Why Linux Sucks and Why it Doesn't

And maybe I'm misunderstanding. I thought we were setting off on the whole "security by obscurity isn't really security" path

 

Security by obscurity/minority seems to depend largely in few people valuating whatever benefits from it. IMO everytime you defend Linux's security by obscurity/minority, you may also be weakening Linux a bit. lol

 

I don't see "hard to use" as obscurity. I don't even think there's a word for "hard to use therefor secure."

I don't ever defend the whole security through obscurity thing. I mean... it's nice that I am using an OS that makes hackers less liekly to attack me, but that does not mean it makes it any more difficult for them to attack me and that's really what matters imo.

 

Yeah, my comment was directed to vasa1. Security by obscurity/minority means nothing to targeted attacks.

 

Well rather than continue that (have we had a huge multipage discussion on security by obscurity? i cant even remember at this point) let's all just assume we've misunderstood everything.

 

Just one thing, hard to use = minority will use = security through minority, I think that's the logic being applied, good or bad.

Security through minority seems to be a variant of security by obscurity.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity#Security_through_minority

 

why it sucks:
seems like none of these distros work right 'out of the box' and that there are always problems to fix.
problems that requires to become almost a rocket scientist.
for me anyway.

life's too short for this.

 

Well, here's bidding you a fond adieu and, since you respect rocket science so very much, Ad Astra per Aspera!

 

The only problem I have with Ubuntu out of the box is that my mousepad scrolling doesn't work but it's 1 line in the terminal to fix.

Otherwise everything works fine.

 

There are certainly top issues, like wireless, graphics drivers and sound. However, it's still far better than it was just a couple of years ago. I don't ever expect the situation to be perfect and every piece of hardware and software be supported across all distros.

 

I've had good luck with Ubuntu, like Hungry, just one line in terminal to edit a file fixes my laptop brightness issue. Everything else is good.

 

Most distros work OotB for me in terms of hardware detection, most of the time. I think the bigger problem by far right now is software bloat. Distros that used to run fine on slower hardware now have major issues.

IMO one of the major selling points of Linux used to be that it would work on "obsolete" hardware, allowing users to break free of the upgrade cycle for a while. But lately that's not been the case; and while things like zram improve the situation a bit, they don't really solve the core problem, which (IMO) is that eyecandy has suddenly gotten way too important.

 

I think the biggest "bloat" is the UI. There aren't that many things starting up by default besides what's necessary and having an extra GB of 3rd party programs won't slow down any computer made in the last decade if they're just sitting on disk.

Thankfully there are massive improvements to Unity in 12.04. The performance is noticeably better, to a huge extent.

This will hopefully improve further as 12.10 is rumored to replace compiz with Wayland though I don't know the details of that.

 

Refer back to the videos you posted, namely video 1. It explains the situation with Wayland. Basically, nobody knows when the thing is coming.

 

I know, they've been talking about it for ages, but (once again) it was said to likely be in 12.10.

 

Though I haven't read everything there is to read on it, I truly hope we won't go through another "Dark Age" of graphics issues because of it.

 

I think the idea is to simplify things.

 

The reason why what I said is true is because most Linux users come from Windows. In Windows, how do you get software? By googling for it and downloading it from some random website. And how is most malware spread in Windows? By people installing random software from random websites.

I see people posting to the Ubuntu forums quite often asking "how do I install software? I don't understand how to install a .tar.gz file." They had went to some webpage and downloaded a tarball thinking they could double-click it and install. Then it takes half an hour to explain to them what a package manager and a repository is.

So as soon as we provide one package format to work across all distros, guess what will happen? Criminals will start putting up random websites with .rpm's or .deb's full of trojans and malware. And what will new users do? Go download and install it. Why? Because this is how they have been trained to do it on Windows for decades. And the criminals profit because they know their packages will work on ANY system. Right now, that wont work because even .debs differ between Ubuntu and Debian, etc. RPM's differ between Fedora, Red Hat, OpenSUSE, etc.

In a perfect world, I agree that having one package format across all distros is the ideal solution. But we aren't living in a perfect world where every Linux user understands repositories and package management. All they know is the Windows way.

So, yes, security through obscurity is one (of several) reasons Linux has been malware free -- there's just far too many package formats to make it worth the trouble for the criminal element to spread socially engineeered malware. In most cases security through obscurity is not ideal, but it has helped somewhat in the case of Linux and distro diversity.

 

Similar sentiments here: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=54013

 

I recently installed Lubuntu on a netbook and didn't have to fix anything. It even offered to install the firmware for the wireless chipset for me.

I don't remember ever having a Windows install where I didn't have to fix something or other, or install a bunch of drivers that I had to download separately. (I have several times had to have another machine to download network adaptor drivers on, or I'd never have had network access in Windows.)

The few times I've had to install Mac OS X, it's gone more smoothly, but that's because they don't support much hardware (they don't need to, since they're the only ones making Macs). However, you pay a large price for having Apple do all your thinking for you.

Regarding the rocket scientist thing... computers are complex and require a fair bit of knowledge to use safely and effectively. Some companies try to claim otherwise, and the end result is a need for security software and techniques like are discussed so often here at Wilders Security Forums.

 

Very well put.

But, OTOH, don't take moontan too seriously. He'll be back

 

some things i love about linux

1st reinstall and tweaking easy not like windows taking hours/days/week/and still going on......

and second one window update all apps in one window

3rd stability linux less messy atleast in my hands then windows and reinstall windows tweaking is nightmare

4th multi-tasking click muliple things linux hardly hands that what i hate the most in windows click 10-20 apps and you see

5th startup shutdown in linux few seconds and i am not talking about SSD normal hdd drive in windows it take too much time for application to start and its not windows fault.

thing i hate about linux is sometime update bugs and still having driver problem and above all too many .... ubuntu buggy beta type clones

only few good icon themes and eyecandy work like mac we need lot of good stuff in design work in linux there it lacks a lot.