The older versions had a few bugs. It's moved on. Grown up. Like a Young hooker. Still no viruses, but far better at it than Bill Gates wife.

dirtyharry said...

A bit OT but can one of you computer-savvy blokes explain something for me.

I think I understand what Linux is. And one of the main benefits of Linux over Windows that everyone seems to harp on about is the absence of viruses. So why does Linux not have viruses? Is it because there's some fundamental difference in the way it works compared to Windows that makes viruses not work? Or is it just because such a small proportion of users are on Linux that it's not worth virus makers making viruses for it?

If it's the latter, why does everyone who uses Linux keep trying to convert everyone else over to it? Won't that just ruin it by attracting the virus makers? Wouldn't you be better of shutting up about it? A bit like kite/wind surfers not trying to get everyone else into the sport because it'll stuff it up for those already into it by overcrowding everywhere?

So many questions!!

I hate Qantas.

My take on this is that there are two reasons that there appear to be no viruses for Linux.

The first is that the code is open source and thus open to criticism by a lot of people. This tends to discourage sloppy code and also allows other people to identify vulnerabilities and fix them. With vendor-proprietary code if the vendor is happy with it, then you have to use it and can't check it to see if there are any vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities only seem to show up in Microsoft code after someone has attacked it.

The other reason is that people tend to generate a anti-Microsoft attitude and write viruses for that reason. I agree that if Linux becomes more popular, more people will target it.

Often people say Macs never have viruses, but I think that is BS. Back in the 90's they definitely had viruses. Now Mac OS is based on a variant of Unix, so maybe it is less vulnerable as well, as it may have inherited stable/well written code.

I don't want to convert people to Linux, but as I tend to have to support machines for my parents, I would rather give them a version of Ubuntu that I use myself, feel better that it is less likely to get a virus, and it also seems to run better on slower hardware. The fact it is free is a bonus.

Windows has so many viruses mainly due to one reason, market share. Approximately 88% of computers surfing the web are running windows, if you're someone mucking around trying to hack stuff do you target the 88%, many of whom are idiots or the 1% of computers that run linux, most of whom are tech geeks given their choice of operating system? You go for the 88% every day of the week. Sure Windows, particularly the earlier versions are quite venerable to attack but at the end of the day it's a numbers game. It's also the same reason you don't see many for the Mac although imo that's rapidly changing, look at the big malware outbreak this week on OSx.

End of the day Windows and to a lesser extent OSx have the software, the marketing and the money behind them so Linux doesn't have a hope. A massive percentage of software and almost all of the games are written solely for Windows, until this changes Linux will continue to be the realm of Microsoft haters and those who like to 'tinker under the hood'; OSx the realm of hipsters.

What most people want is "Point and Click" which is what Windows delivers.

Are there any versions of Linux that do that?

dirtyharry said...

A bit OT but can one of you computer-savvy blokes explain something for me.

I think I understand what Linux is. And one of the main benefits of Linux over Windows that everyone seems to harp on about is the absence of viruses. So why does Linux not have viruses? Is it because there's some fundamental difference in the way it works compared to Windows that makes viruses not work? Or is it just because such a small proportion of users are on Linux that it's not worth virus makers making viruses for it?

If it's the latter, why does everyone who uses Linux keep trying to convert everyone else over to it? Won't that just ruin it by attracting the virus makers? Wouldn't you be better of shutting up about it? A bit like kite/wind surfers not trying to get everyone else into the sport because it'll stuff it up for those already into it by overcrowding everywhere?

So many questions!!

I hate Qantas.

Linux and Windows (and Mac OSX and OS/2 and UNIX and BSD and many more) are competing Operating systems (OSs), also sometimes called "environments". Think of a planet. The Earth provides an environment in which carbon-based life forms flourish. Things like oxygen, water, gravity, optimal temperature etc. Another planet might have a completely different environment, supporting, say, silicon based life forms - just an example. So, the life forms from each planet are exclusive to their own planet, although the life forms do all the same basic functions.
The OSs are the environments and the programmes (applications) you run are the life forms, hence mutually exclusive. We're not going into spacesuits (WINE or VirtualBox or any of the many others) here.

Viruses are no more or less than computer programmes written to do a (nefarious) task. Viruses are a Windows phenomenon for a few reasons:
1. Most of the real computer geeks hate M$ and Windows, primarily because of Bill Gates business ethics and the M$'s business model/ethics. Therefore they target Windoze.
2. Windoze' architecture is so badly flawed that it almost invites attack. To do the same to any Linux/unix (*nix) OS is very difficult and easily defendeded against. I will point out that Mac OSX is in fact a locked up copy of another free *nix OS called BSD - very Linuxy and that Mac hardware has been nothing but overpriced iNtel as per all PCs for many years now. (Macs are the greatest rip-off deception in computing to day. A free OS and garden variety PC architecture!)
3. Many/most of the dysfunctional geeks who write viruses are using a *nix OS to keep themselves safe.

Viruses are only 1 form of malware, and Windoze is vulnerable to all the others again because of it's flawed, archaic architecture. Windoze is also insecure, as it is easily cracked (you probably incorrectly use the term "hacked" for this). The *nix model is inherently secure, hence the reason that some form of *nix is used in nearly all mission critical systems the world over. Even M$'s home site servers run Linux, though they will report that they're using Windoze, and decent geek can get through that level of their obfuscation.

As for the conversion thingy; yep, it's true! They do. It's just one of those "passion" things I guess, Apart from wanting all to share the wealth. Why not? It;s free! Also, Linux is developed and maintained by the users, so the more users one can attract the better and quicker the development. Another benefit of it being a "user owned" system is that on the rare occasions when vulnerabilities are discovered the fix will posted on the net within hours (quite literally). With Windoze you have wait months (quite literally) for M$ to release a fix.

Any'ow, here endeth the lesson

EDIT: Just reading the several others who posted ahead of me, it's all good info. Linux is easier to install than any Windoze version that I've seen, 99.9% of them have an outstanding GUI interfaces. All (and more) of the fancy animated desktop effects released in Vista and 7 have been around in Linux for years longer. Don't get frightened off by those who've never seen Linux - try it for yourself. I'd suggest either Ubuntu (or Kubuntu - different GUI) or Mandriva.

dinsdale said...
I will point out that Mac OSX is in fact a locked up copy of another free *nix OS called BSD - very Linuxy and that Mac hardware has been nothing but overpriced iNtel as per all PCs for many years now. (Macs are the greatest rip-off deception in computing to day. A free OS and garden variety PC architecture!)

The Mac OS is hardly free. Sure Darwin is open source, but that doesn't give you any advantage over any other *nix distribution. Mac OS X sits on top of Darwin, and you have to pay for it ($39 for the latest version). What makes the mac sing is Apple's obsessive attention to detail and user experience. Their industrial design leads the field (they were the first to put USB on a desktop computer, for example, and they're doing it again with Thunderbolt).

There's a good reason that the iPhone has taken over the smartphone market -- and it's all to do with user experience. Apple make it easy to do what you want to do, without getting in the way.

I'm happy to pay the apple premium because my time is worth money. If I spend $500 more on a computer, that saves me 5 hours of frigging around (over the total lifetime of the product), then it's paid for itself.

If your time isn't worth money then perhaps windows or linux might be the way to go, but for this geek it's a no-brainer. Apple all the way

subasurf said...
As for installing Linux...it's pretty god damned simple. I don't really know how they could make it any easier. Your issue came from dual booting.
Want to know the real cool thing about Linux? Live discs. You can run it without even installing it. I can carry around an entire OS on a flash drive if I wanted ans boot it up on any PC/Laptop I go to.

Before I tried installing it as dual booting i first tried the usb method but it came up with an error during the install process saying the usb would not be bootable (and yes my laptop is capable of usb booting). I then tried booting off the cd, but that was slow as buggery. The main reason i was drawn to ubuntu was for the (apparent) quick bootup when only needing to surf the interweb.

I'm not computer illiterate, but i had at least 5 seperate problems when trialling ubuntu, however windows 7 has never given me a problem.

Windows web developer here and I made the switch to Ubuntu about a month ago (dual boot just in case of course) and I love it.
All my work for a Windows environment has always been done on virtual machines anyway, so I have an Ubuntu base and run one of several virtual machines running Windows Server on top of it.

I find Ubuntu not quite perfect, but it's easily matched the functionality I had in windows and, so far, all of the added programs have been free. The Unity gui that is the default on 11.04 is nice, I had a week or so on the Gnome gui with 10.10 and think I actually prefer Unity. My one gripe is that Thunderbird doesn't interface with Unity very nicely just yet (the email icon in the top right doesn't update), but I'm aware that it's early days.

So Ubuntu is more stable and less prone to viruses than Microsoft Windows.

So is a house brick.

A house brick is also just as good at running software like Photoshop or Fallout 3 as Ubuntu is.

nebbian said...

mattyjee said...

So Ubuntu is more stable and less prone to viruses than Microsoft Windows.

So is a house brick.

A house brick is also just as good at running software like Photoshop or Fallout 3 as Ubuntu is.

Unlike a house brick, however, Photoshop and Fallout 3 do run on the mac:

(had to be said )

Heard of wine? (not whine, wine)



Admitedly not easy to get running, but if you wanted to play windows games then why even bother with linux?

Count me in as one more who claims to be a specialist having worked in this business for umpty years
(have been Unix all of my working life, but also heavy involved in Windows - server side & kernel. So I don't lean either way.)

"lots of people still say its fantastic": that's normal. I'm looking for a car, and most Jetta driver say Jetta is good, and so on. It's a religion thing, can't reason with extremists (including me).

"great on server-side": yes, but I think poster meant for home-based PCs.

"virii": any OS would get them if they were widely spread as PCs, which plain Ubuntu isn't. I'll wait for some stable release of Ubuntu to get into serious market share, say 25% of desktop usage, before claiming it was solid. Said otherwise, if I were to develop a Trojan, I'd go for the %, which is Windows. BTW, never had a virus on Windows, after 20 years of heavy Web usage and downloading bible verses. Viruses seem to be related to users rather than OS... (same people getting them)

"vi": it's like steno, you like it or you don't. If you do: it does miracle with the pattern matching and all. I use on Windows as well for heavier texts.