Dispelling some misconceptions about Linux.
When people find out I run Linux on my computer instead of Windows or even Mac OS X they sometimes have funny ideas about what it must be like. Some of it is historical; Linux used to be quite difficult to administer in its younger days. Some of it is misinformation, or no information at all. I hope to dispell some of the misconceptions.…
Article comments
76 - 电子网
Webcameras are a pain to get going in Linux, unless they are name brand I've found. I have Ubuntu, but run XP too.
77 - Octopocky
I've tried loading Ubuntu/Xubuntu onto about half a dozen systems. It loaded without hardware issue on all but one, a no longer new P4 system. The odd thing is that SimplyMepis works on the one that Ubuntu didn't. Go figure.
78 - Kahlil Robinson
MYTH: Linux is an operating system, created by Linus Torvalds.
REALITY: Linux is a monolithic kernel, created by Linus Torvalds, for the GNU operating system, which is why we call it "GNU" or "GNU/Linux".
79 - Jason
Anecdote time regarding hardware: The reason I switched to Linux (instead of just messing around with it in my spare time) was because my printer stopped working in Windows. It was after some Windows update (it happens; you can expect MS to tailor their updates around every piece of hardware on Earth), but HP couldn't be bothered to update the drivers. Yet, the printer works perfectly fine in Linux. Apparently the Linux people who make generic drivers designed to make every printer work with every Linux distro in their spare time are better at it than the paid programmers at HP who only have to make one printer work with one operating system.
With fewer and fewer people using modems, and simple work arounds for compatibility issues with PDAs, digital cameras, and iPods (and possibly Zunes), the last big hardware hurdle for most people is wireless cards. There are still a limited number that work in Linux and even they are (a lot of times) very annoying to get working right.
Anything that syncs to your computer is going to be an issue. Most music players are a non-issue at this point, as are Palms (and to a lesser extent Pocket PCs). However, as gadgets, like cell-phones, get new features, they will need to sync with a computer. That means more drivers are needed and more issues to get in the way of abandoning Windows completely.
Also, ATI needs to stop sucking already and make with the non-crappy Linux drivers.
While I wouldn't say Linux is unbearably difficult for even the computer illiterate, it is more difficult to use than Windows. In many areas it's no different than Windows, in some it's easier, and in some it's harder. Overall, I would still say it's a bit harder than Windows.
You really should ditch the link to this as the guy really doesn't know what he's talking about. It's true that there are very few Linux viruses as a result of superior design (not userbase size). However, when he starts talking about worms and trojans it becomes very apparent that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Worms work in Linux for the same reason that they work in Linux - through unpatched security holes. Same thing, however, he blames Windows worms on the OS and Linux worms on the user. The fact of the matter is that they are basically the same thing. Now, Linux security holes tend to get patched more quickly, but that doesn't make Linux immune at all.
Trojans are another instance where he tries to obscure the difference between it and viruses, while blaming the user for any problems. Trojans work because the user gives the OS permission to install it. All of the security in the world won't help you, because you just bypassed all of the security. It's equivalent to having the strongest locks on your house door but still getting robbed because you opened the door for what you thought was the mailman. So yes, it's the users fault, but in no way demonstrates the superiority of Linux. In fact it shows a shared weakness with Windows. One that can never be fixed, because trojans work by tricking the user, not exploiting the operating system.
He then tries to claim that trojans never work on Linux system because network admins don't do things with root permission unless they're sure. Fine, that might be true. However, he uses this as evidence that Linux is better for home users. It's not, because home users are not network admins so they might not know any better.
The claim that all Linux viruses are just lies by the evil AV industry is just a load of crap. He offers no proof, just baseless accusations that you would only believe if you already thought that the industry was evil. Linux is perfect, therefore anyone who says there might be a flaw in Linux must be up to no good. Bull. He really comes off as a conspiracy nutcase here.
Basically, he's just a Linux zealot who thinks that getting Linux to run on his home machine makes him an expert at network security. His article is fully of holes and attacks to be taken without a large pile of salt.
He (and you) seems to dismiss all claims about Linux viruses without regard to who is actually making them, by claiming that it's just the AV industry trying to sell a product. Do you not realize that many of the people saying there are no Linux viruses are trying to promote a product? They may not make money off it, but that doesn't mean they aren't so hell bent on getting everyone to use it that they're being objective about it. Also, do you not realize that Linux AV software is free?
Aside from that article and the fact that you seem to believe it, _your_ article is pretty good. I'm glad to see somebody be honest about the shortcomings of Wine (though it is a good project), rather than claim that you can just run all of your Windows apps through Wine like so many people do.
However, I do have to disagree with this statement: "Linux users are a bunch of commies and hippies". Not all of us a trying to lead a revolution against the Evil MS Empire. Some of us are just too cheap to buy software and, due to having no social lives, have plenty of time to mess around with Linux.
Hmmm, longer response that I thought it would be. Sorry about that :)
80 - Steve Wild
Jason - Thanks very much for taking the time to comment. Glad you liked the article, but I'll have to take issue with a couple of things you said.
"You really should ditch the link to this as the guy really doesn't know what he's talking about."
Umm, "the guy" is Rick Moen, who is certainly not "just a Linux zealot who thinks that getting Linux to run on his home machine makes him an expert at network security." Google his name, and you'll find he's an extremely qualified Linux system administrator, well known in the Linux community, who's given lectures at LinuxWorld and written many articles, and collaborated with Eric Raymond on the classic article How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. He is certainly much more qualified to speak on the subject than you or I.
You are correct, however, a home user who simply runs everything as root would be susceptible to trojans and viruses. Proper distros are not set up for a user to run as root, unlike Windows XP Home (I won't comment on Vista security, which may be effective but is so intrusive that many people simply turn it off), so a user would have to work harder to trash his system with malware. Rick Moen states as much in another article about the Linspire-runs-as-root controversy here.
So, yes, I believe him, based on both my own experience with Linux, the authority of the author of the article I linked to, and the experience of thousands of other Linux users. The fact that Linux antivirus software can be free (there are commercial packages available) does not mean that it is needed.
The exception I would make is for a mail server, as it would probably have Windows clients that would need protecting.
Having said that, if someone still wants to run AV software I certainly wouldn't tell them not to. It's a waste of CPU cycles, but if it makes them feel more secure then by all means.
Even though we disagree on that point, I did enjoy your comment. It's good for people to see another opinion. Thanks for your thoughts.
Steve Wild
81 - Stu Capon
So much of this chimes with my experience. I dabbled over the years trying to dump windows even paid for Mandrake 7.0 but always something (normally a CAD program) stopped me jumping each time.
The mental tipping point for me was getting WPA wireless working on an old IBM X20 laptop running Win2k (has to be fully legal, not prepared to try Xp) tried Ubuntu and it worked, suddenly not a single reason to be using windows (admittedly CAD is not used on that old IBM)
Happiness is having "enough" and Vista/MS is totally aimed at convincing us that what we have is not enough, buy faster bigger, more RAM more CPU cores to just send some emails??
That old IBM running Ubuntu is enough to email, browse the net office stuff, simple image editing and saves me the cost of an Asus Eee.
In work mode my biggest problem is Sarbanes Oxley compliance, most people looking after that stuff just don't get the whole Linux thing. First question, does it run the corporate approved antivirus program? er no then it is forbidden...... fingers in ears "We only talk Windows" can't hear you....
Maybe we need a SOX-Linux
Every time I use the X20 I feel positive, maybe even a sense of "Ubuntu".
Every time I get a user bitching about how slow windows is while antivirus is working or some other expensive program coughs due to updates/incompatibility leaves me longing for the day when Linux is at last enough.
And that is not even using Sloth-Vista thank heavens.
82 - Jane
I support Linux 100% but I feel that people should make an objective decision for themselves after reading The Truth About Linux.