Answer to ‘Switch to Linux’
p2pnet.net News :- Chris Spencer wrote a long, impassioned open letter on why Linux has it over Windows, and why people should switch.
A couple of p2pnet readers had other ideas.
Here’s one of the posts.
Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I too am a long-time Windows user. Somewhere in that mess of 5.25″ floppies is a version of 1. I’m sure 2 and 3.1 are there somewhere too.
I have gotten spyware, but it’s something I was installing that I shouldn’t have (I’ll leave it up to you to guess what that was.)
But, I’ve never gotten one accidently or without my knowledge. And, when I got one, it didn’t take 5 hours to get rid of it. Spybot, Ad-Aware and EasyCleaner make short work of the effluvia of the computer world.
Linux is secure right now because it’s not mainstream (enough.) Computer OSs are like cars. No one steals a Yugo because no one in a normal state of mind would want one. They steal the new Hondas and Toyotas because they are very, very popular, and they can get the most money for the parts.
Windows is similar. It’s popular and offers the most bang for the buck for people writing spyware programs. You have the best chance of getting something valuable (Credit card numbers, passwords, etc.) If Mac OS was more popular, it would have more viruses. If the C64 was still popular, It’d have more viruses.
For those of you that had a C64, you’ve probably gotten a virus, usually from a commercial distro!
When Linux becomes the standard, it too will have people looking at it for any kind of flaw. After all, Unix still has flaws, and it’s 30+ now.
The main problem with Linux? Everyone knows the source code. Just wait until Linux is in every consumer device you can buy. Mass household virus attack, anyone?
It’s only a matter of time. So, if you want secure, get a Kaypro 2X and run CP/M 2.2u1 and Wordstar. Otherwise, if it’s mainstream, it’s insecure.
And yes, my 2X is still running. Now, why can’t I find a printer driver for my new laser printer…
- Harmless Gryphon
===================
See:-
impassioned - Open Letter to a Digital World, Chris Spencer, December 19, 2004
December 21st, 2004 at 1:17 am
This article is full of shit. Linux is secure because of the way its built, not because hardly anyone uses it. There is nothing alike to attack in Linux, not everyone uses the same programs, so where are you going to find a virus that will work in everyones email client when there are like 50 or so different ones where nobody has a particular favourite? This goes for Window managers too.
Saying Linux is secure because hardly anyone uses it is like saying Apache is secure because hardly anyone uses it, but its serving up webpages for over HALF of the internet. Microsoft’s IIS webserver is just riddled full of security holes and it has a much lesser market share then Apache.
As for Linux’s problem being because everyone knows the source code? Thats the biggest line of bullshit in the whole article. Apache is serving up webpages for more then HALF of the whole internet, and it is opensource. It is very secure.
IIS webserver is not opensource, yet new security holes are constantly being found, with worm attacks taking the internet nearly offline. And what about MySQL? Also a secure database server, you don’t hear about MySQL getting attacked by a worm called slammer that infected Ms-SQL that ripped the internet a new defination of slowness.
Jon you should know better then posting so rather disgusting baseless articles that don’t even make any sense. Shame on you!
December 21st, 2004 at 3:42 am
His comment about macos says it all.
There are tons of mac haters and mac hate rings which strive to build viruses for macos X. They cant. security holes are generally patched before theyre discovered by those outside the company.
The closest thing theyve managed to get to a virus is an application which requires doubleclicking to run (mac is 99.9% drag and drop to open files).
Linux too has its haters, particularly ardent windows users like this poor shmo who thinks its “the only choice”.
December 21st, 2004 at 8:33 am
Linux is purely for hardcore geeks its too much hassle to bother with on a day to fay basis
December 21st, 2004 at 9:22 am
Just how much do you need someone to hold your hand?
Installing an operating system requires that you know what you are doing.
That’s what the installation manual is for.
And, like with windows, you can just accept the default options.
Configuring the system afterwards is not any easier in windows.
Anyone who can type commands on a computer and has a way to read documents on the internet while installing can install a linux system. With the internet connection you can search the web if you encounter any problem.
As for keeping the system up to date, it’s way easier than windows!
All the software on you computer can be updated with a few commands!
For example, in debian, you log on to the computer.
Next you su (switch user) as root.
Next you type “apt-get update”.
Afterwards you type “apt-get upgrade -u”.
If there’s any update you are asked if you want to install them.
If you say yes they are installed.
Voila!
In closing, if you are used to windows and don’t want to change, fine.
But you would get used to linux too.
Plus it would cost you FAR less even if you use technical support!
And if you happen to not have installed your copy of windows,
know that you can ask someone else to install a linux distro for you too.
You can get technical support for linux too.
Really, for the average user, it doesn’t really matter what OS is used,
they just need someone to show them how to use it.
December 21st, 2004 at 11:22 am
Rebut
“But, I’ve never gotten one accidently or without my knowledge. And, when I got one, it didn’t take 5 hours to get rid of it. Spybot, Ad-Aware and EasyCleaner make short work of the effluvia of the computer world.”
Get yourself a new version of coolwebsearch, its worth a reformat. Spybot adaware etc are very good progs but far from a panacea
“Linux is secure right now because it’s not mainstream (enough.) Computer OSs are like cars. No one steals a Yugo because no one in a normal state of mind would want one. They steal the new Hondas and Toyotas because they are very, very popular, and they can get the most money for the parts.”
*nix runs the internet, its not a yugo. Would you rather 0wn a win98 box on dialup or a *nix server on a t3 line? Because of the diversity in *nix, wholesale destruction reaped by malware is very small. A compartmentalized system instead of a glob of interdependant apps make a big difference also (security zones have killed MS)
…………………
I could go on and on and on but i am too lazy
Considering the time the author has claimed to use MS products he really has very little understanding of the architechtual differences between *nix and win and really should do some serious reading before posting such tripe.
(BTW i rarely use linux, i use windows, Freebsd and QNX)
December 21st, 2004 at 3:22 pm
Linux is not what is interesting — it is the open collaborative development model used to create Linux that is what is interesting. If you focus on a single project like Linux you will miss the boat.
One of the most profound influences on my thinking in recent years was the concept of “code is law” introduced by Lawrence Lessig in his book “Code and other laws of cyberpsace”. While I instinctively knew why Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS â http://www.flora.ca/floss.shtml ) was superior to closed development models, it was not until I thought of code as a form of law that I really understood it.
See the “code is law speedgeek” transcript from a recent talk:
http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/code-is-law-speedgeek.html
Common belief is that computer science is a natural science, along with physics and chemistry. You build software and it just “does what it does”.
I strongly believe that computer science is more accurately understood as a social science, along with political science and law. To truly understand the impact of software on our lives, and to evaluate what is “the best software”, you must include evaluations used in social sciences.
FLOSS is and will always be more reliable and secure than “software manufacturing”, the model used by Microsoft, for the same reasons why a representative democracy will always be more reliable and responsive to the needs of the majority of the population than a dictatorship. You can spend years arguing against FLOSS and projects that use these philosophies like Linux and Darwin (MacOS/X), but in the process you are equally arguing against the features of a democracy.
Is this really what you intend to do? Do you really believe the provably false rhetoric from those who stand to benefit from the erosion of accountability and transparency in our governance systems â whether they be the laws of real space (meatspace) or the laws of cyberspace?
December 21st, 2004 at 3:33 pm
Those who regurgitate Microsoft press releases about popularity being the reason why Linux isn’t as infected should probably “get the facts”. Where the laughable Microsoft press releases have unfounded rhetoric, the vendor-independent FLOSS sector has accurate unbiased information.
Apache is not just at “over 50%”, it is at over 67% to Microsoft’s 21% and falling.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
December 21st, 2004 at 3:58 pm
Spencer: “But, I’ve never gotten [spyware] accidently or without my knowledge.”
This is a rationalization primarily because the Windows operating system permits execution of arbitrary code from a remote web site simply by visiting that site. All one has to do is visit an infected site-and many reportedly infected sites are from respectable sites such as ZDNet UK-to get spyware.
Spencer: “Linux is secure right now because it’s not mainstream (enough.)”
Over 70 per cent of all web servers on the Internet run the Open Source Apache Web server. You may view the Netcraft Web server statistics here:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
The difference isn’t popularity; it’s design. Unix and Linux have been through over 25 years of people trying to break it; some of the brightest coming from the Universities. What you end up with is a system that is secure by design having it’s rough edges smoothed over like pebbles in a creek over time.
Spencer: “The main problem with Linux? Everyone knows the source code.”
This is decidedly untrue. Does access to the source code give the bad guys a leg up when designing exploits? Of course it does. Consider though that the source has been open for the last 10 years. Most of the most severe exploits have already been discovered and remedied. As the project matures it becomes more and more secure-more stable and “bullet proof.”
Besides, not having the source code is at best a minor impedament to breaking a system; anyone who has ever gotten a Windows virus or spyware can testify to that.
In short, security by obscurity does not work. It is only when everyone knows the algorythm and you _still_ can’t crack the application as it is mathmatically “clean” that you can have a truly secure system.
A Master Lock, for example, isn’t secure because noone knows how a lock works; it’s secure because everyone knows how it works and is still secure. I recognize that one can pick a lock but you get the idea.
Finally, once an exploit is discovered you’ll find the community refreshingly honest letting people know about it. You’ll also find hundreds swooping down to fix it. This results in faster patches (often within hours) for an exploit advisory.
By the way, since the code is open and Linux is modular, you can see the effect of the patch before you apply it. I’ll take that over crossing my fingers with Windows every time.
Finally, I’d like to give you an updated view of the technology scene. It’s turning out that the industry is getting increasingly impatient with the whole notion that closed is better than open. Please, it’s time to start thinking for yourselves; really examine the system and make your own decisions rather than regurgitating when someone else has told you.
The rest is up to you.