Posted on 03/17/2009 7:16:55 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Cool. I’ve always wanted a usable (nongeek-code gui) firewall on my Suse 11 box. I think I’ll give that a try.
I’m a self-trained Linux user. Most of the stuff I read on these computer engineer back-and-forths make my eyes glaze over. But I have enjoyed using Linux distros for more than a decade now.
Cool!
A hippy. An ACTUAL hippy!
I thought they all went away shortly after Jerry garcia passed away (RIP).
front-end
dpkg
Debian
deb files
binary packages
Perhaps if they are going to use it, they should learn something about it. A little due diligence goes a long way.
Any time I start to use a new tool (and yes--a computer is a tool), I try to learn about it so I can 1) use it properly 2) get the most out of it so I don't waste my money, and 3) not get hurt or hurt other people.
I don't know where this idea came from that my little ol' granny who can't fend for herself should be able to use a complex tool like a computer without any help, or knowledge. It's a bad idea and a bad way of doing things. Even a car, which is a simpler tool to operate, requires certification from the state in order to operate it. While the computer probably won't physically harm others, like a car can, it still requires knowledge, training, and skill to use properly.
Computers should be considered no different.
And yet they easily could be, because anyone who has ever installed software or drivers on OS/X knows that you never have to look at a command line for any reason. Apple puts a premium on abstracting away from the user any kind of underlying OS complexity. Microsoft tries to do that, but most applications have too many configuration options (mostly as a cheap attempt at allowing the user to limit the size of the installed software) and some vendors fall short with installation design. Some Linux distributions like Ubuntu also try, but Linux drivers and application software are still in the hands of people who like poking around under the hood, and don't see the need to make installations as easy as possible. After all, they understand it, so what's wrong with all those noobs out there who don't? ;)
That's not a virus, that's tricking a human to run a trojan. One can trick an old lady into giving up her ATM card and pin, and the location of her purse. That's doesn't make the security of a bank equivalent to her purse.
How do you think most malware gets onto a system in the first place? "Click this link!" "Read this e-mail!" "Watch this video!" The vast majority of malware on people's systems got there as a direct result of some unwitting action on the user's part.
Yes, the occasional virus pops up every now and then that exploits a genuine security hole in the operating system itself, or in a commonly installed package. If you think such holes only exist on Windows systems, you might want to patch your system.
But that's really not the point. It doesn't help to prove that desktop Linux is intrinsically more secure if you try to use semantics to limit the discussion domain. If you look at the malware that's out there in the wild right now, it got there largely by the user downloading a file or clicking a link. And if you clicked any of the above links in my previous paragraph, you've proven my point that clicking potentially dangerous links isn't restricted to naive Windows users.
I don't know what distro of Linux desktops the Brazilian kids or French parliamentarians are running. But if their users use web browsers with plug-in support, media players, rich email clients, office/productivity software, games, filesharing applications, or chat clients, then they're just as vulnerable to security compromises as any Windows system. Linux is not magic.
Well you got a response to a posting you made... I guess that could interpreted as such, I mean how often does something like thathappen around here?
How do you think most malware gets onto a system in the first place? "Click this link!" "Read this e-mail!" "Watch this video!" The vast majority of malware on people's systems got there as a direct result of some unwitting action on the user's part.
Right, your point is that a human being, with all their glorious gullibility is common to both Linux and Windows seats, and therefore neither system is more secure than the other. My point was that the human factor is silent as to whether one or the other is inherently more secure, since as I said, the same arguement could be used to say that purses and ATM machines are equivelent in security because an old lady could be easily tricked into giving access to either. Obviously the gullibility of the old lady doesn't establish that ATM's and purses are equivalent in security.
I'm not limiting the discussion, I'm rejecting the assertion that a human being's involvement establishes that one thing can't be more secure than another.
Didn’t Bill Gates patent 1s and 0s?
You have just pointed out exactly why Linux is not a viable desktop for most people.
You may be right, but I have a feeling that such is actually not so. Consider that the poster I responded to is an Ubuntu user but was completely unaware of how his packages got installed, or what tools did it. Now, I will admit that I am a bit surprised that such would happen, but that it does should indicate that not knowing anything about the system does not actually mean you cannot use it. Windows, for instance, uses binary files and has front-end tools, and many other applications with fancy names too, like MSCONFIG, but most people don't have to know them. The same is possible with Linux too, though less common I will grant.
YOU are the reason more folks aren't running Linux.
Wow, that seems harsh. Yes, I am shocked that the poster who was using Ubuntu did not know what apt is, but that doesn't mean I was mocking them or anything. I merely explained what it was.
I went back to look again. The arrogant superiority of the average Linux user is leaking out of your post.
I run Puppy on my laptop, because it is one of the few distros where you don't have to learn Linux to make it work on a basic level.
I go back to CP/M, so command line is not a foreign concept to me, but I don't have the time to teach myself Linux right now, and I know better than to expect help from experienced users.
The self titled "Saint Ignucious", whose organizations such as GNU own more copyrights to Linux operating system distros than anyone. He's also an outspoken Green Party radical leftist who often visits countries like Cuba and Venezuela to campaign against the United States.
Yep, Richard Stallman is sometimes kooky, but he has undeniably done great things. The free software movement is arguably due to him, and Linux certainly would not have taken off as it did without the GNU suite of applications. And I don't think it is too fair to criticize him for copyrights since he makes all of his software available to anyone, even to modify. As far as I am concerned Emacs alone is enough to make him worthy of admiration.
I went back to look again. The arrogant superiority of the average Linux user is leaking out of your post.
I certainly don't feel any such way about Linux or Linux users. I just prefer that OS as a matter of taste. I am certainly not geeky, and don't program or anything like that. Anything more demanding than a few lines in a shell script is more than beyond my ability. It seems more likely to me that you have a preconceived idea about Linux users, e.g. "arrogant superiority of the average Linux user...", and are seeing in my post what you would expect to see. Something like a self-fulfilling prophecy. But, believe me, I meant no such thing at all.
You pegged that one. I've probably been a /. reader for 10 years, I've tried playing with Linux for at least 5, and as I noted, Puppy is the only one so far that is generally user friendly (although I still can't get wireless to work on my laptop.). (The machine came with Vista, so I can always grit my teeth and use it if I need wireless).
I've probably been a /. reader for 10 years...
Well, there is that. Although, in all honesty, I don't think /. is very revealing of "average" Linux users. I have been using Debian for two or three years, and used Slackware for three or so before that, and have spent much of that time reading and posting in the usenet groups and mailing lists relevant to those distros. Those groups are composed of what I think would be common or average users of those distros, both of which are seen as less user-friendly than the likes of Ubuntu or the aforementioned Puppy, and I have rarely found any arrogance. As a matter of fact I am constantly amazed at the friendliness and helpfulness of the members of those communities.
Looks like we’re in a state of “violent agreement”, then. :) Naturally, the user is almost always the weakest link when it comes to a computer system’s security.
It is precisely because of this fact, that the security argument for widespread desktop Linux holds no water. The vast majority of malware gets onto users’ systems not because of technical flaws in those systems but because of naïve user actions. The whole point of advocating a wider spread of desktop Linux is to give these users Linux systems instead of Windows, but that changes nothing about the primary route of malware entry: the users themselves. Those users will be no less naïve whether they’re using Linux or Windows or Mac or SunOS or AIX. They’re still going to click that link or install that codec or run that executable.
There are many reasons to support and encourage the further development and more widespread adoption of desktop Linux. However, the belief that Linux is more secure, isn’t one of them.
Wacko leftists that actively go abroad to campaign against the US aren't worthy of any admiration in my book. And all's he's really done is create cheap clones of other, better products, anyway. Bottom line LOSER.
“How do you think most malware gets onto a system in the first place? “Click this link!” “Read this e-mail!” “Watch this video!” The vast majority of malware on people’s systems got there as a direct result of some unwitting action on the user’s part.”
I virus requires no human interaction (like code red and nimda for example). A trojan can contain a virus but unless the software self propagates without user intervention after that point its not a virus.
“it doesn’t help to prove that desktop Linux is intrinsically more secure if you try to use semantics to limit the discussion domain.”
Nor does it help to prove its not any more secure by muddling about with the proper terminology and setting up the straw man of ‘Linux people say its full proof’
I set up no such straw man. I don't need to. You don't claim it's foolproof, you claim it's more secure at all.
How exactly is desktop Linux intrinsically more secure than Windows, when the overwhelmingly predominant threat vector (the naivete of the desktop user) is the same across both system classes?
“I set up no such straw man. I don’t need to”
No you have not, but other have and often do. But you did hold up a hypothetical trojan which is more a social engineering attack than a virus as an example that Linux is just as insecure as windows.
“How exactly is desktop Linux intrinsically more secure than Windows, when the overwhelmingly predominant threat vector (the naivete of the desktop user) is the same across both system classes?”
Because if you want to use that measure than nothing is more or less secure than anything else. The example of a Piggy bank and an ATM someone used stands out. Because if you’re stupid people can get your money from an ATM a bank must be no more secure than a piggy bank. That is basically what you are saying.
That’s why the differences between a virus and a Trojan are important in this discussion. Code Red did not need any user interaction it just went everywhere *by its self* once on a network. There has never been such a virus for a *nix system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.