Slashdot Mirror
Correcting Common Linux Misconceptions?
abolishPenguinPhobia asks: "I am a teacher at a comm. college and
was looking to install Linux on a couple machines for students to
use. I figured since the students have to learn *nix anyway they
might as well have access to some Linux machines. Anyhoo...I was
told by the network administrator that the linux machines were not to
be connected to the network for fear of viri, DoS attacks, and so on.
My question for the /. community: Why do people fear Linux? It
seems to me that people are misinformed that Linux is only a
'hackers' OS. How can we change this?" This is only one of the
common Linux "myths", and there are several more where these came from.
Is there a central clearing house of such myths and intelligent
efforts at debunking them somewhere online?
I'm sure he was suggesting they stay off the network for their own protection. After all, there are a LOT of viruses on Windows networks - especially if you're running Office.
It's nice of him to try to keep the Linux boxes safe - but he shouldn't worry. They're strong enough to surive even in such a dangerous environment.
Was his fear based on Linux, or on the simple desire to limit the diversity of machines on the network. Security is easier to administrate when you limit yourself to a certain selection of OS's and products. He may even understand that Linux is typically very secure.
I know my company often denies requests like this not out of fear of something, but of fear of _another_ something.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
I disagree with your take. I use both Windows (unfortunately) and Linux (fortunately). I have less trouble deciding what to use on Linux than on Windows. With Windows I can't afford to make a mistake due to the cost of everything. When you are talking about spending several hundred dollars for Office versus one hundred dollars for Anyware 2.0 Desktop for Linux (from Vistasource) the decision is much easier. I can buy several different packages for Linux to find the parts that work for me.
I can even go find Star Office (from Sun), or KOffice (from KDE), or Gnome Office (from Gnome) for free.
And being a System Administrator for many years, I know how to secure a system, either a Linux/Unix system or a Windows system. Unfortunately neither Microsoft nor most of the Linux distributions (until recently) came very secure. Both have gotten a little better with recent releases. Unfortunately, it takes several years to get the older machine out of the loop. Given the fact that you can go to CompUSA or Best Buy or many other stores and get a new Linux distribution for under fifty dollars while a Microsoft OS will cost several hundred dollars, more folks are likely to upgrade their linux distributions. This doesn't totally fix security problems, but it does help get rid of some of the issues.
While there may be personal agenda behind some open source software, there is a much worse agenda (IMO) behind Microsoft. Have you tried to find a competitive office suite recently? What has happened to web browsers? Where are the email programs that used to be out there? What about development tools? It is beginning to be like a song I remember from way back when "I owe my soul to the company store".
Someone from Mircosoft once called Linux a virus, it seems to me that Microsoft is more of a virus as it is killing off everything else. At least with Linux you have choices. They may not all be good and they may not have all the features, but there is usually a choice.
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
It's funny, you'd like gov't defense contractors dealing with classified information would WANT a more secure OS...
Yes, the word 'hacker' is usually used when 'cracker' would be better. With a properly configured Linux/Unix machine, you can really restrict users. In the past, I have seen some that were locked down almost as tight as an IBM mainframe using RACF.
While the standard permissions set on Linux/Unix isn't as rich as the ACLs on some other OSes, the capabilities are much more versatile. For instance, most Unix systems have rsh (restricted shell) that will completely lock down the programs to which the user has access. With rsh as their shell, they can't even execute a command if they know the full path to it.
On most Unix systems, services can be locked down with limited access. On all Unix systems, services can easily be turned off. With no services running, you don't have to worry about being attacked nearly as much as you have no doors or windows (no pun intended).
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
Myth: Linux is a "hacker's OS"
Rebuttal: There are more well-known, well-*cough*-exploited security holes in *cough* Microsoft Windows *cough* than in any *nix. This makes it appear that *cough* hackers *cough* no, crackers, *cough* are more interested in cracking *cough* Microsoft Windows *cough* than Linux. (Please excuse my *cough* hacking, I have junk in my *cough* throat.)
Myth: Linux is hard to set up.
Rebuttal: No harder than setting up multiple simultaneous users and desktops under Windows 95.
Myth: Linux has no support.
Rebuttal: On the contrary, my Linux server is sitting on a concrete block as we speak. I set my Win2K server on the edge of my beanbag chair and it crashed immediately. On to the floor, I mean.
Myth: Linux is not ready for the desktop.
Rebuttal: In my new office, I will have a Linux box sitting on the floor on each side of me. A large sheet of plywood will lay across the tower cases, on which I will set my monitor and keyboard.
Myth: Linux is hard to use.
Rebuttal: Bicycles are hard to use, too, if you've never ridden one before. Windows probably was the first time you used it. It's just a matter of having patience, learning, trying, experimenting, and falling over a few times, getting up, dusting off, a couple of stiches here and there, you'll be good as new. And you'll have learned something.
Myth: I don't have time to learn Linux.
Rebuttal: You have time to wait for your Winows box to restart 10 times a day.
Myth: Most Linux advocates are zealots.
Rebuttal: All. (Just kidding)
Myth: The command shell is obsolete.
Rebuttal: The command shell is ugly. It's also extremely useful when you screw up your window manager or need to administer the system remotely. vi from the command line, you can change the configuration very much more efficiently than from a pretty window. You've also got access to every configuration parameter this way. Nothing beats the command shell for a quick connection to your mailserver to check your mail when you don't have time to wait for Outlook Express to open, download all your messages, render and display the HTML, ad nauseum.
Myth: Linux is hard to configure.
Rebuttal: Learn how to use a vi. In Linux, every option can be changed with a text editor. In Windows, you might get lucky in the Registry Editor -- if the option is there, if it's documented, etc.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Ive been trying that for 2 weeks now. Not that our netadmin wont let me hook up a Linux box, just that the hub in our location is all taken up!
;)
Hows this Win machine supposed to route packets? Win 9.x doesnt do that, I dont know about ME or XP.
Assumming he has a NT Workstation: how to find a subnet range that wouldnt conflict with the rest of the campus? How to tell other routers about the new subnet without the netadmins consent? And he would need at least Windows NT *Server* 4.0 to do DHCP relay to the small net.
Unless you know something I dont, in which case Id be more than happy to learn!
...I was told by the network administrator that the linux machines were not to be connected to the network for fear of viri, DoS attacks, and so on.
... this is true. Linux users eventually become hackers ... however, they almost always become white-hat hackers.
...
There are over 15,000 viruses documented that are active in the Windows environment. I am only aware of two that can infect a Linux box, and the damage they can do is minimal if users aren't permitted to install executables in their $HOME directories. Linux boxen ARE popular targets for crackers because they have a fully implemented IP stack that allows forging packet headers for DoS attacks against other computers, but a little thought given to the job of locking the box down can prevent that. Of course, this particular "advantage" to cracking Linux boxes is going to disappear as the home version of Windows XP becomes more common, since Windows boxen are MUCH easier targets than ANY flavor of n*x is. As for the "and so one," all I can say is "etc."
Why do people fear Linux?
Because it's easier to say "No" than it is to learn something new.
It seems to me that people are misinformed that Linux is only a 'hackers' OS.
But, but, but
How can we change this?
Hit 'em with a clue-by-four? I don't know the answer to this
This is only one of the common Linux "myths", and there are several more where these came from. Is there a central clearing house of such myths and intelligent efforts at debunking them somewhere online?
Although the comments are really aimed at the embedded OS space, a lot of what was said in the responses by Lineo and LynuxWorks to Microsoft's white paper on the subject of Windows XP Embedded also applies to the desktop.
Here's a bright, although somewhat backwards way to subvert your admin's thinking process. Get a handful of PCs and install Linux on them, then connect them to the network through a Win2K box configured as a gateway. That way you can point out how the Win2K box is "protecting" (teeheeheehee) his network from those "renegade Linux boxen. I would submit to you that after about six months go by without ONE of the Linux boxes being cracked, he/she might have to develop a sudden appetite for crow.
utter rubbish