LINUX THE OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM . REPLACEMENT FOR WINDOWS

[henniek]

We used Linux in a industial environment , the system was connected 24 / 7 to HO in Canada .
During the six years I was there , it never crashed and was never infiltrated by a virus .
dont ask me what version etc .
I dont think that that specific version wouldl be suitable for the home environ ment , although I understand that Linux made good prograss over the last two or three years to make it more user friendly for the home environment

[Michael Alexander]

There are virus's for Linux, however due to the fact that 95% of the worlds OS is windows based, it stands to reason that there will be more virus's out there for Windows.... the funny thing is, Unix systems are more preferred by hackers to be used to hack into windows....

[toonfandangl]

Michael!  viruses for Linux can just as easily be introduced into the O/S in fact more so as its open sourced. There are some good books out there on the early days of hacking "Underground" by Suelette Dreyfus this one deals with the 1980-90 and there is one name in the that stands out in the Acknowledgments..................."Julian Assange"..............................Wikileaks!.                                                                 

[Mike Stenson (RIP)]

Why aren't the existing Linux viruses[1] anything more than a topic for conversation? Why don't they affect you in your daily computing in the way that MS viruses affect Windows users?

There are several reasons for the non-issue of the Linux virus. Most of those reasons a Linux user would already be familiar with, but there is one, all important, reason that a student of evolution or zoology would also appreciate.

First, let's take a look at the way Linux has stacked the deck against the virus.

For a Linux binary virus to infect executables, those executables must be writable by the user activating the virus. That is not likely to be the case. Chances are, the programs are owned by root and the user is running from a non-privileged account. Further, the less experienced the user, the lower the likelihood that he actually owns any executable programs. Therefore, the users who are the least savvy about such hazards are also the ones with the least fertile home directories for viruses.

Even if the virus successfully infects a program owned by the user, its task of propagation is made much more difficult by the limited privileges of the user account. [For neophyte Linux users running a single-user system, of course, this argument may not apply. Such a user might be careless with the root account.]

Linux networking programs are conservatively constructed, without the high-level macro facilities that have enabled the recent Windows viruses to propagate so rapidly. This is not an inherent feature of Linux; it is simply a reflection of the differences between the two user bases and the resulting differences between the products that are successful in those markets. The lessons learned from observing these problems will also serve as an innoculation for future Linux products as well.

Linux applications and system software is almost all open source. Because so much of the Linux market is accustomed to the availability of source code, binary-only products are rare and have a harder time achieving a substantial market presence. This has two effects on the virus. First, open source code is a tough place for a virus to hide. Second, for the binary-only virus, a newly compiled installation cuts off a prime propagation vector.

Each one of these obstacles represents a significant impediment to the success of a virus. It is when they are considered together, however, that the basic problem emerges.

A computer virus, like a biological virus, must have a reproduction rate that exceeds its death (eradication) rate in order to spread. Each of the above obstacles significantly reduces the reproduction rate of the Linux virus. If the reproduction rate falls below the threshold necessary to replace the existing population, the virus is doomed from the beginning -- even before news reports start to raise the awareness level of potential victims.

The reason that we have not seen a real Linux virus epidemic in the wild is simply that none of the existing Linux viruses can thrive in the hostile environment that Linux provides. The Linux viruses that exist today are nothing more than technical curiosities; the reality is that there is no viable Linux virus.

Of course this doesn't mean that there can never be a Linux virus epidemic.[2] It does mean, however, that a successful Linux virus must be well-crafted and innovative to succeed in the inhospitable Linux ecosystem.

[toonfandangl]

                           

                     Linux networking programs are conservatively constructed, without the high-level macro facilities that have enabled the recent Windows viruses to propagate so rapidly. This is not an inherent feature of Linux; it is simply a reflection of the differences between the two user bases and the resulting differences between the products that are successful in those markets. The lessons learned from observing these problems will also serve as an innoculation for future Linux products as well.


                   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4&feature=player_embedded     

[Mike Stenson (RIP)]

I'm looking forward to next weeks episode....   

[SandyB]

WINDOWS  EARLY  DAYS  ... Talk about  windows ... prior to  be  introduced by default  to the computer world and windows in 97   ... the only exposure  and  programs I knew  were simple DOS based  basic statistical  operations .. hell man I did  not even know   how to operate a mouse ....
anyhow  I self taught myself .. then a year or two later  , my elderly neighbour  Norman  was given an elderly   PC that still used the  large  floppy discs ,,, well  here I saw the  start of windows  in black and white screen ,,, huge  icons  with rough graphics ,,,perfectly operational , and  yes perfectly understandable  but a bit quirky as  it  did not have  the refinements ,,, I realise  now what an adventure it was  to play  in that  I dont know  how many years old  version  of early windows ,,, anyone remember   the black and white  huge  grainy icons ???

[Michael Alexander]

That would be windows 3.0

[SandyB]

You still got an old PC like that   that Michael ??       pretty much the same except  that it had the toolbar set up ... 

[uberdiablo]

I've been using Ubuntu for about 6months now and I have not regretted yet. I've used Mac OS as well as Windows so I have at least some right to have an opinion I guess. Linux is very under-rated and has come a long way. I will admit however that it still has a long way to go until it is ready for a mainstream market. It still has a lot of work to do with regard to being easy to use for the 'man on the street' with regard to 3rd party software and drivers.

[Mike Stenson (RIP)]

Try Linuxmint it uses Ubuntu as a base.... very nice..

[uberdiablo]

I've had a look at with my neighbor's copy of Linux Mint. (the one struggling to get his 3g working =P)
It's not bad but I'm not fond of the their menu layouts. I like Ubuntu and am happy with how they're developing it, especially with the social networking trend.

[Mike Stenson (RIP)]

Ok!...  Just very glad to see another Linux user here...

[uberdiablo]

As am I. Hahaha