See Full Story
Of all the many winning advantages Linux has in its favor, security is surely one of the more widely known examples. Why else, indeed, would we see security experts in mainstream publications recommending it over Windows for online banking purposes? That, indeed, is part of the reason it was so disappointing to see Linux get completely ignored in a recent NSA report entitled "Best Practices for Keeping Your Home Network Secure." The report is filled with various suggestions oriented toward Windows and Mac users -- just as one would expect, given that they're by far the majority today.
First I love my Linux machines - all my production servers are Linux (various flavours, Free BSD is probably my preferred one). I also use Apple, and Windows - for desktops and mobile, not for servers.
Any article like this loses all validity when microsoft is referred to as "M$". So they have a lot of money. And some of their history is quite, well, colorful. But how am I supposed to respect an article that opens with childish put downs? In the context of a business article, all the os's and all the browsers have a place, and if you cannot objectively be aware of the others place in the industry, how can you possibly be objective about Linux's place?
Very disappointing, and devalues the whole linux insider brand.
Please stop saying 'NSA Says No to Linux'. The NSA article does not mention Linux. Also if you check out NSA site you will see an equal amount of information about Linux. Why are the Linux folks being so overly sensitive about this? I utilize both Linux AND Microsoft and there are good and bad things about them both.
Just to be clear I'm not a troll.
The first moment I saw this post I thought, "this sounds weird to me. How would the "NSA" say "no" to Linux? I would guess that the NSA with its thousands of employees must deal with many different OSs,
I know someone who works in the department of defense and their laptop is secured to a crazy level, though using windows. It is hardware secured.
I notice that people who are super Linux fans get bothered if anything else might have a whif of being better in some situation. I use Win 7 at home because I record music. I've been waiting years for a good driver for my industry standard recording card. I've tried, but for that particular "specialized need" with a standard recording card, sorry, no luck.
I wrote and article that appeared on Linuxtoday in 1998 with a friend titled "Why Microsoft Needs Linux." Today my attitude has changed. Linux needs the "cathedral" because I believe you cannot get developers to go to the Nth degree and "finish" software to the point where the average person won't be confused to death. I would not foist any version of Linux on a new user today with the phrase, "it's just as good as Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android (which has a nice simple interface, and yes, I know).
I have been waiting since 1998 for Linux to get it's interface together under some kind of unified, trustable API, and guess what? Everyone is still fighting. I'm tired of it, and would like to stop hearing the whining about other people noticing that Linux has problems in certain areas. It just does. Any operating system has problems.
Linux has the extra problem of people fighting over the API. At Apple, or Google, or Microsoft, and API is established by leads, and developers work to implement and then work within the API because they are paid to, and eventually as the programming near the end of the project gets very difficult, part of their job is finishing what they started to the "company's" desired level.
What happens in an open source community? People work together if they want, and do the things they want, and if they want more or less help the community as well. But no one is comming down on their heads, and if someone or more people do come down on their heads, a open letter is written defending their position. Whereas in a normal company, they would simply be fired.
That's a big difference. After all these years, the various APIs for interfaces, compared to the cathedral companies, are in an unfinished state when considering simply usability.
I am actually really sad about that. I thought that wouldn't happen, but it did, and is happening. Just look at the Ubuntu Unity dust up. Soap opera. Who needs that.
Without the authority around a particular Linux distribution, for example, Red Hat, or Canonical, the soap opera never ends. I'm tired of this drama.
Who cares what the NSA does in regards to operating systems? Linux, if anything, is not about what the NSA does. It's a great operating system in its own right, but the community never seems satisfied unless everyone they think should notice, does. Same goes for any kind of fan of a particular OS.
The problem is not with the operating systems themselves, but with the fan operators *of* the operating system. I use everything, except Apple stuff (simply too expensive for my tastes), but I like iTunes and have used the iTunes store for years.
It will never change, but this all is about people's preferences, not some terrible fact that will affect humanity in some dire way. Linux is not brain surgery, it's not cancer, and in the grand scheme of things, like all operating systems, it's not that important.
If you like it, use it. If you don't, scream if you want to, but what's the point?