The FUD FAQ

D. Clyde Williamson

Administrivia

About The FUD FAQ

The FUD FAQ is a list of frequently discussed topics that are used to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) about the Open Source and GNU movement and the products created by them. FUD is a particularly nasty way for a company to campaign against a less well-known product. FUD may come in the form of half-truths, lies, innuendo or facts taken out of context. This FUD FAQ should be a touchstone for anyone truly interested in the facts. This includes, IT Managers, CIOs, Reporters (Reporters, if you have questions about us or why we're doing this, feel free to email anyone at FUD-Counter) and anyone who's interested in the future of computing.

Where Can I Find the Current Version of the FAQ?

This FAQ can be found at its official home on the web at http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org.

Contributors

Primary Authors/Maintainers

Copyright and Usage

Copyright (c) 1999 by D. Clyde Williamson, Rik Van Riel. This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, v0.4 or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).

Publishers do not need to attribute authorship as stated by the OPL. A single, visible attribution is sufficient.

http://www.fsf.org

Background and FUD Basics

Why worry about FUD?

FUD, unfortunately has been employed a number of times by those who stand to lose something from the advancement of the Open Source Development Model. These entities, be they corporations or biased reporters, routinely say, write or print subversive information. Much of the information is incorrect, or outdated. This is unfair to all consumers, including businesses, and home users. We are concerned about FUD, and the effect it could have on the industry. We will set the record straight.

How can I use this FAQ?

This FAQ is a repository and guide to some of the most commonly spread FUD. When reading an article about the Open Source or GNU Movement, or any software written via the Open Source Methodology, feel free to compare it to the information found in this FAQ. If the article incorporates known FUD, be careful. The rest of the article may be nothing more than propaganda. Also, think about the integrity of the author. That author also has access to this FAQ. If they still publish known FUD, are they really a trustworthy source of information?

I've found some new FUD! What do I do?

First, make sure it is FUD. Just because someone states something unflattering about Open Source or any of its programs, doesn't mean its FUD. Once you're sure that the writer was trying to perpetrate FUD, document it! Present the facts and the FUD. Do not allow your emotions to send you flying off on a diatribe. This documents purpose is to present the facts. Once you've documented it, get it to the FAQ maintainers. If it's appropriate, we'll include it, and acknowledge you for the assistance and contribution.

I'm a Reporter/Author/Editor, I need help creating a FUD-Free document.

Excellent! We're extremely happy to see responsible journalists. Our first recommendation would be to read this FAQ. Apparently, you're doing that. Next, review the resources at http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org. If someone has handed you FUD instead of a usable resource, you should be able to use the information here to determine that. If you'd like an honest review of the work, many of the contributers to 'FUD-Counter' will be happy to ensure that your document is FUD-Free.

We'd also like to encourage you to expose FUD. If a source has created FUD and sent it to you, expose them for their subversive marketing ploys. Remember, they're trying to use you to propagate their misinformation. Also, look for reporters with less integrity. If a reporter is knowingly producing FUD, show it for what it is.

FUD About Linux *

Linux in General

With all the different versions, won't Linux splinter, or fragment, like UNIX?

First of all, there are no "different versions". There is the Linux kernel, which is the same throughout all distributions. On top of the kernel, there are several tools and programs that are standard in any distribution. Each distribution also has its own additional features and programs.

So really, the question is "Will the 'different' distributions cause Linux to splinter?". Simply put, no. Why? Well, think about it this way, when I purchase a new computer I might get a copy of Windows. Depending on the computer manufacturer I may get additional programs. The copy of Windows that I get may also be specific to my computer hardware. Does that mean that the Windows code itself is any different? Will the 'eMachines' copy of Windows splinter from the Packard Bell copy? Of course not, they all have the same basic code. This is exactly the way it works with the different Linux distributions. The basic code is the same. Thanks to the 'GNU Public License'(GPL), any modifications that a distribution would make to the Linux source code or any code protected by the GPL, would have to be released to the public. So if someone tried to add proprietary extensions, or embrace and extend the Linux OS, it would fail. All other distributions would be able to see what was done and copy it.

The beauty of Linux is that it does 'splinter', constantly. However, those splinters are collected and the useful ones are rejoined into the common system. This allows Linux to continue to grow and evolve.

Linux doesn't support feature du jour. Why?

Linux is a collaborative effort. What features are implemented is decided purely by the input of those using the operating system. There are no highly-paid, out-of-touch market researchers making these decisions. If there is a feature you need, there are forums to discuss this. Also, being the grass roots organization that it is, you and any other interested parties are invited to sit down and implement this great new feature for the benefit of all. Fortunately, Linux uses the 'Open Source' model of software development, so you have access to all of the information needed to develop for it.

Some food for thought:

The Linux community wants to hear your ideas, not take your money.

You can't make money supporting Linux.

Sure you can. Redhat had a very successful IPO in August 1999. Their entire company is based on Linux. LinuxCare recently got 25 million dollars (US) in funding. As of the writing of this,VA Linux is planning its IPO.

These three companies are all examples of different ways companies can make money on Linux. Redhat makes money from distribution, support and some consulting. LinuxCare is dedicated to the support of Linux across distributions. VA Linux is based on hardware and consulting services. Companies can also make money writing customized code for clients.

Simply put, the OS becomes in effect a commodity. This doesn't stop businesses from making money. It shifts the way they make money. We're already seeing companies move away from a product based sales model, and shifting to a consulting and services approach.

Linux Internals

I've heard that Linux doesn't support SMP (Symmetrical Multiprocessing), is that correct?

Linux does indeed support multiple processors. This support began in the 1.3/2.0 kernel, and is constantly being improved. In the 2.2/2.3 kernel releases SMP is a stable, usable feature. This doesn't mean it is perfect. There still isn't the granularity that some want to see. However, with the release of the 2.4 kernel (as we can see from the current experimental 2.3 line of kernel releases) SMP has become extremely efficient.

Some references:

The SMP HowTo at http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/SMP-HOWTO.html
The Parallel Processing HowTo at http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Parallel-Processing-HOWTO.html

I've heard that the Linux swap file is limited to 128MB, Is that true?

This statement is a classic example of misinformation. In early versions of the Linux kernel, this limitation was somewhat correct, swap devices were limited to 128 MB. However, the information that is missing is that these versions were capable of using multiple swap devices, thus making the limitation moot. In the current versions of the kernel, this limitation has been lifted, and you can still use multiple swap devices.

While Linux does support swap files, it also supports an alternative approach of using swap partitions. This eliminates several layers of the OS required to map into the filesystem. Less work for the processor(s), less things to go wrong. It also allows for specific placement on the disk of the swap area. Depending on your knowledge of the geometry of your device, you could locate your swap area in the middle of the surface, halving the maximum head travel and time required to reach it.

For more performance improvements, one might wish to go with smaller swap devices, spread across several storage devices. This will distribute your load to devices that may not be otherwise busy, thus allowing the swap to occur without resource contention.

Also, if Linux is coexisting on a Windows 95 machine, it is possible to configure it to use the Windows swap file. This will eliminate duplicity of disk space being used for the same purpose.

For further reading on swap space, see sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the Partition HowTo, located at http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/Partition.html.

Why doesn't Linux have a journaling filesystem?

Having a Journaling Filesystem was not part of the original plan for Linux. Fortunately, Linux uses the Open Source method of development. Hence, as this became a requirement for some members of the Linux community, skilled developers began working on it.

There are currently three different projects that will give journaling filesystem capabilities to Linux. These projects include ext3 (the next extension of the current Linux filesystem), XFS from SGI (This technology has been proven in Irix, SGI's own OS, and SGI engineers are quickly moving the technology to Linux), and finally there is some development of ReiserFS (which is theoretically an improvement over the entire journaling filesystem standard).

Some references:

The ReiserFS at http://devlinux.com/namesys/
XFS at http://kt.linuxcare.com/kt19990603_21.html#2

I've heard that Linux doesn't scale well. Is that correct?

That depends on how you define scale. If you use a limited definition, then maybe other operating systems would scale better. But few operating systems could offer the number of scaling options that Linux has.

If you're not getting enough performance out of your current system, you need to determine what the bottleneck is and attempt to remove it. If your CPU is overloaded, you might try a faster one or a second one (SMP). If your disk bandwidth is being exceeded, you might try faster drives, more disk interfaces, or a different disk interface like exchanging IDE drives for SCSI drives. If you're limited on memory, you might add more. But these are all things you could do on just about any system. What happens when you reach the limits?

Most other operating systems are limited in the number of processor architectures they run on. Linux runs on just about anything you could get your hands on. Therefore, if your Intel-based system isn't handling the load, you might try exchanging your Intel motherboard for an Alpha-based motherboard. Reinstall Linux from an alpha distribution, recompile your applications, and you're off!

Also, since Linux is a Unix clone, most software that builds on Linux will build on commercial Unix systems with little or no change. If you are running Linux on a Sparc and think switching to Solaris might improve your performance, you have that option. You could also switch to a commercial Unix on a totally different architecture.

At the extreme end of the performance scale, Linux has been used to implement low-cost, high performance cluster supercomputing in Beowulf-class systems, delivering performances of up to 300 Gflops. Such systems far exceed the capabilities of traditional networks of workstations (NOWs), and for fine-grained tasks can come very close to vastly more expensive systems.

And of course, at the lower end of the performance range, Linux is perfectly capable of scaling down to thin clients, or providing a web server on an Intel 386 with a few MB of RAM.

If this isn't scalability, then what is?

References:

I've heard that Linux has very limited hardware support, how do I know my WhizzBang8D(TM) card will work?

Linux includes support for a great many hardware configurations, including many different processor architectures (including Motorola 68000, PowerPC, ARM, Alpha and x86s from the Intel 386SX up to the new AMD Athlon), motherboard chipsets, cdroms, tape drives, zip drives, network cards, sound cards and joysticks.

Graphics support is provided by XFree86 [1], and, to a lesser extent, by SVGAlib [2]. Questions about Linux support for graphics adaptors are usually really questions about XFree86 support for the card's chipset.

XFree86 is a freely redistributable implementation of the X Window System that runs on UNIX^® and UNIX-like operating systems (and OS/2), and is included in most GNU/Linux distributions. Drivers are available for hundreds of chipsets, and more are being added with every release. In addition, binary-only drivers for new cards such as ATI's Rage 128-based boards are often provided by other sources such as SuSE [3], between releases of XF86 . And even if a driver is not available for a given chipset, it is in many cases still possible to run X using the framebuffer device.

Commercial X servers are also available, and can sometimes provide support in the few cases when XFree cannot.

Having said this, it remains true that, in general, video adaptor support under Linux is less complete than under Microsoft Windows 9x, especially in relation to 3d acceleration. 3d support is available for some cards, most notably 3dfx chipsets and Nvidia's Riva 128 and TNT ranges. Broader 3d capability is being developed, and should be present in the next major release of XFree86.

Many other devices including printers, scanners, cd writers can also be used under Linux.

References:

Security

I've heard that Linux uses the old UNIX Security Model. Isn't that a "Bad Thing"?

Security is not as simple as "good model vs. bad model". There are many angles that need to be reviewed if we want to discuss the security of an OS. While it's true that Linux doesn't use access control lists (ACL's), this in no way indicates that it is more prone to compromise or less secure. Actually, a poorly understood ACL implementation is less secure than no ACL implementation.

Also, the Old Security Model has been breached and subsequently improved upon for considerably more years than that of other contemporary operating systems. This has lead to a higher level of maturity and attainable security. Following in these footsteps means that you do not have to make the same mistakes as your predecessors, and you are rarely in uncharted territory. Do you want something new for new-ness sake that has yet to prove itself, or something with almost thirty years of improvements?

Any system is only as secure as its administrator makes it. Thus, the path to true security lies in the keeping the administrator current on security issues. Relying on any operating system in its out-of-the-box state is a bad policy.

In addition, because of the open nature of the Linux source code, the ability to trim the kernel down to its most essential parts, and the extremely fast response to security issues from the community, trained Linux Administrator can easily maintain a secure system. This leads into the next question...

Isn't it a security risk for people to see the source code? Won't that help them find holes to break systems?

Absolutely not. The idea that hidden code makes a system more secure is called "Security by Obscurity". The merits of "security by obscurity" are open to question . For example, Microsoft keeps its source code well hidden. Yet, there are almost weekly reports of security issues with Microsoft products. Hiding the code doesn't stop people from finding bugs.

The Open Source model is actually a more reliable way of ensuring security. Since the code is available it is peer-reviewed, a case of many eyes making all bugs shallow. Open Source OS's also have the advantage of fast, stable, patches. Since everyone has access to the code, anyone can submit a patch for use. In the Open Source community, security patches have been posted within four hours of a security bug being found.

For an interesting discussion about the merits of Open Source see: http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/AlanCox/AlanCox1.html

I've heard it takes an expert to secure a Linux box. Why?

Don't fool yourself. It takes an expert to secure any box, regardless of the OS. The administrator must know all problems associated with the OS, and the potential security risks that may result. Security can not be simply handled by a nice clickable GUI editor. There's much more to it.

Administration

I've heard it's more difficult to update/upgrade Linux than NT. Is that true?

This is a matter over which people can reasonably differ. Microsoft gives you a large service pack which touches many, many areas of the OS. Linux updates are designed for each program installed. Some people may be comfortable simply pushing a button and not knowing exactly what's happening. Personally, I like knowing and controlling what's being updated when.

The major Linux distributions have relatively easy to use installation and management tools. True, it isn't exactly like what you are used to, but most are easy to use, nonetheless. These tools are available to use, if you so desire. But, if you are a techno-savvy user, you can also choose the roll-your-sleeves-up route and do it all manually, and to your exact liking.

Linux update solutions can be handled remotely without a problem, not even needing to reboot the server in most cases. NT Service Packs are installed locally, the administrator must visit each server. Some of the Linux update tools can even run unattended in the background and check for updates automatically.

The beauty of Linux, though, is that it covers the whole spectrum.

I read a document that seems to say that Linux and Windows 2000 cannot work properly on the same server. Is that really the case?

You probably read the document posted here at "http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q247/8/04.ASP?LNG=ENG&SA=ALLKB". This document certainly could be interpreted to mean that Windows 2000 and Linux cannot exist on the same system. Especially since it begins with "The partition types used by the Linux and Windows operating systems are incompatible. To remove Linux from your computer and install Windows 2000 or Windows NT, you must manually delete the partition used by the Linux operating system."

UPDATE: 02/07/2000- Microsoft has changed the referring document so that the above quote has now been removed. Thanks to Cezary Sliwa for pointing this out.

This is not true. The partitions are different. You certainly cannot install Windows 2000 and Linux on the same drive partition. However, you can install both operating systems in a dual-boot design. Many users currently do this with Windows 9x or Windows NT and Linux. If you would like to run both Operating systems on the same box, simply follow the same procedure you would follow to dual-boot any other OS.

For more information on dual-boot solutions see: http://www.linux.com/howto/mini/Linux+NT-Loader.html; http://www.linux.com/howto/mini/Linux+DOS+Win95+OS2.html; http://www.linux.com/howto/mini/Linux+Win95.html; http://www.linux.com/howto/mini/Linux+FreeBSD.html

Keep in mind that installing Windows 2000 will overwrite the Master Boot Record, this will delete "LILO" and you will have to re-install it.

FUD About GNU, Open Source, and The Free Software Foundation

Will the GPL stand up in court?

There is no way to be certain until there is a court case, but our lawyers believe the GPL will stand up. More pragmatically, when they send letters to companies that are violating the GPL, the companies comply. They do not seem eager to challenge the GPL's validity.
- Richard Stallman, Founder of the GNU Project

Isn't the Free Software movement (GNU) and the idea of Open Source Software communistic in its ideals? Won't it be damaging to capitalism?

The Free Software movement is not against business [or profit]. Since the beginning the movement has envisioned and encouraged businesses based on Free Software. [Companies like Redhat, VALinux Systems and LinuxCare among others illustrate this.]

The Free Software movement is more like the environmental movement: we object to doing business in a way that poisons our society. As long as business respects our freedom, we are not against it, we even participate in it.

- Richard Stallman, Founder of the GNU Project

'Linux' here refers to an Operating System that is made up of the Linux Kernel, tools from the GNU Project as well as contributions from various other Open Source projects. Without the contributions of the GNU Project, the OS we use today would not exist. We will call the full system by its commonly known name 'Linux', though many feel it should be more appropriately called 'GNU/Linux'.

dclydew
1999-10-13