Once again. Why do we want windows users? - Linux

This is a discussion on Once again. Why do we want windows users? - Linux ; Why is the entire pro-Linux news media so concerned about getting more desktop users from that other bloatware to switch? That is, what advantage is there to the Linux community if they do? Anybody who wants Linux is running it ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

  1. Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    Why is the entire pro-Linux news media so concerned about getting more
    desktop users from that other bloatware to switch? That is, what
    advantage is there to the Linux community if they do? Anybody who wants
    Linux is running it now. Future users who want to have a secure and
    stable OS will find it.

    Assume for a moment that Bloatware Inc goes out of business (fat chance,
    but this is just a what-if?) and all the millions of users in the world
    eventually switch. Then we will have a world full of icon clickers who
    surf as root, download neat screen savers that they are offered by email,
    demand that everything be made simpler (about 4th grade level) and fill up
    the 'Net' with zombied Linux machines.

    So what advantages do these millions of technology deficient users bring
    to the Linux community? The only thing I can think of is driver support
    from manufacturers who then would have to support it. They have NOTHING
    else to donate.

    Linux is like living in a gated community. The technical requirements
    keep the great unwashed masses from walking across our lawn. Why remove
    the guards from the gatehouse?

    keersarge

  2. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    ____/ keersarge on Friday 02 November 2007 04:38 : \____

    > So what advantages do these millions of technology deficient users bring
    > to the Linux community?


    In case you have not noticed, a certain large company wants to make it
    impossible for us to use the Internet, the key applications, and many other
    things. Its tools for achieving this goal are many and they include a hijack
    of the World Wide Web and the server room. It's done through exclusion.

    Another thing that large company tries to do is ensure you can no longer get
    Linux for free.

    There are many other reasons to list here, but that escapes the main point.

    The tools for fighing the big company is ensuring that our presence is seen by
    Webmasters and developers. This way, we'll be treated as though we're a
    component that can never be ignored. The insiders in the BBC, for example, are
    already talking on behalf on a big company, which they used to work for. They
    spit out bogus figures that strive to imply that Linux users do not exist. I
    saw this in the news 2 days ago.

    To sum up, Linux users must be vocal in order for Linux to grow. Quiet
    existence leaves you behind.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Ribbon-type shortcuts in Palm handhelds leads to SMS talk. We must we
    abbreviate?
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    06:05:01 up 2 days, 10:16, 3 users, load average: 1.35, 0.87, 1.33
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  3. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    On 2007-11-02, keersarge claimed:
    > Why is the entire pro-Linux news media so concerned about getting more
    > desktop users from that other bloatware to switch? That is, what
    > advantage is there to the Linux community if they do? Anybody who wants
    > Linux is running it now. Future users who want to have a secure and
    > stable OS will find it.
    >
    > Assume for a moment that Bloatware Inc goes out of business (fat chance,
    > but this is just a what-if?) and all the millions of users in the world
    > eventually switch. Then we will have a world full of icon clickers who
    > surf as root, download neat screen savers that they are offered by email,
    > demand that everything be made simpler (about 4th grade level) and fill up
    > the 'Net' with zombied Linux machines.
    >
    > So what advantages do these millions of technology deficient users bring
    > to the Linux community? The only thing I can think of is driver support
    > from manufacturers who then would have to support it. They have NOTHING
    > else to donate.
    >
    > Linux is like living in a gated community. The technical requirements
    > keep the great unwashed masses from walking across our lawn. Why remove
    > the guards from the gatehouse?


    Indeed. Make sure the guards are armed. And have killer dogs.

    --
    Change is inevitable. Except from vending machines.

  4. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    [snips]

    On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 04:38:42 +0000, keersarge wrote:

    > Assume for a moment that Bloatware Inc goes out of business (fat chance,
    > but this is just a what-if?) and all the millions of users in the world
    > eventually switch. Then we will have a world full of icon clickers who
    > surf as root, download neat screen savers that they are offered by email,
    > demand that everything be made simpler (about 4th grade level) and fill up
    > the 'Net' with zombied Linux machines.


    Depends how it's all done.

    Take KUbuntu as an example. Makes it barking easy for the user to install
    "real" applications - run the package manager, enter your password, pick
    your app and go.

    It also makes it easy for him to do "system" level things, such as adding
    a printer. Try to do it, enter your password, do it, done.

    He never runs as root; he can't, root has no password, thus cannot log on.
    He can certainly execute tasks as root, via sudo, but recall we're
    assuming he's a turnip, the notion of using the CLI (or figuring out how
    to get the GUI to do the job, other than where it's designed to) is
    presumably beyond him, or at least his interest.

    In short, he can do the stuff he needs to, pretty easily, but not the
    stuff he probably shouldn't do. This alone would make it somewhat less
    likely he's going to run as root or do equally asinine things.

    > So what advantages do these millions of technology deficient users bring
    > to the Linux community?


    Possibly none at all. However, if we can eliminate a significant portion
    of the zombies, botnets and other crap out there, we _all_ win as a
    result. Let's look at a simple example. I fired up IE and headed over to
    www.tucows.com. Front page, there's something called "stopzilla". Click
    the link, up comes a dialog - "Run, Save, Cancel".

    Run? *RUN*? Excuse me? This is an unknown file from a remote source,
    something which should not ever be run except in the most trusted cases,
    yet here's this mindless little dialog allowing me to run this file with a
    single freaking mouse click!

    Fine, click run. Up comes another dialog - do you want to run this
    software? Run or don't run.

    Where's the "scan for exploits"? Where's the "This did not come from our
    trusted repository, so it should be considered an EXTREME risk and only
    run if you are ABSOLUTELY certain you can trust that it is free from
    dangerous code"?

    Three mouse clicks: one to download, one to select run, one to confirm,
    and my system is - potentially, at least - *owned*. Outright.

    Now try that in Linux.

    Download. Okay, well, depending on the browser and settings, it either
    downloads to my desktop (or other default folder), or asks me where to save
    it to. Browse if necessary. Save.

    Ho hum, okay, download is complete. Dialog says "open" (among other
    things). Open? Okay, it's a .bin file. Open means... ah, it opens in my
    text editor, because the system hasn't got a clue what a "bin" file is or
    what to do with it.

    Close the editor. Now, where'd the file go? Ah, yes, I put it in a
    downloads folder. Open up the file manager. Find the downloads folder.
    There's the file. Click on it. Hmm... text editor again.

    I know I can make it executable. How do you do that again? Oh, right.
    Go to the file. Right-click. Select "Properties". Select "permissions".
    Click "is executable". Click "ok". Click on the file again, it executes.

    Let's compare that, shall we?

    Windows Linux

    Download file Download File
    Click "run" Browse to a folder
    Click "run" Click save
    System compromised Open file manager
    Browse to folder
    Right-click file
    Click "properties"
    Click "permissions"
    Click "is executable"
    Click "okay"
    Click file

    That's three steps to infection, every single one of them prompted, versus
    eleven steps, only two of which - browsing to the folder and saving - are
    prompted. The other nine the user has to figure out for himself.

    Of the two, which is vastly more likely to end up with compromised systems
    more or less _by accident_?

    Yes, the user _can_ do the steps necessary to infect themselves in Linux,
    no doubt, but it's a tad less likely he's going to do so without thinking
    about the process, and it is sufficiently complex that in many cases he
    simply won't bother.

    Which brings us to another point. Even if he does do this, he is still
    executing _as a user_. Not as root (at least, generally, and using our
    KUbuntu example, pretty much guaranteed). Which means an exploit which in
    Windows would have full access to most machines, now has very limited
    access to the one machine.

    Yes, such exploits can include escalation code, but that means the things
    are more complex to write, which in and of itself may slow the propagation
    down a little.

    Meanwhile we're overlooking other aspects. We're overlooking that it's
    not just Ubuntu, but other systems as well. We're overlooking the growing
    use of tools such as AppArmour, SELinux and the like. We're also
    overlooking the disparity of Linux systems: an exploit for a 32-bit
    machine is not going to work as intended on a 64-bit box as a rule, and
    vice-versa. Nor is an exploit for the PC going to work on a PPC machine,
    and so on. Which means that an exploit in the wild is a hell of a lot
    more visible in Linux, than in Windows where to all intents and purposes,
    every running machine is effectively the same.

    Even if the exploit can't work - the user actually _is_ a user and the
    exploit has no escalation code, or some such - it is somewhat less likely
    to spew errors about incompatible system libraries and suchlike, meaning
    that where it can work, it does, but where it can't, it is effectively
    silent, whereas in Linux, when it can't, it is *not* silent at all.

    So. Linux makes it harder to get infected, it makes it harder for an
    infection to do any real damage to a given box, it makes it harder for the
    exploit to propagate and it makes it a damned sight easier to spot the
    little bastard out there in the wild - and it virtually eliminates the
    _trivial_ infection of a machine with as few as three mouse clicks.

    This won't eliminate all threats, but it is vastly better than how Windows
    handles such things. Even if we do end up with an endless stream of
    boneheads who actually figure out how to run the latest "icon theme" and
    thus get infected, we make it sufficiently difficult _on average_ for this
    to occur that we would rather expect the 50-million-strong botnets and
    similar threats to be largely a thing of the past.

    Which means we _all_ benefit. Lessened spam from zombies. Lessened
    bandwidth consumption from garbage. Lessened attacks on our own machines,
    which may not be successful now, but do suck bandwidth. Lessened costs to
    business and the like in lost work. Lessened cost to credit companies and
    the like from stolen credit card numbers. Lessened costs on a wide number
    of fronts, actually.

    And not just _slightly_ lessened costs. Message Labs reported that at its
    peak, 1 in 12 emails internet-wide were copies of MyDoom, and they were
    seeing up to 60,000 copies *per hour*.

    Trend Micro suggests that in 2003, the total cost of virus-borne damages
    was on the order of $55 billion, and doubling each year for the years
    2001-2003.

    Anything which makes life more difficult for exploits and their authors
    is a net win, and Windows has done, to be blunt, **** all in 15 years to
    even pretend to slow the problem. Linux won't solve every aspect of every
    problem, let's not kid ourselves, but it *does* present a much harsher and
    more resistant environment for such beasts. Maybe we can't eliminate
    them, but we can certainly slow them down a lot.

    And that, frankly, is sufficient. If we can reduce a $55 billion a year
    problem to a $5 billion a year problem, that's $50 billion not be wasted,
    not being tossed in the fireplace to accomplish nothing.

    This, to me, is a very big win - and it's a win we can achieve even *with*
    an endless stream of turnips at the keyboard.

    > Linux is like living in a gated community. The technical requirements
    > keep the great unwashed masses from walking across our lawn.


    What technical requirements? It is *easier* to install than Windows. It
    can be purchased pre-installed, like Windows. Its is *easier* to install
    and update software. It is *easier* to get much hardware working. With
    systems such as Ubuntu, even "restricted" hardware is easier to get
    working than with Windows.

    In use, it is no more difficult than Windows. A word processor still
    processes words, a mail client still handles email. Media players still
    play media.

    And it *doesn't* require all the anti-spyware, anti-virus and other crud
    that you need to install, update, care for and feed.

    And you can use your 64-bit machine and actually expect your hardware to
    work. And your applications. And your data.

    Oh, yes, it *is* more difficult in one area: if you really want to
    download those cool little icon themes, it is, in fact, more difficult to
    compromise your system in the process.

    This, IMO, is not such a bad thing.

  5. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 04:38:42 +0000, keersarge wrote:

    > Why is the entire pro-Linux news media so concerned about getting more
    > desktop users from that other bloatware to switch? That is, what
    > advantage is there to the Linux community if they do? Anybody who wants
    > Linux is running it now. Future users who want to have a secure and
    > stable OS will find it.


    People don't know if they want to run Linux. The overwhelming number of
    personal computer users have never see it.

    >
    > Assume for a moment that Bloatware Inc goes out of business (fat chance,
    > but this is just a what-if?) and all the millions of users in the world
    > eventually switch. Then we will have a world full of icon clickers who
    > surf as root, download neat screen savers that they are offered by
    > email, demand that everything be made simpler (about 4th grade level)
    > and fill up the 'Net' with zombied Linux machines.



    No, we won't. Ubuntu doesn't have a root account by default. Other
    popular distros have you create a user account.

    >
    > So what advantages do these millions of technology deficient users bring
    > to the Linux community? The only thing I can think of is driver support
    > from manufacturers who then would have to support it. They have NOTHING
    > else to donate.


    That is a great donation.

    >
    > Linux is like living in a gated community.


    No, it isn't.

    > The technical requirements
    > keep the great unwashed masses from walking across our lawn. Why remove
    > the guards from the gatehouse?
    >

    What technical requirements? What gatehouse?





    --
    Rick

  6. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    keersarge wrote:

    >So what advantages do these millions of technology deficient users bring
    >to the Linux community? The only thing I can think of is driver support
    >from manufacturers who then would have to support it. They have NOTHING
    >else to donate.


    Nice troll.

    The world in general benefits from things like open standards and
    robust competition. Lower costs and higher quality result.

    >Linux is like living in a gated community. The technical requirements
    >keep the great unwashed masses from walking across our lawn.


    What "technical requirements" would those be? The fact that thre's
    not many places that sell Linux machines with the OS pre-installed?

    >Why remove the guards from the gatehouse?


    See above. There's no reason to fear "the great unwashed masses".


  7. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > I also have no interest in GNU/Linux becoming the "dominant" OS. Unlike
    > Microsoft, I am not interested in "taking over the world", and therefore
    > I really don't care what OS other people use, provided their activities
    > do not /interfere/ with mine. However, both Microsoft and their products
    > /do/ in fact cause severe problems for non-Windows users, such as:
    >
    > . Bot-nets of zombie Windows machines spewing spam and DDoS attacks
    > . Broken standards in networking, the Web, documents, and media
    > . Windows-only DRM systems
    > . Windows-only drivers
    > . Windows-only hardware (Win-modems, BIOSes, DirectX extensions, etc.)
    > . Windows-only software and services
    > . Patents held by mainly proprietary software vendors
    > . Sabotage of FOSS companies and projects, and their activities
    > . Anti-Linux FUD and lies spread by Microsoft and their proxies
    > . Deceit, corruption and bribery by Microsoft, to ensure "dominance"
    > . Microsoft's perversion of the standards process and related bodies
    > . Microsoft's perversion of public utilities with proprietary standards
    > . Coercive OEM deals designed to inhibit GNU/Linux adoption
    > . Government "lobbying" to implement Microsoft's agenda as law
    >
    > So I do not think it has ever really been a case of wanting GNU/Linux to
    > "dominate", but rather a question of simply getting rid of the threat to
    > society posed by Microsoft. Where Windows users would go in the event of
    > such a happy outcome, I really don't care.
    >
    > The fact is, that Microsoft and its proxies are violent, aggressive, and
    > grossly reprehensible goons with a criminal mentality, who have embarked
    > on a quest to essentially "take over", (pretty much everything they can
    > get their grubby hands on), all in the name of greed. They simply do not
    > care how contemptuous their behaviour is, as long as it results in great
    > big wads of cash - that's all that matters to them.


    Microsoft is a cancer!

    --
    Tux rox!

  8. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    Wow. Real answers on the advocacy group and not a single troll in sight
    so far - very unusual.

    Ok I can agree with most of what everyone has said. It is just that all
    the points that were made are almost never discussed in the untechnical
    technical media - just the fact that Vista is outselling Linux ten million
    to one, or that there are more 98 machines than Linux, blah blah.

    My take is that stupidity is its own punishment - if you are using
    Bloatware OS with all the zombie, virus and suchnot problems, AND KNOW
    about an alternative and DON'T at least look into it, then you get what
    you deserve.

    On a non-advocacy note...
    The surprising thing that I got from a couple of posts is that
    Ubuntu/Kbuntu (I use raw Debian) doesn't let you log in as root? Doesn't
    it get somewhat difficult to change things? Like runlevels or IP
    addresses?

    Joking, of course. If someone even knows the existance of something like
    runlevels or MYSQL-server, obviously there is a way for them to bypass
    what is apparently idiot proofing and get to a commandline as root. I
    didn't realise that there was a distro aimed at the people I was ranting
    about in my original post. Interesting...

    keersarge

  9. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 02:55:09 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
    wrote:

    >[snips]
    >
    >On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 04:38:42 +0000, keersarge wrote:
    >
    >> Assume for a moment that Bloatware Inc goes out of business (fat chance,
    >> but this is just a what-if?) and all the millions of users in the world
    >> eventually switch. Then we will have a world full of icon clickers who
    >> surf as root, download neat screen savers that they are offered by email,
    >> demand that everything be made simpler (about 4th grade level) and fill up
    >> the 'Net' with zombied Linux machines.

    >
    >Depends how it's all done.
    >
    >Take KUbuntu as an example. Makes it barking easy for the user to install
    >"real" applications - run the package manager, enter your password, pick
    >your app and go.
    >
    >It also makes it easy for him to do "system" level things, such as adding
    >a printer. Try to do it, enter your password, do it, done.
    >
    >He never runs as root; he can't, root has no password, thus cannot log on.
    >He can certainly execute tasks as root, via sudo, but recall we're
    >assuming he's a turnip, the notion of using the CLI (or figuring out how
    >to get the GUI to do the job, other than where it's designed to) is
    >presumably beyond him, or at least his interest.
    >
    >In short, he can do the stuff he needs to, pretty easily, but not the
    >stuff he probably shouldn't do. This alone would make it somewhat less
    >likely he's going to run as root or do equally asinine things.
    >
    >> So what advantages do these millions of technology deficient users bring
    >> to the Linux community?

    >
    >Possibly none at all. However, if we can eliminate a significant portion
    >of the zombies, botnets and other crap out there, we _all_ win as a
    >result. Let's look at a simple example. I fired up IE and headed over to
    >www.tucows.com. Front page, there's something called "stopzilla". Click
    >the link, up comes a dialog - "Run, Save, Cancel".
    >
    >Run? *RUN*? Excuse me? This is an unknown file from a remote source,
    >something which should not ever be run except in the most trusted cases,
    >yet here's this mindless little dialog allowing me to run this file with a
    >single freaking mouse click!
    >
    >Fine, click run. Up comes another dialog - do you want to run this
    >software? Run or don't run.
    >
    >Where's the "scan for exploits"? Where's the "This did not come from our
    >trusted repository, so it should be considered an EXTREME risk and only
    >run if you are ABSOLUTELY certain you can trust that it is free from
    >dangerous code"?
    >
    >Three mouse clicks: one to download, one to select run, one to confirm,
    >and my system is - potentially, at least - *owned*. Outright.
    >
    >Now try that in Linux.
    >
    >Download. Okay, well, depending on the browser and settings, it either
    >downloads to my desktop (or other default folder), or asks me where to save
    >it to. Browse if necessary. Save.
    >
    >Ho hum, okay, download is complete. Dialog says "open" (among other
    >things). Open? Okay, it's a .bin file. Open means... ah, it opens in my
    >text editor, because the system hasn't got a clue what a "bin" file is or
    >what to do with it.
    >
    >Close the editor. Now, where'd the file go? Ah, yes, I put it in a
    >downloads folder. Open up the file manager. Find the downloads folder.
    >There's the file. Click on it. Hmm... text editor again.
    >
    >I know I can make it executable. How do you do that again? Oh, right.
    >Go to the file. Right-click. Select "Properties". Select "permissions".
    >Click "is executable". Click "ok". Click on the file again, it executes.
    >
    >Let's compare that, shall we?
    >
    >Windows Linux
    >
    >Download file Download File
    >Click "run" Browse to a folder
    >Click "run" Click save
    >System compromised Open file manager
    > Browse to folder
    > Right-click file
    > Click "properties"
    > Click "permissions"
    > Click "is executable"
    > Click "okay"
    > Click file
    >
    >That's three steps to infection, every single one of them prompted, versus
    >eleven steps, only two of which - browsing to the folder and saving - are
    >prompted. The other nine the user has to figure out for himself.
    >
    >Of the two, which is vastly more likely to end up with compromised systems
    >more or less _by accident_?
    >
    >Yes, the user _can_ do the steps necessary to infect themselves in Linux,
    >no doubt, but it's a tad less likely he's going to do so without thinking
    >about the process, and it is sufficiently complex that in many cases he
    >simply won't bother.
    >
    >Which brings us to another point. Even if he does do this, he is still
    >executing _as a user_. Not as root (at least, generally, and using our
    >KUbuntu example, pretty much guaranteed). Which means an exploit which in
    >Windows would have full access to most machines, now has very limited
    >access to the one machine.
    >
    >Yes, such exploits can include escalation code, but that means the things
    >are more complex to write, which in and of itself may slow the propagation
    >down a little.
    >
    >Meanwhile we're overlooking other aspects. We're overlooking that it's
    >not just Ubuntu, but other systems as well. We're overlooking the growing
    >use of tools such as AppArmour, SELinux and the like. We're also
    >overlooking the disparity of Linux systems: an exploit for a 32-bit
    >machine is not going to work as intended on a 64-bit box as a rule, and
    >vice-versa. Nor is an exploit for the PC going to work on a PPC machine,
    >and so on. Which means that an exploit in the wild is a hell of a lot
    >more visible in Linux, than in Windows where to all intents and purposes,
    >every running machine is effectively the same.
    >
    >Even if the exploit can't work - the user actually _is_ a user and the
    >exploit has no escalation code, or some such - it is somewhat less likely
    >to spew errors about incompatible system libraries and suchlike, meaning
    >that where it can work, it does, but where it can't, it is effectively
    >silent, whereas in Linux, when it can't, it is *not* silent at all.
    >
    >So. Linux makes it harder to get infected, it makes it harder for an
    >infection to do any real damage to a given box, it makes it harder for the
    >exploit to propagate and it makes it a damned sight easier to spot the
    >little bastard out there in the wild - and it virtually eliminates the
    >_trivial_ infection of a machine with as few as three mouse clicks.
    >
    >This won't eliminate all threats, but it is vastly better than how Windows
    >handles such things. Even if we do end up with an endless stream of
    >boneheads who actually figure out how to run the latest "icon theme" and
    >thus get infected, we make it sufficiently difficult _on average_ for this
    >to occur that we would rather expect the 50-million-strong botnets and
    >similar threats to be largely a thing of the past.
    >
    >Which means we _all_ benefit. Lessened spam from zombies. Lessened
    >bandwidth consumption from garbage. Lessened attacks on our own machines,
    >which may not be successful now, but do suck bandwidth. Lessened costs to
    >business and the like in lost work. Lessened cost to credit companies and
    >the like from stolen credit card numbers. Lessened costs on a wide number
    >of fronts, actually.
    >
    >And not just _slightly_ lessened costs. Message Labs reported that at its
    >peak, 1 in 12 emails internet-wide were copies of MyDoom, and they were
    >seeing up to 60,000 copies *per hour*.
    >
    >Trend Micro suggests that in 2003, the total cost of virus-borne damages
    >was on the order of $55 billion, and doubling each year for the years
    >2001-2003.
    >
    >Anything which makes life more difficult for exploits and their authors
    >is a net win, and Windows has done, to be blunt, **** all in 15 years to
    >even pretend to slow the problem. Linux won't solve every aspect of every
    >problem, let's not kid ourselves, but it *does* present a much harsher and
    >more resistant environment for such beasts. Maybe we can't eliminate
    >them, but we can certainly slow them down a lot.
    >
    >And that, frankly, is sufficient. If we can reduce a $55 billion a year
    >problem to a $5 billion a year problem, that's $50 billion not be wasted,
    >not being tossed in the fireplace to accomplish nothing.
    >
    >This, to me, is a very big win - and it's a win we can achieve even *with*
    >an endless stream of turnips at the keyboard.
    >
    >> Linux is like living in a gated community. The technical requirements
    >> keep the great unwashed masses from walking across our lawn.

    >
    >What technical requirements? It is *easier* to install than Windows. It
    >can be purchased pre-installed, like Windows. Its is *easier* to install
    >and update software. It is *easier* to get much hardware working. With
    >systems such as Ubuntu, even "restricted" hardware is easier to get
    >working than with Windows.
    >
    >In use, it is no more difficult than Windows. A word processor still
    >processes words, a mail client still handles email. Media players still
    >play media.
    >
    >And it *doesn't* require all the anti-spyware, anti-virus and other crud
    >that you need to install, update, care for and feed.
    >
    >And you can use your 64-bit machine and actually expect your hardware to
    >work. And your applications. And your data.
    >
    >Oh, yes, it *is* more difficult in one area: if you really want to
    >download those cool little icon themes, it is, in fact, more difficult to
    >compromise your system in the process.
    >
    >This, IMO, is not such a bad thing.




    The above may be quite true, but in Windows one doesn't *have* to run
    the program downloaded - just save and then scan with anti-virus

  10. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    ____/ Linonut on Friday 02 November 2007 15:08 : \____

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> I also have no interest in GNU/Linux becoming the "dominant" OS. Unlike
    >> Microsoft, I am not interested in "taking over the world", and therefore
    >> I really don't care what OS other people use, provided their activities
    >> do not /interfere/ with mine. However, both Microsoft and their products
    >> /do/ in fact cause severe problems for non-Windows users, such as:
    >>
    >> . Bot-nets of zombie Windows machines spewing spam and DDoS attacks
    >> . Broken standards in networking, the Web, documents, and media
    >> . Windows-only DRM systems
    >> . Windows-only drivers
    >> . Windows-only hardware (Win-modems, BIOSes, DirectX extensions, etc.)
    >> . Windows-only software and services
    >> . Patents held by mainly proprietary software vendors
    >> . Sabotage of FOSS companies and projects, and their activities
    >> . Anti-Linux FUD and lies spread by Microsoft and their proxies
    >> . Deceit, corruption and bribery by Microsoft, to ensure "dominance"
    >> . Microsoft's perversion of the standards process and related bodies
    >> . Microsoft's perversion of public utilities with proprietary standards
    >> . Coercive OEM deals designed to inhibit GNU/Linux adoption
    >> . Government "lobbying" to implement Microsoft's agenda as law
    >>
    >> So I do not think it has ever really been a case of wanting GNU/Linux to
    >> "dominate", but rather a question of simply getting rid of the threat to
    >> society posed by Microsoft. Where Windows users would go in the event of
    >> such a happy outcome, I really don't care.
    >>
    >> The fact is, that Microsoft and its proxies are violent, aggressive, and
    >> grossly reprehensible goons with a criminal mentality, who have embarked
    >> on a quest to essentially "take over", (pretty much everything they can
    >> get their grubby hands on), all in the name of greed. They simply do not
    >> care how contemptuous their behaviour is, as long as it results in great
    >> big wads of cash - that's all that matters to them.

    >
    > Microsoft is a cancer!


    Consider Robert X cringely's advice.

    http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxc...oft_the_f.html

    Microsoft needs to be eliminated, he'd say. No criminal organisation has ever
    offered any good to humanity. And yes, I put my
    name/credibility/reputation/whatever the trolls will want to laugh at when I
    call them "criminals" because I know quite a lot about the Microsoft that
    people do not just read about in the daily papers.

    Microsoft was created with, sheltered by, thrived in, and continues to find
    some prosperity in crime. Business crimes.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | #FFFFFFF4 ADD &R1, "9999999", &BankAccount
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 2 2007-10-30 19:49 last=
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  11. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    [snips]

    On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:12:11 +0000, cj wrote:

    > The above may be quite true, but in Windows one doesn't *have* to run
    > the program downloaded - just save and then scan with anti-virus


    No, one doesn't - but the context was if all the millions of boneheads who
    *do* just that sort of thing converted to Linux, would there be a benefit,
    or just another round of the same sort of crap, just Linux-based?

    In response I point out that while one certainly _can_ apply best
    practices, the boneheads as a rule do not, and Windows goes out of its way
    to make it _easy_, even _trivial_ to avoid those best practices, where
    Linux, while leaving "proper" things easy to do, does not go out of its
    way to enable that sort of practice.

    If you _prompt_ a user into the worst possible options, you can expect
    that a significant number of users will actually take those options. If
    you don't prompt them, if on top of not prompting them you make the
    process of achieving the same end somewhat arcane and lengthy, you can be
    assured a hell of a lot fewer people will figure it out, or take the
    effort to do it.

    It won't eliminate the problem, but it may just reduce it, and that is
    sufficient for a net win, for all of us, in reduced spams, zombies and the
    rest.

  12. Re: Once again. Why do we want windows users?

    [snips]

    On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:57:24 +0000, keersarge wrote:

    > My take is that stupidity is its own punishment - if you are using
    > Bloatware OS with all the zombie, virus and suchnot problems, AND KNOW
    > about an alternative and DON'T at least look into it, then you get what
    > you deserve.


    Pretty much. Worse, though, are the ones who do, but persist in doing so
    *as if Linux is Windows*. It isn't Windows, don't expect it to work like
    Windows - if you want something that works that way, there's this other
    thing that works that way, it's called... er... lemme think... Windows.

    > On a non-advocacy note...
    > The surprising thing that I got from a couple of posts is that
    > Ubuntu/Kbuntu (I use raw Debian) doesn't let you log in as root? Doesn't
    > it get somewhat difficult to change things? Like runlevels or IP
    > addresses?


    Nope. You do it via sudo, or the GUI management tools. No need to log in
    as root.

    Another point about Ubuntu which is often overlooked is how it works on
    multiple-user setups. The first created user is automatically added to
    the admin groups, so he can do administrative tasks via sudo; subsequent
    users are _not_ added to the group and _cannot_ do these things by default.

    The logic is pretty simple, I think: the one setting up the box is
    presumably also the one smart enough to administer it.

    > Joking, of course. If someone even knows the existance of something
    > like runlevels or MYSQL-server, obviously there is a way for them to
    > bypass what is apparently idiot proofing and get to a commandline as
    > root. I didn't realise that there was a distro aimed at the people I was
    > ranting about in my original post. Interesting...


    Ubuntu is simultaneously quite good at protecting the user from
    inadvertent boneheaded accidents, and allowing the user to still do the
    things he needs to.

    The same should be doable on most any distro; Ubuntu just does it this way
    by default.

+ Reply to Thread