Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 7th Dec 2007 06:34 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "Many people are looking to Ubuntu to be something that it is not: A mass market ready operating system designed to work with the same level of compatibility as Microsoft Windows. Where people get confused is in believing that if Ubuntu, king of the Linux distros, is not able to take the marketplace by storm, then something must be broken with desktop Linux. In this article, I'll explain what it will take to dethrone the mighty Ubuntu and gain a market share so large that it will eclipse anything seen by Ubuntu to date." More here.
Thread beginning with comment 289213
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop
by raver31 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux on the Desktop"
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

Except that he won't probably get hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing the internet if you choose the latter option

sorry, he actually WILL still get the hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing...They just will not run.

The difference is that the selfish spyware/malware authors only make their applications compatible with Windows. The rotters, they should Linux versions of their goodies so we can all enjoy them.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Dec 2007 13:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
The difference is that the selfish spyware/malware authors only make their applications compatible with Windows. The rotters, they should Linux versions of their goodies so we can all enjoy them.
"""

Ah, the old "Operating System Q would be just as dangerous as Windows if it had 90%+ desktop market share!" claim. In the case of Linux, at least, I would contest that. But... just for the sake of argument, let's accept it and see what it would mean if it were the case. The answer is: "Not much". For whatever reason, Windows users are in more danger. If their being more of a target is a factor, well... then that's a factor. Period.

Besides, in the absence of Windows, it is unlikely that such a monoculture could materialize,in the market place, around any other one OS. So the whole line of reasoning is really moot, anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 6

v RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by siride on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:02 in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by raver31 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 09:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

hmmm, my post was meant as a joke. Clearly some people did not see this.

Anyway, I agree with you, it does not matter how many people use Linux, spyware and malware will not run on it, the creators will have to use social management to get users to install and run malware on it.

I too am sick of reading that shit about Windows having 90% of the market share, and if it was Linux there, then there would be way more virus and malware for that.... No, this is just plain wrong, in fact, I would go as far as to say that the people that make this claim have no understanding about operating systems, security or malware itself... They should, instead of trying to put down a system they are too stupid to use, spend some time learning how to secure their own systems, so that I do not get more spam offering to increase my penis size or to sell me 10000000 viagra for 35p.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop
by wirespot on Sat 8th Dec 2007 06:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Linux on the Desktop"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

sorry, he actually WILL still get the hundreds of spyware/malware while surfing...They just will not run.


You've made not one but two grave errors here.

First, what you said is simply wrong. No, as a Linux user I don't get any kind of malware, from anywhere. My system is clean. It's not like the malware executables get on my HDD but they won't run, I don't get any stuff I don't want period.

Your second error has to do with a very dumb and outdated concept of what security is supposed to be about. Sadly, you are not alone. Most of the companies selling you security for Windows share your point of view. That point is that it's normal for malware to enter the system and that efforts should be made to contain it after that happens. I'm sorry but that's extremely stupid.

I much prefer the Linux or Mac OS X method, which says "malware doesn't enter, period". Isn't that much simpler? Why bother to track thousands of pieces of malware, dozens appearing every day, when you can simply make sure nothing gets in and be done with it?

Why do you think Macs and Linux are so secure? By dumb luck? No. They're secure because they're designed to be secure. They haven't approached security saying "I'll just let everything in my system and see what I can salvage later."

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Linux on the Desktop
by raver31 on Sat 8th Dec 2007 08:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Linux on the Desktop"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I see you had your sarcasm detector switched off

Reply Parent Score: 2