Use Linux, Windows is Rubbish!

Originally posted by Prot0n
I can't program at all. Been using Linux quite sometime now. Never had a problem installing software. It's even easier today then it used to be! Just download whatever you want with synaptic or adept

With red hat I was using 'aptget' and then 'YUM'. Redhad came with up2date also. And then you had to set it up to be able to work in the first place, then figure out what resources to input into the damned thing so it knows where to look, then command it to check the resources, then it'd say it needed other files, then it'd get them, then they'd need files, and it'd get them. Unless you had it set up wrong, and then you'd need to get each prequisite on its own, and find resources for the program to get them from on their own, and on and on and on. And if you got sick of it, and wanted to use linux what is was intended for anyway, you'd try to un-tar the tarballz, then get the prequisites, untar them, compile, encode, execute, yada yada yada.

Forget it, its simply not worth the average user's time. If they want to avoid viruses, get a mac to become less of a target. If they don't like IE's problems, they can get firefox.

But linux? Simply not worth it, in my experience, and that was only a year or more ago.

Got sick of windows crashing all the time,

Linux will crash on its own too. It wasn't any faster than I'd've though it'd be either. I couldn't notice any difference anyways. Part of the reasoning was that it was less of a target for viruses, and I wouldn't have to run all those different scanning softwares and updates and try to interpret hijackthis! logs and all that fun stuff. But then I was spending as much time just installing and running programs on linux anyway, and having to update it anyway, that it just became pointless.

You know what would be great, if we had an ATS 'How to Operate your Operating System" thread, something to inform ATSers who are less experienced with computers in how to secure their stuff and maintain it, even if its as little as re-iterating not to let every program run on startup, or to give unrestricted access to the internet for every program, what to run besides just mcafee or norton, and what forums for full help are worthwhile.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Even though, they dont realize the biggest insecurity of Linux is the fact it is open source. When every hacker in the world knows exactly how your operating system works, it makes it a lot easier for them to take control. With Windows, the source is hidden, and a big secret, that means most hackers only have limited ways and limited knowledge of how to take control of the computer.

Linux Error

I know Linux has flaws, I'm not denying that. But Windows has flaws as well. That's the developers fault. So the Linux vs Windows war is insignificant in this proprietary vs open source debate.

I see it this way. How can you tell with certainty that closed source is more secure if you cannot read the code?

Are you just blindly assuming that proprietary software is more secure because the developer said so? Is it safer to take his word for it rather than looking at it yourself?

Do you trust the developer enough to give him your personal info, your passwords, bank account number, social security number, etc... Then what makes you think that giving that same info to his software is more trustable, mystical magic?

At least with open source you are able to discover easily if the software has a backdoor sending your personal info to a tier without your consent. With closed source you can only hope it does not.

In practice, the only reason why companies are hidding the source code is for the purpose of protecting their intellectual property against competitors, not out of concern for the safety of end users.

Take for example cryptography, it doesn't matter if everybody knows exactly how the encryption algorithm works, mathematically speaking it would still takes million years of computing power to break the key. Does it make any difference if you give the source code to the smartest NSA cryptanalysts on the planet, if your algorithm is strong enough, it would still takes million years of computing power to break the key. While hidding the source code of a weak algorithm that takes 3 seconds to break will not make you more secure under this circumstance. Once a cracker found your hidden weakness, game over.

Originally posted by MrPenny
Crackers will get into your linux system slicker than sh**. The source code is open source. You will truly never know if they've been there.

Whether you are aware or not if a cracker broke into your computer is irrelevant to the openness or closeness of the source code. In both Linux and Windows you need security checks to find out if your system has been compromised. Are you running a intrusion detection system, file integrity checker, log files, etc...

[edit: typo]

[edit on 24-6-2006 by ufia]

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by ufia

Do you trust the developer enough to give him your personal info, your passwords, bank account number, social security number, etc... Then what makes you think that giving that same info to his software is more trustable, mystical magic?

At least with open source you are able to discover easily if the software has a backdoor sending your personal info to a tier without your consent. With closed source you can only hope it does not.


[edit on 24/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Yes I do trust Microsoft and the security they provide. WHY? Because I had the privilege of learning how to program. I wrote a simple app. that can read ALL raw data sent in and out of my ethernet card. There is programs available that do just that, but I went a step further and programmed my own just to be sure I'm seeing every byte that is sent and received. There is only one way information can leave my computer without my consent, and thats through my ethernet card.


If at any moment I found ANY information being sent to Microsoft, or any program that is giving away my personal info, you better frikken believe I would document it, record it, build evidence of it, and take Microsoft to court, and sue them for multi-millions of dollars.


I trust Microsoft, because I know just about anything and everything about how it works. Of course I dont have the source, and I cant open up explorer.exe and edit a single byte to change a true or false statement in a way to give me complete control over the entire windows system, but, thats why I feel its secure enough for my daily use.


[edit on 24-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]

M$ is getting ready to ditch support for W98, and that's the only OS I've ever run on this machine. So when Ubuntu sends out FREE linux, we ordered some as a backup plan.

Ready to try Ubuntu?

Just download the Ubuntu LiveCD and test Ubuntu without changing anything on your computer. If you want to keep Ubuntu permanently, there is an easy installer right on the LiveCD. Or you can order a few CDs for no cost from shipit.

Mine should be here next month sometime.

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
M$ is getting ready to ditch support for W98, and that's the only OS I've ever run on this machine. So when Ubuntu sends out FREE linux, we ordered some as a backup plan.

I have never known anyone who needed support from Microsoft for anything, so that should not be a problem to anyone.

Windows 98 was the worst (if we forget that strange thing called ME) version of Windows I ever saw.

It was installed on my computer for some 30 minutes, then I formated the disk and reinstalled Windows 95 again, and I used it until I got Windows 2000 in January 2000.