Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Aug 2012 20:46 UTC
Linux "For years now, Linux has been a black sheep standing in the shadow of Apple and Microsoft. Despite having a fervent and enthusiastic following, the operating system hasn't been able to grab a sizable share of the computing market and has instead been content to subsist on the customers that come away dissatisfied with the mainstream competition. But that may be about to change. With the release of Microsoft Windows 8 on the horizon, some are saying Linux may have a great opportunity to steal a significant share of the market away from Microsoft, allowing it to finally take the helm as a major operating system service provider." This has to stop, and the only reason I'm linking to this nonsense is to make this very clear: Linux will not magically conquer the desktop or even make any significant gains because of Windows 8. People who don't like Windows 8 (Vista) will continue to use Windows 7 (Windows XP). This is getting so tiring. And does it even matter? Linux is winning big time in the mobile space, server space, and countless other spaces. The desktop is and always has been irrelevant to Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 532904
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Yeah...
by lucas_maximus on Wed 29th Aug 2012 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah..."
Member since:

Sorry but the only easy way for a Modern Windows machine to get infected is to run an executable from an untrusted source as Administrator.

Believe it or not this would work perfectly fine on Linux and MacOSX.

Windows is not insecure, hasn't been since Windows XP SP2.

UAC is not different than the sudo command.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Yeah...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 29th Aug 2012 08:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:

I'm no fan of "sudo" either. But at least it makes you THINK for a second about what you're doing, since it requires you to at least type *something*. Unfortunately it's the user's own password (how very difficult to guess...). A separate password--the root password--would be a better safeguard. I prefer logging in as root myself when needed, and that's what I do; I'm not a fan of the method Ubuntu popularized, even if sudo does supposedly grant you fewer rights than root.

By comparison, what was Windows typically do?

"Do you want to allow this program to do this? Yes/No, OK/Cancel, whatever"

Microsoft has already trained its users/customers to "just click OK or Yes" if you want to do something without errors, and magically it works with no trouble. Extending this bad train of thought to granting administrative privileges is defeating the whole damn purpose of separating administrator from limited users, and just plain dumb on Microsoft's part. This bad and potentially disastrous behavior is deeply ingrained deep in Microsoft's users' skulls, and that behavior is exactly what Microsoft is relying on to escalate a Windows user to administrative privileges. Making it annoying just to force application developers into coding user separation is just that: an annoyance that, because of the way it's implemented, doesn't solve a damn thing. Just a worthless annoyance that might catch a somewhat more more experienced user, but those are the people who are likely to have minimal trouble anyway.

And don't even waste your time mentioning that "it's only that way for users designated as administrators--limited users have to type in a password." Last I checked, the first account is an administrator by default (and has to be, because Microsoft disables the "real" Administrator account by default), and NO ONE I have ever seen runs as a limited user--let alone knows what an "administrator" even is.

UAC is a joke.

But enough about that... this discussion is getting way off topic. I don't really give a rat's ass in the end because I am not a Windows user, but I do still get annoyed seeing the latest Windows operating systems royally infected even six years after I jumped ship, after Microsoft continually claims "the most secure version of Windows ever" with every release they put out to date. It'd be nice if Microsoft would provide a *real* fix, but I won't hold my breath on it. And without locking every other OS but their own out. [*cough* hardware-forced "Secure Boot" and the supposed "Trusted Computing" nonsense *cough*]

Edited 2012-08-29 08:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Yeah...
by ze_jerkface on Wed 29th Aug 2012 09:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Yeah..."
ze_jerkface Member since:

Just a worthless annoyance that might catch a somewhat more more experienced user, but those are the people who are likely to have minimal trouble anyway.

Uh no it is not a worthless annoyance when it stops a drive-by attack. When someone is just visiting looking for photos and UAC pops up they are unlikely to hit OK.

but I do still get annoyed seeing the latest Windows operating systems royally infected even six years after I jumped ship

You seem to be one of those people who think that the Linux kernel provides superior protection by not being NT. That was a baseless belief in 2005 but with Android it has been completely shattered:

Since Wp7 has less malware than Android it becomes hard to believe that malware is the direct result of Microsoft being unable to create a secure system.

The dancing pigs problem isn't the fault of Windows and wouldn't be solved by requiring a password. Switching everyone to Linux wouldn't solve it either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Yeah...
by AnyoneEB on Wed 29th Aug 2012 18:36 in reply to "RE[4]: Yeah..."
AnyoneEB Member since:

Although sudo asks for the user's password by default, there's a configuration option to make it ask for the root password instead:

Reply Parent Score: 2