zed was one of many to tell us about the availability of Fedora Core 2 Test 3. Release notes here, downloads here, torrents here.
Fedora Core 2 Test 3 Released
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
Its about time. I was checking osnews and fedora’s site many times over the last 2 days
…where in this little ftp hierarchy I find on the mirrors there is the correct ISO to download for installation on x86?
1
development
test
updates
get going bittorrent people 😉
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/1.92/i386/i…
That just an example, look under test/1.92
Why, oh why do I keep trying Red Hat products? This test release was nearly as bad as the last one! I can’t begin to list the things that are broken, and this is with SELinux disabled…
Why, oh why do people keep downloading Alpha’s, Beta’s and “Test’s” of operating systems expecting them to work perfectly.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.. Im switching distros today.
..get networking to route properly with core 2 test2. selinux was disabled on installation, the firewall was disabled, I create appropriate iptables rules, etc. I hope it’s better in this one.
These test releases shouldn’t be quite so broken as they are. At any rate people keep trying them in order to well, TEST, and submit bug reports. It just so happens that Fedora has been exceptionally buggy since it’s inception.
I hope they fixed the ALSA issue with the sound being muted by default. There was a lot of bugzilla reports, but they were all pretty much dismissed as “that’s the way ALSA works” last I checked. ALSA being completely braindead is hardly a valid excuse, lots of other things get patched by Red Hat and vendors in general. Otherwise I’m pretty satisfied with Fedora so far.
@BlackCat
ALSA being completely braindead is hardly a valid excuse…
You have to remember that RedHat has to walk a fine line when maintaining certain packages. It’s funny because people often complain when RedHat fixes things or changes them and they also complain when they don’t. I think RedHat just doesn’t want to get into the business of having to maintain their own version of a lot of different packages. They already have to do that somewhat for GNOME and KDE.
I want to know if this release is going to come with Centrino support by default. Do 2,6 come with centrino support?
Please, if someone know any distro that come with centrino support by default tell me
Thanks!
Linux zealot central. Say one bad thing about Linux, true or not, and people cry and hit “report abuse.”
I agree, in most cases it’s probably useless fighting upstream maintainers. You’ll never convince the ALSA developers they’re wrong (and stupid.. okay I confess I have a thing against ALSA) and end up maintaining separate patches forever.
There’s a lot of stuff they could do however, since sound should work out of the box without messing with mixers and stuff. Make the Firstboot program or Kudzu to unmute all channels, then implement some modprobe script magic to make the settings stick between sessions. Haven’t seen any of that in Fedora so far though.
If you are not willing to be a beta tester, have only one non-multi-boot system, or are running production machines don’t download the Test versions. The Fedora crew needs intelligent, experienced, and literate testers to install these Test builds and help prepare for the Final.
If you do not meet all three criteria, or are unwilling to participate in the process, then you should not install the Test distros. This concept could not be more fundamental.
How hard can it be to put one driver in a configuration file to get the sound to work?
Keep up the good work guys and don’t let these whiners….
After all it is free so write that magic script yourself!
Oh, I’m plenty competent, I’ve installed Linux and early BSD releases without installers, and I’ve slapped together quite a few Linux distros.
The Fedora folks lack any meaningful quality control, and I’ve not yet seen any release of Linux that is so broken as theirs…
Anyone got any tips for updating from RH9? What can go wrong? Anything to be aware of?
Anyone got any tips for updating from RH9? What can go wrong? Anything to be aware of?
Yeah, backup all you data, and do a clean install. Red Hat installs don’t really take all that long, and I’ve never met an upgrade process that wasn’t error prone.
Oh, and wait until Fedora Core 2 actually comes out of testing…
I still just can’t help but wonder how many of these people complaining of the bugs in Fedora Core 2 test# would have ever downloaded and tested it if it was called “beta”.
I think Red Hat changed the name from “beta” to “test” without enough explaination. People seem to expect it to be better then any other beta. I can tell you MS’s beta’s certainly aren’t that stable, nor SUSE or any other beta software I have tried. Sure the packages are all declared stable upstream, but Red Hat devs make several changes to make the software fit better with the environment they have.
Basically, if you wouldn’t install Beta, don’t install Test. Easy as that… anyone got any positive things to say about the new test release? And significant improvements? Anything of this nature would be appreciated… I would test it myself, but I still don’t see floppy disk images, and I am not wasting a cd on burning beta software
thanks…
Yeah, it’s not quite so bad as the last test. The SELinux stuff still hasn’t been properly set up, but that’s not suprising as it’s going to be a really big job to do the first time around… I can’t think of anyone who has done quite so much with it as Red Hat has to date. I’m no Linux fan in general, but SELinux would be a great thing for those of you who are…
..and when Fedora/RH release Alphas called Betas or Tests, it does impact their brand in the marketplace.
Their releases have been extremely broken, and given their place in the distro hierarchy, I’m not sure they’re protecting themselves well enough.
Does anyone know if updating test2 with yum is the same as a test3 install? Ie, are bug reports still useful?
About ALSA muted by default. I find this a little strange. If the objective is to prevent people blowing up their speakers, then surely 25% volume as default would be reasonable?
Totally muted just makes people think it’s broken.
Hi
“Does anyone know if updating test2 with yum is the same as a test3 install? Ie, are bug reports still useful?”
yes. its the same and bug reports would be very useful
”
About ALSA muted by default. I find this a little strange. If the objective is to prevent people blowing up their speakers, then surely 25% volume as default would be reasonable? ”
actually ALSA reverts back to being mute on some situations. if you find that with your sound card report it as a bug or add comments to the existing reports.
There are no major changes but the usage is definitely a lot smoother and this is with selinux enabled
… The SELinux stuff still hasn’t been properly set up, but that’s not suprising as it’s going to be a really big job to do the first time around…
Yes, and no. Writing relaxed policies is not so trivial (almost as easy as cliking Allow RWX Everyone). Trouble comes when policies are not relaxed and user depends on different steps. fx: system root or root trough su command
The only thing that makes SELinux so worth of trouble are complex setups, and honestly I doubt that FC2 could have great SELinux implementation. There’s just not enough time since they incorporated SELinux inside. I expect much more from FC3 though.
…I can’t think of anyone who has done quite so much with it as Red Hat has to date. I’m no Linux fan in general, but SELinux would be a great thing for those of you who are…
For the difference, I’m Linux fan in general, but I agree with you completely.
With M$ anouncing userland based software security yesterday, (for user to be finally able to work without adminitrative privileges) and Firewall, M$ would step almost on the same height as Linux. SELinux is the step stone to make this difference again, only this time difference would be much larger than before
I was of course refering to fine grained SELinux policies, but you’re right. At any rate, it’s fun to wathc the technological race between (say) Linux and Windows, as the competition is obviously good for both of them.
I’m not expecting tremendous headway on the SELinux thing for quite awhile (a year or so).
I thin kSELinux is being dropped from this coming release IIRC. They cannot get it done fast enough to includew in the nesxt release. I think some GUI support is going to be necessary to have SELinux on the distro IMO.
SELinux is going to be included but not turned on by default. Anyone that wants it can turn it one. I’he seen one of the system-config apps to do it.
“Linux zealot central. Say one bad thing about Linux, true or not, and people cry and hit “report abuse.”
The “report abuse” is justified when we have a bunch of trolls so stupid as to critisize a TEST RELASE! Hey try Windows its always a test verion even AFTER the finnal release!
Oh, I’m plenty competent, I’ve installed Linux and early BSD releases without installers, and I’ve slapped together quite a few Linux distros.
Of course your l33t right! hahaha……..
The Fedora folks lack any meaningful quality control, and I’ve not yet seen any release of Linux that is so broken as theirs…
So, instead of complaining help them fix the problem or at least fill out the bug report. The fact that your on here complaining show me the no you are NOt competent and no your just another troll.
P.S. I’ve used fedora Core one for a long time now and guess what NO FRIGING PROBLEMS!!! AMAZING!!!!!
Well, I just tried test 2 and frankly I’m not that impressed. =( It was quite buggy and while significantly faster than SUSE 9.0, it is a minor difference. SELINUX was also disabled because it tends to be a pain.
Anybody know when the FINAL Fedora Core will come out? I think any earlier than June would be too early for this release. I don’t want this to be FC 1 Reloaded in terms of bugs.
@Alex: if schedule is correct May 17.
@-=Solaris.M.K.A=-: I guess my speech won’t get lost so easy this time, my post is already under review, thanks;) And I bet there are more than two of us thinking like this.
» Anyone got any tips for updating from RH9?
I have a good tip. Do not update, keep runing RH 9.
Maybe if you buy the Enterprise Workstation, or another distribution like Slackware (in a few weeks with 2.6 kernel).
Hi
“Anybody know when the FINAL Fedora Core will come out? ”
its on may 17.read the schedule
Yup, I’m l33t alright ;p
And I have filed bug reports. Quite a few. Too many actually. It’s sickening how flawed this is, even for a test release. I am sharing my pain here, hopefully enlightening people as to the twisted nature of this Fedora beast. It’s not getting better nearly as fast as it should. Most other OSs I’ve tried while in beta were very much less buggy than Fedora, and they’ve been making more far reaching changes than have these Red Hat guys (DragonFly for example has been ripping the guts out of their kernel and putting it back together completely differently for MONTHS now, and their OS has been pretty solid despite that fact, the odd day aside). Fedora is throwing together a new set of packages and tacking on some (optional) SELinux policies, and they have NO excuse for the shoddyness of their work.
As to the fact that you’ve had no problems with it, some people are just fantastically lucky. Based on my own experiences, and those of the people I’ve talked to IRL, I’m willing to bet that you’re one of the few who’s had no problems with it.
And Test releases are fair game for comments, even though you would like otherwise. There’s always someone with an excuse for Fedora’s shortcomings.
“The Fedora folks lack any meaningful quality control, and I’ve not yet seen any release of Linux that is so broken as theirs…”
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Personally the only problems I have _ever_ encountered under Fedora have been the exact same problems I experienced under every other distro.
You claim to be very experienced, congratulations. Are you also willing to submit bug-reports and test patches? If so you could do a lot worse than making a contribution to the Fedora project.
I suspect this is not the case though. Claiming Fedora to be the most broken distro ever only makes you look silly. I’ve installed Fedora on 4 different laptop models, and numerous desktops. The most time I had to spend on post-install setup was 30 minutes – and that was because I had to consult a howt-to and made a stupid typo.
Fedora 1 is great, but people really want the 2.6 kernel. I think that they may have over reached with all the GUI changes, but since the final release doesn’t come out until the 17th it’s too early to conclude. I will definately be installing Fedora 2.
You claim to be very experienced, congratulations. Are you also willing to submit bug-reports and test patches? If so you could do a lot worse than making a contribution to the Fedora project.
I claim to know enough to be entitled to tell the truth about the failings of software that I test, nothing more. I do submit bug reports, but beyond that I can’t say that I have the faith in the Fedora team to spend more time than that on their distro.
As to claiming Fedora to be the most broken distro I’ve ever used making me look silly, well, I find that as silly as you find me, but like you said, we’re all entitled to our own opinions.
At any rate, as irritating as I’ve found it, and for all my complaints, I will very likely continue to try new tests releases (funny how that works), submit bug reports, and complain until they fix what I see as problems with it.
Cookie problem. I keep losing my name.
>Cookie problem. I keep losing my name.
Make sure your browser is setup correctly regarding cookies and other security features.
Yeah, I’m having one of my many idiot moments
Heh. Settings are fine, and I’m still losing my name. Silly beta service packs and OSs
Is there a way I can update my test 2 cds prior to installing to test 3 rather than download all of test 3???
Thanks
Yup, I’m l33t alright ;p
And I have filed bug reports. Quite a few. Too many actually. It’s sickening how flawed this is, even for a test release. I am sharing my pain here, hopefully enlightening people as to the twisted nature of this Fedora beast. It’s not getting better nearly as fast as it should. Most other OSs I’ve tried while in beta were very much less buggy than Fedora, and they’ve been making more far reaching changes than have these Red Hat guys (DragonFly for example has been ripping the guts out of their kernel and putting it back together completely differently for MONTHS now, and their OS has been pretty solid despite that fact, the odd day aside). Fedora is throwing together a new set of packages and tacking on some (optional) SELinux policies, and they have NO excuse for the shoddyness of their work.
As to the fact that you’ve had no problems with it, some people are just fantastically lucky. Based on my own experiences, and those of the people I’ve talked to IRL, I’m willing to bet that you’re one of the few who’s had no problems with it.
And Test releases are fair game for comments, even though you would like otherwise. There’s always someone with an excuse for Fedora’s shortcomings.
I guess you’ve never tried windows! I have the same pain so I KNOW what where you are comming from. EVERY windows version I have used is worse than that of fedora. Why?
Just the fact that it is a closed source, buggy, envioroment that keeps the AV’s and the tech support people rich.
And thus is fedora’s strong point. Try playing around with it. See what works and what doesn’t and see if you can find the bug in the code itself. See if you can help them out!
Heh. Nice try. Yes, I’ve used Windows as well as Linux, the BSDs, and so on. Yeah, Windows is pretty crappy in places. Hell even my favorite OS family, the BSDs are buggy and in quite a few places not well thought out.
However, my observations WRT Fedora aren’t going to go away just because you think it’s the greatest thing since your last wet dream.
Hi
“However, my observations WRT Fedora aren’t going to go away just because you think it’s the greatest thing since your last wet dream.”
dont get personal
I downloaded the Live CD for SuSE 9.1 today and it rocks! I am going to buy the Pro version when it’s released… $89 which I will gladly pay. Yeah.. Fedora is “free”.. but as pappy used to say… “You get what you pay for.”
Heh. Nice try. Yes, I’ve used Windows as well as Linux, the BSDs, and so on. Yeah, Windows is pretty crappy in places. Hell even my favorite OS family, the BSDs are buggy and in quite a few places not well thought out.
However, my observations WRT Fedora aren’t going to go away just because you think it’s the greatest thing since your last wet dream.
Who said anything about not having an opinion. After all it must of been a nasty fall off that garbage truck when you were a kid. Ouch!
Help out or put up.
/:-|
I don’t care if this gets modded down but someone comes in here and says Fedora test is less stable than other beta’s and you talk down to him just because of your personal agenda? I usually beta test the mandrake cookers and in my opinion F2T2 is several times more broken in comparison. It would honestly take less time to list the things that worked in F2T2 than the things that did not work. Having installed in on 2 computers I can’t even comprehend how you can argue with someone because they called it unstable.
As for Solaris A.K.A, you said Fedora test was more stable than any version of windows you ever tried. Seriously, what is wrong with you that you can’t manage a stable install of XP? Is it just me or are Linux advocates the dumbest windows users on the internet.
Most problems I noticed where because of Xorg and Selinux.
These packages are new so I can easily understand that there are problems. For people with Selinux problems join #fedora-selinux . Btw don’t forget to fill in bugreports
Fedora 2 is a great improvement on fc1 if you look at the new packages.
– Gnome 2.6
– kde 3.2.x
– openoffice 1.1.1 with gnome icons
– tvtime (xawtv is removed)
– …
What I miss:
– bluefish
– Anjuta
– straw
– totem for gstreamer
– eclipse compiled with gcj and classpath
to bad evolution 2.0 is for june otherwise it would be included.
As for Solaris A.K.A, you said Fedora test was more stable than any version of windows you ever tried. Seriously, what is wrong with you that you can’t manage a stable install of XP? Is it just me or are Linux advocates the dumbest windows users on the internet.
Please don’t take ANYTHING a gnu.linux advocate says seriously. These people will freely admit that they value freedom over practicality, open source over pragmatism. They have no problem lying, exaggerating, twisting the truth to suit their own personal agenda. Gnu.linux has no marketing machine (besides IBM trying to sell its own hardware), so linux advocates they must spew diahrrea from their mouths on internet forums across the world.
i have never used an unusable windows (not even 98), and i’ve tried a few (RH :/) completely unusable to me.
sure windows sucks, but a “broken” linux distro sucks even harder (specially for those lacking the right skillz).
I like security, stabilty and everything else linux is great at, but i 1st need to be able to use it;
IMO, although its getting really good, the time for linux on the desktop is yet to come.
These cross OS fanboy flamewars are ridiculous. If you have difficulty with the test release, file bug reports, help the community out. If you have no interest in helping the progression of the distro, and feel that publicly whining about it is “constructive” DON’T USE IT.
No one from Redhat is coming over to your house to force you to use Fedora. No one from the community is either. Constructive criticism helps, mindless bitching is childish.
Myself, I just finished my torrent d/l and plan on installing fc2t3 tonight, and I’m quite excited. Will I find bugs and problems? I’m sure I will, there have been a lot of new core packages changed in this release, and they were a lot of major version number changes. If I run into a problem, however, I will either a) find a solution, and then help anyone else in the community that comes around with the same problem, or b) if no solution is currently available, I’ll file bug reports to assist the coders in finding the problem and creating a solution.
I’m a linux advocate, I don’t “lie, exagerrate, or twist the truth” – I assist the community where I can, and am grateful for every piece of free software that I get.
This ladies and gentlemen, is called maturity – we’re helping our software reach it, now if only we could do something about our forum users.
A gnu linux advocate is an expert user so their opinions of what is acceptable are quite different from those of the general public. As for the freedom issue…Windows users have the freedom to collect virus’ and trojans because their OS is practical. I would rather deal with a garden variety Fedora (or Suse, or Debian, or etc…) bug any day than screw around with Windows virus’. Anyway Linux betas may be buggy, but can anyone tell me where I can get a legal Longhorn beta. With Linux you can always check out the new stuff.
Folks,
I have been using the Core2, test 2 for a couple of weeks now. I went through a painful and lengthy update process using yum. When it was completed, I had a look around at it’s performance, apps and interface. Here are some things I found are problems:
1.) Sound – my previously working es1371 now isn’t recognized.
2.) Evolution – previously I could use select multiple emails to move or delete through clicking the first one and then using the ctl key while I selected the others… Now I have to use ctl+alt to do the same – weird though not a big deal.
3.) As far as yum and the different branches of software to grab from (base, core, extras, etc)I seem to get 404 errors a lot of the time. The only which works is development – the same as I updated from.
4.) Activating DMA and other items with hdparm locks up my system, forcing a reset. This was never a problem in FC1, even with the kludgy upgrade to the 2.6.x kernel. Again not a big deal though it would be better if this didn’t happen at all.
As far as performance, it’s been very good. I am quite happy with the speed of nautilus, way better than FC1. The launching of OpenOffice is noticebly improved and in general the system seems quite stable.
All in all, I’d say there’s been no major problems considering it’s beta software… Remember, it’s been my choice to use it and accept the consequences.
Out.
–griz
I will only bother to reply because it is funny that you are so clueless. Read my post again. Gnu.linux advocates twist the truth.
A gnu linux advocate is an expert user
Wrong, there are plenty of beginners using gnu.linux. They aren’t magically imbibed with knowledge upon installing mandrake 15.0.
Windows users have the freedom to collect virus’ and trojans
Thanks for clearing that up! If you want to go with mindless propoganda and word play, here is some for you: No one has bothered to write a succesful virus for Linux because no one cares. It’s a dead-end operating system used by people who don’t value their time. Linux may also never have worms because there is no cross-distribution binary compatability , meaning that commercial software will never run on the myriad of distributions available, and hence more users will never come. There will never be cross-distribution binary compatability because each distritbution does things differently, instead of sticking to open standards which are available at opendesktop.org. And also, since you’re such an expert Linux user, it shouldn’t be too hard for you to install Mozilla Thunderbird and not open emails promising nude photos.exe.scr.pif.
Anyway Linux betas may be buggy, but can anyone tell me where I can get a legal Longhorn beta
The PDC. And yes you can get Linux betas, every version is a beta. Fedora Core 1’s package manager was broken in the DEFAULT install. WOW! Amazing QA guys! Mandrake ruined CD drives.
Anyway, since you insisted on proving my gnu.linux advocate theory, I have responded in kind. Thank you for your time.
1) there is no specifications in opendesktop.org. go take a look and come back and tell me whats the truth
2)viruses cannot and will not exist in secure systems. outlook and ie were the main reasons
3)The LG cdroms didnt follow the specification
>No one has bothered to write a succesful virus for Linux because no one cares.
Fallacy.
There’s a couple of them, but unfortunately you’d have to be so damn clueless to run an untrusted binary. At least the operating system enforces this level of control.
It’s the architecture of a Unix-based system that really spared Linux from the tribulations of a virus plague. Design flaws in the operating system and applications really did spell security problems on Windows platforms (say, like running a HTTP server in kernel-space?) How about reviewing basic operating system concepts and design before you post?
Until Windows Server 2003, the defaults that MS built with their Windows line of products were so demented at a security point of view. Despite marketting such security features such as fine-grained ACLs, it’s off-set by the untrustworthy default configurations that would also take a lot of reading before you undo it to a more sane configuration. MS did their homework though (at least they learned how to do their homework) with Windows Server 2003.
> It’s a dead-end operating system used by people who don’t value their time.
Then Windows is for people who _don’t value both their time and money_? And are more willing to waste dollars for protection against the inherent weaknesses of the operating system? Or incur more downtime due to failures. Please… Duh…
> Linux may also never have worms because there is no cross-distribution binary compatability , meaning that commercial software will never run on the myriad of distributions available, and hence more users will never come.
Yet another fallacy.
Wow… more clueless you are. You need not have binary compatibility to get worms.they do not attach themselves to other files or programs. A worm can spread itself automatically over the network from one computer to the next. Worms take advantage of automatic file sending and receiving features found on many computers. A Unix-based system does not allow this _by default_
Nonetheless, both Windows and Linux can be secured and locked down to a stable, secure and useful implementation. Both won’t spare you from reading the f****ng manual.
Hi,
I see you missed this relevant portion of the comment:
Thanks for clearing that up! If you want to go with mindless propoganda and word play, here is some for you:
Thank you for your beautiful argument about RTFM and such, but I suggest you do the same.
Ever heard of khttpd? Included in kernel 2.4. Oops.
Hi
“Ever heard of khttpd? Included in kernel 2.4. Oops.”
Ever heard of apache?
Ever heard of embedded systems using khttpd?
you = teh point missed. Go back and read the post I was replying to, thanks. Seems to be a common theme here. Original poster was criticizing Windows for processing some http requests in kernel-space, which Linux also did.
Hi
the kernel space implementation of linux is used for embedded systems while in windows such stuff are moved into kernel space for speed benefits. even graphical functions are in kernel space. this is not clean design
Kernel web servers are a bad idea, regardless of the OS.
[No one has bothered to write a succesful virus for Linux because no one cares.]
Fallacy
No, it isn’t.
There’s a couple of them, but unfortunately you’d have to be so damn clueless to run an untrusted binary.
You mean just like 99% of Windows worms (usually more correct referred to as trojans) and viruses spread ?
I’ve got some news for you. Nearly every end user you lay eyes on *is* that clueless and the only reason Linux isn’t being as affected by them is because it’s nowhere near as prevalent.
At least the operating system enforces this level of control.
Nearly anything the average virus or worm wants to do, it can do within the bounds of a restricted user account.
It’s the architecture of a Unix-based system that really spared Linux from the tribulations of a virus plague.
No, it’s not. Nothing in Unix’s design stops users running malicious code.
Design flaws in the operating system and applications really did spell security problems on Windows platforms (say, like running a HTTP server in kernel-space?)
That’s a semantic implementation detail, not a design flaw. A design flaw would be *requiring* a web server to run in kernel space.
How about reviewing basic operating system concepts and design before you post?
I’ve done quite a bit of study covering OS design and there’s nothing in unix’s to stop the types of worms that plague Windows. Not to mention there’s little wrong with Windows’ design.
Until Windows Server 2003, the defaults that MS built with their Windows line of products were so demented at a security point of view.
Default settings are not design.
Despite marketting such security features such as fine-grained ACLs, it’s off-set by the untrustworthy default configurations that would also take a lot of reading before you undo it to a more sane configuration. MS did their homework though (at least they learned how to do their homework) with Windows Server 2003.
No, they simply have less poorly written software to pander to.
Then Windows is for people who _don’t value both their time and money_? And are more willing to waste dollars for protection against the inherent weaknesses of the operating system?
Name some of these inherent weaknesses.
[Linux may also never have worms because there is no cross-distribution binary compatability , meaning that commercial software will never run on the myriad of distributions available, and hence more users will never come.
Yet another fallacy.
Well, that statement is a bit over the top, but binary compatibility isn’t exactly something the Linux community have high on the priority list.
You need not have binary compatibility to get worms.
No, but it sure makes it easier.
Worms take advantage of automatic file sending and receiving features found on many computers.
Uh, no. Worms generally take advantage of coding bugs to exercise remote exploits and propogate via them.
A Unix-based system does not allow this _by default_
Whoa. Now *that* is a fallacy.