Businesses, educational institutions, governmental agencies and other organizations around the world are converting1 their computer operating systems from Microsoft Windows to Linux at an increasing pace. They are likewise converting their application programs from commercial software to free software (also referred to as open source software). There are at least 25 reasons for this situation, including:
25 Reasons to Convert to Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Not to be “that guy” but I could counter several of those reasons listed. The list basically looks like what all the other pro-linux people have been saying all along.
Yeah, I noticed that, too.
It seems like a decent list to investigate Linux, or to test-drive a Knoppix CD. However, each individual user must determine what the migration costs (learning to administer Linux, learn the filesystem, and the apps) would be.
Not a bad listing of items to consider, but hardly a compelling set of reasons for every Windows user to do a whole-sale switch.
“but I could counter several of those reasons listed.”
No , not at all you can oppose them or offer your usual lies and FUD. Counter them would mean remove those reasons from existance and block there use , which neither you or I or anyone else can realistically do.
Thats why GNU/Linux exist and is growing , no one can counter those reason yet.
This article makes some valid points. The author makes several good arguments as to why someone should move to Linux. I do, however, have a few nits to pick.
1: Availablilty of the source code for the purposes of modification and expirimentation is not a very strong motivator for the vast majority of computer users. Only a small minority of people who own computers know how to program, and an even smaller minority of programmers understand enough about operating systems to be able to make changes to the code with out severly damaging system stablilty.
2: I tend to find arguments regarding the comparitive stability of Windows (post Win2K) and Linux far from compelling. After Windows 2000 (NOTE Win9x/3.x were _not_stable) the most significant cause for Windows system instability is poorly written drivers. Those of us who use hardware with well written drivers tend to have very stable machines. Any OS is vulnerable to poorly written 3rd party drivers, and the system crashes caused by them.
3: The security argument is a bit misleading. The statement that Unix was designed with security in mind “from the ground up” is not really true. Unix was designed as a multi user platform “from the ground up”. Originally there was little security. On the other hand, the Windows installed base became used to the single user only notion of computing, so that installed base gaind alot of intertia with the notion that you use the machine as Administrator.
This is the real security benefit of Linux/Unix over Windows right now. Linux users just don’t do risky things while running as root.
For all thier faults MS has been pushing its users into the mindset that they shouldn’t run as Administrator. When this becomes standard practice, many of the security advantages of Linux will disappear.
4. Availability of viruses/ worms/ malware is only a short term motivator. Malware creation and distribution is a for profit business now. This means that malware creators will, in an effort to get the greatest return for the least amount of work, target any OS that has significant market share. If we all switch to Linux /MacOS/ whatever, malware authors will target those platforms. No OS built on existing technology is secure, and if users switch to any OS with the expectation that they won’t have to worry about security, they are only putting themselves at greater risk. A false sense of security is the worst kind of security.
All in all, that article was an interesting read. However, I will still continue to use Windows on my desktop ;-). (my servers run FreeBSD and Linux)
1: Most Windows User are doing illegal things and are modifying software againts what they agreed to in the EULA. Numbers of people able to realistically use it is not what should dictate the availibility of code to all , evryone as the right and privilege under GNU/Linux to modify , learn and change the code legally.
2: How do you explain the destroyer that whas dead at sea because of a windows network problem ? Your going to blame third party driver there too ? Windows version have been improving but driver are not always the problem at all.
3: NO , UNIX whas designed to run communication system , hence security whas a top priority , AT&T should be the big clue in that fact , Its really laughable that you say that multi user is the reason why Windows suck at security , its the permission system and security hack on top of something insecure that is the problem , just look at Vista security vs XP.
GNU/Linux are told and made to *never* run as root while windows user are always root even as users.
Your whishfully dreaming , the simple source code review from everyone will almost certainly never implemented in a Windows environment. Thats the start.
4: Its a lie that Windows is as secure as Other OS , its even more false to claim that other OS are near what Windows get as in used exploits. Virus/Worms/malware are almost inexistant on GNU/Linux , to claim that they would be the same as on windows is just a claim that is refutable by the use of GNU/Linux as the Leading OS on everything exept Desktop , there certainly not as widespread and they are almost never in use , most security flaw discovered are theory that hacker apply on the code because they can , but the flaw are never exploited in real use.
All in all , you dont know what your talking about , and most likely full of malware/virus/trojan/worms/phishing etc on your windows system , your just choosing to accept them as a normal thing when there not …
You say:
1: Most Windows User are doing illegal things and are modifying software againts what they agreed to in the EULA. Numbers of people able to realistically use it is not what should dictate the availibility of code to all , evryone as the right and privilege under GNU/Linux to modify , learn and change the code legally.
I say:
I think you misinterpreted my argument. I’m not saying that source code should not be available. I’m saying that the availability of source code is not a motivation for choosing an OS for the majority of computer users.
You Say:
2: How do you explain the destroyer that whas dead at sea because of a windows network problem ? Your going to blame third party driver there too ? Windows version have been improving but driver are not always the problem at all.
I say:
I’m not familiar with the specifics of that incident, however IIRC it was running WinNT 4. I specifically referenced Windows 2000 and higer when talking about stability. As to the specific reasons why the destroyer stopped functioning, prove to me that it wasn’t a 3rd party (navy) driver that caused the issue ;-).
You Say:
3: NO , UNIX whas designed to run communication system , hence security whas a top priority , AT&T should be the big clue in that fact , Its [snip]
I Say:
You really need to read a little more about the history of Unix. Google for Dennis Richie and read his discussions regarding its creation. As to security on Unix, if it was so secure, why did Richard Stallman object so strongly when user accounts suddenly got passwords?
Look, the reason that *nix users are taught not to run as root is becuase malicious software accidently run as the current user will have complete access to the machine. Windows has the same problem, but everyone effectivly runs Windows as root. *nix has a longer history as a multiuser OS, and therefore a better set of security practices for that environment.
You say:
Your whishfully dreaming , the simple source code review from everyone will almost certainly never implemented in a Windows environment. Thats the start.
I say:
Publicly scrutinized code can contribute to security, but it is not a guarantee security. For instance, bind was opensourced for years, but many machines were hacked through buffer overflow attacks in bind (including one of mine).
You Say:
4: Its a lie that Windows is as secure as Other OS , its even more false to claim that other OS are near what Windows get as in used exploits. Virus/Worms/malware are almost inexistant on GNU/Linux , to claim that they would be the same as on windows is just a claim that is refutable by the use of GNU/Linux as the Leading OS on everything exept Desktop , there certainly not as widespread and they are almost never in use , most security flaw discovered are theory that hacker apply on the code because they can , but the flaw are never exploited in real use.
I Say:
You seem to have misinterpreted my statment. Let me restate it. No OS built on current technology (3GL languages) is secure. As to malware being created for *nix… well why do you think rootkits are called rootkits, not Administratorkits? It is because that style of attack originated on *nix based machines. *nix has a long and exciting history of security issues (remember the sendmail wizard password?). If the financial reward existed for creating malware for *nix/MacOS those platforms would be under constant attack too.
You Say:
All in all , you dont know what your talking about , and most likely full of malware/virus/trojan/worms/phishing etc on your windows system , your just choosing to accept them as a normal thing when there not …
I Say:
Now that is just silly. You don’t know me well enough to make any judgements like this.
*sigh*
As to me not knowing what I’m talking about, I have a degree in CS, and Mathematics, have been working as a software engineer for the past 12 years, have written software for several *nix platforms and most windows platforms, have written driver level code, and firmware, _and_ I remember downloading slackware package by package from http://ftp.cdrom.com with my 14.4kbps modem so that I could install it on my 386dx 😉 (ahh the days before redhat etc…).
I really have no emotional attachment to any OS. I could care less if Linux, Windows, MacOS, or even Hurd is the dominant OS in the computing world. My point is that no matter which OS is dominant, malware will attack it.
I’ll end this with a Quote from Bruce Schnier:
“Security is a process, not a product.”
My point is that no matter which OS is dominant, malware will attack it.
Certainly, but that doesn’t mean that attacks will be as successful if an OS has sensible security policies in place, i.e.:
– Not tightly integrating the browser with the underlying OS
– Not executing e-mail attachments by default
– Not encouraging people to run as Root (for example, by disable the Administrator account by default)
– Not making a file executable SIMPLY THROUGH ITS EXTENSION
As I said, even when adjusting figures due to market share, Windows is still 50x more vulnerable to malware. It’s not just an issue of popularity. Sure, popularity helps, but the fact remains that, over the years, MS has produced lots of insecure software, a lot of which is still used out there. That is a real issue, with real-world costs in the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars.
I like your rebuttle. Well though out, and for the most part I agree.
However I would like to clear up a few things:
1) The browser is tightly integrated with the shell, not the underlying OS. For many Windows users this is they are the same thing, however, there are no parts of internet explorer integrated into ntoskrnl.
2) Not executing email attachments by default is a very good point. This, however, is an issue with the mail client not Windows Per Se… I’ll concede the point the outlook express is crappy and should be killed ;-), but I remember issues with HP Terms where simply reading an email that contained a specific term code could execute embedded shell scripts…
3) Not running as root: I totally agree!
4) This, once again, is an issue with the shell.
Now your use of statistics is a bit misleading. Malware creation is probably more reliably modeled with game theory rather than simple probablities. You have to consider the potential gain from hacking a Windows box (over an instance of Apache). I really don’t have time at the moment to give a good argument…. I’m getting ready to walk out the door.
I will post a better argument against your mathematical analysis when I get back.
However, No OS is complety secure. Even with effective security policies, if the reward is great enough then it will be hacked.
Ok… I’m back now so I can explain my issue with your calculation of windows being 50x less secure than Linux.
Just as a disclaimer let me say that I do feel that Windows used in its standard usage scenario (always logged in as Administrator) is less secure than Linux in its standard usage scenario (logged in as a privilage limited user).
Now your calculation went something like this: There are 2000x more malware for Windows than for Linux. Windows has 40x more users. So 2000/40 = 50 so Windows is 50x less secure than linux.
My problem with this is that the amount of malware available does not represent the number of successful attacks on a particular system. It represents the number of attempted attacks. Since an attack that is attempted, but not successful does not reduce the security of the defender, using the number of malware available for Windows as the sole measure of its security doesn’t work.
Here is a real world analogy:
The bank down the street has a vault with lots of money in it. The door to the vault is 5 inch steel, with time release locks, and 3 inch diameter deadbolts. The room with the vault is guarded by 3 men armed with handguns.
Last year 17 people attempted to break into the vault, though none of them succeeded (not really but this is just an analogy).
In comparison, my house has a standard entry door. It is a hollow steel door, with a glass window and a single deadbolt. There are no armed guards around my house, and I leave the key to the door under the mat.
The bank vault door, and my front door have the same number of users (1 the bank, and me).
Last year 1 person tried to break into my house, but didn’t try that hard and never got in (not really but I want to avoid a devide by 0).
If I used your calculations: there are 17x more people trying to break into the bank vault than are trying to break into my house. Therefore, the bank vault must be 17x less secure than the door to my house. That notion is obviously false.
If we get back to the notion of computers and security, we see that security is a combination of technology and policy. If Windows is used with an effective security policies and procedures, it is really hard to break into it. If Linux is used with effective security policies and procedures it is really hard to break into it. If either is used with poor security poliicies and procedures, either one is easy to hack.
I would say that the reason the Linux is more secure than Windows right now is that it is much easier to use Linux with effective security policies and procedures than it is to use Windows with effective security policies and procedures.
I still don’t have a good way to give a numeric quantification of that security difference though.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
I understand your point, but I need to correct something. You said:
So 2000/40 = 50 so Windows is 50x less secure than linux.
Unfortunately, that’s not what I claimed. I didn’t say that Windows in 50x less secure than Linux (in essence that’s a pretty meaningless thing to say anyway). I said that Windows could be considered 50x more vulnerable to malware.
Of course, that isn’t true either. A lot of these viruses are no longer in the wild (and, in fact, there is only 2 or 3 Linux virus in the wild as we speak). What I should simply have said is that there is proportionately 50x more viruses for Windows than Linux.
Nor do I believe that computer security is limited to malware.
In any case, your analogy is equally faulty, since you’re comparing the number of attacks while I was comparing the number of threats. For the analogy to work, I would have had to count the number of infections rather than actual viruses/trojans/worms, a figure which is of course impossible to determine but is obviously much, much higher than 100,000…
My problem with this is that the amount of malware available does not represent the number of successful attacks on a particular system. It represents the number of attempted attacks. Since an attack that is attempted, but not successful does not reduce the security of the defender, using the number of malware available for Windows as the sole measure of its security doesn’t work.
“I think you misinterpreted my argument.”
No , you have no argument which is valid , the availibility of code is accesible to all regardless they whant it , need or feel like using it , its an advantage that no other OS realy as , some say that they do offer it but only GNU/Linux does it so extensiveley because of the GPL.
“however IIRC it was running WinNT 4.”
Its windows. NT is the base for 2K and XP too.
“I specifically referenced Windows 2000 and higer when talking about stability. ”
They all suck stability wise and no its not the driver fault in all case or most cases.
“prove to me that it wasn’t a 3rd party (navy) driver that caused the issue”
Why ? your irrelevant and your not qualified to even begin discuss the subject , even less discuss its details , the navy said it whas windows , they dont care when people live are at stakes who’s fault it is.
Usually a destoryer is rendereed useles by enemy attack not by software malfunction during normal use load.
“You really need to read a little more about the history of Unix.”
No.
“Google for Dennis Richie and read his discussions regarding its creation.”
Google for unix creator … more then one guy worked on it(them). Your comment amount to Bill Gates comment on XP in 35 years.
“why did Richard Stallman object so strongly when user accounts suddenly got passwords? ”
Got an offical link about this ? So that I can see what your trying to pass as something else exactly.
“Look, the reason that *nix … access to the machine”
No , thats because security is not a second thought or options on those OS.
“Windows has the same problem, but everyone effectivly runs Windows as root.”
No , windows dont have the same problem and is not the same ( the very problem you have with reality ).
“*nix has a … practices for that environment. ”
No , again thats because security is not an after tough or an option or feature on those OS. No Microsoft OS whas built with security in mind at all , even Vista its secondary or third or etc … to other goals.
“Publicly scrutinized code can contribute to security”
No its is part of security , if you dont have acces to code you CANT run test or see if failure are really exploitable.
“but many machines were hacked through buffer overflow attacks in bind”
No , The machine where hacked because a flaw whas left open or too new ( which is doubtfull ) , but more importantly because ANYONE from anywhere can access the system to talk with it on your network and no authorization system to access it is in place. I am sure that if we look at your log thats the flaw that they found unpatched but they probably tested everything else before that or its an inside job.
“You seem to have misinterpreted my statment.”
No.
“Let me restate it.”
Its your absolute right.
“No OS built on current technology (3GL languages) is secure. ”
No , I guess I whas right the first time , let me put it in lamens terms for you : Windows is insecure other are hackable. Full proof dont exist.
“As to malware being created for *nix… well why do you think rootkits are called rootkits”
They try to take over root access and privileges , but name me one effective widely spead recognised rootkits working on all GNU/Linux that is currently distributed ? YES THATS RIGHT NONE. Nix is a familly , but its not because you can hack UNIX that GNU/Linux is going to be the same , heck you cant necessarelky Hack Red hat or Debian on the same thing , its like saying I am a moron because your a moron and where both human beeings. Real hack problem on a secure GNU/Linux system are minimum , most of the time its NULL , they attack the above apps.
“Now that is just silly.”
No , thats reality , anyone who know what there doing knows that Windows is totally insecure and hackable in seconds even without going to a considered danger site , and dont use it as default and that even with the most secure system flaws are so widely spread and known that one must keep updating it and keep up to the latest mallware/spyware/trojan/etc defense …
“You don’t know me well enough to make any judgements like this.”
Actually I know you very well , your a windows apologist your nothing special , but what I do know perfectly well is windows and GNU/Linux security , anyone who say that Windows is secure is out of his mind , anyone who say it can be made secure is out of is mind and anyone who dare say that GNU/Linux is the same well same thing.
“I have a degree in CS”
Wow …
“and Mathematics”
Nice …
“have been working as a software engineer for the past 12 years”
Yes , Leader Bush been is in the position of the President of the US too …
“have written software for several *nix platforms and most windows platforms”
Good for you.
“have written driver level code”
Excellent.
“and firmware”
Cool
“and_ I remember downloading slackware package by package from http://ftp.cdrom.com with my 14.4kbps modem so that I could install it on my 386dx 😉 (ahh the days before redhat etc…). ”
Ok … I preffered floppy.
“I really have no emotional attachment to any OS.”
I would really disagree with you.
“I could care less if Linux, Windows, MacOS, or even Hurd is the dominant OS in the computing world.”
Not talking market share here.
“My point is that no matter which OS is dominant, malware will attack it.”
Ok , because you think you have a point , a secure OS will get attacked by malware , GNU/Linux beeing the uncontested King of everything else but the desktop get attacked more then windows , because its a secure OS it dont work all the time like on windows …
I will give you a quote of mine :
Anyone who claim that Windows is a secure OS or the same as GNU/Linux or more attacked then GNU/Linux , need to come back to reality.
Windows dominate the Desktop OS market only , everything else GNU/Linux dominate. There is more to life then just the Desktop.
Get out of theory. In practice your a laughing joke saying that GNU/Linux is the same as Windows on security.
“”I specifically referenced Windows 2000 and higer when talking about stability. ”
They all suck stability wise and no its not the driver fault in all case or most cases. ”
That’s not been my experience.
“That’s not been my experience.”
What can I say , when you have a certified Microsoft system with all driver certified by Microsoft and that installing apps on it and modifying setting and removing software lock the system or make you have to reboot to be able to work on it , or that the Booth time is affected by the network or internet beeing on/off and that sometime removing spyware have windows ask specifically for it when you use the remove software system at boot time , etc … , I dont call that a stable system , talking XP pro here. I even once made it do a blue screen which Microsoft Claim is impossible to do on XP.
ME whas crashing just by looking at it. 2000 whas solid until you tried to play game or used windows 95 – 98 software on it.
On a stable system the apps dont make the X server crash or take out the entire OS with other Apps , One App cant allocate itself a full 2 gig of ram either , etc …
No body ever said it was impossible to get a blue screen, it’s just a lot less likey than on 98, and in my experience is usally caused by Hardware.
What you seem to want is a system that can’t be broken, while allowing you to install software.
Would it be worth reporting why I had to install Linux twice last night becuase a application crashed so badly I couldn’t quit it or even ctrl alt del, so I had to press the big button on the front of the PC, which wrecked the file system to such an extent it was totally fscked (arf!).
But it was a odd/obscure system Linux distro, so that’s probably not going to releate to any other Linux situation, but the point is, WIndows NT based system are reliable enough for Businesses, in a way that windows 98 wasn’t, to the point where the increased (probably) reliability of a Linux becomes a non-issue for (non-Server) workstations.
But if you want to believe that Windows NT/2000/XP is that unreliable, carry on.
The point is a secure and stable OS dont give you a blue screen at anytime. Your experience may be limited to hardware only , but blue screen on NT/2000/XP are not limited at all to hardware only.
Broken is not supposed to happen at all unless its in development or a really new product and even then its not suppose to take out your entire computer , thats the difference between a stable and unstable OS.
“Would it be worth … fscked (arf!). ”
No , get a couple of class , get a mentor at a lug or get a turnkey :
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_news_pressreleases_archives.php?id=…
“But it was … Linux situation,”
No , it as to do with someone not knowing what he is doing and how to fix thing when problem happen.
“WIndows NT based system are reliable enough for Businesses”
No , they where actually the only affordable option at the time ( still are for some people ) and had no direct competition for the solution they offered.
“in a way that windows 98 wasn’t”
Windows 98 , whas never meant for deployment in business. It whas because it whas cheaper then NT at the time.
“to the point where the increased (probably) reliability of a Linux becomes a non-issue for (non-Server) workstations. ”
Actually , The reliability and stability of GNU/Linux stayed pretty much the same and availibility improved with support from some hardware maker. Where as Windows as improved immensely at each new release.
“But if you want to believe that Windows NT/2000/XP is that unreliable”
Reliability and stability are two different things. Also , yes I will carry on saying that GNU/Linux Desktop and workstation are far more reliable and stable then Windows NT/2000/XP. Its all based on past maintainance and current ones.
“This is the real security benefit of Linux/Unix over Windows right now. Linux users just don’t do risky things while running as root.”
I would say “su -c ‘rm -rf / tmp'” is _really_ risky! Did several times…
I should have said most Linux users don’t do risky things while running as root. 😉
“Availability of viruses/ worms/ malware is only a short term motivator. Malware creation and distribution is a for profit business now. This means that malware creators will, in an effort to get the greatest return for the least amount of work, target any OS that has significant market share. If we all switch to Linux /MacOS/ whatever, malware authors will target those platforms. No OS built on existing technology is secure, and if users switch to any OS with the expectation that they won’t have to worry about security, they are only putting themselves at greater risk. A false sense of security is the worst kind of security.”
There is a way to guarantee that your system has no malware – that is to have a policy that you use ONLY open source software. You must have the discipline and stick strictly to this policy in order to get the guarantee of no malware.
How does it work? With open source software the source code is visible to everyone – including programmers – who then use the code themselves.
Programmers who can see the source code of software they are using are not going to inflict malware on themselves – so you can rest assured there is no malware in that code.
OK – so use open source software exclusively – and you will have no malware – guaranteed.
GNU/Linux distributions are one system that allows you yo follow a strict “open source only” policy.
You cannot have such a policy on Windows. Indeed, the expectation on Windows is closed-source binaries which could contain anything. Open source on Windows does exist, but it is very much in the minority and it cannot be used exclusively on Windows. Therefore, Windows systems present themselves as malware targets.
Availablilty of the source code for the purposes of modification and expirimentation is not a very strong motivator for the vast majority of computer users. Only a small minority of people who own computers know how to program, and an even smaller minority of programmers understand enough about operating systems to be able to make changes to the code with out severly damaging system stablilty.
True enough… or at least it seems to be until you start looking at it. The point here isn’t that everyone is a programer so everyone must modify or comb through the code; the point here is that if I want to I can do so– or pay someone else to do it for me.
Linux still has support for kernel 2.2! Debian 2.2 aka potato is still recieving updates and support. I wouldn’t want to use it but the fact is that an up to date version of Debian Potato exists. Debian 2.2 was released in August 14th, 2000… Windows 2000 was released on February 17th of that same year. As of 2005 Windows 2000 went into extended support meaning that unless its a critical security risk you don’t get any updates unless you bought a support agreement ahead of time.
To make my point clearer, look at the current state of Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 – Microsoft as a part of their push for Windows XP has refused to release a secured version for 2000; its users left out in the cold. Even if I were willing to try to sit down and study to port over the changes myself or to hire someone else to do it for me I couldn’t. Now contrast that with Debian where I could likely get a modern version of Mozilla Firefox to work even in Debian potato…. heck, there’s a version of Mozilla Firefox for BeOS! an OS that’s been officially on life support for 2001! Enough said?
There are plenty of people who’d love to see earlier versions of Windows continue to get support, even to the point of doing so by coding together things themselves and creating ‘unofficial’ patches. Witness Calmira II shell update for Windows 3.x, the various update packs for Windows 98SE and the autopatcher groups… I think they fight a losing battle especially since these people don’t have the source code to work with but I think the fact that there’s an unofficial patch for the WMF vulnerability on Win9x says something. Fact is Linux makes it easier to keep things the way you want and long after the enthusiasts for Win 3.x and Win9x have given up in frustration there will still be people able to reach into the code library and update Linux.
Availability of viruses/ worms/ malware is only a short term motivator. Malware creation and distribution is a for profit business now. This means that malware creators will, in an effort to get the greatest return for the least amount of work, target any OS that has significant market share. If we all switch to Linux /MacOS/ whatever, malware authors will target those platforms. No OS built on existing technology is secure, and if users switch to any OS with the expectation that they won’t have to worry about security, they are only putting themselves at greater risk. A false sense of security is the worst kind of security.
Ummm…. this is why there are so many viruses and worms on MacOS X? Not to say that once a competitor manages to gain enough market shre we won’t see such things on other OSes– I’m sure we will. However fact remains that its much more dificult as it is now on a *nix based system. There’s also a culture of people who tend to look for ‘broken’ things and fix them. Malware wouldn’t last too long on a *nix based system without someone figuring what was happening and sounding an alarm. There are simply too many people who are familair with its inner workings. As opposed to the black box that is Windows and no one knows what makes it do what it does.
Ideally the future won’t be just Linux… idealy the future will end up being a split between three or more operating systems forcing everyone to adhere to common standards and strong crossplatform capability. I’d love it if some day I could go into a store and see several different systems on display– Have the sales man show me a ReactOS box next to a MacOS and Windows box along with their topseller Linux appliances– and know that my choices would be based on preferences and not ‘will my data be readable?’
Linux seems to have the best potential in killing our current computing monoculture which is why I support it so much.
–bornagainpenguin
This issue is over blown. However, if you are wanting to switch, here are some realistic reasons why you should make the switch:
Because you want to learn and is willing to take the time to learn
You want to take advantage of its functionality features
It suits your needs as a user
Become part of a community of users that believe in what they are doing
However, you should not switch if:
You’re doing it to just do it
Because you hate Gates and his cronies, that is not a reason
You’re used to point and click and it goes and this is what you’re expecting from KDE/GNOME as a former MS Windows user, there is more to just point and click
I hear Microsoft Windows users, well Linux doesn’t have the market for the desktop and OS X will kick Linux @$$ because now it is on Intel! My response is this, who gives a ….! Linux is an alternative operating system for people who want an alternative to what is out on the market, we’re not in it for profit! RedHat, Novell and others are; please go beef with them about market share.
Because you hate Gates and his cronies, that is not a reason
I must humbly beg to differ. IMHO, this is a quite excellent reason. To make yourself independant of proprietary software is, for me, a goal in itself. The problem with all these arguments is, that they focus on the practicality of (GNU/)Linux, instead of taking an idealistic approach.
I know, that idealism does not come a long way with most businesses, but governments and especially individuals should be able to look on a broader perspective.
Why would i want to take time to learn linux and run it on production servers and, put the company integrity on the line, when the USCERT posted that linux has more vulnerabilities then windows. I would rather run and learn the BSDs, they are more secure and robust. simple as that
Sigh!
I believe there is a saying that applies here: “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink”.
The USCERT numbers added together all Unix and Linux variants and counted them together, and even counted update information about the same vulnerability as a new vulnerability (counted the exact same thing in some cases up to 9 times). This is the only way USCERT could make Windows look more secure than other OSes – just add all the other OSes together, and count them many times over!
What is really worrying in all this is the thought that a company might actually put production servers in the charge of a stupid ‘horse’.
Sorry, But don’t think USCERT will try to come up with
a formula just to make Windows look more secure then linux. Once again,not only USCERT but also NASA are saying the Linux kernel is flawed it has valerbilities. simple as that
…but none of these would make the cut.
The vast majority of them are either inane (open-source = ultimate optimized performance/security/support/customization/etc.) or flat-out wrong (old versions of “Linux” continue to be supported forever?) with the author continually switching definitions of Linux to fit the argument being presented (sometimes it is a platform, sometimes it means open-source in general, sometimes it is a kernel, sometimes it is a specific distribution).
“(open-source = ultimate optimized performance/security/support/customization/etc.)”
Reality Check : Microsoft Windows and Apple are built on Open Source , its always been impossible to have computer and not use something Open Source , exept those company use Open Source with traitor license , which means they have the ability to close the improvment they made to someone else code and dont have to release source code at all or allow other to look at the code for fixing problem. That swhy they Hate the GPL license it forbade them to do that which they have been doing for 3 decades.
“or flat-out wrong (old versions of “Linux” continue to be supported forever?)”
I seriously whant to see you try and close support for ever of anything GNU/Linux.
“with the author continually switching definitions of Linux to fit the argument being presented ”
Gnu/Linux is everything , GNU/Linux is nothing , GNU/Linux is what you choose it to be.
The reason I use ubuntu instead of windows is:
It lets me accomplish the tasks I use a computer for significantly easier than windows.
This if course is not true for everyone, but that does not matter as I am not everyone.
Some of these points are can be countered (and effectively) by others (as mentioned by others). Here are my thoughts (not like they matter, but what the hay)
1. It’s free… OK, but when it comes to support do I have to get on the listservs and other community based methods to get things fixed (without the embarasement of being called a n00b or other derogatory terms?). Compare a commercial version of SuSE or RH (with support) to XP or OS X and you are basically at the same price level (almost). Free doesn’t always mean better
2. OK, free software – see my point above, I have better things to do with my time that meddle around with source code. is it cool for me to customize apps to my liking? of course! I am a geek like the rest, but when it comes down to it 95% of the time I want to work 5% to mess around – again free is not always better – and not all software is free. In contrast with windows and OS X….hmmm.. ok… let me see… there exists freeware, shareware and commercialware on all three platforms so I personally don;t see a difference (btw where is filemaker pro for linux? that is what I use day in day out and I dont want to change my DB just because I change OS)
3. How many times do we need to talk about “free” ?
4. There is little possibility that support for linux will be discontinued. OK – but there is no possibility of OS X and Windows support bring discontinued. And if you point back to the no support for XP home that we saw on OSnews a while back – can you point to me where I can get support for kernal 1.x of linux? (and new apps for it)
5. There is little fear of obsolence…eeerr… ok…the same goes for windows and OS X. Also, where can I get new stuff for kernal 1.x ? If I cannot find stuff made in 2005 for kernal 1.x – it is obsolete
6. There are no forced upgrades for mac or windows either – what is the point? No one is putting a gun to the users head saying “upgrade or else” 🙂
7. Again with the free… see previous comments 🙂
8. this point going back to things being “free” thus no need to worry about licenses, but the point is that linux DOES have licenses, GNU – and you cannot violate it because the EFF police will be after you
9. I have seen linux serves hacked – they are not immune. They dont have virii etc because windows is a MUCH bigger target and thus the “evil doers” focus on windows. No system is immune from a determined person
10 resitant to crashes – no need to reboot – OK – good point but I get that with my OS X, and windows has behaved recently… so the point is moot
11. Please point me to the applications. I have yet to find filemaker pro – the most basic of my needs
12. I have a choice of vanilla…or vanilla…hmmmmm 🙂
Linux is linux – no matter what you choose, distro does not matter to me since you can get all software for one to run on the other (with maybe some minor mods)
13 I can modify my mac and windows just as much
14 Open Format… I am all for it, but how do I talk to the rest of the world
OS X and Windows will do open format too in the near future – it is purely an economic thing for them, they cannot afford to not have it
15 linux is just as bloated as the rest, unless you are just running the command shell 😉
tired of replying… I will take a break a resume later 😉
About Windows being a bigger target because there’s more of it out there.
The argument sounds good until you look at other products in the industry – like Apache and IIS. The balance of power shifts to Apache there (http://www.netcraft.com), but the balance of security holes doesn’t.
Why don’t you compare the number of security holes between Apache 2.X and IIS 6?
Apache 2.x – http://secunia.com/product/73/
Currently 30 advisories for this product with two marked unpatched. 0% rated extremely high and 4% rated highly critical.
IIS 6 – http://secunia.com/product/1438/
Currently 2 advisories for this product with none marked unpatched. 0% rated extremely high and 0% rated highly critical.
(/me begins to eat hat) 🙂
Or you could compare it to IIS 5. I think you missed the point, which was to say that popularity is not necessarily related to security.
Windows has about 40 times Linux’ market share, but there are about 2000x more virus/malware that affect it. That means that, adjusted proportionately to market share, Windows is 50x more likely to be vulnerable to malware.
Another example (which was the original point which, in your haste to defend Microsoft, you appear to have missed by a mile): Apache is more popular than IIS 5, yet it has less critical vulnerabilities than it.
Hence, the popularity argument is BS.
Popularity has little to do with number of vulnerabilities if the code itself is good. IIS 6 is popular, yet there have only ever been two vulnerabilities. IIS 5 was not that insecure either — the problem was with silly defaults and admins who knew nothing about security. Microsoft realized that most “admins” configuring IIS 5 did not know shit, so they locked IIS 6 down by default.
Oh, and you can’t just compare vulnerabilities proportionately to market share. That’s extremely naive.
6. “There are no forced upgrades for mac or windows either ”
See anyone doing support legally for older Mac or Windows , once they drop it themself ? Feel free to show a supplyer.
7. #7 is licensing fees and compatibility with earlier versions du to non commercial version availibility. Again What article have you been reading ? Thats right the one you made up in what you call your mind.
8. #8 is keeping track of licenses. Why would you need to keep tracking license with GPL ?. Of course if you break the law you should be punished , problem is people who do under Apple and Windows go to jail for more time then someone who kill someone else ( 9 – 11 years ) and its a laughing mather or you get fined 500k for 4 copies of windows you lost track of the proof of purchase.
9. #9 is Linux features superior security, including a very low rate of infection by viruses, trojans, worms, spyware and other malware.
Its not according some clueless saying :
“I have seen linux serves hacked – they are not immune.”
Its almost NEVER the GNU/Linux server but the apps on top of it. As opposed to windows which is almost always the windows server.
“windows is a MUCH bigger target and thus the “evil doers” focus on windows. ”
Yes the likes of SONY , who everyone ( Microsoft ,Antivirus on windows , Sony ) knew whas shipping a Trojan with there music CD.
In case you dont know beside desktop GNU/Linux is the king of everything else by a 70% margins of market share on :
– Cluster
– Super computer
– Webservers
– Servers
– Date file centers
Only the desktop is GNU/Linux not the leader OS. We get attacked there we just prevail.
10. ” I get that with my OS X”
No. Better then windows but GNU/Linux is in a league of its own , unmatched by anyone else.
11. #11 is An extensive selection of high quality application programs is available for use with Linux.
Its not every application known to be used on computers , Filemaker is proprietary and closed source the only one who can bring it to GNU/Linux is Filemaker INC , Why they dont ? must be because you dont pay enough for them to do so and arent as higly regarded a client as you think you are. There are similar , in this case better professional software , is the point.
12. # 12 is There is a choice of numerous distributions
Only a totally clueless ( I am staying polite ) would call Linspire the same thing as Red Hat or Debian the same thing as Slackware. They dont have the same software , license , support and community and arent all the same.
13. #13 is Linux features a high degree of flexibility of configuration, and a great deal of customization
No you cant ( the source code aint availaible ) , and no you cant legally ( this little thing you agree to but dont respect or follow).
14. “I am all for it”
No , you claim to use Windows and Apple proprietary format for there files type.
“but how do I talk to the rest of the world
”
I everyone is on Open format , there is no problem , look at internet as best example.
“OS X and Windows will do open format too in the near future ”
No , they will do as before modify them for profit purpose and incompatibility in order to lock in there clients.
“it is purely an economic thing for them”
No.
“they cannot afford to not have it”
Do you really believe that people know every type file that they use ?
15. #15 is Linux is generally faster for a given set of hardware specifications.
“linux is just as bloated as the rest”
No , and you dont know what bloated means.
“tired of replying…”
your not replying your spitting absolute already proven false nonsense.
” I will take a break a resume later ;-)”
Dont bother. your aboslute crap is a waste of hard drive space.
pressed on the wrong reply sorry
Well I agree with you on some points, I don’t on others.
9. Linux is making very large strides in this area as of late. Sure it may never be perfect, but security minded modifications to gcc, along with things like selinux and the recently released apparmor can make it darn close.
11. I know next to nothing about this application you mention, but if you’re going to tell me there aren’t database applications available on Linux then you’re wrong.
12. But see, it’s not just vanilla or vanilla. You have general purpose distros of course, but then also a great number of highly specialized distros, such as desktop distros, distros for firewalls, distros for setting up high performance clusters, rescue cds, security focused distros, etc, etc. Sure you could probably start with any old distro and end up with the same thing, but it’s nice to have something ready made so you can get on with doing what you need done.
13. You’re most certainly wrong on this point. Or tell me how under Windows I’d do the equivalent of stripping my os down to just an OpenMosix kernel with nothing but glibc, bash, and a customized init. Or tell me how I’d do the equivalent of a bare minimum Debian install along with a dns server.
15. Perhaps if we’re talking Gnome or KDE. But refer to my comment on point 13.
As for some of the comments you skipped, some of them are some of Linux’s strongest points.
16. One of the things I’ve liked best about Linux, considering I need to deal with a heterogenous network.
17. Can’t argue there. For example you’d be hard pressed to find any spyware in a Linux distro. Windows, I’m not so sure.
18. Perhaps true if you’re not running KDE or Gnome.
19. Definitely one of Linux’s strong points. Have an old sparc machine lying around? Why not put it to use.
20. Every CS dept. I’ve ever encountered certainly agrees with this point.
21. I’m definitely for the US govt. being open (too bad they’ve gotten so far away from the original by the people ideals on which this country was founded).
22. Along the same lines as 17.
23. Nice to see tabs in Internet Explorer for example.
24. Linux definitely has come a long way at any rate.
25. Certainly the case, although I’m not sure this constitutes a reason to use Linux for all people.
Edited 2006-01-11 20:44
“Some of these points are can be countered (and effectively) by others (as mentioned by others).”
No , oppose them yes , offering lies and FUD about them yes , counter them , never.
1. ( You have many false arguments and many crying baby comment in that point ).
“It’s free… OK,”
Like *you* would understand free. its obvious you dont at all. Freedom is not something you grasp or understand at all.
” but when it comes to support do I have to get on the listservs and other community based methods to get things fixed”
No.
“(without the embarasement of being called a n00b or other derogatory terms?).”
There is idiot everywhere , grow up and ignore them.
“Compare a commercial … same price level (almost).”
No , but its laughable that you repeat the Microsoft and Apple toe lines. I whant to see you try and get the same support at the same price for 1000 desktop or 1000 server. Beside Red Hat and SuSe are not the only option availaible and not the best at all.
“Free doesn’t always mean better”
Free ALWAYS mean better , because Free means Freedom not cost.
2. ( You again have many false arguments and many crying baby comment in that point ).
“see my point above,”
You have no above valid points at all. Point #2 in the article is availibility of modification possibility because its Free as in Freedom. Learn to understand and read or ask question when you dont.
“I have better things to do with my time that meddle around with source code.”
Ok , it dont means because your not using that we have to be thief and asshole for everyone else and remove its availibility to all based on you. Dont use it , but we protect your right to do so if you decide to use your mind and or change your mind.
” is it cool for me to customize apps to my liking? of course! ”
You seem to contradict yourself , you dont play with source code yet you customize apps to your liking.
“I am a geek like the rest, but when it comes down to it 95% of the time I want to work 5% to mess around”
Again another contradiction , if your remove the availibitlity to legally and actually see the code how can you mess around with it at 5% ? Your delusionnal about reality and how you do things.
“again free is not always better”
FREEDOM ( Free ) is ALWAYS better , go live in a prison if you disagree with freedom so much , what ? You said Freedom is not always better , in prison you go its your ideal place to live in , according to your ( insert deragotary name ) comments…
“and not all software is free.”
Your right.
“In contrast with windows and OS X.”
Windows and OS X would not exist at all without Free software and Open Source.
“there exists freeware, shareware and commercialware on all three platforms so I personally don;t see a difference”
You semm to be the kind of guy who would say I dont see a difference between a LADA and Porsche there both cars … you would still be using your porsche do.
“btw where is FileMaker, Inc. … I change OS”
Tell FileMaker, Inc. to make a GNU/Linux version of there software , since they dont offer source code and dont allow anyone else to do it legally , wait this means that Free Software is better ….
3. #3 is about High quality support , What article have you been reading ?
4. You havent offered the source code of Apple OS and Windows previous OS so he is again right.
” but there is no possibility of OS X and Windows support bring discontinued. ”
Tell that to those who where on windows 3.1 , 95 , 98 , 2000 , etc and really soon XP , Mac is the same tell that to MAc OS 1 – 9. really I whant to see you offer direct support on those older platform legally.
“can you point to me where I can get support for kernal 1.x of linux?”
http://www.kernel.org ask on the kernel mailing list. Why would you whant Kernel 1.0 anyway ? the latest and best are availaible for free.
“(and new apps for it)”
The apps you just have to download Debian and recompile on 1.0 or pay someone to do it for you.
5. “the same goes for windows and OS X.”
No , nice try. Just ask those who chnaged hardware because there hardware maker would not support there hardware on XP or MAC OS X.
“where can I get new stuff for kernal 1.x ?”
Same place you get GNU/Linux apps and *stuff* , you just need to recompile for it.
“If I cannot find stuff made in 2005 for kernal 1.x – it is obsolete”
No , it means you dont know what your talking about and what your doing.
6. “There are no forced upgrades for mac or windows either ”
See anyone doing support legally for older Mac or Windows , once they drop it themself ? Feel free to show a supplyer.
7. #7 is licensing fees and compatibility with earlier versions du to non commercial version availibility. Again What article have you been reading ? Thats right the one you made up in what you call your mind.
8. #8 is keeping track of licenses. Why would you need to keep tracking license with GPL ?. Of course if you break the law you should be punished , problem is people who do under Apple and Windows go to jail for more time then someone who kill someone else ( 9 – 11 years ) and its a laughing mather or you get fined 500k for 4 copies of windows you lost track of the proof of purchase.
9. #9 is Linux features superior security, including a very low rate of infection by viruses, trojans, worms, spyware and other malware.
Its not according some clueless saying :
“I have seen linux serves hacked – they are not immune.”
Its almost NEVER the GNU/Linux server but the apps on top of it. As opposed to windows which is almost always the windows server.
“windows is a MUCH bigger target and thus the “evil doers” focus on windows. ”
Yes the likes of SONY , who everyone ( Microsoft ,Antivirus on windows , Sony ) knew whas shipping a Trojan with there music CD.
In case you dont know beside desktop GNU/Linux is the king of everything else by a 70% margins of market share on :
– Cluster
– Super computer
– Webservers
– Servers
– Date file centers
Only the desktop is GNU/Linux not the leader OS. We get attacked there we just prevail.
10. ” I get that with my OS X”
No. Better then windows but GNU/Linux is in a league of its own , unmatched by anyone else.
11. #11 is An extensive selection of high quality application programs is available for use with Linux.
Its not every application known to be used on computers , Filemaker is proprietary and closed source the only one who can bring it to GNU/Linux is Filemaker INC , Why they dont ? must be because you dont pay enough for them to do so and arent as higly regarded a client as you think you are. There are similar , in this case better professional software , is the point.
12. # 12 is There is a choice of numerous distributions
Only a totally clueless ( I am staying polite ) would call Linspire the same thing as Red Hat or Debian the same thing as Slackware. They dont have the same software , license , support and community and arent all the same.
13. #13 is Linux features a high degree of flexibility of configuration, and a great deal of customization
No you cant ( the source code aint availaible ) , and no you cant legally ( this little thing you agree to but dont respect or follow).
14. “I am all for it”
No , you claim to use Windows and Apple proprietary format for there files type.
“but how do I talk to the rest of the world
”
I everyone is on Open format , there is no problem , look at internet as best example.
“OS X and Windows will do open format too in the near future ”
No , they will do as before modify them for profit purpose and incompatibility in order to lock in there clients.
“it is purely an economic thing for them”
No.
“they cannot afford to not have it”
Do you really believe that people know every type file that they use ?
15. #15 is Linux is generally faster for a given set of hardware specifications.
“linux is just as bloated as the rest”
No , and you dont know what bloated means.
“tired of replying…”
your not replying your spitting absolute already proven false nonsense.
” I will take a break a resume later ;-)”
Dont bother. your aboslute crap is a wae of hard drive space.
OK, but when it comes to support do I have to get on the listservs and other community based methods to get things fixed (without the embarasement of being called a n00b or other derogatory terms?).
Can we please put this myth to rest? I have never, ever been called a “n00b” or other derogatory term while asking Linux questions on message boards. To the contrary, I’ve met a great deal of very helpful people who have given more information than I would ever get from a commercial “knowledge base” or other basic paid-for support services.
This is actually a strong argument for switching to Linux: the quality of its community.
Oh, and about FileMaker Pro being available for Linux: this is really the wrong place to ask. Get in touch with those making FileMaker Pro and ask them to port it to Linux. In the meantime, versions 4.1 and 5 are supposed to work well with Crossover Office.
Some of these ‘benefits’ don’t matter to the average consumer, some will confuse them, and some are ignoring the fact that Linux applications are lacking in a couple areas. I think he should have pared the list down to five or ten.
Seriously, I like Linux but I know it’s not a Superfied Windows where you can just sit down and everything’s the same but better. Some things are different and better, some things are different and worse, very few things are the same.
yeah, the old expression of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is so true. my wife, who is brazilian, wanted the portuguese language of winxp on the home system and i’m smart enough on how to re-partition the hard drive to keep ubuntu, right ? right ? somebody shoot me for listening to her, there is not enough time in the world for me to whine about this.
About Windows being a bigger target because there’s more of it out there.
The argument sounds good until you look at other products in the industry – like Apache and IIS. The balance of power shifts to Apache there (http://www.netcraft.com), but the balance of security holes doesn’t.
Are you comparing Apache against all versions of IIS, or IIS 6? IIS prior to version 6 had a deserved reputation of being a buggy piece of crap, but IIS 6 is a complete rewrite of earlier versions and has fewer vulnerabilities than Apache.
IIS4 – 6 Advisories
http://secunia.com/product/38/
IIS5 – 13 Advisories
http://secunia.com/product/39/
IIS6 – 2 Advisories
http://secunia.com/product/1438/
Apache 1.3 – 17 Advisories
http://secunia.com/product/72/
Apache 2.0 – 23 Advisories
http://secunia.com/product/73/
Admittedly the Secuinia info only seems to go back 3 years and both apps were around long before that. You can draw your own conclusions.
You should indicate the number of critical vulnerabilities…
Or people could just read the advisories themselves.
How many features does Apache support compared to IIS?
How often is IIS exposed to real world environment?
Just my 2 cents, but it’s not good giving reasons for changing from something that may work fairly well (i.e., Windows) if those reasons are theoretical or outside people’s experience. The reasons in this article won’t make much sense to 8 or 9 out of every ten people who work in a business because they have no IT expertise. It’s also very often no good telling executives that changing course will save money (Linux is cheaper than Windows, etc.). They hear this all the time and become a little cynical because very often the change doesn’t work and it all ends up costing more money, not less.
IME it’s better to give positive reasons for a change that people with no technical knowledge can relate to. Not least, because people need very good reasons to use something else, like Linux, if what they are already using isn’t too bad. You have to escape the trap of “Windows may be crap but it’s still good enough”. That’s how MS make their money.
Pretty simply, the question is “Will Linux enable us to do what we want to do but cannot do with our existing IT, and/or it will enable us to do it significantly better?” If the answer is anything other than a straight Yes then you probably shouldn’t be considering Linux at all. The nice thing is that as Linux gathers momentum, a lot more people are finding it possible to answer Yes these days.
“With Linux and other free software there is little reason to fear the existence of backdoors, in large part because all of the source code is available for inspection.”
That is simply not true. It’s like saying “open-source applications don’t have bugs.”
You missed the point. Since the code is publicly available, what’s the point to create backdoor?
Sorry, I think I mixed up the terms “backdoor” and “security hole”.
>>”With Linux and other free software there is little reason to fear the existence of backdoors, in large part because all of the source code is available for inspection.”<
That is simply not true. It’s like saying “open-source applications don’t have bugs.”<
Not at all.
If the entire world can see the source code (including programmers who can understand that code), and people who can understand the code still use it themselves, then you can rest assured there are no backdoors in the code.
There may be obscure bugs which result in vulnerabilities, but there won’t be any deliberate backdoors or indeed any deliberate malware at all.
That type of deliberate malware just wouldn’t get past scrutiny.
I love Linux…I really do. Where i live though, i have no access to high speed internet connection. i need to update my oses via CDs/DVDs.
Why is this so hard with Linux??? Maybe i’m missing some vital info. Even Microsoft has just released a security patches CD for this sort of thing [ http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=27EB2D43-5… ]. There’s also Autopatcher – Fantastic bit of kit.
AAARRRGHGHHHHGH
You are missing something.
Just purchase an “updates” CD from a Linux CD store (there are lots of these on-line). It will cost you less than $10.
Then put the CD into the drive, and include the place where your CD is mounted (possibly /mnt/cdrom) as a new repository for your package manager.
Then do “apt-get upgrade” (or the equivalent – possibly “upgrade all” from your GUI package manager menus). Done.
Lin wins. Again.
Lin wins. Again.
~10$ for linux vs. 0$ (free
) for win and you still say linux wins again?
and dont forget that what Servicepacks are for win, are new releases on linux and OS X wich cost a lot of money.
“Lin wins. Again.
~10$ for linux vs. 0$ (free
) for win and you still say linux wins again?
and dont forget that what Servicepacks are for win, are new releases on linux and OS X wich cost a lot of money.”
Say what????
It will only cost you the $10 for someone to get the update files for you and burn them on a CD and post them to you. The original poster wanted to avoid downloading updates because he or she had a low bandwidth net connection.
If you have the capacity to download yourself, then updates for Linux are free. In every case, less cost than Windows.
Upgrading on Windows can cost hundreds of dollars per application!!
Win wins in practice for me – despite how much i hate saying that.
I can’t pick what i want from the web and take it home easily. Most updates are only on the repositories. there’s no provison for “just download these packages” – which i’m damn sure you can do for windows.
I understand that the ideal way of updating is point, click and let your internet connection get the things you need(but don’t actually know about sometime
). Not all of us can be in that ideal sometimes.
I’m open to tips and pointers though and thank people for their input to this.
“I can’t pick what i want from the web and take it home easily. Most updates are only on the repositories. there’s no provison for “just download these packages” – which i’m damn sure you can do for windows. ”
Say what????
Of course you can.
If you have the bandwidth capacity to download, just run your package manager, filter the list of packages for for “installed and updates available” status, select whichever ones you desire (a single click for each one), and apply.
(11) An extensive selection of high quality application programs is available for use with Linux, most of which are also free software (including nearly all of the most popular ones). Many of them have features and performance equal or superior to those of comparable applications for use with Microsoft Windows. In fact, users often find that all the applications that they want are available freely on the Internet and that it is no longer necessary to purchase any commercial software.
I wanted to read past #11, I really did … but I couldn’t stop laughing
So all you Linux users .. next time you fire up NVU, just keep telling yourself that it really *IS* better than Dreamweaver! LMAO
Maybe it isn’t. I have not seen any of them. I have no use for such software, so it is not on my check list of required things for an desktop OS.
Not all people use their desktop computer for the same goals as you do. Keep this in mind, when telling people which OS is “better”.
Dear Gawd. Can we ban Moulinneuf already? I don’t have the mod points to send his posts spiralling into oblivion. The madness has to end.
I agree with you that no OS is completely secure, however that doesn’t mean that all OS are equally insecure.
The truth is that a competent admin can harden a Windows box as well as a Linux/Unix box…however, the fact remains that, right here, right now, it’s a lot more dangerous to run a Windows box for the average user than it is to run a Linux box.
Even if popularity by itself explained the astronomically higher proportion of malware for Windows, that doesn’t change the fact that, today, malware is a negligible issue of Linux. And maybe if Linux had a market share comparable to Windows it would attract a similar amount of malware. There’s only one way to find out, and that’s by increasing Linux’ market share. I’m all for it, and so should diehard Windows users, since that means that there would be less attacks overall directed at their platform of choice.
So, help make Windows more secure (and prove that the “popularity” argument is valid): install Linux on someone’s computer today! 🙂
(Well, ask them first, m’kay?)
Oh, and you can’t just compare vulnerabilities proportionately to market share. That’s extremely naive.
Please elaborate on this interesting opinion. A real argument, please, not your usual strawmen or ad hominem attacks.
Of course, it’s a lot more dramatic to simply state that Windows has 2000x the amount of malware than Linux. I’m not counting spyware, as there is NONE for Linux at all. Taking market share into account is actually helping to paint a brighter portrait for Windows…the cold, hard reality is that malware is a very grave problem for Windows, and a non-existant one for Linux.
Perhaps in your fantasy world where Linux would be as popular as Windows they’d have a similar malware problem. As I’ve stated before, there’s only one way to find out.
So once again I ask you to put your money where your mouth is and help make Windows more secure by switching to Linux, you and someone you know. 🙂
You missed the point. Since the code is publicly available, what’s the point to create backdoor?
Excellent point.
By archiesteel (1.27) on 2006-01-12 03:43:16 UTC
“You missed the point. Since the code is publicly available, what’s the point to create backdoor?”
Excellent point.
—————————
Think outside the box. It’s not the developers of of the code who may do it, but those who want to own your computer. Instead of putting into the source code, they can also simply modify a binary package with either an insecure default or some subtle api call modification that leaves a system vulnerable. It’s happened in the past where an ftp server got hacked and a Linux distro binary was replaced or modified and then users d/l’d it. This is a security risk. It basically comes down to “how can you trust anything you get from the internet?” type question. Sure, you can check the MD5 sums for files, etc, but if those are posted on the same box…well, you get the idea.
It’s difficilut to have a chain of trust from your software all the way down to your BIOS on your computer, but at some point, you need to use a bit of trust and assume you are not already owned.
“Think outside the box.”
“It’s happened in the past where an ftp server got hacked and a Linux distro binary was replaced or modified and then users d/l’d it.”
Think outside the box yourself – this is ancient history.
When one installs a modern Linux distro from a CD, it includes public keys for the repositories. Binaries (updates) are subsequently signed with the corresponding private key of a key pair when placed into the repositories.
“It’s difficilut to have a chain of trust from your software all the way down to your BIOS on your computer, but at some point, you need to use a bit of trust and assume you are not already owned.”
Well that is true to some extent, but the situation with Linux and signed binaries in repositories is such that, as far as I know, the system hasn’t yet been compromised ever.
This arrangement is many, many times better than anything in Windows.
Dreamweaver MX works very well under Crossover Office.
Personally, I like Quanta, though I understand it doesn’t have all the features that Dreamweaver has. Thankfully, one can use Crossover to run it…
Dear Gawd. Can we ban Moulinneuf already?
Only if we ban Linux is Poo as well. 🙂
Seriously, there’s no need for banning. The fact that their ratings are so low is enough to indicate their lack of credibility…
I bet there are but you probably don’t have the $$$ or the patience to use it.
OpenVMS . OpenBSD.
25 reasons huh? There are only two reasons to change your computing platform:
1. The new platform better meets your needs.
2. Price
Whether or not Linux comes out ontop of Windows in those two areas is entirely dependants on your personal situation.
Note: The exact same principals can apply to your company as well
Edited 2006-01-12 07:48
looking forward to the next batch of major distro releases so that there is something to talk about in linux land other than this kind of nonsense.
businesses, educational institutions, governmental agencies and other organizations around the world are converting1 their computer operating systems from Microsoft Windows to Linux at an increasing pace.
Why not convert to the BSDs? linux kernel is really flawed. suse and redhat corporate os are way to expensive to buy. and their testbeds free counterparts opensuse and fedora has software that is not approve for production yet. I would not trust running a multi-billion dollar company on linux servers.
While I agree that the BSD’s are worthy of consideration/implementation, do you have any facts to back up your anti-Linux FUD? Maybe you just came to your conclusions about the Linux kernel being flawed while you where busy running your multi-billion dollar company? Hmmm, with that much revenue I guess forking out some of your IT budget for support for your Red Hat or SuSE servers/desktops would be too much to ask. Where can I find your altruistic volunteers that work in your NOC/helpdesk supporting your BSD server/desktop deployment?
Linux (or bsd)are in many ways much better than a Windows based network, but, lets take a school network for example:
Administraton, you got a Windows expert who know Active Director back to front, and has got the system running like a dream, cough, however she know nothing about Linux, maybe installed it at home, once, but that’s about it. Maybe they can struggle through, but they’ve got a stable network, there are going to be problems installing anything else (and yes that includes MS Vista, why do you think so many places are running on 2000, not XP?)
Applications: Open Office cf MS Office 2000. hmpf. Teacher goes “I need to able to put the text in this certain way or all the kids loose a mark, I can do it Office, but not this Opened Office stuff.” I once saw an exam board saying that documents HAD to be be save as .doc. Yes, that’s what I thought.
Software: Already spent the money on this odd program that does something or other in Education, only works on Windows.
Old/varied HW, can’t get the drivers for that graphics card, can’t get the drivers for that scanner.
People Don’t like change.
That last one was a bit feeble, I’m sure there’s lots more good reasons, But can’t think of them at the mo.
25 Reasons expressed in letters:
MICROSOFTWINDOWSBILLGATES
Just kidding… 🙂
read this article….
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid…
-d