General/Off-topic |
|
|
|
|
|
10 Reasons to Switch to Linux
|
| 10. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 12:50 am |
|
Quoting KeithL: Why problems with Coca-Cola and McDonald's, but not Microsoft? |
Ouh I need to sleep ...but basically because Microsoft are just a very successful company! People dont like them because they dominate the industry and push out competitors but if it belonged to any sensible business man, they would do the same given half the chance.
McDonalds and Coca Cola go deeper. They fund political groups and unethical practices. Not many people know that their choice of Pepsi or Coke is a political one which funds either the US democratic or republican parties! They also influence the drug industry and fund vital research such as the effects of sugar on children to ensure that the results are not unfavourable to their product.
I could go on, but have an early start tomorrow 
|
|
| 11. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 12:55 am |
|
OK....go sleep...
|
|
| 12. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 02:02 am |
|
Quoting aenigma x:
Does it really matter? |
Yes! Matters! I never let them to tell me tons of lies, looking me in the eye! I do know Microsoft does gaze into my pocket, my $600 in my pocket; but, O, it has got nothing from pocket, going away empty-handed!
Quoting aenigma x:
I have never had any problems with Microsoft so why should I change? |
Aanndddd...this is your problem! 
Quoting aenigma x:
I have a BIG problem with companies like Coco Cola and McDonalds, but not Microsoft - sorry! |
What a paradox/contrast! As if any one of the three were different than the other two!
Quoting aenigma x: They fund...unethical practices |
Here is to you "just" one unethical practice. I know you will be sad, but this will be from your honorable, upright, and highly ethic company-Microsoft!
You and I have, let's say, a commercial relationship. You use Microsoft Office, and I, OpenOffice; and you send me a very important document, say, a word document. I do have to open it, but...what is it? I can't open it, because it is not compatible with OpenOffice, namely Open Document Standards. This is what Mr.Gates has currently worked on! Too ethical, isn't it?
|
|
| 13. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 11:03 am |
|
Quoting AllTooHuman: You and I have, let's say, a commercial relationship. You use Microsoft Office, and I, OpenOffice; and you send me a very important document, say, a word document. I do have to open it, but...what is it? I can't open it, because it is not compatible with OpenOffice, namely Open Document Standards. This is what Mr.Gates has currently worked on! Too ethical, isn't it? |
Hmmm which is more important.
(1) A company which is creating a water shortage in India, dumps hazardous waste, suppresses medical research, funds political parties....
OR
(2) Not being able to open a word document!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
| 14. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 01:02 pm |
|
Quoting SunFlowerSeed: As far as I know, some time ago, windows web site was managed by Linux server. I think it was before when they came with win2000. Not sure very much though. |
I bit of an urban myth......
Windows was developed as an operating system for desktop computers - not for web servers therefore MicroSoft naturally did not use their own products for hosting their website. However, they did NOT use Linux - they used IBM's AIX which is a heavywieght commercial operating system.
MicroSoft continued to use AIX for its update servers until very recently (they may still do so). Until Windows2003 Server (Web Edition), MS has not produced a dedicated fully fledged web server. It is a little bit like saying that a BMW garage shouldn't use Mercedes vans - they do it because BMW don't make a van!!!
|
|
| 15. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 01:27 pm |
|
Quoting AllTooHuman: 2. Viruses Are Few and Far Between
Although it is possible to create a virus to target Linux systems, the design of the system itself makes it very difficult to become infected. A single user could cause local damage to his or her files by running a virus on his or her system; however, this would be an isolated instance rather than something could spread out of control.
In addition, virtually all Linux vendors offer free on-line security updates. The general philosophy of the Linux community has been to address possible security issues before they become a problem rather than hoping the susceptibility will go unnoticed. |
This is absolute twaddle......
It is indeed true that a Linux virus is a rare thing but it has nothing to do with the design of the operating system. A modern Windows system (2000 or XP) that uses the NTFS file system offers the same intrinsic protection as is described above. There are three reasons for the lack of viruses in Linux:
1. The easiest way for a virus to spread in through infection of home computers. There are very very few Linux computers in home environments so very few targets for the virus to infect. If you are going to go to the trouble of writing a virus then it is best to write it so it can actually infect some computers!!!
2. Linux is almost entirely used by people with above average computer knowledge. Such people will have taken security steps to prevent a virus in the first place and will be able to effectively contain/remove any virus that does make it onto their computer.
3. A large majority of people capable of writing a virus are Linux supporters. If they write a Linux virus then they are undermining this condinued arguement that Linux is virus free!!!
It is actually the case that Linux is EASIER to write a virus for than Windows. This is due to a number of reasons including the greater exposure of the kernel APIs to any code and better documentation of the kernel APIs. Also ironically the greater choice that Linux provides also makes tracking down viruses much more difficult. I am confident that if for some reason, Linux were to suddenly become anything like as popular as Windows as a home operating system, there would be far more Linux viruses than there are Windows!
|
|
| 16. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 02:16 pm |
|
Thanks for the info on MS Servers.
--- Viruses Are Few and Far Between ---
Linux is more open than windows. So it is easier to write a virus for Linux systems than windows.
I don't have detailed info on kernels, but you NEED to COMPILE the virus for your kernel flavor.
And if you are not a good programmer then there is a chance that your virus will not work on every kernels.
There can be direct ways to run a virus on Linux, but your file system may or may not allow executions of direct system calls. Ext2, ext3, ResiserFS, JFS etc...
Well of course there is possibility to have a virus working independently from kernels or file systems etc if there is such programmers.
There are development groups independent from each other as you know. Kernel, X, File systems etc. So if you don't want your virus to fail, you have to know very details of those things, this includes reading of millions lines of source codes.
But the main threat is EXPLOITS as far as I know. There are many exploits to use on Linux computers. Such as kernel, X, file system exploits as well as many application exploits which helps the executer to have root(GOD ?) rights on your system. And I always say that the most stupid person is cleverer than a virus if he has root rights on your system.
But the weakest point of those exploits is they require the exact version of applications. An exploit, working on XXX.10.2.15 will not work on XXX.10.2.16.
So do your updates daily.
I am happy with auto-update application on Suse.
It usually updates 1-2 applications everyday automatically, thus decreasing the chance of infection with an exploit.
Updates depend on your software installed. You may or may not have an update everyday.
I am not sure how many system updates that I am getting from auto-update system. I usually click update button without checking what they are about.
And on windows aspect, nobody knows anything about the kernel, I mean the source code is one of the top-secrets in the world, but this also prevents antivirus programmers to clean the virus if you are infected.
Except some very very hidden APIs, most of the APIs in the win kernel are known to people to allow them do their programming on windows. If not, we wouldn't have most of the great softwares.
And also because of NTFS source code is not known to people and because it has some things like NTFS streams, if I recall right, which are not visible to operating system, it is really hard to get rid of some infections.
I had once, a malware. I don't know where did I get it but I was about to format all my disks to get rid of it.
User rights on windows are really annoying. You cannot install or make changes in the system if you are not an administrator. This is the correct thing actually, but sometimes it really annoys. As I cannot burn my cd from my user account. CD burning software says that I don't have the right to burn a CD and warns me to switch to administrator account. So I usually use an administrator account for my daily works. I think most of the people out there are doing the same thing. So it is really easy to be infected on windows.
And it is true that it gets more attention from virus writers, because it has millions of users.
Why do I force myself to write a virus which will only work on kernel version xxx.xxx.xxx and not work on xxx.xxx.xxx.1
I do it on windows easily, because there are not much versions to think about.
Anyway, I just wanted to share some of my thoughts.
May the god protect your computers from viruses 
|
|
| 17. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 02:45 pm |
|
Quoting aenigma x:
Hmmm which is more important.
|
This question itself is unimportant! If you are talking about "being (and, similarly, not being) ethical", and you stay accordingly in the field of ethic, you can't separate things into groups- very important, important, and unimportant. Thus there is no noteworthy difference between, for instance, killing one single person and killing billion people; a company to create a water shortage in India and a company ('Just do it') to employ people, who have to work 45 days to be able to buy a single pair of Nike shoes, for such a monthly payment; occupying Iraq and not letting people open your documents.
If there isn't one of these, the any other one, believe me, cannot have a chance to exist! And, I won't even say what if that document had been a love letter rather than a business one!
|
|
| 18. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 02:52 pm |
|
Quoting bod: [ It is a little bit like saying that a BMW garage shouldn't use Mercedes vans - they do it because BMW don't make a van!!! |
Sure! But wouldn't you find it a bit strange, improper that BMW uses Mercedes vans while it has a Mercedes complex, while it does its best to do evil actions to Mercedes (e.g.filing charges against Mercedes for no relevant reasons, slanders on Mercedes)? Microsoft, too, is welcome to use Linux servers, of course; Linux community would be only happy for this. But just consider what it tries to do to Open Source (Linux) Community.
|
|
| 19. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 02:56 pm |
|
Quoting AllTooHuman: Quoting aenigma x:
Hmmm which is more important.
|
This question itself is unimportant! |
I think Aenigma's question is infinitely more important than your evangelism for Linux.....those who wish to Linux now (thankfully) have enough sources of information about how to obtain it, install it and operate it. For the vast majority of people, Windows is the obvious and correct choice for their home computer!
I do not understand why you feel the need to open (at least) two threads plugging Linux - especially when you have only copied a very biased (and partially inaccurate) article from a Linux source......
|
|
| 20. |
27 Feb 2007 Tue 03:01 pm |
|
Bod and speaking technically and formal...
That must be the end of the world!! 
|
|
|
