The question isn't whether users will or will not do silly things. The question is what silly things will the OS let them do.
Also, on your previous claim that script kiddies will try to get users to compile executables, good luck trying to resolve the library dependencies (or will the script kiddies include their own libraries?).
And you really have not explained how they will exploit the rich scripting/programming environment of Linuz.
Hmm. . . And would such end users run things like gcc? It may be possible to get unsuspecting users to compile programs, but why bother? Why not just have them load the executable instead?
Again, the same with sendmail and such. Would these users run mail servers (as opposed to clients)?
As for the naivete of the users, doesn't Linux have better separation between regular users and root? Granted, Linux will not stop end users who run as root from toasting their systems, nor will it stop non-root users from toasting their owen accounts. If Linux develops Microsoft levels of market share, more experienced users will have to warn newer users about such issues.
Maybe what malware needs more than scripting languages are mail clients and browsers that have deep hooks in the OS. Linux doesn't have these.
Unless one of your MSVs reimplements Microsoft Windows, you're not likely to wipe out Microsoft (how is wine licensed these days?). Also, Apple is as much a hardware company as a software company, and IBM is more into services. As for Adobe, what BSD licensed program is as competitive with Photoshop as GIMP?
As for not being able to sell GPLed software, I guess that copy of SUSE 9.2 Pro I bought at Best Buy is an illlusion.
And how many vulnerabilities do perl, bash, gcc, etc have? Also, even here one has alternatives (python vs. perl, zsh vs. bash). And what is the level that matters? Does Microsoft Windows need these to attract malware?
When you say sendmail (or equivalent), do you know if other mail servers would share sendmail's vulnerabilities, if any?
Even if gcc has no alternatives (is the kernel ANSI compliant?), is it the sort of thing that script kiddies could exploit?
But Windows users would still have a dominant browser (IE) versus the choices available in Linux. So, 1337 Haxorz d00d, would you like to make a virus for konqueror running on SUSE 9.3, or some spyware for Firefox on Fedora Core 4, or maybe some adware for lynx running on Mandriva.
Even if Linux as a whole has such marketshare, it's not at all clear that the distros/applications would be that prevalent.
Even ignoring difference in the OSes themselves, Linux users would be safer in the sense that a virus might only work with certain distros/mail clients/whatever. It's not just that Linux isn't dominant; it's that Linux itself is not a monoculture.
As opposed to loons in the Oval Office who hear their own insanity as God's word.
What about violence waged by nonelected governments, does that count as legitimate?
Hmm. . . And who gets to decide what is legitimate? Oh, yeah, governments. Gee, and then they decide that nongovernmental use of force is illegitimate. What next, will Microsoft decide that Linux software is illegitimate?
The Japanese did try to declare war before Pearl Harbor.
Also, whether an action is terrorist or not depends on the action and not the political status of the actors. If Al Qaeda were to deploy troops in regular formation on the plains of Manassas (including wearing uniforms), and dig in waiting for the US Army to attack, it might be illegal, but not terrorist.
PS. Mexico (under Maximilian) and Spain recognized the Confederacy.
Slashdot Mirror
The ability to execute any file may be an innovation, but is it a good idea?
Of course, IBM also handed the PC platform to Microsoft. Without that, Microsoft might not even be a company today.
Some people don't want any of their money going to Microsoft for an OS they don't use.
The question isn't whether users will or will not do silly things. The question is what silly things will the OS let them do.
Also, on your previous claim that script kiddies will try to get users to compile executables, good luck trying to resolve the library dependencies (or will the script kiddies include their own libraries?).
And you really have not explained how they will exploit the rich scripting/programming environment of Linuz.
So they don't have redundant servers that can be taken down and patched/tested?
If a business cannot afford this, then it should take that into consideration when selecting an operating system.
Broken-window fallacy. Would those firms have spent money on something else had they not had to spend it dealing with Sasser?
So Microsoft lied when it said that Internet Explorer was part of Windows?
Also, if executables aren't compatible across systems, doesn't that mean that Linux is not a monoculture?
Also, do you have any real evidence that Linux users would act this way, or are you merely extrapolating from Windows users?
Shouldn't that be
Hmm. . . And would such end users run things like gcc? It may be possible to get unsuspecting users to compile programs, but why bother? Why not just have them load the executable instead?
Again, the same with sendmail and such. Would these users run mail servers (as opposed to clients)?
As for the naivete of the users, doesn't Linux have better separation between regular users and root? Granted, Linux will not stop end users who run as root from toasting their systems, nor will it stop non-root users from toasting their owen accounts. If Linux develops Microsoft levels of market share, more experienced users will have to warn newer users about such issues.
Maybe what malware needs more than scripting languages are mail clients and browsers that have deep hooks in the OS. Linux doesn't have these.
Unless one of your MSVs reimplements Microsoft Windows, you're not likely to wipe out Microsoft (how is wine licensed these days?). Also, Apple is as much a hardware company as a software company, and IBM is more into services. As for Adobe, what BSD licensed program is as competitive with Photoshop as GIMP?
As for not being able to sell GPLed software, I guess that copy of SUSE 9.2 Pro I bought at Best Buy is an illlusion.
And how many vulnerabilities do perl, bash, gcc, etc have? Also, even here one has alternatives (python vs. perl, zsh vs. bash). And what is the level that matters? Does Microsoft Windows need these to attract malware?
When you say sendmail (or equivalent), do you know if other mail servers would share sendmail's vulnerabilities, if any?
Even if gcc has no alternatives (is the kernel ANSI compliant?), is it the sort of thing that script kiddies could exploit?
It doesn't have to be any less locked down. However, students can compile stuff in their own directories.
So schools are for nothing more than indoctrinating students into the PHB view of computers?
Nonstandardization may be an advantage here.
But Windows users would still have a dominant browser (IE) versus the choices available in Linux. So, 1337 Haxorz d00d, would you like to make a virus for konqueror running on SUSE 9.3, or some spyware for Firefox on Fedora Core 4, or maybe some adware for lynx running on Mandriva.
Even if Linux as a whole has such marketshare, it's not at all clear that the distros/applications would be that prevalent.
But would they be targeted and infected as much as Windows users?
Even ignoring difference in the OSes themselves, Linux users would be safer in the sense that a virus might only work with certain distros/mail clients/whatever. It's not just that Linux isn't dominant; it's that Linux itself is not a monoculture.
Not really. Even if many more people ran Linux, they would still run different distros with different mail clients.
They also might not run as root all of the time.
Actually, it's due to Bastiat.
Would you care to give me a reason why I should not think of her as a gifted writer, or should I just take you on faith?
And how has prayer helped in the past? And how is prayer any more of an action than thought?
Except that Wal-Mart seems to be winning . . .
Oh yeah, that liberal Roosevelt, what an appeaser! The way he just wanted to talk to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor!
:-)
And that conservative Chamberlain! No Adolf, you put one soldier in Czechoslovakia, and we waste your butt!
Wait, is someone saying it didn't happen that way?
As opposed to loons in the Oval Office who hear their own insanity as God's word.
What about violence waged by nonelected governments, does that count as legitimate?
Hmm. . . And who gets to decide what is legitimate? Oh, yeah, governments. Gee, and then they decide that nongovernmental use of force is illegitimate. What next, will Microsoft decide that Linux software is illegitimate?
The Japanese did try to declare war before Pearl Harbor.
Also, whether an action is terrorist or not depends on the action and not the political status of the actors. If Al Qaeda were to deploy troops in regular formation on the plains of Manassas (including wearing uniforms), and dig in waiting for the US Army to attack, it might be illegal, but not terrorist.
PS. Mexico (under Maximilian) and Spain recognized the Confederacy.