good news everybody!

[danny_galaga]

this is my very first non-windows driven post! i've been using firefox for a while, so i'm weened off explorer. recently though i've had some freaky stuff happen whereby someone (or some trojan/bot/virus/what-have-you) spammed everyone in my yahoo emails address book. sending the spam as me! i knew straight away because i have myself in my address book. mofos 

a good friend,  is an absolute linux nut. how much? well, he hacked an xbox so that he could run linux on it and used it as a server for his site windows1984.com! (sites gone now, dont bother looking for it). anyway, he basically said 'quit yer complaining and get linux, like ive told you to do for these last 5 years'. he recommended installing ubuntu. so i did!

it's ubuntu 8.04 and it's set up as dual boot with xp. it was quite easy to set up. probably easier than xp actually. only prob i had was that i have two hard rives and ubuntu didnt want to partition the drive with xp. so i just disconnected the secondary drive while installing. so as someone who is really scared of trying these things out, i can tell you its easy! this coming from a guy who had trouble setting up mame32...

[danny_galaga]

i see there are twice as many views for my bad news...

anyway. so far so good. there was a screen flicker which i fixed by turning off 'visual effects' in the desktop. i now have xmame installed too. it runs from the same rom file as my mame32 in xp.

there will hardly be a reason anymore for me to boot up in xp now 

not that anyone cares 

[patrickl]

Lol, good luck.

Are you really any safer with Linux than with Windows? I need to install so many patches to keep my servers safe. I would say that the open source software is usually riddled with security leaks. Maybe you are safer by numbers (less people with Linux, so less hackers targeting it), but I doubt Linux as such is actually safer than Windows (the newer versions at least).

[danny_galaga]

i think some of what you say is true. less users, less viruses. but also (and i dont know much except to say i read it somewhere) linux is 'bolted' together differently to windoze in such a way that its really hard to breach its security. my linux friend is always telling me about it but im not technical enough to absorb the gist of it. heres some general info:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765421

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

also, as soon as there are updates for security, ubuntu prompts you. rather than the months it takes microsoft...

[patrickl]

Lol yeah, the installation/configuration nightmare that it is probably protects it from automated installations too.

BTW the security updates on Windows happen more often than every few months. You are probably thinking about service packs. Look in your update history and you'll see several updates per month.

[danny_galaga]

old thread, new link for reason linux is safer than windoze when it comes to viruses:

http://librenix.com/?inode=21

[AtomSmasher]

old thread, new link for reason linux is safer than windoze when it comes to viruses:

http://librenix.com/?inode=21

I wouldn't say thats a new link considering that article was written 8 years ago, well before Windows XP even existed 

[danny_galaga]

old thread, new link for reason linux is safer than windoze when it comes to viruses:

http://librenix.com/?inode=21

I wouldn't say thats a new link considering that article was written 8 years ago, well before Windows XP even existed 

new for ME 

anyway, it says it was updated in 2005. and both linux and windows still operate in much the same way to similar detriment or advantage...

[AtomSmasher]

old thread, new link for reason linux is safer than windoze when it comes to viruses:

http://librenix.com/?inode=21

I wouldn't say thats a new link considering that article was written 8 years ago, well before Windows XP even existed 

new for ME 

anyway, it says it was updated in 2005. and both linux and windows still operate in much the same way to similar detriment or advantage...

Checking the wayback machine, all that appears to of been updated in the article are the links at the end of it, not the article itself.  I'm not saying the article is wrong, just that it's dated.  For instance it says that "Bliss is the only Linux-compatible virus seen in the wild" but that isn't true anymore (although there still are only maybe dozen or so linux viruses in the wild, with only maybe 3-4 of them widespread enough to worry about, which is impressive). 

Regardless, there obviously are far fewer viruses written for Linux, but then the install base is so much smaller then windows that it's not exactly surprising less hackers write virus's for it.

[danny_galaga]

man, you burst my bubble! anyway, that article and others point out its not just the install base that effects how many viruses there are for it (the majority of servers are linux based apparently, what better reason to write viruses?). the fact that it works quite differently makes it harder to write a virus that will do much damage to linux, oops Linux. talking to my linux friend about it, he was quite pleased i hit the nail on the head when i suggested that since a virus needs to be quite a small packet of code, and it would take much more code to write a malicious virus for linux to any great effect, it could no longer really be a virus (in the same way as the real thing- if the organism had to physically get bigger to do any damage to its host, it could no longer be a virus but something else). therefore it would be much harder to fool people into using it. it certainly wont work as an exe extension, linux doesnt work that way.

you use a mac dont you atom? mac is based on unix and has much the same sort of built in security. i think the big threat for these systems isnt from viruses, but from a bogus program being installed. some sort of hacking of ubuntus servers would have to be done for instance. in ubuntu (and i guess some other linux distros) anything you want is listed in what is called the 'synaptic package manager'. if you need some software, you will normally find it there. downloading from there is a garantee it is safe. if someone were to hack into the servers you download that software from, im guessing they could install a simple bit of code in place of a popular program.

however you would have to reinvigorate 'social engineering' into linux and mac users. most linux users have either become wary through silly experience (like me), or are just more wary anyway, of things like pop ups and spam emails. i saw a good example with my housemate. i cant believe she fell for it. she clicked on a pop up that announced she was the 1 millionth person to visit that site and she had won a free holiday in florida. she happened to be going to cuba anyway so she ended up calling them and was promptly talked out of several hundred dollars through the dodgy holiday guys. all technically legal of course. just that it would now cost her even more to actually use the 'free' holiday'. Why i mention this is that if instead of a holiday hotline there was malicious code, and even though linux prompts for a password anytime you are going to install something, if i unthinkingly did, i might install a command like this: rm -rf /

which apparently will delete all files on the hard drive!  as i mentioned before, a VIRUS couldnt do this per se since every time it tries to run it, i will be asked for my password. it also could not send that command out to other computers, so if it cant propagate, it cant be considered a virus either.

ive been thinking about getting a virus scanner for linux, but the consensus on the ubuntu forums is that it is merely a placebo, and that it would be merely scanning for windows viruses anyway. the fact that thousands of people are constantly updating the distro and uploading patches for known exploits, seems to have the same effect anyway...

[AtomSmasher]

you use a mac dont you atom? mac is based on unix and has much the same sort of built in security. i think the big threat for these systems isnt from viruses, but from a bogus program being installed.

No i use Windows, although I do agree with you.  In fact thats the only way I've ever seen anyone get a virus on any system, by downloading and running a file from an unsecure source which turned out to be infected.  As long as you have a decent firewall enabled, then thats pretty much the only way you can be infected on any system.

Your right about the most effective way to not get a virus is to keep your system updated.  The same thing goes for windows, who also frequently fixes known exploits, and keeping an up to date antivirus program is also crucial.  I've used windows for many years, and have even run a number of infected files in the past, but I've never been infected myself since I've always kept windows and my antivirus programs up to date.

Something kind of interesting I was just reading about, about a year ago the first cross platform virus came out.  It works on Mac's, Linux, and Windows through an exploit in OpenOffice.  It's basically just a proof of concept virus for now, to show where the vulnerability is, so it's not something to be concerned with yet, but then so was the BubbleBoy virus years ago until someone used the concept to create a nasty virus, so hopefully the vulnerability is fixed quickly (if it isn't already).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/22/badbunny/

[patrickl]

you use a mac dont you atom? mac is based on unix and has much the same sort of built in security. i think the big threat for these systems isnt from viruses, but from a bogus program being installed.

No i use Windows, although I do agree with you.  In fact thats the only way I've ever seen anyone get a virus on any system, by downloading and running a file from an unsecure source which turned out to be infected.  As long as you have a decent firewall enabled, then thats pretty much the only way you can be infected on any system.

There were virusses (or worms) that came through security leaks in software like Outlook Express and Internet Explorer. You might be exposed to hostile software by your friends. For instance, because their infected Outlook Express sent the same infected e-mail to everyone in it's address book. Or when their website got some hostile code implanted.

The reason it's difficult to write a virus for Linux is that "Linux" is not a single product. There are millions of versions which are all incompatible with each other.

[AtomSmasher]

There were virusses (or worms) that came through security leaks in software like Outlook Express and Internet Explorer. You might be exposed to hostile software by your friends. For instance, because their infected Outlook Express sent the same infected e-mail to everyone in it's address book. Or when their website got some hostile code implanted.

I know there were.  In fact the BubbleBoy virus I mentioned was actually a milestone in that type of virus because it was the first one where you get infected if you look at the email in the preview window, no longer requiring you to open the email.  However most, if not all, of those security holes have since been patched.

I'm not disagreeing that Linux is more difficult to write viruses for, but it is possible to write viruses for it, and I believe the main reason more hackers don't target it is because of its small install base, not because they feel it's too difficult.  And like you said, there are many versions of Linux and a virus that works on one does not necessarily work on the others, which further limits the install base for which OS the hackers would target.

[danny_galaga]

Something kind of interesting I was just reading about, about a year ago the first cross platform virus came out.  It works on Mac's, Linux, and Windows through an exploit in OpenOffice.  It's basically just a proof of concept virus for now, to show where the vulnerability is, so it's not something to be concerned with yet, but then so was the BubbleBoy virus years ago until someone used the concept to create a nasty virus, so hopefully the vulnerability is fixed quickly (if it isn't already).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/22/badbunny/

oooh! now THAT sounds interesting. if i was one of those nasty dudes that writes viruses, thats what id want. a little something for everyone! that also means it doesnt matter which version of linux you run either, since its exploiting open office. besides, the linux kernel, of which all the variants are based, is much the same.

hmmm, ill have to keep an eye on the ubuntu forums for virus alerts...

edit: fixted (",)

still, i will be ever more vigilant with opening docs. for instance the last few days ive been unblocking all the pop ups i find from 'free stuff' sites so i can sign nigerian scammers up and hopefully put them on heaps of mailings lists 

well, its a hobby of mine 

[AtomSmasher]

besides, the linux kernel, of which all the variants are based, is much the same.

Ya that was my first thought too, but when I went looking at the various Linux viruses I found several of them only worked on certain versions, such as Red Hat, Mandrake or Debian.

Heh, I rarely update my seemingly safe programs such as Open Office, but it looks like nows a good time to do so since they patched that security hole 

[patrickl]

I had a hell of a time finding the right drivers for SCSI and/or RAID cards in my Linux servers. The hardware manual says "Linux supported", but that can mean just about anything. Indeed the kernel might be similar, but it still doesn't work.

Of course you can ask around on forums, but usually the reply would be "You can write your own". Indeed it turned out that the drivers I ultimately found were written by some guy who since stopped supporting them.

[Level42]

[danny_galaga]

I had a hell of a time finding the right drivers for SCSI and/or RAID cards in my Linux servers. The hardware manual says "Linux supported", but that can mean just about anything. Indeed the kernel might be similar, but it still doesn't work.

Of course you can ask around on forums, but usually the reply would be "You can write your own". Indeed it turned out that the drivers I ultimately found were written by some guy who since stopped supporting them.

yes, i must admit if i had to muck around with drivers i would be put off even trying linux. but i have  onboard graphics on this pc and its 4 years old so evidently everything in this machine is supported. i still have dual boot with xp though. for instance, i have my housemates hp scanner sitting here. i havent tried to see if it works in ubuntu yet but if it doesnt, i know it works in xp. i need to scan a whole bunch of photos and after that i dont need it.

oh, and level42. that was my friends reaction too when i told him. he said 'just get a mac, and everything will just work' but i have this pc and im poorer than him 

[Blanka]

yes, i must admit if i had to muck around with drivers i would be put off even trying linux. but i have  onboard graphics on this pc and its 4 years old so evidently everything in this machine is supported. i still have dual boot with xp though. for instance, i have my housemates hp scanner sitting here. i havent tried to see if it works in ubuntu yet but if it doesnt, i know it works in xp. i need to scan a whole bunch of photos and after that i dont need it.

oh, and level42. that was my friends reaction too when i told him. he said 'just get a mac, and everything will just work' but i have this pc and im poorer than him 

Does your PC have SSE3 support on an Intel microprocessor? Then try installing OSX on that PC  Just search for Dr. Kalyway. He'll show you the road.

[Level42]

A Mac is not expensive. You get more value for your buck. It will outlast any PC (in terms of being a usefull machine)  and stay in value much longer than any PC.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini

[Ed_McCarron]

Why is it that everytime I read this topic, I hear the professor from Futurama in my head?

[Level42]

yes, i must admit if i had to muck around with drivers i would be put off even trying linux. but i have  onboard graphics on this pc and its 4 years old so evidently everything in this machine is supported. i still have dual boot with xp though. for instance, i have my housemates hp scanner sitting here. i havent tried to see if it works in ubuntu yet but if it doesnt, i know it works in xp. i need to scan a whole bunch of photos and after that i dont need it.

oh, and level42. that was my friends reaction too when i told him. he said 'just get a mac, and everything will just work' but i have this pc and im poorer than him 

Does your PC have SSE3 support on an Intel microprocessor? Then try installing OSX on that PC  Just search for Dr. Kalyway. He'll show you the road.

Not sure if the Celeron on my (brandnew) Dell laptop (hey it's from and for my work ) has SSE3 (how could I check that) but I'm gonna give that Kalyway stuff a try on it, thanks for that info...

[AtomSmasher]

A Mac is not expensive. You get more value for your buck. It will outlast any PC (in terms of being a usefull machine)  and stay in value much longer than any PC.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini

If you like the OS more, thats one thing, but since they use the same hardware and yet cost more, the two things you can't say are that they last longer and you get more for your money.  Your statement just screams fanboy.

Heres a recent article showing that buying upgrades from the Apple store can cost 3 times as much then buying the same thing from Dell.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49297849-2,00.htm

[abzman2000]

Why is it that everytime I read this topic, I hear the professor from Futurama in my head?

relax, we all do

[danny_galaga]

Why is it that everytime I read this topic, I hear the professor from Futurama in my head?

well, hubert farnsworth IS in the first post...

[richms]

the mac mini is a joke, and they have nothing between that and a mac pro that doesnt have a damn screen built into it.

building a hackntosh out of one of my pcs is on the to-do list, but all my current machines are crap or amd. Perhaps next upgrade I will pickup a core2 and mobo to play with.

[Level42]

the mac mini is a joke

Yeah, why ?

[Level42]

A Mac is not expensive. You get more value for your buck. It will outlast any PC (in terms of being a usefull machine)  and stay in value much longer than any PC.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini

If you like the OS more, thats one thing, but since they use the same hardware and yet cost more, the two things you can't say are that they last longer and you get more for your money.  Your statement just screams fanboy.

Heres a recent article showing that buying upgrades from the Apple store can cost 3 times as much then buying the same thing from Dell.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49297849-2,00.htm

READ what I wrote. I didn't say the LAST longer, I said they KEPT THEIR VALUE longer. When Apple updates OS X it makes it run FASTER instead of unbelievably slower. Because of that, a Mac of a certain age will run fine again for MORE time. Also 2nd hand Macs are worth more than 2nd hand PC's.
That's what I meant....

[AtomSmasher]

A Mac is not expensive. You get more value for your buck. It will outlast any PC (in terms of being a usefull machine)  and stay in value much longer than any PC.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini

If you like the OS more, thats one thing, but since they use the same hardware and yet cost more, the two things you can't say are that they last longer and you get more for your money.  Your statement just screams fanboy.

Heres a recent article showing that buying upgrades from the Apple store can cost 3 times as much then buying the same thing from Dell.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49297849-2,00.htm

READ what I wrote. I didn't say the LAST longer, I said they KEPT THEIR VALUE longer. When Apple updates OS X it makes it run FASTER instead of unbelievably slower. Because of that, a Mac of a certain age will run fine again for MORE time. Also 2nd hand Macs are worth more than 2nd hand PC's.
That's what I meant....

RE-READ what I was responding to before telling me to read it.  You said "it will outlast any PC" and then added the qualifier that you mean it as "being a useful machine".  I assumed since I was responding directly to your post that I didn't need to include that qualifier, but I guess I was wrong.

Anyways, as I said its the same exact hardware as a PC so the viability of the hardware in the future is exactly the same, only the same exact hardware is more expensive when buying a mac.  It's possible second hand macs are worth more then PCs, I've never done the research, but I doubt the difference you gain when selling them is more then the difference you lose when buying a new mac.

Also, updates to XP have made it run faster as well, so thats not exclusive to macs, although you have to pay to get the upgrades on the mac while they're free on the PC (specifics on the actual costs can be found in the last Mac thread).   The major updates in the service packs have always increased speed, and the updates to Direct X have caused major improvements as well.

Similarly built PCs and Macs should maintain a similar amount of usefulness for the same amount of time.  Only a fanboy (on either side of the debate) will argue differently.

[danny_galaga]

Also, updates to XP have made it run faster as well, so thats not exclusive to macs, although you have to pay to get the upgrades on the mac while they're free on the PC (specifics on the actual costs can be found in the last Mac thread).   The major updates in the service packs have always increased speed, and the updates to Direct X have caused major improvements as well.

Similarly built PCs and Macs should maintain a similar amount of usefulness for the same amount of time.  Only a fanboy (on either side of the debate) will argue differently.

ah, but if you upgrade that same pc from xp to vista, watch it turn into something ass-tastic  i think that might be what level is referring to. whereas in Linux (and im guessing Mac) you CAN upgrade the OS for longer on the same machine without a drop in performance. If i had put Vista on this machine instead of Ubuntu, it would have run a lot slower for instance. Now it runs faster than XP. you come to accept that with windows. to me its actually pointless with windows to do that. better to buy a new pc that can handle the new OS and sell the old one with the most up to date version of the OS it was designed for...

[AtomSmasher]

ah, but if you upgrade that same pc from xp to vista, watch it turn into something ass-tastic  i think that might be what level is referring to. whereas in Linux (and im guessing Mac) you CAN upgrade the OS for longer on the same machine without a drop in performance. If i had put Vista on this machine instead of Ubuntu, it would have run a lot slower for instance. Now it runs faster than XP. you come to accept that with windows. to me its actually pointless with windows to do that. better to buy a new pc that can handle the new OS and sell the old one with the most up to date version of the OS it was designed for...

Vista was never mentioned before his comment, so it's pretty difficult to assume that's what he was talking about.  Vista is not a popular OS and will not be a required upgrade (the OS after Vista probably will be though), and besides that, it is a completely new OS with a new kernel, so it would only really be fair compare it to when Mac upgraded from OS 9 to OSX.  But now the discussion is taking a completely different turn that I don't really feel like getting into.

When Level42 made his first comment, the discussion was about Linux, XP and OS X, so one can only assume that when he said PC he was referring to it having either XP or Linux installed.  He never specifies an OS and just says PC, so he seems to also believe that a PC with Linux installed has a shorter usefullness lifespan then a Mac.  It was my mistake to focus solely on the Windows side in my last post when I should of also been talking about Linux as well.

Besides, like I've been saying over and over, they all use the same hardware, so you can install OS X, XP, Vista, and Linux all on the same computer.  It makes no sense for the hardware of one computer to become obsolete before another computer of similar hardware when they are the same.

[Ed_McCarron]

Why is it that everytime I read this topic, I hear the professor from Futurama in my head?

well, hubert farnsworth IS in the first post...

Oh, yeah, I see.

You didn't think I actually -read- the thread, did you?

[danny_galaga]

Besides, like I've been saying over and over, they all use the same hardware, so you can install OS X, XP, Vista, and Linux all on the same computer.  It makes no sense for the hardware of one computer to become obsolete before another computer of similar hardware when they are the same.

true enough