Slashdot Mirror
Lindows Allowed to Use Company Name in Holland
Supp0rtLinux writes "It appears that Lindows/Linspire has finally made some headway against Microsoft in the Netherlands. According this article, the Judge ruled that Linspire's continued, but minimal use of 'Lindows' for legal and trademark purposes doesn't violate Microsoft's trademark. With the US court date on this issue coming up soon, one can only wonder if Microsoft will have effectively cut off its nose to spite its face. And following immediately on the heels of today's Netherlands news, the latest Michael's Minutes from Linspire pegs all the blame for virus problems on Microsoft and basically says that Linux (well, Lindows anyway) is the cure."
But unfortunately, a wise man said about us:
'You think you're a superpower, and everyone else thinks your capital is copenhagen'.
even if there are things he does that I don't like, I must concede he is really relentless and aggressive in pushing lindows
There are some differences between USA and Europe that will give some varying and odd court decisions. Big business has a strong hold of the US courts. The only way they can lose is if anyone even stronger is the counterpart, or if a state or country invests heavily in the suit to gain even larger monetary gains from winning in the court. In Europe, this is rarely the case, but on the other hand many European legislators and courts are weak, have little resources and time. In Sweden, for example, the Social Democarat party tends to legislate and vote in the EU parlament often following the US court results and organisation bullying (MPAA, RIAA) Some countries invest time and resources to actually learn what the cases are about, and court cases involving Microsoft etc, can in fact be lost by the larger companies, liek in this case.
a jury [...] would be instructed to consider whether "windows" was a generic term before Microsoft introduced software with that name in 1985.
I can understand that such a thing is a different matter in non-English speaking countries, like The Netherlands.
How could they ever not say that it is a generic term in English speaking countries, like the USA?. I look in awe to the fact that such a thing has to be considerd.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
--
coming to italy? http://alltuscany.com
And the security subject comes up when they run the user as root?? Its having having a blind man sell you glasses...
Really? So all the holes in Outlook through the years haven't meant anything?
And the fact that all home users were "root" by default prior to XP means nothing?
And the fact that unless set up differently, even in XP the average user is "root" is not an issue?
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure....
before Apple sues LinSpire over their website design?
The Awful Truth
What you have said isn't really true. One of the major strengths of Linux is the lack of a monoculture. Most distributions come with 3 or 4 web browsers, e-mail programs, and media players etc. It would take a very good hacker to find a generic security hole in every program.
The only other option would be to try and exploit a security hole in the Kernel. Given that not everybody runs the same Kernel this would also prove difficult.
The irony of this statement is that Lindows will probably be one of the driving forces in getting Linux viruses popular. By marketing the software to those who are less computer-savvy while making the root user the default user, Lindows is opening up the door for some nasty widespread security exploits. Some of the reasons why viruses have not been a problem under Linux so far has been due to smaller desktop market penetration, heterogeneity, the computer literacy of those who run Linux, and the restricted account privileges of the user. Lindows threatens all of those factors.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
it's the Netherlands!!!!!!!
...mike
coz microsoft already takes on and threatens him.
Wasnt there something called "XWindows" or "Windows X" on Unix years before M$ coined their Windows?
While the "safety by obscurity" factor has some validity and would largely disappear if a larger percentage of people were using GNU/linux, the simple fact is that Linux is much more secure by default.
Think of all those vulnerabilities that are defaults in Windows. Think also about the fact that most Linux distros do not encourage the user to run as "root". Not that Linux has no potential vulnerabilities, but they are much fewer than Windows..
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
This of course may change if Linux "goes mainstream" as developers start being more concerned that users don't want to get updates every two minutes
Still, the use of update system like up2date mean that this happens relatively painlessly.
Perhaps, though, a patch based system similar to CVS would be a better idea, so as to minimize download times and bandwidth usage.
im in ur
Lindows from what I understand makes the big mistake opf giving users the nice experiance by running as the root user.
This is pretty brain dead at the best of times and will allow worms to propogate as badly as at present. If windows users were not always logged in as admin there wouldn't be such a problem as there is. I am sure the same will be said for any OS, where you can do anything as the normal user.
If a Lindows user gets a browser worm or similar and is root, it can still propgate and do what it like just as on windows.
then the 'root' cause must be found out and be up'rooted' in Lindows immediately.
does Lindows prevents all the bugs seen in Windows? is the primary question
Apparently, Lindows was guilty of this even more recently than Windows. From a July 21, 2002 Washington Post article:
However, for the record, I've seen passing references while googling that indicate this has been fixed. But the point still stands that if you're going to criticize Microsoft for doing this in the past, it's only fair to criticize Lindows for also doing this in the past.
Exactly.
The idea that a virus/worm needs its exploited user to be root to replicate and spread to other people is ludicrous. Almost all recent Windows viruses wouldn't have been particularly hindered if the user wasn't running as root - in most cases, they simply replicate, by email - a situation you don't need to be running as a privileged user to replicate.
And if we're picking random piece of software oft-associated with a platform, and looking at their security history, try taking a deep look bind/sendmail.
+Pete (a commited OpenBSD user)
Score:-1, Funny
I don't have the latest figures, but I'm pretty sure that MacOSX desktop figures far outweight those of any Linux distribution (right now anyway ;-)
MacOSX is a real OS. What's the virus situation here? I think it will be a good indication of what life will be like when Linux desktop becomes more common.
BTW: this is a question... not a statement, but my hunch is that MacOSX malware is rare (?)
and if you only knew how many times I've heard that argument... I suggest that you subscribe to the various industry newsletters (SecurityFocus.com is a good start). I receive them all. There are many holes in Linux apps and distros, many of which can grant root from user, and the list keeps growing on their side of the house as well, just not as fast. Should it become a bigger target, well then we'll see more vulnerabilities sought. Simple economics here (look up opportunity costs). I am 0S agnostic, do security consulting among other things, and frankly, no OS is absolutely pure, perfectly armored, nor any application suite. The article gets another thing wrong. The right collection of free tools and for a home setup, each day should take a couple of minutes at most, reboot rarely.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Looks Like Lanother KDE Lin Lthe Lmaking
Many say it's because of the large community of Windows users that Windows suffers like it does from worms and viruses and therefore are likely to say this will be the case if another OS like Linux or Mac OS X became mainstream.
But let's not forget that Apache holds nearly if not already 70% of the webserver marketshare, so you could call Apache mainstream. But by a long way is it as vulnerable to worms and viruses like it's Windows counterparts are.
But saying Linspire pegs all the blame for virus problems on Microsoft and basically says that Linux (well, Lindows anyway) is the cure." strikes me as wrongheaded. The problems with Microsoft/virus issue are all legacy issues. If you think about it, all Microsoft code is based on a pre-Internet OS. It really isn't geared to the Internet to day. It's kind of like why pre-'70s (US) cars may not need to meet modern pollution codes. This does not make it right. But Microsoft itself is too monolithic to respond properly.
Also the users that are having the problems are all the "unwashed masses" that don't know to patch their systems properly and to pratice safe web surfing. They need to be educated.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I enjoy reading the weekly Michael's Minute, always a good read, except of course for the obligatory Lindows advertisements.
With regards to the fight over the Lindows name, I like to see Lindows standing up for principles and also for taking on Microsoft.
I applaud Lindows efforts to create a user friendly Linux release, I wish that it was a free distribution that I could just make copies of and give out to people, with revenue coming from optional support, click n run subscriptions.
The argument is that Windows may have been a generic term to describe a graphical user interface, but it wasn't a generic term to describe an operating system.
I wonder if they will change the name back, I'm just starting to like Linspire better than Lindows.
Although I think that Linux is more secure, I think the writer of the parent article is (almost) right.
How many Worms/Viruses/Spams we "see", is less related to the number of security hole that exist in a certain system, it is more related to the number of "attackers" and the number of targets!
Not every securityhole is exploited, typically a high number of securityholes means nothing more, than only a tiny fraction of them are exploited.
If the number of systems prone to an attack is the same and the number of attackers is the same, then the fraction of exploited securityholes just increases
Lindows is just playing to that "cult" of users, and until that cult is deprogrammed we'll always be feeling the effects of "There's no security in Microsoft".
Really, this hoary old chestnut has been done-to-death. No. I don' think for one second that if Linux yada yada yada. For numerous reasons outlined already in this thread. Because Linux has a competent security model. Because Windows is homogenous - many/most users use identical apps (think Outlook Express, IE), on Linux there's too much choice for a worm, etc, to successfully propogate using one target. Because Linux doesn't default to running as root, and provides an easy mechanism for dropping-into root when you need to (disclaimer: maybe Windows has this - I've never found it, and I've been running Windows a lot longer than I've been running Linux).
Please, people, rather than using arguments like "I'll bet...", try just googling for facts. Or give up trolling.
This is where the serious fun begins.
A team of programmers in a commercial company distributes the work in the most cost-effective way, so that each person in the team specializes in a section of the code. There is little cross-checking if any. In open source, OTOH, there are people with different backgrounds verifying the code, independently.
That's the same reason why crackers find weak spots in software, they verify details that the programmers who created the software never thought about checking. In open source there is a balance of forces that's strongly biased to "good", instead of "evil", because the "black hats" are more often immature teens while the "white hats" are university professors. In commercial software, the balance of forces tends more to the "evil" side, because of the larger number of people in the black hats.
Look at the Related links bar on the right - about halfway down it says:
-Linspire
-Microsoft
-doesn't infringe Microsoft's patent
Well I thought it was funny anyway.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
As a Brazilian myself, I am happy when ppl/the media does not say our capital is either Rio or -ugh- Buenos Aires.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Most slashdotters direct much wrath towards the makers of spyware, adware, and malware in general, because they are a pain in the ass that inconvenience users.
However when someone writes a virus that inconveniences users, almost everyone here blames Microsoft and not the writer of the virus.
Seeing how there is almost no difference between the two, why are spyware publishers lambasted but virus writers given a free pass, and in many cases, lauded as champions against the evil Microsoft Empire?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
One of the major strengths of Linux is the lack of a monoculture. Most distributions come with 3 or 4 web browsers, e-mail programs, and media players etc.
..." It's why ISPs can support users cost-effectively. The lack of consistency in Linux, the fact that each major distro installs three, four, or more browsers rather than one, and the lack of recognition of this as a problem is why, despite being free (as in beer), it still has no significant penetration onto end-user desktops.
Spoken like a true, myopic computer geek. It's the "monoculture" of Windows that makes it usable by the average person. It's what makes it possible to publish books with screen shots. It's what allows the tech-savvy family member to tell his parents and siblings to "click on file and then click on
What do you mean, 'if'? Linux does have the attention of hackers worldwide. How else do you think it ever got written?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Do you guys really think for one second that if Linux were the dominant operating system, and thus had the attention of hackers worldwide, that it would remain as secure as it seems to be now?
YES.
at least our programmers are not stupid enough to make the email client able to execute software or HIDE FILE EXTENSIONS.
PLUS I dont see a RPC hole there, or the databases shipping with the default username password of sa/none.
I could go on... but the biggest thing is that patches for linux holes are fixed within hours instead of weeks.
The official name of the country is Nederland (The Netherlands) which is an appropriate name as a considerable area of the country actually lies below sea level, protected by dikes that keep the water out.
Holland is the name of two provinces in the West of the country, with port cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and the seat of the government The Hague. Historically, international trade was done mostly out of Holland, therefore this name is often used for the whole country throughout the world.
"Dutch" is the English word for the language of the Netherlands, it is related to the German word for "German" which is "Deutsch". The Dutch call themselves "Nederlanders".
Isn't Linux a laundry detergent in the Netherlands?
What you have said isn't really true. One of the major strengths of Linux is the lack of a monoculture. Most distributions come with 3 or 4 web browsers, e-mail programs, and media players etc. It would take a very good hacker to find a generic security hole in every program.
Also Redhat, Debian, SuSE, etc all have different binaries of the same program. With things like buffer overflow attacks it's the binary which matters.
I think you'll find that aside from a tiny minority of pimply gits, most people here would love to take virus writers out the back and show them the sharp end of a mainframe. However we would also like to have a quiet word with the idiots who wrote the code that allows these viruses, malwares and trojans to infest your machine without any iaction by the user.
It is a two way street, the virus writers are a pain in the arse for the damage they do, but MS has allowed these attacks to happen through non-existant security and software development run by the fucking Marketing Department.
'You think you're a superpower, and everyone else thinks your capital is copenhagen'.
Heh, that's funny, Copenhagen being the capital of my country: Denmark. But then again, most people think Denmark is a city in Sweden. :-)
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Think of all those vulnerabilities that are defaults in Windows. Think also about the fact that most Linux distros do not encourage the user to run as "root". Not that Linux has no potential vulnerabilities, but they are much fewer than Windows..
The other difference is that Linux code, both kernel and application, is more likely to be modular and structured.
Both because this is the "unix way" but also because it's far easier for a diverse group of developers to work with such code.
...and those same people are writting viruses to attack MS products, soooooo draw a few conclusions based on your statement...
- linux users are hackers
- linux users write viruses to attack MS os's
- linux users are a security risk
- linux users should be detained for cybercrimes
see how easy it is to spout FUD against an OS....
do something constructive instead of riding the ms-hater bandwagons...
karma, hah...
Microsoft changes name of flagship product to 'Winspire'.
Don't call me a cowboy, and don't tell me to slow down!
The main problem with windows in-security is that there hasn't been a virus/worm attack bad enough to make people really look at alternatives. Lax building codes don't get addressed until a supermarket roof collapses and many people are injured/killed, the same is true for the computer world. If a worm was created that automatically nulled all sectors of a hard drive 4 hours after infection people would take notice and steps would be taken to either i) fix the problem ii) change the product that has the problem. I think MSFT is on pins and needles hoping that this never happens . It would be catastrophic if said worm ever did exist but that might be the only thing to get people to really take this seriously.
Cheers,
_GP_
p.s. Why didn't they call in "Lin+dows - Linux + XWindows" ??
I know quite a bit about security and long ago I realised that REAL security involves mutilation of the end-user.
I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
Well Michael is a moron frankly. What WOULD prevent Linux from becoming as virus infested as Windows would be security out of the box. Locked down settings.
We have buffer overflows in programs just like them.
So, it's good to know that Lindows distributes itself with no user accounts, but you run as root.
So does Windows. As a matter of fact Linux and Windows conceptually share a common security model.
Then you haven't been looking very hard. Windows provides two methods:
1. "RunAs"
2. Switch user
"RunAs" has been available since Windows 2000. Switch user since Windows XP.
To use "RunAs" hold down the shift key and right click on the program you want to run. Select "RunAs" from the contextual menu. Hell, correctly written programs take this one step farther by prompting for administrative credentials if they need them (try installing a recent version of Office as a non-administrator to see what I mean).
It appears that your knowledge of Windows is woefully inadequete for a discussion about Windows security.
Heh. Which webserver has the largest market share? Yep, Apache with around 67%. Three times as much as Microsoft's IIS.
And yet which one has by far the most vulnerabilities and exploits? Yep, IIS.
Thus making your argument completely and utterly weak in every way.
Virus writers won't do that. They need their playgrounds up and running to launch DDoS/next version of worm, etc.
I had an old Compaq 1255 laptop sitting on the shelf with a bad hard drive for quite some time. Recently a friend of mine gave me an old 2.4G HD to put in it. Now, that's smaller than the original HD, so I couldn't use the factory reinstall disc, which was Win98 anyway, so all the the better I figured! I could have maybe put some other version of Windows on it, but it's an older machine, so I figured maybe this would be the perfect opportunity to do my first native Linux installation (i.e., the first time it's the primary OS and not running in VMWare, or a dual-boot with Windows as the primary OS). I figured it would run OK, and I'd have a useful machine out of it.
So, first I tried Redhat, 8.0 I believe (I'm not sure the exact version, but it was the latest as of about a month ago). Installation took about four hours (seriously!), and the majority of that time was the automated portion (i.e, after I selected packages and it was doing the actual install). I opted for a non-graphical bootup (because I've had problems with XFree in the past, I always prefer booting to a console and starting KDE from there). Ok, so the install finally completes, and I try to boot, no good. A few seconds after the LILO message appears, the screen fills with a bunch of random gibberish (and I'm not talking about the normal Linux bootup here, I'm talking real random character gibberish all over the place), and locks solid. I let it sit for about an hour, just in case it was long bootup, not that I would have used it even if it was at that point, but still no good. It didn't work.
Ok, maybe it's just Redhat I figured, and I personally prefer Mandrake anyway, so I gave that a shot. Again, it was the latest version at the time (9.2 I believe it was, 9.x something in any case for sure). Installation took about two hours, still not good, but when I restarted the laptop the exact same problem ocurred.
Ok, so maybe it's Redhat AND Mandrake. Wait, maybe I did something wrong during installation (even though I pretty much just took default options). Ok, let me try Mandrake again and this time don't do ANYTHING beyond defaults (i.e., I'll let it to the disc partitioning and I won't select packages individually). Long story short, same result.
Ok, maybe Suse? Nope, same problem. Gee, could the newer kernel be the problem? Nope, Redhat 6 did the same thing.
Ok, at this point I'm ready to just do my own Win98 installation, to hell with the Linux mess.
(And here's where the relevancy to this topic comes in)...
I notice that I have a copy of Lindows 4.0 via a friend of mine (yeah, yeah, shouldn't have it, I know, but I did, so let's move past that point), so what the hell, why not try it? Guess what? IT WORKED!
The installation took about an hour, and although I wasn't thrilled with having almost no options during install (just the one question about partitioning, and I told it to just use the entire hard drive since it was going to be the only OS, why not??)... But in the end, it worked. Network worked right away, video worked right away. No sound at all, so that's a problem, and I haven't tried the modem at all, but I don't really expect it to work as it's a Winmodem piece of crap, and it doesn't really matter anyway.
Now, it is SLOW AS A DOG, a lot slower than I expected. But, it has been my observation that KDE isn't particularly snappy even on my 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with 1G RAM at work (certainly useable, but to my eyes it lags WinXP a little bit, not a ton, but noticeably). But on the plus side, it mostly works as expected, and isn't that bad of a transition for a Windows guy. Tons of configuration options to be sure, which is nice. I did have a number of programs crash already (and I really don't need some Willie Coyote on crack-looking kid with a bomb in his hand pop up when that happens), but generally it's been fine.
I was surprised to see Lindows work at all, given the failure of the other distros. And before anyone says it, sure, I could have t
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Worms, however, do not exploit luser stupidity - they attack flaws in Windows itself or in the software thereon, flaws left there by Microsoft. Sometimes these flaws have already been patched, but we've all heard the horror stories about Microsoft's updates changing EULAs, or breaking critical services... The misery of worms can much more readily be laid at Microsoft's door.
Viruses are a middle-ground. They exploit Microsoft's brainfarts, but generally rely on the still greater stupidity between the keyboard and the chair to get their start :-)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I had two of my XP systems down because of all the virus infections going around. Four different virus scanners detected nothing, but people claimed I might be infected. So while I reformatted two XP systems just to make sure, I had Lindows/Linspire running for my email, web server, etc. I even created some documents in OpenOffice.org and sent them to people using MSOffice and they opened them with no problems.
/etc/apt/sources.lst to take out the comments on the sources and then run:
/etc/lib/rpm/ and run
Linspire is like the MS version of Linux, easy to install and configure. Linspire also wants you to use the CNR interface to install and buy software from.
Apt-get is disabled and so is rpm.
Edit
apt-get install man
apt-get install rpm
apt-get install gcc
Then create
rpm --initdb
rpm --rebuilddb
You now can use apt-get and rpm to install software. Just be careful what you install, some KDE libraries will wreck the Linspire KDE modified libraries.
Bummer that the install CD for Linspire only formats and does not reinstall the OS when a problem happens. So back up all your data before a reinstall of Linspire should you hose up the KDE libraries or something.
Lindows/Linspire does not run Windows code, unless you use WINE or buy Win4Lin. Otherwise Linspire is virus free.
Linspire does use the same file types that Windows uses, without using Windows code. Office documents, media files, etc. Except for Outlook and Access data files, and maybe without MSPublisher files. Linspire is marketed as a replacement for Windows that is an alternative to running Windows. It is for newbies, not experts who need a CLI shell and can build packages from tarballs. Yet the tools to do more advanced stuff are available as I outlined above.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
No software is flawless...including Lindows and Linux. Why the desire to single out Microsoft?
Spyware - user installs the application.
Worm - user not keeping up to date with AV definitions and/or Microsoft OS updates.
Virus - see Worm, user opens unknown attachment.
And do the same flaws that allow viruses and worms to manifest themselves not also allow spyware to be installed without the user's consent?
I think there's more in common between worms, viruses, and spyware than people here realize or acknowledge. While Microsoft and dumb users bear some of the blame for allowing these things to get on PC's, the one most responsible for it is whoever wrote the code.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
"Lindows" is okay in Holland, check. ... so what *isn't* allowed in Holland again?
Yes, briefly. i.e. after the immigrants from the USA colonised it, then rebelled against the spanish rulers, but before they rejoined their original country.
Come by and find out while you still can before we all have to stick our [insert favorite bodypart here] in the dike. (http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com) Prepare yourself by making a checklist first. A small giveaway: anonymous posting or being a coward is a crime here.
-Joe Nederlander
Dear accounting,
I have pictures of your daughter! Install the enclosed RPM to view them. Enter the admin password when prompted.
Frequent updating is a two-edged sword. The spee dof updates means holes are patched faster, but it also gives an increased probability of introducing a new hole. Faster patches mean less review before a patch is released.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
There are many holes in Linux apps and distros, many of which can grant root from user, and the list keeps growing on their side of the house as well, just not as fast. Should it become a bigger target, well then we'll see more vulnerabilities sought. Simple economics here (look up opportunity costs). I am 0S agnostic, do security consulting among other things, and frankly, no OS is absolutely pure, perfectly armored, nor any application suite. [Emphasis added]
Microsoft Windows has problems.
Linux isn't perfect.
Conclusion?
Fact: Other things being equal, Linux is a better target. More and better tools.
Fact: Regardless of anyone's idea of what should be the results of Microsoft's security initiatives, the reality is that Microsoft software is suffering disproportionately from the effects of malware. Even with Microsoft's initiatives, there has been a steady increasing stream ever since Melissa. I'm sure the trend will change, but I haven't seen any sign of it yet. The malware is getting more and more clever, but with no sign yet of running out of room. The worst is ahead of us, not behind us.
Fact: Microsoft has had a patch for most all the vulnerabilities exploited. This means that the reality is that the user-friendly Microsoft Windows is somehow much harder to keep adequately patched than Linux or BSD. This is the same user-friendly Microsoft Windows that according to Microsoft's TCO studies requires less experienced administrators.
Fact: There are successful attacks on Linux/BSD, but they seems to be much rarer and never seem to accomplish much of anything. Now it might be that Linux/BSD administrators are uniformly much more competent than Microsoft Windows administrators, but too often they are the same people doing both. I suspect that in many cases a semi-skilled Microsoft Windows administrator is also a very green Linux newbie, myself included. There are no silver bullets, but seems like somehow Linux is effective much more secure.
Windows is no harder to patch than, say, Solaris (Have you ever tried to apply the endless Solaris 8 security patches?) Windows is not properly patched because, with such a huge market share, the number of non-professional users is much, much higher. BSD/Linux has a higher percentage of computer-literate users, and so has a higher percentage of patched machines.
This really says nothing about the OSes themselves.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
My mistake. Typing too fast.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
What is the difference between UK and Great Britain?
Great Britain is the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. The UK ("United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") is the state that also includes Northern Ireland.
It used to be simply "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" between 1801 and 1922 (Irish independence.)
If I remember right, the first real worm released on the internet was a UNIX worm...
Hard to blame Microsoft for that one.
I agree they are negligent in their security practices, but to blame them for all viruses is silly and only makes the Lindows team look like name calling children.
The *blame* goes to the people that are exploiting the issues..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Wasnt there something called "XWindows" or "Windows X" on Unix years before M$ coined their Windows?
According to Wikipedia, The X Window System originated at MIT in 1984, while Microsoft Windows 1.0 was released in 1985.
Not that it makes much of a difference as "Window" was a generic term for a particular GUI widget long before either of these. (See for example the Xerox Star.)
But we are superior .. (on sunny days only)
Well I am
Ahh, I see the "criticize Linux" ==> moderate low rule is still in effect. I'm glad you people can vote in the general elections. It enheartens me. And I wonder how it is redundant given I hadn't seen any comment like this by the time I had posted.
Solaris? Sorry, outa my league.
I'm only marginally competent with Linux, learning by doing, on the cheap.
Windows is easier to patch if you just want to go through the motions and do not care about the results. But in that case, why bother patching? What do youdo if a patch ges wrong?
BSD/Linux probably has the higher percentage of computer-literate users. This is due to the OS. Take two equivalent groups, one on Linux, one on Windows. With no difference in external factors, the Linux users will become more competent and the Windows users will become less competent.
So does Windows. As a matter of fact Linux and Windows conceptually share a common security model.
But as always, the devil's in the details: most Windows systems I encounter, even today, are set up with full Admin privileges for the default user. Usability is the Windows watchword, usability at the expense of security. Until XP there was no firewall as part of the default install, and even now XP's firewall is - well - basic. I acknowledge it's possible to harden Windows; it's just that it's well beyond the capabilities of the average Windows user (myself included).
Then you haven't been looking very hard. Windows provides two methods:
1. "RunAs"
2. Switch user
"RunAs" has been available since Windows 2000. Switch user since Windows XP.
I'd forgotten about "RunAs" - my enduring memory of it was using it to get a Microsoft game (!) to run, as it wouldn't run without Admin privileges. No offense, but it's hardly "su", and coupled with an abject lack of security awareness amongst most Microsoft developers it's major role is to get round, not enhance, security. (I can't comment on SwitchUser: no direct experience)
It appears that your knowledge of Windows is woefully inadequete for a discussion about Windows security.
No argument there: I used to keep on top of Windows security, until it became too time consuming. Now I keep on top of Linux security instead.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Here, you're actually right. Of course, the original message was asking why we blame Microsoft for other failings when we don't blame them for spyware...
Now you're only sort of right. Yes, some (perhaps most) worm infections do get in because of user failures. Are you seriously claiming that Microsoft has no more zero-day exploits than everybody else?
Now you're just plain wrong. Four words: Outlook Express preview display.
How this post is 0 rather than +4 is beyond me. It's clearly more insightful than the post above it.
In any case, not only does Windows have a competent security model, you could easily argue that it has a much better security model than Linux and Unix in general. First, you can specify far more granularity of permissions with ACLs and ACEs than with the r/w/x on uid/gid/world model. Second, Windows has all sorts of interesting permissions like Delegation, Debugging, Impersonation, etc. that have no equivalent in the Unix world. Third, the whole concept of uid/gid is extremely problematic when trying to merge domains; at least SIDs are almost guaranteed to be unique (even if they are large). And last, the auditing aspects of Windows security are infinitely better than anything in the Unix world.
The only thing Unix security does better is that it is much better at having usable accounts without being root. Admittedly, this is a big difference, but I can't even fathom how the orginal (+5!) post can imply Windows security model isn't 'competent'.
And to add to what you said, there is also a command line 'runas' tool, just as you would have in the Unix world.
And I wonder how it is redundant given I hadn't seen any comment like this by the time I had posted.
True, but comments like these come up every time there's a discussion on the relative security of Windows and Linux, so they certainly feel redundant. Linux has had worms and viruses, Linux users can be socially engineered. But a virus I catch can only damage my data; my friends and relatives with Windows routinely need helped after a virus they catch damages the entire system's data. As regards trojans, the "many eyes make bugs shallow" principle becomes "many eyes make exploits and trojans shallow". There's nowt I can do about social engineering - it potentially affects everyone (to varying degrees).
Ahh, I see the "criticize Linux" ==> moderate low rule is still in effect.
Sorry, mate, I think you wanted somewhere else.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Which hasn't been a problem for how long now? Two? Three years?
Which has nothing to do with its security model. You said that "Because Linux has a competent security model." implying that Windows does not. Windows has a competent security model. It's just overridden due to the default of most users running as an administrator.
Users want ease of use. Microsoft gave it to them. Microsoft is even stating this.
Windows XP is the current version of Windows. And it has been for quite sometime now. I think it's foolish to fault an OS based on previous versions. Otherwise I could have a heyday with Linux.
While it does have some limitations it's sufficient for most tasks that require administrative priviledges. If you're not happy with its limitations you can always use "Switch User".
When you refer to "Microsoft developers" are you referring to Microsoft's own developers or those who develop for the Microsoft platform? If you're referring to the former I would have to say that Microsofts developers haven't been shown to be any worse than other developers. If you're referring to the latter then I would agree that too many developers continue to write software as if Windows is still a single user system.
What's time consuming about it?
Antivirus Software?
Woah! Circular argument alert! If you have a self-selected population (Linux/BSD users) that have to be more computer literate to even operate/install the operating system, then they are far more likely to establish and continue to maintain a secure computing environment. That does not however address the fundamental issue here. The idea behind Linspire (Lindows) is to put Linux into the hands of the self-same group of people who cannot or will not put in the time to maintain (administer) a Windows environment in a secure manner. Is Linux going to be some sort of panacea here and wave a magick wand over their heads to make them behave in a secure manner? I think not. Does it have that potential? No. Patch management is a simple fact of life in any operating system or application environment. Only user education, just as with handling mail and attachments, browsing habits, virus updates, and all the grungy aspects of sysadmin tasks is going to fix the problem.
As for patches going wrong? That is what testing is about, yet another aspect of sysadmin. Sorry, computers are inherently complex machines and proper operation requires knowledge and skill. All patches here are tested against virtual machines (Linux and Windows). At least I do get the chance to identify a problem with a bad patch. Your average Joe/Jane Blow isn't going to have that capability and I don't care which OS you are talking about.
As for your last statement, I can only shake my head here. That would imply that Windows performs automagical frontal lobatomies on users. I've met a lot of stupid users in both camps but then again, the same can be said of any endeavor.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
That would imply that Windows performs automagical frontal lobatomies on users.
How else would you explain the Microsoft Office ad which has its users falling all over each other?
Tony, I wouldn't know since I haven't seen the ad. Then again, I don't watch TV at all except for the occasional burst of news (about 2 minutes of headlines) since I find it, American TV at least, entirely useless ;-).
Then again, it does seem appropriate. The first thing I have to kill when I bother to install MS Office is the stupid wizards and assistants.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me rather than a frontal lobatomy."
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Then again, it does seem appropriate. The first thing I have to kill when I bother to install MS Office is the stupid wizards and assistants.
Now imagine yourself considering those same wizards and assistants as smart. And yourself as smart for using them. Look at what the system wants you to believe.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me rather than a frontal lobotomy."
Right!
Anthromorphizing things. Water wants to run downhill. Without understanding the effects of gravity, how else would you put it?
How well things work out depends on the intrinsics, but possibly more importantly on the differences between expectations and reality. If something is good, but not quite as good as expected, you get blindsided and things do not work out as expected. Unix is immune to worms and viruses? The Unix Honor virus is an immediate counter-example. All you've got to do is make it credible.
> Linux users can be socially engineered
"If you give me the password to your company's computers, I'll let you stare at me without calling the police." Sheesh.
> What do you mean, 'if'? Linux does have the
> attention of hackers worldwide. How else do
> you think it ever got written?
I don't mean the little, puny world you are thinking of. I mean the vicious, industrial strength hacking, the likes of which the Linux community cannot imagine.
Windows has problem X.
Linux, like any other OS, most likely doesn't have problem X, but does have problem Y.
Therefore Linux is better because it doesn't have problem X.
Consider the massive data storage, retrieval, and search implemented and researched by Google, light years beyond what some professor in some university somewhere thought was the "state of the art". Linux is that professor, in their small world, not touched by thousands of hackers who think themself on a holy cruscade against Antichrist-Linux.
No, my ignorant friends. Linux would go through a year and a half of hell, and be mocked at it's lack of security and stupid designs, were it to be attacked in such a way.
Of course, Linux will never get there because the programmers still just don't "get it". You still talk in terms of downloading tars and building it, for god's sake. My dad, like millions who actually use computers, just wants to know why the fu** he can't just plug in a printer and use it. Why? Asshole-level idiotic design by hardware AND software engineers who don't no squat about products. Microsoft has done a ton by at least including basically every known driver for every device on thier install CDs (at the time of publishing.)