What O/S are you using and why?
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Several years ago I thought seriously about switching to Linux. Seriously enough to run a version of Linux and seriously enough to spend a lot of time on Linux websites. I can well remember (lol) people at the Linux websites predicting that Microsoft would be gone in about 5 years. Well, (lol) it has now been more than 5 years later and Microsoft Windows is still around and Microsoft still controls the desktop computer operating system market.
I am well aware, simple_gifts, that Mac OS X has some design features that help provide it with some protection from malware. I have used Mac computers for about 14 years. And I have experience with Mac OS X from the first version of it. Are you aware, that in the most recent security update that Apple put out, some of the security holes they found were either in Open Source software that Apple was using, or software that orginally came from Open Source sources?
Why is it that with this superior operating system to Windows (Linux in its various forms) they can't seem to develop compatiblity with hardware that people use, such as photo printers and scanners? Why do people with Linux operating systems run WINE on their computers so that they can have compatibility with Windows software?
Where I work when we greatly updated some of our equipment they brought a programmer in to develop programs for the equipment and to program a lot of the new stuff. Very smart guy. He HATED Windows. He HATED Microsoft. Hardly a pro-Microsoft guy. But he used Windows because he said that he could not run the programs he needed with Linux.
So if Linux is really so much better than Windows, WHEN is Linux finally going to beat Windows? When is Linux going to offer people the software and hardware compatibility and computer experience they want so that they will finally move away from Windows? Exactly how many more years do we have to wait-taking into consideration that when it comes to computer hardware and software 1 year is a long time.
Let me see-2000 (no); 2001 (no); 2002 (no); 2003 (no); 2004 (no); 2005 (no); 2006 (no); 2007 (no); 2008 (no); 2009 (lol) (no). Maybe 2010?
I am well aware, simple_gifts, that Mac OS X has some design features that help provide it with some protection from malware. I have used Mac computers for about 14 years. And I have experience with Mac OS X from the first version of it. Are you aware, that in the most recent security update that Apple put out, some of the security holes they found were either in Open Source software that Apple was using, or software that orginally came from Open Source sources?
Why is it that with this superior operating system to Windows (Linux in its various forms) they can't seem to develop compatiblity with hardware that people use, such as photo printers and scanners? Why do people with Linux operating systems run WINE on their computers so that they can have compatibility with Windows software?
Where I work when we greatly updated some of our equipment they brought a programmer in to develop programs for the equipment and to program a lot of the new stuff. Very smart guy. He HATED Windows. He HATED Microsoft. Hardly a pro-Microsoft guy. But he used Windows because he said that he could not run the programs he needed with Linux.
So if Linux is really so much better than Windows, WHEN is Linux finally going to beat Windows? When is Linux going to offer people the software and hardware compatibility and computer experience they want so that they will finally move away from Windows? Exactly how many more years do we have to wait-taking into consideration that when it comes to computer hardware and software 1 year is a long time.
Let me see-2000 (no); 2001 (no); 2002 (no); 2003 (no); 2004 (no); 2005 (no); 2006 (no); 2007 (no); 2008 (no); 2009 (lol) (no). Maybe 2010?
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Several years ago I thought seriously about switching to Linux. Seriously enough to run a version of Linux and seriously enough to spend a lot of time on Linux websites. I can well remember (lol) people at the Linux websites predicting that Microsoft would be gone in about 5 years. Well, (lol) it has now been more than 5 years later and Microsoft Windows is still around and Microsoft still controls the desktop computer operating system market.
Someone from M$ once predicted that computers would never need more than 640KB of RAM. So what? Linux is not one person on a message board making predictions. It is a community of users, all of whom have opinions.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I am well aware, simple_gifts, that Mac OS X has some design features that help provide it with some protection from malware. I have used Mac computers for about 14 years. And I have experience with Mac OS X from the first version of it. Are you aware, that in the most recent security update that Apple put out, some of the security holes they found were either in Open Source software that Apple was using, or software that orginally came from Open Source sources?
And that is exactly, precisely, how open source is *supposed to work*. The source is free and freely distributable; all you have to do is use it and share what improvements and fixes you make.
And what about the gazillion security updates prior to that one? When only a few people know the source code, there are only so many pairs of eyes available to squash bugs and respond to security issues. Open source is quite the opposite: issues are made public immediately and addressed immediately, *because there's nothing to hide*.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Why is it that with this superior operating system to Windows (Linux in its various forms) they can't seem to develop compatiblity with hardware that people use, such as photo printers and scanners? Why do people with Linux operating systems run WINE on their computers so that they can have compatibility with Windows software?
Hardware vendors do not or cannot release driver information; either because they do not want to have to *support* another OS, or because agreements with M$ prohibit it.
Linux programmers, then, have to reverse engineer drivers for hardware that does not have publicly available source code or binary drivers.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Where I work when we greatly updated some of our equipment they brought a programmer in to develop programs for the equipment and to program a lot of the new stuff. Very smart guy. He HATED Windows. He HATED Microsoft. Hardly a pro-Microsoft guy. But he used Windows because he said that he could not run the programs he needed with Linux.
See above. Same situation. You're indicting an OS because hardware and software manufacturers do not support it?
Originally Posted By: Mystic
So if Linux is really so much better than Windows, WHEN is Linux finally going to beat Windows? When is Linux going to offer people the software and hardware compatibility and computer experience they want so that they will finally move away from Windows? Exactly how many more years do we have to wait-taking into consideration that when it comes to computer hardware and software 1 year is a long time.
Beat Windows? "Better than"? Offer hardware and software support?! *Huh*?
This isn't a competition. Linux is free. Use it if you want. Don't if you don't. Ubuntu is not a corporation that will make one red cent if you use it. Slackware doesn't make one red cent if you use it. Fedora, OpenSUSE, Debian... They're just communities offering FOR FREE a stable, secure OS for you to use if you choose to use it.
When has Windows, and to a lesser extant, MacOS been stable and secure, transparent and open? 2000? Nope. 2001? Nope. 2002? Nope. 2003? Nope. 2004? Nope. 2005? Nope. 2006? Nope. 2007? Nope. 2008? Nope. 2009? Nope. 2010? Yeah, sure.
Several years ago I thought seriously about switching to Linux. Seriously enough to run a version of Linux and seriously enough to spend a lot of time on Linux websites. I can well remember (lol) people at the Linux websites predicting that Microsoft would be gone in about 5 years. Well, (lol) it has now been more than 5 years later and Microsoft Windows is still around and Microsoft still controls the desktop computer operating system market.
Someone from M$ once predicted that computers would never need more than 640KB of RAM. So what? Linux is not one person on a message board making predictions. It is a community of users, all of whom have opinions.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I am well aware, simple_gifts, that Mac OS X has some design features that help provide it with some protection from malware. I have used Mac computers for about 14 years. And I have experience with Mac OS X from the first version of it. Are you aware, that in the most recent security update that Apple put out, some of the security holes they found were either in Open Source software that Apple was using, or software that orginally came from Open Source sources?
And that is exactly, precisely, how open source is *supposed to work*. The source is free and freely distributable; all you have to do is use it and share what improvements and fixes you make.
And what about the gazillion security updates prior to that one? When only a few people know the source code, there are only so many pairs of eyes available to squash bugs and respond to security issues. Open source is quite the opposite: issues are made public immediately and addressed immediately, *because there's nothing to hide*.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Why is it that with this superior operating system to Windows (Linux in its various forms) they can't seem to develop compatiblity with hardware that people use, such as photo printers and scanners? Why do people with Linux operating systems run WINE on their computers so that they can have compatibility with Windows software?
Hardware vendors do not or cannot release driver information; either because they do not want to have to *support* another OS, or because agreements with M$ prohibit it.
Linux programmers, then, have to reverse engineer drivers for hardware that does not have publicly available source code or binary drivers.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Where I work when we greatly updated some of our equipment they brought a programmer in to develop programs for the equipment and to program a lot of the new stuff. Very smart guy. He HATED Windows. He HATED Microsoft. Hardly a pro-Microsoft guy. But he used Windows because he said that he could not run the programs he needed with Linux.
See above. Same situation. You're indicting an OS because hardware and software manufacturers do not support it?
Originally Posted By: Mystic
So if Linux is really so much better than Windows, WHEN is Linux finally going to beat Windows? When is Linux going to offer people the software and hardware compatibility and computer experience they want so that they will finally move away from Windows? Exactly how many more years do we have to wait-taking into consideration that when it comes to computer hardware and software 1 year is a long time.
Beat Windows? "Better than"? Offer hardware and software support?! *Huh*?
This isn't a competition. Linux is free. Use it if you want. Don't if you don't. Ubuntu is not a corporation that will make one red cent if you use it. Slackware doesn't make one red cent if you use it. Fedora, OpenSUSE, Debian... They're just communities offering FOR FREE a stable, secure OS for you to use if you choose to use it.
When has Windows, and to a lesser extant, MacOS been stable and secure, transparent and open? 2000? Nope. 2001? Nope. 2002? Nope. 2003? Nope. 2004? Nope. 2005? Nope. 2006? Nope. 2007? Nope. 2008? Nope. 2009? Nope. 2010? Yeah, sure.
I was thinking of installing Ubuntu Linux just to see what it is like. For me it is more of a learning experience. I do like the version of Linux on my EEE PC Netbook. It is nice to just turn on a computer and go online without having all kinds of updates and precautions (anti-virus, anti-spyware,etc.)For work it is XP all the way.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Hardware vendors do not or cannot release driver information; either because they do not want to have to *support* another OS, or because agreements with M$ prohibit it.
Linux programmers, then, have to reverse engineer drivers for hardware that does not have publicly available source code or binary drivers.
MS does not prohibit vendor supporting another OS with their own driver development.
The problem is many companies only assigned a couple guys to develop drivers and many of them only have experience in Windows driver development. If all of a sudden you ask a company why don't they support Linux, Mac, Dos, Solaris, etc. The real answer is that the demand is not going to translate into increase in sales.
Look at how many people were using WinModem back in the late 90s and didn't even know about it (ship with an OEM PC), or don't care because they don't want to pay a premium for a real HW based modem.
Also look at how many people running Linux go out of the way to pay a premium for a hardware that is merely a refresh of the old version? They usually just buy the cheapest one of the bunches using the same chipset internally.
Mac users are different. They are the typical "buy it and forget it" crowd that want Apple to handle all the trouble by pre-approve the design, verify the drivers, packaged into the same matching style, etc. I have yet to seen a Mac user upgrade his/her PC with a new hardware and they tends to buy AirPort because of the expectation of plug and play. They are usually the complete opposite of the Linux hacker that overclock their machine and hack/unlock their hardware for hidden features.
Neither of these are money makers for a typical hardware manufacture.
Hardware vendors do not or cannot release driver information; either because they do not want to have to *support* another OS, or because agreements with M$ prohibit it.
Linux programmers, then, have to reverse engineer drivers for hardware that does not have publicly available source code or binary drivers.
MS does not prohibit vendor supporting another OS with their own driver development.
The problem is many companies only assigned a couple guys to develop drivers and many of them only have experience in Windows driver development. If all of a sudden you ask a company why don't they support Linux, Mac, Dos, Solaris, etc. The real answer is that the demand is not going to translate into increase in sales.
Look at how many people were using WinModem back in the late 90s and didn't even know about it (ship with an OEM PC), or don't care because they don't want to pay a premium for a real HW based modem.
Also look at how many people running Linux go out of the way to pay a premium for a hardware that is merely a refresh of the old version? They usually just buy the cheapest one of the bunches using the same chipset internally.
Mac users are different. They are the typical "buy it and forget it" crowd that want Apple to handle all the trouble by pre-approve the design, verify the drivers, packaged into the same matching style, etc. I have yet to seen a Mac user upgrade his/her PC with a new hardware and they tends to buy AirPort because of the expectation of plug and play. They are usually the complete opposite of the Linux hacker that overclock their machine and hack/unlock their hardware for hidden features.
Neither of these are money makers for a typical hardware manufacture.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
You could run Windows 2000, it's a step up from Win98, a bit more stable and not such a pig on resources compared to XP or Vista...
Just a thought...
Still using it in 2009 on all of my machines, even on the laptop that originally come with XP.
You could run Windows 2000, it's a step up from Win98, a bit more stable and not such a pig on resources compared to XP or Vista...
Just a thought...
Still using it in 2009 on all of my machines, even on the laptop that originally come with XP.
Originally Posted By: xlt4me
Here's a quiz. At work I maintain computers in a process control environment. The main computers that are running the place can run for years without crashing and they don't run any anti virus software.
What OS do they run?
1) Any OS on a computer that does not have too many users messing around.
2) Any OS on a computer that does not have much external traffic.
3) Any OS that has been on the market long enough to iron out all the bugs.
4) Any OS running on quality hardware with stable drivers.
Here's a quiz. At work I maintain computers in a process control environment. The main computers that are running the place can run for years without crashing and they don't run any anti virus software.
What OS do they run?
1) Any OS on a computer that does not have too many users messing around.
2) Any OS on a computer that does not have much external traffic.
3) Any OS that has been on the market long enough to iron out all the bugs.
4) Any OS running on quality hardware with stable drivers.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Hardware vendors do not or cannot release driver information; either because they do not want to have to *support* another OS, or because agreements with M$ prohibit it.
Linux programmers, then, have to reverse engineer drivers for hardware that does not have publicly available source code or binary drivers.
MS does not prohibit vendor supporting another OS with their own driver development.
Point taken. I should have stopped typing at "do not".
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Hardware vendors do not or cannot release driver information; either because they do not want to have to *support* another OS, or because agreements with M$ prohibit it.
Linux programmers, then, have to reverse engineer drivers for hardware that does not have publicly available source code or binary drivers.
MS does not prohibit vendor supporting another OS with their own driver development.
Point taken. I should have stopped typing at "do not".
There are two great myths about Linux that need to be exploded. People who like Linux like for people to believe in these two myths.
According to myth 1 the people who develop Linux do so for free and are just nice people throughout the world who want to improve the computer environment for everybody and promote free and 'Open Source' software for everybody. There are indeed some people out there who spend their free time developing Linux, just like there are people who work on Windows applications and Mac OS X applications on their own.
However, most of the development of Linux operating systems takes place in corporations, just like Windows and Mac OS X. Sun Microsystems is a corporation and they develop both Unix and Linux. I don't think Sun works on desktop Linux anymore, but they do work on Linux for servers. Dell, HP, IBM and even Microsoft also work on Linux. Dell, HP, and IBM all sell Linux servers. Have you ever heard of the Canonical Group (I am not sure of the exact spelling)? They work on Ubuntu desktop Linux.
The second myth about Linux that needs to be exploded is that there are millions of people worldwide checking Linux code for errors and malware. I believe that there are some 8 million lines of code in a typical Linux desktop operating system. Do you personally know of anybody who is going through all of that code on a volunteer basis in their spare time? None of my neighbors is studying Linux code. Most of that code is developed by professional programmers. Some of the programmers who develop Linux code live in countries that are not exactly friendly to my country.
Sometimes the ways that Linux is distributed could present security risks. Malware can be slipped into Linux software just like any other software. I stopped using Firefox for a long time several years ago when A Squared, an anti-Trojan program, found a possible backdoor in the Firefox web browser I was using. Was there really a backdoor there? I don't know. But I deleted Firefox from my computer. It has taken me several years to finally start using Firefox again. Desktop Linux has some strange supporters-like Hugo Chavez. If you pay a visit to the Secunia Security website and do a little research you will find out that Open Source software has had a lot of security holes.
You don't believe that stuff can be added to Open Source software? Well, at least in the past some silly little stuff was added to the Firefox web browser. Go to search (in Firefox of course), type in About: Mozilla. I am not sure of the exact spelling-if A has to be a capital letter and so forth. And the very latest examples of Firefox may no longer have the secret little messages. These hidden messages were put in various releases of Firefox. You can find the complete list of hidden messages if you go to 'About Mozilla' on the internet. Now, these are just little hidden messages and not malware. But it does demonstrate that stuff can be hidden in software code.
I don't know this for a fact but I have heard that there is a hidden message in Mac OS X code warning hackers not to mess with the software.
I think Linux operating systems have clearly proven to be excellent server operating systems and Linux is also good for various other applications. Linux operating systems have never demonstrated to be good desktop operating systems at least if a person does more with a computer than searching the web, writing an occasional letter, and email. And running WINE to get compatibility just proves the point.
The good desktop operating systems in the world are mainly various versions of Windows and Mac OS X.
And as for me personally, I trust corporations like Sun to develop good Linux servers. But some of the others in the Linux world I do not trust to develop secure and good desktop operating systems. You have to look at the people behind the technology. People make it all happen-technology does not come from nowhere.
According to myth 1 the people who develop Linux do so for free and are just nice people throughout the world who want to improve the computer environment for everybody and promote free and 'Open Source' software for everybody. There are indeed some people out there who spend their free time developing Linux, just like there are people who work on Windows applications and Mac OS X applications on their own.
However, most of the development of Linux operating systems takes place in corporations, just like Windows and Mac OS X. Sun Microsystems is a corporation and they develop both Unix and Linux. I don't think Sun works on desktop Linux anymore, but they do work on Linux for servers. Dell, HP, IBM and even Microsoft also work on Linux. Dell, HP, and IBM all sell Linux servers. Have you ever heard of the Canonical Group (I am not sure of the exact spelling)? They work on Ubuntu desktop Linux.
The second myth about Linux that needs to be exploded is that there are millions of people worldwide checking Linux code for errors and malware. I believe that there are some 8 million lines of code in a typical Linux desktop operating system. Do you personally know of anybody who is going through all of that code on a volunteer basis in their spare time? None of my neighbors is studying Linux code. Most of that code is developed by professional programmers. Some of the programmers who develop Linux code live in countries that are not exactly friendly to my country.
Sometimes the ways that Linux is distributed could present security risks. Malware can be slipped into Linux software just like any other software. I stopped using Firefox for a long time several years ago when A Squared, an anti-Trojan program, found a possible backdoor in the Firefox web browser I was using. Was there really a backdoor there? I don't know. But I deleted Firefox from my computer. It has taken me several years to finally start using Firefox again. Desktop Linux has some strange supporters-like Hugo Chavez. If you pay a visit to the Secunia Security website and do a little research you will find out that Open Source software has had a lot of security holes.
You don't believe that stuff can be added to Open Source software? Well, at least in the past some silly little stuff was added to the Firefox web browser. Go to search (in Firefox of course), type in About: Mozilla. I am not sure of the exact spelling-if A has to be a capital letter and so forth. And the very latest examples of Firefox may no longer have the secret little messages. These hidden messages were put in various releases of Firefox. You can find the complete list of hidden messages if you go to 'About Mozilla' on the internet. Now, these are just little hidden messages and not malware. But it does demonstrate that stuff can be hidden in software code.
I don't know this for a fact but I have heard that there is a hidden message in Mac OS X code warning hackers not to mess with the software.
I think Linux operating systems have clearly proven to be excellent server operating systems and Linux is also good for various other applications. Linux operating systems have never demonstrated to be good desktop operating systems at least if a person does more with a computer than searching the web, writing an occasional letter, and email. And running WINE to get compatibility just proves the point.
The good desktop operating systems in the world are mainly various versions of Windows and Mac OS X.
And as for me personally, I trust corporations like Sun to develop good Linux servers. But some of the others in the Linux world I do not trust to develop secure and good desktop operating systems. You have to look at the people behind the technology. People make it all happen-technology does not come from nowhere.
PandaBear you really bring up good points. Throughout my life I have mainly been a Windows user and Mac user. You are right about the majority of Mac users. I think I was one of the very few Mac users who did do stuff like installing an extra hard drive, etc. In fact I doubt whether the typical Mac machine ever gets a more powerful processor, power supply, etc.
My current Windows computer has received several upgrades. New, more powerful power supply, more RAM, Blu-ray optical drive, overclocked more powerful graphics card, etc. When Windows 7 comes out and if this old computer is still chugging along I think I will save all of my stuff to an external hard drive and install Windows 7 on this old machine.
I like that Windows computers are upgradeable and that hardware is readily available and I love the hardware and software compatibility. I don't think Microsoft is perfect and I wish they would improve their operating systems in certain ways. Mac OS X is kind of beautiful the logical way it is set up (for the most part). And most of all I like that Windows computers are affordable. Photoshop runs the same on a Windows computer.
I trust Sun, IBM, Dell, and HP to develop good Linux servers. Whenever I had an ISP that used Linux servers everything always went well. But I don't trust some of the people behind desktop Linux. If Sun came out with a nice desktop Linux operating system it would be a different story. I like Sun.
At work we use Windows and Unix and a software company develops the GUI for the Unix. We have been using Unix for a very long time. The first version of Windows we had was 3.1 which was terrible.
PandaBear you come out with some really great posts.
My current Windows computer has received several upgrades. New, more powerful power supply, more RAM, Blu-ray optical drive, overclocked more powerful graphics card, etc. When Windows 7 comes out and if this old computer is still chugging along I think I will save all of my stuff to an external hard drive and install Windows 7 on this old machine.
I like that Windows computers are upgradeable and that hardware is readily available and I love the hardware and software compatibility. I don't think Microsoft is perfect and I wish they would improve their operating systems in certain ways. Mac OS X is kind of beautiful the logical way it is set up (for the most part). And most of all I like that Windows computers are affordable. Photoshop runs the same on a Windows computer.
I trust Sun, IBM, Dell, and HP to develop good Linux servers. Whenever I had an ISP that used Linux servers everything always went well. But I don't trust some of the people behind desktop Linux. If Sun came out with a nice desktop Linux operating system it would be a different story. I like Sun.
At work we use Windows and Unix and a software company develops the GUI for the Unix. We have been using Unix for a very long time. The first version of Windows we had was 3.1 which was terrible.
PandaBear you come out with some really great posts.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mystic
According to myth 1 the people who develop Linux do so for free and are just nice people throughout the world who want to improve the computer environment for everybody and promote free and 'Open Source' software for everybody. There are indeed some people out there who spend their free time developing Linux, just like there are people who work on Windows applications and Mac OS X applications on their own.
The same goes for any non profit organization or charity. Everyone has an agenda. The beauty of open source is not because of the ideology behind it, but how everything is out there so that you are not running a black box.
Company provide codes on Linux for several reasons: to provide an advantage to their products, to influence the market toward certain technology, and to let people who use the code maintain it without extra cost (volunteers fixing bugs).
You are much less likely to be stuck with a product that is no longer supported with Linux and a buggy drivers. Look at Creative, they didn't fix their windows driver and someone on the Internet fixed it, let people download it, and ask for a donation to compensate the amount of work he put in. Instead of a thank you note and compensation from Creative, he got a letter from Creative's lawyer.
Companies provide the products and code for free but charges for consulting and services. Fair enough?
Quote:
The second myth about Linux that needs to be exploded is that there are millions of people worldwide checking Linux code for errors and malware. I believe that there are some 8 million lines of code in a typical Linux desktop operating system. Do you personally know of anybody who is going through all of that code on a volunteer basis in their spare time? None of my neighbors is studying Linux code. Most of that code is developed by professional programmers. Some of the programmers who develop Linux code live in countries that are not exactly friendly to my country.
Sometimes the ways that Linux is distributed could present security risks. Malware can be slipped into Linux software just like any other software. I stopped using Firefox for a long time several years ago when A Squared, an anti-Trojan program, found a possible backdoor in the Firefox web browser I was using. Was there really a backdoor there? I don't know. But I deleted Firefox from my computer. It has taken me several years to finally start using Firefox again. Desktop Linux has some strange supporters-like Hugo Chavez. If you pay a visit to the Secunia Security website and do a little research you will find out that Open Source software has had a lot of security holes.
There is MD5 hash that you can check after you download to confirm that you are downloading what you think you are downloading.
Nobody said open source is more secure, it is more transparent so people can be notified and fix the problem quicker. If you are paranoid, fix it yourself (get the code, compile it, and replace it). In closed sourced system, good luck unless you are paying someone to do it (service contract).
The architecture of Windows is not good for security, not because it is open source vs closed source. Unless you change the architecture and remove all those ActiveX, RPC, COM, etc, there is no way to "fix" windows completely.
Studies have shown that regardless of programming language, every 5000 lines of code there is a bug, and the only bug free code we have ever seen in human history is the space shuttle control software.
Quote:
You don't believe that stuff can be added to Open Source software? Well, at least in the past some silly little stuff was added to the Firefox web browser. Go to search (in Firefox of course), type in About: Mozilla. I am not sure of the exact spelling-if A has to be a capital letter and so forth. And the very latest examples of Firefox may no longer have the secret little messages. These hidden messages were put in various releases of Firefox. You can find the complete list of hidden messages if you go to 'About Mozilla' on the internet. Now, these are just little hidden messages and not malware. But it does demonstrate that stuff can be hidden in software code.
I don't know this for a fact but I have heard that there is a hidden message in Mac OS X code warning hackers not to mess with the software.
I think Linux operating systems have clearly proven to be excellent server operating systems and Linux is also good for various other applications. Linux operating systems have never demonstrated to be good desktop operating systems at least if a person does more with a computer than searching the web, writing an occasional letter, and email. And running WINE to get compatibility just proves the point.
The good desktop operating systems in the world are mainly various versions of Windows and Mac OS X.
And as for me personally, I trust corporations like Sun to develop good Linux servers. But some of the others in the Linux world I do not trust to develop secure and good desktop operating systems. You have to look at the people behind the technology. People make it all happen-technology does not come from nowhere.
Then trust the "corporate" and use distro of software that were released by a committee of programmers behind the project. They are usually used by thousands or more people and if you see a bug most likely others will. I see no difference between a corporate that releases open source vs commercial software other than the cost they charge. Eventually the stuff you use in Solaris is written by a couple guys to a team of 10 anyways. Whether they were hired by a 20 men company or a 5000 men company makes no difference to me. It is the end products' quality that matters.
According to myth 1 the people who develop Linux do so for free and are just nice people throughout the world who want to improve the computer environment for everybody and promote free and 'Open Source' software for everybody. There are indeed some people out there who spend their free time developing Linux, just like there are people who work on Windows applications and Mac OS X applications on their own.
The same goes for any non profit organization or charity. Everyone has an agenda. The beauty of open source is not because of the ideology behind it, but how everything is out there so that you are not running a black box.
Company provide codes on Linux for several reasons: to provide an advantage to their products, to influence the market toward certain technology, and to let people who use the code maintain it without extra cost (volunteers fixing bugs).
You are much less likely to be stuck with a product that is no longer supported with Linux and a buggy drivers. Look at Creative, they didn't fix their windows driver and someone on the Internet fixed it, let people download it, and ask for a donation to compensate the amount of work he put in. Instead of a thank you note and compensation from Creative, he got a letter from Creative's lawyer.
Companies provide the products and code for free but charges for consulting and services. Fair enough?
Quote:
The second myth about Linux that needs to be exploded is that there are millions of people worldwide checking Linux code for errors and malware. I believe that there are some 8 million lines of code in a typical Linux desktop operating system. Do you personally know of anybody who is going through all of that code on a volunteer basis in their spare time? None of my neighbors is studying Linux code. Most of that code is developed by professional programmers. Some of the programmers who develop Linux code live in countries that are not exactly friendly to my country.
Sometimes the ways that Linux is distributed could present security risks. Malware can be slipped into Linux software just like any other software. I stopped using Firefox for a long time several years ago when A Squared, an anti-Trojan program, found a possible backdoor in the Firefox web browser I was using. Was there really a backdoor there? I don't know. But I deleted Firefox from my computer. It has taken me several years to finally start using Firefox again. Desktop Linux has some strange supporters-like Hugo Chavez. If you pay a visit to the Secunia Security website and do a little research you will find out that Open Source software has had a lot of security holes.
There is MD5 hash that you can check after you download to confirm that you are downloading what you think you are downloading.
Nobody said open source is more secure, it is more transparent so people can be notified and fix the problem quicker. If you are paranoid, fix it yourself (get the code, compile it, and replace it). In closed sourced system, good luck unless you are paying someone to do it (service contract).
The architecture of Windows is not good for security, not because it is open source vs closed source. Unless you change the architecture and remove all those ActiveX, RPC, COM, etc, there is no way to "fix" windows completely.
Studies have shown that regardless of programming language, every 5000 lines of code there is a bug, and the only bug free code we have ever seen in human history is the space shuttle control software.
Quote:
You don't believe that stuff can be added to Open Source software? Well, at least in the past some silly little stuff was added to the Firefox web browser. Go to search (in Firefox of course), type in About: Mozilla. I am not sure of the exact spelling-if A has to be a capital letter and so forth. And the very latest examples of Firefox may no longer have the secret little messages. These hidden messages were put in various releases of Firefox. You can find the complete list of hidden messages if you go to 'About Mozilla' on the internet. Now, these are just little hidden messages and not malware. But it does demonstrate that stuff can be hidden in software code.
I don't know this for a fact but I have heard that there is a hidden message in Mac OS X code warning hackers not to mess with the software.
I think Linux operating systems have clearly proven to be excellent server operating systems and Linux is also good for various other applications. Linux operating systems have never demonstrated to be good desktop operating systems at least if a person does more with a computer than searching the web, writing an occasional letter, and email. And running WINE to get compatibility just proves the point.
The good desktop operating systems in the world are mainly various versions of Windows and Mac OS X.
And as for me personally, I trust corporations like Sun to develop good Linux servers. But some of the others in the Linux world I do not trust to develop secure and good desktop operating systems. You have to look at the people behind the technology. People make it all happen-technology does not come from nowhere.
Then trust the "corporate" and use distro of software that were released by a committee of programmers behind the project. They are usually used by thousands or more people and if you see a bug most likely others will. I see no difference between a corporate that releases open source vs commercial software other than the cost they charge. Eventually the stuff you use in Solaris is written by a couple guys to a team of 10 anyways. Whether they were hired by a 20 men company or a 5000 men company makes no difference to me. It is the end products' quality that matters.
Quote:
Look at Creative, they didn't fix their windows driver and someone on the Internet fixed it, let people download it, and ask for a donation to compensate the amount of work he put in. Instead of a thank you note and compensation from Creative, he got a letter from Creative's lawyer.
I gave up on Creative products long ago. They wanted $20 for a driver disc on an upscale audio board I bought about 6-7 years ago. I laughed. Luckily, I found another computer that had a very similar SB card in it so that driver disc worked.
Pardon me, I thought I was paying for the hardware, not the software.
I'll use anything BUT Creative products...come to think of it, I feel the same for Iomega...
Look at Creative, they didn't fix their windows driver and someone on the Internet fixed it, let people download it, and ask for a donation to compensate the amount of work he put in. Instead of a thank you note and compensation from Creative, he got a letter from Creative's lawyer.
I gave up on Creative products long ago. They wanted $20 for a driver disc on an upscale audio board I bought about 6-7 years ago. I laughed. Luckily, I found another computer that had a very similar SB card in it so that driver disc worked.
Pardon me, I thought I was paying for the hardware, not the software.
I'll use anything BUT Creative products...come to think of it, I feel the same for Iomega...
Quote:
The second myth about Linux that needs to be exploded is that there are millions of people worldwide checking Linux code for errors and malware. I believe that there are some 8 million lines of code in a typical Linux desktop operating system. Do you personally know of anybody who is going through all of that code on a volunteer basis in their spare time? None of my neighbors is studying Linux code. Most of that code is developed by professional programmers. Some of the programmers who develop Linux code live in countries that are not exactly friendly to my country.
I have never heard anyone, except you, make this claim.
Of course
http://gcn.com/articles/2003/11/10/effort-to-compromise-linux-kernel-foiled.aspx
refutes the concept of no one checking the code; Software development is done my "known people" with full peer review.
Quote:
McVoy said the Linux kernel is a high-profile Open Source development project, and the security of the code is enhanced by the number of people who examine it.
BTW: you ought to look at HP; scanners and printers, supported by linux; it isn't 1994 anymore.
The second myth about Linux that needs to be exploded is that there are millions of people worldwide checking Linux code for errors and malware. I believe that there are some 8 million lines of code in a typical Linux desktop operating system. Do you personally know of anybody who is going through all of that code on a volunteer basis in their spare time? None of my neighbors is studying Linux code. Most of that code is developed by professional programmers. Some of the programmers who develop Linux code live in countries that are not exactly friendly to my country.
I have never heard anyone, except you, make this claim.
Of course
http://gcn.com/articles/2003/11/10/effort-to-compromise-linux-kernel-foiled.aspx
refutes the concept of no one checking the code; Software development is done my "known people" with full peer review.
Quote:
McVoy said the Linux kernel is a high-profile Open Source development project, and the security of the code is enhanced by the number of people who examine it.
BTW: you ought to look at HP; scanners and printers, supported by linux; it isn't 1994 anymore.
Last edited:
So, there are people who ARE trying to slip code into Linux! Fortunately they caught it. How many other attempts have there been and when Linux becomes more commonplace how often will attempts be made and how often will they be successful? If they had been successful they would have had Root access or Superuser access to the system. Kind of demonstrates that when an operating system gets more commonplace the malware and the bad guys follow.
There is malware being developed for Mac OS X also. Still not much compared to Windows and Mac OS X does have some nice design features like all services being shut off by default and the user has to turn a service on. But I visited a website with my iMac (just an ordinary website) and garbage tried to install on my computer WITHOUT my entering my administrator password. It would not run-it was probably designed for Windows. But it did try to run on my desktop WITHOUT my password! And I am not talking about some silly banner either. So really how hard is it in the real world for these people to develop software that can install on Mac OS X and bypass the admin password somehow? They can do it. It is not script kiddies nowadays. It is organized crime and cyper criminal outfits who hire real programmers.
It is nice if HP is supporting Linux. How about Epson and Nikon?
You know, you are really a big supporter of Linux. That is great. I WOULD RUN LINUX TOO if Linux had full support for photo printers, scanners, and the other hardware and software that I need! I tried to switch to Linux years ago. Who would not want an operating system that was either free or low cost, ran on low cost computer gear, as long as everything I needed to do I could still do. Do you think that I sometimes get tired of the typical Microsoft headaches? I moved to Apple Computers about 14 years ago to get away from Microsoft.
Well, Apple has changed. I can buy a good Windows computer for about a third of the price of the Mac Pro desktop. Sure I could buy an iMac, but I don't like the new displays. I read at one of the Apple websites that a Mac magazine sent the Apple display back after they had ordered a Mac Pro with an Apple display. I checked out the displays on these newer iMacs. I am still running a 4 year old iMac (with a better display than the new ones).
Now, a Linux operating system could probably run on an even cheaper computer. Make it work and they will come!
All Linux needs is good hardware and software support and ease of use and appearance as good as the Mac and Windows. Why can't they just do it?
There is malware being developed for Mac OS X also. Still not much compared to Windows and Mac OS X does have some nice design features like all services being shut off by default and the user has to turn a service on. But I visited a website with my iMac (just an ordinary website) and garbage tried to install on my computer WITHOUT my entering my administrator password. It would not run-it was probably designed for Windows. But it did try to run on my desktop WITHOUT my password! And I am not talking about some silly banner either. So really how hard is it in the real world for these people to develop software that can install on Mac OS X and bypass the admin password somehow? They can do it. It is not script kiddies nowadays. It is organized crime and cyper criminal outfits who hire real programmers.
It is nice if HP is supporting Linux. How about Epson and Nikon?
You know, you are really a big supporter of Linux. That is great. I WOULD RUN LINUX TOO if Linux had full support for photo printers, scanners, and the other hardware and software that I need! I tried to switch to Linux years ago. Who would not want an operating system that was either free or low cost, ran on low cost computer gear, as long as everything I needed to do I could still do. Do you think that I sometimes get tired of the typical Microsoft headaches? I moved to Apple Computers about 14 years ago to get away from Microsoft.
Well, Apple has changed. I can buy a good Windows computer for about a third of the price of the Mac Pro desktop. Sure I could buy an iMac, but I don't like the new displays. I read at one of the Apple websites that a Mac magazine sent the Apple display back after they had ordered a Mac Pro with an Apple display. I checked out the displays on these newer iMacs. I am still running a 4 year old iMac (with a better display than the new ones).
Now, a Linux operating system could probably run on an even cheaper computer. Make it work and they will come!
All Linux needs is good hardware and software support and ease of use and appearance as good as the Mac and Windows. Why can't they just do it?
Originally Posted By: Mystic
So, there are people who ARE trying to slip code into Linux! Fortunately they caught it. How many other attempts have there been and when Linux becomes more commonplace how often will attempts be made and how often will they be successful? If they had been successful they would have had Root access or Superuser access to the system. Kind of demonstrates that when an operating system gets more commonplace the malware and the bad guys follow.
Huh? You would get a Linux distribution or *any* Linux software from someone OTHER THAN the vendor? If you do, you're *asking* for trouble; open source or not, amigo.
You are absolutely correct, though, in saying that the higher profile something is, the more scum it will attract. A lot of Linux zealots actually prefer that "market share" remain in the ~1% range for this reason.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
There is malware being developed for Mac OS X also.
Darwin is open sourced, too. And people *have* altered the kernel - Ever hear of a Hackintosh?
And for Pete's sake, Malware is nothing more than regular old software that does stuff detrimental to the user. You can make malware for any OS under the sun.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
All Linux needs is good hardware and software support and ease of use and appearance as good as the Mac and Windows.
Linux based OS's are mostly anarchic, organic communities. Corporations that produce hardware and software, unless they're feeling charitable, are unlikely to "hop on the bandwagon".
And you are free to make your Linux desktop appear and work any way you want. The entire system is *yours*.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Why can't they just do it?
You're not supposed to ask what Linux-based OS's can do for you or give you. It is a community based, community supported endeavor. Ask any real Linux user "Why can't they just do it?" and they'll probably tell you to *do it yourself* and contribute your work to the community like everyone else does.
This is not a product. It is not a corporation. It is someone's hobby that got out of control, and has accidentally become a stable, safe, secure way for a few million people to use their computers and enjoy freedom while doing so *if they choose to do so*.
So, there are people who ARE trying to slip code into Linux! Fortunately they caught it. How many other attempts have there been and when Linux becomes more commonplace how often will attempts be made and how often will they be successful? If they had been successful they would have had Root access or Superuser access to the system. Kind of demonstrates that when an operating system gets more commonplace the malware and the bad guys follow.
Huh? You would get a Linux distribution or *any* Linux software from someone OTHER THAN the vendor? If you do, you're *asking* for trouble; open source or not, amigo.
You are absolutely correct, though, in saying that the higher profile something is, the more scum it will attract. A lot of Linux zealots actually prefer that "market share" remain in the ~1% range for this reason.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
There is malware being developed for Mac OS X also.
Darwin is open sourced, too. And people *have* altered the kernel - Ever hear of a Hackintosh?
And for Pete's sake, Malware is nothing more than regular old software that does stuff detrimental to the user. You can make malware for any OS under the sun.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
All Linux needs is good hardware and software support and ease of use and appearance as good as the Mac and Windows.
Linux based OS's are mostly anarchic, organic communities. Corporations that produce hardware and software, unless they're feeling charitable, are unlikely to "hop on the bandwagon".
And you are free to make your Linux desktop appear and work any way you want. The entire system is *yours*.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Why can't they just do it?
You're not supposed to ask what Linux-based OS's can do for you or give you. It is a community based, community supported endeavor. Ask any real Linux user "Why can't they just do it?" and they'll probably tell you to *do it yourself* and contribute your work to the community like everyone else does.
This is not a product. It is not a corporation. It is someone's hobby that got out of control, and has accidentally become a stable, safe, secure way for a few million people to use their computers and enjoy freedom while doing so *if they choose to do so*.
Excuse me-I realize that you know everything but....
The Linux servers made by Corporations like Sun, HP, IBM, and HP seem to work just fine. I don't think I would call these corporations '... mostly anarchic, organic communities.' In fact Linux servers are replacing to a considerable extent the Unix servers. Sun itself was at one time working on desktop Linux operating systems (based on Redhat I believe).
I don't think the Canonical Group that developed Ubuntu is exactly a ragtag outfit. They have offices in several countries including Europe, South Africa, etc. I think they get some of their funding from Shuttleworth, a very wealthy guy. You may recall that he paid the Russians to send him into space. They are in the process of developing a Ubuntu server that if successful would probably bring a lot of funding into their organization.
I have no idea why you are arguing with me that it is possible to get malware into any operating system. Was I not trying to make that point? Thank you for making it, amigo.
If anybody in the Linux community wants for desktop Linux to go bigtime (and I know there are people like that in the Linux community) they better get off their high horse and fulfill customer needs. You don't tell a potential customer, 'So there is no driver for that printer. Well, develop a driver yourself.' If that attitude continues to be in place, desktop Linux will continue to be less than 1% of the market.
And Linux operating systems are products. Go tell Sun that their Linux servers with Linux operating systems are not products. I doubt very much that Sun, IBM, HP, and Dell consider Linux servers to be a hobby.
But if Linux fans want for us to consider desktop Linux to be just a hobby and exclusive to a few people who think they know everything, just let us know. We have Windows and the Mac. Who needs desktop Linux? And someday somebody somewhere (maybe the Chinese) will develop a computer operating system better than Windows or the Mac and you will be able to view Linux operating systems in some museum, amigo.
The Linux servers made by Corporations like Sun, HP, IBM, and HP seem to work just fine. I don't think I would call these corporations '... mostly anarchic, organic communities.' In fact Linux servers are replacing to a considerable extent the Unix servers. Sun itself was at one time working on desktop Linux operating systems (based on Redhat I believe).
I don't think the Canonical Group that developed Ubuntu is exactly a ragtag outfit. They have offices in several countries including Europe, South Africa, etc. I think they get some of their funding from Shuttleworth, a very wealthy guy. You may recall that he paid the Russians to send him into space. They are in the process of developing a Ubuntu server that if successful would probably bring a lot of funding into their organization.
I have no idea why you are arguing with me that it is possible to get malware into any operating system. Was I not trying to make that point? Thank you for making it, amigo.
If anybody in the Linux community wants for desktop Linux to go bigtime (and I know there are people like that in the Linux community) they better get off their high horse and fulfill customer needs. You don't tell a potential customer, 'So there is no driver for that printer. Well, develop a driver yourself.' If that attitude continues to be in place, desktop Linux will continue to be less than 1% of the market.
And Linux operating systems are products. Go tell Sun that their Linux servers with Linux operating systems are not products. I doubt very much that Sun, IBM, HP, and Dell consider Linux servers to be a hobby.
But if Linux fans want for us to consider desktop Linux to be just a hobby and exclusive to a few people who think they know everything, just let us know. We have Windows and the Mac. Who needs desktop Linux? And someday somebody somewhere (maybe the Chinese) will develop a computer operating system better than Windows or the Mac and you will be able to view Linux operating systems in some museum, amigo.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: xlt4me
Here's a quiz. At work I maintain computers in a process control environment. The main computers that are running the place can run for years without crashing and they don't run any anti virus software.
What OS do they run?
1) Any OS on a computer that does not have too many users messing around.
2) Any OS on a computer that does not have much external traffic.
3) Any OS that has been on the market long enough to iron out all the bugs.
4) Any OS running on quality hardware with stable drivers.
1) In our case TRUE, but in other instances FALSE.
2) If buy external you mean Internet TRUE but they do have extensive internal network traffic.
3) Very TRUE, but it never had major bugs.
4) Very TRUE.
Answer: VMS running of course, on VAX computers.
Originally Posted By: xlt4me
Here's a quiz. At work I maintain computers in a process control environment. The main computers that are running the place can run for years without crashing and they don't run any anti virus software.
What OS do they run?
1) Any OS on a computer that does not have too many users messing around.
2) Any OS on a computer that does not have much external traffic.
3) Any OS that has been on the market long enough to iron out all the bugs.
4) Any OS running on quality hardware with stable drivers.
1) In our case TRUE, but in other instances FALSE.
2) If buy external you mean Internet TRUE but they do have extensive internal network traffic.
3) Very TRUE, but it never had major bugs.
4) Very TRUE.
Answer: VMS running of course, on VAX computers.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Excuse me-I realize that you know everything but....
??
Where'd that come from? We're on the same side, here, buddy! Just a couple of fellas hangin' out on a motor oil internet forum, talking computers.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
The Linux servers made by Corporations like Sun, HP, IBM, and HP seem to work just fine. I don't think I would call these corporations '... mostly anarchic, organic communities.' In fact Linux servers are replacing to a considerable extent the Unix servers. Sun itself was at one time working on desktop Linux operating systems (based on Redhat I believe).
No, they are using the open source software to build their servers on. They contribute to the code base, to be certain, though! The kernel and most of the software is, for the most part, as I described.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I don't think the Canonical Group that developed Ubuntu is exactly a ragtag outfit.
Absolutely. Shuttleworth is fast becoming the Steve Jobs of the Linux community. Part of the beauty of the freedom of open source software is that you can take it, re-distribute it, make money from supporting it, etc.
I should also mention that the companies you're talkiing about did *not* write the software. They're didn't write the kernel, Apache, Samba, OpenSSH... They make startup scripts, customize things a bit, then *support* it. The software was written by hobb... Well, you get the gist.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I have no idea why you are arguing with me that it is possible to get malware into any operating system. Was I not trying to make that point? Thank you for making it, amigo.
I wasn't aware there was an argument. I'm pretty sure there needs to be a woman present somewhere for there to be an argument. Sorry if something I typed came off as more egregious than it was meant to be! (I meant for it to be just a smidge egregious
)
Originally Posted By: Mystic
If anybody in the Linux community wants for desktop Linux to go bigtime (and I know there are people like that in the Linux community) they better get off their high horse and fulfill customer needs. You don't tell a potential customer, 'So there is no driver for that printer. Well, develop a driver yourself.' If that attitude continues to be in place, desktop Linux will continue to be less than 1% of the market.
Whose customers? All of the companies that charge for *support* usually do so on the condition that you either buy their hardware or at least use compliant hardware. Everything else is *for* hobbyists *by* hobbyists.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
And Linux operating systems are products. Go tell Sun that their Linux servers with Linux operating systems are not products. I doubt very much that Sun, IBM, HP, and Dell consider Linux servers to be a hobby.
These people charge for support; not the software. They're also making servers, not desktops. I am not certain that I can name a substantial company trying to market a desktop Linux for consumers. Those "products" of which you speak are products because the companies took a free, freely distributable, open source project and decided to wrap hardware and support around it. *That* is the product.
Linus wrote the kernel as a hobby. A huge majority of desktop oriented software is written and maintained by hobbyists, with donation or underwriting, or *no*, financial support.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But if Linux fans want for us to consider desktop Linux to be just a hobby and exclusive to a few people who think they know everything, just let us know.
*Who* should let you know? There's no spokesperson. The source code is floating out there. No one owns it.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
We have Windows and the Mac. Who needs desktop Linux?
People for whom freedom is important. And security.
It ain't for everyone. I use a Mac to do my video editing, audio production and Photoshopping. Why? The Linux variants suck. They suck *bad*. I will gladly pay for the ability to do that, and have zero problem with closed source, commercial software. For casual users, though: friends, neighbors, family, etc. I have installed and maintain around a dozen systems, and everyone *loves* them. They love not having to worry. Windows users have to worry about the software they paid for. Mac users just have to keep paying.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
And someday somebody somewhere (maybe the Chinese) will develop a computer operating system better than Windows or the Mac and you will be able to view Linux operating systems in some museum, amigo.
China already has their own Linux distro. Many countries and regions do, because they're free to do so. Although the kernel is way over my head technically, it seems as though it is a rock solid kernel, on top of which many very good OS's have been built. Some are geared to newbies for the desktop (Ubuntu), other are meant for experienced users (Slackware, Gentoo), and others are meant for servers. Some try to be conservative and stable (Debian) while some try to be very cutting-edge (Fedora).
It's way, way, way more important about licensing and freedom for most Linux users than hardware support and availability of software. When an underprivileged region can make their own Linux distro to run their local governments or schools, they benefit from that freedom that they'd not have using Apple or Microsoft stuff. The same applies to those running LAMP stacks as servers.
Excuse me-I realize that you know everything but....
??
Where'd that come from? We're on the same side, here, buddy! Just a couple of fellas hangin' out on a motor oil internet forum, talking computers.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
The Linux servers made by Corporations like Sun, HP, IBM, and HP seem to work just fine. I don't think I would call these corporations '... mostly anarchic, organic communities.' In fact Linux servers are replacing to a considerable extent the Unix servers. Sun itself was at one time working on desktop Linux operating systems (based on Redhat I believe).
No, they are using the open source software to build their servers on. They contribute to the code base, to be certain, though! The kernel and most of the software is, for the most part, as I described.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I don't think the Canonical Group that developed Ubuntu is exactly a ragtag outfit.
Absolutely. Shuttleworth is fast becoming the Steve Jobs of the Linux community. Part of the beauty of the freedom of open source software is that you can take it, re-distribute it, make money from supporting it, etc.
I should also mention that the companies you're talkiing about did *not* write the software. They're didn't write the kernel, Apache, Samba, OpenSSH... They make startup scripts, customize things a bit, then *support* it. The software was written by hobb... Well, you get the gist.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I have no idea why you are arguing with me that it is possible to get malware into any operating system. Was I not trying to make that point? Thank you for making it, amigo.
I wasn't aware there was an argument. I'm pretty sure there needs to be a woman present somewhere for there to be an argument. Sorry if something I typed came off as more egregious than it was meant to be! (I meant for it to be just a smidge egregious
Originally Posted By: Mystic
If anybody in the Linux community wants for desktop Linux to go bigtime (and I know there are people like that in the Linux community) they better get off their high horse and fulfill customer needs. You don't tell a potential customer, 'So there is no driver for that printer. Well, develop a driver yourself.' If that attitude continues to be in place, desktop Linux will continue to be less than 1% of the market.
Whose customers? All of the companies that charge for *support* usually do so on the condition that you either buy their hardware or at least use compliant hardware. Everything else is *for* hobbyists *by* hobbyists.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
And Linux operating systems are products. Go tell Sun that their Linux servers with Linux operating systems are not products. I doubt very much that Sun, IBM, HP, and Dell consider Linux servers to be a hobby.
These people charge for support; not the software. They're also making servers, not desktops. I am not certain that I can name a substantial company trying to market a desktop Linux for consumers. Those "products" of which you speak are products because the companies took a free, freely distributable, open source project and decided to wrap hardware and support around it. *That* is the product.
Linus wrote the kernel as a hobby. A huge majority of desktop oriented software is written and maintained by hobbyists, with donation or underwriting, or *no*, financial support.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But if Linux fans want for us to consider desktop Linux to be just a hobby and exclusive to a few people who think they know everything, just let us know.
*Who* should let you know? There's no spokesperson. The source code is floating out there. No one owns it.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
We have Windows and the Mac. Who needs desktop Linux?
People for whom freedom is important. And security.
It ain't for everyone. I use a Mac to do my video editing, audio production and Photoshopping. Why? The Linux variants suck. They suck *bad*. I will gladly pay for the ability to do that, and have zero problem with closed source, commercial software. For casual users, though: friends, neighbors, family, etc. I have installed and maintain around a dozen systems, and everyone *loves* them. They love not having to worry. Windows users have to worry about the software they paid for. Mac users just have to keep paying.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
And someday somebody somewhere (maybe the Chinese) will develop a computer operating system better than Windows or the Mac and you will be able to view Linux operating systems in some museum, amigo.
China already has their own Linux distro. Many countries and regions do, because they're free to do so. Although the kernel is way over my head technically, it seems as though it is a rock solid kernel, on top of which many very good OS's have been built. Some are geared to newbies for the desktop (Ubuntu), other are meant for experienced users (Slackware, Gentoo), and others are meant for servers. Some try to be conservative and stable (Debian) while some try to be very cutting-edge (Fedora).
It's way, way, way more important about licensing and freedom for most Linux users than hardware support and availability of software. When an underprivileged region can make their own Linux distro to run their local governments or schools, they benefit from that freedom that they'd not have using Apple or Microsoft stuff. The same applies to those running LAMP stacks as servers.
Well, okay, if desktop Linux is mainly for a few hobbyists than it is not for me. I spend a lot of time in Photoshop working on photos. I don't mind the SECURITY of a well installed Linux server.
I can remember when a guy who used to work in IT at work (he was a big guy in IT) tried to send me something when I had an ISP that used Linux servers and he was super impressed when he received a challenge back to prove that it was not just an attempt with automated software. I never had that happen with MSN. I know my ISP at that time used Linux servers. The guy who ran the ISP was a super smart biker dude who told me he used Linux and he also build some awesome custom computers.
I have no issue with Linux servers. Although I hope they don't drive the Unix servers completely out. Windows and the Mac are fine to me as desktop operating systems.
Since desktop Linux is just for hobbyists I will probably wind up going completely to Windows in the not too distant future-after my iMac finally gives up the ghost. I might be able to keep this old Windows computer running another 3 years or so after installing Windows 7. It is cheap compared to Apple. Heck, I could get a new Dell or HP after Windows 7 comes out and it would still be cheaper.
Best security protection I ever had was behind Linux servers as long as the ISP people knew how to set them up. Perhaps nothing better unless you used OpenBSD.
I do wish Microsoft would clear up a few issues but that is not going to happen so there is no use worrying about it. Windows 7 will probably be somewhat better. Apple may eventually be able to provide a little competition to Microsoft although right at the moment Apple actually has lost some market share.
If I had to grade operating systems I would probably give Apple an A or a B, Microsoft a C, and desktop Linux a D or an F.
Oh well, life is good. But I think I was the most happy when I was running Mac OS 9.1 on my old Mac. No issues and just good times.
I can remember when a guy who used to work in IT at work (he was a big guy in IT) tried to send me something when I had an ISP that used Linux servers and he was super impressed when he received a challenge back to prove that it was not just an attempt with automated software. I never had that happen with MSN. I know my ISP at that time used Linux servers. The guy who ran the ISP was a super smart biker dude who told me he used Linux and he also build some awesome custom computers.
I have no issue with Linux servers. Although I hope they don't drive the Unix servers completely out. Windows and the Mac are fine to me as desktop operating systems.
Since desktop Linux is just for hobbyists I will probably wind up going completely to Windows in the not too distant future-after my iMac finally gives up the ghost. I might be able to keep this old Windows computer running another 3 years or so after installing Windows 7. It is cheap compared to Apple. Heck, I could get a new Dell or HP after Windows 7 comes out and it would still be cheaper.
Best security protection I ever had was behind Linux servers as long as the ISP people knew how to set them up. Perhaps nothing better unless you used OpenBSD.
I do wish Microsoft would clear up a few issues but that is not going to happen so there is no use worrying about it. Windows 7 will probably be somewhat better. Apple may eventually be able to provide a little competition to Microsoft although right at the moment Apple actually has lost some market share.
If I had to grade operating systems I would probably give Apple an A or a B, Microsoft a C, and desktop Linux a D or an F.
Oh well, life is good. But I think I was the most happy when I was running Mac OS 9.1 on my old Mac. No issues and just good times.
Quote:
So, there are people who ARE trying to slip code into Linux! Fortunately they caught it. How many other attempts have there been and when Linux becomes more commonplace how often will attempts be made and how often will they be successful? If they had been successful they would have had Root access or Superuser access to the system. Kind of demonstrates that when an operating system gets more commonplace the malware and the bad guys follow.
So you are arguing the code review, which caught this issue, somehow will fail in the future, even though you haven't reference any particular example; and I guess no one is trying to compromise the Windows source code; no need to since the door to the house is left wide open.
Closed source code produces situations such as
http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-022.htm
Quote:
Leo and I carefully examine the operation of the recently patched Windows MetaFile vulnerability. I describe exactly how it works in an effort to explain why it doesn't have the feeling of another Microsoft "coding error." It has the feeling of something that Microsoft deliberately designed into Windows. Given the nature of what it is, this would make it a remote code execution "backdoor." We will likely never know if this was the case, but the forensic evidence appears to be quite compelling.
But hey, you'll never know....
So, there are people who ARE trying to slip code into Linux! Fortunately they caught it. How many other attempts have there been and when Linux becomes more commonplace how often will attempts be made and how often will they be successful? If they had been successful they would have had Root access or Superuser access to the system. Kind of demonstrates that when an operating system gets more commonplace the malware and the bad guys follow.
So you are arguing the code review, which caught this issue, somehow will fail in the future, even though you haven't reference any particular example; and I guess no one is trying to compromise the Windows source code; no need to since the door to the house is left wide open.
Closed source code produces situations such as
http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-022.htm
Quote:
Leo and I carefully examine the operation of the recently patched Windows MetaFile vulnerability. I describe exactly how it works in an effort to explain why it doesn't have the feeling of another Microsoft "coding error." It has the feeling of something that Microsoft deliberately designed into Windows. Given the nature of what it is, this would make it a remote code execution "backdoor." We will likely never know if this was the case, but the forensic evidence appears to be quite compelling.
But hey, you'll never know....
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
