Slashdot Mirror
'WannaCry Makes an Easy Case For Linux' (techrepublic.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The thing is, WannaCry isn't the first of its kind. In fact, ransomware has been exploiting Windows vulnerabilities for a while. The first known ransomware attack was called "AIDS Trojan" that infected Windows machines back in 1989. This particular ransomware attack switched the autoexec.bat file. This new file counted the amount of times a machine had been booted; when the machine reached a count of 90, all of the filenames on the C drive were encrypted. Windows, of course, isn't the only platform to have been hit by ransomware. In fact, back in 2015, the LinuxEncoder ransomware was discovered. That bit of malicious code, however, only affected servers running the Magento ecommerce solution. The important question here is this: Have their been any ransomware attacks on the Linux desktop? The answer is no. With that in mind, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that now would be a great time to start deploying Linux on the desktop. I can already hear the tired arguments. The primary issue: software. I will counter that argument by saying this: Most software has migrated to either Software as a Service (SaaS) or the cloud. The majority of work people do is via a web browser. Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari; with few exceptions, SaaS doesn't care. With that in mind, why would you want your employees and staff using a vulnerable system? [...] Imagine, if you will, you have deployed Linux as a desktop OS for your company and those machines work like champs from the day you set them up to the day the hardware finally fails. Doesn't that sound like a win your company could use? If your employees work primarily with SaaS (through web browsers), then there is zero reason keeping you from making the switch to a more reliable, secure platform.
Virus writers will target the largest market portion. If that's Windows, they'll write viruses for Windows. If it's Mac, they'll write viruses for Mac. If it's Linux, they will start writing viruses for Linux. Just because more vulnerabilities in Windows are known, does not mean there are less total in Linux. And short of taking away admin/sudo access from users completely, malware can always social engineer it's way into administrative privileges during an installer or something similar.
Every single time any sort of media coverage comes up about a non-event (didnt affect real users, only affected organisations which delayed the installation of a critical update), fanboys leap on the opertunity to say how much better linux is.
Linux has its fair share of these, and runs on its fair share of critical infrastructure, and is run by its own fair share of idiots, but it is never really media worthy, because it isnt Windows and it isnt something the general public will relate to.
Give it a rest...
portfolio
I heard 2017 is the year for desktop Linux. Any day now.
This new file counted the amount of times a machine had been booted; when the machine reached a count of 90, all of the filenames on the C drive were encrypted.
That should only take a few minutes, right?
My father runs an accounting business. His tax software is only available on Windows, and not as a service.
I work in a media company. Yes, some have Macs, but most of the software is only available for Windows, so most users must use Windows. Now the other departments could possibly use something like Linux, but then it's another system that needs to be supported (given that we still must support Windows, anyway).
I'm sorry Linux fans (of which I am one... the web servers I set up for work are Linux, and I'm typing this on Linux as my desktop right now), but there's a lot of proprietary software that many companies use that is only available on Windows. Most of it has no serious competition on Linux.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Firewalls and security updates. The Windows server firewall is locked down by default. The Windows desktop firewall has a million ports open. Many are to localsubnet, but it's still open.
What I really want MS to do is make their firewall scoping easier to use, like icefloor: allow grouping of IP ranges as a common name, and allow scopes to use that name. They started to do that with predefined networks, but stopped for some reason.
There is only other people's computers. If you move to relying on "the cloud", all you are doing is delegating your security to someone else. Now you have two points of vulnerability: Your local Linux machine, and the "cloud" server, either of which could be infected with malware. You have not fixed the problem, and you have actually doubled your exposure.
For real. I read these submissions, and I wonder if it's just a big troll. I mean, does anyone have a real company that uses 100% cloud offerings? I mean, I get that it's theoretically possible, but it's just not practical. Because, reasons. I mean, really, does anyone actual think this?
If disk access were managed by code that was "lower than the operating system" and the disk management made it very difficult to actually delete data without waiting a week or more, it would make writing ransomware much more difficult. Such code could live in the drive firmware and/or in an isolated/low-surface-attack portion of the kernel or in a microkernel server.
Yes, there would be a cost, in that you couldn't scrub data or recover disk space for re-use at the drop of a hat, but it would be worth it for most people.
Also, such a system could be defeated but the number of ways it can be defeated is small enough to be manageable.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As someone who uses linux for work....it is FAR from the utopia it is "sold" as.
Even being "free" does not redeem the cost of using it in terms of personal time and sanity.
Windows is targeted because it's popular. If we all switched to Linux as our primary workstation at home and work, it would be just as targeted. ... the argument to move away from one insecure platform to another platform which is probably just as insecure isn't one I find very motivating.
I find your argument curious. The motivation discussed here (there may be others) is the fact that Linux is not popular, because as you say it is less likely to be targeted. (Assuming for the sake of argumant that their inherent vulnerabilies are equal). Of course you could question the sense of the guy evangelising Linux on these grounds as it could be self-defeating.
An analogy: if everyone in the world sat on the same chair as I am on, I'd be crushed to death. So should I not sit on it?
If one is doing all their work in the cloud, then more likely than not, that's where the files are as well...so not local and not subject to a local Ransomware attack. Wouldn't matter what the local OS is.
Give a hand, not a hand-out.
Only LUDDITES use LUDDITE Windows! Modern app appers use Appdows 10 S, the appiest apperating app!
Apps!
Putting aside older Windows XP machines which did not have the fix (and for which users who care about security shouldn't be running since there is no longer patch support for the platform) - Microsoft had rolled out the fix for their other Windows platforms well before WannaCry came out. What difference does the OS make if the user isn't going to be diligent in keeping their OS updated with security patches?
This is a very poor case for Linux. I run Linux and I couldn't get WannaCry to run at all. Linux will need to step it up if they want to compete with Windows.
SaaS is about to be shat all over
"then there is zero reason keeping you from making the switch to a more reliable, secure platform."
More reliable, secure platform? Prove that statement or clarify what you mean.
I have used various Linux distros going back to 1997. And various Windows versions going back to 3.1. Servers, clients, etc. And I can say that a lot of Linux offerings have improved the front end UX. And installing/updating/configuring apps is a lot easier nowadays with current Linux distros.
But that being said, I still can't see Linux taking over the typical home user's environment. I am a techie, and I like to noodle around. So working around quirks, compilation issues for third party drivers, and the like is a challenge that I don't mind. But it still very much has the look and feel of a hobbyist's experience. Not talking about server-end aspects of Linux. Talking about the enduser's aspects.
Plus as others have noted, there are a fair amount of software packages that are Windows-only. And in those cases, the typical home user might not be willing to start digging into WINE to try to see if they can crowbar their package to port over. And I can perform unbiased side-by-side comparisons, since I have a Macbook Pro, a Windows 7 Pro, and a Debian 8 laptop trio sitting at home :)
Subject says it all. Even if virus writers just go for the largest market instead of the least secure OS then it's just another argument to use Linux.
Just like everyone these days drives an electric car. Oh, wait...something like .001% do.
Tens of users affected! Not relevant.
Hmmm...guess I haven't been using any computers since about 1999 (my last windows machine). There aren't any alternatives! I guess i'm posting this message using my brain or something.
An analogy: If everyone in the world sat on the same chair as I am on, I'd be crushed to death. So should I not sit on it?
A better analogy: if everyone in the world sat on the same chair as I am on, I'd be crushed to death. I better invite everyone in the world to sit on my chair.
Dude, if you guys visit the first link in his google results, you can find a forum post with HIS PICTURE!
Holly crap, I can see what APK looks like! After all this time I thought he would look so different.
Direct image link: https://www.neowin.net/forum/uploads/av-241875.jpg
Everyone say hello to APK!
They may think that, but those that know what they are talking about run Linux on their high end servers, because the core is a bloody sight more professionally written than windows. The rest of us run BSD.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
It's not like Linux is any more secure than Windows currently is. Linux has just as much exploits in it, but most of them aren't still known (at least not publicly). The more people will use it, the more it will be targeted by malwaremakers and hackers..
Don't think for a second Linux is so much better secured than any other OS..
An analogy: if everyone in the world sat on the same chair as I am on, I'd be crushed to death. So should I not sit on it?
No it's like saying "This pie is REALLY GOOD! You should try this pie!" Now you have no pie because everybody wants a slice. As you say, it's self-defeating to evangelize something on the basis of "it's good because it's unpopular."
If everyone switched to Linux, virus writers would target it. So no-one switches. So it makes sense to switch because nobody else will, so you'll be ahead of the game.
Just don't tell anyone else that...
(My company has run completely on Linux since 1999. We're well ahead of everyone else that the bear is chasing.)
If you or your org are vulnerable to WannaCry then I would argue for upgrading your OS or setting up mitigating controls if you have a valid business case for not doing so:
SMB 1.0 – The version used in Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 & 2003 R2
SMB 2.0 – The version used in Windows Vista (SP1 or later) and Windows Server 2008
SMB 2.1 – The version used in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2
SMB 3.0 – The version used in Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012
SMB 3.02 – The version used in Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2
SMB 3.1.1 – The version used in Windows 10 and Windows Server 2016
I was honestly expecting someone to post this and how we should all be using slack with everything done using the CLI.
I worked hard to use Linux (either openSUSE or Ubuntu) as my main OS for several years. There are things that just don't work well, and other things that don't work in VM's which force me to use Windows. As it is, Win10 is as good - if not better than - Windows 2000. I'll still fire up Ubuntu for various things but mostly use Windows just fine.
Oh, and i can use Bash in Windows
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
when netcraft confirms that windows/slashdot is dieing again.
It's not just about the vulnerabilities themselves.
Let's take the current scenario: you've got a large health entity using scores of machines with an extremely old, outdated, and out-of-support OS. Part of the reason is
a) The software doesn't work on the newer OS
b) Cost of upgrade
B may or may not apply depending on the hardware involved, and is probably roughly equivalent exempting the cost of the OS itself. So let's look at something on a Linux system. Yes, I have software that no longer works on newer Linux versions. SystemD was actually a fairly big nail in this coffin as it changed parts of the underlying system. BUT, all those parts are visible to the user, and there exists at least the possibility to tweak stuff in the OS to get it to work. Make the actual software also OSS and your ability to get updated is that much better.
Now down to the OS itself. Many users were dependent on Microsoft to release a patch for their old OS. For XP, 2003, etc users MS actually came through pretty nicely on this and provided a patch. Win2k users were still out of luck. In Linux-land, the code of the underlying OS and most of the software is available. If it's a matter of fixing a bad call, it's again possible to self-service or at least hire somebody to rebuild it.
Now to the source of the attacks. A known vector used by the FBI. Along with that playbook comes a slew of vulnerabilities that make it hard to believe aren't deliberate. Again, in a closed OS you don't know one way or another, nor do you have the ability to audit. In FOSS there may be vulnerabilities, but there's also much greater audit-ability.
Does Linux have vulnerabilities. Of course. There's heartbleed and numerous cases of broken or buggy crypto. The thing is, these also get fixed in a fairly timely manner, and with a good patch/vulnerability management you're not so much at the mercy of a vendor to do so.
The funny part though is that even for windows, it looks like disabling File and Print Sharing components kills off the components the vulnerability needs (remove F&PS, port 445 goes bye-bye), and there was probably NO NEED to have those enabled, or even installed on most of the machines in question. It was there by default but had the machines been setup properly it would have been disabled, at least removing the one vector for infection.
Most people that run Linux do so because they cannot afford to spend money on a professionally written OS.
Windows comes with most PCs so Linux users could run it with no expenditure anyway, but choose not to except maybe to dual boot it for games. these people
aren't going to be throwing money around chasing after their files either; they didn't have any to start with.
They might have more money, saved from not spending it on Windows apps and earlier Windows-based scams. FWIW, I've got plenty of money but it does not mean I'm happy to give it to Gates or Wannacry, shits all of them.
Security is only as strong as its weakest link and that is the end user. It doesn't matter if they're running MacOS, iOS, Linux, Windows, or DOS. Period. If they're not running updates, the OS doesn't matter.
And if you want to get into the pissing contest, Linux has had a few major bugs with some of its components. Sendmail has had bugs that allowed someone to get root access by simply sending an e-mail to/through the server. Last year Google found a bug in glibc that would cause a buffer overflow and thus allow arbitrary execution. Oh, and let's not forget the privilege escalation vulnerability known as "Dirtycow" that apparently has been around for a decade in the Linux Kernel itself.
You can fault Microsoft on its processes for getting updates out there, but how many Linux boxes patched glibc or the kernel automatically?
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
I'm not going to make the argument that Linux is invulnerable to viruses, because it isn't.
However, with Linux, you generally tend to upgrade regularly and continuously. You stay up to date. I doubt many people are still running Linux '95, or more accurately any version of Linux that came out in 1995. They'll be running a fairly recent version, and they'll be doing that because the upgrade costs are fairly minimal or are integrated into ongoing support costs.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I can see what APK looks like! After all this time I thought he would look so different.
From the date of his post on that page, he must be at least 10 years older than that by now. He is seen looking down his nose at us. His writing style is unmistakable.
Nobody said all machines could move to linux. Just like today some specific jobs require a Mac or even Linux, there can be jobs requiring Windows (and a powerful workstation).
But most company computers are laptops used to do emails/web browsing/office. The reason they still run Windows is office, and with cloud services gaining traction, that may soon be no longer a good reason to stick to windows.
If you know apriori that everyone in the world is going to sit on the chair and crush you, then I would indeed highly recommend not sitting on it. Unless you favor suicide by ridiculous analogy.
A chair analogy. That's a new one. Please argue below about the relative accuracy of this analogy within the context of existing car analogies, rather than actually talking about the issues, which we are all capable of understanding here without talking about furniture.
Many people that run Linux already spent money on a "professionally" written OS that came preinstalled on their system and was included in the price tag. Not sure if that goes into the territory of "most" (I mean I'm sure Linux enthusiasts are more likely to also build their own PCs but its hardly a one-to-one correspondence and its near impossible to find a consumer-grade prebuilt that doesn't already have Windows on it.)
hackers are seriously motivated to find a way in, but for the most part can't
Most of the world's web infrastructure is run by professionals, paid to secure the machines that they administer. Put Linux in the hands of millions of home computer users, and see how long that security lasts.
OK, I'm a nerd, and I do appreciate the empowering qualities of Linux, even if it's a PITA. And I do dislike the bloat and insecurity of Windows.
But at the end of the day, I use my computer for 2 things (aside from surfing, email, etc.), and that is pro audio and graphics.
Furthermore, I can't afford the Mac universe.
So it's Windows for me.
I understand the politics, market forces, etc. that prevent a robust audio ecosystem from existing on Linux (even if I wanted to use less capable Linux software, few high end audio hardware manufacturers bother with Linux drivers).
And there's no Linux equivalent to the 1-2 punch of Photoshop + Illustrator (which I have managed to acquire without payment).
And that's not to mention many other audio and graphics programs I use, none of which have Linux equivalents.
So. Do you own/use a computer for the OS, or for the applications?
I think everyone knows this and is making excuses for Microsoft Windows because they're used to it and it's just easier for them to keep doing the same stupid things over and over ~ like in everything else in this world. But Windows is stupid because it's poorly designed and caters to that very same lazy, stupid attitude. Linux or UNIX was well-designed. It runs the world's servers and is therefore a much more powerful target. But it's really because Windows users are more often incredibly stupid and lazy (and that Microsoft can't or won't make up for these qualities, only exploit them) that Windows will always be a mess, security-wise. If Linux was put in the same position of market dominance, not only would it have all the benefits it has now but it would make far better use of the whole world watching Linux for problems and ACTUALLY FIXING THEM. Frankly, WannaCry is just taking advantage of stupid, lazy Windows users and their employers. The world deserves WannaCry because it's just taking advantage of all its opportunities. Just like Microsoft. You deserve each other. You were made for each other. Linux users might not be better, but they're more likely to be. And their initiative will serve them well when they're using their computers or even playing around with the code. While others are shelling out more money to the bad people and companies built specifically to exploit their vulnerabilities and keep them open. BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM MORE MONEY. If people were responsible and intelligent, this wouldn't be an issue. But they're not and it is. Enjoy your bloatware, idiots!
Can you tell me of a software installing and running smoothly (just install and work) on each and every Linux distro? No? Thought so.
So why do you suppose a mere virus can achieve such feat? "The LINUX(tm) operating system" does not exist. Linux is a kernel, a piece of an OS. Debian, CentOS, RedHat are operating systems. AND they are all different.
The great pain of software houses with Linux is supporting distros. A developer can guarantee his product on the distro he's using and maybe another two or three. Don't you use one of them? Good work and good luck with manual install (and/or building from source). Same with viruses: a Linux virus can't rely on a particular OS and its infectivity would be a lot lesser. This is IMHO the main security bonus of the linux OSes.
Most software has migrated to either Software as a Service (SaaS) or the cloud. The majority of work people do is via a web browser. Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari; with few exceptions, SaaS doesn't care
Just wrong. Another dumb ass ignorant article form a twerp who think they have some work experience.
Let's give credit where it is due.
FTA: The first known ransomware attack was called "AIDS Trojan" that infected Windows machines back in 1989. This particular ransomware attack switched the autoexec.bat file.
I wrote a trojan (spread by BBS) in 1986 that swapped the autoexec.bat file. It would wipe the hard drive of some necessary system files, but did not stoop to the level of scum-baggery of asking for a ransom. Those ransom-ware guys are the absolute worst.
You don't need to outrun the bear, you only need to outrun the other campers.
It appears that Windows will be a far bigger and softer target for the foreseeable future because most people need some Windows-only app or other. That's great for those off us who can use an alternative that's easier to secure and much less tempting to malware developers.
So if you can, you should switch to Linux, not because it's popular, but at least in part because it's not popular, and probably never will be.
If they were really doing all their work through browsers and using SaaS the original issue would not exist so no reason to switch OS.
The data would be safe as the data is not stored on it, not accessible to the virus/trojan. The encrypted machine could just be reimaged and off you go.
A man without feet does not need new shoes.
Everything since Windows 10 happened has been a case for Linux, it's just still not an easy one by any means to your average Windows user unfortunately.
Let's see here. Shady strategies to force users to upgrade, horrible advertisement schemes, forced telemetry, always on always listening always dialing back strategies... not to mention how Microsoft keeps persisting on ideas like Windows 10 S because what they really want is to copy Apple and the walled garden model.
Malware, vulnerabilities and ramsonware have been there for the longest time, and arguably for regular users the horrible experiences of the past with Vista, BSoD, among several other problems have been a far more convincing case for Linux. We don't even have that many shovelware as we did in the past.
It just won't happen. Sorry. It's not your fault, but this has never been a convincing argument, not for regular Windows users. It won't start being because of WannaCry. And defeatingly enough, other than our own tech circles, it's likely that most people haven't even paid much attention to WannaCry anyways... it'll be forgotten, if it isn't already, as fast as stuff like Mirai Botnet, among others. I mean, even techies, do most people remember the most publicized malware attacks of 2016? I have to admit I don't.
And yes, I know Android exploded in popularity, I know over half of servers these days uses Linux, I know almost all supercomputers also do... but your regular non-techie consumer will, for the foreseeable future, always run to Windows, or at most Macs. In fact, if WannaCry was really going to do any substantial push for migration (which let's admit it, it won't), it'd be for Windows users going for Macs.
The unsolvable problems that Linux will seemingly never be able to overcome are:
1. Advertisement and marketing. An image problem;
2. Community. Even for folks like my mom who avoids using computers like the plague, if she has a problem with it, there's bound to be someone near her that can help. Linux? I wouldn't even know were to start. Neither I nor her friends would be able to indicate a repair shop or something with someone who could deal with command line configuration. I perhaps have a couple of friends who could help, but which would most likely be working with no free time to help.
And this isn't only about OS, it's about apps. Sure, Linux have plenty of basic office level apps and whatnot, but it's not about having an app that works in a similar way, it's about having people around to help with specific tasks as they arise. This is also why Microsoft Office still dominates while open source alternatives like LibreOffice or OpenOffice never catches on.
The needs non-computer geeks have around computers are often misunderstood, underestimated, and superficially analized. I feel bad because I'd really love for everyone to move to Linux. With enough people there, developers would be forced to migrate too. I'd love to have a fully functional Ubuntu smartphone. A Debian desktop with all I need. A Mint tablet to go around. Well, actually I have an Ubuntu laptop and tablet. But it's not something that I'd recommend for family and friends who don't know much about computers, because the whole thing makes no sense to them. Basically all of them (and I come from a big family) have no friends or relatives that would be able to help either to make their regular stuff work, or to solve problems when they come up. Among my multiple uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews and nieces... I must be the only one to have had contact with Linux. And I don't even know how to handle it properly myself.
Looking at the CVE database, the top three OSs with the most vulnerabilities on the list are Linux distributions.
https://www.cvedetails.com/top...
Just because there was a high profile attack doesn't inherently make one OS more insecure than another.
The long-held belief that Linux is somehow a much more secure OS than Windows is a long-held fallacy. Linux is just as vulnerable to viruses and hacking as any other system. In fact, a mis-configured Linux server can have more holes in it than a colander. The only reason Windows get's targeted so often, is it's ~90% market share of desktop PC's. If linux had that sort of market share, all the viruses would target Linux instead. Everyone would be singing the praises of Microsoft and how their black-box proprietary OS makes it hard for hackers as they have no access to source code.
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
I think this is what you're looking for, sure it's not Linux, but it does exactly what you're asking for: https://reactos.org/
/any/ version of Mac OS, and given the open-source nature of Darwin and OpenStep, i'm suprised no-ones tried to do it.
On the point of macOS, many users like it because it's UNIX-like, without the maintenance issues seen in Linux. However, i would like to see a project, like WINE, for
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
Why those paid professionals are choosing *NIX systems in first place? To make their job any tougher?
I am still waiting for all the major servers running *NIX systems to get affected.
Sorry, fallacy.
Servers, at least when used professionally, usually not only have administrators that at least have a hint of an idea what they're doing, often these people also have patching schedules and processes to follow. Not to mention that few of those servers, even when running Windows, are used to surf to questionable sites, open mail attachments or engage in other activities that result in a compromised system.
Also, these servers are usually guarded by firewall systems that make such attacks way harder and less likely to succeed.
Compare this to the average home PC, "administrated" by someone who thinks TCP is the Chinese secret service and who would gladly trade security for more dancing pigs. If its patch level is current, then mostly because Win10 doesn't offer any choice. This PC is used for everything the server is not, i.e. engaging in a lot of insecure and potentially harmful activities.
And there is many, many more like this one. Insecure, used by idiots that click everything and anything you send them. And since you're, as an attacker, usually more interested in identity theft and compromising a large number of systems. Consumer PCs are the low hanging fruit, all right, but more due to the users than the OS used.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The first known ransomware attack was called "AIDS Trojan" that infected Windows machines back in 1989.
Windows 3.0 didn't come out until May 1990 and nobody seriously used the earlier versions because they were crap. Also it said it infected the autoexec.bat file which is an MS DOS file not a Windows file.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Except the consequence of following that advice is that it becomes the target market for malware... Which still makes it bad advice. It's like saying, "Hey the Titanic is sinking, thousands of people jump in to my life boat!"
The thing is, the vast majority are sticking with the Titanic, and there's no sign of that changing. So, until it does, you're still better off on the lifeboat.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
nt
Of course malware writers aim at the largest target. They also go after the easiest target. The only people who go after hard targets are state actors.
However... Linux is yet another, and the most successful version of UNIX. And it's inherently a much harder target, because of its architecture, and the way it works. Admittedly, you can *make* it vulnerable, by things like giving root a password of jesus, or love, or 12345678... but the separation of authority, along with the structure (X is *NOT* in ring 0, for example) makes it a harder target.
Form an industry group to tell VLC that you want Linux versions.
I don't see the problem. I thought VideoLAN was already putting out both GNU/Linux and Android versions of VLC media player.
Get estimate of how long it will take X to be rewritten to run on Linux.
Xubuntu already includes X Window System in the default install.
You can fault Microsoft on its processes for getting updates out there, but how many Linux boxes patched glibc or the kernel automatically?
Ubuntu Desktop has unattended-upgrade in a cron job, and I imagine that its derivatives do as well.