Got Linux?

[Mountain Man]

Re: hmmmm.

Originally posted by jabberwokk
At what point do basic algorithms become privately owned?

If somebody writes code and has it copyrighted then it becomes privately owned. It's really as simple as that. Last time I checked, nobody owned the copyright to "Hello, world."

 

[Vino]

Spyware would also exist on Linux if this OS was just as popular among 'ordinary' users.

I don't think so. The GNU/Linux source code is open, meaning anybody who wants to can simply look at what their operating system and software are doing. The user is safe with the knowledge that there is no spyware on his system. Nor can spyware ever be installed and run without the root user himself installing it. Nor can spyware somehow installed under a user run for long, as the user could simply pull up the list of processes and kill -9 it, locate its binaries and erase them. I don't see that happening though, because there's no way such a program could ever get onto the system if the system uses only open-source software.

But to the topic at hand, I am not a lawyer, but the stolen source code is Valve's IP (Intellectual Property). Compare it to a book, it is copyrighted, Valve has the final say on who gets it and who doesn't. It is illegal to compile, run, or possess it as it is stolen property. A hacker could not legally take the source code compile a Linux native port, as this source code is Valve's IP and only Valve says what can be done with it.

Sure, the source code does not contain any patented algorithms, but Valve put in the five years of hard work into this source code, and Valve says what happens with it and what doesn't, the end.

I also want to put in my pitch to anybody who thinks Windows is a better system all around then Linux: open your eyes. You can't see what you don't look at. Linux in my eyes lacks in only two areas: ease of use and games. It can be difficult to struggle with your system all night to install something, especially when it "just works" in Windows. However, this is changing, and learning how to operate your system beats circumnavigating Windows bugs any day. As for games, we can only hope that Linux pulls ahead in the future. Valve isn't helping but not providing Linux ports, but that won't stop the dedicated.

BTW, Thank you Mountain Man for the very informative posts, they were all a good read

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by Vino
I don't think so. The GNU/Linux source code is open, meaning anybody who wants to can simply look at what their operating system and software are doing. The user is safe with the knowledge that there is no spyware on his system. Nor can spyware ever be installed and run without the root user himself installing it. Nor can spyware somehow installed under a user run for long, as the user could simply pull up the list of processes and kill -9 it, locate its binaries and erase them. I don't see that happening though, because there's no way such a program could ever get onto the system if the system uses only open-source software.

but we're talking about normal users here, they don't care to look at source code before compiling a piece of software, they just want the software to work.

and the same thing can be said about windows, most normal users don't bother creating an admin account along with seperate accounts with lower privaleges for users, although they do have the capability, so what makes you think if linux was more mainstream they'd do it any differently? they'd have a root account, they'd use it, they'd install the same bullshit and get into the same situations you get into in windows.

and people can pull up a list of processes, kill it and delete it just as easily in windows, but most people simply don't care to, or don't have the knowledge to, so why would they suddenly know how to "ps aux" "kill -9 31337" ?

 

[kanzler]

Originally posted by Vino
I don't think so. The GNU/Linux source code is open, meaning anybody who wants to can simply look at what their operating system and software are doing. The user is safe with the knowledge that there is no spyware on his system. Nor can spyware ever be installed and run without the root user himself installing it. Nor can spyware somehow installed under a user run for long, as the user could simply pull up the list of processes and kill -9 it, locate its binaries and erase them. I don't see that happening though, because there's no way such a program could ever get onto the system if the system uses only open-source software.

Not all programs running on Linux come with their source code as they are not required to, so your argument makes no sense. You can limit user rights on windows too so they can't install spyware either. Conclusion: Both systems can be infected by malicious code. The weakest link is still the person who's running the OS.

 

[Mountain Man]

But the point is, it is much easier to infect Windows than Linux. The thing that makes Linux so secure is that the white hats have a much greater chance of finding and plugging security holes before black hats can exploit them. With Windows, a security hole is often discovered and exploited by individuals with ill intentions leaving Microsoft to try and plug up their code as fast as people poke holes in it, and it's a game that Microsoft is losing. There are dozens of documented bugs and security holes in Microsoft code with no fix in sight. Contrast this with similiar weaknesses in Linux code, where exploitable flaws are often discovered and fixed within hours.

As for user rights limitations and what not in Windows, that sure hasn't prevented Microsoft's flagship product from getting repeatedly raped by viruses, worms and torjans. See, the thing is, buffer overflows tend to bypass user permissions pretty easily and can be used to execute arbitrary code, and buffer overflow errors are frighteningly common in Microsoft's software.

In theory, any properly locked down system can be virtually impossible to hack. In practice, it is much, much easier to create an imprenatable Linux system than it is in Windows. Microsoft's code is just too sloppy.

And just for fun: www.microsuck.com

 

[kanzler]

Originally posted by Mountain Man
Contrast this with similiar weaknesses in Linux code, where exploitable flaws are often discovered and fixed within hours.

Let's take the blaster virus as an example. A fix was already available long before this virus began infecting windows pc's. So my point about the user being the weakest link still stands. Ordinary users don't check every day, week or even month for new updates. So for them it doesn't matter that a bug is solved in a matter of hours. The problem is getting people to be more responsible when working with pc's.

Now that i'm thinking about it: Driving a car without having a drivers license is a felony, maybe using a computer without knowing anything about it should be forbidden too...

 

[Vino]

Yes, the user is the weakest link in the security chain. However, the system is the second weakest link. Now, there's no given thing we can do to make a stupid user smarter, but why not give him a better, more secure system and protect him against that many more viruses, bugs, and security holes? Do we not all agree that Linux is a more secure system?

Not all programs running on Linux come with their source code as they are not required to, so your argument makes no sense. You can limit user rights on windows too so they can't install spyware either. Conclusion: Both systems can be infected by malicious code. The weakest link is still the person who's running the OS.

Well lets assume some browser vulnerability in lynx or something (*chuckle*) allowed some malicious program to be installed on a user account without him knowing. Any user worth his idiocy is going to be running a wm with some gui process listing function, similar to ctrl-alt-delete in XP. Then they see that the gator port (*snicker*) is running and they complain to their local computer whiz.

Their local computer whiz makes the location that was installed to read only, no write. Problem solved. But, that's IF the code could get onto the system in the first place.

Besides, the user doesn't need to read every line of code to know an open-source program is safe to run. Just by virtue of the fact that the program is open-source means it has no malicious code. No team in it's right mind would release the source of their program in an open source project that does malicious or spying stuff. Plus, many times the user compiles the code himself, so he knows that he's not getting binaries that don't match the source.

Ever wonder why the start menu takes a few seconds to open sometimes? I have a 900, which means as you know that my computer can execute nine hundred million instructions per second. Why the **** does it take ten seconds to open a simple start menu? Because Windows is taking some stupid information that I don't care about and storing it on my hard drive so it can sort my icons in a specific order later. I don't care! Don't do that! But, no, there's no option to get it to stop that. You really have no choice if you use explorer. (Which I don't.) With an open source program, you know that when you click the menu, that program is going to do it's best job in opening the menu, not doing ten thousand proprietary things that you don't care about to try to sell a few extra copies.

I'm late for hapkido! Later!

 

[jabberwokk]

I got the code to my system!

Originally posted by kanzler
Not all programs running on Linux come with their source code as they are not required to, so your argument makes no sense.

Thats Funny, I have all of the source code for my system, maybe that is because I compiled my systen from them. (Gentoo baby! www.gentoo.org) How many windows XP systems have the entire system compiled for your specific processor the way you want it. Thank you very much!

 

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, Gentoo is pretty sweet. It's what I'm running now. Keeping the software up to date is a piece of cake: "emerge -u world". It's more comprhensive than the Windows updater and I don't have to reboot my system to take advantage of the changes.

But the fact is, regardless of the end user, Linux is inherently more secure and stable than Windows.

 

[peoplesuc]

linux - no applications that i want

I want directX, quicktime and a cleaner interface for linux. THEN I would switch over.

If trends like open source goes on then where would a student studing programming get a 60K after graduation?

I HATE LINUX!!!

I hope that lawsuit kills open source and with it linux.

 

[peoplesuc]

I have nothing on my computer that is of worth. If I was to start a company then I wouldn't have and core projects running on comprimised computers.

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by Vino
Ever wonder why the start menu takes a few seconds to open sometimes? I have a 900, which means as you know that my computer can execute nine hundred million instructions per second. Why the **** does it take ten seconds to open a simple start menu? Because Windows is taking some stupid information that I don't care about and storing it on my hard drive so it can sort my icons in a specific order later. I don't care! Don't do that! But, no, there's no option to get it to stop that. You really have no choice if you use explorer. (Which I don't.) With an open source program, you know that when you click the menu, that program is going to do it's best job in opening the menu, not doing ten thousand proprietary things that you don't care about to try to sell a few extra copies.

I'm late for hapkido! Later!

actually it takes that long because there is a value in the registry telling it how long to take, if you go and change that value to 0 then it pops up much quicker, you can also disable the custom start menu feature (where it keeps track of what you use most often).

 

[Vino]

Originally posted by Xtasy0
actually it takes that long because there is a value in the registry telling it how long to take, if you go and change that value to 0 then it pops up much quicker, you can also disable the custom start menu feature (where it keeps track of what you use most often).

Doesn't that strike you as inanely stupid? Anyways, I don't use explorer, so I don't have the problem.

I want directX, quicktime and a cleaner interface for linux. THEN I would switch over.

If trends like open source goes on then where would a student studing programming get a 60K after graduation?

I HATE LINUX!!!

I hope that lawsuit kills open source and with it linux.

DirectX is a closed-source API written by Microsoft. You don't want that on an open-source system, it defeats the purpose. Rather, you want an open-source graphics library (like OGL) to be improved to the point that DX9 is currently. However, if it's really DX that you want, Wine has a DX implementation which is better structured and faster then Microsoft's, even if it's incomplete: http://www.winehq.org/images/shots/full/wine_8.png http://www.winehq.org/images/shots/full/wine_3.png
(That's a shot of CS from within Wine )

Fortunately, there is already quicktime for Linux. It costs money though. http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/ I'm pretty sure that it's distributed under GPL anyways, which means that once you buy it, you have the source code as well.

As for cleaner interfaces, you obviously haven't been around a recent installation of KDE or Gnome. Both are very solid, and everything you need is centralized. I use Blackbox, but it's a personal choice.

 

[Mountain Man]

Re: linux - no applications that i want

Originally posted by peoplesuc
I want directX, quicktime and a cleaner interface for linux. THEN I would switch over.

No can do on DirectX unless Microsoft does the sensible thing and releases it as a true open source standard rather than a monoplistic ball and chain. Better yet, let's petition developers to support open, cross-platform standards like OpenGL.

As for Quicktime, mplayer is capable of playing every popular video format you could want.

And I'm not sure what you mean by a "cleaner interface" but KDE has a very nice interface. Of course, it's not your only choice. Gnome is another popular choice as is Fluxbox and Kahakai. There are of course others. In short, if you like choice, you'll love Linux.

If trends like open source goes on then where would a student studing programming get a 60K after graduation?

By writing software and selling it. Open source is not anti-capitalistic. You need to do a bit of research before drawing that conclussion.

I hope that lawsuit kills open source and with it linux.

Yes, let's eliminate open standards and choice! While we're at it, let's give Bill Gates a license to print his own money.

 

[jonbob]

Yes, let's eliminate open standards and choice! While we're at it, let's give Bill Gates a license to print his own money.

At this point I don't think he even needs to

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by Vino
Doesn't that strike you as inanely stupid? Anyways, I don't use explorer, so I don't have the problem.

how is that "insanely stupid"?

 

[Direwolf]

My only real gripe with Linux is the lack of any real standard. The philosophy behind Linux also makes it improbable that there ever really will be one (I actually like the idea behind it).
For all its evils Windows has made sure that what works on your computer will work on almost anyone elses, and with the internet boom under a decade old I think that may be what the world needs right now.

 

[Vino]

Originally posted by Xtasy0
how is that "insanely stupid"?

Not to get into a piss fight, but it seems really stupid that there be a registry value to delay how long it takes to open the start menu. What is it's purpose? Why isn't it set to something low on default? After all, 99% of computer users want their software to be fast and responsive, nobody wants hidden registry values that delay the opening of a central element on their desktop. What purpose does it serve? Why not just open the menu already?

I use Blackbox for windows, and I right click on the desktop to get a menu of items to execute. I created this menu myself, so when applications install they don't add themselves to the list without my permission. The menu opens instantly, no matter what, and since the Blackbox drawing code is insanely fast and efficient (in fact it was retained from the Linux version of Blackbox) I don't have any delay in opening the programs I use.

Clearly, Microsoft has other priorities besides user functionality if they are hiding registry components that intentionally slow down loading of essential desktop elements. They set up the system to allow programs which the user may or may not approve to invade the user's system and set up shop, adding registry keys, start menu shortcuts, desktop icons, file associations, and automatically running itself on startup. Simply put, any application you download has free reign over the system.

Moreover, any website that an MSIE user visits has full control over the browser. They can start javascript scripts, activex plugins, send cookies, and do other intrusive things without the permission of the user. (Sure, you can turn them off, but then the website doesn't work.) I'm sure everyone has been directed to that website where the thing takes over your browser and spawns ten thousand windows saying "YOU ARE AN IDIOT" which bounce incessantly around the screen while Ode to Joy plays. And MSIE allows it to happen.

Of course, none of this has to happen if the operating system and browser don't allow it. Simply put, it wouldn't take that much effort by Microsoft to give the users the power to decide what programs do what to their computer. It wouldn't take an overhaul of the browser to not allow websites to totally take over your computer.

I run Blackbox, and never once has an application invaded my program menu, nor could they if they wanted to, because they don't even know where the file is located, as there are no Blackbox registry keys. Same with Firebird, the browser I use. Javascript scripts can't take over my computer, call me an idiot and play stupid music unless I say they can. So, in light of the fact that open-source applications give power to the user is such a simple and easy way, doesn't it seem stupid that Windows products don't do the same thing?

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by Vino
Not to get into a piss fight, but it seems really stupid that there be a registry value to delay how long it takes to open the start menu. What is it's purpose? Why isn't it set to something low on default? After all, 99% of computer users want their software to be fast and responsive, nobody wants hidden registry values that delay the opening of a central element on their desktop. What purpose does it serve? Why not just open the menu already?

I use Blackbox for windows, and I right click on the desktop to get a menu of items to execute. I created this menu myself, so when applications install they don't add themselves to the list without my permission. The menu opens instantly, no matter what, and since the Blackbox drawing code is insanely fast and efficient (in fact it was retained from the Linux version of Blackbox) I don't have any delay in opening the programs I use.

Clearly, Microsoft has other priorities besides user functionality if they are hiding registry components that intentionally slow down loading of essential desktop elements. They set up the system to allow programs which the user may or may not approve to invade the user's system and set up shop, adding registry keys, start menu shortcuts, desktop icons, file associations, and automatically running itself on startup. Simply put, any application you download has free reign over the system.

Moreover, any website that an MSIE user visits has full control over the browser. They can start javascript scripts, activex plugins, send cookies, and do other intrusive things without the permission of the user. (Sure, you can turn them off, but then the website doesn't work.) I'm sure everyone has been directed to that website where the thing takes over your browser and spawns ten thousand windows saying "YOU ARE AN IDIOT" which bounce incessantly around the screen while Ode to Joy plays. And MSIE allows it to happen.

Of course, none of this has to happen if the operating system and browser don't allow it. Simply put, it wouldn't take that much effort by Microsoft to give the users the power to decide what programs do what to their computer. It wouldn't take an overhaul of the browser to not allow websites to totally take over your computer.

I run Blackbox, and never once has an application invaded my program menu, nor could they if they wanted to, because they don't even know where the file is located, as there are no Blackbox registry keys. Same with Firebird, the browser I use. Javascript scripts can't take over my computer, call me an idiot and play stupid music unless I say they can. So, in light of the fact that open-source applications give power to the user is such a simple and easy way, doesn't it seem stupid that Windows products don't do the same thing?

ok, i just wanted to see your reasoning behind it, i dont agree that it's "insanely stupid", because the default delay time is quite small and after working in a computer shop i cant recall any users asking for their startmenu to open any faster. but, that's not to say i agree with it, i dont know the reason for the setting, and i dont like it, and everytime i install windows for myself i always set it to 0. but in the big schemed of clueless users it's not a big issue.

btw firebird is awesome, i use it exclusively also, except for very few pages that it doesn't handle well (which i havent actually come across for awhile).

 

[Vino]

Heh, well most computer users who have problems don't understand that the slowness of the start menu is not their fault, and that it could be faster if Microsoft didn't have their ulterior motives.

BTW, sorry about the harangue

 

[Echelon]

Re: linux - no applications that i want

Originally posted by peoplesuc
hope that lawsuit kills open source and with it linux.

You can earn money by programming software for linux. WineX costs money..vmware for linux also does. or star office (bad example). tehre'S enough software which has to be bought (incase u need it .
imagine someone who writes games for linux, like for windows. they still can demand money for their products .

You really wan't a monopoly for M$? where they can take as much money for their (P)OS as they wan't to cuz there's no other choise? where they can sit on their chairs rubbing their nuts doing nothing, while there are 20 new bugs a day discovered? i don't think apple is a alternate for you when windooze can't be used anymore due to it's price or bugs.

Originally posted by Mountain Man
Yes, let's eliminate open standards and choice! While we're at it, let's give Bill Gates a license to print his own money.

it aint billy anymore who's in charge but steve balmer, he's the chief of M$ but billy would get the money though, even if steve prints it.

 

[Echelon]

You can earn money by programming software for linux. WineX costs money..vmware for linux also does. or star office (bad example), or opera (nice browser for both windooze AND linux). there's enough software which has to be bought (incase u need it .
imagine someone who writes games for linux, like for windows. they still can demand money for their products .

imagine the case where open source or in this case linux gets killed:
most of the servers in the internet would have to be shut down. no more irc ( i guess you're in the gamesnet or quakenet somewhere. remember, they're ALL running on linux, xept for one which costs 1500$ right from M$), no dedicated linux servers (right in a match : "damn, the windooze server crashed, i need to restart it ...). most industry tools and small computers are running on embedded linux. about 50? maybe 70?% less https (damn, apache or (insert opensource web server here) is gone..). dunno about the cisco routers..i think they also run on linux or some sort of it. they make up to 60% of the internets routers (not the small home routers but the big mashines of your isp).

so basically you'd rather kill half the internet (no idea whether the trans pacific and trans atlantic backbone servers are running on linux, too..but i guess they do) than learning how to work with another os? it for sure aint much more difficult than learning how to properly work with windoze. i'm not talking bout installing and playing games or sending emails, but properly securing your system and protecting it against viruses, trojans ans so on. you need to learn that for windozw too.

linux offers almost as much as windooze does (ogl, dx9, quicktime(i hate quicktime) office applications (you also can read .doc documents on linux without having to bother about macro viruses) or open emails without executing the attachments instantly like outlook likes to do. btw: did i mention you have to pay for WineX?(not Wine) you also have to pay for M$ software (remember something? ..imagine ppl begin to code games for linux on dx9, the Wine programmers will get more than 60k a year...)

while we are at it, let's discuss about software patents
im counting the days until someone is gonna patent "hello world" and things like "cout<<"";" or "for(..;..;..){..}" and you hae to learn a new language cuz major parts of a certain language and it's standard algorithms have been patented...("hey..u'r notepad like application is a copy of mine! i just patented the algorithm for printing text on a textbox, now i'm gonna sue you!"

sorry for the "misquote" mountain man

Originally posted by Mountain Man
Yes, let's eliminate open standards and choice! While we're at it, let's give Bill Gates a license to print his own money.

btw..the 15 minute edit limit sucks sorry..and did i mention that i hate the 70mb big IE POS? and the 270mb big outlook POS? makes like 340 mb useless wasted space, where i could have one 2.5 mb big program, which has more features than IE and outlook together but is only one program(opera) and 100 times more stable.

 

[The Mullinator]

Originally posted by Echelon
You can earn money by programming software for linux. WineX costs money..vmware for linux also does. or star office (bad example), or opera (nice browser for both windooze AND linux). there's enough software which has to be bought (incase u need it .
imagine someone who writes games for linux, like for windows. they still can demand money for their products .

imagine the case where open source or in this case linux gets killed:
most of the servers in the internet would have to be shut down. no more irc ( i guess you're in the gamesnet or quakenet somewhere. remember, they're ALL running on linux, xept for one which costs 1500$ right from M$), no dedicated linux servers (right in a match : "damn, the windooze server crashed, i need to restart it ...). most industry tools and small computers are running on embedded linux. about 50? maybe 70?% less https (damn, apache or (insert opensource web server here) is gone..). dunno about the cisco routers..i think they also run on linux or some sort of it. they make up to 60% of the internets routers (not the small home routers but the big mashines of your isp).

so basically you'd rather kill half the internet (no idea whether the trans pacific and trans atlantic backbone servers are running on linux, too..but i guess they do) than learning how to work with another os? it for sure aint much more difficult than learning how to properly work with windoze. i'm not talking bout installing and playing games or sending emails, but properly securing your system and protecting it against viruses, trojans ans so on. you need to learn that for windozw too.

linux offers almost as much as windooze does (ogl, dx9, quicktime(i hate quicktime) office applications (you also can read .doc documents on linux without having to bother about macro viruses) or open emails without executing the attachments instantly like outlook likes to do. btw: did i mention you have to pay for WineX?(not Wine) you also have to pay for M$ software (remember something? ..imagine ppl begin to code games for linux on dx9, the Wine programmers will get more than 60k a year...)

while we are at it, let's discuss about software patents
im counting the days until someone is gonna patent "hello world" and things like "cout<<"";" or "for(..;..;..){..}" and you hae to learn a new language cuz major parts of a certain language and it's standard algorithms have been patented...("hey..u'r notepad like application is a copy of mine! i just patented the algorithm for printing text on a textbox, now i'm gonna sue you!"

sorry for the "misquote" mountain man



btw..the 15 minute edit limit sucks sorry..and did i mention that i hate the 70mb big IE POS? and the 270mb big outlook POS? makes like 340 mb useless wasted space, where i could have one 2.5 mb big program, which has more features than IE and outlook together but is only one program(opera) and 100 times more stable.

Amen to everything you just said.

Especially about the Opera browser. For the longest time I used IE then I found out about Opera which has WAY more than IE could ever offer and in a much smaller, much more stable package. All I use now is Opera.