How was it bad journalism?

Let's add fuel to the fire. :evil:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ecurity-36795/
I believe a blog post is more appropriate than posting here, because I comment on more than just the article.

Lol. This was my favorite part


And surprise surprise, how do these botnets form? Allowing access to ssh and permitting password logins and having a easy password.
No hack, just more "linux is insecure because users set easy passwords"

But that is not what the article is about. The main concern highlighted is how the approach to security is to build a wall around the system instead of securing the system. The argument of those concerned with security is it is better to harden the system against attacks than build a wall around an insecure system. The article includes an examination of why Torvalds chose his approach and why some people disagree with it. Obviously a propaganda piece.

I found it to be both rather sensationalistic and tendentious. Also, I felt the author worked very hard to ”prove” that Linus does not care that much about security, but...

Of course, I should probably have been more explicit in my first post; stating that these are MY views and MY opinion. There is obviously no ”right” or ”wrong” opinion here. Just because I think the article was what I consider bad journalism doesn't mean you have to agree. And I most certainly am not going to try to convince you.

Best regards,
HMW

this was my first thought, too.
while reading it, for every quote, every statement, i would have expected something backing that, an explanation, a link... instead it is just throwing strong statements at the reader, but leaves them hanging when it comes to providing credibility.

it's really half-baked.

please understand, i'm not dissing the article because it is "against linux".

but, in addition to the above, i don't like how they talk about the kernel as if it was one thing - even the android kernel is sufficently different from other kernels - or about Thorvalds as if he was the CEO of some company, "the man behind the scenes, revealed". therefore lending his words a weight that they do not deserve.
otoh, this kind of article probably attracts readers, so why not...

They clearly state that one reason massive change would be difficult is because Linux is not a company with a leadership making decisions. They also describe Torvald's relationship with Red Hat and his resulting life-style. I read nothing in the article that was misleading about Torvald's influence.

That wasn't the final paragraph of the story. Looks like more than one person here mistook the introduction for the entire article.

I did feel the same way as as ondoho after getting to the "final paragraph", and then I noticed there was more...

To this user, it seems a 'middle-of-the-road' piece where the reporter is not thoroughtly convinced Linux is lacking security measures, got distracted by Linus and his personality, and had to please his boss by a) not offending Microsoft shareholders and the lobbyists surrounding all companies peripheral and adjuct to MS, and b) not putting Linux in a good light, carefully. WP has never been a bastion of objectivity, but it has to put of the front of trying to be.

I was thinking about this today, as it turned up in a thread in my LUG's forums.

I found myself wondering whether anyone has ever seen an article, virtual or otherwise, in which the Windows kernel was specifically held responsible for the occasional and intermittent security issues that occasionally from time to time have been reported to affect various versions of Windows.

Upon reflection, I have concluded that the article is a gold-encrusted crock, in that it conflates the kernel with the operating system. The kernel's job is to manage communication among programs, users, the network, and devices. It's the command center.

It is not the moat, not the ramparts, not the drawbridge, not the archers on the wall.

I will note, as an afterthought, that iptables is part of the kernel. The Linux kernel has native firewall capabilities. Windows has Norton, AVG, AVAST, Spybot, Malwarebytes, and those are just a few I can name off the top of my head.

Just my two cents.

Later: Got carried away and forgot about that highly configurable and versatile Windows firewall. Sorry.

1) It is also worthwhile keeping in mind that information pieces in the mass media are meant for the masses, and consequently will be cursory at best. Anyone who wants real information, and has any intelligence, will seek information from specialised sources. In the case of computers, technology publications and websites will be sought. Linux users should not be overly concerned about biased news media articles, since people who rely on the news media for all their information and misinformation are probably not the people you want using Linux. Are they?

2) All news media are biased. Some only a little, some a lot. Expecting completely unbiased news from the mass news media is unwise.