“Thanks to its streamlined and relatively secure core, the Linux operating system has gradually been winning a place on servers in federal agencies. Now Linux is making inroads on desktop PCs as well, territory that has long been ruled by Microsoft Corp.’s Windows.” Read the article at USAToday.
Open-source gets serious: A new window on Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It still has a long way to go though.
I would agree, Linux does has a long way to go. It maybe more secure, but people are more comfortable to administrators and end-users. This is hurting Linux in a way, because some companies just don’t want to hire on more people that no the operating system enough to make it the most secure OS – companies also don’t want to throw down the cash to educate the users they already have employeed.
But I do see this helping the consulting business. Companies going after consultants that specialize with Linux deployments, and the good thing is they are part-time or only work with them for the length of the project!
It all has it’s pluses.
We’ll see what happens, the push to Linux is very exciting.
Sure doesn’t look like it.
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan04_pie.gif
And one could easily argue that Linux users have to use Google more than Windows users, so if anything, that 1% is over-inflated.
Hi
Please people. understand that it doesnt reflect market share. it reflects search results. it might be the same but its no conclusive thing. stop pointing to it
regards
Jess
I’ve used red hat 9 Enterprise edition and from my experience, it seems ready for home use. Its as simple as poppin in the cd-rom. Configurating of wifi is automatic, video works, etc. The problem with linux though, is lack of driver support for some hardware. If more people were to use it, companies would begin to develop drivers.
Anonymous (IP: 61.95.184.—) wrote:
“understand that it doesnt reflect market share. it reflects search results. it might be the same but its no conclusive thing. stop pointing to it”
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…
In reality, it’s actually important information culled from real-life users; it reveals usage stats worthy of consideration.
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan04_pie.gif
Linux, on the desktop, is essentially a non-player. I use and enjoy RH9 as a hobby OS, but the fact is that Linux is simply not a major (or even minor) player on the desktop at this present stage — and it is given away for free.
“Now Linux is making inroads on desktop PCs as well, territory that has long been ruled by Microsoft Corp.’s Windows”
And still is rulled by Microsoft Corp.’s [sic] Windows.
I read this quote in a blog entry which contained e-mails that gave a rather unpleasant account of the inside workings of Real. I think it applies just as well with OSS developers (those with the ‘gearhead hacker mentality’). Take it as you will.
Similar things happened with the design of the player itself. If the web team was bad, the player team was from hell. The player team was completely dominated by engineers with a total gearhead hacker mentality. They had zero respect for users and viewed the player as “their” product. Our design brief was to integrate Real’s four or so consumer applications into a single product. We spent over 8 months and $1.5M designing this. However, Real’s engineers had such deep “not invented here” syndrome that there refused to implement a single element of our design. They made clear to us that they saw it as their job to determine how the application functioned and that “no designer can tell me about users”.
I’m just happy to have choice! I’ve been using Linux on a 2nd home desktop as a file server and print server. I’ve only been using it for a few months and I think more people should add linux for home use. Most people just stick to what they know. (M$)
Noone said Linux HAS moved into the desktop PC’s.
It is on the WAY of moving into the desktop PC’s, nothing more..
Now, more than ever, people are seriously considering other alternatives to Windows for use on the desktop.
It’s a good thing, but it’s going to take alot of time before we can see any real results.
What I don’t get is why some of you try SOO hard to prove anyone who says anything good about Linux vs Windows, wrong.
Linux days are coming ….my friend who works for a bank converted to LInux desk top. They have found the ease of administration, no virus and hardly any down time has saved them a lot of money and piece of mind . Most of their apps are J2EE(JAVA) so porting apps was no issue.
“What I don’t get is why some of you try SOO hard to prove anyone who says anything good about Linux vs Windows, wrong.”
Oh, that’s easy to explain. Because even though it’s the richest company in the world employing some of the most unsavory business practices and blatantly violating anti trust laws again and again, MS still has its zealots, as hard as it is to believe. Astonishingly, some people actually feel sorry for Bill if he gets picked on or if the stock drops a penny. Sad really.
Commercial Apps.
When Quicken, TurboTax and/or TaxCut come to Linux, I’ll switch in a heartbeat.
Seriously. If not for those two apps, I’d be full-time on Linux right now!
Microsoft became a household name long before linux was even dreamed of, Windows revolutionized the PC world at a time when pretty much everyone else was laughing PC’s off as a worthless commodity. Like it or not, that’s how it happened. Don’t get me wrong, I have no qualms with linux, however I am not your average user. Linux has some *serious* inroads with usability/compatibility/maintainability before it can even come close to being a viable desktop player. It seems that once a week some new version of Gnome/KDE/etc is rolling out, who has time to keep up with all the upgrades? Of course you don’t have to upgrade, but the mere fact that this happens so often would be confusing to the average user. It’s not about Linux vs Windows, it’s about choice. M$ came about when there really wasn’t a choice, it was M$ or nothing, thus M$ is engrained in the desktop, and probably isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Linux needs to focus where it’s strongest, in the server market…which M$ itself has some serious inroads to make headway into.
just my 2 .02
As a linux user I don’t see how Linix is much further along that it was when I started using it 3 years ago. Linux is already slower and less stable. It is more secure against virii mostly because fewer people are using it. I have never had a virus on any of my windows boxes anyway, the people I know that seem to keep getting them are the same people who would have me running their linux desktops for them. I am not a MS zealot, I just don’t think Linux is anywhere near the desktop or will be anytime soon. I would rather use Solaris as a desktop than Linux. I wish Linux were further along but it’s not, and I am not one to pretend it is.
All i want is choice, M$ is fine,so is linux, BSD
MAC,os Hey Bill, can you compete? it whould be better
for all operating system software in general. i happen to
like M$ products and i like linux.
When evaluating something as ready for the desktop, one should really keep in mind that Linux is definitely available for the desktop, thus ready. Opinion regarding its use as a desktop invironment is a totally different issue. It’s available; it’s ready; it is, however, not everyone’s cup of tea.
There is no real reason for these flippant remarks about Linux not being “ready for the desktop” you know; they are false afterall.
If you want linux to be a major desktop player, help it out by codeing, submitting bug reports, or whatever. Don’t keep arguing if “it’s there”. It doesn’t matter what you think, it doesn’t matter what other thinks. All that matters is if you like it or not, and even then, don’t bitch to me about how good it is. I don’t care about your opinions.
My 2 pence.
1. You can not play games on it.
I have Quake III Arena, Descent 3, Heavy Gear 2, Sim City 3000, and there are more out there. (These are not games?)
And recently Unreal 2k3 worked on Linux and its sequal will as well.
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
There are stories of people who have turned their grandparents, aunts, whatever into guenia pigs and they have done quite alright. Once they you give them a little help at first they are more than ready.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
It has more GUIs than you have fingers and you can run them all at the same time if you want.
4. There is no support available for it.
There is support just not the support maybe that you’re used to. Some distros offer (paid) support for those that want it and most come with 90 days free phone support…Suse comes to mind.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
It does contain some other programs from other OSes (like from FreeBSD) but alot is written from scratch.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
???? It was made on the x86 platform and Linus at the begining had no intention of porting it to others yet it has.
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
I don’t know any C, yet I still install things. Not everything needs to be compiled. There are RPM packages.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
Hardware support is always a little behind. Although Linux had x86-64 support before Windows did. You have to give credit to all those that work on the hardware support side.
9. It is incompatiable with Windows.
This is kinda a given. Of course Windows isn’t compatiable with Macs, and vice versa. If you really want there is always WINE or some other program that will run them. I did once but realized I didn’t need it.
10.It is dying.
I don’t think its going in that direction. I haven’t seen anyone make a comment like this.
Oh, why we go through this every week heaven only knows. But I haven’t shared my opinion yet, so here it is.
Linux on the desktop is going to start out by being deployed mainly in organizations. We’ve seen this already, no need to argue about that. Here, the systems and environment is managed by a team, not the user. Obviously they decided to make the switch and wanted to because they have the technical know-how.
Now, Linux on the desktop for your home user? Depends. Might be a little while, might be a long time before it’s ready for them. Why? Because their needs differ.
Let’s say Blow Joe likes to go to Best Buy and pick up the hottest new game and piece of hardware. He wants to come home, plug it in, and have it work. He doesn’t want to check Transgaming to see if the latest version of WineX supports it. This is not a fault of Linux, and it doesn’t mean Windows is better. It means Windows has a better market penetration.
Then you have Bobby Joe. Bobby likes to write e-mail, surf the web, chat online, and do some word processing now and then. He doesn’t care about the latest and greatest. He also doesn’t care about how things work. He just wants something that’s stable and cheap. While he may not be as “technical” as Joe Blow, Bobby’s needs are different and are easily satisfied by a Linux distribution today.
However, I think I’ve saved the biggest obstacle to overcome for Linux on the desktop: packaging. It makes me sick that to install CoolApp v.1 you need to either compile on your own, or pray that somebody has rolled a rpm/pkg for your distro. It just makes me sick that there exists such big fragmentation. rpm/dpkg are good at what they do. They handle the core system well.
BUT, I think there may be an uncoming solution. The guys at AutoPackage (http://www.autopackage.org/) seem to be working on this very problem. I hope they can pull it off, too.
So, nobody here is right, and nobody here is wrong. Windows has its place, and so does Linux. I’ve also always wondered why some people (*cough* Paul Thurot *cough*) are so infatiated with Windows. It seems a little boring to have to sit on the sidelines and wonder what a company is going to publish, instead of being able to be involved with it. But I’ll save that for another time.
<quote>There is no real reason for these flippant remarks about Linux not being “ready for the desktop” you know; they are false afterall.</quote>
Conversely you could also say there’s no reason for news posters to spam OSNews day in day out with articles saying it is.
and windows is ready for your desktop? or perhaps you run qnx (i.e.)? i don’t know about one OS that hasn’t security problems, but this problems are less dangerous in linux that in windows, because in linux it’s easier to fix, the source is avalaible.Anyone can find problems, and anyone can fix them.
/*no volem cap que no siga borraxo no volem cap que no estiga bufat*/
TBM,
Only talking about the first point, gaming on Linux is terrible. Quake III is the only good game you mention, and is about 3 years old. In Linux isn’t possible to run great games from EA/EA Sports, LucasArts or games like Splinter Cell and Warcraft.. Right now Linux is far behind from Microsoft on gaming, although may be in the future things change…
Having played about with linux on the desktop I can safely conclude:
a) It *might* be ready for me, if I comprimise a little.
b) It is ready for my wife (e-mail, WP, web)
c) It isn’t ready for my eldest son (As above + games and VB programming)
d) It is ready for my daughter (IM, web, WP)
e) It is almost ready for my youngest son – who has actually used it. (web + some games)
f) It would be ready for my workplace *if* I was willing to change the database & accounts system and put up with upset users for a few weeks. Which I’m not so it isn’t.
So what’s the flamewar about.
Is it just me or are the trolls coming out in force, with every new good linux adoption story / review.
Its pretty sickening the amount of misinformation being spread its like a FUD spree.
one of the moderated down comments just made me laugh.
In the article itself its going on about good new desktop orientated linux distros with screenshots showing it off, and explaining how easy the install is and how mature the ui’s are to use. Low and behold a host of people come in, spreading absolute crap read the article don’t talk crap about something you obviously know nothing about and stop spreading lies, kind of reminds me of C.O.L.A at times (comp.os.linux.advocacy), full of windows trolls, just dying to make some nonsence up and printing it like its the truth.
Usually you would have 50 people proving you wrong, but i think most of us give up trying to prove nonsence wrong, it just becomes boring quickly, every day near abouts we cover the same ground in the forums, it becomes boring fast. Stop Trolling, stop spurting comments when you obviously know sweet f’all about linux. Stop wasting everyones time, and read the article and comment on the article in a sensible fashion, not made up irrelevant crap.
Linux has several issues that need to be resolved before it is ready for the desktop. Linux needs a standard package manager, it needs more commercial support and the hardware methods need to be improved a lot. For most consumers Portable MP3 player, Digital Video Camera support needs to be improved as well as official support for WMV,WMA and Quicktime.
Which makes it a good candidate for the corporate / business oriented desktop!
Personally, I don’t care about games and I don’t think businesses do either. After all, which boss wants his employees waste time playing games?
Is ready for one of my desktops. The other one uses XP + Slackware. XP is running because of the only one game I like. I don’t t play any other games , otherwise XP would be gone for long.I do ALL things on my Linux box(es) , so is my wife, so is for my brother in law , and I will try soon to see what my father & mother have to say about it.
Linux on desktop is A FACT for me , foor other ppl not yet, or it will never be ,dunno. I like to have a choice, I like to see who’s scanning my IP , I like to upgrade apps and versions whenever I want , I like to change my DE/WM once in a while just because I’M BORED, I like to compile my kernel once in a month and yes , I love to see “kernel panic” if something went wrong just because is a very cute expresion, I love to leave my computer running for weeks/months without to restart it , I love the lack of registries, I also love the penguin , is cute.
At work ,I still do my job on Win2K , but here’s not my problem.And one more thing , I love the fact that I don’t have too do HW upgrades so often.
Windows is good , Linux + a DE/WM is good ,Mac is good, but don’t say Linux is not ready for desktop. Because for some is ready. And , afterall , Linux is just the kernel…
You haven’t been to one of our LAN parties, have you? We play several games on Linux, including Call of Duty, Jedi Academy, Ultimate Tournament 2003 and 2004, Quake3 Arena, Half Life mods, Warcraft3, and others. We also have close to 30 people connected to our LAN at once, some using Linux, some Windows. Everybody is able to play together at something.
We are students, some of us CS majors members of our ACM chapter. We spend our weeks with a studious attitude toward computers, and an eye out for what will be needed in the professional world upon graduation. We know Linux will be a large part of our careers, or at least for some of us. We’re just proving to ourselves that we can also have fun, no matter what some people claim is or isn’t true.
“When Quicken, TurboTax and/or TaxCut come to Linux, I’ll switch in a heartbeat.
Seriously. If not for those two apps, I’d be full-time on Linux right now!”
EXACTLY! Where’s Quickbooks? Where’s a decent CAD program? Where are the Access like programs? Where are the automated test tools (like WinRunner)? Where are the encyclopedias? Where are the mapping tools? Etc, etc.
Even IF Linux had these (like the Mac already does) it’s not enough reason for people or corporations to switch! Or else people would be flocking to the Mac…
As a linux user…
Yeah, right. There is a new trend among Linux-bashers to pretend that they are really Linux users and then go on criticizing every aspect of Linux using outdated FUD.
Well, as a Windows user, I can tell you that Linux rocks. It is more stable than Windows and more secure with regards to virus, having proportionately to market share 40 times less viruses.
Take it from a Windows user: choose Linux.
The security problems you are referring to are local exploits, not remote ones.
Meanwhile, if security is your concern, consider the latest slew of viruses and remote vulnerabilities that affect Windows.
Linux is more secure than Windows, though both can be made secure or insecure. Stop spreading FUD.
EXACTLY! Where’s Quickbooks? Where’s a decent CAD program? Where are the Access like programs? Where are the automated test tools (like WinRunner)? Where are the encyclopedias? Where are the mapping tools? Etc, etc.
How hard have you looked for it?
A quick search at Google gave me equivalent apps for pretty much everything you mentioned. Usually more than one option.
Just to name one, OpenOffice.org doesn’t have a separate program like MS-Access, but all the other apps (spreadsheet, writer, etc) have an option called “Data Sources” that is pretty much like Access (even the interface): http://www.unixodbc.org/doc/OOoMySQL.pdf
I think it’s more a question of being open-minded and check things out. Of course you won’t find an application exactly like Access or Quickbooks, but you might find some similar ones, and maybe even better.
Not to mention that Access is utter crap.Using MySql with OO will give ya 2 things , an office suite and a real database engine. As for encyclopedias I will not worry too much. Most of them are either HTML , PDF , imagees and so on. If you reffer to MS ones which not run outside MS apps , then I’m s orry for you , youre just limited. Is new to you tto have choices , right? Trust me , is very nice. Decent CAD’s? Do a Google on Linux CAD ,and come back later.
If you don’t want to try it , don’t come with such statements , you make fool of yerself. Ciao.
“How hard have you looked for it?”
Perhaps my rant wasn’t as clear as I thought… 🙂
The point is: Why should I look? I’ve already paid for all the software I use. Why should I spend the time and effort to switch from Windows to Linux and then pay $149 for LinuxCAD to duplicate the AutoCAD softare I’ve already paid for? Why as a business would I do that? The answer is I wouldn’t. And most businesses won’t.
That’s the point I’m trying to make clear to those of you that aren’t in small business. I’m not going to pay to duplicate that which I already have. My business is what’s important, not the tools that run it. Progress is only made when people stop worshipping the tools themselves and concentrate on what you can do with them. If I can’t do anything new and different with Linux, why would I switch?
When USA Today reports you know everyone and their brother already knows about it
.
“I read this quote in a blog entry which contained e-mails that gave a rather unpleasant account of the inside workings of Real. I think it applies just as well with OSS developers (those with the ‘gearhead hacker mentality’). Take it as you will.
[i]Similar things happened with the design of the player itself. If the web team was bad, the player team was from hell. The player team was completely dominated by engineers with a total gearhead hacker mentality. They had zero respect for users and viewed the player as “their” product. Our design brief was to integrate Real’s four or so consumer applications into a single product. We spent over 8 months and $1.5M designing this. However, Real’s engineers had such deep “not invented here” syndrome that there refused to implement a single element of our design. They made clear to us that they saw it as their job to determine how the application functioned and that “no designer can tell me about users”.[i]”
Sorry but do you actually know what they’re talking about when they’re talking about Real? How can you say this when Real’s RealPlayer contains a proprietary codec, with the whole player being proprietary to which about a LOT can be complained about. I’ll name a few: the channel, the standard configuration, the spam harvesting in the client, how it tries to take ownership as player of media formats, and there’s just so much more (as so does the Real website!). The things were designed to do exactly not what the user wants.
Is this the same as with the Linux kernel? Or “Linux desktops” / FLOSS DE’s? I’ll leave that up to you to argument, but consider the following: Linux is open-source. As long as you do keep your changes open, you can customize it. When compiling, i find menuconfig extremely user-friendly. Linus has made Linux TCPA/DRM-friendly, while that wasn’t invented here. Other examples include the journaling filesystems, SMP, the fact is supports a lot archs not “invented by them”.
Excuse me, but your analogy is afaict totally out of line. You could have at least argumented your point, it seems like a troll now…
FUD? I guess that would be like claiming that KDE is easier to use that Windows, lol.
Actually, it is. I’ve done the test with computer newbies, and KDE is as easy (and in some respect, easier) to use that Windows.
And I’m not surprised that all the Linux weenies are trying to justify not needing a CS degree to do competent work; they are the ones releasing the shoddy work! Sorry to offend you, but, get some education before you go off producing more buffer overflows.
First, by using insults such as “weenies” you are severely damaging your credibility – it’s bad enough you can’t make the difference between remote and local exploits. Second, a lot of Linux programmers are professionals who do have CS degrees, among other things. Similarly, a lot of people who program apps for Windows do not have that degree. The degree in and of itself means very little. I’ve known self-taught programmers who were brillant, and CS-degree holders who were very poor coders.
Finally, you don’t offend me (it takes more than mere trolling to do that). In any case I’m not a coder (I’m a game designer) but I work with coders all day. And buffer overflows happen in Windows programs as well. So basically you are spreading FUD using fallacious arguments and examples. Please stop.
And you’re right that Linux has less viruses. Linux does not have cross-distribution binary compatibility.
Actually, between some distribution it does. And you can have binaries that work on basically any distribution (especially if they don’t make any calls to libraries that could be located in different places). I guess it goes to show how little you really know about Linux – not that it will prevent you from bashing it. After all, why let facts come in the way of some good old anti-Linux FUD, right?
So along with those viruses not running, neither does Oracle, commercial games, etc.
Oracle does run on Linux. So do some commercial games (quite a lot if you figure WineX in), but who really cares about PC games anyway – console games are where it’s at except for first-person shooters and real-time strategies, and Linux can run quite a few of these.
Maybe one day Linux will have a source based worm. I don’t need root permissions to compile, or to open a port above 1024, so that should work nicely.
Yeah, right. If that’s so easy, how come it hasn’t been done yet? There are plenty of immature Linux haters out there, as this thread shows. Are you saying they lack the skills?
Again, I bring you this fact: there are proportionately 40 times more viruses for Windows than Linux (and that’s being generous to Windows). Ergo, when considering the real world (and not some anti-Linux poster’s fantasy world) Linux is more secure than Windows. Period.
Frustrated Consumer
FYI, Quicken and Quickbooks run very well on Linux using Crossover Office. And you don’t have to buy another license, you can use the one you already have!
Commercial apps are coming to Linux, slowly but steadily. More and more government agencies are switching, as are some large corporations. You may not like it, but it’s happening, and it will only keep on growing. I suggest you learn to live with it instead of spending so much energy trying to fight it.
Microsoft became a household name long before linux was even dreamed of
You’re showing how young you are with that statement. Linux was created in 1991. Windows 3.1 was released in 1992. I would venture to say that Microsoft really didn’t become a household name until at least the release of 3.1.
Linux needs to focus where it’s strongest, in the server market
Why? Linux has already cleaned MS’s clock in the server market and continues to get better all the time. I think it’s about time Linux focussed on the desktop and I believe it is right now.
I just don’t think Linux is anywhere near the desktop or will be anytime soon. I would rather use Solaris as a desktop than Linux. I wish Linux were further along but it’s not, and I am not one to pretend it is.
If you would rather use Solaris than Linux as a desktop then I highly doubt you have used either.
Hello! I think we already meet each other. I see you are still learning the art of trolling…
“Linux has several issues that need to be resolved before it is ready for the desktop.”
Sure, “Linux on the desktop” has some issues. Unfortunately, you don’t address them in your post.
“Linux needs a standard package manager”
Any Linux distribution i’m aware of has a standard package manager. Are you implying that Debian has to use RPM or that RedHat has to use APT/DEB? Who are you to decide for me wether i should use a certain package manager? I’m happy with APT/DEB, more than ever. If you’d prefer RPM, or a distro which uses that, go for it.
“it needs more commercial support”
Various Linux distributions deliver support.
“and the hardware methods need to be improved a lot.”
?
“For most consumers Portable MP3 player, Digital Video Camera support needs to be improved”
Your analysis/search? There is work on this done by Ximian, to make it extremely easy for any DE to pop up when new hardware has been found; all user-sapce except for a very small part (see Robert Love’s work as well as FD.o’s HAL work). So yes, i agree this can be way more user-friendly, and they’re working on it, fortunately. It is NOT an issue for me, though.
“as well as official support for WMV,WMA and Quicktime.”
Talk to Microsoft and Apple. WMV7/8 are supported by MPlayer. WMV9 i don’t know, i thought it was supported by MPlayer too ewither via a DLL or native. Apple’s Quicktime: version 4/5 is supported by libavcodec. 6 isn’t, but the DLL can be used.
I can’t speak for Xine/VLC but i’d wild guess those support it equally.
The problem is rather that there’s no good open video codec which can function in the same areas as WMV/Real/Apple. OGG Theora is working on this, but seems to be stalled.
“The point is: Why should I look? I’ve already paid for all the software I use. Why should I spend the time and effort to switch from Windows to Linux and then pay $149 for LinuxCAD to duplicate the AutoCAD softare I’ve already paid for? Why as a business would I do that? The answer is I wouldn’t. And most businesses won’t.”
1) There are Free, as well as free, as well as commercial CAD alternatives for *NIX/Linux/Linuxx86.
2) For a business which already paid for a Windows license yet some chose to migrate to a different solution, from Windows. For example, instead of paying MS Windows and MS Office, you could buy a CAD solution, a Linux distribution, and still save money.
Again, I bring you this fact: there are proportionately 40 times more viruses for Windows than Linux (and that’s being generous to Windows). Ergo, when considering the real world (and not some anti-Linux poster’s fantasy world) Linux is more secure than Windows. Period.
If you are going to write a virus, are you going to write it for an OS with 90% market share or 1%? Linux having few viruses is not so much that Linux is somehow more secure, as it is the conditions under it’s use. I already mentioned Linux’s install base, but there are other reasons too. Let’s look at the typical Windows viruses. They use e-mail. Usually there is some trick to getting the user to run a virus such as naming it “run this to see britny spears nude”. Fine. Then what happens? Well, the virus integrates itself with the system so that A) it’s hard to find, B) it starts up on computer boot/login, C) it does it’s dirty work.
Often these viruses rely on being root (Administrator in Windows), but that isn’t really necessary. Of course, the fact that all windows users run with root powers doesn’t help matters, so that’s one reason it’s easier to write viruses for windows. Not a fault of the system but rather with how it’s used.
So you could still run viruses from users home directories. Ok. So what next? Well, we need to get the virus to start up automatically. Windows is a well integrated and standardized system. The procedure for making things start at boot/login is the same for all installations. Let’s look at Linux. Uh oh. Problem. How do we srtart up our virus? In .bashrc? what if bashrc doesn’t run? Modify .bashprofile? Maybe, but what if they don’t run bash? How do we prevent the virus from running multiple copies every time a terminal is opened? Use .gnome directory? What if they run KDE?
So you see, Linux is secure by obscurity in this case (or by fragmentation or what have you). Ok, let’s forget this problem and consider the next step. We need e-mail addresses to propagate. In windows we can check the global outlook/outlook express address book. Easy enough. Or we can look through the standard place for internet temporary files. Also easy.
Linux? Security through obscurity once again. Do we check evoltuion address book? What version of evolution? Where are the temporary internet files store? Does the user run KDE? Does the user run Mozilla? Ephiphany? Konquerer? Uh oh. Problem again.
Now, couple all the above problems with a very very small install base and no wonder there are few Linux viruses. As you can see, it has nothing to do with Linux being more secure than windows, but rather due to the poor itegration and lack of desktop standards of Linux distributions.
I suggest you learn to live with it instead of spending so much energy trying to fight it.
I wouldn’t be so sure it’s coming if I were you. Mac is an excellent platform, and it’s hardly made any dent in the Windows install base. Linux has a ton of problems that the Mac has already solved, fewer applications, and smaller desktop install base. I figure it will be *many years* before Linux even gets close to Windows on the desktop.
But hey, you Linux fans should still be happy that Linux is gaining *some* ground, if not new home desktop users.
Linux may have a built in firewall, but when the end user doesn’t know how to use it & can’t set it up. That really makes a secure firewall, doesn’t it? Another thing is, packeges coming in source code. Tell me why does a end user want to do that? It is like going out to get a car, but it is unassembled. Why would you do that when you can get a assembled car, even if it is from a compeditor, or not a sturdy? Ya it would be a better car if you built it your self, but sometimes you just want to buy a new car & drive it.
Hi
I hear this argument pretty frequently and its bullshit
why?
apache is used more than iis and it is still secure
linux is used in servers very frequently esp in the web server market and it is still considered to be secure.
we dont protect viruses with dot files. email viruses are simply outlook viruses because microsoft designed that software badly.
dont try to pull things off here
Jess
“Linux may have a built in firewall, but when the end user doesn’t know how to use it & can’t set it up. That really makes a secure firewall, doesn’t it?”
I basically agree, this can be a problem.
However, we are talking about Linux _distributions_ then. The Linux kernel itself has got a build-in firewall. The Linux 2.6 kernel has _support_ for IPTables (2.6/2.4 default), IPchains (2.2 default), and IPfwadmin (2.0 default). With the correspondig userland utilities installed, a simple frontend can do it. That frontend hasn’t got much to do with the firewall, or the kernel. The problem doesn’t lie in the Linux kernel; the problem lies, if it exists, in Linux firewall solutions and their frontends. I think there are, beying FreeSCO, quite some free and partly proprietary solutions out there. But you gotta know they exist and what is the best solution for you 🙂
There are tons of (user-friendly) frontends for IPTables. Personally, i find OpenBSD’s PF -which has also been ported to Net and Free- very much more user-friendly. I can argument in a seperate post why exactly.
A friend of mine who has a local hardware store uses FreeSCO for this. He’s a Microsft Windows user, yet he has been quite easily been able to set FreeSCO up with appropriate firewall and some included applications.
Most home users use a firewall for only NAT anyway. That, with not enabling default servers too much, basically does it for most common people. When we’re talking about professional usage (we aren’t), we can assume the administrators have expertise with firewalls and the appropriate utilities we’re discussing. This is a non-issue then.
A.K.H wrote:
Often these viruses rely on being root (Administrator in Windows), but that isn’t really necessary. Of course, the fact that all windows users run with root powers doesn’t help matters, so that’s one reason it’s easier to write viruses for windows. Not a fault of the system but rather with how it’s used.
Also it doesnt help that windows is not a true multi user environment, administrator is encouraged to get around problems/ease of use. Its a fault of the system not the user. The system should educate the user not to be root/adminstrator. Except users are actively encouraged to be run as administrator, it still makes no difference anyway, if you run as a normal user in linux/*nix you will only have permission to write / modify files within your home directory not system wide, whereas in windows a virus can infiltrate every aspect of the os. Again Seriously shoddy security system in place.
A.K.H carries on with:
So you could still run viruses from users home directories. Ok. So what next? Well, we need to get the virus to start up automatically. Windows is a well integrated and standardized system. The procedure for making things start at boot/login is the same for all installations. Let’s look at Linux. Uh oh. Problem. How do we srtart up our virus? In .bashrc? what if bashrc doesn’t run? Modify .bashprofile? Maybe, but what if they don’t run bash? How do we prevent the virus from running multiple copies every time a terminal is opened? Use .gnome directory? What if they run KDE?
exactly choice is a wonderful thing, amazing what can be achieved when you dont force everyone to run your software but let the user decide.
You have clearly demonstrated why linux is inherently more secure than windows, better than most could. But for your info linux by standard uses bash. Every linux distro i know uses bash by default if the user doesnt like bash then they are free to use whatever shell they like. Again choice is such a bonus.
As for kde / gnome what a clear example that a locked in default is such a bad idea, and forcing users to just use the one environment is just wrong.
A.K.H Carries on to say:
So you see, Linux is secure by obscurity in this case (or by fragmentation or what have you). Ok, let’s forget this problem and consider the next step. We need e-mail addresses to propagate. In windows we can check the global outlook/outlook express address book. Easy enough. Or we can look through the standard place for internet temporary files. Also easy.
Linux? Security through obscurity once again. Do we check evoltuion address book? What version of evolution? Where are the temporary internet files store? Does the user run KDE? Does the user run Mozilla? Ephiphany? Konquerer? Uh oh. Problem again.
Security through obscurity, no my friend its all open, microsofts way is security through obscurity, which doesnt work btw.
What you show is how beautiful choice is. You see not only does microsoft have appaling security measure in place but they force their users to use whats bundled with their os. Outlook express has to be one of the worst email clients in terms of security same goes with internet explorer in terms of browsing. In linux we are never forced to use the same tools, but can uninstall and reinstall components as we choose. Therefore linux is the superior choice. Not by obscurity but by giving the user the freedom of choice.
A.K.H finishes with:
Now, couple all the above problems with a very very small install base and no wonder there are few Linux viruses. As you can see, it has nothing to do with Linux being more secure than windows, but rather due to the poor itegration and lack of desktop standards of Linux distributions.
[/i]
It has everything to do with linux being more secure, and giving users freedom to choose. Linux from the ground up is modelled on unix. It is not unix but follows the same ethics. It is inherently more secure as security was always thought of first, so the whole system is designed with security in mind. Microsoft from day 1 had very little scope of what computers could be capable of lets not forget bill gates thought that gui’s would be useless and no one would ever need more than 640 KB ram. He might be a good business man, but when it comes to IT he doesnt know sweet f’all. Microsoft have made every bad choice where security is concerned, instead of educating the user, they keep the users dumb and allow viruses and such to propagate.
Considering linux has a high server base, virus writers could clearly target something like apache, if they could successfully pull off attacks to apache or other linux server services, they would affect far more users than any worm that attacks windows, they could cripple the net near enough, Why hasnt it been done yet ? oh thats right because the script kiddies that write worms know some vb, microsofts crappy scripting language.
Nicholas James wrote:
Linux may have a built in firewall, but when the end user doesn’t know how to use it & can’t set it up. That really makes a secure firewall, doesn’t it?
True but thats why there are different guis that deal with the firewall, by default every major newbie designed distro has a control center of some sort (eg yast drakeconf etc) and they all provide a gui frontend to iptables. Which makes the firewall very easy to configure. Redhat goes through the firewall configuration right when you install it aswell. SO i think this point is pretty mute.
to add to what dpi mentioned the list goes on below:
If the user is advanced enough to install debian and or gentoo then they will be aware of guarddog/firestarter/bastille etc. They will also be aware of the many harden scripts within debian so as to harden your server. Forget running a firewall, the harden scripts close every port that is not needed. Also install bastille which adds another level of security then you can run your firewall scripts to open/close specific ports and or forward ports or if the server has a gui run firestarter if it doesnt run guarddog on a linux client and copy/paste the firewall ruleset to the server.
Most large organisations would be relying on hardware firewalls not software, if software is relied on then smoothwall does a brilliant job.
Nicholas James ends with:
Another thing is, packeges coming in source code. Tell me why does a end user want to do that? It is like going out to get a car, but it is unassembled. Why would you do that when you can get a assembled car, even if it is from a compeditor, or not a sturdy? Ya it would be a better car if you built it your self, but sometimes you just want to buy a new car & drive it.
Right all major packages come in prepacked binary format namely rpms and/or debs. All distrubitions nowadays use autoupdate methods based around apt-get redhat/fedora has up2date, This automatically updates your distribution, then there is urpmi, which is used by mandrake, which allows you to search for packages and install easily. All rpm based distros can use urpm and or other methods for updating, Debian based distros use deb packages which is managed by apt-get this allows you to search for a particular program, select it and install it without no need to compile. Infact these methods illustrated are simpler than you visiting your shareware site finding the package downloading it then installing it. When you want to upgrade you have to repeat process. With apt-get i tell it to install a package and it does, then i tell it to update the system, it automatically searches if there is anything to update it does so.
And just like you can assemble your own car so can you compile your own package in linux, provided its an open source app. for example gentoo uses emerge, you search for a package and emerge does the rest, or you can manually download in any distro
extract the source and do the ./configure && make && makeinstall. Its all up to you and your level of confidence. It caters for all levels of expertise. The newer distros make it that much easier for administrators and end users.
Also it doesnt help that windows is not a true multi user environment, administrator is encouraged to get around problems/ease of use. Its a fault of the system not the user. The system should educate the user not to be root/adminstrator.
Actually, Windows is a true multi-user environment. They obviously only have one user on the console at a time though. If I run ssh on a windows box, many users can use the system at once. Also, I believe that terminal services can enable multiple users on the desktop as well. I do agree that Administrator access being encouraged is a bad thing. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the Windows kernel, or system itself, but rather stupid UI/backwards compatability. Getting people to run without administrator access and having a nice warning about viruses when users DO enter the admin password to install programs would go a long way to preventing these windows and trojans. Unfortunatly, it’s still easy to put things in the home directory.
Security through obscurity, no my friend its all open…
What you show is how beautiful choice is.
By obscurity I mean lack of standard operating API’s. This is obscurity in the same way that removing ssh version numbers and operating system signatures is obscurity.
I don’t share your setiments on choice. Sometimes standards are needed and are important. Desktop APIs are one of those areas. Saying that choice is good as an excuse for poor integration is not acceptable or desirable in my opinion.
In linux we are never forced to use the same tools, but can uninstall and reinstall components as we choose. Therefore linux is the superior choice. Not by obscurity but by giving the user the freedom of choice.
And this freedom also costs you a LOT in terms of integration. Example? No common address book among applications. This is actually a very usefull thing to have, despite the danger of it being misused by viruses that users stupidly run themselves. See the GNOME 2.6 preview? Notice that Evolution is the default e-mail client? Notice that the evolution address book and calander have become integrated components of GNOME? This is to enable features that you can have with your *choice* model.
It has everything to do with linux being more secure, and giving users freedom to choose
Your example of apache is poor. There was a rash of ISS exploits a while back, but before that and since that there has been no security problems with windows. Windows server worms are fairly rare compared to the common e-mail viruses and trojens that come with crappy p2p software. I recall there was also a similar apache worm soon after the ISS worms. In server space, Windows is quite secure these days.
*Linux* is a kernel. It is no more secure than the windows kernel. In terms of server software, both are very similar in security. In terms of desktop software it’s popularity, policy, and Linux fragmentation that make Windows an easier/better target.
Perhaps a few years ago you could claim Windows was inhierently insecure and BSOD ridden. But now you’re just spewing FUD in my opinion.
The best security is good policy. Linux won’t save you from stupid users running ./e-mail-smilies-virus. Modern integration such as address books make operating systems easier targets in some ways. Linux will find this as it slowly achieves feature parity with windows as Mac OS.
You confuse “security by diversity” with “security by obscurity”. And your explanation completely misses the fact that Windows has proportionately 40 times more viruses. You know what proportionately means, right? So it’s not just a question of popularity, but of a more secure OS design.
As far as “poor integration” goes, that is another false problem. KDE apps are well-integrated, and I can run Gnome apps in KDE (and vice-versa) without any problems. There are plenty of other standards shared by the major Desktop Environments and Windows Managers. What you won’t find is monoculture, and that’s a good thing from a security point of view.
Hey, at least you acknowledge that, in real-world situations, Linux is more secure. That’s a start.
BTW, you’ve got your Linux market share numbers wrong. Current estimates place it at 3%, not 1%, and Linux looks poised to overtake Macs real soon. There is a momentum there, sure it could go faster, but I’d rather it’d be slow and steady than a passing fad.
Linux is growing, and threatening Microsoft. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be resorting to their usual dirty tricks to try and slow down it’s adoption, now, would they?
Linux may have a built in firewall, but when the end user doesn’t know how to use it & can’t set it up. That really makes a secure firewall, doesn’t it?
Okay, let’s see:
KDE Menu –> System –> Configure your Computer
Then click on “Security” and “Firewall”.
Point and click which services you want to let through, and add any other ports.
Gee, that was complicated…not!
Okay, some of you more “advanced” users may find that this lacks feature…well, just go with Firestarter, which is a great iptables front-end:
http://firestarter.sourceforge.net/
The FUD never ends…
“And your explanation completely misses the fact that Windows has proportionately 40 times more viruses.”
Here is explanation: Linux is mostly used by people who have some training in computers, a.k.a. geeks- and by their relatives who get support from geeks.
Windows user base is people who get to CompUSA or Wal-Mart and buy a computer with the following specs: eh, need to browse Internet, read emails and, yes!- write music on CDs.
So it’s not just a question of secure OS design, but of a user base.
Here is simple test: swear that you can not, in your sane mind, able to secure your own Windows computer against viruses, worms and different Internet malware.
Can not say that? Never was infected by email worm pretending to send you naked picture of Russian tennis star or latest Microsoft patch you should install ASAP? Well, here you go.
So, please put this your FUD to rest, will ya?
What a lame excuse. There are several parts of the Windows (both 9x and NT branches) which are weakly designed.
Does my OS have known bugs which haven’t been fixed for more than half a year? Does my e-mail client have design bugs which allow others to exploit it remotely? Does my web-browser have design bugs, and known+unfixed bugs, which allow others to exploit it remotely? Answer: No. Neither do the programs which i gave as example which come standard with the home-and-kitchen Linux distribution. Even when you’d patch your Windows computers with the latest patches, something one should expect from the company or organisation s/he’s using software from, you’d still be insecure.
Your comment misses the point totally. It’s not a question of user base, but rather a combination of design choices and certainly partly of OS popularity as well.
Here is simple test: swear that you can not, in your sane mind, able to secure your own Windows computer against viruses, worms and different Internet malware.
It’s possible to lessen malware vulnerability, for sure, by not opening up attachements, using some other e-mail program than Outlook Express, and closing down unused ports. However, by definition when new viruses come out a Windows computer may be vulnerable for a certain period of time, i.e. before the anti-virus lists are updated.
But if I follow up on your logic, then it seems that you’re saying that inexperienced users should do better to use Linux, since their bad security habits will be partly countered by the OS’s better resistance to malware…
My, what an insightful comment! 🙂
“The FUD never ends…”
Welcome to OS/2, er…Linux.
Anyway it’s nice being recognized by the mainstream, and USAToday is mainstream.