Servers don't count. Theory does not count. Home distro, examples. Otherwise, pointless discussion. CAN BE EXPLOITED is nonsense. You CAN also die in an earthquake. You CAN also contract Ebola. Irrelevant. Mrk
Can you explain us in simple language, what in the video made you believe that his ubuntu system was infected with a malware?
It would seem that your entire rant is pretty much off-topic in this thread, which by the way is about Linux Mint, not whether the average linux user needs an AV, which history has shown, they clearly don't... How about you move on with your Win Fanboy rants, and leave this thread to the Linux Mint enthusiasts?
Facts do count, posted enough of them already. As Mrkvonic would say: Until you decide to open your eyes and accept the truth, discussion closed. Sorry for the offtopic anyway :S
Grsecurity, SELinux, AppArmor, FireJail, trusted repositories, custom firewall rules, OSSEC, etc. are hardly lacking. Compile your own hardened kernel and then try stating that Linux is an open book.
Hello What do you mean servers don't count? I must be missing something here? Wasn't the jest that Linux does have attacks. Linux home user or server what is the diff? Also look at Hacking Teams exploits Italy) they use Linux attacks also and don't have to go to the computer to manually install the crap. This all goes back to the same old rootkit debates of 10 years ago. Majority here said no to in the wild, I said yes, Now we talking Linux systems and I now say Yes too. Since Linux has become more popular and easy to install by home users, You can bet the crime world saw this along time ago coming. In the not to distant past it was very hard for any home user to use Linux, Right? As we say follow the money and governments.
Downloaded yesterday. Hey thanks for this heads up on the newest Mint. Gonna run it as soon as I can and am really looking forward to the new views/options etc. I would add my 2 cents to the OT replies but why even bother. There's simply no real comparison IMO
I unintentionally instigated the OT discussion by posting what I think is a helpful link. To help to stay on topic --- Previous Wilders discussion on -- to AV or not to AV here : https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...antivirus-software-for-linux-desktops.372490/ Thread on Linux hardening here : https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/the-hardened-linux-thread.379114/
You obviously don't know the difference between a client (or desktop) system and a server system. A Linux desktop system normally hasn't any open ports (that's why, e.g., Ubuntu doesn't enable a firewall by default because it's simply superfluous). A server system must have open ports. That's what it makes it a server - otherwise it wouldn't be able to receive requests from client systems. Now, if such a server is poorly configured, uses weak passwords and hasn't received any (security) updates in ages (as is often the case for cheap rented servers - mantra: "never change a running system") - yes, that server is prone to attacks. But how is this related to a desktop system? Bottom line: Mrk is right. Servers don't count. That's another discussion. Having said that I don't think that a Linux desktop system can't be hardened if you're paranoid. But zakazak's arguments are completely overblown. They don't mirror reality.
Mint is a very good distro, I must admit, they're light-years ahead of Ubuntu. I wouldn't be bothered by the lack of control it gives to the user IF it came as a pure GNU distro, with no Flash, no proprietary CODECS, etc. I think I'd even use it if that was the case!
Been running 17.2 for a few weeks now and no plans on switching back to Ubuntu. Main 2 things I am liking are the configurability and responsiveness of Cinnamon. Only minor issue I have is my laptop wont go into standby if power is unplugged when the lid is closed, but I've yet to investigate.
Not really. It's basically Ubuntu, much like Ubuntu is basically Debian. But Mint has something more "special" than Ubuntu, in a way that they fix most of Ubuntu developers' lack of capability of getting things right.
I know Ubuntu was based on Debian originally. What have Mint fixed that Canonical haven't got right specifically? Unity doesn't count as it works fine and many actually prefer it. Well, I do. It's about a 50/50 split on the Ubuntu forums though. lol
I don't mind Unity, even though I don't like it too much. Canonical is a company, it's their right to "inovate" with products like Unity or Mir. My concerns are towards the general state of Ubuntu. Lately (2011-present) it's pretty much a hit and miss scenario, you don't know how the next release is going to be, or how stable it's going to be. That's because Ubuntu's regular release cycle sucks, a lot. 6 months isn't enough to produce an entire new system, specially since we're talking about Canonical developers, and regular Ubuntu users know that and tend to avoid a fresh Ubuntu release because it will come with a lot of bugs, bugs that should take away Ubuntu's reputation for being "newbie friendly". I've had more bugs running Ubuntu 12.04 LTS for 6 minutes than running Arch for 2 years. I'm not kidding. Once, after just installing the system, I've had a "fatal system error" or something like that, and I had to manually restart Ubuntu 12.04 (considered even by Google the most stable Ubuntu release so far, at the time). Then there are store problems, program installation problems, video driver problems, social contracts being violated, and all sorts of problems. Once in 12.10 I installed NVIDIA proprietary drivers, and rebooted afterwards. I was presented with a tty1 screen because Ubuntu developers seemingly forgot to mark the kernel headers to be installed with the video drivers. That didn't happen in Mint. But Mint has problems too, at least untill 2014 which is around the last time I used it. Sometimes updates won't install, or the Software Center will stop responding while installing programs and this causes breakages, etc. But overall, even though Mint Kernel security update's policies are not so good, it's a much more stable and reliable polished system than Ubuntu will ever be. And doesn't have spyware/keylogger by default
This is why I use the LTS version of Trusty Tahr on a Lenovo laptop preinstalled with Ubuntu. Mint looks nice though, but I'll stay with the original for now. The spyware/keylogger is a non-issue and only really applies to the tinfoil hat brigade. Shuttleworth made no secret of the Amazon deal and it can be easily opted out of. I can't blame him for trying to ease development costs. Something the Mint developers don't have so much of a problem with as their development probably doesn't cost them as much as Canonical's. Shuttleworth has always maintained that he wants to keep Ubuntu as freeware. There really is no such thing as a free lunch.
I wouldn't mind if this spyware was opt-IN (with an agreement that appeared while installing the system) rather than opt-out. Canonical hurted the "trust" Linux had for over 20 years by putting this silent keylogger that nobody knew until it was too late. Who would read EULA's on Canonical's website looking for something like "we are going to send your OFFLINE searches to a company that mistreats it's employess, a company that mistreats it's users with backdoors, and much more"? I think Amanda nailed it:
It was actually in the EULA though, but I get your point about it probably should have been an opt-in rather than opt-out. I'm afraid it's one of the costs of developing a viable Linux platform. It's easy to use Canonical's work and put a pretty face on it, like Mint, but nothing is ever inexpensive. I don't believe Shuttleworth had any other motive than trying to ease development costs. I do realise that many think the Russian Space Agency didn't fire him far enough into space because of this Amazon deal fandango lol! It's a storm in a space teacup if you ask me.
Sorry, I had to laugh hehehehehe. Ubuntu is what, 85 to 90% Debian? And Debian efforts are huuuge, thousands of developers world-wide and almost none of them get paid. And then you talk about what Mint does to Ubuntu? That's exactly what Ubuntu does to Debian! They're BOTH ripping other people's work.
How much of Ubuntu is actually ripped off of Debian? How much is genuinely forked and worked on by Canonical and has little to do with Debian now? Debian was never particularly successful until recently AFAIK. Canonical did at least make Ubuntu a viable usable Linux OS. Just how much of that is due to Debian and how much due to Canonical's work? I'm not buying the all corporations are evil explanation, it's too simplistic.
Ubuntu should be around 80 to 90% Debian. They don't make most of their packages, they take Debian's Testing/Sid repositories and change a few things, or sometimes change more than a bit, that's mostly what Ubuntu developers do with their system packages. And for a lot of times they screw things up because they're always rushed to deliver what can't be delivered, much like how Debian Testing and Sid are: they break a lot. Wow. Just WOW. I don't even know how to find words hahahaha. Yeah, Ubuntu was pretty good until 2010.
