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?
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...
It's funny, you'd like gov't defense contractors dealing with classified information would WANT a more secure OS...
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.