Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Red Hat Software Inc. (Nasdq-RHAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nelson Chang who wrote (777)	8/24/1999 8:43:00 AM
From: dmf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1794

Nelson & Thread: Article from the SUNW thread that may be of interest to Red Hat investors. This explains why Linux is secure and Windows is NOT. It may be old news (dated August 6) but it puts bits and pieces together to form a compelling argument for individuals and businesses. Thanks to JCJ for posting this over on the other thread! Eric S. Raymond -- Will You Be Cracked Next? Aug 6, 1999, 18:07 UTC Contributed by Eric S. Raymond Melissa. Explore.zip. Back Orifice. If you think there has been a bad rash of viruses and crack attacks lately, you're right. And security experts say it's going to get worse, not better; the frequency of crack attacks is rising exponentially. So are the money losses from the problem. Computer Economics, a research firm in Carlsbad NM, reports that American businesses lost $7.6 billion due to software viruses during the first half of 1999 -- more than in all of 1998, Curiously, the massive mainstream media coverage of these incidents completely fails to mention the one thing they all have in common; Microsoft Windows. Non-Microsoft operating systems such as Linux are invulnerable to macro attacks, immune to viruses, and can laugh at Back Orifice. This simple fact explains why your Internet service provider never suffers from viruses; essentially all ISPs run their services off Unix boxes, and about 40% of them run Linux. Evidently businesses are finding this an increasingly attractive option; a recent Computer Associates survey reports that 49% of information technology manages describe Linux as "important or essential" in their enterprise plans. One of the reasons for this trend is surely security. Anyone running a Microsoft operating system on a machine visible from the internet is just begging to be cracked. If you're concerned with computer security, you need to understand why -- and why Microsoft will not and cannot fix the problem. Linux and other operating systems like it were designed from the ground up to be used by several people on the same machine, and to protect those people from each other. The user interface of Linux is separated from the `kernel', the privileged operating system core. And the kernel is carefully protected from being modified by ordinary programs. This is why Linux doesn't get viruses. Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, has a one-person-per-machine assumption built deeply into it. There is no internal security and the Windows kernel is not protected against being modified by user programs. In fact, the user interface of Windows is wired right into the kernel. This is why hostile programs coming in over an Internet connection (such as Back Orifice) can reach right through the user interface, deep into the operating system core, and infect it. If you value your data and your privacy, you need to understand that Microsoft cannot fix this. Too many applications (including Microsoft Office and the IIS web server) actually depend on the lack of security in the system. Furthermore, the fact that the source code of Windows is closed means that it never gets properly audited for security problems. How does Microsoft deal with this? Not well. Mainly, they tell lies and try to confuse the issue. Three days ago, on August 3 1999, Microsoft put a machine running a beta of its new Windows 2000 operating system on the net and challenged crackers the world over to break into it. A few hours after the announcement, the machine crashed. Microsoft spokespeople subsequently claimed that it had been brought down by electrical storms. But the machine's own error logs showed there had been nine crashes due to errors in Microsoft's own software, not the weather. Furthermore, crackers did indeed get in and alter a guestbook application during the short time the machine was actually up -- a fact Microsoft tried to dismiss as irrelevant. A few hours after Microsoft's challenge was announced, a Linux company in Wisconsin matched it. During the following three days, their Linux machine withstood 6,755 attacks without crashing once. Which system would you rather trust your critical data to?

To: Nelson Chang who wrote (777)	8/24/1999 8:45:00 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1794

Reading the last several posts is why I have a difficult time in figuring out how Rhat will support the current share price for 66 mill shares. Buy one copy and share. I hope I'm wrong as I wish the best for Rhat. As to comments on kde and the desktop. I hope as the world now turns to Linux that been there all along, that the Linux world will turn back to the pure simple and elegant that has also been there for years. The wacky choice of complex simplification. watman.com Managing information in the current internet world. 20 desktop 30 apps all with visual cues and only 1/2 second to access. All on uptodate 1994 pentium pro technology. Tom Watson tosiwmee

To: Nelson Chang who wrote (777)	8/24/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: JP Sullivan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1794

For years now organizations have been told it's not kosher to copy software. So it's not impossible to imagine all the Dilberts following the same train of thought: one machine one copy, or it's illegal. Then somebody wakes up and says, Hey! it's okay to copy Red Hat Linux and redistribute it. And that's what they'll end up doing. Nevertheless, my problem is that I'm having trouble understanding how Red Hat will be a significant money machine in the foreseeable future. Some people have mumbled about it being the next Microsoft. Well, how is that possible if Red Hat doesn't own what it sells? Who's it going to sue when its bundle of Linux is propagated all over an organization? Downloading Linux over the Internet may be too slow for most people, but what about downloading from a LAN. I imagine it's an acceptable wait. Part of Microsoft's open secret to money making is that people are compelled to shell out significant cash for what amounts to a piece of paper (e.g. licence for permission to add more clients to an NT Server)--I'll bet it costs Microsoft less to print a licence that it does the US government to print a dollar bill. Now, what has Red Hat got that matches or betters that model? (BTW, I'm only using Microsoft for comparison; it doesn't mean I'm a cheerleader for Bill & Co.) Sell service, you say. Well, okay. I'll purchase one service contract because I've purchased ONE pack of Red Hat Linux. In the meantime I have 500 machines that run on that one pack of Red Hat I bought for $75. How much does it cost to keep a technician in the field? How much does it cost to mail you a piece of paper that says you can add X clients? Cost is a major issue determining a company's profitability at the end of the day. Whose cost is going to be higher? Red Hat's or Microsoft's? Bear in mind that one is selling a service (= people = high costs) and the other is selling a product --in some cases it's a piece of paper-- that is mass produced by the millions. I'm sure I'm missing a huge point here. The legions of Red Hat enthusiasts can't be wrong. Please enlighten me. What's going to make Red Hat so incredibly profitable? I'd like to learn and perhaps profit from it. Maybe at the end of the day Red Hat's profitability doesn't really matter. After all, we know that the prices of some stocks bears little relation to their companys' ability to make money, so long as the spin pleases WS.