Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 4th Mar 2009 23:34 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems To add to the amounting anecdotes of late, another Acer Aspire One review appears. Not to be confused with Thom's or Eugenia's, which were different models, this review concentrates on the ZG5 version of the Acer Aspire One and how well Windows XP, Windows 7, Ubuntu 8.10, and Moblin 2 run on it, particularly in the everyday-netbooker's sense of functionality with word processing and Internet applications. Read on to get the full scoop on the One and these selected systems.
Thread beginning with comment 351906
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

You know what? I'm sick of seeing that old malware line run rampant. Yes, there's malware for windows. Yes, you can get it if you lack common sense, but that applies to any platform. Common sense, and knowing enough to not open something like FamousMovieStarNudePics.exe is a better defense than any virus protector. In the end, it doesn't matter what os they're running, malware spreads more by social engineering than any other method these days. It'll be the same in OS X if it ever becomes more dominant than Windows, no amount of operating system security is going to save idiot users from themselves if they insist on running something unsafe. It'd be the same for Linux too, malware writers don't target Windows because of its security flaws--though it does make it easier--but rather because it is the os used by the most people, the prime target if you will. I don't like Windows either, I prefer OS X and *NIX. But FUD doesn't help, and the malware line is getting very old at this point. What next, you going to point out the blue screen of death as if it still happens every day like it did in 9x? There's plenty wrong with Windows without having to dredge up the old stereotypical issues that are less of a problem.


With a decent well-supported Linux distribution, with a large application repository available to it, one can easily adopt a viable (self-imposed) policy along the lines of "I will only ever install software from the repositories using the package manager". Adopting such a policy, and sticking to it, will guarantee that one's system will remain uncompromised and malware-free. This is hard to explain exactly why this is so, but it is much more than an idle boast ... AFAIK there has NEVER been a case of someone's system being compromised or getting malware through using a Linux repository. The repository system has an immaculate track record.

Now note that not all software that one can run on Linux is available through repositories. Having said that, nevertheless it is possible these days to for one to adopt an "install from repositories only" policy, stick to it, and not really miss out on anything.

There is no equivalent approach one can take in the Windows world. AFAIK there is no equivalent approach one can take using Mac OSX.

PS: On a Linux system, one cannot "open FamousMovieStarNudePics.exe". It won't open.

Edited 2009-03-06 00:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Ouch, needed to take this comment out, thought I was in the other article. *bonk*, brain on vacation today or something.

Edited 2009-03-06 02:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The exe file was an example, I wouldn't run, say, "Download TotallyAwesomeMusic.sh" in Linux either. That's where common sense comes into play.
Obviously you're not going to get malware from official software repositories, or at the very least it's unlikely to happen. That's like saying you'd get a piece of malware from the iPhone app store or similar distribution scheme. Although, I must say, if there ever was a bit of malware for Linux that did infect the software repositories... well, the results would make some of the individual malware on Windows look like nothing at all by comparison.
Of course the other problem with most of the major distributions is their release cycle schemes. Ubuntu 8.10, I'm looking at you here, released just a few weeks before OO 3.0. I've since moved to the Jaunty alpha, so not sure if 8.10 has OO 3.0 in backports yet, but the point is I had to go outside the repositories to get OO 3.0. Yes, I did need 3.0. That's where the software repository concept breaks down when used on a traditional release cycle, inevitably you will have to look elseware for up-to-date packages until the next official version of that distro comes out. If you need OO 3.0, for example, right now, waiting six months is not an acceptable solution. Now, a rolling revision repository, such as Arch, is a different matter. In general, rolling release is, imho, better for the desktop, while a strict release cycle is better for the server world.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The exe file was an example, I wouldn't run, say, "Download TotallyAwesomeMusic.sh" in Linux either.


It still wouldn't run. You would have to make it executable first.

That's where common sense comes into play.
Obviously you're not going to get malware from official software repositories, or at the very least it's unlikely to happen. That's like saying you'd get a piece of malware from the iPhone app store or similar distribution scheme.


Similar in some ways, but there is an important difference. I can have a self-imposed policy of "only install from repositories" using Linux, and I wouldn't miss out on much. If I had a self-imposed policy of "only run stuff from the iPhone app store" I'd be pretty restricted.

My anti-malware policy on Linux is far easier to live with and abide by.

Although, I must say, if there ever was a bit of malware for Linux that did infect the software repositories... well, the results would make some of the individual malware on Windows look like nothing at all by comparison.


It hasn't happened yet in many years, for many distributions, for millions of users. As I said, it has an "impeccable record". There are reasons for this, I could claim that it cannot happen ... but you aren't likely to accept that (even though it could well actually be so).

Of course the other problem with most of the major distributions is their release cycle schemes. Ubuntu 8.10, I'm looking at you here, released just a few weeks before OO 3.0. I've since moved to the Jaunty alpha, so not sure if 8.10 has OO 3.0 in backports yet, but the point is I had to go outside the repositories to get OO 3.0. Yes, I did need 3.0. That's where the software repository concept breaks down when used on a traditional release cycle, inevitably you will have to look elseware for up-to-date packages until the next official version of that distro comes out. If you need OO 3.0, for example, right now, waiting six months is not an acceptable solution.


http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-install-openoffice-3.0.0-on-ubuntu...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in...

Now, a rolling revision repository, such as Arch, is a different matter. In general, rolling release is, imho, better for the desktop, while a strict release cycle is better for the server world.


For a desktop, for those users who want the odd "latest version" (released after their OS was), for those distributions on release cycles rather than rolling releases, backport repositories are your friend.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports

Reply Parent Score: 2