Linux.com

LMAO!! You got that right!

#

Why not use Linux? Let's see. Lack of a good office suite that can handle large documents. Lack of lots of good software. Oh, and no kernel hopping?!!!!

#

What's so bad about a new Kernel? You only need to get one if there is a bad security problem being fixed. Otherwise it's mainly improvements that you don't really need. If you kept all your windows drivers up to date it's at least as much work.

#

Looks like you must of been walking around with youre head up youre ass 2 much then :-)

You name a windoze program and you can guarentee a GNU/Linux program can can do the same job.

The key to getting any software working 100% is the correct setup of the O/S and the program and 99% of windoze users I know wouldn't know how to set the mouse up let alone software..

#

>>The key to getting any software working 100% is the correct setup of the O/S and the program and 99% of windoze users I know wouldn't know how to set the mouse up let alone software..

And this 99% are the people using computers in business and office settings. The people that don't know nor care anything about kernels, drivers, etc... Why the hell should they? The computer is just a tool for them to use. Until Linux becomes more user friendly to Joe Schmoe office user, with better and easier to use software with proper documentation, it's not going to be widespread in the desktop business world.

#

Every time I see somebody post something like this I just have to shake my head at their stupidity.

Simply put: yes, Linux cannot be easily set up by Joe Shmoe. But wait, think: how often does Joe Shmoe set up his Windows machine? Especially in an office setting. The answer? Rarely, if EVER.

Linux-based OSen can already be set up to be fairly easy to use. So far, though, not as many people are doing it. It's not because of whether or not it's easier, it's because of market inertia. So please stop the knee-jerk "but it has to be easy to use" replies, 'cause it already is in the areas that people are ever going to give a fuck about.

#

You are correct, Windows user don't have to reinstall their operating system. It is unfortunately not the case for Linux that requires a fresh install far too often!!It's amazing what people go through just to avoid paying $99 to MS. My time is worth much more than that, but of course, your time is worth nothing so keep on wasting it with Linux.

#

Introduce me to Joe Schmoe. If he can't install SuSE Linux 8.0 in 20 minutes (which is all it took me - including automatic Windows partition re-sizing) - I'll eat my SuSE install disks :-)

#

I bet the regular Joe Schmoe doesn't install its own software at his office. So if a Sysadmin has to do the dirty work, where SHOULD that leave you? with Linux, of course. Nowadays, a Mandrake, Red Hat or SUSE normal user needs not to know anything but the usual chores. In Linux you can do that, nice and easy.

#

Have you ever installed Linux on 400 desktops? Probably not, nobody has...Windows has the deployment tools and scripts that facilitate this tasks and make the life of the sys admin easier. Would I do it with Linux? No thanks, I am not crazy.

#

You name a windoze program and you can guarentee a GNU/Linux program can can do the same job.

adobe photoshop 6.

#

adobe photoshop 6.

GIMP

#

This parent is obviously from someone who does not do a lot of graphic work

#

GIMP

maybe equivalent to adobe photoshop 3, but not 6.

#

For adobe Photoshop, well of course the GIMP! Runs great, has lots of plugins, and I'd bet it eats up less memory

#

Why mess with the outdated Photoshop? I use Corel PhotoPaint on Windows and Linux.

#

Any page layout application, as in Adobe InDesign, Quark Xpress.

Any video editing software, as in Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro.

Fortunately, there is a UNIX platform that offers those types of software, so all is not lost.

#

Boring, all done, get up to date pu-leaze!

#

buy a Mac, use os x. it's exactly the same thing as linux, except more stuff is avialable for it and it just looks cool

meh, u diehards whould give it a try... you'll never go back. But that doesn't usually happen for the same reason older mac users do not switch to os X.

microsoft does indeed have a very nice office suite for the mac, which is fully compatible with its windows counterpart.

ya, and 99% of your Linux apps have mac os x counterparts that are exactly the same. emacs or pine anyone?

And anyone smoking something strong enough to be logged on as the super user all the time need to go back to windows. There they will find even more happy security loopholes :D

ya, and apple has a server, and in tests it's dun pretty dang well

#

Haven't tried myself but from what I've read it seems that the whole Lindows thing is running as root all the time.

#

That is why I would never use Lindows and I would never recomend anyone to use Lindows.

#

This must be a feature. You can't emulate the total Windows experience unless you are susceptible to every random virus that comes along.

#

To be honest that is the only way to convert a windoze user to linux.

If u think about it you login to windows you can do anything u want, you are running as root all the time.

If you want the same freedom in Linux, you *have* to make the user login a root as windoze users are not used to have restricted access (so to speak).

This is bad..very bad.

And if Linux want the acceptance of the average windoze home user it has to do this
Most home users don't know what a monitor is unless you stammped it on their head in big wobbly letters, so you get thru to them that them must never run as root..mm let me see

Segfault

#

"If u think about it you login to windows you can do anything u want, you are running as root all the time."

"If you want the same freedom in Linux, you *have* to make the user login a root as windoze users are not used to have restricted access (so to speak)."

You couldn't be further from the truth. The reason Windows Users run as Adminstrator (or 'root') is because Windows has not real multiuser abilities, even WindowsXP.

In a Linux world, or MacOS X, or Unix, or anywhere that is truely multi-user, you don't need to run as root, because when you need access to root priviledges you just 'su in'. In gnome (and KDE I would presume) or MacOS X for example, if a user needs to run something that needs root access, it prompts for a password and then continues. Those that shouldn't be making changes can't, they don't have root access. The that do aren't hindered in any real way.

Need to run something as root on Windows. Consider this senario. You're logged in as you, without root priviledges. You need to install some software, but you need root access to install it. So, because Windows has no multiuser capabilities, you have to log out, log in as the Administrator, install the software (make the changes, whatever) and then log out and log back in as you again. As you can imagine this isn't what people want to have to do ever time the need to make a change, so MS (in their infinite wisdom) make it so you have root access by default.

And so the whole point of root access and permissions is rendered moot.

#

In windows 2000 at least you can run any software as any other user, you just choose the name and password. How easy it is to get the software itself to realize you don't have permissions to do something, and automatically choose to bring up this box to switch you to another user, I have no clue. There's also a problem with that. Linux, there's the root user, that's the password they ask for. Windows, there can be any number of 'Administrators'. Which account do you ask for the password for?

Windows XP at least lets you have multiple people logged on, but it's still a pain. But the ability to run a program as another user without logging out exists, just not nearly as easy/obvious. (Shift right click a file and choose Run As..)

#

Bullshit

Windows XP is more multi-user friendly then ANY *nix out there. Get yoru facts straight and try it before you knock.

And no, I'm not biased, I work in a combo shop, certified in linux and windows, and have been working with both for over a decade. So don't start spreading your FUD you lamer

#

LOL.. Stop spreading _your_ FUD. Dont try to tell me that Windows XP is easier to use than MacOS X. Get _your_ facts straight and try it before _you_ knock.

#

Yes Bill. You're not biased.

#

*nix allows multiple users to be logged in concurrently with great ease, via its virtual terminals...
Windows does not. 'Nuff said.

#

It's clear that you are only a vendor with a certification of a vendor not technical or whatever.

XP has a multiuser login and not a multiuser task...

You never use a *nix system... so use it first ("...have been working with both for over a decade..." - I don't think so!), then think in what you wrote here.

Try to logon and start your favorite flavor of window manager and after remotely logon in that same machine with other user and start another flavor of your window manager... you will run two or more window managers (depends on hardware).

Or try it in the same console, you will be surprise too.

XP, NT, 2000, ME, 98, 98SE, 95, 95 OSR2, 3.11 wk, 3.1 doesn't do this even with VNC, RemoteAccess, etc...

Only the Windows TerminalServer can do this kind of thing...

The Windows is excelent for those office and domestic users but for time to time windows needs to be reinstalled for performance reasons.

Not to mention the hardware update that needs to be done after every Windows version update.

Have a nice day.

ahk

#

Why do so many people write, "priviledge". My GOD, people, GET A FUCKING EDUCATION!

#

I have an MA (probably more education that you'll get in your life)and I make the mistake occasionally.

Lighten up

#

Not that I am a WIndows lover, but you have your facts very confused. In Windows XP, when you are not logged in as Admnistrator, you simply right click an executable - either an installer or, say, administrative tools - and select the "run as" command. There you can select administrator and supply the admin. password. In other words, you don't need to log out and back in again.

#

I had been thinking Lindows might work for a friend, whose been having difficulty with Redhat (which I use).

Oh well I guess not now.

emk

#

Erm..¦What¦about¦telling¦him¦to¦use¦Mandrake¦or¦Su SE¦instead¦of¦RH?¦RedHat¦isn't¦for¦home¦use¦anyway . SuSE¦and¦Mandrake¦are¦both.
SuSE¦is¦(IMO)¦better¦but¦it's¦not¦free.¦Mandrake's ¦free.

-Dakkus

#

Give Lycoris/LX a try; the basic edition's $30 (Fry's), and it should be straightforward enough for a new-to-Linux user - it simplifies LOTS of stuff in the interest of newbie usability, yet packages, services, etc can be added / run as needed once one has learned how to get around in the system..

#

Heaven forbid, you could just download the ISOs and get it for $0.00 (+ bandwidth costs + time)

My $0.02

#

the question is - is this really true?

#

Those instructions you mentioned are only for Windows and only if you have their viruskiller.
There is no information on how to remove that virus from a linux system. Maybe they removed that information...

Mike

#

Maybe someday someone will write a virus that can log into your Linux system as root and really mess it up.

You allow remote root logins? :-)

#

Can you say "infected rootkit"? That is the only really worrisome scenario.

#

uhh... if you're infected by a rootkit, a lame fixed code virus would be the last thing to worry about.

#

I think there are many people running as superuser. Most of the users I know are doing it. I even know a firm doing it.

#

Huh?

You hang out in some odd circles, my friend. You're not from Elbonia, by any chance, are you?

Or are you just talking about W2K users logged in as "Administrator"?

#

I used to do it myself when I was a newbie. In windows 9x you're used to being root and doing anything you want to, and when you then land on linux and are limited in what your user can do, and his limited powers don't allow him to do something you need him to do, and you don't know how to grant him those powers, then the logical conclusion is to go run as root, because "everything works, so what could be wrong with it?".

And ofcourse, because everything works you're not likely to learn more about your system, so you can eventually run as a regular user. You only learn things when it doesn't work. That's why I like the approach taken by gtk (some versions) and xchat. Refuse to run if run as root. Force users to run as a regular user.

#

Mandrake has a minor fit if you try to log in as root (to KDE or Gnome), and makes you click past some pretty dire warnings, and gives you an ominious red background. Pretty effective in helping prevent random stupidity :)

#

till some lame win-user hops on your favorite newsgroup and asks why he cant change the background for root in kde/mandrake.

ready the flame-throwers!

#

Then they're idiots - there are enough warnings out there splashed all over the docs for every distro I've ever seen warning people not to run as root. And a firm doing it? Are they publicly quoted? Only I want to know so I can make sure I don't have any of their shares in my portfolio.

#

They're not necessarily idiots. I always run as susperuser on my workstation. Call it lazy (I call it efficent), but I'm always changing stuff that I need root access for and I can't be bother su'ing all the time.

So there is a tiny chance you could run a trojan (if you're stupid enough and judging by the amount of virii stopped by my email server alot of people are) that would fsck up your system.

Don't know about you but the greatest threat to the ongoing health of my workstation is me.
Upgrading and trying new bleeding edge kernels/software.

Not being logged in as root is not going to change that as I'd still being installing/breaking stuff. The only change would be that I'd have to su to do it which would p1ss me off.

#

You only need to run su once. Open an xterm, su to root, and just leave it open as root to do all of your admin stuff. This is still much more secure than doing a full login as root, for a trivial number of extra keystrokes...

#

I wanna sell their stock short ASAP.

#

You are right.

But I generally work as a root because I am the only user in my system & generally do not have important data still I get lots of protection . In my environmet main source of virus in floppies .

In linux I mount it if there is viru I see some garbage files I only take the needed files ( most of the time text files & C & C++ sources) so very low chance of infection

I generlly do not log as differnet use beacuse in that case I have to type the root password again & agian to do things.

#

ack.

I post that previous reply, and *THE* *VERY* *NEXT* *POST* *PROVES* *THE* *OTHER* *GUY* *RIGHT*.

thtpth....

my apologies to whoever i previously replied to. mea culpa...

you on the other hand... do yourself a favor and learn "su", or better yet "sudo"

#

You should find out what it is you do as root so often. If it is mounting something as root, you don't have to. You can make regular users mount stuff. Either by explicitly allowing anyone to mount and unmount a disk volume in /etc/fstab (read the fstab manpage for the "user" option). Or you can use sudo to allow users of your choice to mount specific volumes. For example, on a server of mine I often need to access the floppy drive as myself, but I don't want to allow floppy drive access to anyone, so I made an /etc/sudoers file that specifically allows this, and now when I type "sudo mount /floppy" it mounts the floppy. Through sudo you can make a regular user run any command you can run as root.

If you need access to files you otherwise wouldn't have access to, but don't want everyone to have access to, learn about groups. You can add a directory and all the files in it to a specific group (with "chown root.groupname files". And then add yourself to this group (differs in each distro), and type, as root, "chmod g+rwx files" to allow yourself full access to these files as a regular user. Obviously if you're doing this left and right of the filesystem there's something wrong with your approach. This isn't something you should be doing often.

Lots of distro's also add specific functions to groups. On my distro of choice, debian, access to sound, floppy and serial is all handled by adding yourself to a group.

#

Hi

You are asking for it - sooner or later. There must be a way for you to do what you do without running the whole thing as root. I compile and install software, cook new kernels etc without running it all as root. I alway "su " or "su -c" when I need to , or else I open up a terminal window and su to root then keep that up while I'm working i.e when I need to be root constantly.

You definitely want to think off changing some habits

cheers

emk

#

...thus a Linux virus becomes a darwinian selection mechanism: Stupid enough to run habitually as root when performing non-administrative tasks? Thank you for playing, goodbye.

#

man sudo

#

You can always install sudo. Saved me from endless 'su' commands. Besides, you can accidentally destroy the system by running as root all the time.

#

What if you accidently hit the Enter after typing "rm -fr /", before you could continue typing the path?
There goes your whole system.
I know too many people who did this.

#

I have been running as root since 1957 and haven't had a problem yet.

#

Hi,
I don't think we should be glad too fast. As Linux becomes more popular, it will get a more interesting target for virus-writers.

  If you read a bit about what some people do to the poor kernel (stealth mechanisms), I wonder we didn't see any 'good' viruses yet. This may soon become very nasty.

  And if all people on Linux think: "not us", it will get even more nasty. So, let's take care, and don't laugh too fast!

greets

ineiti

#

Hope Google cache this post, it might go down on their list of historic events in 5-10 years' time!

#

If popularity were the determining factor, Apache would be dead in the water and IIS would be the secure bet. But, that isn't how things work. Most hackers aim for the target they are certain they can take down. IIS gives them that guarantee but they don't have that certainty with Apache or Linux.

Moreoever, Linux boxen tend to get patched so, even if a vulnerability is found, the window of opportunity slams shut pretty quickly. Yet I am STILL getting hits from Code Red and Nimda in my log files ... indicating that more than a year after the patches for those were released, there are still plenty of unpatched Windows boxen.

MSFT made it so any idiot could operate a a computer. And they do.

#

Hmm,
isn't this also the goal that we work towards? Making that even a complete computer-nerd can use the system? Having a complicated system doesn't mean it's good, IMO. It should be easy to use. And I think that KDE, GNOME and others go into this direction. Wait for KWord being able to execute VisualBasic ;-)

Ineiti

#

"...isn't this also the goal that we work towards?."

I hope not. Remember easy is relative. An airline pilot may think a 757 is easy to fly or a surgeon may think removing an appendix is easy. But trying to make those two things easy enough for Joe Streetcorner to do is probably counter productive.

I hope Linux stays hard enough that you actually have to learn something for it to become easy. For example learn the difference between root and regular users, how to turn services on or off and why, that you shouldn't have any old file executable and how to comprehend and act on waring dialogs, not just click OK or RUN.

emk

#

I don't think linux boxes on the desktop get patched so easily. I remember running across an article where they did scans and found an alarming amount of wide-open linux machines on broadband isp's networks.

Most people I know that use windows can't even be bothered to use windows update. It's in the start menu, They have to click maybe 4 times to get their machine updated, but even that is too much work, and too complicated. Now, if regular users do get to run linux at some point, it better secure itself, or otherwise it'll get just as messy as windows with regards to security, because the number of security reports for your average linux distro isn't lower than the unmber of security reports for your average windows distro. And, yes, I know linux comes with more apps than windows and therefore it's logical that is has so many security exploits, but that's not the point. Installed == exploitable. End-users do full installs. So end-users get all of the security holes.

Luckily, making an OS that secures itself isn't that hard. Debian's apt-get can already be configured to administer itself security-wise (put only the security.debian.org sources in your sources.list and run "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" every night from cron with the message level turned to paranoid, and you're set).

It's a shame that no distro is actually doing this. I wonder why.

#

Liability. IF they do it auto and screws up your system it's their fault. If you go pass all the click throughs it's your fault.

#

I remember running across an article where they did scans and found an alarming amount of wide-open linux machines on broadband isp's networks.

This is not nearly as true as it used to be. As a prime example, a default install of RH 6.2 was downright SCARY, but a default (workstation) install of RH 7.2 is very tight, including a very restrictive firewall.

I think that the real issue is that Linux distros were very much aimed at server installs until, say, 18 months ago. Since the problem of oodles of unsecure, out-of-the-box installs sitting on cablemodems came to light it has been pretty well addressed by most distros.

-Peter

#

I've been hearing this exact same arguement for years. Linux's popularity has been increasing, but then number of viruses has not (in any statistically significant way *).

Why is it so hard to belive that a system that has a huge number of ongoing security and reliablity issues is genuinely more suceptible to viruses than one that, at least in comparison, isn't? (Remember that windows 95 was commercially available for, what, two and a half years before anyone even realized that there was a bug that made it impossible for it to stay up for more than nintey days or whatever it is).

-Peter

* As a simple common sense check to this statement, if the one known virus for Linux came out in '99 would you draw the conclusion that Linux's increased popularity made it less of a target to virus authors?

#

Most Linux newbies tend to think that their system is supposed to be like Windowz, and therefore want access to all aspects to their system, therefore, they tend to habitially be root. Believe me, a lot of people, despite a lot of advice, run their Linux boxes as root.

#

And a lot of people change lanes without signaling or let their tetanus vaccinations lapse or even flirt with a married person. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I run as an unpriveleged user and su as needed ... then exit root as soon as I am done playing deity. If nothing else, it minimizes the chance that I will do anything that is both incredibly stupid and totally unrecoverable.

#

Amen to that. If I had to say what tool and what two options are the most dangerous in the entire unix world, I would say "rm" and "-rf".

Once I even erased two months work from the programming team I was in (in university), without there being full backups. Luckily we had been working on it at home, so we managed to piece most of it together and lost only a week's worth.

#

Most of those root users never have the joy of seeing how freaking fast rm -rf /* is. After doing that twice by accident I never ran as root again. All it took was a missing dot and diaster!

#

The beauty is that because there are no hidden files, it is easy for anyone who can follow simple instructions to locate and delete anything in their system that doesn't belong.

Say what? There are plenty of hidden files on a linux box. What do you think the .whatever files are? That's why they don't show up in a standard ls. You have to specifically tell it to show hidden files with an ls -la. Assuming you haven't aliased ls of course. These same files don't show up by default in Konqueror or Nautilus either unless you tell them to show hidden files.

And then there's the issue of running as non-root. If you aren't root, there may very well be files that are set to rw------- (I think I got that right) so that only the files' owners can see them and write to them. You shouldn't be able to see what is in another user's area. Which means the machine you access could very well have a virus on it and there's no way you can find it or delete it because you don't have the rights to see that area of the server. Or your home machine if you share your home pc with other users.

#

You're stupid.

#

Dot-files are normally not shown, that's true.

However, the file permission bits only determine whether you can read the contents of a file, write to it or execute it. Even if I have neither, I can still see the file in the directory listing.

(However, you get bonus points if you know how a directory that you only have _execute_ premission for behaves - and why)

#

I forget the exact permissions set up, but it is possible to give people read/write permission to a directory but not do a file list of the directory. I know, because I accidentally did that. I believe that what I did was to accidentally remove the x flag from the directory, but I'm not sure. I fixed it by reassigning the correct rights. Never claimed to be an expert though.

#

You're able to change to that directory ("execute" it), but you can't get a file listing ("read" it) or create a file in it ("write" to it), or anything like that. You *can*, however, read files you have read permission for while you're in that directory.

I found that one out because I've got shell access to a site where I maintain a website, and I have my home directory set with permissions 0701 (- rwx --- --x) - allows me to play with the content, and allows folks with webbrowsers to see my site, and allows nothing from other folks with shell access to that server who get nosy (since all users are put in the "users" group on that server).

Gimmie them bonus points! :D

#

That's almost it. Except users could upload and change existing files and upload new files. They could cd into the directory from the parent and they could cd into sub-directories. And they could read the files if they knew the exact path and file name.

#

Have you even heard of the su command?

#

Yeah, I've heard of su. But then you are running as root, and the point of the sentence was that ordinary users (i.e., not root) could delete any file and that ordinary users, again, not root) could see all the files.

If you use su or sudo, you've just made a run around the point of the sentence.

#

Quote:
"And then there's the issue of running as non-root. If you aren't root, there may very well be files that are set to rw------- (I think I got that right) so that only the files' owners can see them and write to them. You shouldn't be able to see what is in another user's area. Which means the machine you access could very well have a virus on it and there's no way you can find it or delete it because you don't have the rights to see that area of the server. Or your home machine if you share your home pc with other users."

Yup! Not only that, but since those files have the permissions of their owner, they can't affect you - thus there can be a virus and you won't know it because IT WON'T AFFECT YOU.

That's kinda the point, actually.

For info on actually changing permissions, try man chmod and man chown. RTFM, folks.

#

I know several people that run as root all the time. Also, Lindows runs as root all the time. Guess you're wrong.

#

wow.... if you know that many ppl that run root all the time, then you associate with morons. therefore, you must also have those characteristics, otherwise you would all have nothing in common. i suggest finding new friends.

the_xao

#

Wow... From my experience, and just the replies on this article, about half of the people I encounter log in as root. Does that make half of the linux population morons?

#

if you always run a unix as root, yes you are a moron. ...it's that simple. nevermind your potential of being hacked, a simple 'rm -rf' will destroy your box.

#

If you run as root you're not necessarily a moron. You're obviously too simple to realise there are actually different situations and differently skilled people using linux.

For example a good reason for always running as root is if its your home machine that you use for playing and if "rm -rf /" is not a command you are likely too run (because you're not stupid) and/or if something like that did happen you wouldn't care because it would give you an excuse to rebuild you machine/try a new distro.

#

Yes.

#

For all those admin who can't stop users from openning file attachments might think.
"Great so under Unix all I have to do is prevent users from running root... hah fat chance.."

Really?

You can password protect root so they can't log in... a good idea anyway..
Or you can lock down root so the only way in is by using an emergency disk...

also removing su and setting it so it starts up the user account automaticly (bypassing root)

The real problem with e-mail viruses are...
1. They aren't really viruses.. there may be a virus containned inside but it's a worm.. Unix is effected by worms but only on the short term..
2. "Do you really want to do this?" Oh come on try explainning how openning file attachments could be dangerous when the operating system makes it so easy to do...
It's called bad planning... The feature should be removed.

Super user is diffrent... if you don't tell the user it exists they won't even know.
If you tell them not to access it they won't do it by mistake..
If they presist and try anyway they'll have to hack in...

If he is successful... drag him into the back room... and get him to improve security so somebody else dosen't.

#

I thought I remembered reading that the Sharp Zaurus runs in root mode all the time. Unfortunately, this is a device which is also designed to be in frequent intimate contact with M$ boxes via syncing. Too bad if it's true... :-(

#

Yea, That is my main grudge with it at the moment..
But then, it *is* a pda, not some multiuser server. ;)

#

Yuck. Imagine a virus with all the newest exploits enclosed though.. it could almost surely get root =(

#

would you be very disappointed if i told you that it is quite easy to remove the typical windows virus without expensive anti-virus software?

And if i went on to tell you that instructions on how to do this are usually quite widespread on the internet, often even on the anti virus software manufacturer's websites?

..i am i no way flaming, i am not claiming that windows is more secure or something like that - i dont believe this. but please, before writing stuff like this get informed a little bit better the next time. thanks.

thanks anyway for the nice humourous article! :)

#

I have to agree with this guy, because I've often followed these simple instructions:

Reinstall your operating system.

Easy to understand, easy to follow.

#

Better yet, upgrade from Windows to Linux.

#

I also have to agree with this guy. I have spent days removing windows virus and worms with free software and instructions. Just last week I downloaded the free Klez tools and spent an evening cleaning out and reinstalling software on my GFs computer.

If I did not demand my systems to be ready, up and running I might also use windows:)

#

I am a former Windows 2000 user that recived a virus via Outlook. I was very comfortable with the fact that I had Norton antivirus and it was always good about catching virues that came in my email. I got over confident, and didnt think twice about my email. Till that one day when I recived an email which looked like it came from someone I knew, I open the email up and it was empty, what didnt dawn on me was that it ran the virus in the background and Norton didnt catch it because I was "behind" in my virus signiture updates, and when I say behind I mean I was 2 days behind. After updating Norton and running a scan it had informed me that most of my files on my computer had been infected and not even the "free" tool that Norton had provided would clean the virus totaly off my system and I was left with no other way to bring the system back but to format and start over. It was at that point that I wondered if they antivirus companies couldnt protect me nor help me recover from an infected system, I shouldnt put any trust in anything they had to say nor should I be running an OS that is so easily taken out by a virus, so I wandered over to my local Best Buy and bought a copy of Red Hat 7.2, having read that Linux was almost immune to virues just as long as you didnt run root. And ever since Ive been a happy Linux user and virus free. THANK YOU LINUX!!!

#

I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying technology.

I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate Linux into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.

I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise" environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the Linux boxes.

Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.

As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows 98/NT/2K are your only choices.

thank you.

#

what about QNX?

#

Yes, and we all believe you, of course...NOT! Actually, as FUD goes this is pretty poor. If I was your boss at Microsoft I'd have you write this up again: it is so obviously a pack of lies that it won't convince anyone. Or perhaps you are just a moron.

#

I also have done this same thing, except since I'm not a "VB Coder" (people who think VisualBasic is a real/decent programming language) everything worked fine for me. I currently have 20 different companies running Linux servers that have not once required my attention for any kind of failures.

(On a side note, my Linux servers, which are running Slackware, replaced Windows 2000 servers is almost every case too!)

Another thing, as a rule of thumb most projects ending in an odd version should not even be expected to be very stable, these tend to be the more experimental releases.

Also, I'm certian that ReiserFS (a journaled filesystem that makes NTFS look like a joke) has been in the Linux kernel since at least 2.4.5

And now to the C coder bashing...all that I am going to say is, "How portable is Visual Basic code?" -- I rest my case.

--1337

#

Uhh, folks, I think this is supposed to be humourous. Quite dry actually.

#

If "Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it" please explain why: Apache has 70% of the total web server market, including Yahoo, Google (100% linux, BTW) and Amazon.com? Why has the Gartner Group recommended its' subscribers who use internet-connected IIS servers "seriously consider" moving to another OS until MS can "completely rewrite" IIS?

At the compnay where I work (10,000+ employees, $22B USD annual sales) IIS isn't even ALLOWED into production without a month-long security audit and that's just fon internal sites. IIS is not allowed for external use at all. We do use a Windows (2K) proxy server, but it's about to be history b/c it introduces so much latentcy out ASP (that's Application Server Providers) apps break. We are NOT anti-MS - we have thousands of NT & 2K servers - just not any serving web apps.

If you've ben consulting so frickin' long, you should know that you fit the right tool for the right job. Using Linux effectively CAN be done - ppl do it all the time - YOU just can't do it...

#

Actually...
Google uses GWS on GNU/Linux and Yahoo! uses Apache on FreeBSD

#

Come on people, this is obviously a joke ("Egg Trolls's Experience"?). Stop taking this seriously.

#

Funny :)

#

[...]

Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with some level of stability.

[...]

Ehmm... Linux supports SMP, there are more than one journaled file systems (e.g. ext3).

In my office after a week of pain with Active Directory and Win2k Server, we
decided to shut it off and install Linux instead with Samba.

When I hit the ENTER key at format
confirm request, we opened a bottle of good wine :-)))

Bye

#

Damn I hate fud!
Maybe this is a joke - but many people are STUPID. And they WILL believe stuff like this.
This document is lies on lies on lies. Some of the things turn over to joke, but people who doesn't knows linux won't notice.
Lets take 'em from beginning:
'I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1'
Why would you do that? 3.1 is still under development.
There are things called DISTRIBTUTIONS, they have compiled every program you need for you. And they have tested that they work?
So why do you waste your time compiling programs, when the job is done for you? And the only chance is that your system will be more unstable.

'2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing'
The kernel should only crash if there is a bug in the kernel or the drivers. NOT if any programs crash!
And Apache IS the most popular webserver, and it is stable as hell.
Bind has also been tasted for what 30 years?

Your problem could be a really weird network card or other hardware problems.
You have probably also used the most bleeding edge kernel, and NOT the old thorougly tested (by being used) kernels.
Again, use a distribution instead of mixing your own, then you also have the commerciel fallback that you say Free Software lacks.

'Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support'
This is just funny :/
The Linux kernel supports all of it, but the NT kernel doesn't even got a journaled filesystem yet!

FUD can really be annoing! And people get to hear the one with the biggest marketing machine, which is NOT the Open Source movement.

#

You are obviously a FAGGOT who loves to shag SHEEP!!

how else can i describe you?

For a start why use gcc 3.1?? its has LOADS of compatibility problems and you must have you head in the sand to think that the very latest kernel to be compiled into a server pool without extensive tests before hand can work 100% perfect!


Thats why Open/GPL Source is so good because it gets fixed and they tell you thats theres a fix. NOT like microsoft, whereby they wait for you to search they're website for any bugs and after hours/days of searching you MAY find a small application that fixes it MAYBE, IF your lucky!

Use an earlier (fixed kernel version) and dont use gcc 3.1 unless there is good reason to. If using linux as a server, there is no reason for it. Apache is the best HTTP server i have ever come across!


Scott

#

Good GOD what is the matter with people these days? Is _everyone_ completely satire-impaired? Looking at the other replies to this post just makes me want to bury my face in my hands and cry out of frustration. Only ONE person seems to have managed to grasp that the posting is supposed to be humorous. But then again, I guess sometimes its hard to tell. I thought the following article was just being humorous:

http://adequacy.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/1/28 / 13530/133

But the responses to this post obviously proves that the adequacy.org article was simply a statement of plain fact.

#

It's not Windows fault you're such a moron. If you kept your software updated, you wouldn't have gotten the virus. I have been using Windows since 3.x, I have never run virus scanning software and have never had a virus.

If you get a virus, you are an idiot.

#

Well, the big problem with relying on anti-virus software like that is that it cannot detect a virus until after it's been out for a while and becomes well known - much like a real biological virus, you can't concoct a cure for it if you don't even know it exists yet.

It's amazing how much stock people put in such useless software that can only fix the problem after the cat's out of the bag. The right solution is a generic one that finds what viruses tend to do in general, not one that uselessly greps for known patterns of obsolete viruses.

For example, a firewall that blocks or at least reports odd network activity you didn't expect to be having is a lot more useful than an anti-virus tool for finding unauthorized servers on your system. And NOT BEING DUMB ENOUGH to adopt an office worlplace culture of opening attachments in e-mail as part of the normal workday. The reason e-mail trojans (not technically viruses) are so successful is because too many Windows shops have built up a culture where double-clicking attachments from officemates is the NORMAL way to operate each day. If Human Resources wants to send a survey to everyone they send it as a Word .doc file even though it's just a list of a few questions that would work better as a dumb text message. Official announcements, and whatnot get sent as Word documents, or Excell spreadsheets, for NO BLOODY REASON. This *trains* office workers to automatically open attachments because they can't do their job without opening them. Even the technically knowlegable ones that know better get in the habit because they have to do it several times a day as part of their job. And this is also why MS will never fix the problem. The way to fix it is to take a feature away that MS needs as part of their plan for continued workplace domination. Stop the culture of sending Office attachments all over the place and you also stop one of the main reasons for getting everyone in the office to standardize on having to run Windows.

#

> The right solution is a generic one that finds what viruses tend to do in general, not one that uselessly greps for known patterns of obsolete viruses.

..if they're so obsolete, why do the Keep Showing Up?!?...

#

If only you had not been logged into Windows 2000 as Administrator (like most people do unfortunately), if only you had taken the time to enforce the security options Windows 2000 has to offer, this virus would have caused considerably less damage on you.

Unfortunately, I guess AV softwares are not fool-proof...

#

Why can't Nerds tell Halloween from boxing day?

Because 31(hex) == 25(dec)!!!
LOL!

gotcher nose!

#

Boxing Day is 26(dec). I guess you're an American. (Then again, so am I, but I travel a bit.)

#

Not only is December 25 Christmas, not boxing day, but what you really meant was

31(oct) == 25(dec)

If you use hex its 49 not 25.

#

So, looks like Linux users are getting more and more jealous and frustrated by the successfull OS that is Windows.

They look at Windows and say to themselves : "Boy that's a crappy OS, yet we're unable to create something as attractive, easy-to-use, featurefull and with as much appeal as Windows" and so they go back to there old bashing techniques.

I used Linux for about five years but switched to BSD about a couple of months ago. I got tired of this Linux kiddie community.

#

Maybe you should try a different distribution. I didn't notice that any kiddie community came with my base Slackware install :-)

#

Somewhat interesting point, however I wouldn't necessarily argue that BSD is wholly a more "attractive, easy-to-use, featurefull" OS. On some levels its certainly better (binary compatability) than linux on others it is worse (hardware support, at least on x86). Calling the linux community a "kiddie community" is foolish. Its like calling all the people that use windows a "kiddie community" or stating that all the people that live in a nation one thing or another. Stereotypes are stupid, use whatever OS gets the job done.

#

Hmm, so you ditched an OS purely because of some loud minority associated with it? I chose Linux for operational characteristics, and you find "kiddie"s in any community.

#

Nah!

Had one tell me that killall was unique to Linux, another reason thst Linux sucked. On "real" Unices it kills the system. Yay. What about kill -9 1? Is that so hard to type? (-:

Turns out that being a zealot is a full-time losing game. Irix and several other Unices have exactly the same killall command.

BSD's not so bad after all, once you've tarted it up to look like Linux. (-:

#

They make products that are necessary.
Many users run Windows out of necessity.
When:

          Quark

          Illustrator

          Quickbooks

          AutoCAD

          etc. etc.
are ported to Linux, this will no longer be the case.

In the interim, quit making snide remarks about the AV companies - it's nothing more than trolling.

#

      Quark

      Illustrator

      Quickbooks

      AutoCAD

      etc. etc.

Y'know, you could almost stop there. Throw in PhotoShop (soon to be aced by GIMP2) and a decent art drawing package and that would do over 90% of my Windows holdout customers.

Find a reliable way to port VB+Access/MS-SQL code across to something like Python/PHP+PostgreSQL and it's game over. The Internet will treat Microsoft as a link failure and route around it.

#

Please stop flaming harmless trolls. We are a peaceful people.

#

"so it looks like the old dream of Linux eventually overtaking Windows and becoming the world's most popular operating system will never come to pass."

I think i can speak for a lot of people on this one and say, THANK GOD!

#

This is a lovely satire, and it really does promote Linux and related OSes in a clever way.

What is sad for me is that articles like this popped-up every six months in the heyday of the Mac/PC Cold War... and it didn't work for us, either.

In my humble opinion, an OS that is free from viruses should be usable by the people most succeptible to viruses-- regular consumers. On that count, the Mac still beats "let me just compile this, one sec" OSes like Linux. After all, if you can comfortably configure and smoothly run a linux box, chances are you can deal with a little virus.

#

I have trouble understanding why people like Windows in the first place, but obviously there's a masochism component to their strange love,



If you really want to see how masochistic these people are, check out <A HREF="http://annoyances.org/">annoyances.org</a annoyances.org>, Just the fact that they would name a website dedicated to Windows users like this shows how sad their lives must be. I guess windows users just have to whine about all their probelms and hope that some day their supreme master will fix them. The most ironic thing is that it's hosted on a UNIX server running Apache I guess the web masters can't stand too many annoyances.




Symantec's instructions on how to remove the Linux version of Simile.D are easy to follow if you suspect your box has been infected, and you don't need to buy any special software from Symantec (or anyone else) to follow




The fact that they have a screenshot of the virus strengthens the suspicion that Anti-virus companies probably write the majority of the viruses. I guess the growing share of Linux users is making them have to try to break into the Linux Market.

#

Oh look - someone came out from under their bridge.

"Just the fact that they would name a website dedicated to Windows users like this shows how sad their lives must be"
Surely someone who thinks they are so intelligent must be able to see they've insulted users too?

"and hope that some day their supreme master will fix them"
Kinda like Linus with Linux? Oh no, thats not fair! We can use the 100's of hotfixes and service packs against windows, but you're not allowed to mention the thousands of kernel revisions!

"The fact that they have a screenshot of the virus strengthens the suspicion that Anti-virus companies probably write the majority of the viruses"
Wow! Since you're so busy telling us how knowledgeable you really are, you've opened your mouth so wide as to put your foot in it. Since you're into being so incredibly dumb, why not campaign to release the Melissa writer? It's a conspiracy i tell ya.....

#

Oh look - someone came out from under their bridge.


Go back under the bridge and bait the hook a little better.

#

As funny as this is, I can't help but think that if Linux had even half the installed base of non-computer literate users, we might be just as plagued with viruses.

Even w/o running virus protection software, I've never, ever, been infected by a virus on a Windows system. All it takes is a little caution. And, under Linux - just because something doesn't have root doesn't mean it can't do bad things. Deleting all your user files comes to mind.

Gee, if you're getting over a 100 Klez mails a day, why don't you let all your friends who are running Windows (aparently) know about it so that they can fix their systems? Only way you be getting Klez in your inbox is if someone has you in their addressbox. And that addressbook must be for Outlook or Outlook Express...

So while the Viruses are funny, I don't think Linux is the panacea for them.

#

Don't run binaries you download from the net...

or, if you do test them, do so in a user account with a chroot jail for testing...

The problem is that sooner or later something will be run as root (if you install programs as root) and then infection might begin - but that's only a possible scenario if something common (like make or bash) gets infected on your system.

Other than that, there's an easy solution:

Don't run binaries -- build everything from source...

:)

#

Building from source is not always the answer. there have been a couple of incidences recently when the source has contained a trojan.

#

Well, what I think he meant was that compiling from source dramatically reduces the chance, not eliminates it. You see, when you release the source, and have your name and contacts written all over it, and it was found that the code was actually a trojan, you're sunk. Of course the code may have mailicious parts to it, and it may be impractical go over all the code yourself, so, download source from credited sites, and get it from places that you trust, and make sure that it has some sort of indentification as to who made it.

Of couse, I agree there is no way to compeltely eliminate the threat, but compiling from source really reduces the chance of it happening.

#

My take. PC's are more like cars these days than high tech equipment. You shouldn't expect users to know how to remove the spark plugs so someone can't steal thier car. Likewise I don't expect users to know how to su or the like to do normal stuff, like install a app. If Linux was so secure it wouldn't matter who I login as! Now I hate M$'s licensing, but they at least understand not everyone is an engineer. When Linux is as wide spread as Win32, I would expect the same amount of worm/virus activity. Linux is more secure if you know what you're doing, so is Win2K. I support both, administration is MUCH easier using a GUI and without having to use my c++ skills.

#

"If Linux was so secure it wouldn't matter who I login as!"

The thing about that is, you can't argue against something you don't understand. Obviously, you don't understand how Linux and UNIX systems work. It is obvious that Linux has a strict system of permissions that every user, except for root, must follow. Login as a regular user, and try to delete every single file on your system. You can't do it, can you? (that is, unless you changed EVERY file on your systme to be owned by that user) Root is the superuser, and therefore, these permissions are lifted to allow for more freedom, much less security, which is somewhat of a tradeoff. Of course, we can just get rid of root, and make it so that Linux is 'secure' by your definition, but we gotta administrate our system some way, right? So, that is why root should ONLY be used for system maintainance, repair, and upgrade, and ONLY when you know what you're doing.

In Windowz, EVERYONE is root. That is one of the reasons why Windowz boxes get hacked into SO easily, and get infected by viruses so easily.

#

I disagree, Win32 is hacked because the people running it are idiots or they can't apply patches. Not because you are /. I understand how Linux works, but the article in question assumes that everyone else does to. To say Linux is more secure, but you have to know what you are doing. Is different than it is more more secure than Windows. You have to know what you are doing on any system or its not going to be secure, I don't care what OS you reference. The majority of the worms/virus lately did what any user would be allowed to do on their system(send emails,delete files,connect to other systems). The others where attacking known fixed exploits. Which by the way, Linux is not immune to. I went on vacation a couple years ago, new patch came out for bind, didn't get applied until I(the only person who understands Linux) got back. In that week, my DNS server had been comprimised and had to be destroyed. My point was nothing is secure unless you make it, and most people can't make it. You have to give them(90% of end users) something they don't have to understand. Eventually it will be that way.

#

Well, one day I found a "virus", just a simple kernel module. But, if someone is watching what is he running it is almost impossible to install virus in Linux, I think. The most fun part is that this "kernel virus" was a pretty joke, which simply displayed a message and rebooted (normally halted) you system. WHAT A VIRUS, WOW.
klopsix@poczta.onet.pl - If you have any comments.
Tomasz Wójcik - Slack 7.1

#

Thank you! At last someone has addressed this long standing fault of linux. I suggest a moritorium on all new kernel development until a propper set of virus enabling "Securifty features" (for non Dilbert readers, Bugs) to be properly implemented. The script kiddie community would support this whole heartedly.

#

That thing that goes around logging in as root and messing up your system is called a worm, and *nix invented them long ago. (M$ did it better them with codered.)

#

heh Stupidity comes with the user not with the computer and if you don;t know how to install or how to protect your self from Viruses this whon;t be a help if you are useing root or other account.

#

Ok, so IM a newbie when it comes to linux, but I have been working with computers for a while now and believe that I know more than the average user.
Now, I know, and understand why, not to use root as a main user. And everyone who's saying that linux is safe only if your an expert, forget it, you dont need to be an expert, just use common sense.
My fiance is at the other end of the scale, uses the computer for yahoo mail and a little surfing, ut when I went to install linux on my box, she was asking me questions and such, so I explained what I knew. When I told her about root, how it can access anything and everything without pause, she said something to the effect of that causing problems with hackers...
Now, she doesnt know alot about computers, my point is that she had the common sense to realize this...thats all it takes...

#

All the Viruses that Windows boxes spread around are propagated because of ONE M$ program.....OUTLOOK! NO EMAIL PROGRAM should EVER send itself automatically to everyone in the address book, NEVER EVER. nuff said.

#

Publish the code and we´ll see what we´ll see.

#