Linked by David Adams on Sun 6th Nov 2011 04:34 UTC
Linux While it may seem like Linux-only projects are betraying their loyal base by developing Windows or OSX versions, I would argue that cross-platform development is actually better for Linux as a whole, better for individual software projects and their developers, and ultimately better for Linux users.
Thread beginning with comment 496252
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seems simple enough"
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

I was talking about moving in the other direction. That is Linux developers should make their applications run on OS X and Windows. That's not targeting a smaller user base, that's targeting a much much larger user base.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about things the other way around.

There are other reasons to switch to Linux besides security, although in my experience Linux is much less likely to be infected. Partly because so few people write walmare for Linux. But also package management is vastly better on Linux compared to Windows, driver support is typically better, it takes less resources, better boot times... I find if people are using software that runs on both they see a clear incentive to switch away from Windows.

There is far less malware on Linux not because it's more secure, but because it's often not. Linux systems can be extremely easy to compromise as we see time & time again. This is usually credited to poor configuration and administration. What Windows does for you, Linux leaves up to the user. When you have inexperienced users, the holes tend to remain open. And of course Windows being used by millions and millions of people make it a bigger target by default.

I strongly disagree about package management. Linux dependencies are a complete mess more often times than not, which is the result of laziness and poor design.
Disabling optionA doesn't actually remove it and all it's dependencies, it just doesn't present itself as an option to the user. And of course optionA depends on packageB, which depends on packageC, which depends on packageD, E, F, G. This can usually be avoided but that of course requires more effort on the programmers part and I don't know many who bother.

As much as Linux users like to think otherwise, Linux has more in common with Windows than it doesn't. In some ways it's clearly better, in other ways it's clearly worse. The fact that Linus Torvalds himself has ranted about the mess that Linux has become is testament.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[4]: Seems simple enough
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Nov 2011 04:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Seems simple enough"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There is far less malware on Linux not because it's more secure, but because it's often not. Linux systems can be extremely easy to compromise as we see time & time again. This is usually credited to poor configuration and administration. What Windows does for you, Linux leaves up to the user. When you have inexperienced users, the holes tend to remain open. And of course Windows being used by millions and millions of people make it a bigger target by default.


Rubbish. Almost every case reported Linux systems have not been "compromised" but rather, simply hacked. Someone has obtained a password. In the hands of ordinary users, Windows systems are often compromised simply by the system being on the net. No password guessing required. There is a whole class of activity called "phishing" devoted simply to getting Windows users to visit malicious sites with a view to compromising their Windows systems. Simply by visiting the wrong website.

I strongly disagree about package management. Linux dependencies are a complete mess more often times than not, which is the result of laziness and poor design.
Disabling optionA doesn't actually remove it and all it's dependencies, it just doesn't present itself as an option to the user. And of course optionA depends on packageB, which depends on packageC, which depends on packageD, E, F, G. This can usually be avoided but that of course requires more effort on the programmers part and I don't know many who bother.


Sigh! Clearly someone who doesn't know the first thing about Linux package management, and hasn't used it (or, if they have used it that was ages ago, or they are simply lying).

Windows "solution" to dependencies is ... every package includes static copies of all the libraries it uses. The size of Windows itself is a dead giveaway ... I made a set of Windows 7 recovery DVDs, it took four DVDs, whereas a Linx installation (with far more functinality out of the box) can be done from a single LiveCD!

Edited 2011-11-07 04:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[5]: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 05:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Seems simple enough"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Rubbish. Almost every case reported Linux systems have not been "compromised" but rather, simply hacked. Someone has obtained a password.
Contrary to your utopian idea that Linux is somehow magically secure on it's own, an improperly configured and/or administered Linux box is just as insecure as anything else. That is fact whether you like it or not.

In the hands of ordinary users, Windows systems are often compromised simply by the system being on the net. No password guessing required. There is a whole class of activity called "phishing" devoted simply to getting Windows users to visit malicious sites with a view to compromising their Windows systems. Simply by visiting the wrong website.

Windows security is no different than anything else. When properly configured and administered, Windows has low risk of breach. Again, that is fact whether you like it or not.

Sigh! Clearly someone who doesn't know the first thing about Linux package management, and hasn't used it (or, if they have used it that was ages ago, or they are simply lying).

I have been using Debian and various Debian-based distros for many years on a daily basis. Occasionally others, though no where near the same degree. You are a complete fool if you think Linux package management is not without it's problems and/or dependencies aren't a mess. It's not as if I just let some huge cat out of the bag. The problems are well-known and common knowledge. For you to try to deny it is idiotic at best.

Windows "solution" to dependencies is ... every package includes static copies of all the libraries it uses. The size of Windows itself is a dead giveaway ... I made a set of Windows 7 recovery DVDs, it took four DVDs, whereas a Linx installation (with far more functinality out of the box) can be done from a single LiveCD!

Some software packages include static copies, some don't. Neither of which has anything to do with Windows but rather the party that maintains the software package. And whether you package the dependencies directly or your package manager forces you to obtain them externally is of no real difference. Windows is bloated, there's no question. And increasingly more and more Linux distros are becoming that way as well, also no question.

Most of the things I've mentioned Linus Torvalds has complained about himself not to mention users across the various big Linux mailing lists so I don't know who you think you're fooling.

Reply Parent Score: 2