good as (except the spell checker, it vacumes compared to office 2000), or better than windows and cost me... 15 dollars. I paid that for some fancy graphics/sound software to get the games to work.

The test was to see if it was worth setting up to replace windows in the office. The answer? Windows won. It takes me 6 hours to setup a stable windows box, it takes 6 days to make the Linux box cause I am a windows guy.

Knowing what I know now, I could do it in a day. But that will not fix the spell checker in Open Office. So windows won, but by a hair on its nose. Next year the test goes again, and I am guessing that a whole lot of Micro$oft disks are hitting the trash can.

Redhat does not sue, or harass its customers. Macrosoft does. After spending 6 figures on software last year, looking at having to do that again in a few years when Office 2005 is no longer compatible with Bulldoze XXXP and Vampirsux wants to examine my licence's to see If I have paid for my latest, greatist, much much better than new upgrade to the upgrade to the broken one that fixed the brokener one...

I don't want to play any more. Where Bill Gates is the Evil Empire, Linux is the Borg. Resistance is futile, MS will be assimilated.

Anybody that does not think so is WAY smarter than me.

[bvw]

That's intriguing.

[bvw]

There is defect free code. Embedded systems progranmers make it a good amount of the time. The much greater number of external constraints keep the code's target from wandering. It is meanders that are affine to bugs in the loosey-goosey feel-good world beyond embedded systems.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"If a problem is found, then FIX IT!!!"

MS does, except that they test their fixes versus the Linux crowd who simply publishes ad-hoc. Sure, some bugs can be fixed quickly and without much need for testing, but most do not. MS also goes beyond the first bug and tests and looks for others.