Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Not Linux For Security?
An anonymous reader writes "In Friday's story about IBM's ban on Cloud storage there was much agreement, such as: 'My company deals with financial services. We are not allowed to access Dropbox either.' So why isn't Linux the first choice for all financial services? I don't know any lawyers, financial advisers, banks, etc., that don't use Windows. I switched to Linux in 2005 — I'm well aware that it's not perfect. But the compromises have been so trivial compared to the complete relief from dealing with Windows security failings. Even if we set aside responsibility and liability, business already do spend a lot of money and time on trying to secure Windows, and cleaning up after it. Linux/Unix should already be a first choice for the business world, yet it's barely even known of. It doesn't make sense. Please discuss; this could use some real insight. And let's at least try to make the flames +5 funny."
The thing people like a lot of the times is that microsoft offers support, they have it stuck in their head that if you spend money on it, it must be better than a free alternative. Pretty simple really but that's human nature in this day and age, we are programed for it from commercials on tv to radio to Target and Walmart.
Maybe it's because Windows' security isn't the rotting mess it was 10-15 years ago?
Simple, because upper management always wants more windows.
This has been discussed ad nauseum here over the last decade.
One big reason why things are the way they are, is that corporate types want somebody to blame when things go pear-shaped. There's not many linux companies of enough size to handle that. Just RedHat and SuSe.
Another reason is yes, the apps. The simply *must* have MS Access and integration with the whole Office suite. Anything that doesn't have this is likely a non-starter.
C|N>K
If you've got things to do, learning how to operate a Linux system is low on the priorities. If people start finding hiccups because of the differences between Linux and Windows they'll rapidly complain to tech. support, who will soon fold under the pressure of people not being able to meet their commitments due to not understanding their workstations.
Linux isn't the top dog because it's 'more secure' than Windows, it's not the top dog because it's not as well known as Windows. I see more people using Mac in the workplace now, and with the popularity spike in BYOD I would suggest that if Linux were to become more user friendly, Linux would be slowly be adopted anyway.
We should remember that >60% of servers run Linux, versus Windows.
Windows is easy and that's why they use it.
This is like saying: Some companies have prevented their drivers from parking their cars in the bad part of town (i.e. the cloud). These guys all drive Fords, but I drive a Chevy. So why not leave my Chevy in the bad part of town instead!
Oh wait...
I'm pretty sure DropBox runs its servers on Linux, but that's completely beside the point. Guess what's more secure? A fileserver that you own and physcially control that happens to be running Windows that's properly configured with strong ACLs and sits behind a VPN gateway... or a Linux powered PHP CMS setup that is leased from one of your competitors and is accessible to anyone who can guess a username/passwor combo?
Guess what: that example doesn't mean that "Linux is not secure" or that "only Windows is secure" either. Frankly, BOTH can be insecure and BOTH can be secure based on the usage and competency of the people who set them up.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Must we really re-hash windows vs linux? Must we?
If I were a too busy to be bothered executive, my high level opinion of the hobbyist operating system would be that it's bound to be full of backdoors put in by the coders. What's worse, is when those backdoors cause my golden parachute producing institution serious financial harm, there's nobody to sue. At least if Microsoft were to do something dastardly, there's a few billion in assets to get the lawyers worked up over.
Enterprise management capabilities, genuine software (Office, in particular) as opposed to "compatible" or "capable" software, familiarity, upper management, vendor packages that require MS servers, and relative lack of people that can "fix things" along with their regular responsibilities, are just a few reasons why.
because the windoes security guys work for free!
One reason is because in many cases your system is only as good as your administrator. Bad linux admins are worse than competent Windows ones.
such as: 'My company deals with financial services. We are not allowed to access Dropbox either.' So why isn't Linux the first choice for all financial services?
Wait, what? What does one have to do with the other?
To answer the question - based on my own time served working in the financial industry - it comes down to support. They want the security of the big-time support contracts. Sure, there is Red Hat and others - but frankly, Red Hat's marketing machine isn't nearly as good as Microsoft's.
That being said: we upgraded to Windows 2000 on employee desktops from OS/2 Warp. At that time, enterprise Linux didn't have the same maturity that it does now. By the time we looked again, we had built a very involved application ecosystem using VC++ and MFC. The cost of porting it (or replacing it, which would have been better) was in the tens if not hundreds of millions. There's no way anybody was going to make the call to do that - better to go with the flow.
More importantly - Windows XP (finished upgrading a couple-few years ago) and even 2000 simply did not present us with major security flaws in any way that put our business at significant risk. All of our users had locked down non-admin privileges, and were tightly restricted in what they were allowed to do. The vast majority of these users (and we're talking 10s of thousands) didn't even have email access. Internet access was to a small list of whitelisted sites.
Windows, like Linux, is secure when properly managed. And until recently, Windows provided better tools for easily managing a secure installation on an enterprise scale.
1) Trying to run away from good security practice by going to something you perceive to be less targeted or better able to save you from yourself isn't a good idea. Hate to break it to you but really Windows itself is pretty good security wise these days. If you are having trouble the question to be asking yourself is what is wrong with the way things are set up. To me it is like having your house robbed and moving to a new neighbourhood, rather than locking your door at night. We run a mixed environment at work, and we don't have many Windows security issues, despite it being our big OS. Reason is we have a good security setup that provides defense in depth. We have real proactive security, not ostrich security.
2) Because often the products businesses need aren't available for Linux. People will point to half-assed alternatives because said half-assed alternatives are the best they can find. "Just write your own," is completely unfeasible to many companies, and uneconomical to others. If you'd save $X in terms of security issues and licensing but spend $X*10 to develop and support your software that does what you need, it isn't a good move.
3) Because Linux doesn't always, maybe even not usually, have a lower TCO. In our environment it requires a hell of a lot more fiddling than Windows to make it work. Our Linux lead spends a lot of time hacking around with things to make them work right, and dealing with customized setups (which we do a lot of being a research university) is a pain. I spend way less time fiddling to make Windows work, and not because I'm smarter to better than him. He's damn good. It just seems to be more trouble to get Linux to do what we need, the enterprise support tools aren't as robust.
Remember that security is only one facet of cost, and also remember Linux doesn't provide perfect security. You can argue if it is better or not, though many of the better arguments are just arguments of less targeting. Things like malware that the user has to download and run, an OS can provide no defense against that short of trusted computing or the like.
So you have to look at what it would cost and save in total.
Also as I said, really security talk needs to be about defense in depth and how to prevent problems, not about trying to run away from them. Security failures WILL happen, anyone who's done physical security know there's no such thing as a perfect defense, everything is fallible, and you have to have layers and you have to monitor and adapt to maintain good security.
I would rank a place high security that runs Windows but does things like: Have regular users run deprivileged and not hand out admin accounts. Have a good, but sensible password policy and use two factor authentication. Have all systems patched regularly and quickly and monitored. Run a host based firewall on all systems. Run an on access and on download virus scanner on all systems, centrally monitored. Run a network based firewall and IDS, maybe even more than one. Segments servers from workstations and only allows the access needed. Proactively monitors for problems. And so on.
I would rank a place low security if they just run Linux, give local users sudo, and say "Have fun, Linux is safe!"
Linux could potentially help with security, that would need to be evaluated by someone competent case-by-case. Linux does not give good security, it is layers and a process, not a magic bullet.
2001 called, they want their "get the facts" back....
C|N>K
It's stories like this that make me wonder why IBM isn't laying off people instead of HP. (Truth: HP wouldn't need to lay off so many people if they could tell people how to swap the crappy batter on the HP Touchpad. Then again, Meg Whitman is Carily Fiorina 2.0 now with Romney cues.)
But IBM has has also rejected allowing anyone from using an iPhone at office meetings over concerns that Siri may be spying on the company.
Also, remember a few years back how IBM was so eager for businesses to switch to Linux? Clearly they're not following their own advice considering they were hacked last week according to The Hacker News.
We can't move forward if everyone is taking steps backward.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
These days Windows is no less secure than Linux. May be even more secure, for the gung-ho attitude of Linux enthusiasts towards security issues doesn't make any good. Microsoft, on the other hand, takes security quite seriously.
Linux doesn't come close to Windows in the choice of business applications. I myself am a long time Linux user: switched over 10 years ago. It certainly became more usable in those years, but is still pain in the ass some times.
some claim (I'm not about to pay to read the article) that Linux is being used more. ISTR something about Solaris being taken up more in banking too, but that was long ago, before the Oracle buyout. Nobody with half a fucking brain is even considering putting Sun equipment into their infrastructure if they don't already have some.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
At least at the level of "business desktop", I believe "user stupidity" is a far bigger threat than "insecure operating system". Yeah, for a ___ server, or firewall, or really any sort of system managed by trained, competent people, the OS or applications may indeed be the bigger risk, but on the desktop? All it means is that instead of attaching bank_of_nigeria__withdrawal_forms.pdf.bat, they'll attach bank_of_nigeria__withdrawal_forms.pdf.pl when running a scam.
Linux is not a magic security bullet - such a thing simply does not exist. No OS is unbreakable. My company found that out ourselves, when we discovered just how completely '0wn3d' a particular clients' Linux servers were - let's just say the guy who configured them is now fleeing the *country* to escape the gross negligence and breach-of-contract lawsuits (when your job description is "keep these servers up-to-date and secure", and they're still running a version of Debian from '02 and participating in Anonymous DDoS attacks, you've failed).
Windows also, I have to admit, has gotten much better at security compared to the 95/98 days, or even the XP SP0 days. Linux still has a security lead, but that lead is now orders of magnitude smaller (especially since Linux, at least for certain distros, seems to be trading security for usability).
Unix is actually very popular where security is a concern. Most of the internet runs on some variety of Unix.
Same in business.
But the reasons it's not even more widespread are:
a) Management and HR are clueless, and so they implement the wrong policies and hire the wrong people.
b) Microsoft spends a lot of money on getting people hooked on their technologies, including getting most universities to teach their crap, so many sysadmins are clueless regarding anything outside Microsoft.
c) CTOs get bribed. Those bribes determine what technology they buy. The FSF doesn't have much money to waste on bribes, but many corporations do.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
One of the parts of the otherwise totally asinine "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" that actually did stick with me was the story about some little part of a motorcycle that can be replaced with just a little piece of tin can if it breaks, and in some ways it even works better if you do. But, in the auto parts store it costs $15. The point is this guy's friend would never consider using a piece of tin can on his bike, and would always buy the expensive part every time because he's the kind of guy that associates paying for something with quality. You could never convince him that a free alternative to anything could be better, because then why would anyone ever pay for it? And since there's these successful and widely popular companies selling the widget for lots of money and making a killing, they must be doing something right that can't be offered anywhere else. Having dealt with enough executive types that make decisions like these for large companies, they are almost universally this type of person. It's not that free can't be better, it's just out of their comfort zones. Really, I think it stems from faith in capitalism. Windows is it because its the big one that everyone uses, and that means everything to some people (unfortunately).
I suspect that, for large enterprises, 'security' as measured by 'how fucked it is after 6 months of clueless use by Joe Pornhound, his wife Jenny Incredimail, and his son Timmy Warez' is basically irrelevant.
Home users are basically helpless cattle; but they are also low value targets. If a drive-by download or a trivial trojan can't land some malware, they are safe. If it can, they are helpless.
Your enterprise, on the other hand, likely has the desktops locked down good and hard, firewall and IDS and people paid to care. However, they are a high value target. It is plausible, indeed quite likely, that they are getting actual human attention, from actually competent attackers, customized payloads, possibly even the honor of having one or more zero-days used against them. They are also much more likely to be running complex, web-facing applications, where the security may not rely on the underlying OS that much at all(how many sites have been exploited purely through more-or-less OS agnostic attacks on their CMS?)
In this scenario, it isn't entirely clear how much better Linux is than Windows(and, also, it isn't necessarily the case that the desktop OS matters nearly as much as the competence and vigilance of the chaps watching the network for funny business).
Why would anyone buy firewalls when we have iptables and as far traffic monitoring, why pay for some custom Snort frontend? Actually that goes for iptables too. I haven't boought a router, firewall, traffic monitor, shaper or spam appliance in well over a decade.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Although Eclipse is a good IDE, Visual Studio simply feels more polished. Dev managers like the idea of a robust visual debugger. And Windows Forms has much more fancier (and useful) controls than Swing or anything in the Java world.
One could argue that providing component libraries of complex GUI controls is a lot of what Microsoft is about. That's a big issue in financial services, where they develop and use rich clients instead of (or in addition to) web apps.
Now, you might argue that Swing (or SWT, etc) is cross-platform, while Windows Forms isn't. Yes, but that's not an issue for big corporations because Windows is on everyone's laptops and desktops.
The security problems are from everything else you want to run on Linux.
Linux as, a complete platform, ends up just as exploitable as any Windows installation.
Or do you not recall the hacking of Kernel.org and Linux.com?
Linux servers/users are just as likely as Windows users to be running their OS & software without being fully patched.
Seriously are you a registered shrill? so much vague FUD.
While some of what you say is true they are used way out of context to imply things they really don't prove.
So most Linux insecurities are from third party apps* but the only example you provide is a privilege escalation exploit.
*This is still a theoretical argument.
Office, plus things like Visio and MS Project. And I don't care how much someone argues, Dia is nowhere near a good a product to date as Visio. And there is nothing in the Linux world that even compares to MS Project. There are some apps with 'project' in the name that might even look a little like MS Project, but nothing that can compete. ERD tools are another thing. Yes there are a bunch that run on Linux, but even a mid to low price Windows offering like Toad Data Modeller is head and shoulders above anything you can find for Linux. And the multitude of financials software out there runs on Windows not Linux.
Software vendors simply don't want to deal with the GPL if it means there is any chance that they will have to give away the code they spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to develop. You will find them occasionally making software that will also run on OSX, but again the license there won't force them to give away anything. And I know there is the LGPL, but it still has GPL in the name which rightly scares the vendors. And with the way some of the more rabid FOSS people are, vendors don't want the worry of a v4 of the GPL and/or something that deletes the LGPL, etc. Unless vendors can be guaranteed to make money on their investment they won't write top level code for Linux, and without top level apps, people won't use it... except for programmers who have made tons of decent apps to work on the platform they code entereprise apps for (not the client apps that the bosses use).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
People use computers to run applications. The operating system should be chosen to support the applications they need, not the other way around.
Business already has too many problems with Mac fanatics insisting on using Apple products. The main issue is they demand the computer/OS *before* seeing if any of the applications used at the office are supported. Ass backwards.
However, the question in the article was a non-sequitur. The use of cloud services has absolutely nothing to do with operating system of choice. It has to do with losing control of data.
Case in point, IBM didn't say "You can't use Dropbox on Windows", they said "You can't use Dropbox". Yes, there is a Linux client for Dropbox.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I can't speak for the financial advisors and banks, but for the lawyers, it is inertia. In 2000, when I graduated from law school, the firm I worked at still used Word Perfect 5.1 on Windows 97. They were convinced in 2001, to upgrade to Windows 2000. Even then they ran Word Perfect in a DOS box. They kept this for two reasons. The first was they didn't want to retrain their legal secretaries. Document formatting is very important and intensive in legal briefs, so you need to know the word processor in much greater detail than to write a term paper. The second reason is that they had purchased a customized version of Word Perfect that integrated with the accounting software the firm used. This was not easily duplicated. When they finally did upgrade to Word, they had to buy a whole new accounting package, and the conversion process, including training, took months.
I suspect that what keeps law firms, and most other professionals, from making a switch to Linux is the desire to avoid the unknown and the learning that goes with it. That is bolstered by the fact that every industry has some killer app that just doesn't exist on Linux.
Bullshit, do you have anything to back that up with? Appliances to monitor traffic are not just a Linux thing, if you care about it that much, you'll want them for a Windows only network as well. As for firewalls, if you're at all competent, you should be able to set one up for Linux without any particular trouble, for free. Set up the rules once and you probably don't have to fiddle with them again.
And no, people don't work for free, so I'm curious why you're only counting that when it comes to Linux, I doubt very much that Windows Admins work for free.
Because of OpenBSD? :)
These two statements:
> linux isn't secure by itself. you have to configure it to be secure ... make me suspect that you've never actually used a good, modern distribution. To address your latter point (as MightyMartian does elsewhere below), you do NOT have to "buy firewalls and all kinds of appliances," unless you just want to. Our company recently upgraded to Zimbra (the free community build) running on CentOS 6 and we retired our Barracuda Spam Firewall. We just don't need it, saving us several hundred dollars a year in subscription fees. I monitored it very closely for a the first few weeks after going live with it, but now I just check it every other evening or so. Works like a champ and I don't worry a whole lot about someone cracking it. :)
> and you still have to buy firewalls and all kinds of appliances to monitor traffic
Now for the first point. Any of the major distros that I can think of off the top of my head -- Red Hat/Fedora, SuSE/OpenSuse, Ubuntu, or whatever -- has a default install that is VERY secure. Red Hat even includes the (NSA developed) SELinux, and Suse includes AppArmor. (Not sure about Ubuntu, I don't use it.)
I'm very glad the Windows has finally gotten its act together and has become more secure, but let's face it, it took years. While they were figuring out that it MIGHT not be a good idea to allow someone execute code from a freekin' email, I was learning how to use Linux. Now I'm married to it and don't plan to get a divorce. :)
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Or is it security by being a minority (e.g., think Apple)? I'm betting even an OpenBSD workstation is prone to become compromised once it's handed over to the average "user", who'll want to download and install unvetted software (etc.). And really, what do I know about the majority of the smaller software packages in the Ubuntu Software Center?
I've been working as sysadmin for some 7 years now, almost every company using Linux pays redhat licences (support or whatever) and I have never seen someone actually calling redhat for support...
I happyly use debian in all my computers but I people tends to be afraid of
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
Linux isn't really more secure since the weakest link is always the user. There's nothing inherent in Linux that makes a Linux user less likely than a Windows user to type in his password when he sees a website popup a window that says "Disk Corruption Detected. Please enter your password to automatically fix it".
Even if the linux kernel and root owned files are secure from the user, it doesn't matter since if I want to compromise a user I don't need to write to /bin/*, I just need to write to his ~/.profile (or whatever startup scripts he runs). If there was money to be made in hacking linux (like, say, if every investment banker ran Linux as his desktop), there would be plenty of malware targeting linux.
Linux is mostly security through obscurity - aside from a few remote exploits (ssh vulnerabilities, apache vulnerabilities, etc) that can be used to take over servers, there just hasn't been a concerted effort to target Desktop Linux with malware because there's not much payback in it.
Zoidberg?
and the flavor is "Why not Zoidberg?"
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
The ability to upload customer data to the cloud is the issue. I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with the client OS.
I work in financial services and we are addicted to Microsoft Excel.
I get "relational data" in Excel spreadsheet form from outside vendors all of the time. I can't even get them to send me the data in a flat text file so Excel won't chop off the leading (and necessary) zeros.
It is what everybody knows.Not the way it should be, but that's life.
the security they want in this case isn't to keep people out; they have separate firewalls for that... it's to keep their employees and their data in.
i don't know how easy it is to lock-down windows, but i assume there are some industry standards for it. are there vendors of certified locked-down linux? that's what it would take. by definition, they can't trust their own IT to do it, after all.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
I manage hundreds of Linux *servers* and I wouldn't consider running Windows on them. Period.
But I've the impression that managing thousands of Linux *desktops* distributed cross several departments with users requesting little changes and you name it.... would be a huge mess to manage. Again, totally subjective opinion based on what I've seen being used but never used myself... it seems easier to manage a network of thousands of Windows desktops with the M$ tooling.
Anyone got experience managing both OSes in a huge network and cares to weight in?
none
More important than security is productivity. Remember, IT knowledgeable people do not run companies, MBA fuckwads do. And those people don't care about security, they care about productivity. Security is something they care about when shit hits the fan. IT people need to care about security first, but they don't exactly go around making final decisions about the company do they??
Windows is king because people know it, and everyone has it. There's no learning curve when hiring new people. Linux and all it's various flavors presents additional hurdles for employees. Some people just aren't ever going to figure it out. Call them dumb, but it's irrelevent because they won't be fired for it and it will add even more work for the helpdesk people to guide them through any trivial efforts.
'My company deals with financial services. We are not allowed to access Dropbox either.' So why isn't Linux the first choice for all financial services?
The problem is that your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "We can't use Dropbox, so why doesn't our company use Linux"? Banning cloud services has nothing to do with what OS you prefer. It's all about restricting ways users can get potentially confidential data offsite to places the employer can't control. That's it. End of story. Turning this into a Linux vs Windows debate not only strains logic, but hurts your cause. You're feeding the stereotype that Linux users are nothing but unruly zealots who try to cram their ideology into any conversation, regardless of wether or not it's invited or warranted.
Not to mention the submission is flat out absurd from a logical standpoint. "My employer doesn't allow cameras in the building. So why don't more companies have an on-site cafeteria?" makes about as much sense. Seriously, timothy...were you asleep at the wheel and just blindly posting whatever came across your screen? How about you may me to sit there and look at submissions instead. I'd at least put some actual effort into it.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
That IBM would reject Cloud storage is totally understandable, or at least I understand it. The most sensitive information My Company would want to preserve from prying eyes is stored on Hollerith Cards pre-positioned in RFIDed burn bags. Everything else is stored on an internal fiber optic ring network on a robust ftp server running patched Novell 4.0.1. & Unix Services. Try to match that for a category of ancient information security (and no, cuneiform-engraved-into-beeswax-on-stone doesn't count).
Now, you young whippersnapper, get off my lawn ...
One word: OpenBSD. It is more secure. You can debate the reasons all day long. But the fact of the matter is, even an OpenBSD box running SSH, SMTP, and HTTP services isn't going to get hacked. Forget remote root exploits. Let's talk about local root exploits, which are found regularly on Linux and Windows. OpenBSD? The most recent local root exploit, circa 2009, didn't work on the then current--or prior--release. Thus it was tagged--arguably improperly---as a reliability fix.
So it's not that bugs aren't found in OpenBSD. It's that their "proactive security" mantra has substance to it. The developers see where the state-of-the-art hacking techniques are going, and cut them off at the pass with counter measures. Contrast this with Linux or Windows, where they react after the fact; and after countless people have been p0wned.
Linux and Windows code is chock full of amazing algorithms and sophisticated hacks. OpenBSD code tends to be extremely dumbed down. If you're concerned with security, you want the dumb code. The more sophisticated the code, the harder it is to debug. The old adage that anyone who codes to the best of their ability is by definition incapable of debugging that code rings true.
Whilst I bow in front of your 31337 hax0r skillz, you are wrong about locks.
BAD locks (cheap, easily defeated) are only good to keep honest people out. That does not mean all locks are easily defeated. ANY system badly implemented would suck. I would happily race a well hardened Windows system against a badly installed *nix setup (albeit the latter is probably a bit safer straight out of the box).
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
The problem with Dropbox isn't just that it exposes Windows insecurities, it's also that it makes it easy to export lots of stuff out of your company, potentially with wimpy passwords, to a storage system which your company doesn't have any control over - Dropbox doesn't even have to tell your company if they've gotten a subpoena or "friendly" FBI request for the material, and with no contract, there's no way to specify data retention limits.
At $DAYJOB, we've got a Dropbox-like service (at least the "upload/download from browser" part of it, not the "glom onto everything" part), because it's useful to have something like that. It goes to our own storage, and has encryption we've got control over, and it keeps the employees from needing to find other ways around the firewall's block on Dropbox uploads.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
*not* Linux is what is actually used by security conscious firms.
OMG. You are the first person to ever think of this, NOT. And the results show the results. Many have tried, none have been successful. When I hear Linux people say "it works fine for me" it usually means "I don't do very much, and not anything more complicated than notepad."
Anyone doing more than that has had to 'fix it themselves' for something.
90% of business is interested in deploying for the least costs. That means buying off the shelf, and having an install of additional products that work. I know you will not admit it but, Linux is broken off the shelf 8 out of 10 times. It requires admins that are much more rare than dime a dozen MS admins to spend days/weeks getting a stable platform. Then go to which web site and buy what software? The huge vast majority is written for windows. There is some for the Mac. I do not know of 1 web site store, that sells commercial software for linux, so it ends up being even more buggy untested non-QA open source junk. Sure there are a few decent open source apps, but not many. And I don't know of any outside of server oriented stuff.
Until you recognize the obvious truths, you will keep asking why, and keep getting the same answer. It is no big secret, open source, with few exceptions, does not come close to matching commercial software. Why should/would it? By the very definition you can not make money creating it, so how good is it ever going to be? A tiny success here and there in a small part of a very large market. It is an OS for and by people wanting to tinker with the guts. It fits some disciplines (Robotics/ROS) but not day to day business users.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
No, you're wrong. Every single day I get updates. The "bug" I submitted to the patch for in Linux? It was patched in 2 weeks. The "bug" I submitted the whitepaper and proof of concept code under "responsible disclosure" to MS? It's been 2 years, and some of my unsavory friends who worked on the bug with me are now exploiting it. UPDATEs, FASTER. Linux wins.
The financial services company I work for (a super-major one) has a policy of replacing all licenced Windows-server boxes with RHEL. Windows will stay on the desktop for a while yet but wherever possible it's being replaced server-side. Contrary to the Slashdot "clueless manager theory", architecture generally decide upon the solution, not management. Where's there's policy in place for a particular product it's because there is a Procurement preferred-supplier policy.. but once again, this is usually decided by architecture/infrastructure, perhaps for reasons of compatibility or support, but not because mythical Pointy-haired bosses have anything to do with it.
PS The question is a totally bullshit assumption, that the business world "barely know of" Linux/Unix. Sure it's not on the the desktop but it's basically everywhere that it counts. There's just no-one to toot Linux's horn in the media when it wins one over Windows
Posting anonymously because system privacy IS taken very seriously in financial services
If it has a browser, and has Flash or Adobe PDF plugins, it's vulnerable.
Software repositories free of spyware are a boon, but any corporate system is likely to be locked down anyway so users can't install software.
Linux desktops do benefit from being a smaller target. That's a fragile kind of protection that I'd hate to call "security", but as one friend of mine put it, "I'll take that!"
Use VMS. A properly administered and monitored VMS system is the most hackproof I've ever seen (admittedly I've no experience of IBM mainframes).
I've worked for some of the largest banks in the world, and:
1.) They use craploads of Linux.
2.) They're going to stop using Windows.
3.) They'll never use dropbox.
Detail:
1.) They use craploads of Linux.
Just about every bank has declared Linux to be the future for application services, with a few exceptions for specific applications. Accounting will stay mainframe for a very long time, Collaboration will remain MSExchange for a very long time, Sharepoint probably as well, and rinky-dink one-off applications may still run only on Windows servers, but only if those apps come from software shops built by math/business/commerce geeks (algo stuff, etc.). Most databases, report generation, records keeping, document management, webbanking backends, and other banking stuff will continue their current trend of UNIX-to-Linux. Some banks are 20% along their UNIX-to-Linux projects, some are at 80%, but I don't know any that aren't on that road.
I think you were talking about desktops, though, not the datacenters and server farms. That's a very superficial way to look at banking computing. Banks do not use Windows machines to do banking, they use Windows machines as desktops for running Exchange, and Office, and banks are thrilled that they can *also* use those same pieces of hardware as dumbterms for people to SSH/Telnet to some banking applications and also access the newer applications through the browser. But, if it wasn't for Exchange and Office, they wouldn't use Windows, they'd use Linux thin clients. I actually know one bank that's trying to migrate people to Google Apps for just this reason, but it's really hard, because bankers really do love office/exchange.
2.) They're going to stop using Windows.
But they're not going to go to Linux. The banks are all calling it "BYOD" for "Bring Your Own Device." Bankers really, really, really want to use Mac desktops and iPads and Android phones and ditch Windows -- but there's no way they'll switch to Linux on the desktop unless that Linux is called Android. So, the banks are currently running well-funded projects to replace all their Windows-desktop-only applications with web-based apps that'll work from any browser, and also throwing lots of money at companies like Good Technology to be able to get iPads and Android Tablets in to the workplace.
Microsoft is trying to use Office360 or WTF it's called so that they can still sell stuff to banks that have ditched Windows on the desktop, but there's going to be lots of turmoil over the next 5-10 years as that progresses. Windows on the desktop in banks is effectively dead already -- I know 3 banks that have decided to stick with XP on the desktop instead of upgrading to Win7 because the Win7 upgrade costs are better spent in moving faster to this better future.
3.) They'll never use dropbox.
Banks are required to log everything, and logging everything you upload to dropbox and everyone that downloads it and all of that crap is so expensive that you should find out what the approved tools are for doing what you want to do. Most banks will allow SFTP/SCP between trusted endpoints if the right people sign the right forms. In my experience, dropbox is only ever requested in banks by someone that wants to break the law and is too stupid to know what law they'd be breaking.
Dropbox blocking is not something IT decided to do, it's something the lawyers required IT to do, and it has nothing to do with "security" in the way that there are "security" differences between operating systems. It has to do with the kind of security you have in the lobby that would ask questions if you started walking out the door with canvas bags that have dollar signs on them. If the banks allowed dropbox, naughty employees would copy documents to home that their daytrader spouses would use for insider trading (seen that more than once).
Wow, pwned before he even finished posting.
Blank until
My NEARLY COMPUTER ILLITERATE next door neighbour (has trouble remembering how to copy files and use email attachments) who is 75 years old (a retired air force mechanic) who has used MS OS's for over 20 years (I helped him upgrade from DOS and a batch launcher script to Windows), now uses Ubuntu. It took him exactly ONE day with NO ASSISTANCE to learn the UI, and feel at home. Why?! Because he hated Vista, and after he held out for Windows7, and hated it as well, I said: "Before we install an OS that will be unsupported soon (XP), give Linux a try, it's free, so what do we have to lose?" -- Note: He has NEVER had to do anything with the command line, and he was AMAZED at how simple the installer was: "How are we're already running it from just the CD? ... How can this be free? ... Why doesn't Windows have this?" (well, now they do, sort of, but that's beside the point).
I've had people with ZERO experience with Linux borrow my Laptop (running Linux), and get around just fine, waiving me off when I offer assistance... even write a resume using Libre Office, and check out my music collection... I don't want to disrespect my friends, but these are the kind of people who have 37 windows "I'm an AV" viruses and don't know how to burn CDs or run Defrag -- You are deranged, a shill, or just down right mentally retarded if you can't use the OS.
Its cheaper to stay on windows. When you to a Total cost benefit analysis of remaining on the current Windows platform compared to switching to Linux including: software deployment, Hardware deployment (if required), user training, support staff re-training, application migration, etc. Its so much cheaper to patch up the current software that the company has already outlaid $millions compared to changing over. Sure some companies will slowly migrate distributing the cost over a longer period of time, but most wont take the leap.
This is why enterprise is gay for RHEL & not CentOS or Fedora.
Yes, but you could also hand the computer directly over to a black hat hacker as well. Doesn't mean the system is any less secure by default, it just means that you're a fucking moron. The operator is always going to be a factor.
A good blackhat hacker would know how to harden the workstation. The point is that the operator is the biggest factor.
I used to work for a large international organization. Every time I went to Africa, my laptop would get infected (from USB drives passed around at meetings). I finally installed Linux in my work laptop and never had a problem after that. (The USB drives still would get infected but not my laptop... I would just delete the offending files.)
The organization was a pure Microsoft shop and also was plagued by malware inside the headquarters (rumors were that there were foreign governments who wanted information).
Several times they had high level IT security meetings and I strongly made the point that they should move to Linux. This fell on deaf ears and they are still on Windows XP plus all of the Office, Exchange, etc. dross (and still plagued by security problems).
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Um. It has MAC available vis the selinux extensions. I'm using them right now. Setup was almost nil.
Far as the vulns and devs go, you have CVE and regular dev lists at the major players such as RedHat, SuSE, Cannonical, etc. RedHat in particular is known for fixing stuff on their enterprise contracts.
So I can't decide if you're just trolling, or badly misinformed.
C|N>K
I can give you four good reasons.
1) Excel. Sorry Libreoffice can't compare to someone who has 15 years of experience ( and a masters in finance/ econ/ 10 years of experience at company) making pivot tables and doesn't wish to learn another way of doing things. It's nice when you have a 10 year old formula in excel and can boot up office 2k and it works. Keep in mind a fair share of companies are still on office 2k, for better or worse. You can sit there in your chair and say "well, upgrade", but for a 40 seat license, it can cost 3500 usd, and many companies refuse to pay for it, especially when Office 2k is "good enough".
2) Active directory. Yes, you can control file access via samba. Yes, you can have user control via (one of many) means, but active directory is not (too) difficult, and any 1st year admin should be able to set up simple file access.
3) Standard installs. If I go to CompUSA, Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Target, I can buy a computer or laptop with Windows. Windows is the de facto standard because (for better or worse) that is what is able to be bought at the retail level. I would wager 95% of all computer available through retail channels has windows preinstalled.
4) Support. Microsoft is a Global 100 company. As they used to say 20 years ago... Nobody gets fired for buying IBM. If everyone else is purchasing office, and by default windows, then any issues that you encounter are the same issues that your competitors have. That (in it's own way) levels the playing field. We can all sit here and talk about how great Ernie Ball is for standardizing on Linux, but that is less than 1% of the marketplace. If I have an issue, I have a number to call, and the support I get is from a company that I can pay to get support from that everyone has heard of. Everyone hasn't heard of canonical. Hell, a lot of people have never heard of SAP or Oracle.
Blah Blah Blah.
If what you said is true, that corporations signing "exclusionary contracts" with Microsoft getting huge discounts, in exchange for letting Microsoft to come into their daily IT operation to do spot checks for any so-called "violation", that will be a can of worm right there !!
No corporation, and I mean, no self-respecting corporation, whether or not they are in the Fortune list, should allow any outsider to intrude into their internal operation in carrying out spot checks !!
Whoever signed those type of contract with Microsoft, and all their superiors, must bear full responsibility in any loses, whether in financial or in trade secret, incurred during those "spot checks"
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I think the GPL has nothing to do with it. The fact that the OS is under GPL doesn't stop you from running purely proprietary, closed-source software on it.
The real issue is that (a) many software companies have experience developing Windows apps, so why change it? (b) They know they cover most of the market with a Windows version of their software - recent inroads of OSX has forced them to go that route as well as you pointed out. Basically, what's the possible market size? (c) If big companies aren't running Linux desktops, why should software companies invest time and resources creating big-business software for the Linux desktop? It's a chicken and egg sort of thing.
No, the GPL really has nothing to do with it.
Another security strawman. Most financial institutions have spent several hundred million setting up their IT not to mention their IP. Most had to be dragged away kicking and screaming from OS/2. Now the same is playing out for XP. It works quite well for them.
If it was cheaper by 4 decimal places per user/Admin/machine to switch to Linux they would do it in a heartbeat.
It's not.
Although depending on their role, their servers run any variety of OS. Cause that's what works.
Most of the end-users in various corporations and most of the Asians working in the IT industry grew up using windows and its derivatives. For a vast majority of the people in Asian countries, Win*.* was and is free because piracy knocked down the cost of the computer. Also, most of the end-users bought windows based machines when they were in School because the games were available on Windows and for most, at that stage in life, the computer was just an entertainment device to be used for gaming, music and movies. With the increase in adoption of Linux in Schools and the qualitative jump that Linux has experienced in the past few years, you shall see increased adoption of non-Windows OSs.
I hate to say this, because I'm going to get pounded for it, probably: It's not that it's barely known - any competent MIS/IT department looks at Linux on the desktop, on an ongoing basis, as a replacement for Windows in their environment, simply from a financial perspective.
My company is fairly OS agnostic: While our official desktop OS is Windows: XP on the old laptops/desktops, which are being refreshed with Windows 7 Pro x64 systems, and Windows 7 Pro x64 on all new laptops and desktops, those that wish to run Linux are allowed to do so, so long as doing so doesn't represent additional costs to the company (this, despite the fact that every computer we buy comes with a Windows 7 Pro x64 license).
The same for Apple computers: Want a MacBook Pro? Good for you! Request it from your manager, make your business case for it, and you can get one. HOWEVER: If your job duties require Windows-specific programs such as Visio or Project? Denied! We will not pay additional costs for a Windows license, plus the cost for Parallels (for some reason, all of the people that want Apple computers refuse to use VirtualBox, insisting that they NEED Parallels) so that you can have access to the software tools that you need to do your job, at additional cost to the company, when our standard Windows 7 x64 laptop will run those with just the additional licensing costs of Visio and/or Project.
Cheap? No, we're not being cheap, we're being frugal, and we're also insisting that our employees understand that the computers that we provide to them are for their use while doing their jobs at our company.
In a business environment, computers are tools, provided to employees to help them do their jobs. They are not status symbols nor e-penis enhancers, nor toys.
With regards to security? I can't speak for anyone else, but among other things at my company, I build the images for the laptops and desktops that we deploy, and I can tell you that they are as secure as any Windows-based computer can be.
We build the images based upon Least User Access (LUA) principles: When issued, a user's Windows 7 laptop is secure, all installed programs are up-to-date when issued (We use WSUS to update them, later). Their domain account has no local admin rights: We provide them with a separate, local, admin account, so that they can escalate privileges, and install software as they need, above and beyond the standard image.
In addition, the user's local admin account has no domain rights: This protects our network: If someone should escalate local privileges and infect their computer, it cannot touch our network by default.
This is, BTW, my approach to Windows security, since Windows NT Workstation, in a business environment (and at home!): LUA - and, in addition to sane security update practices and a good Enterprise AV program (I like Sophos - your mileage may vary)? Once we implemented it at my current company, our infection rate has dropped to nearly zero, company-wide.
And, since we've already taken the time to address these issues, and ensure that our base images are secure, updated, etc.? Switching to Linux on the desktop for purely security reasons isn't even a "blip" on the radar anymore.
Our user base so loves Outlook that lacking any real competition to it, combined with Visio and Project? Sorry, but those tools are so embedded in our company that there's NO way that our userbase is ever going to change.
And, remarkably, our company is actually prospering and growing, using those tools, using Windows 7 x64-based laptops/desktops, with Office/Outlook, Visio and Project, and our computers and network are secure and stable.
And, I had an engineer - used computers all his life - ask me about "this Linux thing, how different is it?" I explained that it was all just the same, but most of the names have changed. "So, if I want to edit a document, like Word, what do I use?", "That's called Open Office Writer", "Oh, hmmm... and I'll want to edit some pictures, I usually use Photoshop", "there's something called Gimp that's very similar", etc. by the time we got to the fourth thing that had a different name, he was very discouraged - you see, it sounded like an awful lot of effort to him to learn new names for everything.
that MS wins more corporate desktops than Linux.
IT guys know that if they recommend MS they'll have plenty of work for years to come. There's all those security patches, problems created by updates, etc. that they will have to fix. Every time a new version of the beloved Office suite is released, they'll have to patch all those computers for compatibility with the old Office suite. Microsoft is probably responsible for more employment in the US than any other company.
If they recommend linux, the corporate IT dept will be reduced to 3 guys handling mainly new machine set-ups and taking support calls from CEOs about dead machines (is it plugged in/switched on?)
I work with 8 highly trained, young (5 under 30, 3 under 40) CPAs.
We can't convert from Windows XP to Windows 7 in June because it is kind of busy time.
None of the applications are changing, all have been test, the computers are waiting - basically they would leave at their normal time and find brand new computers waiting form them. We are only talking about the learning curve. So we have to wait until July.
Sigh. different strokes for different folks.
Why is it FUD? I often see in my servers maillog a ton of blocked spam sent from compromised unix/linux servers. It's still not that difficult to find RedHat 7.x installations on the wild, with a vulnerable OpenSSH. And don't even get me started on vulnerable ProFTPDs, stupid user passwords, vulnerable web stack (apache/php/python/java/whatever) and so on and so on. The same way you'll find a _ton_ of Windows servers with vulnerable IIS (old versions) and the stupid stupid habit of having RDP open to the world.
The argument that "Linux is more secure" is a shitty one. Is there anything more secure than Linux? Of course there is - OpenBSD, for example. Is there anything more secure than OpenBSD? Of course there is - OpenVMS, for example. Can OpenBSD (the example I'm more familiar with) be vulnerable to external threats if you load additional third-party software? Yeah, shure. They can all be made insecure by adding needed software or an incompetent administrator.
Working with both unix and windows, I'd say one of the big advantages of windows is how well it integrates with windows servers, and how easily (assuming you don't run into a random bug or design flaw) you can manage granular permissions of your users (the people from sales cannot change the wallpaper, plug in USB devices or write to "my documents", but the sales manager can do it on machine X, Y and Z), add and remove privileges (there will be an external audit and the guys need to be able to login into the accounting machines from 9am to 5pm, but only thursdays and fridays for a month). If you run a managed, well filtered and secure large-scale desktop network, you'll learn to apreciate those tools (and to have every hiccup you'll have) - and all the perimeter appliances probably will run some sort of unix.
IBM's action are about controlling the behavior of people who may have access to IBM Intellectual Property. Anytime any pieces of information moves they want to know who moved it, why, when and where; and a complete list of everyone else who might be able to see it after it was moved. To try to understand this in terms of OSes is pointless, the proper metaphor is movie and music piracy. They are seeking to control how their IP can be copied or distributed.
Linux is irrelevant. It's like fretting over what brand of tire is on the get-away car.
All of the info GP provides is arguably true but he then makes conclusions that far exceed the scope of the info. The there are exploits in third party cross platforms on window so since those are available on linux therefore linux is insecure is a hypothesis not a proven conclusion.
Linux servers/users are just as likely as Windows users to be running their OS & software without being fully patched.
There is no proof of this so he bangs is after a superficial argument. This mostly irreverent and has the poor proof that like windows linux users don't have to update their systems. As everyone else here is saying if your admin is not up to it then any argument about OS security is irrelevant.
add and remove privileges (there will be an external audit and the guys need to be able to login into the accounting machines from 9am to 5pm, but only thursdays and fridays for a month).
I don't know the best way to do this but I (no admin training) could get something this working on linux. Don't try to argue that windows has better networking admin than *NIX without researching (do you know you could have done in linux?), i would guess that some *NIX probably did something like it first and probably can still do the equivalent better but in a *NIX way. This irrelevant to the argument though.
All the examples you mentioned are people that really don't know how to use computers, regardless of the operating system. They probably don't mind if rendered fonts appear a bit funny, if some keyboard shortcuts are different (or semi-useless), if LibreOffice has some limitations when comparing to MS Office, or if the cornerstone application of their business doesn't run on that given operating system. Those are the kind of users that need a browser and a wordprocessor, and use them 2 times a week.
Picking on your example, those are also the people that usually know how to use a touch-based smartphone without a problem - I can easily install and configure "complex" unix systems (or use my windows desktop), but usually have great difficulty using a smartphone for anything but texting and calling. Does that mean that the interface is bad, or that just It wasn't designed for people like me?
I'm betting even an OpenBSD workstation is prone to become compromised once it's handed over to the average "user", who'll want to download and install unvetted software (etc.)
OpenBSD security is (at least partially) a myth. Don't get me wrong, I'm an OpenBSD user (less and less these days) and enthusiast, and their base network services are usually rock-solid. But the lack of some sort of MAC, compartimentalization/virtualization support and the occasional local kernel hole (as any other unix system) is a bit of a letdown.
And really, what do I know about the majority of the smaller software packages in the Ubuntu Software Center?
I've been saying the same ad nauseum. They say it's more secure because the connection between your computer and the package server is verified and encrypted, but when you ask what kind of guarantee the user has that some package wasn't built using tainted source or on a compromised server, the arguments quickly fade away.
http://www.spi.dod.mil/lipose.htm Quote: Lightweight Portable Security (LPS) creates a secure end node from trusted media on almost any Intel-based computer (PC or Mac). LPS boots a thin Linux operating system from a CD or USB flash stick without mounting a local hard drive. Administrator privileges are not required; nothing is installed. The LPS family was created to address particular use cases: LPS-Public is a safer, general-purpose solution for using web-based applications. The accredited LPS-Remote Access is only for accessing your organization's private network."
Just good enough is what it claims to be. Windows motif is sufficiently familiar that such can be rolled out without much in the way of training, deal with the problems as they become costly enough to deserve attention...I remember when our city decided to upgrade from Vaxen...I led 6000 users into windows land because of the training cost issues, it just was easier and cheaper...AND Balmer came down and paid for a few mil of our costs, which did not hurt the case for windows at all lol.
One word: OpenBSD. It is more secure.
This is like a bunch of retards arguing about who is smarter. At the end of that exercise everyone in attendance is still retarded.
the fact of the matter is, even an OpenBSD box running SSH, SMTP, and HTTP services isn't going to get hacked
Famous last words...so famous most people know better than to ever consider uttering them.
Let's talk about local root exploits, which are found regularly on Linux and Windows
What is your conclusion based on the number of found local root expliots? I suggest gathering statistics on the amount of effort going into discovering expliots on each platform before you take the leap of asserting a niche OS nobody uses is more secure on the grounds nobody bothers to find expliots.
I seem to recall the clueless apple fanboys trying the security by obscurity thing for years.. currently it is not working out so well for them.
Contrast this with Linux or Windows, where they react after the fact; and after countless people have been p0wned.
This is 2012 not 1995. Today every OS vendor cares about security and everyone takes proactive measures to mitigate threats.
As everyone else here is saying if your admin is not up to it then any argument about OS security is irrelevant.
Maybe you aren't reading the same thread as I. Very few people are actually saying that, and it is a shame, because it is the truth.
I don't know the best way to do this but I (no admin training) could get something this working on linux.
Shure you can. On linux or on any other unix operating system. But can you do it in under a minute, or without logging on the machine (suppose it's 7pm and the user already left the building), or that instead of 2 or 3 accounts, you have to enforce 50 or 100 with different schedule requirements? The easy answer is to have your linux desktop authenticate on a Windows Server (or some other directory service that can provide you that funcionality). But the cheapest, easier to use solution I know of is Windows - and you can even train a monkey to perform that specific task.
Don't try to argue that windows has better networking admin than *NIX without researching (do you know you could have done in linux?), i would guess that some *NIX probably did something like it first and probably can still do the equivalent better but in a *NIX way.
Given that my work envolves maintaining heterogeneous infrastructures (bsd/linux/windows/osx/etc) on corporate networks, covering both server and desktop integration, i'd say I have a pretty good idea. And while I do prefer unix on the server (even if it requires me to use samba), many of the issues I solve/work around wouldn't exist on a windows-only network, or could be easily done by someone with superficial tech knowledge.
Liability limitation is. Bluntly and simply.
Detach yourself from the idea that any company out there actually cares about security. What they care about is whether or not they will have to pay for anything, and whether or not their insurances will cover it. And as long as insurances don't require you to avoid windows, companies will stay with Windows. For various reasons.
First and foremost, your employees know it. There is exactly zero training cost and no holdup due to "unfamiliar" equipment. There is also no psychological barrier. In the presence of Linux, your workers will simply admit if they don't know how to do something since it's that "geek system" that nobody can use and they won't feel bad about not being productive since they just cannot figure out how to use it, it takes a genius to use it after all, right? No such problem with Windows, since their 10 year old can use it and they won't admit that they cannot. They will work with it. They may bitch about it and not be very efficient, but they will grow into it and the resistance is much lower. They cannot weasel out of it.
Now, you say, for servers it does not matter, since you can as well get admins for Linux. Let's assume you don't outsource (which does only shift the problem to someone else, basically, but I'll get into detail about that next). Now, getting admins for Linux is not as easy as getting some for Windows, at least for HR. Or how many certificates akin to MSCx's do you know for Linux that also HR knows AND believes in? Realize that HR doesn't know jack about computer administration and, bluntly, it ain't their job. So they need some kind of objective measure to gauge a candidate. Hard to get if there are so few certificates that hold any kind of esteem upstairs.
And finally, the reason that has been a selling point for IBM for years: Nobody ever got fired for buying MS.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm glad to see someone mention OpenBSD. If security is the main driving factor, it would seem that a combination of OpenBSD and Capsicum would put together the most secure configuration that one can come up w/. (OpenVMS is dead, so no point talking about it - unless one happens to still have some fully operational AlphaServers in their offices.)
If one is going to look beyond Windows for this reason, seems to me that the above would be the best combination.
How many of those "cloud-based" solutions are written in PHP, Java, or Python and hosted on LAMP servers? You know, the ones with "Enterprise" features and "24x7 availability", and stiffly worded SLAs?
Lots and lots.
Working at such a hosted solution provider, we replace 50 to 100 onsite servers with 1 or 2 of our own and profit immensely on economies of scale. While we diligently scan uploaded data for viruses, we also benefit from having robust security, firewalls, and rapidly updated servers. In nearly 10 years of doing business like this, we've had zero virus outbreaks and uptime approaching 4 nines. We don't get complaints about our reliability, a few hours of downtime per year.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
You really need to work a bit harder than that to push your agenda. No shill cash for you this week!
Wrong question - It's not about being good, just not a pathetic malware swamp from people that pay do little attention to detail that their global "cloud" network was down for a day due to it being a leap year.
There has been a lot of good stuff from Microsoft but for these problems you only need to find one deliberately open gate for the malware to walk through - or to push the analogy - a bit of reused fence that has rusted out.
A locked down Microsoft system CAN be fairly secure, but you've got to be careful to turn off or not install all the parts that let the side down. A lot of third party stuff still has the single user non-networked mentality that everyone else gave up on about the time MSDOS was first sold.
So it's not that *nix is good, it's that those that put together those systems learned the lessons of the 1980s (or maybe even before) while marketing and expedience trumps those lessons on the MS platform. It's obvious before you even install Win7: the media is fucking upside-down so it looks good in the case but can get fingerprints all over it when it's taken out to install. These people do not really give a shit about getting the job done, so yes, linux and everything else is more secure apart from extremes at both ends.
In what world does "software runs on Linux" mean "GPL" or even "LGPL"?
Some of the largest and most-expensive softwares run on Linux; e.g. everything Oracle makes/sells.
Google "commercial software on linux"
Hey, the 90's called -- they want their "Ask Slashdot" question back!
The commercial world of business software maneuvers and tactics is described in this 1999 vintage economics book:
"Information Rules A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy" by Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian.
The book has a website, http://www.inforules.com/
I recommend you get the book from the library. The way this book answers the original post is disappointing and mundane. Microsoft implemented a vendor lock in and pricing strategy and packaging strategy that elbowed Linux into the bushes. Microsoft also elbowed CPM86 and a third proprietary PC operating system into the bushes also.
Mr. Varian, one of the authors, now lists himself as employed by Google as chief economist. It would be interesting to know who in Google is listening to Mr. Varian. I have noted a number of Google business changes that seem to be a retreat from free software ideas: For instance, Google will not release the file specification of Sketchup (Google has cut out a big chunk of the AutoCAD market and now they are going to monetize their win with by selling a $200 version of Sketchup).
I would place the Varian Shapiro book as an example expressing the American tradition of a business seeking market supremacy and sales advantage.
Linux has a different economic ideal embedded in its' existence: To make an extremely good general purpose computer operating system available to anybody and everybody for free. An aspect of Linux worth savoring is it's Fininsh-marxian-equalitarian dedication to non-advertised excellence.
"There's no learning curve when hiring new people. Linux and all it's various flavors presents additional hurdles for employees." -
just how difficult is it to move a mouse and click to run the app on Linux?
"no learning curve" with Windows is a bollox argument -going from Win XP to Win 7 is probably the same a going from Win XP to Suse/Fedora. All the apps on a company desktop would be "approved" and therefore known
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I'm an expert at getting around the Linux shell, but when it comes to installing software, I want to pull my hair out. They usually don't have binaries for the flavor we use at work (SuSE linux), so that means I have to download the source for the software I want to install. Then oh no, the server doesn't even have a compiler installed, so I have to install the compiler. Then the compiler can't compile the source because it's missing some libraries. So I have to go download those libraries (the source, since there aren't any pre-compiled binaries for SuSE), compile those (which will require me to download the source for even more prerequisite libraries...), and then finally get around to compiling the first thing I wanted to install.
If I understand you correctly, your root problem is that you are not, in fact, an expert at using/administering Linux, but think that you are. There are many books that might help you. Reading help files, man pages, and/or support websites for your operating system of choice might also help.
No binaries means compiling from source. No big deal, it's essentially one extra step.
Compiling requires a compiler and the requisite libraries. Not investigating dependencies is your fault, not the operating system's.
If SuSE is such an issue for you, but you insist on some flavor of *nix, I would recommend either picking up Gentoo (so as to learn the inner workings of absolutely every piece of software you would like to install), or picking up Ubuntu (eliminating the need for cognition in most cases).
If *nix is not a requirement, I recommend Windows, for much the same reason I would recommend Ubuntu.
You don't seem to be capable of administering any systems, and should hire someone to do that for you. If your job title contains any of the following words: "system", "network", "administrator", "technician", "operations", or "specialist", then your employer should fire you immediately.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Given that my work envolves maintaining heterogeneous infrastructures (bsd/linux/windows/osx/etc) on corporate networks, covering both server and desktop integration, i'd say I have a pretty good idea.
I guess i take that back then but your argument is what?
That windows GUI admin has far greater discoverablity than a bunch of commands and config files when it comes someone who has not fully read and remembered the documentation. No(t) arguing with this.
Or that you should use windows server tools to configure admin windows desktop networks. I did not mean to imply that you could do this with linux, i though you mean the equivalent *nix network.
My understand that the article was arguing a network of linux desktops and admin would be more secure than a windows one. The article seems to mean that windows desktops are security hole.
Shure you can. On linux or on any other unix operating system. But can you do it in under a minute,
No idea, i have no training. I would expect that for a proper setup linux network doing it for the 20th time or so you could get it down to script or a couple of lines that you could ssh in remotely to a single server to do. Since I dont know i cant argue this with you.
1. A very consistent and user friendly interface. The most risky thing MS did was change the GUI in Windows 8 it's extremely risky.
When I say consistent... I mean it hasn't changed remarkably in 20 years. That is something business likes. I really can't be understated.
2. Of equal importance, backward compatibility. Business has no confidence in apple because you can't run old apple programs on a modern mac. And it seems like every new version of the OS breaks compatibility with something.
Some might say, hey linux has both these things. No you don't.
The OS still isn't user friendly. I don't care if you're using Mint or ubuntu or whatever. There are a lot of things you can do with a few mouse clicks in windows that require typing in arcane code into a prompt in linux. That's not okay. If I have to look at a prompt EVER while doing anything conventional... it's an instant fail. It's like accidentally running over gandolf in your driving test. You will not pass.
The OS and the apps also need to look almost identical the MS versions. I mean chinese KFC identical. Probably so identical it would violate trade mark and copyright. Now, you might have an opportunity given that windows is screwing with backward compatibility. But even then you need to package everything better. The office clone has to include an outlook clone with a corresponding Exchange clone. Package and market these things. I don't care if it's free. Put it together and set the wizards up so the whole thing configures itself. If I have to look at one god damn prompt you knocking over traffic cones and drinking vodka while entering highway traffic... singing.
As to backward compatibility. I'm honestly not sure how linux does here. I know that they recompile kernels frequently and that can cause compatibility issues. If you can run old programs from 20 years ago without lots of heavy emulation then we might have a winner here.
Anyway, I know I'm going to get some hate from the various OS's... Each has it's value.
Mac is a great consumer OS. Linux is great so long as we can assume a level of familiarity and sophistication not common in the office drone.
Windows as a business workstation is really pretty damn good. And it has all these great products that match business needs very well with lots of features that all tie into each other at a pretty reasonable price. And they're pretty simple to use.
It's a big deal.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The simple fact is that it's much easier to just rebuild an infected or compromised laptop than re-tool your entire company to use Linux. Far, far cheaper, as you will already have someone in-house building new laptops anyway; the process is no different, just a few more man-hours.
Any sensibly-run company will use a mixture of technologies; Unix is strong on scalability and security, Windows for ease-of-implementation, off-the-shelf solutions and rapid development, mostly due to the widespread availability of cheap skills, and an out-of-the-box extensible directory service that makes user management a lot easier. Linux for web services, appliances and VM hosting.
There is no black and white solution to questions of this kind, but the argument against Linux is the same for any OS out of its comfort zone: cost.
Essentially there are lots of people who both believe that Windows is the correct operating system and have no idea what they are doing. That's why rating firms run on Excel spreadsheets. Huge Excel spreadsheets nobody can maintain.
Plus there is another thing which is more important than security, it's the social structure. You usually cannot questions others decisions, even if you have actual proof that you are right. That's not acceptable in most companies.
The combination is also common. You have some idiots starting with VBA and having half maintained Excel spreadsheets which only grow, but never shrink. Converting them would be near impossible, so even if you are able to change the consensus, there's nothing people can do about.
Working in a company which is like that, I can tell that this is extremely frustrating.
Making money is priority 1, and making money requires the specialty legal/financial/scientific/medical/foo software that is only made for windows (NT 4.0) and which requires the user to be logged in with administrator privileges. And don't even think of setting up a remote desktop scenario, because the specialty legal/financial/scientific/medical/foo software needs to interact with the version of IE (6) and MS Office (97) they have installed to print to their local printer in their office which is parallel only; if they print to a copy-room printer they violate some federal regulation. Plus they don't want to walk down the hall and type in their passcode on the printer to release the document then wait while it prints.
I do ;)
In the corporate / work world, I'd have thought that most lawyers use what they are given and, unless the corporate IT policy changes, Windows it probably is. But that's not the choice of the lawyer, in most cases — perhaps it reflects the lawyers that I know, but most of us are employees like any other paid staff member (in some cases, even if called "partner"), and have no real say on the IT or any other office aspects of the environment in which we work.
However, outside the corporate world, I (and quite a lot of others that I know) don't use Windows — for my academic and personal work, I haven't used Windows for years, instead preferring a mix of Linux, FreeBSD and Mac OS, depending on what I'm doing. Perhaps it's reflective of my areas of interest, but many of my legally-qualified friends use Linux either on a netbook for travelling, or else just at home — that may be because I tend to see myself as a legally-qualified geek, and my friends are probably in a similar position.
So, yes, lawyers *do* use platforms other than Windows. Whether law firms do is perhaps a different matter.
Large companies do use a lot of linux, but generally only on server and security critical (eg firewall) devices... Most companies operate on the assumption that the outside (which is often a linux based firewall) is hard, while the inside (often active directory and windows workstations) is soft.
There is a _LOT_ of ignorance and general incompetence in the IT field, it's not uncommon to find people who either have no idea Linux exists, or are rabidly against it (because its free|because they dont understand it and fear losing their job to someone who does). Amusingly, most of these anti-linux shops who are most vocal about not using linux, actually have several embedded linux devices without realising it.
Then of course you have lock in, a company of any size is likely to have lots of applications which are used by various people within the organisation, some of which won't be cross platform and therefore artificially increase the cost of migrating away from windows.
There is also fear, people are scared of the unknown... You will often find people who have no experience of linux, and who will fight hard against it because they fear losing their job to someone who does have linux knowledge. Of course, the real problem is that they are unwilling to learn new skills, a fatal flaw in an industry such as this where things change so rapidly.
And don't forget misinformation, people will often say that linux "has no commercial support" for instance, which is obviously complete bullshit.
Personally i think that long term, linux will gradually take over unless microsoft succeed in doing something drastic to make it illegal... As things mature, costs will push down towards cost price as has already happened with hardware, i predict the same will happen with mainstream software eventually.
People gradually migrate towards more open systems, due to cheaper pricing and more competition. That's why we're stuck with the ibm compatible these days and not any of the considerably superior but proprietary alternative architectures.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
2012:
Medicaid hack update: 500,000 records and 280,000 SSNs stolen:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/medicaid-hack-update-500000-records-and-280000-ssns-stolen/11444
So, what's dts.utah.gov running everyone?
LINUX (and yes, it got HACKED) -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=dts.utah.gov
What's health.utah.gov running too??
YOU GUESSED IT: LINUX AGAIN -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=health.utah.gov
* Ah, yes - see the YEARS OF /. "BS" FUD is CRUMBLING AROUND THE PENGUINS EARS HERE & 2012's starting out just like 2011 did below!
===
2011:
KERNEL.ORG COMPROMISED - The Cracking of Kernel.org: (that's VERY bad - do you trust it now?)
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/08/31/2321232/Kernelorg-Compromised
---
Linux.com pwned in fresh round of cyber break-ins:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/12/more_linux_sites_down/
---
Mysql.com Hacked, Made To Serve Malware:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/09/26/2218238/mysqlcom-hacked-made-to-serve-malware
What's that site running? You guessed it - Linux -> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=mysql.com
---
London Stock Exchange serving malware:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1484548/London-Stock-Exchange-Web-Site-Serving-Malware
(I mean hey - NOT ONLY DID LINUX FALL FLAT ON ITS FACE less than a few minutes into the job http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/0147232/London-Stock-Exchange-Price-Errors-Emerged-At-Linux-Launch, & crash not only ONCE, but TWICE there? You see "Linux 'fine security'" in motion @ the LSE too!)
---
DUQU ROOTKIT/BOTNET BEING SERVED FROM LINUX SERVERS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/30/1610228/duqu-attackers-managed-to-wipe-cc-servers
---
Linux Foundation, Linux.com Sites Down To Fix Security Breach:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/09/11/1325212/linux-foundation-linuxcom-sites-down-to-fix-security-breach
---
Linux's showing in CA's breached recently too? Ok: (very, Very, VERY BAD for ecommerce, online shopping, banking, etc./et al)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=StartCom.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=GlobalSign.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=Comodo.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=DigiCert.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.gemnet.nl
The list of CA Servers BREACHED that RUN LINUX (StartCom, GlobalSign, DigiCert, Comodo, GemNet)... per these articles verifying that:
There are important reasons why malware targets flash/acrobat/java...
1, this software is ubiquitous... they used to target internet explorer before, but now its down to >50% marketshare its a less attractive target.
2, it can be easily reached via the browser - ie less social engineering required.
3, it is hardly ever updated, neither windows nor osx has a decent centralised update system that takes care of third party software like this. you might get a crude updater program, but hats useless in a corporate environment where you aren't given admin rights.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
At least in Australia, many a Company is finally catching on to the benefits of FOSS and not just the positive financial aspects of it. Jobs are rolling in the desktop support market for Linux and it's great because it's an employees market at the moment. Companies here see that you can reduce 100 Windows licenses to 4 or 5 and run any win apps in a terminal session on their Linux machines. This makes it easier for support and easier on the wallet.
You're right though, Linux is inherently more secure than Windows given how permissions work, we know that. BSD is even better when using jails! And if something is contracted, it is going to be limited to your user, BUT even this can be wiped out with carelessness. Some examples are: Leaving ssh open with no pub/pri keys whilst not disabling root login (common in Debian/Ubuntu) on both workstations and servers or leaving the initial user in the sudoers group (common in Ubuntu) or Incorrectly set up samba shares and the list goes on.
My point is, even the most secure OS can be the most insecure OS when amateur hour is upon us.
I assume from tone that the OP is discussing Linux on the desktop rather than the server because there's already plenty of Linux servers out there doing lots of heavy lifting.
Any business has a whole list of things they need from their computer systems, and that list has a priority order. From what I've seen, that priority order is (roughly speaking):
- Our staff must be able to do their work with minimal hassle. If we use a legacy Windows application, we don't want to hear "you can't do that"; we want to use it. WINE isn't an option because our vendor will simply refuse to talk to us if we raise any issues with it under WINE.
- The system must be reliable. "Not crashing" is only part of this; reliable, consistent behaviour is also important. A desktop that radically changes with every new version is a sign of an immature product, not a revolutionary one.
- We must be able to easily find people we can trust to look after it. Not just vendor support, but local techs who can manage the system.
- We must be able to do all this for a price we're comfortable with. Note that "a price we're comfortable with" does NOT mean "free", nor does it necessarily mean "stupendously expensive". If the price we're quoted is too cheap, we'll be just as concerned as if it's too expensive.
(It's important to note that "free" has great connotations if it's a single free pint of beer; what's the worst that can happen? It's not very nice beer? Well, then don't drink it, you've not lost anything! But when it's the software your business, and therefore your livelihood depends on, "free" has terrible connotations).
- It must be reasonably secure. But we have very limited understanding of IT, and even less understanding of IT security. Our idea of secure is "You need a password to get in".
Note that there are four things above "secure" in the priorities list. If the alternative you're offering fails at any of those four points, you are wasting your time trying to persuade anyone to use it.
And really, what do I know about the majority of the smaller software packages in the Ubuntu Software Center?
I've been saying the same ad nauseum. They say it's more secure because the connection between your computer and the package server is verified and encrypted, but when you ask what kind of guarantee the user has that some package wasn't built using tainted source or on a compromised server, the arguments quickly fade away.
I trust those packages because I know that if they do have a problem it will come out soon enough (via channels like /.), after which Ubuntu is sure to start losing users in droves, and go bankrupt.
Ubuntu has a good business reason to not have malware in their software centre packages. And that's what makes me trust them to keep it safe, and also that once a problem has been identified, that they will act to fix it.
The same for organisations like Mozilla or OpenOffice and it's forks: they run a business based on people trusting their software to do what it says it does, and that it doesn't come with any malware that tries to steal your identity or empty your bank account. This makes it a trusted source. Even if I don't get to audit the complete source myself.
How many people regularlly work on GNU, the linux kernel, apache webserver, and the core of stable well used programs around linux as well as the kernel. Plenty, probably thousands.
How many people does microsoft have maintaining the windows kernel, and the rest of the operating system?
Now, the more people use windows or any other operating system, the bigger the payout for writing malware is. There are also more programmers for it, and with it, more hackers, and more people looking for bugs. But when you have open source, the hacker thing works both ways. At least some hackers will contribute back bugfixes for bugs they find. The more people use linux, the more of them will be hackers, and will add to the pool of people fixing bugs proportionally. especially if these people are already programmers.
When microsoft wants to expand the amount of people working on windows, it has to hire them, adding to cost. Putting the time and effort commercially that gets put into your typical distro would be cost prohibitive for closed source, single entity paying programmers.(as opposed to many companies paying many people like linux). Then we have the fact Microsoft is not known for really giving a shit about quality either. Infact the inverse has been said time and time again. They put in as little effort as humanely possible.
Oh, and in linux and from what I can tell gnu, there are no radical overhauls to the system. There are only incremental changes. Compare that to windows who without exception have had massive *.0 problems with every operating system as long as I can remember. The term "microsoft model" has been coined of any company that makes users pay to beta test. Lets see:
Windows 95 was unstable until version c
so was 98 until second edition.
millienium edition was so bad it was pulled before it got that far.
Windows XP was worthless until SP2(SP3 is awesome though, released almost upon obsolescence.)
Now windows 7 comes doing little more than fixing vista's problems.
"lawyers, financial advisers, bank[er]s" - not exactly the smartest cookies in the box.
Why not Linux for Security? Sure, okay, but what will run? Let's take the example of a small law office that bills by the hour. You have several needs . . .
1. Document Assembly. If your document assembly software is running on Windows, you're not going to migrate to Linux. Ever. Never EVER.The learning curve means lost revenue.
2. Time and billing. These take time to set up, they work with #1 above, and they usually work best on Windows.
3. Practice management. Once again, usually Windows only, or Windows best, and they work with #1 and #2 above.
4. Accounting and taxes. Quickbooks Enterprise works with Linux, but not the smaller packages. Also, there's not Turbotax Business for Linux.
I know a lot of people who would love to experiment with Linux, but it would be experimenting. A lot of people don't have time to experiment, and certainly don't want to pay someone to experiment. If you do everything yourself, there's a learning curve, and in a lot of industries there's a constant learning curve with new legislation, case law, and administrative decisions, there's no extra time to fiddle with your technology. There's always a bit of condescension when these posts come up, whether we're talking Linux or back in the day Mac OS, about continuing to use M$ products. It's like you're labeled for not wanting to f**k up your business by trying new software just for the sake of trying new software. If it were better, and CHEAPER, businesses would have switched years ago.
Make love, not reality television.
Microsoft offers a business model that is familiar and non threatening, sure it does not work that well, but then the general feeling is that IT is complicated anyway, and "everybody is doing it".
For most business persons, using Microsoft is the sure way of not thinking about IT, using anything else and particularly using an Open Source solution means thinking and making a decision about something they do not want to look at.
The alternative would be to delegate to the IT team, but that would be worse, you know "thouse people are weird..."...
And using a disruptive business models sheds a light on one owns business, can my "law business" fore example be handled the same way ?
could there be some "open source collaborative platform" giving an useful answer in 95% of the cases ? and putting me out of work ? (well actually asking me to start to really work...)....
Better not rock the boat...
Then here it is:
"We've always done it this way."
Honest, I swear.
Regards;
Is this a new corporate-welfare bribery that is legal only in the USA?
I thought bribery, in any form, is still bribery even in the USA. I got fooled again?
Give'em diamonds, dollars, euros, gold, give'em a deal they can't refuse M$-products. I would never take the M$ bribe/deal, but ... business is business and well above the law in the USA.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
point and click is gross oversimplification. You're talking about most all desktop applications being different. No Office suite and any homegrown applications may or may not work. You dismiss my argument because you have no trouble working with linux. The majority of workers are not going to be comfortable doing so, and that will affect productivity. Thus, Linux will not become the standard desktop OS within business.
I love how a single anecdote gets taken as a representation of the whole and upvoted to 5. Groupthink, gotta love it.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
followed closely by Free and Net BSD. Not linux. Regardless, no cloud storage can be considered secure as you do not have physical control over the hardware, it really does not matter what OS is used, the system is inherently flawed. You may be fine with all the limitations that brings for pictures of your drunken escapades but it is not fine for storing valuable corporate data (which may also come with fiduciary responsibilities too.)
When it comes to security of just about anything, there are many misconceptions. The biggest problem is that MOST security problems come from the "bundled" software that comes with the base OS. This includes Linux, Windows(all versions), MacOS, and really just about anything else. Now, we have a fundamental problem that all modern OS releases will force certain things during the initial install, with fairly few giving an "advanced" option to select what features you want.
For Linux, a web server is fairly common, yet most people probably don't need or use it on their own machine, and a "normal end user" wouldn't even think or know about it being there. That is a huge potential security risk, as is just about any other thing that comes included in an OS that is not really understood by the user. The primary reason we see so many security problems is because there is a mindset out there with any group or company that releases an OS that you MUST include all sorts of features, and to ask questions will scare off those without much if any computer or technical skills. What happened to the "advanced" install for something like MS Windows, where you can go through DURING INSTALL to pick and choose which features you want? Why not give the option to disable networking during an install for a standalone workstation? It may not be a common thing, but giving people the option also means that by default, most operating systems would be MORE secure if they asked some questions during the install.
If I had mod points, I'd downvote you for just saying that GIMP is like photoshop
Well then your experience with Linux.org is much better than my experience, or the experience of past employers. People at my company submitted a bug for HID devices in Linux kernel 2.6.10, 2.6.13, 2.6.17, and oh it wasn't until 2.6.23 or so that they actually implemented the fix, and then gave someone credit for it. I cant tell you how many times i had to keep patching the exact same bug because no one at Linux.org cared about USB HID. It was the most asenine thing I had ever seen. It was a one line fix, that was clearly correct. The problem was someone sleeping with a spinlock in the kernel.
...and come to that, the mere fact that a normal user can turn it off suggests it isn't proper security.
regular users CAN NOT turn off UAC. Only administrators can turn it off. When you log in as an administrator (but without admin privileges because UAC stripped those from your token) you can *elevate* (get your admin privileges back) and turn it off. But regular users CAN NOT turn it off. You will be prompted for administrator credentials if you try.
No, UAC doesn't actually stop you doing anything, it just moans about it when you try, and then lets you after it asks if your'e sure. You click yes and carry on. There's a big difference to that and proper security.
If you don't accept the elevation, your token will not hold administrative privileges and the regular Windows security system will stop you from taking any action which require such privileges. Like changing OS files. You seem to miss the fact that UAC is more than just the UAC *prompt*. You naively assume that is all there is to it, while under the hood it is actually quite sophisticated. For instance, the UAC elevation prompt and several of the control panel applets run in high integrity mode, meaning other lower integrity processes CAN NOT send messages (e.g. controlling the mouse or stuffing keyboard buffer) to the high integrity level process.
How would you feel about UAC being the only thing protecting your checking account? "I see you're not the account holder. Are you REALLY sure you want to transfer its entire balance to another account?"
What a stupid question. How do you feel about Linux only protecting the *tools* and not the actual operations? How do you feel about Linux actually *caching* your sudo password so that *any operation* following the first one can silently take advantage of your credentials? How do you feel about a tool secretly launching and transferring your money out of your account, even without a prompt? Just because it could use cached credentials?
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Anything that links to anything in the O/S's libraries without an LGPL or similar licensed library in between.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I'm saying stupid users, and stupid admins, exist for every operating system. And the problem probably gets worse if executives hand down a mandate to use an operating system the admins and users are not familiar with. Doesn't matter what OS it is - no operating system is idiot-proof. A moron can break Linux. A moron can break Windows. A moron can break Mac OS, or Solaris, or VMS, or OS/2, or HP-UX, or FreeBSD or NetBSD or DragonflyBSD or OpenBSD. Name an operating system, there's a story somewhere of some moron admin who left it wide open. And anyone who pretends otherwise probably is, or will be, one of those morons.
I trust those packages because I know that if they do have a problem it will come out soon enough
So, the "because someone else may look at them" approach. It didn't work for Debian.
after which Ubuntu is sure to start losing users in droves, and go bankrupt.
Canonical (the Ubuntu company isn't named ubuntu) does not have a clear business model, and it is (as a sustainable business) bankrupt today. Can you please explain to me the difference between having zero paying users or one million of those?
Ubuntu has a good business reason
Oh god, please tell me, I really want to know! Because the company isn't run as a profitable business.
And that's what makes me trust them to keep it safe, and also that once a problem has been identified, that they will act to fix it.
1) Canonical has ZERO control over the repositories they push the sources from, so they can't really guarantee that - as an example, there is a cgi php bug that is only really fixed in 5.4, which is incompatible with a ton of existing php code. 2) every other vendor does that (fixing bugs), including Microsoft.Can I get security updates for my Linux 8 year old system install? doubtful.
The same for organisations like Mozilla or OpenOffice and it's forks: they run a business based on people trusting their software to do what it says it does
I want some of what you're taking. Mozilla is sustained mostly by Google trough the search engine in firefox, and OpenOffice doesn't have a commercial model at all, being a shared effort project.
And that "trusting in people you don't really know for stuff to be ok" is called social engineering. Look it up.
I guess i take that back then but your argument is what?
My argument is that, for management sake (and less steps directly translates to less errors, less technicians and so forth), Windows networks as a whole are easier to maintain (desktop-wise) than *nix-based ones. And that the tools available are businesss oriented, and not nerd-oriented.
My understand that the article was arguing a network of linux desktops and admin would be more secure than a windows one. The article seems to mean that windows desktops are security hole.
I didn't reply to the article itself. The article is an ugly mess of concepts, starting with the fact that dropbox is mostly OS-agnostic. Somewere along this thread, the extrapolation that linux is somewhat more secure than windows was made, without presenting any kind of proof. As someone else said it, it is and irrelevant question, since it depends of the system administrator (and not of the operating system).
No idea, i have no training.
That is the problem. You replied aggressively to someone without even having a vague idea of what you're talking about (the original thread I replied to). Some days ago, someone was modded down because it said that the best way of perform linux upgrading (regarding to a linux usage in google article) was to re-image the system. That is the correct/best bet way of doing it, regardless of what you or others think. Shit happens. In all flavors and all platforms. Knowing it is half the battle. The problem here, is that experience/insight is buried by zealotry/false beliefs. Sometimes, the linux folks seem a lot like a religion.
HE DID NOT SAY HE DID NOT INVESTIGATE DEPENDENCIES YOU CLUELESS FUCKING MORON.
Really? Then I completely misinterpreted his statement:
Then the compiler can't compile the source because it's missing some libraries.
Other systems don't have it, because they don't share the Linux obsession with a billion different "distributions", most just different enough from the rest that you cannot freely intermix software (the same software!) which has been "packaged" for one with another. I laugh whenever I see idiots like you claim that Linux package management is a unique strength for Linux. Yeah, sure, it is a unique strength, but it's also its greatest weakness. It is the reason why GP had to go through a ton of pain to install a compiler and track down dependencies in the first place.
Actually, I think the reason why GP had to track down dependencies and compile his/her own flavor of the app in question is because of SuSE, specifically. Ubuntu has very few issues handling packages from other operating systems; look into alien. Interestingly enough, I pointed out Ubuntu as a distribution that might be better suited to installing $APPLICATION, because the process would be much easier - especially considering that one possible reason the user was not able to install easily is that there ws no binary package for the selected distribution.
There are many books that might help you. Reading help files, man pages, and/or support websites for your operating system of choice might also help.
RTFM, the eternal cry of the stereotypically clueless basement dwelling Linux dweeb who will never understand why the whole world doesn't want to adopt Linux tomorrow.
Yes, I suggested further learning about a topic that the GP obviously does not possess enough knowledge of. Shame on me.
Shut the fuck up, stop looking for an excuse to be condescending, and listen.
I wasn't being condescending, I was attempting to help inform and educate the GP about how to resolve the issues s/he is experiencing. Again, shame on me.
I probably should not have closed with my statement that this uneducated poseur should not actually be working in the IT field, if I were trying to be polite.
Regardless, I stand behind all of the statements in my previous post.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
The Microsoft you describe no longer exists.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
You replied aggressively to someone without even having a vague idea of what you're talking about >>> And that the tools available are businesss oriented, and not nerd-oriented.
I guess you are not aggressive. You come off as a well practiced windows admin who has picked up linux from the internet in the past 5 or so years or no the right person to make these argument. Go back and look at the original post and ask your self how much expertise he had or if he was trolling.
Somewere along this thread, the extrapolation that linux is somewhat more secure than windows was made, without presenting any kind of proof.
I guess he's taking about something that is closer to the default install with relaxed security policies than a properly locked down desktop network but that's a valid assumption that linux is more secure. There are too many metric that anyone can use to make this a simple thing to argue. I think its generally accepted that linux has less threats that user can run into on the internet and is unlikely if infected to have the infection spread though the network.
Windows networks as a whole are easier to maintain (desktop-wise) than *nix-based ones.
Like you ask for proof above, prove it, This is subjective. Cost wise you need less linux admins to windows ones, see the Munich linux roll out. Or is this easy as in you don't need a lot of skill to do tasks that are specific for window admin. Whats the metric for easy?
No I mean the above has an agenda but no content of any note. New names? A poor pathetic engineer somehow without the capacity to deal with very small amounts change of any form, yet still an engineer? It makes no sense and just looks like somebody trying to tick a box to get a paycheque.
You come off as a well practiced windows admin who has picked up linux from the internet in the past 5 or so years or no the right person to make these argument
While I do perform windows administration (since NT3.5 and before TCP/IP was commonplace, but not relevant), I have more than 10 years of experience deploying and maintaining unix operating systems (mostly BSD, but also some Linux and some Solaris) in commercial environments. And "I picked up" Linux in 1996. So, I'm technologically old, but is any of this relevant?
ask your self how much expertise he had or if he was trolling.
This is slashdot. I prefer to ask myself if he raised a valid point or not. And he did. How much expertise is enough for you? And how do you measure it? By years? If someone has fedora on their laptop for the past 6 years, does that count as "unix administration" skills? (I don't think so) And the Linux admins, are they that much better on average than everyone else? I don't think so. Fact is, everyone has different backgrounds and different experiences. That is what makes this discussions interesting - I may learn something new.
Like you ask for proof above, prove it, This is subjective.
Maybe. But I'm still waiting for you to provide similar funcionality to AD (management-wise) for unix. And it's not like it doesn't exist - Novell had something somewhat similar - but check the price. As an example, do you know one of the major problems in using eg. Firefox in large scale desktop networks? Yup, is the fact that you can't lock down the browser easily and in a centralized fashion. How do I prove it? Well, next time you go to a bank that has windows desktops, ask the teller what he can and can't do with his browser. If you never used this kind of funcionality, you probably never looked for what's available, what works good on paper but fails in production, and the cost of the commercial versions.
Cost wise you need less linux admins to windows ones, see the Munich linux roll out.
I find it funny how you cherry pick the examples of others, but fail to give actual insight in your own examples. The Munich rollout started in 2003, and was "complete" in 2011 (75% of total desktops migrated). They took 8 years to get to this point, and they are still migrating the 3000 desktops remaining, so we have different ideas of what is "success". One of the reasons for the migration was, and citing an interview "There was, according to Schießl, no common directory, no common user management, no common hardware or software management. ". Is that a relevant example for this discussion? Doubtful.
You could, however, picked some successful examples, such as Brazil's Federal Government, Extremadura (Spain), or even IBM. Each case is a case, there is no magic bullet, and a lot of work is made to ensure there is no relevant loss of funcionality.
Whats the metric for easy?
One of my metrics for easy is not having to mess around the samba code to try to understand why it isn't working as advertised, when users are waiting for it to work. Or performing regular maintenance and upgrading, and suddenly having things stop working and you have no idea why. If it is easy, the required skill level is always inferior. If you think I'm trolling, go have a look on samba's bugzilla.
This is slashdot. I prefer to ask myself if he raised a valid point or not.
Your not supporting any of his points, you are no longer talking about security. The main point he has is if you stick the same stuff on your linux servers or desktops (does not say which) as windows ones they end up as insecure as windows.
The Munich rollout started in 2003, and was "complete" in 2011 (75% of total desktops migrated).
maintain not migrate, but you do say to why the example is not too relevant.
One of my metrics for easy is not having to mess around the samba code to try to understand why it isn't working as advertised.
Ill give you that as an issue but samba Samba is a "free software re-implementation of the SMB/CIFS networking protocol". Not a vaid example to extend to extend to all linux Network code, where you would replace it with something involving NFS in a non window environment.
Some examples from the press:
http://www.maas360.com/news/industry-news/2012/01/banks-begin-to-tackle-byod-800677691/
http://www.fiercecio.com/story/banks-learn-accept-byod/2012-04-29
Also, it's not "your" account, it's theirs.
I've read through the comments thus far, and no one has pointed out the absurdity of the original question, if cloud storage isn't allowed why don't businesses use Linux? What does the choice of operating system have to do with essentially exposing data outside of the corporate firewall? Cloud storage and choice of operating system have nothing to do with each other. All that have appeared are the usual knee-jerk responses defending or attacking various operating systems.
Not a vaid example to extend to extend to all linux Network code, where you would replace it with something involving NFS in a non window environment.
You usually cannot replace 100% of windows desktops for various reasons (and in some environments you'll find decade-old Apple computers, archaic unix systems, etc), so SMB is the lowest common denominator. But from your post I guess (I may be wrong) you never really had to deploy NFS or have an idea why the alternative to Samba in pure-unix environments often is AFS or GFS2, and not NFS, so I see no point in continuing this further.
'Stuck in a loop' by the copy and paste troll, APK? There's a bit of irony.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Hard to keep one's word when dealing with a lunatic such as yourself.
So, if it isn't your meds that has you on your monthly freakout cycle, what is it? Phases of the moon?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
You must be writing all your software yourself, and auditing all third-party source before you compile it in your audited (or self-written) compiler as it seems you don't see any reason to trust anyone.
Or if you do use software you didn't write or audit yourself: what is your trust in that software based upon?
You must be writing all your software yourself, and auditing all third-party source before you compile it in your audited (or self-written) compiler as it seems you don't see any reason to trust anyone.
I just don't assume that the software is trustable just because some magical Canonical fairies compiled it, and the connection to their server is encrypted. How is this better than windows? (and that was the discussion)
As a sidenote, I usually build everything from ports in my servers (and the base system is rebuilt from a direct copy from the development source). While I cannot audit/control the source, I get a pretty good idea of what is actually installed and the dependencies of the most common applications I use. If a given application is perceived as untrusted, I can always rely on the available methods to try to isolate it as much as possible (securelevels, MAC, chroots, jails, systrace, capiscum, etc). It's not like there is no middle ground between thinking that a repository is farily safe and writing your own software from scratch.
You must be writing all your software yourself, and auditing all third-party source before you compile it in your audited (or self-written) compiler as it seems you don't see any reason to trust anyone.
Or if you do use software you didn't write or audit yourself: what is your trust in that software based upon?
I doubt Canonical audits everything in their store. The major and default packages? Sure. But if something bad filters through, what does Canonical really have to lose? They didn't write the malware. In fact, the android market suffers from this problem but it's hardly keeping users away from android smart-phones; even though Google has the means (unlike Canonical) to do a better job and the Java/Dalvik platform makes it easier to weed out the bad apples. Security is far from the minds of workstation users when compared to software support--will it run XYZ--and how frustrating/helpful an OS is to productivity. And given Windows 7 (no comment on Win 8) has made inroads on all of this PLUS security, Linux is a hard sell.
Perhaps I have an MD in Psychology. You'll never know.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
There are a hell of a lot of people who use photoshop for nothing more than cropping and resizing images. Maybe some simple red-eye reduction or other touch-ups. GIMP is more than sufficient for these tasks, and FREE. I downloaded it because it was easier than finding a pirated version of Photoshop I could trust.
Part of the reason Adobe can sell so many copies of photoshop is that "photoshop" has become the generic verb for "edit a picture."
sustainable living
Looking at the replies it's clear that so many /. people have no clue just how pervasive Linux is out there. Storing your stuff in the cloud - that would be Linux with like one exception. Storing your stuff in a San, NAS, that would also be Linux. Your Android, Set top box, F5, firewall, almost anything - that would be Linux. There are exceptions, however not many. Microsoft is in the clear minority. According to Netcraft their web server is at it's lowest share since about 1997. IE Browsers are at a low point too as so many phones run Linux or anything other than Windows.
The world is changing away from Microsoft. Most people don't know it yet.
Before you BSD people get upset, I know about BSD and the others. They have strong points and perhaps do some things better than Linux. I used to use BSD before there was such a thing as Linux. For better or worse it was passed by. I'd love it if the unices would unite and become one instead of being so fragmented.