Used Ubuntu for a few hours, deleted it

[akiratheoni]

Originally Posted by Quageschi

For smaller more niche markets open-source dominates, and hence Linux is great for those things.

Um... what about the server market? Google runs 450,000 servers all with GNU/Linux. Wikipedia runs 400 servers with (recently converted to) Ubuntu. The server market is dominated by GNU/Linux. IIRC 75% of the world's super computers run GNU/Linux.

Saying that linux is safer is a moot point, because if it were to gain more market share with non-tech savvy people, it would become just as vulnerable as windows.

That's the most common misconception and fallacy with GNU/Linux... that's assuming that GNU/Linux is built the same way as Windows. Certainly the number of viruses MAY increase, but even so, the damage wouldn't be as widespread as Windows'.

Read this article, it helps a lot in understand security with GNU/Linux vs. Windows: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10...dows_vs_linux/

[zeusy]

Originally Posted by akiratheoni

Certainly the number of viruses MAY increase, but even so, the damage wouldn't be as widespread as Windows'.

It depends on your definition of virus.
If you call most malware viruses, then there's already plenty of it for linux.
Let's take for example, joe, who has a LAMP server.

He assumes because it's running has a non-priviledged user, it's not of use to anybody.
Let's say joe has some php script on his site which is vulnerable to some form of code injection, the attacker uploads a php script, which he executes, the script looks for other vulnerable host, then infects them using the same method.
In this example, Joe thought because Linux is said to be secure, he can't have malware

Moral, no OS can protect itself against the stupidity of it's users, or make assumptions about the programs that runs on it.

Note: The Linux kernel is not to blame in this situation.

If the number users increase, the number of stupid users also increase.
If the number of stupid users increase, malware also increase, since it's relies on the same stupid users to infect other nodes.

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by zeusy

It depends on your definition of virus.
If you call most malware viruses, then there's already plenty of it for linux.
Let's take for example, joe, who has a LAMP server.

He assumes because it's running has a non-priviledged user, it's not of use to anybody.
Let's say joe has some php script on his site which is vulnerable to some form of code injection, the attacker uploads a php script, which he executes, the script looks for other vulnerable host, then infects them using the same method.
In this example, Joe thought because Linux is said to be secure, he can't have malware

Moral, no OS can protect itself against the stupidity of it's users, or make assumptions about the programs that runs on it.

Note: The Linux kernel is not to blame in this situation.

If the number users increase, the number of stupid users also increase.
If the number of stupid users increase, malware also increase, since it's relies on the same stupid users to infect other nodes.

...so if the kernel Linux is not an issue here, why are you talking about Linux?

Yes, the script is vulnerable. The code injected will run at the level of the script. To a hardened host, this means that now Joe's apache chroot is owned, and he can maybe execute the other PHP scripts and _maybe_ listen to the SQL socket. Oh noes. Joe should not have been an idiot about his script, and running a server with PHP script on it is nothing like what the "average home user" will do with GNU/Linux.

[zeusy]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

...so if the kernel Linux is not an issue here, why are you talking about Linux?

Yes, the script is vulnerable. The code injected will run at the level of the script. To a hardened host, this means that now Joe's apache chroot is owned, and he can maybe execute the other PHP scripts and _maybe_ listen to the SQL socket. Oh noes. Joe should not have been an idiot about his script, and running a server with PHP script on it is nothing like what the "average home user" will do with GNU/Linux.

It's an example, and you don't get my point.
My point is:

Originally Posted by zeusy

Moral, no OS can protect itself against the stupidity of it's users, or make assumptions about the programs that runs on it.

In other words, it's not because the Linux KERNEL can be trusted that other programs that runs on top of it cannot be used as a medium for the distribution of malware.

[zeusy]

Originally Posted by ataraxia

you should install arch.
I can guarantee that once you have it installed you will find it ridiculously easy to use and maintain. ^.~

Arch love.

[Akdor 1154]

@OP: out of interest, what's your graphics card? I thought the Restricted Drivers Manager came installed by default - wasn't it just a "yes I agree that closed source is bad, mmkay, now install the damn drivers"?

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by Akdor 1154

@OP: out of interest, what's your graphics card? I thought the Restricted Drivers Manager came installed by default - wasn't it just a "yes I agree that closed source is bad, mmkay, now install the damn drivers"?

You're quite right, and that's been around since 7.04, meaning since April of 2007.

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by Akdor 1154

@OP: out of interest, what's your graphics card? I thought the Restricted Drivers Manager came installed by default - wasn't it just a "yes I agree that closed source is bad, mmkay, now install the damn drivers"?

Didn't see anything like that, and its a 9600gt.

[Akdor 1154]

Maybe it's too new to be in Ubuntu's stock recognition lists. You should have at least done a system upgrade before throwing in the towel.
Yeah some cards are bitches to work with Linux, but traditionally the official nVidia support has been good. If you feel the need, you could go and bitch on the Ubuntu forums/launchpad, so they're aware of the problem and can work on fixing it (if it hasn't been already), at least.

-Jarrad