Unix users up in arms at Bill Gates' knighthood
Summary: The UK Unix users' group is unhappy about Bill Gates receiving an honorary knighthood, saying that Microsoft's licence fees negate any contribution the company's chairman has made
Following the news that the Microsoft founder, who is the world's wealthiest man, will receive an honorary knighthood for "services to global enterprise", the group said it "had serious reservations at such an award".
"Microsoft's use of unfair business practices to damage its competitors and to extend its de facto monopolies in desktop and consumer computing has been before the courts many times," said the group. "Microsoft's software has been written with scant regard for security, pushing the enormous cost of counteracting viruses/spam, and for repairing their damage, onto its own customers." Other operating systems rarely suffer such problems, said UKUUG chairman Charles Curran, "having been designed with security and robustness as goals rather than as afterthoughts."
The UKUUG bills itself as a non-profit organisation and technical forum for the advocacy of Unix and Unix-like operating systems, the promotion of open-source software, and the advancement of open programming standards and networking protocols.
Curran took particular offence to the reasons given by the Foreign Office for the award, which included recognition of Gates' outstanding contribution to enterprise, employment, education and the voluntary sector in the UK.
"Given the enormous sums paid to Microsoft as licence fees by the British public and private sector every year," said Curran, "it is doubtful that he even makes a net contribution, still less an 'outstanding' one."
"It is particularly unfortunate that this honour should be given at a time when government and business finally have real alternatives to Microsoft on PCs," Curran added. "The UKUUG believes that the government, as a matter of urgency, should get serious about using alternatives like Linux to reduce the costs of UK enterprise, employment, education, and voluntary sectors."
Microsoft was not immediately able to pick up the gauntlet.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
This is really funny isn't it?
This rapidly declining declining user group, which has watched Microsoft basically clobber Unix in the market place and finds itself becoming less and less relevant, will be better served focusing its attention and bile on the anarchist bomb throwers from the Linux community who are the real cause of the "enormous cost of counteracting viruses".
The latest crime of the Linux community? The "MYDOOM" virus which is busy causing havoc around the world even as we speak.
Go read : <b>"MyDoom Virus Could be 'Linux War' Weapon "</b> at
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3304311.
When did it become normal to blame the victim of a hate crime for crimes being commited by the hater, in this case the Linux community?
This is obviously a blatant anti-Microsoft propaganda attempt by another "Microsoft is Satant" group.
It has zero credibility, and it will have about as much effect on the British Goverment as an eunoch has on a virgin.
Bil Gates still gets his Knighthood and the "Hate Microsoft" psychos will be forced to choke on their own bile yet again!
Charles' comments are not anti Microsoft for the sake of being anti Microsoft, he's just stating that Bill Gates is not worthy of a knighthood, which based on his track record is a fair comment. Remember his company was found guilty of anti-competitive business practices in the US (the fact that their punishment was so weak as to be ineffective is another matter) and is facing the same fate in the EU.
As for virus writers being Linux users you're just falling for the misinformation from the likes of SCO and Microsoft, just because a small number of people write viruses and they may happen to run Linux (who knows?) doesn't mean all Linux users are like that, they are a minority, hated by both the vast majority of Linux and Windows users.
You can't judge a group of people by a small minority claiming to be from the group they represent - there's extremists everywhere from all walks of life.
I do believe the virus writers are bad people but still MS does deserve a lot of the blame too. Imagine buying a car that was advertised for its security features and then someone manages to steal it using a paperclip - the criminal may be the person to blame, but the manufacturer shipped an insecure product despite the knowledge that someone would take advantage.
others in the world who advocate open systems, have _no hate_ for either
Microsoft or Bill Gates.
What my submission to ZDNet --
our PR is at http://www.ukuug.org/pr/2004-01-26_Gates.html; it also
points to what UKUUG stands for --
was attempting to do was question whether it was right for the Queen/UK
Foreign Office to honour Bill Gates (with a knighthood).
If Smithy just wants to say that Microsoft is the best solution and that
open systems are bad (of course that's a paraphrase), then say that,
and let's debate that.
(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.zdnet.com ;->)
(As it happens, UKUUG is not a `rapidly declining declining user
group', the membership is roughly stable, alas.
[does that double decline suggest growth? ;-) ] )
Getting back to Microsoft, I suggest reading Monday's The Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2020-9080-978071,00.html
(if it is still available); to quote just a bit `Paul Smith, an analyst
at Kable, a public sector IT research group, said:
Lets look at the facts now shall we?
FACT: Windows NT has gone from ZERO market share in 1993 (when it was introduced) to a market share of 55% as at the end of 2002 according to both IDC and Dataquest.
Meanwhile, Unix server unit sales have fallen to a measly 11%. Even if you add in Linux, Windows still trumps the combined Linux and Unix units by 55.1 % to 33.4 %.
This is in site of all the massive, constant Linux hype and propaganda.
REF : http://searchwin2000.techtarget.com/newsItem/0,289139,sid1_gci931438,00.html?track=NL-118
David Hallowell also claims : <i>"Charles' comments are not anti Microsoft for the sake of being anti Microsoft, he's just stating that Bill Gates is not worthy of a knighthood, which based on his track record is a fair comment"</i>
Really?
Listen, I lived In Britain for 10 years before moving to New York, and if Bill Gates is "not worthy" of a knighthood, then I can think of at least 10 people who were so honored, who had or subsequently committed crimes that would make Bill Gates look like a saint.
Like a certain Lord Archer of Western-super-Mare who who committed the most serious fraud, perjury, bribery and corruption BEFORe he was made a Lord of the realm, but was only subsequently exposed after he was made a Lord , tried and sent to jail at her majesty's pleasure.
I happened to be living in Britain when ole Lord Archer bribed someone to lie for him in court concerning his having patronized a prostitute. I don't recall the Unix Users Group or any other group coming out with vicious attacks against Archer then. After all, his name was not Bill gates, right?
The Labour Party was no better. Labour's record is no better. Amongst the list of crooks and spivs honoured by British Prime Minister Harold Wilson were :
Lord Kagan, Lord Plurenden, Sir Eric Miller, old uncle Lord Brayley etc etc.
Its enough to send a guy to Bedlam.
Why is the Unix Users Group not complaining about all these convicted crooks who were given honours and instead launch vicious attacks against the greatest philanthropist Africa has ever seen, giving more to fight malaria than the entire European Union?
Especially given the fact that malaria was killing up to 2000 Black African children every single day? (BTW, I happen to be from West Africa myself and please note that these honours are given nt just for works done n Britain but for works done in the Commonwealth like Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa etc ec as well)
Your analogy simply does not hold water in this case.
I am going to give you a quote from CNN on this "MyDoom" virus, which was written by Linux fanatics to cause mayhem and destruction and designed to do as much damage to Microsoft as possible, and bring SCO to it's knees for daring to demand that their stolen property be returned to them.
In the piece entitled <b>"Experts: Vicious worm 'Linux war' weapon"</i> here is a quote:
(http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/27/mydoom.spread/index.html)
<b>"While many computer users are savvy about not opening executable files or other attachments that may contain viruses, the latest worm masks itself as an innocuous text document or a file that your computer appears unable to read.
"This one is almost begging you to click on the attachment," said Sharon Ruckman, the head of anti-virus firm Symantec's security response team"</b>
Bill Gates can do a lot of things. But he sure can't stop someone from clicking on an "exe" file and effectively installing a virus on his own computer.
Microsoft has set up a web site for all Windows users telling them what steps to take to prevent such things from happening and has in conjunction with the FBI launched an extended education campaign for Windws users.
Are you saying that if you click on a virus execution file in Lnux or Unix, it won't damage your computer or what?
The analogy you should be giving is someone who buys a car, sees (or des not see) a truck crossing the road, and drives into it, then turns around and balmes the car manufacturerer. It just won't wash.
And another thing, for you Linux/Unix evangelists to say a Linux system is secure is funny.
Why? Because hardly anyone is attacking Linux at all.
The overwhelming majority of viruses are wrtten against Windows , a lot of them (like the "MyDoom" virus) writen by open source/Linux fanatics to do damage to Microsoft.
Linux has basically not been subject to anything close to the virus attacks on Windows. So how can you even dream of saying its more secure than Windows? Cetainly the figures from CERT don't back you up. n fact according to CERT's figures, Windows 2003 server is much more secure than Linux.
Its like sying the French army can fight, just because they strut about and look fierce in their uniforms, when in fact we know for a fact that anytime the Germans decided to take France n the last century, they just came up and gave the French a clobbering, taking only 6 weeks to smoke the French in World War Two!
Same thing with Linux.
In any head to head shoot out, Windows smokes Linux everytime, in every department.
Bill Gates' charity contributions were not the reason for his knighthood, it's good that he makes these donations but lets not forget how insignificant they are compared to his total wealth, it's like the equivalent of someone who's unemployed putting 10p in a charity box, one set of good deeds does not excuse ones other actions.
As for your comments on NT's marketshare, I'll be fair and say that I was pleasantly surprised when I used Win2k (NT5), I honestly believe that it was competition in the form of Linux that helped the motivation to make it a decent product. There is a place for Windows and in many cases (mostly on the desktop) it's the right tool for the job, but on the other hand there's many times when an alternative would be the better option.
Microsoft only have the incentive to improve their products when they either want to take over a market or they see a threat to their marketshare so if Microsoft ever succeeded in eliminating their competition expect to never see any further improvements in MS products. Take for an example Internet Explorer, it started off as a useless browser totally inferior to the Netscape of its time, but they offered it free in the hope to steal Netscape's market, people still bought Netscape, so they improved their product so that it was better in many ways to Netscape and their market share climbed to 90%, after this they stood still and there hasn't been an update to IE for ages, while browsers such as Mozilla and Opera are racing ahead, once IE's browser share slips again you can expect them to start 'innovating' features from the alternative browsers,
So basically, I don't want to see any OS with the same market share Windows currently enjoys, including Linux. I just want Microsoft to play fair and governments to stop rewarding Microsoft and Gates while they're currently abusing their position. A more level playing field would benefit everyone
I will just refer you to the official Number 10 Downing Street announcement at :
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page5242.asp
I quote from the Prime Minister's official annoucement :
"In 2000 the Gates Foundation announced the single biggest international educational scholarship programme ever established in the United Kingdom. With an estimated worth of US$210 million, it allows 230 students to study at Cambridge University. In addition, his international development work makes the Gates Foundation one of the leading philanthropic organisations of the modern age."
Gates' tremendous charity work is one of the reasons (if not the main reason) that he is being honoured. Period.
As for your comment that its only a small part of his waelth he is giving out.... well you are wrong on that one too actually.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is now endowed with to the tune of a staggering $25 Billion from Bill Gates, making him the greatest philantrophist in the history of mankind.
This is especially inpressive given that he is now left with only $55 Billion according to Forbes magazine.
Also Bill has stated over and over again that 99% of his money is going to go to charity.
No one, but no one even comes close to this guy in the amount of good he is doing and will do in his life time!!
BTW, having lived in Britain for a very long time, I don't quite recall any of the billionaires in Britian even coming close to doing what Bill Gates has done for the poor and needy, and tyo cure and prevent diseases for the poor, not even in Britain, not to talk of in Africa or any other poor countries!
The way executable files are handled on Linux will make it a lot harder for a user to innocently click on a file thinking it's an innocent text file. This is because executable files are set as a permission in the linux filesystem not as an extension as in Windows. Therefore you can't make an execuatable look like a text file simply by calling the file something.txt.exe and setting the .exe's file to the Notepad icon (because Windows by default is set to hide file extensions then many won't see the .exe) - so yes, this is a bad decision by Microsoft.
Now can you stop accusing Linux community of writing the latest Windows worm, you can't judge a community on the actions of a minority.
Only? I hope he travelled Economy class over to the UK with that little money! So what if he's giving away 99% of his money in the future (which I doubt), 1% of $55 billion is still more than enough to live a very comfortable lifestyle.
Doing good things from basically money you obtained through unfair business practices does not make you a good person, it just makes you less bad.
I have folowed the case closely, and I think SCO will win because they have the law and right on their side.
But we'll just leave that to the courts.
As for being able to or not being able to male "exe" files look like "txt" files, that is surely not the issue here.
Imagine if you will, that Linux has the market share of Windows today, and its being used by truck, drivers, miners, wrestlers and people who basically don't know or want to know too much about how computers work.
Then they get an email , even with a normal "exe" file attachment which as been cleverly made out to tempt them to open it.
Or imagine a 7 year old child opening reading his emails or a grandmother who can't see very well.
In fact in most of these cases, they willl simply open the attachment file and not even realise they have just screwed their computer up till much later.
These are the kinds of things Windows with 95% of the market has to go through.
Linux, which s 99% used by geeks doesn't come close to going through any of this.
Like I said before, you can't claim somethng is that good when its not been tested by anything close to the # of viruses Windows has been subjected to and subjected to use by ordinary consumers.
Basically your argument backs up what I was saying. A heterogeneous computing environment where no system is dominant will reduce the problem of viral attacks because only a small portion of systems will then be eligible to be affected for each virus/worm/etc.
Also like I also mentioned, as Linux doesn't use the filename to indicate executable status but instead sets it as a file permission then the problem of someone not seeing the .exe is removed.
In Linux to execute a file from an email attachment:
1) Save file to disk
2) chmod +x filename
3) ./filename
Therefore you at least need to know what you're doing before running an executable file.
The trouble with the Linux fanatics is, this operating system is hardly used at all by ordinary consumers, and so everything you say is just theory and wishful thinking. Plus Linux doesn't get anything close to even 5% of the viruses written for Windows.
As for heterogeneous environment, it brings with it a whole new set of problems. In fact it can be argued that security problems will actually increase in that kind of environments.
You are just talking theory, which has not been proved by the facts on the ground, so you can make any boasts you want, but that doesn't make it fact does it?
<i>I am going to give you a quote from CNN on this "MyDoom" virus, which was written by Linux fanatics</i>
It's ridiculous to blame all Linux users for the actions of one or a few idiots (the author/authors of the MyDoom virus/worm).
<i>
Bill Gates can do a lot of things. But he sure can't stop someone from clicking on an "exe" file and effectively installing a virus on his own computer.
</i>
Well, most Unix mail clients don't allow you to execute attachments at all (I can't think of one that allows it but I don't know them all, there is a wide choice). This was a lesson learned by most of the email-using IT world in 1988 (yes, 88 not 98), when the CHRISTMA EXEC worm brought BITNET to its knees. If this lesson had also been learned by Microsoft, their email products would be a whole lot more secure.
Considering the fact that there are so many willing to declare Microsoft "Anti-competitive" by nature, one wonders how the currently defined practices of Microsoft influence the very nature of the development and future sustainability of such economies. Kinda like i'll give you
Yeah?
The operative word here is "MOST Unix mail clients".
Even assuming that dubious claim is true, a system is only as secure as its weakest link.
Vague statements like "Most" and " I can't think of one that allows it" just won't wash..
And just in case you still think Linux is so secure, read this link:
http://www.zdnetindia.com/techzone/stories/94133.html
Nothing less than the Debian Linux server itself was hacked without any problems by a bunch of hackers!
Some quotes from that article :
"A Gentoo Linux project server has been compromised by attackers and subsequently pulled offline for a full forensic analysis.
The attack and subsequent compromise comes a after several machines belonging to the Debian Linux project were breached by attackers last month."
And :
""During this time, approximately 20 users synchronised against the portage mirror stored on this box. The method used to gain access to the box remotely is still under investigation. We will release more details once we have ascertained the cause of the remote exploit," it read. "
So much for the much vaunted "security"of Linux. LOL!
Like I keep saying, most viruses and attacks by far are directed against Windows machines, a lot of them by Linux/Open source haters.
The few occasions when anyone has attempted to hack Linux machines,they have tended to be successful quite a lot of the time.
You can't say something is secure just because very few people are attempting to hack into it or write viruses to attack it.
Linux has got a glass jaw! :)
Well I am amazed you to hear you whine about ;
"Bill Gate's honour offer has been attached to the "so called" poor of the world - (West Africa, etc). "
As it happens,I was born and raised in Ghana, and worked in the then Ondo State of Nigeria as a teacher four years after finishing university.
And.. I worked deep in the rural areas ,with no treated pipe-borne water, no electricity, , very little medicines available for babies and children
Kids regularly died from contracting diseases from drinking untreated water and from easily treatable diseaseslike malaria because of lack of medicines.
We had similar problems in Ghana too.
The Europeans who basically came to Africa to plunder and loot and leave Africa destitute, just sat idly by all these years while up to 2000 children died every day from an easily treatable disease like malaria.
It took an American Bill Gates to come in and really pump in money, equipment and the infrastructure and personall to really tackle these problems.
For you, a Nigerian to sit in Britain and mindlessly attack Bill gates for the wonderful very vital humanitarian work he is doingin Africa is simply beyond belief!
I think you have maybe forgotten your roots.
And,... if you want to attack someone for doing massive damage to Africa,why don't you talk about that ex-leader of yours, one Sanni Abacha ,who was Nigerian head of state for 6 years and in that time managed to steal to the the tune of billions of dollars of Nigerian money and deposited the money in European banks,while most Nigerians starved?
A few more points:
1. It wasn't America that colonized and raped Africa.It was Europe. America owes Africa little. But Europe does.
2. Microsoft's sales/profits from sub Saharan Africa is close to zero. As you and I know, very few people have PC's in Africa.Plus even those who have them, simply pirate all the Microsoft software they need without paying anything to anybody.
3. Bill Gates has put in far more money into fighting diseases and poverty in Africa than Microsoft is ever likely to see in a very very long time to come.
4.For a dying,sick or starving child in Africa, all they want is relief and medicines and treatment, no matter where it comes from.For a bunch of Europeans(the very guys the plundered Africa) to make hypocritical whinny noises and complain when someone else is doing what they should have been doing themselves fin the past 40 years at least, is not only an outrage, its disgusting and beyond contempt!
Though one would not like to begin to blab about pre and post World War economic/political policies/strategies and the "exodermic and endodermic" shocks introduced on both sides of that equation in developing nations, one would say that indications of Microsoft's basic attitude with regards to the so called Developing Nations was clearly seen in South America, where they tried to stop the official introduction of Open Source platforms in government using the office of the US Ambassedor.
To me what Microsoft does or does not do, is of little relevance. Africa is not a country, but a continent made up of diverse countries with diverse potentials all of which evolve based on attitudes and accepted practices. Seeing that my focus is on R&D related to Open Source and the manufacture and deployment of products in W.Africa, you might see me as being biased. However, my belief is that the future of Africa lies less in AID and more in increases to production on all levels.
Here too, I care little about nationalistic assumptions and more about the nature of individuals and their behavior with regards to their circumstance and their pursuits.
You also said in anything windows smokes linux hands down, expand on this for me please.
Reliability?
Stability?
Choice?
Economy of resources?
Flexibility?
Power?
Scalability?
Plesse offer me direct examples of how Windows beats Linux in any or all of the above areas. I will post back with benchmarks and links to show all of the above areas being challenged or easily won by linux/UNIX.