Why Attracting More Users to Linux Matters
Many decisions and opinions in the Linux world are justified by the idea that the decision will help attract new users to Linux, but why should anyone care at all if other people use Linux? KillaGeorge recently posed the question directly in response to a recent post, titled “A Simple Feature of Ubuntu 8.04 That Could Be So Important:”
“I always wondered why linux users are always trying to convert microsoft users. Whats the deal with that? Who cares what other people use. I use linux and i’m happy with it. If my friends dont want to use it then no sweat of my back. Who cares?”
The main reason for wanting more users to switch to Linux is that the more people use an operating system, the better it will be supported by hardware and software companies and, in the case of open-source software, there will also be more people to develop the operating system. In fact, a good example of this showed up earlier today.
With AMD open-sourcing their graphics drivers, many people are looking to nVidia to see if they will follow suit. Earlier today, an open letter to nVidia was posted that has already received 547 signatures at this time, yet even if this number grows to 1,000 or more, nVidia may still never respond. With Linux’s current market share, nVidia can continue to ignore people for as long as they want. That does not mean they will, but even if nVidia listens, they are only one of many companies that do not have open-source drivers or do not have Linux drivers at all. If Linux had a larger market share, companies would finally have to pay attention to the Linux world and release drivers for Linux.
Unfortunately, the issue is not as simple as more users being better. If Linux ever achieved a large market share, it would become the target of viruses, much like Windows is now. The question is how to find the perfect balance, so that Linux is widely supported, but not the target of viruses and spyware. Right now, Windows is obviously far over that perfect marketshare and Linux is way under. The closest may be the Mac, since most companies do support OS X, but, so far, there are no viruses for OS X in the wild. If you think I am advocating everyone switch to OS X, however, you are wrong. Apple has no intention of stopping their growth. Any day now the viruses will start to come for the Mac and each day it just gets more and more likely.
Hopefully this will not happen to Linux, but it seems hard to escape. Once an operating system gains enough momentum to make it to a significant market share, it is unlikely to stop and no matter what you tell me about the security of Linux, someone will find a way around that security. Perhaps Linux will really find a way to avoid this … I hope it does.
Update: A lot of people seem to be making the same point: Linux is fundamentally more secure than Windows and thus would never get viruses like Windows does. First, I agree Linux is more secure. Second, if anyone ever makes a desktop operating system that both does something useful and is completely immune to viruses, spyware, hackers, etc. I will be very, very surprised. In other words, I don’t believe Linux, or any desktop OS, is completely immune to malicious code.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Alot of people advocate the switch to Linux (or BSD) because Microsoft represents everything that’s wrong with business. If they aren’t the ruthless, thieving, hycocritical, abusive, lying douches that they are, there would be less passion about this.
I’m currently trying to make the transition myself (concerned by data formats and working toward resolving them). I got tired of their cycle of forced upgrades with very little return on my investment. I care about my friends and families and want to save them from this mess when I’m proficient enough to support Linux. There is a surprising amount of interest but only if I can support the OS.
Microsoft does not relent in it’s attacks against the consumer. Neither should those opposing this crap of a company.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Windows is incredibly prone to viruses because it is poorly designed. Linux is based on UNIX, and has always been designed for multi-user environments. Regular users aren’t allowed to make modifications to the system, whereas in Windows every user is an administrator.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Well, I think one of the reasons there are no significant linux viruses or threats is because of the very nature of the operating system it self. Smarter people would have to answer this more in detail than me, but since Linux does not give a program Root access unless a user gives it root access, so I don’t think linux viruses would be as big a threat. But as I said, a smarter man has to weigh in on this.
I consider people like me to be the future of linux. People smart enough to muddle through the install, and willing to do the basic learning without the developer background. We’re the tinkerers… the old DOS users from the days of Yore, soon, Linux will grow a little more, and become even easier and then more and more people will jump in. That’ll be a good day, finally, I’ll be able to play Civ 4 on Linux
–malocite
March 1st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more. Linux users are always trying to sway the Microsoft crowd for many reasons. One of the biggest reasons is exactly what you stated, the more Linux users, the more support and notoriety with big hardware and software companies, which in turn pushes the envelope and allows Linux to grow on the Desktop.
A good example of this is the state of gaming on Linux. Most big game companies don’t support the Linux operating system simply because there is not a big enough market share. If Linux were to surpass Microsoft Windows or Mac OSX, I can guarantee that there would be a lot more popular games available natively on the Linux desktop.
Further, another good point which I don’t think you touched on is the fact that the good majority of Linux users are much more technically inclined than most average every day computer users. This causes them to become the “IT guy” of friends and family. And what operating system do most of these friends and family run? Windows. We’re tired of having to restore, reinstall, and “fix” a family members computer because they have spyware or a virus. The easiest solution to us Linux users is to tell the friend or family member to run Linux and rid the headache of a “slow, dragging computer” due to viruses or spyware.
I have a article related to switching users to Linux from Windows, specifically titled “5 reasons your parents should use Linux” located at http://www.foogazi.com/2007/09/27/5-reasons-your-parents-should-use-linux/
if anyone is interested.
Cheers!
Adam
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
The article could use a little better writing.
As I understood it, the entire point was that viruses might be made, and they’re bad.
I was hoping for something more profound.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
A large number of viruses have been written for Linux. Everyone wants to be famous as the first person to write a Linux virus. The problem is, not a single one works unless the computer owner/admin deliberately installs it.
Why? Because each and every file in Linux has a complete system of authorizations. The owner of a Linux machine cannot make any changes or additions to operating files, unless that owner is able to log in as ‘root’, that is, administrator.
Viruses and spyware work by writing themselves to the wide open Windows files. Since they cannot write themselves to Linux they don’t work, period.
I have used Linux since 1999, though I am not anywhere near top gun. For most of the last five years, I have used Linux almost exclusively. I am on Windows now only because I just laid hands on my new laptop a couple hours ago, and with playing with my grandson have not yet had time to partition and set up dual-boot with XP on my new Dell laptop.
The big problem with Linux is as stated, the companies do not want to write drivers. There is an organization of volunteers who will generate drivers for free for any company which allows them to do so.
Anyone who says viruses will be written for Linux when enough people use Linux is in two categories. Either they know nothing about Linux, or they are playing games like Hilary and Obama exchanging insults hoping to gain an advantage.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
This has put my thoughts into words perfectly. I would like it to grow so it will be more widely supported, but I don’t want it to start getting flooded by virus or to loose its way in the world of money making business
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
well some valid concerns and points.
but you see, the design of windows is alot of the reason the problems are there.
linux does not have that many gaping holes
services that cannot be stopped nor turned off, these do not exist.
all linux services have been tested for years, and while You dont see the market share linux already has, they clearly have a large footprint in the real world.
Services are what is under real fire in windows, and also in linux
have been under fire in linux for a long time.
When linux is ready to take a larger “Desktop” share, it will.
and it is already happening.
when linux gets attacked, and someone finds a new hole
it will be fixed.
propriety software cannot compete with open software.
money is what is used to accelerate windows to your computer.
but when it got there, you see the developers didnt really give a rip.
they just wanted the paycheque
these developers of open source, have interest that is why they are doing it, business cannot compete with that untill all they hire are people that are interested.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
You made a critical mistake in saying that if linux becomes more popular it will be the target of viruses and spyware. Sure, people will try to infect, however its more secure than windows because of design, not lack of popularity.
On linux most everyone installs programs from central repositories which are maintained by developers and all programs are thoroughly tested before making it to the tree. Viruses would not ’sneak’ into such a tree.
Secondly, to download a program from a third party source you would have to: Download the program, switch to root, give the file executable permissions, open a console, run the program, and then in a worst case scenario your home folder files will get trashed.
Anyone who runs a random program on linux as root is just foolish and deserves to have their files destroyed.
This is why we have less virus problems than windows.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
People who find something good naturally want to spread it to others. Increasing the user base of GNU/Linux is more about camaraderie than it is about personal gain. Improved software and hardware support is merely a side effect of the effort.
The scarcity of viruses and malware on Macs may be the result of the relative unpopularity of the OS compared with Windows, but GNU/Linux users are unlikely to be affected by malware as long as they stick to software from trusted repositories or software that is open source.
On GNU/Linux, the risk of being infected with malware comes from using proprietary software because third-party developers cannot check the source for unwanted behaviors. Even on Windows, users are safe from a vast majority of malware if they use only open source software.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
If a Linux program EVER bites me, it will be my fault because I granted it root access, effectively said: “Do as you wish with my computer and my data”.
In that case (I run a rogue program with full uid 0 capabilities), I do deserve a punishment because I neglected doing my work, and anything that happens is just fair.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Wow, how inaccurate of an article. Market share has nothing to do with how many viruses there are for Mac OS X and Linux. Both operating systems are based on Unix, and therefore the permissions system inherent to most *NIX’s prevents a virus to be of any real threat to a computer, or even spread across systems. The “administrator” mode in Windows is similar to the “root” user in Unix based systems. One must enter their Admin password in any unix system to gain temporary root abilites, so you have just as much freedom in your operating system, with just a few extra password prompts to do administrative tasks. Even if linux were to grow to the size of Windows market share, we still wouldn’t see 1/1000 of the amount of malicious software there is for Windows.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Well, the problem with the nvidia example is, even if Linux had 95% marketshare, they do in fact supply a driver for Linux users (yes, its a blob) and most people would/are happy with that. If the Linux vendors prohibited binary only modules in the kernel, it might be a different story.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I think the article is partly correct. Linux as mentioned in the comments section has traditionally had very different methods for handling security than Linux. By its very nature linux its much more secure than windows, however as any software platform it can contain bugs. Exploiting linux will be much more difficult than windows but far from impossible. However I disagree with the implied statement that linux would not be able to handle becoming the dominant operating system. My biggest fear with rapid linux expansion would be the onslaught of linux distributions that get released. The shear selections available may confuse many possible users. However getting software developers on board is much easier with an expanded user base. So in the long run I think the pros would outweigh the cons.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Mac has viruses, it has had viruses for who knows how long. I’d guess the real “market share” of GNU/Linux is somewhere in the same figures OSX has. There are practically no viruses for GNU/Linux, and after Apple decided to Unixify their OS into OSX they’ve been practically free of viruses too. I personally don’t see popularity as a threat, not as much as a monoculture like the one Microsoft has promoted in the past with their Windows offering.
I guess GNU/Linux might even be better off than Apple, because of the diverse distribution ecosphere where the distros differ so much in their installed basic applications it makes a wide spread virus epidemy that much harder to create. When the security holes, fixes and program versions vary from distribution to distribution, it is only harder to go after a specific flaw to attack all GNU/Linux at once.
OSX and Vista might end up losing even in this respect, because first, they are owned by big corporations (that everyone hates) and because they are in their way monocultures.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
If Linux had a larger market share, companies would finally have to pay attention to the Linux world and release drivers for Linux.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I have been using Ubuntu for 2 weeks, and I have been encouraging my friends to install it because of how great it is. With Compiz Fuzion and Ubuntu my PC is fucking slick. If you haven’t yet; install Linux and make your PC sexier and easier to use.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I’ve only just started using a Linux operating system, so I’m no expert but I thought I’d add my opinion.
Windows is so popular mostly because it’s the de facto operating system for machines now, and that’s fine. They’re a business and need customers (though, granted maybe not that many) in order to keep running. I’m using Debian, which isn’t made by a for-profit company so if it has a million, or ten users it makes no difference to the business. From the Linux OS creatures’ point of view, getting users isn’t the main aim.
I only use Debian for my server, using the CLI, so I guess I don’t have much opportunity to run into hardware problems like a full blown OS user would so I don’t know how much of a problem that is, but it doesn’t seem to me to be a huge problem. If you search enough, you’ll find the drivers you need. So, we don’t even need more contributors.
I’ve always been happy with the Debian community, and can always find help when I need it, so that doesn’t need to expand either. I’m happy with the current user base. More can only lead to viruses and such, like you’ve mentioned.
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Please forgive me for pointing this out, but… I could dedicate about five blog posts to how ignorant this one post is. It has so many myths taken as fact which are used to build more wrong conclusions, that it isn’t even wrong as we understand it. It’s “quantum hyper-wrong” from the alternate universe where Spock has a beard.
HINT: Viruses come from malicious programmers. The stork does not bring them, nor do they grow in a cabbage patch, nor are they brought by a black cat crossing your path. They do not magically poof into existence because you get bigger market share.
HINT: Microsoft has a monopoly through bullish marketing tactics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of their software.
HINT: Apple was around before Microsoft Windows. What they do cannot be accurately seen by way of comparing them to Windows.
HINT: Attracting users does not automatically make developers fall magically out of the air. Nor is it a guarantee of attracting more support. There are whole galaxies of motivations, inspirations, and actions taken by the 6.3 billion humans on the planet that completely ignore “market share”, every single day. Putting blind faith in economics is a symptom of being all book-learning and no street-smarts.
HINT: Linux is fashioned after Unix, as is BSD, Solaris, and even OS X. There was a time when Unix-classic *WAS* the market-share leader, back in the days of PDPs and VAXs. All that you say, yeah verily, did not come to passeth.
HINT: If it was a simple matter of having a Unix and being the market leader, Microsoft would have conquered the world with Xenix.
HINT: Life is not just a big football game. There is no need to limit it to two teams, nor does there always have to be exactly one winner and one loser.
I think your heart’s in the right place… better luck next time!
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
@Cam
Dood, get a clue, please.
For the record, I’m not a Microsoft person and now have only Linux and Mac OS X machines in the house (with Windows XP VMs when I occasionally need to run Windows for consulting purposes).
Windows does NOT have every user as an administrator, and does NOT require this to work effectively. At work we have had a large Windows 2000 deployment (thousands of machines) with none of the users having administrator privs for years with no problems. Windows has a good fine grained security policy system. The fact that most installations are badly configured isn’t the fault of Microsoft - many operating systems are in a very similar boat by default (ie the owner of the machine naturally needs administrative access to install software and configure devices etc)
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Mac OS X and Linux are Unix-based, that makes difficult to make viruses. On the other hand, Linux has a LOT of distros. That is another reason that makes difficult to make some viruses.
Anyway, is a good post, I liked it. It doesn’t have anything I didn’t know, but for someone that don’t know, it’s a good starting point.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Popularity of a platform has nothing to do with viruses. It has to do with the architecture of the OS. Linux is a major player in the server market, yet there are still no viruses in the wild for Linux.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Linux is just better than windows. Help forums and support are better, and Ubuntu is easier to use than vista.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I agree with you, O Blogger.
There is too much to fight about these days for people to become concerned about Linux or Microsoft. I am an IT guy, I run huge systems and manage software distribution, so this does affect me. Computer people argue constantly, to distraction, over operating systems. They might actually get something done if they would stop calling Microsoft “crappy” (@A.Nieves) or Linux lovers “fanboys.”
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 am
You don’t need virus that will exploit OS holes, the virii of the future will rely on users. I’d assume the only two things that kept linux safe all this time is low market share and more educated people. If Linux ever get more popularity then they will inevitable get all those retards that will open virus infested emoticons over pidgin or pictures of naked people over Thunderbird.
Also I can say Linux is not much more secure than Windows. If you take both core kernels you’ll find almost zero flaws, the vast majority of holes come from sorrounding services - and if you go and look at secunia’s site you’ll see that the recent RHEL distributions that have been on the market much shorter time than XP have actually more holes.
Linus’s law says “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” only works if you limit the number of eyeballs to infinity - so how much people do we really need? They were preaching Linux was more secure 8 years ago, but distributions are still as flawed as XP. Will they fix their code in 8 years from now?
If you want security you should go either for (Open)BSD or Windows NT 6 (Vista/Win2008).
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
The only way to make an entirely secure computer system is to never turn it on
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 am
I am responding to that thing you said about Linux eventually getting viruses. The only why a Linux desktop could get a virus is if the user runs the malicious code without knowing what it does. The good thing is that most Linux programs don’t need to run in root and this prevent viruses from infecting that desktop.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I’m an old DOS user and migrated eventually into the windows environment with 3.1 and dabbled a bit with Unix. I’ve gone through so many iterations of OS’s its mind boggling and each year/release they seem to get worse and worse. Now i’m up to Vista, and having to configure things to run the way I want them to run is just plain pissing me off, especially that annoying administrator pop up menu for anything I do.
Recently, In the last week, I have redicovered interest in Linux, and am just floored by the newest Ubuntu and others out there. They litterally look like a windows box running vista (gnome) and are extremely user friendly and don’t seem the have the same petty annoyances. Now i’ve never been a big linux fan or unix for that matter cause i’m lazy and like GUI’s but I understand the concepts of terminals/consoles and have started relearning some of my old SKILLZ from way back in the day.
I’m enjoying Ubunutu 7.10 and just yesterday, went thru the process of using an old compay ev600 series laptop to set up a Ubuntu desktop environment in about 20 mins, the only problem I find is the wireless network card drivers, which i’m still trying to address but wow it is looking really great. It’s so great and easy to use in fact that I decided to go download and install the server 7.10 as well…..it took all of 1/2 an hour of a completely novice linux user to setup a ubuntu lamp server.
Went out an bought a ubuntu bible just so i can one up my skillz and i am defintely recommending it to others. I am also a security engineer and owner of a game company creating a new mmorpg. I’d love a port of it to LINUX for sure and will be testing my own boxes in that evironment. Long live Linux!
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
How can you advocate Vista as secure? Is it secure because it nags you for permission each time you open a program? Thats BS, and I call you on it.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Linux will not take off until Windows programs run seamlessly on this system. Most software/freeware are written for Windows. It is my hope that Wine can and will be perfected to run Windows programs seamlessly without problems in the near future. The great advantage of Linux/Unix will be that, like the Mercedes-benz, the operating system will only be changed upon proven improvements. We will not have to be constantly upgrading OSs for the necessary purpose of companies continually making required profits.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Royal — the windows kernel does not almost have zero flaws. Ever get a blue screen? Also if you want security use vista? lol utter rubbish.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Wow. I never thought my previous response would have gotten so much attention. I have got to say… my question was definitely answered… and then some.
Thanks
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Nathan Dotz - “The only way to make an entirely secure computer system is to never turn it on :)”
Exactly.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Linux is great, I intend to use it for my reading and browsing the internet. I hope it continues as is and does not try to be like windows.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
If you really want to attract more Linux users use this GNU/Linux Mint variant http://www.ultumix.com
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
First of all, Thanks for bringing this up - I think it is a very important issue.
I agree with the premise that one reason Linux is more secure is because it does not hold enough of the market share to be a rewarding target for authors of malware. However, I also agree that Linux already employs a better approach towards security. The security model in Linux works effectively enough that Microsoft attempted to copy it with Vista (it’s called user access control (UAC)). Of course the difference is that UAC(Vista) sucks ass, whereas sudo(Linux) works really well.
More importantly, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with the notion that if Linux popularity grows, it’s a bad thing. In fact I think such an idea works directly against the entire basis of Linux. Here’s why:
1.) The more people that use Linux, the better Linux will get. Linux should be the first thing in the mind of anyone that uses computers, when this becomes true, Linux will receive greater support and will be refined more rapidly.
2.) Linux is based in the hearts and minds of people that enjoy being in and contributing to a community that seeks to advance humankind into the future in a constructive way through the advent of computing technology. This idea reverberates as the numbers of users grows.
3.) The more users that adopt Linux, the more secure it gets. This is because there will be a larger pool of people testing Linux and this will trickle down to more firms performing security audits, more media stories focusing on Linux, and more fixes being made to the components of the operating system.
My suggestion is to hold a rally downtown to promote Linux, hand out free cd’s, try to convert every user you come into contact with to use Linux, share your knowledge, share your support, and work towards moving out the profiteering monopolists and moving in the technologists that truly support moving humans forward through the use of computers.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
@Matthew Wood: On NT systems 5.0 and above the majority of blue-screens are caused by faulty third party drivers. I myself had a lot of troubles with blue-screens on XP years ago when I bought cheap wireless pci card with drivers that were complete rubbish and were blue-screening windows. However with new card and new maker these troubles vanished.
I can also say I’m Vista user since January 2007, and I have yet to experience a blue screen (and I turn off computer only at weekends). I had few user-land crashes, like explorer.exe or IE7 occasionally failing, but never error in the kernel.
Why do you think security in Vista is rubbish?
You don’t see massive Virus outbreaks anymore in the news like you could in 2003. It’s true that Vista is too bloated, but MS has learned his lesson from 2003 and started focusing more on security. Again - look at secunia page: Vista had 24 holes, RHEL5 114. Though in RHEL’s case there are a lot of holes counted in that belong to applications and are not inherently RHEL holes, however if you’re going to use Ubuntu (or any other popular, but poorly managed distibution) that doesn’t really matter as they had privilege escalation bug for months (and it’s probably still there), that has been even discused in forums but nobody cared - effectively all software in Ubuntu runs under as root.
Anyway Matthew, do you have any facts to support you assumption that Vista is insecure. Or is that just common gnu movement group-thinking?
March 4th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Now I could be wrong and please correct me if I am but….
*nix is quite popular in the server world despite its lack of popularity on the desktop. If there were going to be worm like viruses running around the net I believe they would be here. What is the current Windows time-to-live for pugging a machine onto the raw internet now?
I agree that if there are going to be viruses that they will come through the users. But the question is what the virus can do with the permission system in place. Maybe the virus can start emailing all of your contacts but it should be pretty difficult to do anything malicious with a proper setup of owners groups and permissions. If the setup isn’t there now I do believe its possible to get there. As it is now unless you exploit one of the holes that gives you root then as someone mentioned all the virus can do is trash the home folder.
I believe *nix is in the best position to fend off viruses as it was developed with a silo mentality from the ground up.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Yes, they are different!
When Linux gets a hiccup, the world gets nervous and looks to find the problem and fixes it.
When Windows gets a problem, the millionaires working for Microsoft sometimes have a more important Golf match to attend to that weekend.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:38 am
That was a terrible article no facts no figures. Just a bunch of I think I believe. Canned answer Linux is more secure than Windows. An OS is only as secure as the user keeps it.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:07 am
I read your update with regards to the flurry of messages regarding virii and linux. Although you have a point, it is only valid for a brief bit, then the others start making much more sense.
Windows is designed poorly, and allows for applications and the user to do literally whatever they want all the time. Yes, there is the UAC in Vista, but really, after a while most people either just hit allow, or turn it off.
Linux on the other hand is much different there. It is designed to not have the user do the things like Windows does. There are a few side effects that are EXCELLENT:
1) The user is only bugged now and then. The need to have root to run an application is very rare. It comes down to software installation and administration. How often does one use that, rarely in the grand scheme (a few times a week aside from the updates).
2) As a fork of #1, the user will be less irritated when the dialog would come up, thus reading it.
3) If the user should screw up and do something dumb, almost invariably its limited to the scope of that account, leaving the computer still operable. Their data is not kept hostage, nor is it relegated to an anchor until a techie can repair the problem at hand.
4) Most of the software wanted will be FLOSS software from the repos. Ubuntu and Fedora have excellent arrays of software and have/will have access to CNR (haven’t kept up on that … promise?) for commercial apps as Freespire and Linspire users have.
With all of this and more that I am sure to have forgotten, Linux in its nature is inherently better in all scenarios regarding malware and security.
As for the real problems, it boils down to codecs and stupid legalities that the US users have to put up with (hope my dislike of DRM and the stupid laws here in the US hasn’t spoiled your mood .. :D)
Anyway, drink a beer and know you are on a cooler, and better OS. Or a coffee if you are anti-beer
March 4th, 2008 at 8:22 am
It is true that the larger the base of linux users the greater the chances that drivers will be written for linux and indeed certain linux distros.
This again is the mindset and viewpoint from a software developer or even a “geeks ” perspective. It is sort of like the type of user who loves to endlessly tinker with linux look at himself in a mirror.
The larger the user base of linux users , the more the growth , especially to newer and more novice computer users the better for the linux community itself.
Linux has got to be ever easier to use for these types , if its market and user base is to grow outside of its previous user base.
In order to attract these types indeed Linux has got to become as easy to use ( at least for these computer user types ) as a fax machine.
Its one thing to post that my grqndparents / father etc etc loves linux when these people have expert tech support 24/7. Most computer users however do not have tech support and most use their computers for little more than email , webbrowsing and proudly as “solitaire machines”
The latest Ubuntu release is a major step in that direction of providing a very robust , easy to use linux, with easy add on installs.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I’ll put in my two cents
I believe Linux will always be more secure even if the numbers were the opposite say 90% desktop users were using Linux, I do believe it would be more secure than windows at 90%. I believe there might be more attempts with a 90% desktop using Linux than at the current say possible 5%, but even at that we are better off with Linux.
I disagree that there’s going to be more virus as apple increases its share. Even though windows wins in the desktop war, it’s not winning the server world. If you want to take down google, yahoo, cnn you should probably target Linux and apache…shouldn’t you? go to http://uptime.netcraft.com/ and put in web sites, yahoo is running freebsd, almost everybody is running linux server with apache. So if you want to cause damage from a virus, which is the point of a virus wouldn’t you target big company computers?
Windows users for ever have claimed that if there were more Linux users it would be less secure. I completely disagree that it would be anywhere near windows problems with virsus. With Linux and open source, nobody would put spyware in their software or if it’s GPL and it’s out there, we would just remove that spyware part. Linux lives off of free open source software, so if it increases I’m sure there would be more closed software, but you won’t find those in most repository. At the end of the day it’s hard to argue over windows security even if numbers increased.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Heyyyyy listen, gnu/linux comes under opensource and strongly obeys free software rules also.
So a free software is something for the welfare of society by the society.
The ones who actually write viruses for a windows platform can actually improve an application as they hav freedom to do it.
Free software provide a good software to the world that has better quality.
So the ones who really write viruses for a linux platform are really PHYCOS.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:18 am
More Linux users = better hardware and software support? I cannot fully agree.
It is unrealistic to expect that the number of Linux users will grow considerably anytime soon and hardware support will be close to that on Windows. Thus, it is logical to stop dreaming that all the hardware will be supported on Linux and focus on the support of just some hardware. I guess it is OK when a migrant to Linux may have problems with hardware support, provided it is possible to buy functionally equivalent hardware or buy a Linux compatible PC from the very start.
Imagine some hardware has a “Linux ready” label. Producers of other hardware may, and likely will, fear that this influences choices of buyers who will never actually run Linux. Hardware support is less a user number issue than an organizational issue.
Traditionally a Linux user is a technically savvy one who can download, compile and install any required software. Such user is likely to influence decisions on hardware and software purchase and/or technology choice, on Linux, Windows, Max OS, QNX or whatever. Positive attitude of such user may matter for a hardware or software company. Enter lots of Windows migrants, and the Linux user is no better than Windows scum.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:11 am
@Andrey,
Care to back that ‘unrealistic’ with some data? Item: over twenty national governments have standardized on Linux. Item: Gartner reports that some 80% of Fortune 500 companies use Linux in mission-critical systems, and expect total number of systems - servers and desktops - to increase much faster than overall system growth.
But this blog entry never had much to do with objective factual reality; it’s what’s lovingly called a FUDsicle…. soft and brown and, if you’re not paying attention, you’ll let it go down whole and immediately suffer a brain freeze.
I’ve been developing for Windows literally as long as there’s been a ‘Microsoft Windows’; I can say the same thing about my Mac experience. I’ve been on Linux for a relatively short time - just a bit over ten years. But I do know one thing…
I travel pretty extensively; it’s been over five years since I was primarily based in the US. Up until about a year ago, no matter where I was on the planet, I could count on one thing: at least twice a week, my dad (70+-year-old retired engineer) would phone me for help with his Windows-PC-as-anti-Clapper; “help, it’s fallen and it won’t get up!” About a year ago, my stepmom finally got him converted over to a Mac, saying “it’s cheaper than the phone bill”. Since then, there haven’t been any panicked calls in the middle of (my local) night; I’ve gotten a couple of emails (sent from the Mac) where he says something to the effect of ‘I wasn’t sure how to do X, but I fiddled around with it a little bit and got it working well enough; is this the best way?’ Somehow he, like thousands of other people it has been my job to support over the years, never could do that as Windows usees. I remember five years ago, the personal assistant to a Ph.D. scientist (who had an MBA and a perfectly respectable Ph.D. of her own) said (of her Windows PC), “I’m not going to touch that thing again, except to toss it out the window, and YOU CAN’T MAKE ME!” (She’d gotten at least three viruses in a week’s time.) Given a choice between losing his PA and losing the PC, her boss got her a Mac.
I’ve used Windows for years. I’ve also seen hard statistics in multiple organizations saying that Windows is atrociously expensive to support compared to other systems, and users are less productive. That’s not opinion; that’s not hearsay; that’s actual user data collected in great detail and used to beat appropriate folks over the head with at budget meetings. Your mileage may well vary, but I don’t expect it will objectively vary much.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
The only security bug that can’t be patched is the user. Until brain-modification technologies are developed, an OS cannot be completely secure. If someone gives malicious code root priveleges, then no matter how good security is, the computer will still be vulnerable.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I think linux is more secury for these reasons.
1 all the programs are provided in the software repos(channels i like to call them) so everthing you need is mostly there, so it is unlikely you will donwload them off some random site.
2 you can only install things while you are in root or sudo and unless some virus knows your password there not going to get access to root privs.
3 all the distributions vary slightly and this makes it hard as said before, for viruses to run on all the linux distros unlike windows which is just one system.
4 I don’t know of any program on linux being able to run its self without being installed, sure some programs (like firefox) can be run from your home directory so i guess a virus as said could delete your home which is quite bad, but a simple fix for that problem would be that the files can only be deleted from the users trash folder if they login as root that way the virus hasn’t actually caused any damage.
5 be sensible on what websites you visit, just stick to normal websites you can trust and all software is supplied so its unlikely you will be downloading it from a dodge linux virus website(when there are some).
6 I still have windows but use linux mainly and have been using for about 1-2 years and I’m very familiar how it works. I use comodo firewall and antivirus which are free so I dont get scammed out of my money. I switched to linux because of viruses but I haven’t gotten one for ages on windows(you might say this is because I dont use it often enough, but my dad likes using windows and doesn’t like ubuntu and he has been using comodo for the same time with no virues) this is by being sensible to what websites you visit as well.
7 I think linux can get easier to use without comprimising its security. I figure that it will spread mostly via people downloading it or given a disc, this has the problem that they wont know how to set it up but as it gets easier to use setting up will be one thing to be made easier. A good bit of knowlege about how things are done on linuc doesn’t hurt and can help you if anything did go wrong.
8 OEM machines will be a good choice for a user that doesn’t want to tinker that much and the OEM will make sure that hardware is supported it would a stupid choice if they didn’t.
9 I don’t think any desktop pc has a direct connection to the internet anymore, the NAT in your router stops that so they wont be able to get in.
10 use your email in a web browser, dont download it in to a desktop program like outlook, thunderbird of evolution because I havn’t heard of any viruses excuting them seleves whilst they are still on the server.
so yeah that is s mixture not againt MS but saying that linux is more secure and is unlikely to be vunerable to viruses even if popularity grows. If your using MS then make sure your use some common sense to prevent your self and don’t put all your trust in the prevention software.
Wine is getting better and more and more MS software is supported so using windows apps on linux is possible.