Washington Post's ridiculous anti Linus/Linux propaganda
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/bus...-the-argument/

I would like to quote every blatant attack but I have no time for this.

That was actually painful to read. As in, ”Really bad journalism”.

What Linus said made sense though.

I'm not a fan of the format or style of that "technology press" style article, but it's not the worst I've seen and the essence of the article is in fact true - Linus does not prioritise security. In my opinion having read his comments over the years, he finds it convenient to rubbish the opinions and approaches of security focused projects rather than to actually tackle the problem.

Hi all...

The article may not overflowing with praise but I've definitely seem more "hostile" reporting than what I saw in this article. If there are bad perceptions concerning Mr. Torvalds, I think he has to bear at least some responsibility, considering the choice of words he has used (out of anger) to address those whom he has disagreed with, as mentioned in the article. :(

Regards...

I agree and disagree with the article. There will never be total security. Besides. We can get very secure systems. Just map your login to a selinux user context and see how much you can do with a system out of the box. Windows also did not become popular because it was secure. It is easy to use. Linux is gaining traction and messing up userland now will be suicide. I think the article is a tad too long. But in the end, people can do with the kernel what they want, so the author can rally his troups and design a new one based on security. Nothing is stopping him or others. I personally would like to see more security, but i would not want to invest hours trying to get stuff running, so it is the same as always. Dog chasing its tail. The system can be made more secure, but you need to spend time on it. That i think is what people do not want to do, especially in the I want it know mindset most of us including me have.

This is no reason to just adopt a lax and dismissive attitude towards it. Any software developer who ignores security and puts it on the back burner, might well still be a genius, but is also being careless and complacent.

You're talking about one particular implementation and not, in my opinion, a very good one which tries to solve a few specific problems in a specific manner. This is more about basic security features such as ASLR which should have been built into the Linux kernel as standard 10 years ago. Any user or distribution could turn these off at compile time if desired - the point being that no one was really working on these things. It was down to grsecurity/pax to highlight this and develop "hardening" for the kernel and face being dismissed as "crazies" by Torvalds.

Spengler had this to say about Linux's weak KASLR: https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3367

which is entirely irrelevant.
Linux is gaining "traction" but the main area is in embedded devices, particularly Android. Security is as important here as anywhere else.

Member response
 

Hi,

The article was slanted but did reflect Linus's autocratic styles for managing the 'kernel'. The author kept stating the kernel/Linux was a OS and I find that some people do reference the kernel as the OS. It happens to be the heart of a Linux distribution. Maybe the author should do better research so as to prevent falling into traps. Simple wiki source would help;The article was resourceful for security sense from their source perspective.

As for security, I find it necessary to keep my systems closed to the world to prevent issues. Same is so for any system that may be accessed remotely, user be aware.

I do read the post daily and know when the slant does appear therefore no surprise in that article. Still informative for someone who can discern.
:hattip:

The final paragraph of the story reveals the bias: "but first, you must change the mind of Linus." And, the writer never gets specific as to what would be a better alternative ... nor does he cite by-name any of the oblique critics to which the article refers. Which is journalistically disappointing. The article paints a vaguely-FUD picture but it's just a paint-by-numbers covering.

Yet I'm pretty sure that if he was heaping praise on Linus and Linux, no one here would give a [mod remove language] about the 'journalistic quality' of the article...

Moderator response
 

@cynwulf

You have been a LQ member long enough to know not use that kind of language;From LQ Rules

I found incidences of "shit" going back to 2011 posted by me. Haven't been pulled up for using that word here ever before. Yet here we in a thread where Linus Torvalds and the Linux kernel are criticised and where "journalistic quality" is being addressed and suddenly "shit" is not ok.

I searched for "shit" and found over 1000 results - 16 from last month and one other one today. No sign of a 'moderator response'.

"shit" is synonymous with "crap". So is "crap" out now as well?

You know what, forget it - I'm out.

I just read the article in the link and am left wondering if the link is correct. I was expecting to see a biased attack against Linux, but instead read a good article. Its "bias" is focusing on one issue; security. It gives impartial coverage to both sides.

The article is LINUX IS HUGE AND DOMINANT AND VERY IMPORTANT AND MUST, MUST, MUST BE TAKEN EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY THAN IT IS NOW.

What's the problem?

Meh ... it sure doesn't look like a particularly well-crafted article to me.

Not to "body slam" the author thereof (which, actually, is not what I intend to do), I'd just say that "I am under-impressed with it." I kinda think that if the writer and the editor(s) had worked a little harder with the interview-material that they had, and if they had fleshed-out their treatment of what Linus was talking about a little bit more, they could have come up with a better piece of writing, all without "snowing" their non-technical readership.

Washington Post has published much better (and more researched) writing in the past, than this particular example would suggest.

Fortunately, and to their credit, I know that WP generally does not "merely" go for the sensationalistic in their writing, as so many of their competitors tend to do . . . so I don't assert that they have tried to do so here. It's ... IMHO ... "meh, just not a well-written piece."

Oh well. "It has been written, and it's been published. Let's move on."

Agreed.
People complaining about an article that impartially covers both sides of one aspect of computer use as it relates to Linux "being an attack on Linux," says a lot about a sizeable portion of the Linux community. The sins made in that article were evaluating Linux critically and including quotes from Torvalds that show his attitude concerning security. Torvald's complacent attitude to security is not a secret. So why the fuss about this article?

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.