Linux OS Conversation

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Mopar1973Man said:
Once again as long as your not using Windows software you have no virus issues. Since I don't have Windows installed on any computers I'm safe. But where the problem is people that just can't live with Windows and then dual boot the computer with Windows and Linux. The other problem is Linux can read and Windows files openly and share back and forth so if a user happen to share a Windows file in WINE and installed it that was infected BOOM! Once again also long as you not using WINE you should be fine.
So why do the Linux evangelists keep on insisting that you can't get a virus with Linux when quite clearly you can?

The fact of the matter is any computer that is attached to a network is not immune to viruses.

The overwhelming majority of Linux users run Windows too.
 
So why do the Linux evangelists keep on insisting that you can't get a virus with Linux when quite clearly you can?

Ok. Once again software. Linux software only comes from one master repository in my case Ubuntu repository. As for installing ANY software you must login as a Super User or in the case of Ubuntu use the "sudo" command. Typically all actions on Linux are not at Admin level but as a user level. So like if I was to install KRuler (graphical ruler) I would have to open terminal and type "sudo apt-get install kruler" the very next thing to happen is "Password" has to be entered for the Super User. (Attachment below) Without it nothing happens. So say your hooked to a network and someone tries to force into the system once again without the "Super User" password no root files (system) files can be altered at all even from the network. Since all software comes from a repository with thousands of eyes looking over the codes the chances of virus is nil. Even while hooked to a network you would have to have "Super User" privilege to edit/alter any system files. Just can't happen.

Now Windows on the other hand. I bet you logged in as a Administrator right now aren't you? If you not then you wouldn't have any ability to install software. This is a Microsoft decision to default the first user to Admin level so they can install software easy. But in the same token opens the door wide for virus issues because Admin can read and write to any file in Windows. Being that IE browser will auto-install any plugin without asking is another issue. But now if you logged in as a User now you can only use only the install software and can't install anything, then you have no access to system files. But once again Microsoft code is closed code, only a handful of people have access to it or to review the code for problems. All software comes from close source companies and even then you can't verify the software if the 3rd party has security issues.

But back to Linux and anti-virus software its not required unless your running Microsoft programs within Linux. As for me I'm 100% Linux I don't use any Microsoft products at all. All Linux software.

Microsoft Office = Libre Office
MS Word = Libre Writer
MS Excel = Libre Calc
Photoshop = Gimp
Adobe Illustrator = InkScape
Roxio CD Burner = Brasero
Internet Explorer = FireFox
Outlook = Thunderbird
Adobe PDF = Libre Writer (Embedded)
Symantec PCAnywhere = X11VNC & KRDC

I've been a Computer Tech over 23 years and built and sold a bunch of Windows machines.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mopar1973man
 

Attachments

  • installing.png
    installing.png
    65.6 KB · Views: 3
Another view of security. I've logged into my web site server (www.mopar1973man.com) and then dropped down to the system files of the CentOS Linux and you'll see I've got rights to read and execute some of the folders/files. I do NOT have rights to install software at all. My commands and access are highly restricted. Once again there is no anti-virus on this machine. Not required since there is no Microsoft products being ran. It's secured with a firewall that only accepts communication on the set port like 80 for HTML server output. Then the other thing is Debian Linux has a program that called AppArmor which records normal communication action and set rules kind of like Norton's Internet Security but once it set and running it will not change again. So if someone forcing against a program to gain access from unusual way the AppArmor stops it cold.

Remember majority of web servers are powered by Linux OS of one distro or another.

 

Attachments

  • server.png
    server.png
    72.9 KB · Views: 5
Mopar1973Man said:
Now Windows on the other hand. I bet you logged in as a Administrator right now aren't you?
No I am not. I use a Chromebook which is far safer than Linux. With Linux it is possible to get a virus, with Chromebook it is impossible to get a virus or malware. I do have a Windows laptop that I use once a month to edit my photos and I generally spend about 30 seconds uploading them to the Internet. I only use four programs on my laptop none of which are available for Linux. Lightroom, Photoshop, Audition and Picasa. I will not accept a Linux substitute for any of these programs because I have tried every other editing program alive today and these are the only ones that do the job for me.
 
SeilerBird said:
with Chromebook it is impossible to get a virus or malware.
Heard that before, Just give the crooks time, nothing is impossible in the computer world. Just do a search hack computer by sound.
 
SeilerBird said:
So why do the Linux evangelists keep on insisting that you can't get a virus with Linux when quite clearly you can?

The fact of the matter is any computer that is attached to a network is not immune to viruses.

The overwhelming majority of Linux users run Windows too.

Actually, Tom, Linux (or Unix), when properly configured, is nearly immune to the kinds of problems that seem to be routine with Windows. This is largely (as Mopar indicates) due to permissions and to the user strategy employed (not normally super user). Java, Javascript and other such, especially when things are not properly configured, can somewhat increase the vulnerability of the various Unices, as can poor security practices and sloppy system configuration (software wise).

Unfortunately, many corporate practices (in the name of saving money, of course) don't expend the resources to do the job right, so some malware gets in, often through "social engineering," that is, talking someone out of access and/or passwords, and not setting passwords to drop a connection after three tries, or so. Some individuals running Linux also don't configure things securely.

There are a very few people in the world (certainly not the usual script kiddies) who, given access in some form, can break into a securely configured system (which is why I said nearly immune above), but those folks are rare.

You might note that your Chromebook is, at the server end (the so-called "cloud"), likely running Linux too, so if Google gets compromised in those servers your Chromebook is just as vulnerable as a Linux machine, but there's nothing you can do about it, once you've connected to a compromised server.
 
I wonder where those "thousands of eyes" were when looking over the heartbeat code in the OpenSSL crypto library? ;)
 
Larry N. said:
Actually, Tom, Linux (or Unix), when properly configured, is nearly immune to the kinds of problems that seem to be routine with Windows. This is largely (as Mopar indicates) due to permissions and to the user strategy employed (not normally super user). Java, Javascript and other such, especially when things are not properly configured, can somewhat increase the vulnerability of the various Unices, as can poor security practices and sloppy system configuration (software wise).

Unfortunately, many corporate practices (in the name of saving money, of course) don't expend the resources to do the job right, so some malware gets in, often through "social engineering," that is, talking someone out of access and/or passwords, and not setting passwords to drop a connection after three tries, or so. Some individuals running Linux also don't configure things securely.

There are a very few people in the world (certainly not the usual script kiddies) who, given access in some form, can break into a securely configured system (which is why I said nearly immune above), but those folks are rare.

You might note that your Chromebook is, at the server end (the so-called "cloud"), likely running Linux too, so if Google gets compromised in those servers your Chromebook is just as vulnerable as a Linux machine, but there's nothing you can do about it, once you've connected to a compromised server.
I understand all you are saying Larry. And I agree with everything. I just strongly object to the Linux fans claiming it is faster, safer and cheaper than anything else. None of that is true. I just don't understand why they are trying to induce people to try Linux with a string of lies.

Once again I say that the user is the biggest security concern no matter what operating system we are talking about. In 30+ years of using Windows I have never gotten a virus or malware. The Linux crowd makes it sound like all I have to do is hook up my Windows machine to the Internet and I will have my computer destroyed by viruses and malware. That is just not true.
 
I just strongly object to the Linux fans claiming it is faster, safer and cheaper than anything else.

Ok.

Cheaper is true. most all Linux software is FREE. You don't have to pay for any of it. There is a few companies that produce software and actually sell it but still majority of the Linux software are still FREE. Look back at my picture of the Synaptic Manager there is roughly 40,000 porgrams all free. Here is the Linux distro map you can click on any names on the map download a FREE copy of Linux and install.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg

Faster. Well I wouldn't go that far. But Linux does tend to be capable of handling more system processes than windows can. Currently I've got 210 process going consuming just at 893 MB of Ram out of 6GB also no swap file being used currently (virtual ram). This machine happens to be my Laptop. If you looking to be the light as possible there is Linux Distro like DSL (Damn Small Linux) and Puppy that are extremely light and have the feel of being faster. DSL is capable of running on a old 486 processor and 16M of RAM. Now that small.

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

http://puppylinux.org/main/Overview%20and%20Getting%20Started.htm

Safer. Well once again even Linux in the wrong hands or setup up poorly can be compromised. Out of the box as a standalone system without Windows in a dual bot or WINE its safe.

Top 10 common mistake of Linux users.
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/10-mistakes-new-linux-administrators-make/

Another good one...
http://penguininside.blogspot.com/2010/01/10-mistakes-linux-learners-should-avoid.html

Remember no Linux software can be EXACT copy of a Windows program that would be copyright infringement. So when "volunteers" sit down to write Linux software they build it to be like or similar to a name brand product but tweak it a bit to be different.  Like I said before for Photoshop there is Gimp but they are not the same. But Gimp has the same kind of power Photoshop does but you might have to add a free plugin or learn a different way of doing things. Output and outcome will be the same.

I wonder where those "thousands of eyes" were when looking over the heartbeat code in the OpenSSL crypto library? ;)

At least for Ubuntu already taken care of... (April 7, 2014)  Not all coding is absolutely clean but when something is found it's fixed and updated within a few days.

http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-2165-1/

Personal Note: One thing I will point out about this thread anytime some ask or point out something I always brought proof of a web page link or pictures with me to the table.
 
I understand all you are saying Larry. And I agree with everything. I just strongly object to the Linux fans claiming it is faster, safer and cheaper than anything else. None of that is true. I just don't understand why they are trying to induce people to try Linux with a string of lies.

Well, Linux does, in most cases at least, run faster and better on older hardware than Windows does. It is safer on the web than Windows, all else being equal (which it rarely is), unless the adminstrator(s) get very sloppy, in terms of the likelyhood of malware being installed and/or run.

Of course when users and administrators get sloppy, get careless with email attachments (and sometimes with browsing), passwords, etc. then ANY system of any kind can be compromised. And the GNU/Linux operating system is free (as in beer, as well as in freedom), and in a multiple system installation it DOES take quite a few less administrators (and their time and effort) than does Windows. So in those senses it IS cheaper, safer and faster. So I'd not categorize those statements as "a string of lies."

But there ARE Linux evangelists (that's FAR from all Linux users) who fail to see that Linux (just like Windows, MAC, etc.) isn't for everyone, and it isn't as familiar to most folks as Windows is, and administration (beyond the simplified things that are in a GUI), as well as configuring the way you want it are not as simple as on Windows (and presumably MAC, though I have no first hand experience there).

Note, too, that there are a LOT of Linux versions, and they are not all created equal, but they are nearly all able to be secured to a much greater degree than Windows.

Mopar has a lot of good info, too.
 
Mopar1973Man said:
Cheaper is true. most all Linux software is FREE. You don't have to pay for any of it. There is a few companies that produce software and actually sell it but still majority of the Linux software are still FREE. Look back at my picture of the Synaptic Manager there is roughly 40,000 porgrams all free. Here is the Linux distro map you can click on any names on the map download a FREE copy of Linux and install.
I don't consider any Linux software FREE. It takes a lot of time to download, install and comprehend Linux and my time is not FREE. If your time is worthless then it is FREE.
 
At least for Ubuntu already taken care of... (April 7, 2014)  Not all coding is absolutely clean but when something is found it's fixed and updated within a few days.

I was referring to 2 years ago when the code was first added to OpenSSL.  Once the bug was found, and not by looking at the code, it was obvious by looking at the code what the problem was and it was fixed.  In fact, only some versions of OpenSSL were affected.  Earlier and later ones were not.  The moral is don't assume that open source code is bug free because "thousands of eyes" have looked at it because it's likely very few eyes have looked.

At least we didn't have to wait for the next patch Tuesday :)
 
SeilerBird said:
I don't consider any Linux software FREE. It takes a lot of time to download, install and comprehend Linux and my time is not FREE. If your time is worthless then it is FREE.

It took as much or more of your time to comprehend Windows, but it was in stages from DOS through the various versions of Windows. Windows takes as long to install as many Linux Distros do (more, if you include those distros such as Knoppix that run from a CD/DVD), except that, because of MS dominance (and some corporate practices I won't go into here), Win comes pre-installed on nearly all PCs, whether you want it or not (there are a few exceptions), but you pay money for Windows, rather than time for Linux, and my time doesn't generate income anymore.

And you don't HAVE to download Linux -- CDs and DVDs are available (at much lower cost than Windows) to purchase.

We all agree that Linux isn't for everyone, but that's JUST as true for Win and MAC. And note that I'm running Windows 7 (and XP on my laptop), so I'm not speaking from an anti-Windows bias, just from reality. I don't know where your anti-Linux bias comes from, but it's evident.

I'm done here.
 
I installed Ubuntu just for the challenge, which was simple. I won't say that for installing the printer for the first time.
 
With my previous machine, I used to dual-boot Windows 7 and Ubuntu Linux.  Now that I have the new Dell (Alienware), with Win 8 and a new type of bios, it proved more difficult than I wanted to pursue to get it to dual boot.  I may consider running a Linux in a Virtual box. Can anyone talk to the performance experience when running Linux this way?
 
I've run numerous Linux distros in VMWare Workstation, VMWare Player, and now VirtualBox and they run as well as on the equivalent native hardware.  The only problem I'm having at the moment is getting the Ubuntu flavors to run at more than 1024x768 video resolution on VirtualBox.  Virtual machines are much easier to deal with than multi-booting.
 
Ned said:
I've run numerous Linux distros in VMWare Workstation, VMWare Player, and now VirtualBox and they run as well as on the equivalent native hardware.  The only problem I'm having at the moment is getting the Ubuntu flavors to run at more than 1024x768 video resolution on VirtualBox.  Virtual machines are much easier to deal with than multi-booting.

Ned by chance did you increase your video memory for the Virtual Box? Or did you for get to load the companion drivers? Typically that is the hang up.

eliallen said:
I installed Ubuntu just for the challenge, which was simple. I won't say that for installing the printer for the first time.

Printers are a bit different. Just remember your using CUPS server. Localhost:631 is the address...
 
Mopar1973Man said:
Ned by chance did you increase your video memory for the Virtual Box? Or did you for get to load the companion drivers? Typically that is the hang up.

Yes, I've increased the video memory and tried both with and without 3D acceleration.  I suspect part of the problem is that the VB guest extensions may not be installing correctly because Ubuntu says the driver isn't running.  Checking for the additional drivers shows that problem and doesn't show any drivers for the video card.
 
Ned said:
Yes, I've increased the video memory and tried both with and without 3D acceleration.  I suspect part of the problem is that the VB guest extensions may not be installing correctly because Ubuntu says the driver isn't running.  Checking for the additional drivers shows that problem and doesn't show any drivers for the video card.

What version of VirtualBox are you running (4.3.10)?

Did you try the latest extension pack of VirtualBox?

https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

 
Back
Top Bottom