Interesting question. Is there anything really impending Linux to automatically run executables downloaded from the Internet? I bet not.
It's executable permission bit. If a file is downloaded by anything other than package manager, it remains non-executable until the user explicitly sets it on the command line or in a scary-looking permission setting screen. Since all applications are installed in a package manager, the only time when user will want to touch executable bit by himself is when he is really sure he has to run a file.
So, on one hand we have that "the year of Linux on desktops" haven't reached yet because "cumbersome" limitations that make it "dificult for average joe" to use it, so "Linux isn't attacked by so many threats because it's more profitable to attack the wider Windows base"; in the other hand, as per current "analysis" from "experts" in order for Linux to take the desktop it should implement the same Windows easiness that allows for both "average joe" and the worms to take advantage of the platform.
Oh, I see. You are either a Microsoft astroturfer or an idiot, so you just copy-paste some of your "discussion examples" to make it look like you have something relevant to say.
No it's not. In fact, it's arguably better than Unix, insofar as you have much finer granularity in terms of what you can allow or disallow and who you can allow it to.
1. No, it's not. ACLs are available on Linux, however no one uses them because they are a stupid idea.
2. More complex system of permissions and restrictions is not what makes a system secure. To make system secure you have to have consistent policy and consistent implementation -- fine-grained control merely creates more possible ways to bypass things.
What is broken is that most applications utterly fail to respect it, hence the implementation in many organisations winds up screwed.
Applications are not supposed to respect it -- system has to force it upon applications. The fact that plenty of Windows applications still can't be brought to a condition when they don't break horribly under any sane security model, is another problem, and that problem that is specific to Windows.
Microsoft core strategy is to develop a system that software can not be ported away from. If they will fix it, they will have to reuse other systems' interfaces, so they will lose the only advantage they have -- that once something is made for Windows it's a massive pain in the ass to port it anywhere else.
Also Windows software developers would no longer be fucked in the head from internalizing insane Windows design, so they will be capable of developing software for other systems whenever they want. Microsoft can't allow this to happen.
Users will need antiviruses for linux in the event it's popularity goes up.
Because Linux software automatically runs executables downloaded from the Internet, right?
The idea of "antivirus" is idiotic to begin with -- analyze something you already have on your computer in hope to recognize something that already infected millions of computers before you (or otherwise how McAfee would know it?). Security comes from lack of vulnerabilities in your permissions/access model -- something that is pretty easy to accomplish as long as you develop such a policy in the first place. For example, modern Linux desktop environments handle.desktop files in an insecure manner, and this can be easily fixed by treating them as executable script files (no execute bit means you can't execute it) even though they are not scripts from kernel point of view. The fact that web browser always runs under a user ID of a user who started it is another thing that should be fixed, as it's too large to be a trusted program. However those things can and will be fixed without introducing "let's loof for 'sudo rm -rf/' everywhere" approach that only exists because Windows security model is broken and unfixable.
1. DRM. 2. Piece of software that uses space between first sector and the end of the first cylinder for no other purpose than obfuscation.
and attack
1. Bootloader. 2. Piece of software that follows the convention used by all bootloaders everywhere since people started using multiple filesystems on a x86-based computer.
What kind of person, other than Microsoft astroturfer or complete moron would do such a thing?
How do you "resize" a partition with unknown and proprietary internal format, that most likely is found by "recovery tools" by its absolute position on the drive?
Yeah...the clipboard is so basic. Linux will never be a desktop OS until the clipboard works.
Except that it does.
Microsoft marketing people sift through bug lists and newbie forums fishing for plausible "problems" they supposedly have with Linux, but usually don't even realize what is being discussed.
Saying so doesn't make you any less of a liar. You are either a Microsoft astroturfer, or dumb fanboy who believes that providing free marketing to your corporate overlord somehow elevates you -- to be honest, I don't know which of those alternatives is worse.
I remember a whole set of TV commercials addressing this nonexistent problem (something about "struggling with a pain of an abortion" and treating nonexistent child as a dead relative), designed to scare women away from abortion.
No, freedom of religion is the freedom to practice any religion you like, or no religion at all. It is what allows me to be a Christian and you to be an Atheist without fear of persecution.
No. American society's dependence on science and modern technology keeps me, an atheist, from being effectively persecuted. If not that, Christians would exercise their freedom to persecute me, just like they did for at least a millennium when society did not care about technology. On the other hand, "freedom of religion" is what keeps you from being treated as you deserve.
Also, contrary to what you may think, there have been several [wikipedia.org] Atheist nations throughout the 20th century. Not much "massive acceleration", if you ask me.
I lived in one of them (USSR). Best time I ever had, and probably the only reason I got decent education. Not that an American would know anything about it -- all you "know" is actually your projection of a fictional world of 1984 onto unknown for you reality.
Government claims that it recognizes your rights as a person and considers them to be applicable to any person.
However this is merely an assumption the government makes -- there is nothing inherent in a person or rights that makes it true. A different government may make a completely different assumption and deny those rights to a person. A different person may disagree with the government, which rights may be worth being recognized, or which entities (animals, human organs, robots, criminals, slaves, children) may or may not be considered equal or unequal to a person recognized by the government as having rights.
Eventually government changes the list of rights or persons who have those rights -- in US the right to own other people ceased to be recognized when slavery was abolished, and right to vote was extended to women even though it was limited to men before. This doesn't mean that before those events it was "illegal all along" to own slaves, or that all officials elected before women suffrage performed election fraud, even though we now recognize both as highly immoral now.
So in reality "unalienable" nature of rights is merely an illusion -- they are "unalienable" as long as government agrees to recognize them. Effectively government grants them, then tells everyone that it's unthinkable to disagree with its "natural" decision to do so -- until the next decision that changes it.
I see, you have never seen an actual Ubuntu installation.
"System" -> "About Ubuntu" menu on every installed Ubuntu system shows a pretty extensive explanation what Ubuntu is, and how it s related to Linux, Debian and GNU.
Wait... so you admit, you look at Ubuntu forums fishing for any "negative" comment or seemingly unresolved issue, and use it in place of actual argument?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people always have to be forced to do this ?
Because they didn't ask monsters like you for opinion. Die in a fire.
If I download a .sh file, I'm offered the option of running it in bash - even if it isn't marked executable
In what environment? I have never seen this except on the systems where it was set manually by the user as one of the handlers.
He can click on the executable until he is blue in his face -- it won't run because executable bit is not set.
Interesting question. Is there anything really impending Linux to automatically run executables downloaded from the Internet? I bet not.
It's executable permission bit. If a file is downloaded by anything other than package manager, it remains non-executable until the user explicitly sets it on the command line or in a scary-looking permission setting screen. Since all applications are installed in a package manager, the only time when user will want to touch executable bit by himself is when he is really sure he has to run a file.
So, on one hand we have that "the year of Linux on desktops" haven't reached yet because "cumbersome" limitations that make it "dificult for average joe" to use it, so "Linux isn't attacked by so many threats because it's more profitable to attack the wider Windows base"; in the other hand, as per current "analysis" from "experts" in order for Linux to take the desktop it should implement the same Windows easiness that allows for both "average joe" and the worms to take advantage of the platform.
Oh, I see. You are either a Microsoft astroturfer or an idiot, so you just copy-paste some of your "discussion examples" to make it look like you have something relevant to say.
No it's not. In fact, it's arguably better than Unix, insofar as you have much finer granularity in terms of what you can allow or disallow and who you can allow it to.
1. No, it's not. ACLs are available on Linux, however no one uses them because they are a stupid idea.
2. More complex system of permissions and restrictions is not what makes a system secure. To make system secure you have to have consistent policy and consistent implementation -- fine-grained control merely creates more possible ways to bypass things.
What is broken is that most applications utterly fail to respect it, hence the implementation in many organisations winds up screwed.
Applications are not supposed to respect it -- system has to force it upon applications. The fact that plenty of Windows applications still can't be brought to a condition when they don't break horribly under any sane security model, is another problem, and that problem that is specific to Windows.
Microsoft core strategy is to develop a system that software can not be ported away from. If they will fix it, they will have to reuse other systems' interfaces, so they will lose the only advantage they have -- that once something is made for Windows it's a massive pain in the ass to port it anywhere else.
Also Windows software developers would no longer be fucked in the head from internalizing insane Windows design, so they will be capable of developing software for other systems whenever they want. Microsoft can't allow this to happen.
Users will need antiviruses for linux in the event it's popularity goes up.
Because Linux software automatically runs executables downloaded from the Internet, right?
The idea of "antivirus" is idiotic to begin with -- analyze something you already have on your computer in hope to recognize something that already infected millions of computers before you (or otherwise how McAfee would know it?). Security comes from lack of vulnerabilities in your permissions/access model -- something that is pretty easy to accomplish as long as you develop such a policy in the first place. For example, modern Linux desktop environments handle .desktop files in an insecure manner, and this can be easily fixed by treating them as executable script files (no execute bit means you can't execute it) even though they are not scripts from kernel point of view. The fact that web browser always runs under a user ID of a user who started it is another thing that should be fixed, as it's too large to be a trusted program. However those things can and will be fixed without introducing "let's loof for 'sudo rm -rf /' everywhere" approach that only exists because Windows security model is broken and unfixable.
knowin what I am doin.
Do you believe the moon landings were faked?
No. Now shut up.
Please look at all those Windows defenders.
They make excuses for, of all thins:
1. DRM.
2. Piece of software that uses space between first sector and the end of the first cylinder for no other purpose than obfuscation.
and attack
1. Bootloader.
2. Piece of software that follows the convention used by all bootloaders everywhere since people started using multiple filesystems on a x86-based computer.
What kind of person, other than Microsoft astroturfer or complete moron would do such a thing?
Why does your bootloader partition need to concern itself with space efficiency, permissions and filename restrictions?
This was done already, a separate /boot partition.
Everybody ended up hating that idea with a passion.
How do you "resize" a partition with unknown and proprietary internal format, that most likely is found by "recovery tools" by its absolute position on the drive?
Since Microsoft marketing people started posting bullshit on all bulletin boards and discussion sites where Linux is mentioned.
You should see the crap they do on /g/.
Or, better, don't.
Linux is not meant to run under Windows. If you want to run Windows, by all means run Windows and don't waste anyone else's time.
Yeah...the clipboard is so basic. Linux will never be a desktop OS until the clipboard works.
Except that it does.
Microsoft marketing people sift through bug lists and newbie forums fishing for plausible "problems" they supposedly have with Linux, but usually don't even realize what is being discussed.
And before you go and discredit me:
Saying so doesn't make you any less of a liar. You are either a Microsoft astroturfer, or dumb fanboy who believes that providing free marketing to your corporate overlord somehow elevates you -- to be honest, I don't know which of those alternatives is worse.
Virtualization is the last refuge of a horrendously mis-engineered operating system.
Seriously, that's one place where killing of attendees is a perfectly valid reaction of a sane person.
As a foreigner who wishes US military failure and defeat in all its wars of aggression, I completely approve of this retarded idiocy.
I call bullshit on that, too.
I remember a whole set of TV commercials addressing this nonexistent problem (something about "struggling with a pain of an abortion" and treating nonexistent child as a dead relative), designed to scare women away from abortion.
No, freedom of religion is the freedom to practice any religion you like, or no religion at all. It is what allows me to be a Christian and you to be an Atheist without fear of persecution.
No. American society's dependence on science and modern technology keeps me, an atheist, from being effectively persecuted. If not that, Christians would exercise their freedom to persecute me, just like they did for at least a millennium when society did not care about technology. On the other hand, "freedom of religion" is what keeps you from being treated as you deserve.
Also, contrary to what you may think, there have been several [wikipedia.org] Atheist nations throughout the 20th century. Not much "massive acceleration", if you ask me.
I lived in one of them (USSR). Best time I ever had, and probably the only reason I got decent education. Not that an American would know anything about it -- all you "know" is actually your projection of a fictional world of 1984 onto unknown for you reality.
No.
Government claims that it recognizes your rights as a person and considers them to be applicable to any person.
However this is merely an assumption the government makes -- there is nothing inherent in a person or rights that makes it true. A different government may make a completely different assumption and deny those rights to a person. A different person may disagree with the government, which rights may be worth being recognized, or which entities (animals, human organs, robots, criminals, slaves, children) may or may not be considered equal or unequal to a person recognized by the government as having rights.
Eventually government changes the list of rights or persons who have those rights -- in US the right to own other people ceased to be recognized when slavery was abolished, and right to vote was extended to women even though it was limited to men before. This doesn't mean that before those events it was "illegal all along" to own slaves, or that all officials elected before women suffrage performed election fraud, even though we now recognize both as highly immoral now.
So in reality "unalienable" nature of rights is merely an illusion -- they are "unalienable" as long as government agrees to recognize them. Effectively government grants them, then tells everyone that it's unthinkable to disagree with its "natural" decision to do so -- until the next decision that changes it.
I believe, I have expressed a more popular than usual (for my posts) opinion in this.
I see, you have never seen an actual Ubuntu installation.
"System" -> "About Ubuntu" menu on every installed Ubuntu system shows a pretty extensive explanation what Ubuntu is, and how it s related to Linux, Debian and GNU.
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu page mentions the same, plus links to plenty of explanations, documentation and wiki that mention Debian and Linux.
I don't see how they could have made those things more straightforward.
Wait... so you admit, you look at Ubuntu forums fishing for any "negative" comment or seemingly unresolved issue, and use it in place of actual argument?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No, really...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Here is the level of "debate" Microsoft marketdroids do here.