Unless having it closed was a specific design goal, it would end up being open by default as trying to close it would cost money and potentially delay the project.
Most modern distros don't even support running on a 386 with ISA slots, you will probably have to use a specialised distro or build your own if you want to use such hardware, but at least that option is available to you.
Cruft in this respect is things like the lanman hashing types and network authentication methods which are inherent into many of the windows networking protocols... In fact, even the NTLM hash type, the strongest windows supports for users accounts, is very weak, has no concept of salts and its tied to authentication methods which can be used by sending the hash and never needing the plaintext password...
Google for hash spraying or pass the hash...
Unix used to use salted DES for password encryption, but its possible to change the algorithm at will without breaking compatibility with other things... On windows, changing the hashing algorithm would also break most of the networking protocols.
A telnet client is not in itself a vulnerability (and windows includes one too), it is a useful utility for network troubleshooting and connecting to devices which don't support ssh... Windows doesn't even come with an ssh client by default either, telnet is all you have out of the box.
A telnet server is a security issue, however very few distros include one by default (its typically an optional install) let alone having it enabled out of the box. Note, a telnet server is also an optional install on windows.
But most important of all, most of the windows backwards compatibility cruft is inherent in the core of the system and cannot easily be removed. The legacy cruft available for linux is typically optional, often not installed by default and even if it is, it can easily be removed.
Yes, a linux desktop system won't offer any services to the network by default, whereas windows still does (although it encourages you to hide those services behind a firewall - they are STILL RUNNING?!?)...
Years ago default installs of linux would get compromised too if left on the network, but modern linux distros have improved a lot - they typically leave no services exposed to the network by default these days, anything you want accessible you need to explicitly enable. Windows has gone the other way, it now has more functionality exposed to the network than it used to, and makes it harder to turn this stuff off (no firewalling it isn't a solution, it shouldn't be listening at all).
Indeed, however having a database such as MSSQL which offers by default a function for executing commands (xp_cmdshell), and/or runs the database itself as a highly privileged user just compound such vulnerabilities...
On a typical linux system with mysql, if you found an sql vulnerability you would have fairly limited access to the underlying system, even if you managed to exploit a separate bug in the database.
Linux has the "ease of use" when you consider modern distributions... What it lacks is "familiarity"...
For android this isn't a problem because people are used to competition in the mobile phone market and don't expect every phone to look and act the same. Microsoft have managed to convince people that computers arent like this, and that they should fear anything different.
For someone who has never used a computer before and therefore has no preconceptions about how it should look or behave, modern linux distros are actually easier for them. I have introduced several people (usually old people) who have never used a computer before to linux and they get along just fine with it, and haven't been plagued with malware. They now know that software comes from the repositories, not via email or random websites so anything asking them to download and run an arbitrary program throws up warning flags.
That is very much a niche, only large companies have AIX machines and use them for specialised purposes...
Incidentally, IBM also offer linux on power (and zseries), power is also a relatively open architecture there just hasn't been much interest in third party clones of it largely because a lot of proprietary closed source software is tied to x86.
OSX which is partially open (eg the kernel and bsd userland), and which only has a niche presence on the desktop and virtually no server presence whatsoever (infact apple recently discontinued the xserve line - their only proper server model).
Windows was the defacto standard by virtue of being the successor to ms-dos...
Given that, anything from Microsoft in the mid-90s was actually a step *up* in quality. Yes, things really were that bad back then.
But i wasn't referring to other applications running on dos, in the days of windows 3.11 there were far superior options available from apple, commodore/amiga, atari and the various highend unix vendors like sun, dec, sgi etc.
There were of course proprietary hardware (expensive) coupled with proprietary software (cheap)... So the choice of standard competition driven hardware was enough to outweigh the disadvantage of proprietary software.
It doesn't have to... GNU is not about dominance, it is about ensuring software freedom. GNU was a plan to replace proprietary tools with open equivalents, the fact that these open equivalents are now being replaced with superior open equivalents is irrelevant.
I doubt RMS's primary goal is that everyone use GNU software, rather that everyone should use open source software regardless of who wrote it or where it came from, providing its users have the freedoms granted by the GPL (or a great level, eg BSD).
Windows retains a lot of very insecure backwards compatibility cruft (eg lanman hash types to cite just one example)... Linux is far better in that regard..
It was NT which was the ground up rewrite, but although NT provided a new kernel they bolted a lot of the existing legacy cruft on top of it, many of the security holes in windows are a result of weaknesses in (or as a direct result of) this cruft rather than the core NT kernel.
So long as there are standards and competition, i see Apple ending up like Mercedes, Jaguar or Bentley... A highend niche product which commands a premium. These companies may not sell as many cars as the likes of Ford or Hyundai, but they are superior and considerably more expensive vehicles.
This doesn't happen so much on the desktop because of lock-in from MS, but it would be good to see the same there too.
The architecture wasn't really nice, it was actually pretty awful (and among the worst available at the time) but it was made with off the shelf components which meant that third parties soon assembled compatible products.
But despite sub par hardware and even cruder software, the IBM compatible became dominant because competition gave the users choices and forced the different manufacturers to improve their products and lower prices.
Windows didn't win over OS/2 and BE because it was better or supported more hardware, it won because it was already the defacto standard and was able to force superior competitors like OS/2 and BeOS out of the market (eg no bundling deals).
Hopefully people will gradually wake up to the fact that open software is just as important as open hardware, and windows gradually gets kicked out.
Data plans are not mandatory, in most places in the world you can buy an unlocked iphone or android phone and use it with whatever phone service you wish. If you always have wifi available to you, then you save money by getting a plan without data.
The problem is that new phones are still coming out with old versions of android, and many phones can only run the version they came with and don't have upgrades available. People generally change their phones every year or two anyway, so if new phones always came with the current version of android it would only be necessary to support old versions going back about 2 years.
Linux actually has an extremely stable API which allows you to compile software written for unix systems that hugely predate linux...
Your probably thinking about the fast and open development of linux which means that new features are added quickly, and different distros add different features... But if you stick to the core APIs your programs will run on virtually any regular linux (may not work on extremely cut down embedded versions) and usually also on other unix based systems too.
Sega tried that with the Mega-CD and 32X... But the whole idea of a console is that it stays the same so you are guaranteed the games will run and not require any additional hardware you might not have, or won't run in a low detail mode or very slowly.
It's highly likely that you couldn't even reuse the case from a PSX era PC... It would probably require an AT motherboard and a newer board wouldn't even fit without serious hacking, similarly for the power supply..
Linux has already won over proprietary unix, anyone remember SCO unixware or BSDi? All the other proprietary unixes are relegated to niches on their own hardware (AIX, HPUX) or dead (Tru64, Ultrix, DG/UX, IRIX)
Windows has inertia and lock-in behind it, but windows has already proven that open technology will win out over proprietary - software was always considered a very cheap component of an expensive hardware purchase so windows came along for the ride in the drive towards the open x86 compatible... Proprietary hardware has also been driven into small expensive niches despite being massively superior to the open x86 hardware of its day..
Is there really much point watching 1080p video on a 720p screen? Surely just using 720p video sources would save disk space and battery if nothing else...
Linux actually makes a much better gaming platform than windows, because it can be more console-like (ie stripped down to divert maximum resources to the game)...
You could make the argument that a C64 is a better gaming platform than a ps3 because the game you want to play only runs on the C64... That doesn't mean the C64 is a superior platform, it means that you are tied to an inferior platform because of the games you want to play.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless having it closed was a specific design goal, it would end up being open by default as trying to close it would cost money and potentially delay the project.
Most modern distros don't even support running on a 386 with ISA slots, you will probably have to use a specialised distro or build your own if you want to use such hardware, but at least that option is available to you.
Cruft in this respect is things like the lanman hashing types and network authentication methods which are inherent into many of the windows networking protocols... In fact, even the NTLM hash type, the strongest windows supports for users accounts, is very weak, has no concept of salts and its tied to authentication methods which can be used by sending the hash and never needing the plaintext password...
Google for hash spraying or pass the hash...
Unix used to use salted DES for password encryption, but its possible to change the algorithm at will without breaking compatibility with other things... On windows, changing the hashing algorithm would also break most of the networking protocols.
A telnet client is not in itself a vulnerability (and windows includes one too), it is a useful utility for network troubleshooting and connecting to devices which don't support ssh... Windows doesn't even come with an ssh client by default either, telnet is all you have out of the box.
A telnet server is a security issue, however very few distros include one by default (its typically an optional install) let alone having it enabled out of the box. Note, a telnet server is also an optional install on windows.
But most important of all, most of the windows backwards compatibility cruft is inherent in the core of the system and cannot easily be removed. The legacy cruft available for linux is typically optional, often not installed by default and even if it is, it can easily be removed.
Not by default, it should have SSH easily available for that purpose but it should still require explicit user actions to enable it.
Yes, a linux desktop system won't offer any services to the network by default, whereas windows still does (although it encourages you to hide those services behind a firewall - they are STILL RUNNING?!?)...
Years ago default installs of linux would get compromised too if left on the network, but modern linux distros have improved a lot - they typically leave no services exposed to the network by default these days, anything you want accessible you need to explicitly enable.
Windows has gone the other way, it now has more functionality exposed to the network than it used to, and makes it harder to turn this stuff off (no firewalling it isn't a solution, it shouldn't be listening at all).
Indeed, however having a database such as MSSQL which offers by default a function for executing commands (xp_cmdshell), and/or runs the database itself as a highly privileged user just compound such vulnerabilities...
On a typical linux system with mysql, if you found an sql vulnerability you would have fairly limited access to the underlying system, even if you managed to exploit a separate bug in the database.
Most compromised linux boxes these days are due to:
weak/guessed passwords...
poorly written php applications...
insecurely configured third party applications which have been explicitly installed..
it's quite rare for default out of the box software to be exploited, gone are the days of wu-ftpd, easily exploitable bind running by default etc...
Linux has the "ease of use" when you consider modern distributions...
What it lacks is "familiarity"...
For android this isn't a problem because people are used to competition in the mobile phone market and don't expect every phone to look and act the same. Microsoft have managed to convince people that computers arent like this, and that they should fear anything different.
For someone who has never used a computer before and therefore has no preconceptions about how it should look or behave, modern linux distros are actually easier for them. I have introduced several people (usually old people) who have never used a computer before to linux and they get along just fine with it, and haven't been plagued with malware. They now know that software comes from the repositories, not via email or random websites so anything asking them to download and run an arbitrary program throws up warning flags.
That is very much a niche, only large companies have AIX machines and use them for specialised purposes...
Incidentally, IBM also offer linux on power (and zseries), power is also a relatively open architecture there just hasn't been much interest in third party clones of it largely because a lot of proprietary closed source software is tied to x86.
OSX which is partially open (eg the kernel and bsd userland), and which only has a niche presence on the desktop and virtually no server presence whatsoever (infact apple recently discontinued the xserve line - their only proper server model).
Windows was the defacto standard by virtue of being the successor to ms-dos...
Given that, anything from Microsoft in the mid-90s was actually a step *up* in quality. Yes, things really were that bad back then.
But i wasn't referring to other applications running on dos, in the days of windows 3.11 there were far superior options available from apple, commodore/amiga, atari and the various highend unix vendors like sun, dec, sgi etc.
There were of course proprietary hardware (expensive) coupled with proprietary software (cheap)... So the choice of standard competition driven hardware was enough to outweigh the disadvantage of proprietary software.
It doesn't have to...
GNU is not about dominance, it is about ensuring software freedom. GNU was a plan to replace proprietary tools with open equivalents, the fact that these open equivalents are now being replaced with superior open equivalents is irrelevant.
I doubt RMS's primary goal is that everyone use GNU software, rather that everyone should use open source software regardless of who wrote it or where it came from, providing its users have the freedoms granted by the GPL (or a great level, eg BSD).
Windows retains a lot of very insecure backwards compatibility cruft (eg lanman hash types to cite just one example)... Linux is far better in that regard..
It was NT which was the ground up rewrite, but although NT provided a new kernel they bolted a lot of the existing legacy cruft on top of it, many of the security holes in windows are a result of weaknesses in (or as a direct result of) this cruft rather than the core NT kernel.
Windows is not a Russian OS either... I'm not aware of any OS which has been developed from scratch in Russia.
Linux at least comes with source code allowing the Russians to customise it however they wish. Windows doesn't provide that flexibility.
For a car analogy...
So long as there are standards and competition, i see Apple ending up like Mercedes, Jaguar or Bentley... A highend niche product which commands a premium. These companies may not sell as many cars as the likes of Ford or Hyundai, but they are superior and considerably more expensive vehicles.
This doesn't happen so much on the desktop because of lock-in from MS, but it would be good to see the same there too.
The architecture wasn't really nice, it was actually pretty awful (and among the worst available at the time) but it was made with off the shelf components which meant that third parties soon assembled compatible products.
But despite sub par hardware and even cruder software, the IBM compatible became dominant because competition gave the users choices and forced the different manufacturers to improve their products and lower prices.
Windows didn't win over OS/2 and BE because it was better or supported more hardware, it won because it was already the defacto standard and was able to force superior competitors like OS/2 and BeOS out of the market (eg no bundling deals).
Hopefully people will gradually wake up to the fact that open software is just as important as open hardware, and windows gradually gets kicked out.
Data plans are not mandatory, in most places in the world you can buy an unlocked iphone or android phone and use it with whatever phone service you wish. If you always have wifi available to you, then you save money by getting a plan without data.
The problem is that new phones are still coming out with old versions of android, and many phones can only run the version they came with and don't have upgrades available.
People generally change their phones every year or two anyway, so if new phones always came with the current version of android it would only be necessary to support old versions going back about 2 years.
Linux actually has an extremely stable API which allows you to compile software written for unix systems that hugely predate linux...
Your probably thinking about the fast and open development of linux which means that new features are added quickly, and different distros add different features... But if you stick to the core APIs your programs will run on virtually any regular linux (may not work on extremely cut down embedded versions) and usually also on other unix based systems too.
Sega tried that with the Mega-CD and 32X...
But the whole idea of a console is that it stays the same so you are guaranteed the games will run and not require any additional hardware you might not have, or won't run in a low detail mode or very slowly.
The PSX is even older than that, think P90 era...
It's highly likely that you couldn't even reuse the case from a PSX era PC... It would probably require an AT motherboard and a newer board wouldn't even fit without serious hacking, similarly for the power supply..
Linux has already won over proprietary unix, anyone remember SCO unixware or BSDi?
All the other proprietary unixes are relegated to niches on their own hardware (AIX, HPUX) or dead (Tru64, Ultrix, DG/UX, IRIX)
Windows has inertia and lock-in behind it, but windows has already proven that open technology will win out over proprietary - software was always considered a very cheap component of an expensive hardware purchase so windows came along for the ride in the drive towards the open x86 compatible...
Proprietary hardware has also been driven into small expensive niches despite being massively superior to the open x86 hardware of its day..
Is there really much point watching 1080p video on a 720p screen?
Surely just using 720p video sources would save disk space and battery if nothing else...
So what you're basically saying, is that XP is only for technically minded users and is unsuitable for non technical users (ie the general public).
Linux actually makes a much better gaming platform than windows, because it can be more console-like (ie stripped down to divert maximum resources to the game)...
You could make the argument that a C64 is a better gaming platform than a ps3 because the game you want to play only runs on the C64... That doesn't mean the C64 is a superior platform, it means that you are tied to an inferior platform because of the games you want to play.