Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx

"Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support
of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."

"Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."

"More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
real-world implementations limited."

(E-Mail Removed) (totojepast) writes:

> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
>
> "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
> configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support
> of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."

BS

> "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."

What's that supposed to mean?

> "More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
> integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
> real-world implementations limited."

FUD

--
Måns Rullgård
(E-Mail Removed)

This probably is a troll, but a short answer won't hurt.

totojepast wrote:

> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
>
> "Linux uses clear text for authentication,

No, Linux uses an industry standard one-way encryption for authentication

> and does not allow the
> configurations of individual permissions to the file level.

Linux supports both Unix file permissions (which /are/ individual
permissions) and ACLs, both at the file leve.

> Native support
> of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."

1) The Linux kernel (2.4.22) includes standard encryption technologies.
2) You /can/ add standard encryption technologies as add-ons to Linux, both
at kernel and at application level

> "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."

Given that Microsoft's definition of heterogeneous is "a mixture of Windows
3.1, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME,
Windows NT, and Windows XP", this statement is incorrect. Given that /the
rest/ of the industry defines heterogeneous as including operating systems
other than Microsoft Windows, then /Microsoft/ does not deliver
"heterogeneous interoperability".

> "More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
> integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
> real-world implementations limited."

All the journalling filesystems supported by Linux have a deep history of
support, integration, and regression testing. Try telling Hans Reiser or IBM
or Sun that their Linux JFS implementations are less stable than whatever
MSWindows offers, and see what their answer is.

--

Lew Pitcher, IT Consultant, Application Architecture
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)

"Måns Rullgård" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb
>> "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous
>> interoperability."
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
>
That means that Linux does not run on as few architectures as
Windows, does not have the same level of incompatibility between one
version and the next as Windows, and is much more interoperable with
other OSs than Windows.

Regards
Martin

totojepast wrote:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
>
> "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
> configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support
> of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."
>
> "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."
>
> "More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
> integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
> real-world implementations limited."
Marketing Drivel.
Complete lack of sources referenced. Worth little more than laughing at.


--
/************************************************** *
*Neil Horman
*Software Engineer
*Red Hat, Inc.
*(E-Mail Removed)
************************************************** */

Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."
>
>
> Given that Microsoft's definition of heterogeneous is "a mixture of
> Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98,
> Windows ME, Windows NT, and Windows XP", this statement is incorrect.
> Given that /the rest/ of the industry defines heterogeneous as including
> operating systems other than Microsoft Windows, then /Microsoft/ does
> not deliver "heterogeneous interoperability".

You're looking it at the wrong way.

"comparable hetrogenous interoperability" means interoperability that
you can compare to Windows.

They are right that Linux doesn't have comparable interoperability -
it's in a class of it's own, light years ahead.

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:56:34 UTC, (E-Mail Removed)
(=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) Noted:

> > "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."

> What's that supposed to mean?

That has to do with the tightly integrated modules that make for the
windoze OS. Note how almost any taxing operation immediately calls the
BSOD module

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Martin Blume wrote:

>
> "Måns Rullgård" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb
> >> "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous
> >> interoperability."
> >
> > What's that supposed to mean?
> >
> That means that Linux does not run on as few architectures as
> Windows, does not have the same level of incompatibility between one
> version and the next as Windows, and is much more interoperable with
> other OSs than Windows.

Actually, this is really funny. The only reason Windows provides
"heterogeneous interoperability" is because of *nix tools such as SAMBA!

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >
(E-Mail Removed) (totojepast) writes:

>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx

Does Microsoft lie about Linux features? Why not? They lie about
everything else.

>"Linux uses clear text for authentication,

In telnet. Just like Microsoft's telnet client. So you use ssh,
https, etc. - all of which are readily available for Linux.

>and does not allow the configurations of individual permissions
>to the file level.

Unless you use ACLs. It's an old trick to compare your latest
features with the competition's most primitive ones.

>Native support of standard encryption technologies is handled as
>an add-on."

That way you can substitute better ones as they become available,
instead of being stuck with the vendor's (possibly broken) code.

>"Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."

<gag, choke> This from the company whose idea of "portability" means
being able to run on different flavours of Windows, but nothing else?
Remember, one of the patches in Service Pack 2 for Windows 2000 was
expressly designed to break Samba - which was getting a little too
heterogeneous, I guess.

>"More than five options for a JFS,

Oh my God, they're giving users a choice!

>which are new to Linux;

Innovation? Oh dear. Wasn't Bill Gates the one who was constantly
whining about how the anti-trust suits against Microsoft were going
to stifle their ability to innovate? I guess innovation is only a
good thing if you're Microsoft.

>the depth of integration and regression testing can be scattered,

This scattered testing seems to yield better results than whatever
program Microsoft has in place.

>and the number of real-world implementations limited."

As opposed to Microsoft's single implementation? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Microsoft does seem to have its FUD machine working overtime.
I love the way they try to argue that open source is less secure.
Good grief, anyone can inspect the code for security holes.
Someone might actually fix them. Better they remain hidden,
along with whatever back doors you may have installed. Try
googling for "Windows 95 registration wizard". Or "Microsoft
Palladium Fritz". Then ask yourself whether you really want
to give a closed-source OS an Internet connection and the run
of your machine.

--
/~\ (E-Mail Removed)lid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 12 Sep 2003, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

>
> >"Linux uses clear text for authentication,
>
> In telnet. Just like Microsoft's telnet client. So you use ssh,
> https, etc. - all of which are readily available for Linux.
>
I think that here they are talking about passwords when authenticating
against a M$ domain. IIRC, this is only true for older versions of SAMBA.