Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet) [LWN.net]

Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet)

Posted Jul 15, 2004 18:18 UTC (Thu) by dang (guest, #310)
In reply to: Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet) by scmason
Parent article: Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet)

Am I the only person who cringes when people make a lot of the lack of viruses/worms/backdoors in linux? Damn. Trust me, when Linux does achieve domination on the desktop, then the viruses, worms, and backdoors will come. The bottom line is that for most people a computer is an appliance. It isn't maintained, it isn't monitored, it is just used until it breaks in some way and then it is replaced. Many of the popular exploits out there are succeeding despite the fact that fixes have been available for a long time ( on the desktop AND in the enterprise ). Nothing about this will change when people move from windows to linux. And the people who run windows as the admin user will be the same people firing up X as root.

Which isn't to be doom and gloom. And it is certainly not a knock against Linux. I just think that it is bogus to parade Linux as proof against viruses and such. It is also risky. The FUD will really fly if that is trumpeted as a virtue of the platform and then proves to be untrue as soon as the desktop userbase grows to where it becomes easy and fun target misconfigured and poorly maintained systems.

to post comments

Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet)

Posted Jul 15, 2004 18:54 UTC (Thu) by chill633 (guest, #16013) [Link]

Yes, viruses, worms and backdoors will be more prevalent when Linux gains more mainstream popularity, but they won't be anywhere near as bad as on Windows.

Due to conscious choices on the parts of OSS software vendors, Linux mail clients don't automatically run scripts when you preview/open e-mail. Nor are attachments executable by just clicking them in the e-mail. Extensions don't mean a damn, so renaming something to .pif.exe isn't going to hide anything. All this will serve to minimize the threat from automatic infection.

Linux has had a firewall built-in from (almost) day 1. Most vendors now have it default to "on".

In most environments, users will log in as unpriviledged users and not root or admin users. It *is* possible to install software as an unpriv user on Linux, though you need to be root to do it systemwide for a multi-user setup. Unlike Windows, which doesn't provide (or didn't for the longest time) an "su" command, software can be installed systemwide by a regular user just by popping up a password box for admin rights. People don't have to log in as an Administrator just to play with their system or install software.

That protects from malware that wants to do systemwide nastiness.

Backing up a Linux box, as far as a user is concerned, is as simple as making a backup of /home/<user>. Data is the critical part as the system can be rebuilt in a short time. Unlike Windows, there is no nasty registry to eat all your configs you spent months tweaking for each package.

Finally, Linux enforces the concept of priv ports so a worm is going to have a hard time opening port 25 to act as a mail server.

No, Linux is not immune but it will be significantly better than Windows on Microsoft's best day.

Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet)

Posted Jul 15, 2004 19:00 UTC (Thu) by scmason (guest, #19869) [Link]

No, I cringe also. Except for two things: linux IS fundamentally more secure and the distro's are doing an excellent job of discouraging running as root with 'default' logins etc. Linux has proven its inherent security advantages in the server market for years. The interface is just a front end to a solid foundation. Your email client doesn't have hooks into the kernel and the web browsers don't have write access to the kernel space. Security is inherently increased.

Lets face it: The linux desktop has grown up. Microsoft has a lot to worry about.

Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet)

Posted Jul 15, 2004 19:28 UTC (Thu) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link] (1 responses)

Not really, but it does worry me. I worry not because I think Linux is
as susceptible to these things as Windows but because I don't think many
of the people who say that understand why Linux is better.

And if they don't understand why, it's a problem because some of these
people are the future authors of Linux software, the future admins of
Linux systems, and also future members of the community. If they don't
understand that security doesn't mean virus scanners and periodic
reinstalls, but actually preventing the user interface and software bugs
which make these things possible then we are doomed because Linux will
take on the worst features of Windows and it won't manage how many people
maintain good control over their Linux systems because there will be
hundereds of thousands of vulnerable and/or compromised Linux systems.

Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet)

Posted Jul 15, 2004 19:51 UTC (Thu) by dang (guest, #310) [Link]

Ultimately the OS and applications can't insure that. There is no such thing as inherent security. Security is a process and for all that one might facilitate that process, you can't automate it away. And if IT managers or ma and pa users think that Linux is proof against malware, then they are going to be even less attuned to that process than they are as M$ users.

And there are already a ton of vulnerable linux servers out there ( running old kernels, old apache, old bind, you name it ). And even if there weren't, someone is going to hit a homerun with a trojaned tarball someday. Marketing Linux as inherently secure is wrong, scary, and inviting FUD.
Marketing Linux as something that gives you a richer tool set to secure your environment is more honest, sane, and not FUD empowering.

Is Linux Desktop Better Than Windows? (LinuxPlanet)

Posted Jul 15, 2004 19:56 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

" The bottom line is that for most people a computer is an appliance. It isn't maintained, it isn't monitored, it is just used until it breaks in some way and then it is replaced."

Bull's eye!... Its only proverbial justice that the malware is sickning the OSes of the propagaters of that "appliance style" BS mantra.
The bad thing about that is that Open Source dont really sell any new hardware... i mean the actual "status quo", in the hands of a "white Box", perhaps in the majority of cases illegal, is very handy to "sugest" a replace of old systems to common users, ignorants of the facts that perhaps more than 90% of the cases is not the hardware that has failed, but bugs or crap code in the OSes, the drivers or other software...

So it's no wonder that a large porpotion of the hardware industry is not angry with a Microsoft that seems to continuing to piss all over on their users, and on their IT partners...the "status quo" has its conveniences!!...

Perhaps all this is a cause for the poorer involvement of the "gross" of the hardware industry in the Open Source world (Its not closed proprietary Nvidea or ATI drivers that change that).I guess that might be a "feeling" that the domination by Open Source systems will reduce sells of hardware,...

...perhaps is my wrong opinion, perhaps is just a feeling... but one thing is certain; without the commitment of the "gross" of the hardware industry, the Linux Desktop will never really dominate, and neither will the Linux Server, because server "always" has been hostage of the desktop ( Microsoft has showned that).

So in the above picture, the only way out for a real Linux domination is to partner with that hardware industry... perhaps with the convenience of a broader "Open Source" driver model from the BSDs/Darwin to the Linux... Because IBM & Cia cant do much more than reduce the gap to Microsoft.