I had a b1tch of a time getting 3d working on my radeon 9500 with redhat. and I had to accept the fact that the drivers were not GPL, it sucked.
It is tough to get ATI cards working correctly on linux from what I hear.
Setting up my Nvidia card, OTOH was a walk in the park. I dowloaded the linux drivers from the nvidia website, and 5 minutes later I was watching 3D screensavers at 200 frames/second -
Right now I'm playing around with the latest Mandrake distro... the only problem I've had is the fact that I can't play games.
Wow that sucks - I didn't know that about mandrake, I would have assumed it could play games, like other Linux distros - oh well... I'm having lots of 3D FPS fun using fedora core with nvidia drivers!
What is the big selling point of linux? Why, you can run linux on any old hardware. Grab that old pentium II from the corner and fire it up.
hmm, I must be missing the boat;)
I just bought a new P4-2800 with a gig of RAM and a nice nvidia card, and installed fedora core 1. I have no particular need to run ms windows, but if I did someday have such a need, I have a celeron 333 in the corner that will be the designated windows box.
With all the money I saved, not having to buy a microsoft licence, I'm going out to buy ut2004 this week!
When I have to spend several hours installing drivers for my nVidia card, then modifying the kernel, then modifying permissions, I'm lost.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It took me 5 minutes to install nvidia drivers, and here are the steps I took to install them on fedora core 1. (You should have the kernel-source package installed)
1. Download the nvidia driver package from www.nvidia.com
2. Shut down X windows and log in at the console
3. Run the nvidia installer which you just downloaded (you can either make it executable or just type "sh NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-5336-pkg1.run")
3. Edit the XF86config file and substitute "nvidia" for "nv" in the driver stanza
4. Start X (or go to runlevel 5) watch the nvidia splash screen and enjoy.
and that's it -
BTW on my Suse 9.0 box, all I had to do was click on "download nvidia drivers" in yast, and it took care of all the details.
Sound has been no problem for me, but then I've stuck to sound cards that are known to work well in Linux, such as the creative sb live or sb16 pci or sb128 models - For sound, you should be able to just run the soundcard config utility (system settings -> soundcard detection)
expee seems to be a wee bit more stable than earlier versions of windows, which is a good thing I suppose...
The linux user above was merely offering some facts about the uptime of his system with nvidia card & drivers, which were supposed to "crash", but don't.
I also find that the nvidia drivers are rock solid on my linux systems, including an brand new SMP system that I installed a few weeks ago, and has been up and running with accelerated 3D grapics since install.
I tried switching from WinXP to Fedora Core 2. Yikes, fedora core 2 is NOT for newbies, or even general users, it is an alpha quality experimental snapshot release.
It didn't set my sound card right : a soundblaster live ! hmm, I've used SB live cards in linux - no problem, although I'm not suprised that the experimental FC2 did not automatically set it up. Did you run the soundcard detection utility? (System Settings -> Sound Card Detection)
I couldn't find a way to set up my ADSL connection System Settings -> Network
I had no access to my 5 NTFS partitions, full of data... fedora does not support ntfs. (If you want access to ntfs partitions, suse 9 works fine out of the box)
Why would such a silly troll be modded as insightful? I mean, I could see modding it as funny, if it were not the same old nonsense...
I was playing 3D FPSs on linux last millenium - sound and video were fine, and they are now even nicer, thanks to companies like nvidia.
What I'm saying is that there is no need for me to keep a windowspc on hand just for gaming - ut2004 and the other games I like run just fine on linux. of course, it is always very difficult to convince someone who does not want to be convinced of something...
The fact that the kernel maintainers don't have a simple fix in the form of a small patch is striking. Not sure what you mean - you could no doubt extract just the fix for that issue, but why? Just install an updated kernel package from your vendor.
The exploit he posted sofar gives me root-shell on ALL my Linux machines. sounds like we're not using the vendor-supplied update mechanism, huh? you should look into that, things really do go better if you let the system work, and keep your systems up to date.
Are you being deliberately naive - to load a fixed kernel, it is required to load the fixed kernel, you do understand that, correct? However, for anything other than loading a new kernel, linux does not need to be rebooted, and that includes system lib updates, distribution upgrades etc.
Just to add my.02, I've tested this exploit code on a representative sample my boxes here, some running stock fedora kernels, some running 2.6 kernels, and NONE of the systems is exploitable, though the reports vary depending on kernel.
So, before the fud machine starts churning out all these opinions on how insecure linux is, let's check our facts OK?
I love Linux and open source software in general but as much as we all hate Microsoft wow, he sounds like a real fanatic, who knew? Munchen made a bad decision. ah, there's the troll. So, moving away from microsoft is a bad decision - and this from someone who claims to "love linux and hate microsoft", wow, things must be really bleak, we better all give up huh? NOT. I hate to burst your bubble, but the Muenchen decision was not made by some mythical "linux zealots", but by sober officials who want to regain control of their data.
Because they'll point to all of the Linux zealots who claim that Linux is already better than WinXP on the desktop. Here we go again, trotting out those "linux zealots" once more. So, anyone who prefers linux to microsoft is automatically tagged a "linux zealot"? Hate to break it to you, but desktop preferences are a personal matter -
There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to linux on the desktop. OK, and the point is? Fact is there's lots of room for improvement on the microsoft desktop, the mac desktop and any desktop I've ever seen. The linux desktop happens to suit me, and my particular personal and professional demands, while microsoft doesn't.
You prefer microsoft, I prefer Linux - you use what you want, I use what I want, and please quit calling me names because I don't happen to like the same desktop as you, OK?
I think "horrible" is a bit over the top - where would you classify win98, if unix is "horrible"?
In any case you have a point about it showing it's age, but linux has not only built on that basic model, but has also evolved from it. For instance, linux distros do currently ship with things like ACL support, ipsec, stackguard and other security niceties.
The next fedora/redhat linux release will ship with an selinux-enabled 2.6 kernel, which brings a much more fine grained security model, and facilitating just about any of the security related features one could want.
It's absolutely, 100% true. Linux was never more secure than Microsoft.
Do you imagine that if you repeat it often enough it will become true?
The worst security disasters of the past 3 years have been the relentless parade of microsoft worms and virii - lets just shut our eyes to the reality and keep repeating "microsoft windows is secure"...
your typos reflect your heart-pounding reaction
LOL, I've been hearing nonsense like this for 10 years, nothing heart pounding about these dreary little pieces. Typos? I'm just a really crappy typist, and it shows.
In any case I started out using computers before ms windows existed - but became a windows user, just like you are now, back before the internet became cool. I was in charge of labs full of windows PCs and oh, the work it took to keep them up and running! Then I learned about a sophisticated OS called unix - and started working with that, made a career switch so to speak, and worked extensively with SunOS, Solaris 2, SGI Irix, FreeBSD, NeXT, HP-UX, and linux.
Some folks like to think there's no difference between operating systems, that it all "boils down" to the admin, but that's just a silly as thinking there's no difference between cars, that it all "boils down" to the driver, period.
That's a wonderful idea, but just the same, I'll keep my lexus (linux) and you just keep driving your yugo (ms windows);)
This is reinforced by you tellimg me that I now have to PAY to get a reliable easy to use patch system (Windows updates always have been free)
Sigh - you haven't been listening.
What I said was, you have to pay for rhn, and that's all you heard. More importantly, what I said, and which you missed, is that you can use apt or yum for free access to fedora repositories and mirrors, which I use and find to be perfectly fast and reliable.
Oh, and ms updates are free? since when? It was my understanding that one must purchase a copy of microsoft windows, agree to the eula, and contact microsoft to "activate" your expee license. So you're saying this is not so, I can download expee somewhere for free, and get free updates? Can you provide a url for me to check that out?
Secondly are you now suggesting that the fact people have to work out how to patch the box is easier than Windows Update and automatic updates?
Again, you're not paying attention - did you read any of what was said about apt-get or yum updates? where in any of that are you required to "work out how to patch the box"? That's what your linux vendor does for you, no need to worry your little head over all this confusing technology - just activate the update mechanism. For instance, if you've purchased SUSE professional, just click on the automatic online update button in yast; If you're a redhat user, easiest thing is to sign up for yout $5 a month rhn membership. If you use debian, fedora etc, just take 5 minutes to follow the apt-get recipe, put it in a cron job and you're good to go.
Actually I have experience across several platforms, not to mention HPUX, AIX, AS400, etc etc
(yawn)... me too... and I know plenty of clueless "unix mechanics" who've been working as sysadmins for years, so I'm not automatically impressed by years of experience.
In any case, your quaint, patronizing "linux in a nutshell" outline above is just too silly to comment on, except that it's a bit light on fact and contains a number of flaws, while containing just enough references to facts to sound somewhat credible to those who just don't know any better.
9. Linux becomes the easiest target on the Internet
Again, just quoting this bizarre headline, despite the lack of any supporting evidence, reveals that you really have not thought this through to any extent, but merely use the headline as a springboard for airing your personal opinions. Hey, it's great that you have opinions of your own, just don't try to pass them off as anything but your personal opinions.
One thing to remember is that linux is a kernel, period. A number of parties take that kernel, package it with open source utilities and libraries, integrate and sell it, or offer it for download. These end-user distros run the gamut from hardened firewall distros to something like lindows, which most linux purists abhor for it's naive, windows-like approach to security.
Speaking mainstream, I've installed a number of suse and redhat/fedora boxes lately, and by default they are pretty damned tight. The default redhat/fedora install runs a firewall, and IIRC ssh is the only remotely accessible service running by default.
OTOH, If a script kiddie gets the root password and nukes a linux system, that's hardly a fault of the kernel, that's just poor security practice. Which begs the question, what are the details of these "successful attacks" the author mentioned? Someone got the root password? someone cracked a third party web application? nobody knows, but interestingly, these anti-linux activists don't let that stop them from waxing eloquently on all the supposed problems in linux.
Your survey is skewed because you're completely clueless about linux. It was funny, yet somehow sad, to read of your slapstick antics just now.
With any supported redhat, clicking on up2date does the trick - without the paid rhn though, you will not be able to get the same service - but guess what, you use apt or yum and get all the same updates. once apt is installed, just say "apt-get install synaptic", and from then on, you can point and click you way through package installs from the various software repositories available.
I easily upgraded my RH 8 and RH 9 boxes to fedora, with apt-get, and they remained running and in service the whole time. (try that with a win98 to win expee upgrade!), and the fedora boxes now update themselves automatically with a nightly apt-get cron job.
No rocket science here, just a few minutes to set things up, then relax and enjoy the ride.
Oops, yet another armchair critic shows his credulity by swallowing a sensational headline and jumping to a conclusion.
Linux was never more or less secure than Microsoft. It's "security" was based on it's obscurity.
While that may be the typical joe sixpack understanding of the matter, it's completely wrong. The fact is, unix was a multiuser, networked OS decades ago, and many of the baby steps that microsoft is now beginning to take represent steps towards the type of sophistication unix has enjoyed since the early 80s. Linux, as a modern unixlike OS, inherited a rather sophisticated security model which is in stark contrast to the microsoft culture of "personal computer", where things like networking, security, multiple users etc were afterthoughts.
As to the so-called surver, do yourself a favor and see if you can actually find out the data behind this mileading headline - and I must caution you that you are most likley in for a rude awakening if you expect to have your beliefs bolstered.
Time to face it and stop thinking Linux is the best thing since sliced bread in security. Linux has as many holes as everything else.
Oops, looks like another anonymous newbie showing his credulity, swallowing the sensational headline hook, line and sinker without so much as a passing nod to actually getting the facts.
Note the very common troll technique: create an absurd position out of thin air, a straw man ("linux is the best thing since sliced bread in security") which nobody has ever said, and then attempt to make oneself look like the voice of reason by attacking the absurd position.
Then, having established oneself as the voice of reason, chime in with an absurd non-sequitur which, once examined, lacks any basis whatsoever ("Linux has as many holes as everything else").
Seriously, look at the so-called report and find out what they are saying. try to put it into your own words. ask yourself if you understand everything clearly, or whether there is missing information. What could that missing information be, and why was it withheld, just sloppiness, or a clumsy attempt to deceive?
Clearly, if they begin by tossing out any reference to any of the major security issues of the past year (the relentless variety of microsoft worms and viruses) you have to be suspect. Naturally, you'd wonder what else they tossed out, and what sort of goofy methodologies they used, what they define as a successful attack, etc.
It turns out these guys have a pretty crappy reputation in general, google them for a heads-up!
You might be threatening your burgeouning software industry/IP industry by promoting open source.
Interestingly, Oracle, IBM, Novell and other software companies who promote linux don't feel as you do - perhaps there is a fatal, obvious flaw in your argument?
I finally got around to downloading the linux demo today, installed it and played with it a bit - very nice, better eye candy that ut2003. I guess this linux user is going to pull out the wallet yet again, for a quality, native linux program.
My system specs: ----------------- P4-1600 CPU w/512 K cache 512 MB RAM Genuine intel motherboard, 845 (Brookdale) chipset Nvidia Geforce 2 MX 400 $20 SB sound card (Ensoniq 5880 AudioPCI) Fedora Core 1 with all updates Kernel 2.6.2 + Nvidia driver 1.0-5336
It felt like it needed all the above in order to play the game - and what with doom 3 around the corner, I'll probably have to spring for a barebones P4-3000 and newer nvidia card, and pass this system down to the kids soon;)
Yes, there's tons of enterprise or academic Linux users that are willing to pay for software. However, that's a very distinct group of people from the Home User crowd.
I'm not sure your point is valid - and not sure what your idea of "the home user crowd" is, but from my experience, Linux users, and I know a number of them, are always willing to pay for good software, and I do stress the good part.
I use linux at work in my day job, in my consulting side jobs, and at home on my own time - does that make me a home user?
RedHat's a good example, because they dropped their Retail version and basically told those people they didn't want their money.
Yeah I was real broke up about that - I'm running fedora now, which turns out to be better than RH 8 or RH 9 ever were, and redhat won't take my money, damn them!
Slashdot Mirror
I had a b1tch of a time getting 3d working on my radeon 9500 with redhat. and I had to accept the fact that the drivers were not GPL, it sucked.
It is tough to get ATI cards working correctly on linux from what I hear.
Setting up my Nvidia card, OTOH was a walk in the park. I dowloaded the linux drivers from the nvidia website, and 5 minutes later I was watching 3D screensavers at 200 frames/second -
Right now I'm playing around with the latest Mandrake distro... the only problem I've had is the fact that I can't play games.
Wow that sucks - I didn't know that about mandrake, I would have assumed it could play games, like other Linux distros - oh well... I'm having lots of 3D FPS fun using fedora core with nvidia drivers!
What is the big selling point of linux?
;)
Why, you can run linux on any old hardware. Grab that old pentium II from the corner and fire it up.
hmm, I must be missing the boat
I just bought a new P4-2800 with a gig of RAM and a nice nvidia card, and installed fedora core 1. I have no particular need to run ms windows, but if I did someday have such a need, I have a celeron 333 in the corner that will be the designated windows box.
With all the money I saved, not having to buy a microsoft licence, I'm going out to buy ut2004 this week!
When I have to spend several hours installing drivers for my nVidia card, then modifying the kernel, then modifying permissions, I'm lost.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It took me 5 minutes to install nvidia drivers, and here are the steps I took to install them on fedora core 1. (You should have the kernel-source package installed)
1. Download the nvidia driver package from www.nvidia.com
2. Shut down X windows and log in at the console
3. Run the nvidia installer which you just downloaded (you can either make it executable or just type "sh NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-5336-pkg1.run")
3. Edit the XF86config file and substitute "nvidia" for "nv" in the driver stanza
4. Start X (or go to runlevel 5) watch the nvidia splash screen and enjoy.
and that's it -
BTW on my Suse 9.0 box, all I had to do was click on "download nvidia drivers" in yast, and it took care of all the details.
Sound has been no problem for me, but then I've stuck to sound cards that are known to work well in Linux, such as the creative sb live or sb16 pci or sb128 models - For sound, you should be able to just run the soundcard config utility (system settings -> soundcard detection)
expee seems to be a wee bit more stable than earlier versions of windows, which is a good thing I suppose...
The linux user above was merely offering some facts about the uptime of his system with nvidia card & drivers, which were supposed to "crash", but don't.
I also find that the nvidia drivers are rock solid on my linux systems, including an brand new SMP system that I installed a few weeks ago, and has been up and running with accelerated 3D grapics since install.
the key component here is that you need some games.
um, hello?
ut2004, ut2003, ut2000, quake 3 arena, return to castle wolfenstein, enemy territory, medal of honor, doom 3 (coming real soon now) etc etc...
I tried switching from WinXP to Fedora Core 2.
Yikes, fedora core 2 is NOT for newbies, or even general users, it is an alpha quality experimental snapshot release.
It didn't set my sound card right : a soundblaster live !
hmm, I've used SB live cards in linux - no problem, although I'm not suprised that the experimental FC2 did not automatically set it up. Did you run the soundcard detection utility?
(System Settings -> Sound Card Detection)
I couldn't find a way to set up my ADSL connection
System Settings -> Network
I had no access to my 5 NTFS partitions, full of data...
fedora does not support ntfs. (If you want access to ntfs partitions, suse 9 works fine out of the box)
Nope, nothing missing - windowspc uses directx, the rest of the world uses a standard called OpenGL -
On RedHat 9, you have to manually load a kernel module to make Linux recognize when a digital camera
Yeah, fedora core 1 fixes that and a number of other irritating bugs that RH 8/9 had...
happily using my kodzk ezshare camera on linux
Why would such a silly troll be modded as insightful? I mean, I could see modding it as funny, if it were not the same old nonsense...
I was playing 3D FPSs on linux last millenium - sound and video were fine, and they are now even nicer, thanks to companies like nvidia.
What I'm saying is that there is no need for me to keep a windowspc on hand just for gaming - ut2004 and the other games I like run just fine on linux. of course, it is always very difficult to convince someone who does not want to be convinced of something...
The fact that the kernel maintainers don't have a simple fix in the form of a small patch is striking.
Not sure what you mean - you could no doubt extract just the fix for that issue, but why? Just install an updated kernel package from your vendor.
The exploit he posted sofar gives me root-shell on ALL my Linux machines.
sounds like we're not using the vendor-supplied update mechanism, huh? you should look into that, things really do go better if you let the system work, and keep your systems up to date.
OK, recompiled with -fomit-frame-pointer and the results are the same.
/home/jjs ./a.out
Also, I found that older suse kernels are exploitable, but the current one is not -
corplxwebdev01:
(tty/dev/pts/0): bash: 6 >
[+] kernel 2.4.21-192-default vulnerable: YES exploitable YES
MMAP #65526 0x50bf6000 - 0x50bf7000
[-] Failed
This patch requires a reboot, right?
Are you being deliberately naive - to load a fixed kernel, it is required to load the fixed kernel, you do understand that, correct? However, for anything other than loading a new kernel, linux does not need to be rebooted, and that includes system lib updates, distribution upgrades etc.
Just to add my .02, I've tested this exploit code on a representative sample my boxes here, some running stock fedora kernels, some running 2.6 kernels, and NONE of the systems is exploitable, though the reports vary depending on kernel.
/home/jjs ./a.out
/home/jjs ./a.out
So, before the fud machine starts churning out all these opinions on how insecure linux is, let's check our facts OK?
neo:
(tty/dev/pts/1): bash: 1016 >
[+] kernel 2.6.3-ck1 vulnerable: NO exploitable NO
gibson:
(tty/dev/pts/1): bash: 126 >
[+] kernel 2.4.22-1.2174.nptlsmp vulnerable: YES exploitable YES
MMAP #65525 0x50bf5000 - 0x50bf6000
[-] Failed
I love Linux and open source software in general but as much as we all hate Microsoft
wow, he sounds like a real fanatic, who knew?
Munchen made a bad decision.
ah, there's the troll. So, moving away from microsoft is a bad decision - and this from someone who claims to "love linux and hate microsoft", wow, things must be really bleak, we better all give up huh? NOT. I hate to burst your bubble, but the Muenchen decision was not made by some mythical "linux zealots", but by sober officials who want to regain control of their data.
Because they'll point to all of the Linux zealots who claim that Linux is already better than WinXP on the desktop.
Here we go again, trotting out those "linux zealots" once more. So, anyone who prefers linux to microsoft is automatically tagged a "linux zealot"? Hate to break it to you, but desktop preferences are a personal matter -
There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to linux on the desktop.
OK, and the point is? Fact is there's lots of room for improvement on the microsoft desktop, the mac desktop and any desktop I've ever seen. The linux desktop happens to suit me, and my particular personal and professional demands, while microsoft doesn't.
You prefer microsoft, I prefer Linux - you use what you want, I use what I want, and please quit calling me names because I don't happen to like the same desktop as you, OK?
The basic Unix security model is horrible.
I think "horrible" is a bit over the top - where would you classify win98, if unix is "horrible"?
In any case you have a point about it showing it's age, but linux has not only built on that basic model, but has also evolved from it. For instance, linux distros do currently ship with things like ACL support, ipsec, stackguard and other security niceties.
The next fedora/redhat linux release will ship with an selinux-enabled 2.6 kernel, which brings a much more fine grained security model, and facilitating just about any of the security related features one could want.
It's absolutely, 100% true. Linux was never more secure than Microsoft.
;)
Do you imagine that if you repeat it often enough it will become true?
The worst security disasters of the past 3 years have been the relentless parade of microsoft worms and virii - lets just shut our eyes to the reality and keep repeating "microsoft windows is secure"...
your typos reflect your heart-pounding reaction
LOL, I've been hearing nonsense like this for 10 years, nothing heart pounding about these dreary little pieces. Typos? I'm just a really crappy typist, and it shows.
In any case I started out using computers before ms windows existed - but became a windows user, just like you are now, back before the internet became cool. I was in charge of labs full of windows PCs and oh, the work it took to keep them up and running! Then I learned about a sophisticated OS called unix - and started working with that, made a career switch so to speak, and worked extensively with SunOS, Solaris 2, SGI Irix, FreeBSD, NeXT, HP-UX, and linux.
Some folks like to think there's no difference between operating systems, that it all "boils down" to the admin, but that's just a silly as thinking there's no difference between cars, that it all "boils down" to the driver, period.
That's a wonderful idea, but just the same, I'll keep my lexus (linux) and you just keep driving your yugo (ms windows)
This is reinforced by you tellimg me that I now have to PAY to get a reliable easy to use patch system (Windows updates always have been free)
Sigh - you haven't been listening.
What I said was, you have to pay for rhn, and that's all you heard. More importantly, what I said, and which you missed, is that you can use apt or yum for free access to fedora repositories and mirrors, which I use and find to be perfectly fast and reliable.
Oh, and ms updates are free? since when? It was my understanding that one must purchase a copy of microsoft windows, agree to the eula, and contact microsoft to "activate" your expee license. So you're saying this is not so, I can download expee somewhere for free, and get free updates? Can you provide a url for me to check that out?
Secondly are you now suggesting that the fact people have to work out how to patch the box is easier than Windows Update and automatic updates?
Again, you're not paying attention - did you read any of what was said about apt-get or yum updates? where in any of that are you required to "work out how to patch the box"? That's what your linux vendor does for you, no need to worry your little head over all this confusing technology - just activate the update mechanism. For instance, if you've purchased SUSE professional, just click on the automatic online update button in yast; If you're a redhat user, easiest thing is to sign up for yout $5 a month rhn membership. If you use debian, fedora etc, just take 5 minutes to follow the apt-get recipe, put it in a cron job and you're good to go.
Actually I have experience across several platforms, not to mention HPUX, AIX, AS400, etc etc
(yawn)... me too... and I know plenty of clueless "unix mechanics" who've been working as sysadmins for years, so I'm not automatically impressed by years of experience.
In any case, your quaint, patronizing "linux in a nutshell" outline above is just too silly to comment on, except that it's a bit light on fact and contains a number of flaws, while containing just enough references to facts to sound somewhat credible to those who just don't know any better.
9. Linux becomes the easiest target on the Internet
Again, just quoting this bizarre headline, despite the lack of any supporting evidence, reveals that you really have not thought this through to any extent, but merely use the headline as a springboard for airing your personal opinions. Hey, it's great that you have opinions of your own, just don't try to pass them off as anything but your personal opinions.
One thing to remember is that linux is a kernel, period. A number of parties take that kernel, package it with open source utilities and libraries, integrate and sell it, or offer it for download. These end-user distros run the gamut from hardened firewall distros to something like lindows, which most linux purists abhor for it's naive, windows-like approach to security.
Speaking mainstream, I've installed a number of suse and redhat/fedora boxes lately, and by default they are pretty damned tight. The default redhat/fedora install runs a firewall, and IIRC ssh is the only remotely accessible service running by default.
OTOH, If a script kiddie gets the root password and nukes a linux system, that's hardly a fault of the kernel, that's just poor security practice. Which begs the question, what are the details of these "successful attacks" the author mentioned? Someone got the root password? someone cracked a third party web application? nobody knows, but interestingly, these anti-linux activists don't let that stop them from waxing eloquently on all the supposed problems in linux.
Your survey is skewed because you're completely clueless about linux. It was funny, yet somehow sad, to read of your slapstick antics just now.
With any supported redhat, clicking on up2date does the trick - without the paid rhn though, you will not be able to get the same service - but guess what, you use apt or yum and get all the same updates. once apt is installed, just say "apt-get install synaptic", and from then on, you can point and click you way through package installs from the various software repositories available.
I easily upgraded my RH 8 and RH 9 boxes to fedora, with apt-get, and they remained running and in service the whole time. (try that with a win98 to win expee upgrade!), and the fedora boxes now update themselves automatically with a nightly apt-get cron job.
No rocket science here, just a few minutes to set things up, then relax and enjoy the ride.
Oops, yet another armchair critic shows his credulity by swallowing a sensational headline and jumping to a conclusion.
Linux was never more or less secure than Microsoft. It's "security" was based on it's obscurity.
While that may be the typical joe sixpack understanding of the matter, it's completely wrong. The fact is, unix was a multiuser, networked OS decades ago, and many of the baby steps that microsoft is now beginning to take represent steps towards the type of sophistication unix has enjoyed since the early 80s. Linux, as a modern unixlike OS, inherited a rather sophisticated security model which is in stark contrast to the microsoft culture of "personal computer", where things like networking, security, multiple users etc were afterthoughts.
As to the so-called surver, do yourself a favor and see if you can actually find out the data behind this mileading headline - and I must caution you that you are most likley in for a rude awakening if you expect to have your beliefs bolstered.
Time to face it and stop thinking Linux is the best thing since sliced bread in security. Linux has as many holes as everything else.
Oops, looks like another anonymous newbie showing his credulity, swallowing the sensational headline hook, line and sinker without so much as a passing nod to actually getting the facts.
Note the very common troll technique: create an absurd position out of thin air, a straw man ("linux is the best thing since sliced bread in security") which nobody has ever said, and then attempt to make oneself look like the voice of reason by attacking the absurd position.
Then, having established oneself as the voice of reason, chime in with an absurd non-sequitur which, once examined, lacks any basis whatsoever ("Linux has as many holes as everything else").
Seriously, look at the so-called report and find out what they are saying. try to put it into your own words. ask yourself if you understand everything clearly, or whether there is missing information. What could that missing information be, and why was it withheld, just sloppiness, or a clumsy attempt to deceive?
Clearly, if they begin by tossing out any reference to any of the major security issues of the past year (the relentless variety of microsoft worms and viruses) you have to be suspect. Naturally, you'd wonder what else they tossed out, and what sort of goofy methodologies they used, what they define as a successful attack, etc.
It turns out these guys have a pretty crappy reputation in general, google them for a heads-up!
You might be threatening your burgeouning software industry/IP industry by promoting open source.
Interestingly, Oracle, IBM, Novell and other software companies who promote linux don't feel as you do - perhaps there is a fatal, obvious flaw in your argument?
I finally got around to downloading the linux demo today, installed it and played with it a bit - very nice, better eye candy that ut2003. I guess this linux user is going to pull out the wallet yet again, for a quality, native linux program.
;)
My system specs:
-----------------
P4-1600 CPU w/512 K cache
512 MB RAM
Genuine intel motherboard, 845 (Brookdale) chipset
Nvidia Geforce 2 MX 400
$20 SB sound card (Ensoniq 5880 AudioPCI)
Fedora Core 1 with all updates
Kernel 2.6.2 + Nvidia driver 1.0-5336
It felt like it needed all the above in order to play the game - and what with doom 3 around the corner, I'll probably have to spring for a barebones P4-3000 and newer nvidia card, and pass this system down to the kids soon
Yes, there's tons of enterprise or academic Linux users that are willing to pay for software. However, that's a very distinct group of people from the Home User crowd.
I'm not sure your point is valid - and not sure what your idea of "the home user crowd" is, but from my experience, Linux users, and I know a number of them, are always willing to pay for good software, and I do stress the good part.
I use linux at work in my day job, in my consulting side jobs, and at home on my own time - does that make me a home user?
RedHat's a good example, because they dropped their Retail version and basically told those people they didn't want their money.
Yeah I was real broke up about that - I'm running fedora now, which turns out to be better than RH 8 or RH 9 ever were, and redhat won't take my money, damn them!