Asume you like Fedora???
FYI the only netbooks I have seen in stores so far is Vista netbooks, which just scares me, they can't possibly have any sort of measurable performance...
My only objection to this artical is claiming that Windows is not as good as Fedora. IMO i think the two systems live in different worlds, and it's more what do you want to do with your computer. Sort of based on how there is no right or wrong, just different points of view.
Otherwise, i completely agree with everything you said, and that new exchange licensing, wow, thats terriable. I wouldn't care if we changes services where I work, as long as my contacts list stays, calander stays, and I can continue to use MS Outlook as my email client.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
1/2. Release numbering? Are you serious? Who cares!
3/4. Price hikes. You mention Exchange prices, but NOT windows prices. What about the learning curve?
5/6. hardware compatibility. So far I have not had a single hardware that was incompatible with Windows (starting at windows 3.0), but to this day I was not able to print a single page on Linux (various distros).
7/8. That goes to Linux. It is open source.
9. Is really meaningless to the consumer.
10. Hardware requirements. I am running Vista on an older laptop without any problems. Ubuntu has just about the same hardware requirements as windows. And netbooks are .nothing but a hype
3/4. Price hikes. You mention Exchange prices, but NOT windows prices. What about the learning curve?
5/6. hardware compatibility. So far I have not had a single hardware that was incompatible with Windows (starting at windows 3.0), but to this day I was not able to print a single page on Linux (various distros).
7/8. That goes to Linux. It is open source.
9. Is really meaningless to the consumer.
10. Hardware requirements. I am running Vista on an older laptop without any problems. Ubuntu has just about the same hardware requirements as windows. And netbooks are .nothing but a hype
I agree with Juergen !
Lets compare the people who USE windows and the ones who USE Linux or Unix of any flavor.
...Not to hard to figure out that the WINDOWS world is more about the regular Joe who needs to check email, and wants to surf the web a bit. Last time I checked Dell, Gateway, IBM, Toshiba, H-P... did I miss anybody all produce and sell 100 fold Windows to Linux machines, and some of those vendors dont even release a Linux platform.
Dont get me wrong, I use both, but in my house when my kids have a school project they have to get done... Its Vista and Office that gets the job done... Which brings me to another point... what do they have in the schools... I know your thinking Mac's... and yes that is true, but the overwhelming machine and OS of choice is WINDOWS.
When I want to geek out... I hit the Linux, and 20% of my consulting gigs I insert Linux and Open Source to the mix, but you would be shocked at how many small businesses do not want to 'mess' with Linux.
Linux is not going to go away, but Windows is still king...
...Long live the King !
Lets compare the people who USE windows and the ones who USE Linux or Unix of any flavor.
...Not to hard to figure out that the WINDOWS world is more about the regular Joe who needs to check email, and wants to surf the web a bit. Last time I checked Dell, Gateway, IBM, Toshiba, H-P... did I miss anybody all produce and sell 100 fold Windows to Linux machines, and some of those vendors dont even release a Linux platform.
Dont get me wrong, I use both, but in my house when my kids have a school project they have to get done... Its Vista and Office that gets the job done... Which brings me to another point... what do they have in the schools... I know your thinking Mac's... and yes that is true, but the overwhelming machine and OS of choice is WINDOWS.
When I want to geek out... I hit the Linux, and 20% of my consulting gigs I insert Linux and Open Source to the mix, but you would be shocked at how many small businesses do not want to 'mess' with Linux.
Linux is not going to go away, but Windows is still king...
...Long live the King !
Bastille day is coming up on July 14 and any handyman can build a guillotine in his garage.
Micro$oft $oftware tend$ to be pretty expen$ive. And the schools you mentioned may elect to keep older hardware and adopt Linux to make their dollars stretch. And having a dual boot system, with the anti-virus running on XP, performance really stinks for about 10 minutes after startup (not so with Linux).
Additionally, Linux may make it's best break out in developing countries where Windows is less known and people have less money. The one laptop per child project is making advances and is running Linux.
Additionally, Linux may make it's best break out in developing countries where Windows is less known and people have less money. The one laptop per child project is making advances and is running Linux.
Microsoft just about gives away software to schools. They don't have to spend the dollars that most people do so it does not affect their bottom line as much. From my experience most schools are running the newest versions of desktop OS and productivity software where as most businesses I have worked with tend to jump versions.
So developing countries like China where MS allowed the Chinese government to purchase Windows at like $10 a license? Developing countries often don't care about licensing and end up just using hacked versions.
Where I have seen Linux gaining ground is in college computer labs and in homes. I think one of the best selling points for home users has been spyware and viruses. People believe that Linux doesn't have to worry about these which significantly increases performance in favor of Linux. Personally I am undecided if antivirus software is necessary on Linux.
Bill
So developing countries like China where MS allowed the Chinese government to purchase Windows at like $10 a license? Developing countries often don't care about licensing and end up just using hacked versions.
Where I have seen Linux gaining ground is in college computer labs and in homes. I think one of the best selling points for home users has been spyware and viruses. People believe that Linux doesn't have to worry about these which significantly increases performance in favor of Linux. Personally I am undecided if antivirus software is necessary on Linux.
Bill
.. including Linux as a clone of Unix (Posix anyhow).
The difference is that they tend to have a much shorter time to live. Some of the first viruses where written for Unix like platforms but the vulnerabilities they exploited where corrected.
In contrast, other platforms say "not our problem, buy better antivirus software" or "it's because of a problem in third party program XYZ" instead of fixing the underlying vulnerability that is repeatedly exploited through third party software.
It's not that osX or other Posix like OS are invulnerable or have no viruses or have too little market share to be targeted by viruses. It's that the thing the virus leverages to have an effect is normally fixed.
The difference is that they tend to have a much shorter time to live. Some of the first viruses where written for Unix like platforms but the vulnerabilities they exploited where corrected.
In contrast, other platforms say "not our problem, buy better antivirus software" or "it's because of a problem in third party program XYZ" instead of fixing the underlying vulnerability that is repeatedly exploited through third party software.
It's not that osX or other Posix like OS are invulnerable or have no viruses or have too little market share to be targeted by viruses. It's that the thing the virus leverages to have an effect is normally fixed.
You make a claim that there are viruses for Linux so I challenge you to name one. Here are rules:
1. Proof of concept code does not count, has to be real virus.
2. The one that infects ADSL modems that have the default factory set password does not count, has to be a virus that infects "real computers" (not necessarily with x86 architecture though).
I don't know if there are viruses for OS X. I know that viruses for unices are, at best, rare today and I know that there have been more in the past. Apart from the ADSL modem virus, which is fairly new even, I know not one Linux virus, only some proof of concept code.
1. Proof of concept code does not count, has to be real virus.
2. The one that infects ADSL modems that have the default factory set password does not count, has to be a virus that infects "real computers" (not necessarily with x86 architecture though).
I don't know if there are viruses for OS X. I know that viruses for unices are, at best, rare today and I know that there have been more in the past. Apart from the ADSL modem virus, which is fairly new even, I know not one Linux virus, only some proof of concept code.
This is a quick list from wikipedia.
Trojans
Kaiten - Linux.Backdoor.Kaiten trojan horse[12]
Rexob - Linux.Backdoor.Rexob trojan[13]
Viruses
Alaeda - Virus.Linux.Alaeda[14]
Bad Bunny - Perl.Badbunny[4][15]
Binom - Linux/Binom[16]
Bliss
Brundle[17]
Bukowski[18]
Diesel - Virus.Linux.Diesel.962[19]
Kagob a - Virus.Linux.Kagob.a[20]
Kagob b - Virus.Linux.Kagob.b[21]
MetaPHOR (also known as Simile)[22]
Nuxbee - Virus.Linux.Nuxbee.1403[23]
OSF.8759
Podloso - Linux.Podloso (The iPod virus)[24][25]
Rike - Virus.Linux.Rike.1627[26]
RST - Virus.Linux.RST.a[27]
Satyr - Virus.Linux.Satyr.a[28]
Staog
Vit - Virus.Linux.Vit.4096[29]
Winter - Virus.Linux.Winter.341[30]
Winux (also known as Lindose and PEElf)[31]
Wit virus[32]
ZipWorm - Virus.Linux.ZipWorm[33]
Worms
Adm - Net-Worm.Linux.Adm[34]
Adore[35]
Cheese - Net-Worm.Linux.Cheese[36]
Devnull
Kork[37]
Linux/Lion
Mighty - Net-Worm.Linux.Mighty[38]
Millen - Linux.Millen.Worm[39]
Ramen worm
Slapper[40]
SSH Bruteforce[41]
Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses
Trojans
Kaiten - Linux.Backdoor.Kaiten trojan horse[12]
Rexob - Linux.Backdoor.Rexob trojan[13]
Viruses
Alaeda - Virus.Linux.Alaeda[14]
Bad Bunny - Perl.Badbunny[4][15]
Binom - Linux/Binom[16]
Bliss
Brundle[17]
Bukowski[18]
Diesel - Virus.Linux.Diesel.962[19]
Kagob a - Virus.Linux.Kagob.a[20]
Kagob b - Virus.Linux.Kagob.b[21]
MetaPHOR (also known as Simile)[22]
Nuxbee - Virus.Linux.Nuxbee.1403[23]
OSF.8759
Podloso - Linux.Podloso (The iPod virus)[24][25]
Rike - Virus.Linux.Rike.1627[26]
RST - Virus.Linux.RST.a[27]
Satyr - Virus.Linux.Satyr.a[28]
Staog
Vit - Virus.Linux.Vit.4096[29]
Winter - Virus.Linux.Winter.341[30]
Winux (also known as Lindose and PEElf)[31]
Wit virus[32]
ZipWorm - Virus.Linux.ZipWorm[33]
Worms
Adm - Net-Worm.Linux.Adm[34]
Adore[35]
Cheese - Net-Worm.Linux.Cheese[36]
Devnull
Kork[37]
Linux/Lion
Mighty - Net-Worm.Linux.Mighty[38]
Millen - Linux.Millen.Worm[39]
Ramen worm
Slapper[40]
SSH Bruteforce[41]
Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses
It starts a little abusively but the content is good stuff. Nice quick list of known Linux/Posix native viruses. I'll have to remember that link for next time someone's world view is shattered by the reality that all platforms have native malware.
Heck, you really want to scare the poor kid; rootkits. Now that's a long list. Vulnerabilities also; one of my favorite tools includes many exploits for non-Windows platforms also. They may not remain effective for long but they exists.
Even Apple fans have to get current version updates regularly.
Heck, you really want to scare the poor kid; rootkits. Now that's a long list. Vulnerabilities also; one of my favorite tools includes many exploits for non-Windows platforms also. They may not remain effective for long but they exists.
Even Apple fans have to get current version updates regularly.
The researcher that found the vulnerability and developed the proof of concept is probably not the only person that found the vulnerability. If there is a proof of concept, you can be sure that there is an exploit even if it's not weaponized in a virus specifically (could be a worm, could be raw exploit payload..). If there is not proof of concept but the vulnerability is known then there is exploit code for it. If the vulnerability is not known publicy by researchers, it may still be known and developed against.
What can I say, in Info Sec, you won't last long if you decide "well, that's only a proof of concept so I won't bother with the patches related too it".
What can I say, in Info Sec, you won't last long if you decide "well, that's only a proof of concept so I won't bother with the patches related too it".
That Wiki says that those viruses and worms sand trojans, are actually in the Wild right now and are unpatched even right now. Apperently all nix systems are vulnerable to them.
I thought it worth quoting it for anyone who won't follow the link:
"
Shane Coursen, a senior technical consultant with Kaspersky Lab noted, "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system ... The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS."
"
"
The infection level would depend on which user with what privileges ran the binary. A binary run under the root account would be able to infect the entire system. Privilege escalation vulnerabilities may permit malware running under a limited account to infect the entire system.
The use of software repositories significantly reduces any threat of installation of malware, as the software repositories are checked by maintainers, who try to ensure that their repository is malware-free. Subsequently, to ensure safe distribution of the software, md5 checksums are made available. Careful use of these digital signatures (which reveal possible modifications by e.g. hijacking of communications using a man-in-the-middle attack or via a redirection attack such as ARP or DNS poisoning), provides an additional line of defense, which limits the scope of attacks to include only the original authors, package and release maintainers and possibly others with suitable administrative access, depending on how the keys and checksums are handled.
"
Popularity may cause more criminals to target non-Windows platforms. I think effectiveness is still more important than total quantity though. Attempts don't worry me, successful attempts do.
The usual recommendations seem to hold up; stick to the distro repositories, if you go outside the repositories then stick to reputable sites you trust and use the checksums after download. Damages remain limited too the user's access level where privileged escalation by the malware is not possible; don't login and work as Root by habit. If it's a server or critical network system, consider using /etc/hosts rather than DNS for known static addresses.
I like the list of AV software with native builds too. ClamAV is easy because it's in every repository but I'll have to check the other free offerings for my own systems.
Shame the don't go into more detail on the malware though. Now I have to go through the supporting links to learn attack vectors and such.
"
Shane Coursen, a senior technical consultant with Kaspersky Lab noted, "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system ... The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS."
"
"
The infection level would depend on which user with what privileges ran the binary. A binary run under the root account would be able to infect the entire system. Privilege escalation vulnerabilities may permit malware running under a limited account to infect the entire system.
The use of software repositories significantly reduces any threat of installation of malware, as the software repositories are checked by maintainers, who try to ensure that their repository is malware-free. Subsequently, to ensure safe distribution of the software, md5 checksums are made available. Careful use of these digital signatures (which reveal possible modifications by e.g. hijacking of communications using a man-in-the-middle attack or via a redirection attack such as ARP or DNS poisoning), provides an additional line of defense, which limits the scope of attacks to include only the original authors, package and release maintainers and possibly others with suitable administrative access, depending on how the keys and checksums are handled.
"
Popularity may cause more criminals to target non-Windows platforms. I think effectiveness is still more important than total quantity though. Attempts don't worry me, successful attempts do.
The usual recommendations seem to hold up; stick to the distro repositories, if you go outside the repositories then stick to reputable sites you trust and use the checksums after download. Damages remain limited too the user's access level where privileged escalation by the malware is not possible; don't login and work as Root by habit. If it's a server or critical network system, consider using /etc/hosts rather than DNS for known static addresses.
I like the list of AV software with native builds too. ClamAV is easy because it's in every repository but I'll have to check the other free offerings for my own systems.
Shame the don't go into more detail on the malware though. Now I have to go through the supporting links to learn attack vectors and such.
@SinisterSlay
I'm not calling anyone idiot here, no need for you to call me an idiot either. I'm glad to be proven wrong as I rather hear unpleasant truth than keep living in false reality. I admit I was wrong.
@NeonSamurai
Yes, it makes sense that where there is proof of concept then there probably is an exploit too. However I made a mistake thinking that because proof of concept often leads to very quick patch to fix vulnerability *and* because I honestly haven't heard of a linux virus other than that ADSL modem worm before that nobody really would have bothered to spend time to exploit them (via virus, I did know that other exploits and malware have existed long times for Linux too.
Obviously I was wrong.
I had no false ideas that Linux zealots like me are often accused of that there would never come Linux viruses - I knew that when Linux gains popularity it is eventually inevitable that viruses are made for it and that in future anti-virus will be recommended for Linux too despite the fact that unices generally make it harder to write a virus that spreads effectively as a plague. I always knew that there will be less and more dangerous viruses for Linux too in the future but it really was a honest, even if a bit silly, mistake from me to think that there really aren't any yet...
Still I'm glad to be proven wrong - not that I like the fact that viruses are already made for Linux but because as it is reality I don't want to be wrong about it.
I'm not calling anyone idiot here, no need for you to call me an idiot either. I'm glad to be proven wrong as I rather hear unpleasant truth than keep living in false reality. I admit I was wrong.
@NeonSamurai
Yes, it makes sense that where there is proof of concept then there probably is an exploit too. However I made a mistake thinking that because proof of concept often leads to very quick patch to fix vulnerability *and* because I honestly haven't heard of a linux virus other than that ADSL modem worm before that nobody really would have bothered to spend time to exploit them (via virus, I did know that other exploits and malware have existed long times for Linux too.
Obviously I was wrong.
I had no false ideas that Linux zealots like me are often accused of that there would never come Linux viruses - I knew that when Linux gains popularity it is eventually inevitable that viruses are made for it and that in future anti-virus will be recommended for Linux too despite the fact that unices generally make it harder to write a virus that spreads effectively as a plague. I always knew that there will be less and more dangerous viruses for Linux too in the future but it really was a honest, even if a bit silly, mistake from me to think that there really aren't any yet...
Still I'm glad to be proven wrong - not that I like the fact that viruses are already made for Linux but because as it is reality I don't want to be wrong about it.
That almost everyone will agree that a nix virus can't do any real damage because it doesn't have root permissions.
However, this doesn't really make sense, as most viruses are not out to wreck your system, but rather to steal your information or use you as a botnet. If you don't know you are infected, then you would never delete your user account to remove the infection. Thus the infection is still there. Even worse, if the virus was destructive, it could simply destroy your home folder, which is, where all your stuff is stored. Realistically the OS is the easiest thing to replace, all your files and data, thats the challenge. Nix in this way is no better than Windows. The biggest difference truely is that the OS itself for the most part, will not be comprimised for all users, just your own. You still run the risk of losing everything you can't replace.
However, this doesn't really make sense, as most viruses are not out to wreck your system, but rather to steal your information or use you as a botnet. If you don't know you are infected, then you would never delete your user account to remove the infection. Thus the infection is still there. Even worse, if the virus was destructive, it could simply destroy your home folder, which is, where all your stuff is stored. Realistically the OS is the easiest thing to replace, all your files and data, thats the challenge. Nix in this way is no better than Windows. The biggest difference truely is that the OS itself for the most part, will not be comprimised for all users, just your own. You still run the risk of losing everything you can't replace.
"what I find interesting is... That almost everyone will agree that a nix virus can't do any real damage because it doesn't have root permissions."
Yes, I find that a very disturbing way to think. Naturally the virus does have better chance of hiding itself, replicating to other user accounts, catching more information, etc. if it can get root access (there are also several theoretical ways that the virus could get root credentials if the user does not notice it...) but... A virus running with only regular user access rights is still definately a dangerous virus that can do many things the user would not like. I don't know where the thought has came from that virus is not dangerous if it can't get root - obviously that one is silly reasoning, and dangerous when such thinking spreads around.
Yes, I find that a very disturbing way to think. Naturally the virus does have better chance of hiding itself, replicating to other user accounts, catching more information, etc. if it can get root access (there are also several theoretical ways that the virus could get root credentials if the user does not notice it...) but... A virus running with only regular user access rights is still definately a dangerous virus that can do many things the user would not like. I don't know where the thought has came from that virus is not dangerous if it can't get root - obviously that one is silly reasoning, and dangerous when such thinking spreads around.
A virus that can easily jump from user to admin account then hide itself or effect the entire system is a big problem. It can get into the OS kernel with the admin rights making detection very difficult and using whatever bit of software it wants.
A virus that can't easily jump from user to admin account is limited to that user. That means not able to write itself into binaries the user does not own. Ideally, binaries should not be provided with with executable permissions at all; chmod +x if you trust it and want to run it as a program.
If you mount your user home directories without executable permission then binaries under the user's home directory won't run. Regardless of system, user home directory backups are a requirement. It does leave you with stolen data risk though and no end to the encryption methods. I think your pretty much limited to good user habits with PIM information on all platforms.
No platform is invulnerable but some offer more potential than others.
A virus that can't easily jump from user to admin account is limited to that user. That means not able to write itself into binaries the user does not own. Ideally, binaries should not be provided with with executable permissions at all; chmod +x if you trust it and want to run it as a program.
If you mount your user home directories without executable permission then binaries under the user's home directory won't run. Regardless of system, user home directory backups are a requirement. It does leave you with stolen data risk though and no end to the encryption methods. I think your pretty much limited to good user habits with PIM information on all platforms.
No platform is invulnerable but some offer more potential than others.
I can't come up with anything to add and I agree with what you are saying.
I'm glad that even though my post "name one" was probably a bit arrogant and though SinisterSlay ended up calling me and idiot we still ended up having this meaningful discussion and ended up in agreement. I can only hope that this also proves that not all of us who identify ourselves as confessed linux zealots are blind to possible/existing problems our choice of OS can have too and that we aren't incapable to discuss them without heated feelings
I'm glad that even though my post "name one" was probably a bit arrogant and though SinisterSlay ended up calling me and idiot we still ended up having this meaningful discussion and ended up in agreement. I can only hope that this also proves that not all of us who identify ourselves as confessed linux zealots are blind to possible/existing problems our choice of OS can have too and that we aren't incapable to discuss them without heated feelings
I removed the title after you admited your mistake as you had seemed like less of an idiot, more along ignorant or lazy, but not an idiot .
I actually look forward to the day Nix gets populour and it starts to get real virus threats, because then we will see the tides of innovation turn. Nix will no longer be able to innovate because all resources will be spent on bug fixing and security patching, and systems like Windows will become innovative and leap ahead once again.
.I actually look forward to the day Nix gets populour and it starts to get real virus threats, because then we will see the tides of innovation turn. Nix will no longer be able to innovate because all resources will be spent on bug fixing and security patching, and systems like Windows will become innovative and leap ahead once again.
@SinisterClay
Quote: "I actually look forward to the day Nix gets populour and it starts to get real virus threats, because then we will see the tides of innovation turn. Nix will no longer be able to innovate because all resources will be spent on bug fixing and security patching, and systems like Windows will become innovative and leap ahead once again."
Virus threat will grow but there are couple things that I think debunk what you say.
1st, AV programs have already made for Linux and the development is ongoing.
2nd, Fixing security holes has always beet one of the top priorities on making OS (linux) safe. When security hole has been used they are fixed even faster. Same will be true with viruses.
Still Linux viruses in future will be a bigger threat. Still Linux has so large amount of contributors that there will always be time for new innovations there too.
Quote: "I actually look forward to the day Nix gets populour and it starts to get real virus threats, because then we will see the tides of innovation turn. Nix will no longer be able to innovate because all resources will be spent on bug fixing and security patching, and systems like Windows will become innovative and leap ahead once again."
Virus threat will grow but there are couple things that I think debunk what you say.
1st, AV programs have already made for Linux and the development is ongoing.
2nd, Fixing security holes has always beet one of the top priorities on making OS (linux) safe. When security hole has been used they are fixed even faster. Same will be true with viruses.
Still Linux viruses in future will be a bigger threat. Still Linux has so large amount of contributors that there will always be time for new innovations there too.
as per my experience i have noticed that in real world the it infrastructures are mostly of mixed type ... even if it s 99:1 ratio and i personally had seen that many seroius it professionals just don;t install an AV or a patch in the unix/linux machines just assuming its 'secure', this affects not only the security threat for the other machines like windows but also seriously affects the overall security of the network. this is something we all IT Professional should be concerned about.
First it all depends on what you do with the machine.. If you have kids that are going to use certain online services then I would say yes as I have seen Linux machines catch the cold when they go to the same places that genrate them on windows machines.
Second it is just a matter of time.. The idea that Linux does not get viruses only comes from the days when few outside the enterprise world used Linux. It is all a matter of time and the popularity of a given platform.. Think of it like this what is the gain in writing viruses for Linux there are not enough users to make it worth the time for most people! Then consider the bigger problem hackers... Agian all a matter of time and the fact that presently there are and this is a guess at least 50 or more Windows hakers to 1 Linux hacker out there, so let these arrogant Linux Zelots shoot their mouth off because in the end, if Linux does gain in popularity. It only means the Linux community will be getting a size 10 in the mouth later!!!! At which point the Linux community will simply have to deal with what Microsoft learned to live with a long time ago!!
Symantec, McAfee and the rest being needed ...
Second it is just a matter of time.. The idea that Linux does not get viruses only comes from the days when few outside the enterprise world used Linux. It is all a matter of time and the popularity of a given platform.. Think of it like this what is the gain in writing viruses for Linux there are not enough users to make it worth the time for most people! Then consider the bigger problem hackers... Agian all a matter of time and the fact that presently there are and this is a guess at least 50 or more Windows hakers to 1 Linux hacker out there, so let these arrogant Linux Zelots shoot their mouth off because in the end, if Linux does gain in popularity. It only means the Linux community will be getting a size 10 in the mouth later!!!! At which point the Linux community will simply have to deal with what Microsoft learned to live with a long time ago!!
Symantec, McAfee and the rest being needed ...
malware and viruses are seen as proof of concept for a bug that needs to be fixed. This means malware has a very short effective lifespan before the exploited vulnerability is removed.
It's like putting a biological virus that thrives on oxygen and a warm stewy environment into a vacuum bag in the fridge. If it does manage to live, it won't thrive and won't have much chance of reproducing.
It's not that Linux based OS don't get viruses, it's that when they have, it's been short lived with limited effect.
Based on a history of faster patch times on the root cause of the vulnerability, the more likely outcome is that you'd just see more bugs patched due to those increased proof of concept malware attempts.
Of course, the user will always be the weak point on any platform so social engineering is a potential risk.
First, let's use the correct term; criminals. Hackers are not inherently criminal. Using the term "Hacker" when you mean criminal is not correct. Especially on a technology site.
The security section did a good writeup recently:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=1400
If not "criminal" then at least "cracker" as using "hacker" when you clearly mean criminal actions is just wrong.
I already mentioned that any platform can be configured to be wide open. The difference is default settings and potential security. Windows default settings are wide open and the level of potential security within a system is lower than other than other platforms. You need third party software to provide the minimum level of security and network appliances running the other OS for proper network protection.
The jury is still out on Win7 but nothing previous to it has provided true separation of privileged or an OS intended for multi-user concurrent and secure use.
- can I still get username and password hash directly from your "Windows network share" traffic?.. yes.. yes, I can.
- can I still share security tokens between users outside of any system mechanism intended to do so? ... seems "Pass-the-hash" does that very thing; borrow the security token from another user.
- can I still use simple GUI tools to get around system security policy? yup, I can still open IE out of the help and browse the file system; on a system which "does not allow access to menus, [Start] or the file system".
- can I yet run a normal user account seporate from Administrator? uh.. no.. first user still has to be Admin; pressing "OK" when prompted by UAC doesn't cut it.
- can I still create an Administrator account with no password? .. uh.. yup.
should we go through the general system defaults such as hiding three character extensions (readme.txt.exe.. hm..).
These are known issues that remain in place after years.
There are inherent differences you are either ignoring or are not aware of.
It's like putting a biological virus that thrives on oxygen and a warm stewy environment into a vacuum bag in the fridge. If it does manage to live, it won't thrive and won't have much chance of reproducing.
It's not that Linux based OS don't get viruses, it's that when they have, it's been short lived with limited effect.
Based on a history of faster patch times on the root cause of the vulnerability, the more likely outcome is that you'd just see more bugs patched due to those increased proof of concept malware attempts.
Of course, the user will always be the weak point on any platform so social engineering is a potential risk.
First, let's use the correct term; criminals. Hackers are not inherently criminal. Using the term "Hacker" when you mean criminal is not correct. Especially on a technology site.
The security section did a good writeup recently:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=1400
If not "criminal" then at least "cracker" as using "hacker" when you clearly mean criminal actions is just wrong.
I already mentioned that any platform can be configured to be wide open. The difference is default settings and potential security. Windows default settings are wide open and the level of potential security within a system is lower than other than other platforms. You need third party software to provide the minimum level of security and network appliances running the other OS for proper network protection.
The jury is still out on Win7 but nothing previous to it has provided true separation of privileged or an OS intended for multi-user concurrent and secure use.
- can I still get username and password hash directly from your "Windows network share" traffic?.. yes.. yes, I can.
- can I still share security tokens between users outside of any system mechanism intended to do so? ... seems "Pass-the-hash" does that very thing; borrow the security token from another user.
- can I still use simple GUI tools to get around system security policy? yup, I can still open IE out of the help and browse the file system; on a system which "does not allow access to menus, [Start] or the file system".
- can I yet run a normal user account seporate from Administrator? uh.. no.. first user still has to be Admin; pressing "OK" when prompted by UAC doesn't cut it.
- can I still create an Administrator account with no password? .. uh.. yup.
should we go through the general system defaults such as hiding three character extensions (readme.txt.exe.. hm..).
These are known issues that remain in place after years.
There are inherent differences you are either ignoring or are not aware of.
I have been using Ubuntu for about a year and a half. After being a Windows user for 15 years, I got the best Anti-Virus program available for it, ClamAV. There are almost 585K viruses known, most in Windows, in it's data base. In the time that I have been running it, I have found 2 viruses, both Windows based. I was able to go to ClamAV and find out how to remove them.
You don't really need AV in Linux, but after cleaning a number of neighbor's computers infected with Vista Anti-Virus, I will take no chances.
As an aside, Vista Anti-Virus is much easier to get on XP then with Vista. I think I have only had to fix 1 Vista machine, I have probably fixed 25 XP machines.
You don't really need AV in Linux, but after cleaning a number of neighbor's computers infected with Vista Anti-Virus, I will take no chances.
As an aside, Vista Anti-Virus is much easier to get on XP then with Vista. I think I have only had to fix 1 Vista machine, I have probably fixed 25 XP machines.
You want ready made foods or home made food. You can eat which you want.
Linux is like home made, you can make on you taste and it is designed for that.
Linux/Unix you can create as per the requirement.
Windows is Ready made. You have to use as it is with some extra toppings like Video Players, Outlook etc..
Linux is like home made, you can make on you taste and it is designed for that.
Linux/Unix you can create as per the requirement.
Windows is Ready made. You have to use as it is with some extra toppings like Video Players, Outlook etc..
I actually laughed out loud at the implications of the analogy. Fast food causes a slow bloated body. Windows (especially vista) causes a slow, bloated computer. Linux is a much "healthier" alternative in terms of computer performance. I could go on all day with this but, lucky for you, I'll refrain.
Health food costs, more, tastes terriable, is usually a hoax of some sort, is usually tainted in some way, and usually leads you to be nothing more than a social outcast.
That was a great retort! Spoken like a true couch potato. I'll be the first to admit that Linux isn't perfect, but it works the best for me. Then again I've worked with multiple flavors of Unix for years. There is a learning curve like any other piece of software. Its true that the software that runs on Linux tends to have more bugs. However, at least you get your money's worth with Linux.
Heck if Nix did what I want I would use it (provided the devs make it more idiot proof, caus ei have bad habbit of fouling up an OS, already wrecked my Mandriva 4 times within a time period of 2 hours).
Saddly Nix does not come anywhere near close to want I demand from my systems, so I must stick with Windows.
Saddly Nix does not come anywhere near close to want I demand from my systems, so I must stick with Windows.
My thoughts exactly, that is, before my 5-way bypass. I ate fast foods too much, wasn't as careful as I should be, I would get winded after walking about a block. Now I eat right, don't have blockage, and can walk 5 miles any time I want.
The choice is yours.
The choice is yours.
I meant is, if for example, I got two choices of ground beef. I got the lean ground beef, packaged today, for 7 bucks, and right next to it, I got the lean organic ground beef for 9 dollars. I'm paying the 7.
To me, organic means: Less desiease control, more room for error, no growth hormones (I don't wanna shrivel up and look asian, I wanna stay big and strong :)).
To me, organic means: Less desiease control, more room for error, no growth hormones (I don't wanna shrivel up and look asian, I wanna stay big and strong :)).
Wow!
Imagine that?!
The latest marketing blurb from Redmond:
"Linux makes you fart!"
I'd love to see Steve Ballmer dressed as a clown to sell his "fast food", rather than just acting like one (and I use Microsoft, never touched Open source).
My attitude is that operating systems are like beers. Both offer the same outcome, you COULD try another beer if you HAD to, but you prefer the brand you drink over another - equally tasty and refreshing - brand.
Let's end the OS flame wars. It's all a bit dull and pointless, rather like arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.
Imagine that?!
The latest marketing blurb from Redmond:
"Linux makes you fart!"
I'd love to see Steve Ballmer dressed as a clown to sell his "fast food", rather than just acting like one (and I use Microsoft, never touched Open source).
My attitude is that operating systems are like beers. Both offer the same outcome, you COULD try another beer if you HAD to, but you prefer the brand you drink over another - equally tasty and refreshing - brand.
Let's end the OS flame wars. It's all a bit dull and pointless, rather like arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.
It's more like cars to, unfortunately again, invoke the usual comparison. Some cars are designed to go fast but don't take a sudden stop very well. Some cars get the family to soccer practice but are not going to be racing on the Autobaun. Some are designed to do heavy lifting. They are all cars/trucks but the outcome is very different.
In the same way, the design goals of an OS make the outcome very different and suited to different things. Granted, it's not likely any OS fan is suddenly going to swap sides because of a forum argument but there is the potential to stumble on good information or provide points where someone is initially deciding on an OS or not getting all needs met by an existing choice. Then you have the OS geeks that couldn't live with less than two bootable OS on each machine but they are a whole other level of user.
In the same way, the design goals of an OS make the outcome very different and suited to different things. Granted, it's not likely any OS fan is suddenly going to swap sides because of a forum argument but there is the potential to stumble on good information or provide points where someone is initially deciding on an OS or not getting all needs met by an existing choice. Then you have the OS geeks that couldn't live with less than two bootable OS on each machine but they are a whole other level of user.
Exaclty an honest and to the point take, why is that so hard to find today? Why does everything seem to have to be at odds? Politics and Business why is it so hard to find a fair take?
FastEddie2009 I want to thank you for articualting what many of us were thinking when we read this!!
I also want to ask you if you have been noticing this bias about ZDnet and Tech Republic lately too? It seems the writers have all gone off the deep end in some particular direction? Especially the politics part ZDNet does it is like a propaganda page for a certian politcian who appearanlty holds the secret to life and everything else that is wrong with the world! Then there are the rest of the writers who seem to be a bunch of one sided Open Source Zelots!
I have read these two for many years and have been an IT Pro since the early 90's when I did my first interinship so I am not at all new to these sites..
Has anyone else out there noticed this??
If you have we really do need to complain!!
I already have and got a very rude Email from a certian ZDNet writer who called me a Tea Bagger!
FastEddie2009 I want to thank you for articualting what many of us were thinking when we read this!!
I also want to ask you if you have been noticing this bias about ZDnet and Tech Republic lately too? It seems the writers have all gone off the deep end in some particular direction? Especially the politics part ZDNet does it is like a propaganda page for a certian politcian who appearanlty holds the secret to life and everything else that is wrong with the world! Then there are the rest of the writers who seem to be a bunch of one sided Open Source Zelots!
I have read these two for many years and have been an IT Pro since the early 90's when I did my first interinship so I am not at all new to these sites..
Has anyone else out there noticed this??
If you have we really do need to complain!!
I already have and got a very rude Email from a certian ZDNet writer who called me a Tea Bagger!
1/2 Is not about release numbering its about release consistency. Windows has quite a long development cycle and that isnt true about linux ubuntu has a 6 month release cycle so there is a lot of gradual improvements as well as keeping up with the updates released by the likes of gnome and xorg etc.
2/3 The fact is most versions of linux are free makes any argument about windows and pricing redundant.
4/5 What!? If you try to run some new piece of hardware without a driver disk in windows most of the time you will be disappointed with the outcome. While most hardware will run out of the box and if it doesnt there is a new version of the kernel every 3 months which may have the drivers you are looking for.
9 Of course features matter
10 Ubuntu's hardware requirements could work on my old compaq deskpro en which was built back in 2000 if you say I could run vista on that I would seriously have to pose the question "Do you work for Microsoft?"
2/3 The fact is most versions of linux are free makes any argument about windows and pricing redundant.
4/5 What!? If you try to run some new piece of hardware without a driver disk in windows most of the time you will be disappointed with the outcome. While most hardware will run out of the box and if it doesnt there is a new version of the kernel every 3 months which may have the drivers you are looking for.
9 Of course features matter
10 Ubuntu's hardware requirements could work on my old compaq deskpro en which was built back in 2000 if you say I could run vista on that I would seriously have to pose the question "Do you work for Microsoft?"
I had to chuckle about running on parts from 2000 very well put. I put mine together in 2000 and still using them with one minor upgrade, my AGP card.
I'm not a huge fan of Windows but I find myself stuck using it for graphic work with my Wacom tablet. All of the years that Linux has struggled to be less complex for the everyday end user has finally reached the desktops of everyday end users with out having to pop a few aspirin and take meditation classes just to use it. The GOS is at Walmart for 300.00.
I personally have not found a flavor that supports the tablet. If someone could help me in this direction I would drop Windows completely. For now I am stuck with a dual boot Linux for email and web stuff and Windows for my graphic work. Linux is not just for Geeks anymore and it is about time to give Windows a run for it. Linux runs lite and does not take a bulldozer to run it. It has plenty of eye candy. Windows has gotten heavy and seems to take one bulldozer and a snowplow to push the slush just to get it going.
I loved my Windows 2000 professional and now using XP professional with Xandros dual boot. I really liked SuSE, Mandrake was O.K., Not up for Red Hat. GOS is O.K. My kids loved SuSE because of all the games. I just want to find a flavor that will run my tablet. With Code Weavers I can run my other programs.
I personally do not believe in Outlook that is why people end up with so many virus stuff and IT professionals spend their time not really liking the end users that they have to coddle.
I use OpenOffice for documents and other stuff. I do prefer Adobe over Gimp and have never had the chance to test out Citrix.
I'm not a huge fan of Windows but I find myself stuck using it for graphic work with my Wacom tablet. All of the years that Linux has struggled to be less complex for the everyday end user has finally reached the desktops of everyday end users with out having to pop a few aspirin and take meditation classes just to use it. The GOS is at Walmart for 300.00.
I personally have not found a flavor that supports the tablet. If someone could help me in this direction I would drop Windows completely. For now I am stuck with a dual boot Linux for email and web stuff and Windows for my graphic work. Linux is not just for Geeks anymore and it is about time to give Windows a run for it. Linux runs lite and does not take a bulldozer to run it. It has plenty of eye candy. Windows has gotten heavy and seems to take one bulldozer and a snowplow to push the slush just to get it going.
I loved my Windows 2000 professional and now using XP professional with Xandros dual boot. I really liked SuSE, Mandrake was O.K., Not up for Red Hat. GOS is O.K. My kids loved SuSE because of all the games. I just want to find a flavor that will run my tablet. With Code Weavers I can run my other programs.
I personally do not believe in Outlook that is why people end up with so many virus stuff and IT professionals spend their time not really liking the end users that they have to coddle.
I use OpenOffice for documents and other stuff. I do prefer Adobe over Gimp and have never had the chance to test out Citrix.
I am a user of Windows and Linux. You have your preferences of course, but I like Mandriva (Formerly Mandrake)
PCLinux and Xandros. I have other distro's as well and personally I don't like Ubuntu or Red Hat. Fedora is okay but
Red Hat was just totally overrated and overblown. I started with Red Hat 6.5 on the first PC I built and made many destructive
moves while learning a few things along the way. It got easier with Mandrake 7 and I have been periodically testing different distros ever since but Mandriva continues to be my favorite.
Now I have a Wacom Intuos Graphics tablet and it works with Mandriva Spring 2008. I recently tried the current edition of Mandriva 09 which looks good and is similar in desktop eye candy to SuSe 11.1 that I also tried but removed after two days.
If you're talking about Linux eye candy Sabayon by far in my opinion is the most impressive but you'd better have a powerful processor and lots of system memory.
and OMG why would anyone want to use outhouse express?! I dumped that crapola years ago after getting a nasty worm that brought my entire system to a screeching halt. Open Office is good and it might interest you that Open Office was originally Star Office. I got hooked on that program when it was bundled into RH6.5 and Mandrake 7 but after Mandrake 8, Sun Microsystems took it out.
I found Star Office 7 around the time the Red Hat 7distro was being sold in some stores. I've been using it ever since and prefer it over Microsoft Office.
But Linux is getting closer to being user friendly though I doubt it will ever be dummy prone. Linux has and continues to be a lifesaver whenever one of my 3 computers craps out and I have to retrieve any data before a complete re-install. I just pull out
Knoppix and either an external USB Drive or a blank RW disc and go on from there. Doing stuff like this requires you to know your internal file and folder paths. Believe me, I learned the hard way and for someone with a lot of patience that's fine but hair-pulling for those with short tempers.
But I just clean installed XP Home on a computer I dual boot with Linux. I'll be reinstalling Mandriva 9 but after I get the hard drives reconfigured and my data secured off system first.
I have fun with both,and I learn with both Windows and Linux. That can't be all bad.
PCLinux and Xandros. I have other distro's as well and personally I don't like Ubuntu or Red Hat. Fedora is okay but
Red Hat was just totally overrated and overblown. I started with Red Hat 6.5 on the first PC I built and made many destructive
moves while learning a few things along the way. It got easier with Mandrake 7 and I have been periodically testing different distros ever since but Mandriva continues to be my favorite.
Now I have a Wacom Intuos Graphics tablet and it works with Mandriva Spring 2008. I recently tried the current edition of Mandriva 09 which looks good and is similar in desktop eye candy to SuSe 11.1 that I also tried but removed after two days.
If you're talking about Linux eye candy Sabayon by far in my opinion is the most impressive but you'd better have a powerful processor and lots of system memory.
and OMG why would anyone want to use outhouse express?! I dumped that crapola years ago after getting a nasty worm that brought my entire system to a screeching halt. Open Office is good and it might interest you that Open Office was originally Star Office. I got hooked on that program when it was bundled into RH6.5 and Mandrake 7 but after Mandrake 8, Sun Microsystems took it out.
I found Star Office 7 around the time the Red Hat 7distro was being sold in some stores. I've been using it ever since and prefer it over Microsoft Office.
But Linux is getting closer to being user friendly though I doubt it will ever be dummy prone. Linux has and continues to be a lifesaver whenever one of my 3 computers craps out and I have to retrieve any data before a complete re-install. I just pull out
Knoppix and either an external USB Drive or a blank RW disc and go on from there. Doing stuff like this requires you to know your internal file and folder paths. Believe me, I learned the hard way and for someone with a lot of patience that's fine but hair-pulling for those with short tempers.
But I just clean installed XP Home on a computer I dual boot with Linux. I'll be reinstalling Mandriva 9 but after I get the hard drives reconfigured and my data secured off system first.
I have fun with both,and I learn with both Windows and Linux. That can't be all bad.
I am a confirmed Linux user and have been since 1997. I have an older Dell Laptop P3 384 megs of ram and Ubuntu 8.10 which runs very nicely on it. It had win 98 se on it new.I tried XP and it worked but very poorly. I put Ubuntu on it and it is a nice laptop, it works fine with streaming movies and everything else I do. I also have Windows 7 beta on an extra computer just to have a look, it is some better than Vista, but nothing to write about. I really like Vista as I do computer repair and it makes me lots of money reinstalling the os or fixing peoples screwups they get trying to use it. I am using Ubuntu 8,10 on this machine and am totally happy with it, It is cool to spend your time computing and not not cleaning spyware and virus's Very good article Jack!!!
The artice is correct in every way.Linux is a better os and microsoft is greedy.
Linux is, FREE. So that makes it better? What if it doesn't work, and you cant get on the internet to find the answer? What then? Reload? Isn't that what you say you have to do with windows?
I support windows,and can count on one had the number of times supporting 100's of PC's that I recommended reinstalling the OS.
Im sorry, Jack, you are as biased in your direction as a MAC user is in theirs against M$.
Lately I am seeing MAC's in offices with XP or Vista running instead of the OS X. WHY? Because users decided to.
This is not a winnable argument. I will enjoy my WINDOWS world, My friend will enjoy his MAC world, and you will enjoy your LINUX world.
and somehow, on the internet, we will all get along.
Have a happy 2009.
I support windows,and can count on one had the number of times supporting 100's of PC's that I recommended reinstalling the OS.
Im sorry, Jack, you are as biased in your direction as a MAC user is in theirs against M$.
Lately I am seeing MAC's in offices with XP or Vista running instead of the OS X. WHY? Because users decided to.
This is not a winnable argument. I will enjoy my WINDOWS world, My friend will enjoy his MAC world, and you will enjoy your LINUX world.
and somehow, on the internet, we will all get along.
Have a happy 2009.
I have supported Macs, Windows-based PCs and Linux-based PCs. Here is my experience:
1. Linux: We seldom have Linux problems, but that's because the few people who use it are capable of handling most issues themselves; if they can't, the do an OS reload.
2. Windows (2000, XP & Vista): Most problems are malware-related. Almost without fail, the computers with malware are running crap like LimeWire or BearShare. In short, stupid users get infections. It's kind of like a "social" disease. These computers network easily. They actually implement IPv6 in a standards-compliant way (of course, I'm only referencing Vista here). Users are most comfortable with them, and any software a user wants to run can be found for this OS.
3. Macs--a freaking unbelievable nightmare. I actually left a job largely based on the mess they had made by trying to introduce Macs into an integrated network. To make matters worse, OSX would not run must of the software that was required for the end-users to perform their jobs. Apple brags about being able to run Windows programs. Just throw on Parallels or Boot Camp, then install Windows, right? (Of course, this means buying the overpriced Mac to begin with, then paying for the virtual machine, and THEN paying for a second OS! What a bargain!) If anyone out there has used Parallels in a large organization, you must know what an unmitigated piece of excrement it is. The computers had to be reimaged CONSTANTLY. Why? Well, Parallels doesn't like it if you click "log off" when exiting the Windows OS. If you do not click "shut down," it will often get corrupted. This causes it to refuse to allow you to log back onto the network via the Windows OS. Even worse, you may click "shut down" within the Windows desktop, only to have the machine auto-select "log off" in the drop down box that pops up. If you not paying close attention, you just might be SOL.
Next, we come to having Macs on an integrated wireless network. You have to keep toggling the IPv6 setting on and off because Apple chose not to comply with the standard in its IPv6 implementation. After all, a Mac would never end up on a compliant network and NEED to interface properly, right? If that's your thought process, you deserve to be a DISTANT second in OS sales. You also may find that the Mac takes it upon itself to enter your computer account credentials for network authentication instead of your network account credentials. Isn't that thoughtful? So, constantly blowing out the keychain, toggling IPv6, checking how it saved your credentials--these are just some of the network-related issues you may have the joy of dealing with.
Thanks, but for large-scale deployment, PCs running Windows are BY FAR the best thing for the end user and the sysadmin/network admin. I'll play with my Linux box at home. You can keep your overpriced mess of a MacBook. I'm cool with Vista, and looking forward to Win7 coming out.
1. Linux: We seldom have Linux problems, but that's because the few people who use it are capable of handling most issues themselves; if they can't, the do an OS reload.
2. Windows (2000, XP & Vista): Most problems are malware-related. Almost without fail, the computers with malware are running crap like LimeWire or BearShare. In short, stupid users get infections. It's kind of like a "social" disease. These computers network easily. They actually implement IPv6 in a standards-compliant way (of course, I'm only referencing Vista here). Users are most comfortable with them, and any software a user wants to run can be found for this OS.
3. Macs--a freaking unbelievable nightmare. I actually left a job largely based on the mess they had made by trying to introduce Macs into an integrated network. To make matters worse, OSX would not run must of the software that was required for the end-users to perform their jobs. Apple brags about being able to run Windows programs. Just throw on Parallels or Boot Camp, then install Windows, right? (Of course, this means buying the overpriced Mac to begin with, then paying for the virtual machine, and THEN paying for a second OS! What a bargain!) If anyone out there has used Parallels in a large organization, you must know what an unmitigated piece of excrement it is. The computers had to be reimaged CONSTANTLY. Why? Well, Parallels doesn't like it if you click "log off" when exiting the Windows OS. If you do not click "shut down," it will often get corrupted. This causes it to refuse to allow you to log back onto the network via the Windows OS. Even worse, you may click "shut down" within the Windows desktop, only to have the machine auto-select "log off" in the drop down box that pops up. If you not paying close attention, you just might be SOL.
Next, we come to having Macs on an integrated wireless network. You have to keep toggling the IPv6 setting on and off because Apple chose not to comply with the standard in its IPv6 implementation. After all, a Mac would never end up on a compliant network and NEED to interface properly, right? If that's your thought process, you deserve to be a DISTANT second in OS sales. You also may find that the Mac takes it upon itself to enter your computer account credentials for network authentication instead of your network account credentials. Isn't that thoughtful? So, constantly blowing out the keychain, toggling IPv6, checking how it saved your credentials--these are just some of the network-related issues you may have the joy of dealing with.
Thanks, but for large-scale deployment, PCs running Windows are BY FAR the best thing for the end user and the sysadmin/network admin. I'll play with my Linux box at home. You can keep your overpriced mess of a MacBook. I'm cool with Vista, and looking forward to Win7 coming out.
Ok so then by that logic if I knew someone that was a drywaller they should share their knowlege with me for FREE??? Or they are greedy!!! So a plumber, or service tech, that buys a truck, learns the trade and then starts a business for profit is greedy???
So then all business is greedy??
That is what you are saying!!!
I suppose the farmer who comes up with a new hybrid apple, or a new way to grow more in less time should just open source the veggies and if he does not then he is greedy!!!
Think about the logic you are trying to support...
I got one for all the teachers/professors out there... How about we get all the intellectuals togther then record all the lectures on every subject from Art to Law... Then we offer the lectures for free on the web and the teachers/professors do not have to be paid one penny after all if they do not want to share what they know then they must be greedy.. They could then make some money when a person calls for help on one of the lessons....
Hey professors out there HOW DOES THAT SOUND????
Open Learning at it's best how does the idea of open sound now academia????
Sounds great untill it is you that is not rewarded for the fruits of labor!!!
So then all business is greedy??
That is what you are saying!!!
I suppose the farmer who comes up with a new hybrid apple, or a new way to grow more in less time should just open source the veggies and if he does not then he is greedy!!!
Think about the logic you are trying to support...
I got one for all the teachers/professors out there... How about we get all the intellectuals togther then record all the lectures on every subject from Art to Law... Then we offer the lectures for free on the web and the teachers/professors do not have to be paid one penny after all if they do not want to share what they know then they must be greedy.. They could then make some money when a person calls for help on one of the lessons....
Hey professors out there HOW DOES THAT SOUND????
Open Learning at it's best how does the idea of open sound now academia????
Sounds great untill it is you that is not rewarded for the fruits of labor!!!
I checked the comment your replying too and luckily, it's short:
"The artice is correct in every way.Linux is a better os and microsoft is greedy."
How does that short comment equate too "require all labor from others at no cost"?
One may not agree with the points in the article and "better os" depends one usage requirements but as a legal entity, Microsoft is required to be greedy by law. They produce profits for share holders, software is just something they use towards that primary goal.
Since you bring up other points though, there is nothing in the FOSS world against making money.
It's not that a drywaller should work for free. It's that the method to putting up drywall is no mystery; sheets of drywall, screws, attach to wall frame. By learning from each other, a group of drywallers can refine methods. By allowing any drywallers that wonders past to join in the work site, a building comes together faster. The visibility of each others work makes the quality a valued trait.
It also does not negate a drywaller going across the street to an empty lot to work on there own thing; even if they put up a screen to hide the work site. Of course, the drywaller's work has to meet a building code where there is no building code standard for hidden programming code.
Your academic example is interesting also being that the academic community thrives on free information. It's all about getting your new information published. Libraries full of free information. "Teach the Children" type organizations all over the place. I believe open college is one organization that publishes learning lectures on it's website for free and it's not unique. Go it old school and read a freely available math text book. One researcher being able to build on another's findings in the very corner stone of accademia gaining new knowledge.
This is different from requiring free labor still. One can read on there own, get audio and video recordings to watch *OR* attend free or paid classes. Seems a lot of people benefit from having a teacher to listen to and ask questions of and it's not always a free service.
In the FOSS world, the information is the source code. Other "accademics" can build on top and add too a body of knowledge. That does not mean someone can't compile the source with some changes and sell the value added program. Not all licenses will require the modified source be included with that sold program. It also does not mean a developer can't be paid for there services.
Either your exaggerating to make your point more dramatic or you need to gain a little more knowledge about the topic.
"The artice is correct in every way.Linux is a better os and microsoft is greedy."
How does that short comment equate too "require all labor from others at no cost"?
One may not agree with the points in the article and "better os" depends one usage requirements but as a legal entity, Microsoft is required to be greedy by law. They produce profits for share holders, software is just something they use towards that primary goal.
Since you bring up other points though, there is nothing in the FOSS world against making money.
It's not that a drywaller should work for free. It's that the method to putting up drywall is no mystery; sheets of drywall, screws, attach to wall frame. By learning from each other, a group of drywallers can refine methods. By allowing any drywallers that wonders past to join in the work site, a building comes together faster. The visibility of each others work makes the quality a valued trait.
It also does not negate a drywaller going across the street to an empty lot to work on there own thing; even if they put up a screen to hide the work site. Of course, the drywaller's work has to meet a building code where there is no building code standard for hidden programming code.
Your academic example is interesting also being that the academic community thrives on free information. It's all about getting your new information published. Libraries full of free information. "Teach the Children" type organizations all over the place. I believe open college is one organization that publishes learning lectures on it's website for free and it's not unique. Go it old school and read a freely available math text book. One researcher being able to build on another's findings in the very corner stone of accademia gaining new knowledge.
This is different from requiring free labor still. One can read on there own, get audio and video recordings to watch *OR* attend free or paid classes. Seems a lot of people benefit from having a teacher to listen to and ask questions of and it's not always a free service.
In the FOSS world, the information is the source code. Other "accademics" can build on top and add too a body of knowledge. That does not mean someone can't compile the source with some changes and sell the value added program. Not all licenses will require the modified source be included with that sold program. It also does not mean a developer can't be paid for there services.
Either your exaggerating to make your point more dramatic or you need to gain a little more knowledge about the topic.
I agree that this article makes some, well, specious claims. I am a Linux user, having at least one computer running Linux since Red Hat 9 was still out and about (NOT RHEL, but just regular ol' Red Hat). I was introduced to computers in the 5th grade--in 1981. We used DOS as an OS and wrote programs in Basic (NOT VB, btw). I didn't have a home computer until 1998, so my OS was, of course, Windows 98 (original flavor). I currently have FC 9 on a dual-boot desktop, running with XP MCE 2005. My laptop runs Vista.
Now, on to the claim that Linux will overtake Windows. I am an IT professional, so I know my way around a CLI. In fact, in Linux, I think you have to use the CLI. Even if there is a GUI that performs a specific function, it often doesn't work effectively or efficiently. The CLI is most often the only reliable way of accomplishing anything. Is a regular user going to want to much about with compiling and editing conf files on vi? Keep this in mind: Fedora Core 9 was/is missing support for certain file types that most modern users are NOT going to go without--namely, mp3 and dvd. Those must be installed via the CLI--but only after installing the proper repositories, mind you. Again, attractive for the average user? I think not. I don't know if this is still the case in FC 10 & 11, but it seems extremely likely that it is. After all, support for those extensions was removed because they aren't Open Source, and the Fedora Project didn't want any risks. If they've suddenly reversed course, I'd be shocked.
In my current position, providing tech support to the students, faculty and staff of a large PAC-10 university, I will tell you that I loathe the site of someone walking in with a MacBook or a computer running Linux. Why? The MacBook, especially, but also Linux doesn't always play well with others. Getting them on the University's wireless networks can be a real headache. No problems like that on my Vista laptop, though.
To be continued...
Now, on to the claim that Linux will overtake Windows. I am an IT professional, so I know my way around a CLI. In fact, in Linux, I think you have to use the CLI. Even if there is a GUI that performs a specific function, it often doesn't work effectively or efficiently. The CLI is most often the only reliable way of accomplishing anything. Is a regular user going to want to much about with compiling and editing conf files on vi? Keep this in mind: Fedora Core 9 was/is missing support for certain file types that most modern users are NOT going to go without--namely, mp3 and dvd. Those must be installed via the CLI--but only after installing the proper repositories, mind you. Again, attractive for the average user? I think not. I don't know if this is still the case in FC 10 & 11, but it seems extremely likely that it is. After all, support for those extensions was removed because they aren't Open Source, and the Fedora Project didn't want any risks. If they've suddenly reversed course, I'd be shocked.
In my current position, providing tech support to the students, faculty and staff of a large PAC-10 university, I will tell you that I loathe the site of someone walking in with a MacBook or a computer running Linux. Why? The MacBook, especially, but also Linux doesn't always play well with others. Getting them on the University's wireless networks can be a real headache. No problems like that on my Vista laptop, though.
To be continued...
Like Juergen, I have NEVER experienced a hardware-related incompatibility with any version of Windows. That includes Vista. In fact, I find all of the overwrought whining about Vista to be the doing of computer-related "journalists" needing something to write about, and the Mac and Linux fanboys running wild across the Internet with it.
Installing my network printer on my XP and Vista computers? Easy as pie. I finally got a Linux box to print to my network-enabled Brother MFC about six months ago.
I also remember a lot of whining about Vista and software incompatibility. Again, never experienced it (and I remember the same nonsense when XP came out). I have been able to run every single application that I've tried to install on it. This includes games that came with my Windows 98 system.
Of course, installing the OS itself can be an adventure with Linux--still. Every time I have installed the OS, it has failed at least once. This meant I had to bail out of the installation, reboot and try again. It once took me two days, four attempts, and the help of a former sysadmin for Adobe to get FC 6 installed.
I love Open Source because it has a certain spirit of "we're all in this together." On the other hand, there are far too many Linux users out there who treat new users with absolute contempt. They are in some exclusive little club, and they don't want interlopers. Of course, that doesn't stop them from whining about people NOT adopting Linux and acting like your choice of an OS reveals something about your morals.
Also in relation to Open Source, I have seen some extremely haphazard "development" discussions about very popular software. For example, Firefox (which is usually the default browser on Linux distros--even those which have had their "own" browser for years and years) had a major problem with user-generated HTML code on Web 2.0 sites being used to create hidden password fields, which were then auto-filled by Firefox's built-in password manager. There were people who wanted to do the responsible thing and fix the problem in the browser. Others, however, claimed that it was all the fault of the sites (mainly MySpace), and the vulnerability should just be ignored. Can you imagine if Internet Explorer had a vulnerability that allowed a program to do the same to that OS? If Microsoft didn't respond, they'd be publicly torn to shreds. Of course, when they do respond, they are still publicly torn to shreds. They are held to a standard by Linux and Mac users who don't hold their own OSes or applications to that same standard. (Really, go to any random Mac forum. As soon as someone complains about Steve Jobs or Apple in relation to problems they are having with their MacBook, five fanboys will jump on him or her. They'll angrily defend Jobs like he's a relative, accusing the poster of being stupid or some kind of Microsoft ringer, at the very least.) Any IE vulnerability that allows a cracker to use the lack of security at a random website will inevitably be blamed on Microsoft. The website's designers will not be the ones who become the targets. It is the Microsoft designers and software engineers who will be accused of greed, incompetence, and recklessness. Why are those who code Firefox not held to the same standard? Open Source is NOT a panacea, and it poses no significant threat to Microsoft.
Installing my network printer on my XP and Vista computers? Easy as pie. I finally got a Linux box to print to my network-enabled Brother MFC about six months ago.
I also remember a lot of whining about Vista and software incompatibility. Again, never experienced it (and I remember the same nonsense when XP came out). I have been able to run every single application that I've tried to install on it. This includes games that came with my Windows 98 system.
Of course, installing the OS itself can be an adventure with Linux--still. Every time I have installed the OS, it has failed at least once. This meant I had to bail out of the installation, reboot and try again. It once took me two days, four attempts, and the help of a former sysadmin for Adobe to get FC 6 installed.
I love Open Source because it has a certain spirit of "we're all in this together." On the other hand, there are far too many Linux users out there who treat new users with absolute contempt. They are in some exclusive little club, and they don't want interlopers. Of course, that doesn't stop them from whining about people NOT adopting Linux and acting like your choice of an OS reveals something about your morals.
Also in relation to Open Source, I have seen some extremely haphazard "development" discussions about very popular software. For example, Firefox (which is usually the default browser on Linux distros--even those which have had their "own" browser for years and years) had a major problem with user-generated HTML code on Web 2.0 sites being used to create hidden password fields, which were then auto-filled by Firefox's built-in password manager. There were people who wanted to do the responsible thing and fix the problem in the browser. Others, however, claimed that it was all the fault of the sites (mainly MySpace), and the vulnerability should just be ignored. Can you imagine if Internet Explorer had a vulnerability that allowed a program to do the same to that OS? If Microsoft didn't respond, they'd be publicly torn to shreds. Of course, when they do respond, they are still publicly torn to shreds. They are held to a standard by Linux and Mac users who don't hold their own OSes or applications to that same standard. (Really, go to any random Mac forum. As soon as someone complains about Steve Jobs or Apple in relation to problems they are having with their MacBook, five fanboys will jump on him or her. They'll angrily defend Jobs like he's a relative, accusing the poster of being stupid or some kind of Microsoft ringer, at the very least.) Any IE vulnerability that allows a cracker to use the lack of security at a random website will inevitably be blamed on Microsoft. The website's designers will not be the ones who become the targets. It is the Microsoft designers and software engineers who will be accused of greed, incompetence, and recklessness. Why are those who code Firefox not held to the same standard? Open Source is NOT a panacea, and it poses no significant threat to Microsoft.
I have a deep sense of Fedora fanboi-ism after reading this. And you missed the mark on a few points. One on (Windows 7), possibly because I would find it hard to believe you have actually downloaded and installed the public beta before trash talking it.
Search the web - people have already been testing 7 on Netbooks - and finding it to perform better than XP on the hardware. I've installed the 7 Beta on my machine too, which until they had been 100% linux since 2004. An old Sempron64 2500+ with 1GB RAM. I wouldn't DREAM of even trying Vista on it. Vista slows a Core 2 Duo with 3GB down to the speed of my Sempy with linux on it.
Windows 7, while still being Windows, IS going to be a bright spot for Microsoft. I dare say they have learned from the Vista fiasco and did some things right with 7. Watching memory usage, it barely cracked 500MB with anti-virus, Firefox, IE, and the usual background processes running.
It was actually as responsive on my OLD hardware as linux. I'd dare say it almost felt faster. And if it weren't for an unsupported (after XP) old video card (Radeon 9250 ... Vista/7 only support as far back as the Radeon 9550 from what I could find, and tricking Windows into using the 9550 driver caused some applications to go into system lock. Not Windows fault ... that's hardware manufacturer driver fault.)
As a linux fan, and admittedly no fan of Microsoft, it's hard for me to say, but Windows 7 could be the best release they've had in almost a decade. They've trimmed a LOT of fat, and it will run well with just 512MB of RAM for basic use. (Photoshop might slow things down with that little ram ... but how many Photoshoppers would run a system that crippled these days?)
The article reeks of someone trying to find ways to bash Microsoft just for the sake of preaching the religion. You might want to actually give 7 a spin before cutting it down with the same FUD Microsoft is so famous for flinging at linux. It doesn't reflect well on the community.
Search the web - people have already been testing 7 on Netbooks - and finding it to perform better than XP on the hardware. I've installed the 7 Beta on my machine too, which until they had been 100% linux since 2004. An old Sempron64 2500+ with 1GB RAM. I wouldn't DREAM of even trying Vista on it. Vista slows a Core 2 Duo with 3GB down to the speed of my Sempy with linux on it.
Windows 7, while still being Windows, IS going to be a bright spot for Microsoft. I dare say they have learned from the Vista fiasco and did some things right with 7. Watching memory usage, it barely cracked 500MB with anti-virus, Firefox, IE, and the usual background processes running.
It was actually as responsive on my OLD hardware as linux. I'd dare say it almost felt faster. And if it weren't for an unsupported (after XP) old video card (Radeon 9250 ... Vista/7 only support as far back as the Radeon 9550 from what I could find, and tricking Windows into using the 9550 driver caused some applications to go into system lock. Not Windows fault ... that's hardware manufacturer driver fault.)
As a linux fan, and admittedly no fan of Microsoft, it's hard for me to say, but Windows 7 could be the best release they've had in almost a decade. They've trimmed a LOT of fat, and it will run well with just 512MB of RAM for basic use. (Photoshop might slow things down with that little ram ... but how many Photoshoppers would run a system that crippled these days?)
The article reeks of someone trying to find ways to bash Microsoft just for the sake of preaching the religion. You might want to actually give 7 a spin before cutting it down with the same FUD Microsoft is so famous for flinging at linux. It doesn't reflect well on the community.
Why is it fanboy-ish to point out that Fedora is always on the leading edge of Linux? Anyone who uses Linux knows this. Most of the time it's fine, sometimes, such as with version 9, it's "bleeding" edge and they get ahead of themselves. Like them or not, Fedora isn't slowing down to wait on everyone else. Ubuntu tends to play it safe and conservative, if you like that.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
