Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica .. - Linux

This is a discussion on Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica .. - Linux ; "When choosing between proprietary and open source security solutions, many organizations are misled by open source myths. As a result, they ask the wrong questions when evaluating their options and unnecessarily limit their IT solutions" "Is it risky to trust ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

  1. Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    "When choosing between proprietary and open source security solutions,
    many organizations are misled by open source myths. As a result, they
    ask the wrong questions when evaluating their options and
    unnecessarily limit their IT solutions"

    "Is it risky to trust mission-critical infrastructure to open source
    software? Why should we pay an open source vendor when open source is
    supposed to be free?"

    "Will a shift to open source add complexity to our IT infrastructure?
    These questions all arise from open source myths that this white paper
    will explain and dispel, allowing IT decision makers to focus on more
    important organizational issues: return-on-investment, ease-of-use,
    agility, reliability, and control"

    http://arstechnica.tradepub.com/free/w_asta05

    When they invoke 'agile' in an alleged document on security then you
    just know where they're geting their fast FUD from. Is 'agile'
    software something that can get up do a dance, sing a song or run a
    marathon ..

    "The City of Uppsala .. needed to protect the administration network
    from unauthorized access and malware attacks"

    Like, what's this 'malware' run on ..

    "The networks have experienced some virus outbreaks"

    Like, what's this 'virus outbreak' run on ..

    "One of the problems with these kind of large netwerks is that we have
    people going home with their computers and connecting to their home
    network, we don't know what is on the computers or who is using them"

    You mean like using them ..

    "When the enhancements to Network Access Protection (NAP) in Windows
    2008 were announced"

    Like, don't we need another system to protect the NAP ..

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...mspx?recid=178

    "There was an old woman who swallowed a fly .. She swallowed the
    spider to catch the fly"

    http://www.poppyfields.net/poppy/songs/oldwoman.html

  2. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    Doug Mentohl wrote:
    > "When choosing between proprietary and open source security solutions,
    > many organizations are misled by open source myths. As a result, they
    > ask the wrong questions when evaluating their options and
    > unnecessarily limit their IT solutions"
    >
    > "Is it risky to trust mission-critical infrastructure to open source
    > software? Why should we pay an open source vendor when open source is
    > supposed to be free?"
    >
    > "Will a shift to open source add complexity to our IT infrastructure?
    > These questions all arise from open source myths that this white paper
    > will explain and dispel, allowing IT decision makers to focus on more
    > important organizational issues: return-on-investment, ease-of-use,
    > agility, reliability, and control"
    >
    > http://arstechnica.tradepub.com/free/w_asta05


    Try reading the whitepaper.

    Or look at the website being advertised: www.astaro.com

    Then get back to us.

  3. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:57:51 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > When they invoke 'agile' in an alleged document on security then you
    > just know where they're geting their fast FUD from. Is 'agile'
    > software something that can get up do a dance, sing a song or run a
    > marathon ..


    Hey Duh!g, I see you are commenting on things you know nothing about again,
    making a supreme fool of yourself.

    'agile' is not a Microsoft term, it's a software industry term that refers
    to a specific methodology of software development. It's sort of like ISO
    9000 in that it refers to processes, methods, documentation, etc..

    But the, since you have no idea of how software is actually developed, you
    don't really understand it, thus you assume it must be FUD. True ignorance
    at its best.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development
    http://agilemanifesto.org/

    So, Duh!g, when are you going to figure out how stupid you are?

  4. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:24763399-3202-4ab2-8d45-88efd6ca992d@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
    > "When choosing between proprietary and open source security solutions,
    > many organizations are misled by open source myths. As a result, they
    > ask the wrong questions when evaluating their options and
    > unnecessarily limit their IT solutions"
    >
    > "Is it risky to trust mission-critical infrastructure to open source
    > software? Why should we pay an open source vendor when open source is
    > supposed to be free?"
    >
    > "Will a shift to open source add complexity to our IT infrastructure?
    > These questions all arise from open source myths that this white paper
    > will explain and dispel, allowing IT decision makers to focus on more
    > important organizational issues: return-on-investment, ease-of-use,
    > agility, reliability, and control"
    >
    > http://arstechnica.tradepub.com/free/w_asta05
    >
    > When they invoke 'agile' in an alleged document on security then you
    > just know where they're geting their fast FUD from. Is 'agile'
    > software something that can get up do a dance, sing a song or run a
    > marathon ..
    >
    > "The City of Uppsala .. needed to protect the administration network
    > from unauthorized access and malware attacks"
    >
    > Like, what's this 'malware' run on ..
    >
    > "The networks have experienced some virus outbreaks"
    >
    > Like, what's this 'virus outbreak' run on ..
    >
    > "One of the problems with these kind of large netwerks is that we have
    > people going home with their computers and connecting to their home
    > network, we don't know what is on the computers or who is using them"
    >
    > You mean like using them ..
    >
    > "When the enhancements to Network Access Protection (NAP) in Windows
    > 2008 were announced"
    >
    > Like, don't we need another system to protect the NAP ..
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...mspx?recid=178
    >
    > "There was an old woman who swallowed a fly .. She swallowed the
    > spider to catch the fly"
    >
    > http://www.poppyfields.net/poppy/songs/oldwoman.html




    Like I said before... I'm not trying to be cruel or flame you or insult you
    but you *really* are very stupid. You should actually try "reading" and
    "understanding" what you post and whine about because you really are
    clueless.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    On 27 Mar, 20:13, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > 'agile' is not a Microsoft term, it's a software industry term that refers to a specific methodology of ..


    Is agile programming the same thing as writing a program in the least
    about of time and with the least number of bugs ..

    "There are many agile development methods; most minimize risk by
    developing software in short amounts of time"

    Doh , what causial relationship is there between 'risk' and code
    quality. Surely the quicker you write the code, the more bugs creep
    in. How did Donald Knuth or Fred Brooks manage without agile methods.
    How about teaching people how to program instead of filling in
    dropdown checkboxes and dropping widgets onto a form ..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art...er_Programming

  6. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    On 27 Mar, 23:09, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    > "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message


    >> "There was an old woman who swallowed a fly .. She swallowed the spider to catch the fly"


    > Like I said before...


    You're total non-response to my points noted ..

    What's going to protect the NAP from being hacked, don't we need a
    seconf system to monitor it for breeched. What's going to protect the
    second system ..

  7. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:7fbf301e-f0da-4e65-aedd-26fe9e31debd@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

    > How about teaching people how to program instead of filling in
    > dropdown checkboxes and dropping widgets onto a form ..
    >

    A classic gearhead position! The reason why is that the result is more
    important than the method by which it is achieved. Programmers have become
    syntactic fools who are reduced to using terms like "foo" and "bar" to
    illustrate methodology, thinking that is the last word. But the successful
    software product does something useful and what to do and the application
    details of what is useful are beyond their ken. Next to nobody gives a hoot
    about what is under the hood. They care about how fast it goes and how it
    looks and what it costs. If useful programs can be generated by people who
    are otherwise incompetent in terms of computer science, that is a very good
    thing. It gets those goofy little nerds out of the picture and lets the
    serious people concentrate on results. Viva Microsoft!


  8. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > On 27 Mar, 20:13, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> 'agile' is not a Microsoft term, it's a software industry term that refers to a specific methodology of ..

    >
    > Is agile programming the same thing as writing a program in the least
    > about of time and with the least number of bugs ..
    >
    > "There are many agile development methods; most minimize risk by
    > developing software in short amounts of time"
    >
    > Doh , what causial relationship is there between 'risk' and code
    > quality. Surely the quicker you write the code, the more bugs creep
    > in. How did Donald Knuth or Fred Brooks manage without agile methods.
    > How about teaching people how to program instead of filling in
    > dropdown checkboxes and dropping widgets onto a form ..
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art...er_Programming


    You've just illustrated my point, but you're too stupid to understand why.

    The mythical man month is about the risks in large scale, long term
    software development. Agile is a direct response to those risks.

    Of course if you'd actually read it, you'd know this.

  9. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    On 31 Mar, 18:04, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > You've just illustrated my point, but you're too stupid to understand why.


    What software projects have you worked on that use 'agile', give
    samples ..

    Of course you would be better qualified that either Donald Knuth or
    Fred Brooks to talk on the matter ..

  10. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    Doug Mentohl writes:

    > On 31 Mar, 18:04, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> You've just illustrated my point, but you're too stupid to understand why.

    >
    > What software projects have you worked on that use 'agile', give
    > samples ..
    >
    > Of course you would be better qualified that either Donald Knuth or
    > Fred Brooks to talk on the matter ..


    Certainly better than Donald Knuth.

  11. question not addressed to you ..

    On 2 Apr, 14:36, Hadron wrote:

    > Certainly better than Donald Knuth.



  12. Re: question not addressed to you ..

    Doug Mentohl writes:

    > On 2 Apr, 14:36, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Certainly better than Donald Knuth.



    Serious question - do YOU think Donald Knuth is better qualified to
    agile programming techniques than say spike1?

    Of course he isn't.

    --
    eat Depends: cook | eat-out.
    But eat-out is non-free so that's out.
    And cook Recommends: clean-pans.
    -- Seen on #Debian

  13. Re: question not addressed to you ..

    On 2 Apr, 16:00, Hadron wrote:

    > Serious ..


    question *not* addressed to your current alias, fuddie ...

  14. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 06:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > On 31 Mar, 18:04, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> You've just illustrated my point, but you're too stupid to understand why.

    >
    > What software projects have you worked on that use 'agile', give
    > samples ..
    >
    > Of course you would be better qualified that either Donald Knuth or
    > Fred Brooks to talk on the matter ..


    Donald Knuth, while a genius and excellent computer scientist, has never
    been involved in large scale commercial software development.

    Fred Brooks has, but his experiences date from long before the development
    of modern software methodologies. But that's irrelevent because, as I
    said, you're too stupid to understand why The Mythical Man month actually
    agrees with agile.

  15. Re: question not addressed to you ..

    In article ,
    Hadron wrote:
    >
    > Serious question - do YOU think Donald Knuth is better qualified to
    > agile programming techniques than say spike1?
    >
    > Of course he isn't.


    Why do you think that?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Fred Brooks has, but his experiences date from long before the development
    > of modern software methodologies. But that's irrelevent because, as I
    > said, you're too stupid to understand why The Mythical Man month actually
    > agrees with agile.


    You mean like when he said "There is no silver bullet"? Is that what
    you mean?

    --
    At Microsoft there are lots of brilliant ideas but the image is that they
    all come from the top - I'm afraid that's not quite right.
    -- Bill Gates

  17. Re: question not addressed to you ..

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:41:45 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> Serious question - do YOU think Donald Knuth is better qualified to
    >> agile programming techniques than say spike1?
    >>
    >> Of course he isn't.

    >
    > Why do you think that?


    I don't know if he is or isn't, but such methodologies are not in anything
    he's written about or produced. He's an excellent computer scientist, and
    great with algorithms and logic, but could he follow a rapid application
    methodology? I don't know.

  18. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:42:59 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Fred Brooks has, but his experiences date from long before the development
    >> of modern software methodologies. But that's irrelevent because, as I
    >> said, you're too stupid to understand why The Mythical Man month actually
    >> agrees with agile.

    >
    > You mean like when he said "There is no silver bullet"? Is that what
    > you mean?


    No, that's not. A "silver bullet" is magic that makes things happen. A
    rigid process is not a silver bullet either.

  19. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:42:59 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Fred Brooks has, but his experiences date from long before the development
    >>> of modern software methodologies. But that's irrelevent because, as I
    >>> said, you're too stupid to understand why The Mythical Man month actually
    >>> agrees with agile.

    >>
    >> You mean like when he said "There is no silver bullet"? Is that what
    >> you mean?

    >
    > No, that's not. A "silver bullet" is magic that makes things happen. A
    > rigid process is not a silver bullet either.


    Wrong again, Erik. Fred was saying that there is no process, rigid or
    otherwise, that can eliminate the uncertainties and risks if software
    development.

    I suspect Fred would say that agile is yet another "silver bullet"
    technology that actually has limited value.

    Say, has Microsoft copyrighted the word "agile" yet?

    --
    Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't
    lose.
    -- Bill Gates

  20. Re: Open Source security FUD from Arstechnica ..

    On 2 Apr, 18:15, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Donald Knuth .. has never been involved in large scale commercial software development .. Fred Brooks has, but his experiences date from long before the development of modern software methodologies ..


    What 'large scale commercial software' projects have you worked on
    that you can pontificate on such matters. Give examples. What awards
    such as the 'Turing Award' have you received for your contributions to
    computing. Give examples. Like when I google on 'Erik Funkenbusch' all
    I get is a defunct Blog, with no comments ..
    -------

    "the organization chart will initially reflect the first system
    design, which is almost surely not the right one [...] as one learns,
    he changes the design [...]. Management structures also need to be
    changed as the system changes... ", Frederick P. Brooks

    "Agile software development is a conceptual framework for software
    engineering that promotes development iterations throughout the life-
    cycle of the project", Wikipedia

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast