Re: Five Myths of Linux Security....
From: Ross M. Greenberg (greenber_at_catskill.net)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:51:48 -0500
"Newsbox" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I agree with and fully endorse Mr. Phillips' reply. And I think your bias
> is showing enough to have exposed a true myth, namely that it is hard to
> get support for Linux issues. This isn't "needless gruff", but rather
> response to a "non-question", if you might be kind enough to let me say it
> that way.
The only bias I have is one towards getting the job done. In this instance,
for instance, my editor wanted a certain word count discussing five myths on
Linux secuurity. If I was asking a question of a techie nature (eg, how to
properly address the output queue for a given IP in iptables), this group
might help with an accurate answer (if it didn't get lost in needless and
mindless Windows bashing, of course, but that's typical of a linux group),
but I doubt it: I've looked through the archives. After a querent puts up
with the needless pomposity of this group, they may or may not get their
query answered. I wonder, with this group being so welcoming and so
helpful, do Linux users really expect to be taken seriously in the corporate
Interesting, to me: I've received, to date, 17 very helpful emails. Very
helpful, no venom, little or no Windows bashing, direct and to the point, no
problem with the meaning of words (though one email did take me to task on
my questionable punctuation!), no accusation of a bias, and most apologizing
for the rather public display of hostility I've been the target of, and
admitting that was the reason for their stealthy email.
> But you didn't really ask any question, and look at all the great answers
> that you got!!
Mostly in email, away from the madding crowd. Think about that for a moment,
> Yes, agreeably, this is a tough crowd. If you look
> carefully, I think that you may see that what they (we!) were toughest
> about was that you didn't ask a "good question" and they (we!) were
> struggling to answer that which you didn't properly ask.
Again,, I got great responses almost immediately in email. From people who,
generally, claimed they were afraid to post, afraid to suffer my fate. They
simply answered my query whilst others were busy trying to post supposed
zingers to, I guess, impress their peers.
> So Myth #1 that existed in _your_ several postings is that "It is hard to
> get answers to questions about Linux security issues" is effectively blown
> out of the water.
It is, but not the way you imply. The answer would be : "Yes. And needlessly
> And the corresponding myth that "It is easy to ask a good (Linux
> (security)) question." is also shown to be very weak. It takes clear and
> careful thinking to frame and enunciate a good question, of any ilk.
Funny: in email, there was no problem at all. Immediate and
> That's 2 out of 5 for your article, 40%. Give me 5% of that, is 2% of
> your gross, for the results of your gross fishing exploit. **FAT CHANCE**
Tell me where to send the bloody $25 check Yup, we writers make a bloody
fortune, don't we?
> Post the link for your article here. After all this I'd be interested to
> see what you got out of it all.
I posted the link to where the article will eventually show up in my first
> Oh, yes, and bye the way,