WannaCrypt Makes an Easy Case for Linux

[ManofGod]

Why don't you leave the personal attacks for people with more then 20 posts... and stick to the topic. All I have seen him post is a few rebuttals of poor assumptions / info... an analogy that you could disagree with if you like but I can see how he was trying to explain his point... which is a simple truth Linux by design wouldn't be as easily compromised by a SMB exploit. Windows isn't designed properly, its origin as a GUI file manager for dos shows. (sorry MS described Win 1 as a "device manager" for dos 2.0). Linux and its Minix/BSD/GNU origin is more suited by design to resist malware exploits. That isn't to say its not possible to compromise a Linux system, its simply far more difficult. Describing them as the 3 piggies houses may not be completely accurate, but I see his point. Once you compromise windows its pretty much your bitch, to do the same to a Linux running system you have compromise a lot more then one or two systems. For a malware to get in to a Linux system, then encrypt user data or system data or install Crypto currency farming software ect ect would require 5 or 6 different exploits... and due to the modular nature of Linux the code to target multiple systems would be on the large size. Not impossible, just well beyond the ability of your average script kiddie.

I often disagree with you because you use out of this world and off the wall possibilities that have no hope of ever coming to pass. For example, the idea that Windows needs to use the Linux kernel or the idea that a Chromebook will replace the Windows desktop in a corporate enviroment. Cloud base computing is not replacement but just simply an additional feature and even with dumb terminals, only the locally hosted servers are going to properly support that.

The biggest issue with the Chromebook / Cloud based argument is that it heavily relies on an always on and extremely hi speed internet connection. Having no local network setup means that the company is completely down without internet access.

 

[ManofGod]

I agree. 400,000 Windows boxes is a heck of a lot more than zero Linux boxes. And that's the difference between Windows and Linux.

So then, why did the Linux based web and email servers not stop this infection from spreading? The fact is, it made it all the way to the desktops from ground zero across Linux based servers which should be designed to stop it in the first place. Sounds like the Linux Web server OS could stand some improvement.

 

[Qchan]

So then, why did the Linux based web and email servers not stop this infection from spreading? The fact is, it made it all the way to the desktops from ground zero across Linux based servers which should be designed to stop it in the first place. Sounds like the Linux Web server OS could stand some improvement.

LOL!

That's like asking why didn't the cows and pigs stop the Ebola virus from spreading.... Seriously?

 

[ManofGod]

LOL!

That's like asking why didn't the cows and pigs stop the Ebola virus from spreading.... Seriously?

One seriously has nothing to do with the other. Please give me a good reason why the Linux based servers could not help stop stuff like this from spreading?

 

[heatlesssun]

I agree. 400,000 Windows boxes is a heck of a lot more than zero Linux boxes. And that's the difference between Windows and Linux.

And the 1.5 billion Windows desktops not effected by this is far more than the number of Linux desktops that even exist. If there were some malware that effected 1 in 1500 Linux desktops it wouldn't have made mainstream news.

 

[Qchan]

One seriously has nothing to do with the other. Please give me a good reason why the Linux based servers could not help stop stuff like this from spreading?

Because that's not Linux's job. Linux's job is not to cover for a less secure operating system that's flawed by design. Its job is to secure itself and anyone who uses it. Who cares what nasties and evils are out there in the wild? As long as my stuff is safe and my system is rock hard stable, I couldn't care less.

 

[Qchan]

And the 1.5 billion Windows desktops not effected by this is far more than the number of Linux desktops that even exist. If there were some malware that effected 1 in 1500 Linux desktops it wouldn't have made mainstream news.

Well, lets not forget the Bash vulnerability that became a big scare a few years ago. This vulnerability was patched so fast that my head spun. The EternalBlue vulnerability that the WannaCry worm used was UNPATCHED, and not because people didn't want to patch their systems, but because Microsoft didn't want to let those individuals patch their boxes. This is inherently the biggest problem with Windows besides its own design flaws.

Now, what you said would make sense if vulnerabilities weren't being patched on Linux, but the fact is, vulnerabilities are patched much quicker on Linux than on Windows. The Bash vulnerability was patched in a matter of a few hours after it was announced. EternalBlue? Months!

So, despite the number of unaffected Windows boxes out there, without a stable means of patching and patching on time, you're still skating on thin ice with Windows.

 

[heatlesssun]

Because that's not Linux's job. Linux's job is not to cover for a less secure operating system that's flawed by design. Its job is to secure itself and anyone who uses it. Who cares what nasties and evils are out there in the wild? As long as my stuff is safe and my system is rock hard stable, I couldn't care less.

Fair enough. When desktop Linux gets close enough to Windows in its hardware and software support most everyone will be happy to use the desktop Linux you and others describe as inherently more secure and far easier to update Han Windows. Tossing out Windows is easy. It's everything else that makes it complicated.

 

[ChadD]

Basically, I see no good reason for any company to switch to Linux as a Desktop OS or for any company to switch to a cloud based only setup. If someone had started on Linux when they first opened their company, I can see them continuing on what they are using but, if a company IT setup was built up using Windows as their primary OS, I see no good reason to switch away from it and plenty of reasons to stay with it.

Fact is, since quite a few of the Internet servers are built using a Linux Server OS, why are they not designed to stop the spread of these type of infections in the first place? It seems to me that for something that is used as the backbone of the internet, the back is pretty weak.

I'm not sure things work the way you think they work. lol

As for why do companies switch. Clearly you never have been the one signing off on MILLIONS of dollars in some cases in licencing fees to MS.

Reasons companies switch to Linux terminals / desktops.

1) software costs
2) hardward costs (yes MS windows and its updates have a tendency to require more hardware investment)
3) More secure... argue all you want everyone knows this to be true and its one reason they rule the server space
4) no driver issues. updates breaking hardware drivers don't happen.
5) terminals are far easier to lock down properly... and no worry about Joe or Sarah in accounting plugging in an infected USB stick from home.
6) larger companies can setup in house managed software catalogs. Allowing branches or depts to install software as needed per terminal.
7) easier less painful updating... that rarely requires pausing workflow.
8) easy of use. (thats right I said it) its easier to use the windows. Larger companies can roll out completely custom desktop experiences. Doing things like allowing X employee group to access stupid simple 3 button interfaces ect. From experience I can tell you yes allowing the shipping dept to launch two programs and that's it is seen as a big plus by boss types.
9) for smaller companies that aren't paying thee big licencing dollars... privacy.
10) Open source... companies large enough can build out customised bits if needed. This is mainly a big advantage in the server space... still their are some companies that do implement customised desktop code. (Google and their internal GooBuntu being one example)
11) Commercial support choices... if you don't like MS to bad. With Linux Redhat/Suse/Ubuntu you can take your pick and switching later isn't all that big a deal.
12) Uptime... I covered this already with the update issue. Its not a big deal for most companies terminals. Still if you need a machine to run for weeks or months without fail Linux is the only option.
13) infrastructure standardisation. Most companies with servers are going to have Linux servers. Standardising systems finds cost savings.

There are 100s of other reasons... the better question imo is why use windows ?

 

[ManofGod]

Because that's not Linux's job. Linux's job is not to cover for a less secure operating system that's flawed by design. Its job is to secure itself and anyone who uses it. Who cares what nasties and evils are out there in the wild? As long as my stuff is safe and my system is rock hard stable, I couldn't care less.

That is hardly a good reason and seems to be more of a weakness than anything else. Having those abilities on the server end would go a long way to mitigating these issues. Also, I said nothing about Windows.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well, lets not forget the Bash vulnerability that became a big scare a few years ago. This vulnerability was patched so fast that my head spun. The EternalBlue vulnerability that the WannaCry worm used was UNPATCHED, and not because people didn't want to patch their systems, but because Microsoft didn't want to let those individuals patch their boxes. This is inherently the biggest problem with Windows besides its own design flaws.

Huh? Windows 7 was the version by far most effected by WannaCry and the patch was available for two months prior.

 

[Chuklr]

...

Fact is, since quite a few of the Internet servers are built using a Linux Server OS, why are they not designed to stop the spread of these type of infections in the first place? It seems to me that for something that is used as the backbone of the internet, the back is pretty weak.

I've been wondering about this, as well. The only thing I can think of that might explain it is that since Linux is "resistant" to viruses, etc. the idea of searching for same doesn't cross the responsible parties mind. Besides there might not even been software in existence that can accomplish this?

 

[ChadD]

I often disagree with you because you use out of this world and off the wall possibilities that have no hope of ever coming to pass. For example, the idea that Windows needs to use the Linux kernel or the idea that a Chromebook will replace the Windows desktop in a corporate enviroment. Cloud base computing is not replacement but just simply an additional feature and even with dumb terminals, only the locally hosted servers are going to properly support that.

The biggest issue with the Chromebook / Cloud based argument is that it heavily relies on an always on and extremely hi speed internet connection. Having no local network setup means that the company is completely down without internet access.

Almost every company already is down if their internet goes down. Any company with remote branches REQUIRES their internet always on. That describes a great number of companies at this point. As for the cloud, you might as well get used to it. Its the future even MS says so.

If your servers run Linux... and your dumb terminals run ChromeOS or a stripped down Linux distro. It doesn't really make a bunch of sense to support a handful of windows machines for a few users who need offline mode. That is what people miss about company wide Linux switches. Most companies have had Linux moving in for years on the backend. Many have used some form of Linux dumb terminal for things like shipping terminals ect. At some point companies start looking at what they are paying for 10-20% of their staff to licence windows and decide its not worth it anymore... when they realise most of their software is cloud based anyway. Cloud based accounting / payroll and the like are becoming more wide spread now, and that is the type of stuff that was keeping companies tied to windows and MS licencing fees.

 

[ChadD]

I've been wondering about this, as well. The only thing I can think of that might explain it is that since Linux is "resistant" to viruses, etc. the idea of searching for same doesn't cross the responsible parties mind. Besides there might not even been software in existence that can accomplish this?

So you are saying you want your ISP to filter your internet traffic and sniff it for "viruses". Sounds great... I'm sure that will go over well.

 

[ChadD]

One seriously has nothing to do with the other. Please give me a good reason why the Linux based servers could not help stop stuff like this from spreading?

Cause it would mean opening every bit of traffic on the internet to inspection. Papers please.

 

[Chuklr]

So you are saying you want your ISP to filter your internet traffic and sniff it for "viruses". Sounds great... I'm sure that will go over well.

My ISP does that already. I don't know if they are running Linux or Windows servers, but they advertise it as a reason to use them ... not that I have a choice as they are the only DSL provider in my neck of the woods.

 

[ChadD]

My ISP does that already. I don't know if they are running Linux or Windows servers, but they advertise it as a reason to use them ... not that I have a choice as they are the only DSL provider in my neck of the woods.

So you admit if you had an option that didn't sniff your traffic you would use them instead.

I don't think anyone wants their ISP or any other entity on the internet. To scan every single .jpg they upload or download.... every .docx file. How about scanning the tax info you sent to your Gov when you eFile.

Frankly if any ISP is scanning close enough to detect virus code... you have ZERO privacy. Not to mention they could never scan for encrypted code anyway. So even if you gave them that much licence.... they still couldn't stop everything anyway.

Sometimes the simple solution is the best. Its like the terrible old joke... about the doctor where he says if it hurts don't use it. Well if its prone to get infections all the time... don't use it. Windows and MS are both the best and worse thing that ever happened to home computing. I give it to them in the 80s and 90s no one was going to buy Unix machines to use at home... MS made the home computer revolution happen lowering the cost of entry. At this point their OS designed for home computers is not up to par... now that low cost Unix like systems such as Linux and BSD run on the same (or cheaper) hardware. Its time for the industry to evolve past MS, windows security is the most glaringly obvious proof of the need.

 

[Vermillion]

And then the update debate. Not at all saying it's perfect process but if it were as broken as some seem to claim I don't see how anyone could ever update a Windows devices without constant, deal breaking issues. I don't see how we'd be able to update 200k Windows 7 devices each and every month pretty much without issue. Or even how I'd even be able to update my 8 personal Windows 10 devices constantly without major issues.

The issue with Windows Update isn't that it breaks machines left and right. It's that the update process itself sucks ass. It's slow. It gets in the way of usability. It's ridiculously slow. It requires a shitload of reboots for stupid things (ALPS Touchpad driver. Really? Seriously? A fucking touchpad driver requires a reboot?). It's unbearably slow.

Yesterday Linux kernel 4.11 (4.11.2 to be exact) was finally released on Arch Linux stable channel. Not a small update at all.

sudo pacman -Syu

Done in about 60 seconds. I had to reboot because I have Virtual Box installed and the VBox modules need that reboot. No messy "Getting Windows Ready" shutdown screen. No "Updating Windows Screen." It's simply , download, install, reboot in under 15 seconds and back to work. That's what is wrong with Windows Update. Updating should be painless and not get in the users way.

The clumsiness of Windows Update is why I have users that are offsite who never update their machine. Users don't want to wait or fuck with Windows Update because it's been nothing but a big hassle for decades. I had a user who brought their laptop to me last month the week the Creators Update was released. After booting the system I simply handed them a new laptop. Working on the one they handed me wasn't worth a single minute of my time. Because this user was so upset with Windows Update because it "takes so long" (the users words exactly) the system hadn't even been updated to the Anniversary Update yet. He was honestly booting the system using it offline, connecting, pushing his data to where it needed to go, and then disconnecting again. That way the system never updated automatically.

That's why Windows Update sucks.

 

[Chuklr]

So you admit if you had an option that didn't sniff your traffic you would use them instead.

I don't think anyone wants their ISP or any other entity on the internet. To scan every single .jpg they upload or download.... every .docx file. How about scanning the tax info you sent to your Gov when you eFile.

Frankly if any ISP is scanning close enough to detect virus code... you have ZERO privacy. Not to mention they could never scan for encrypted code anyway. So even if you gave them that much licence.... they still couldn't stop everything anyway.

Sometimes the simple solution is the best. Its like the terrible old joke... about the doctor where he says if it hurts don't use it. Well if its prone to get infections all the time... don't use it. Windows and MS are both the best and worse thing that ever happened to home computing. I give it to them in the 80s and 90s no one was going to buy Unix machines to use at home... MS made the home computer revolution happen lowering the cost of entry. At this point their OS designed for home computers is not up to par... now that low cost Unix like systems such as Linux and BSD run on the same (or cheaper) hardware. Its time for the industry to evolve past MS, windows security is the most glaringly obvious proof of the need.

No, that's an overreach by you. I like the fact my ISP, on their end, monitors for "nasties" and also culls any "spam" before I see it. I review the decisions the software they use makes and make any adjustments that I deem necessary.

BTW, the way I look at it that you have no privacy as soon as you connect to the internet.

I do what I think is appropriate for me on my end to find and remove "nasties" as I know that my ISP can catch everything. I may not be smart, but I can lift heavy things.

 

[ChadD]

That is hardly a good reason and seems to be more of a weakness than anything else. Having those abilities on the server end would go a long way to mitigating these issues. Also, I said nothing about Windows.

Companies that have their own servers... DO have internal virus scanning options that run on Linux and protect their networks ugly windows terminals. You simply don't want ISPs scanning all your personal stuffs.

 

[Qchan]

Huh? Windows 7 was the version by far most effected by WannaCry and the patch was available for two months prior.

I was referring to Windows XP in particular, since the patch was only available to a certain subset of people, but I never specified, and that was my fault. So, I will humbly call out my own mistake.

In practice, whenever there's a 0-day exploit, Microsoft takes their time in developing a patch. This is just common knowledge.

 

[Vermillion]

My ISP does that already. I don't know if they are running Linux or Windows servers, but they advertise it as a reason to use them ... not that I have a choice as they are the only DSL provider in my neck of the woods.

That's a lot of snake oil they're selling. I hope that's not something you have to pay for. They can't scan anything HTTPS (50+% of Internet is HTTPS now and growing) unless you installed a root certificate from them that would allow them to intercept, decrypt, scan, encrypt, and send the data on it's way.

 

[ChadD]

No, that's an overreach by you. I like the fact my ISP, on their end, monitors for "nasties" and also culls any "spam" before I see it. I review the decisions the software they use makes and make any adjustments that I deem necessary.

BTW, the way I look at it that you have no privacy as soon as you connect to the internet.

I do what I think is appropriate for me on my end to find and remove "nasties" as I know that my ISP can catch everything. I may not be smart, but I can lift heavy things.

For the record... most ISPs do monitor known exploit ports. They do filter email from known bad sources (with out scanning content... if your friend emails you a virus you'll still get it). The issue with this SMB exploit is its using channels used for legit purposes.

 

[grtitan]

you have ZERO privacy

They dont care about stuff like, all they care is to justify and defend their favorite corporations blindly.

Many places do install antivirus software on their linux servers just to protect the insecure windows machines in the domain.

Of course, stuff like that is always ignored by the shills here, that at this point are just trolling this thread.

Just do yourself a favor, placed them in your ignore list and move on, they are really making this place suck.

 

[Chuklr]

That's a lot of snake oil they're selling. I hope that's not something you have to pay for. They can't scan anything HTTPS (50+% of Internet is HTTPS now and growing) unless you installed a root certificate from them that would allow them to intercept, decrypt, scan, encrypt, and send the data on it's way.

Don't worry about it ... they don't charge extra, and if they did I wouldn't pay for it.

 

[Chuklr]

For the record... most ISPs do monitor known exploit ports. They do filter email from known bad sources (with out scanning content... if your friend emails you a virus you'll still get it). The issue with this SMB exploit is its using channels used for legit purposes.

Yeah, I understand the basic stuff with emails etc. I also understand that keeping a system patched no matter what OS is being run is something one should do.

Should I ever decide to do so, I could just use one of my Linux installs to check my emails.

 

[Chuklr]

...

Just do yourself a favor, placed them in your ignore list and move on, they are really making this place suck.

I've never utilized the ignore function. Not because I haven't been tempted, but because I believe everyone has a right to share their opinions and ideas within the rules of the Forums, in this case.

I'm not afraid to read posts I disagree with.

Just my 2¢.

 

[grtitan]

I've never utilized the ignore function. Not because I haven't been tempted, but because I believe everyone has a right to share their opinions and ideas within the rules of the Forums, in this case.

I'm not afraid to read posts I disagree with.

Just my 2¢.

Nothing wrong if the person was really providing something to the thread or at the very least trying, but at this point, they are not and instead, are just trying to derail it with nonsense responses.

I dont have to agree with everything everyone says, in the same way, nobody has to do the same for my comments, but I hate having a conversation polluted and forced to manually skip comments.

The ignore just takes care of that part and allows me to utilize my already limited time for a more productive endeavor.

 

[lcpiper]

Honestly, what you're doing is damage control, which at this point, is silly. You're whole point is that Windows is just as secure as Linux under the US Army's supervision..

No, that is not my point at all. But there isn't much to gain by continuing if you can't figure out what my point is, now is there?

 

[heatlesssun]

The issue with Windows Update isn't that it breaks machines left and right. It's that the update process itself sucks ass. It's slow. It gets in the way of usability. It's ridiculously slow. It requires a shitload of reboots for stupid things (ALPS Touchpad driver. Really? Seriously? A fucking touchpad driver requires a reboot?). It's unbearably slow.

Yesterday Linux kernel 4.11 (4.11.2 to be exact) was finally released on Arch Linux stable channel. Not a small update at all.

sudo pacman -Syu

Done in about 60 seconds. I had to reboot because I have Virtual Box installed and the VBox modules need that reboot. No messy "Getting Windows Ready" shutdown screen. No "Updating Windows Screen." It's simply , download, install, reboot in under 15 seconds and back to work. That's what is wrong with Windows Update. Updating should be painless and not get in the users way.

The clumsiness of Windows Update is why I have users that are offsite who never update their machine. Users don't want to wait or fuck with Windows Update because it's been nothing but a big hassle for decades. I had a user who brought their laptop to me last month the week the Creators Update was released. After booting the system I simply handed them a new laptop. Working on the one they handed me wasn't worth a single minute of my time. Because this user was so upset with Windows Update because it "takes so long" (the users words exactly) the system hadn't even been updated to the Anniversary Update yet. He was honestly booting the system using it offline, connecting, pushing his data to where it needed to go, and then disconnecting again. That way the system never updated automatically.

That's why Windows Update sucks.

So personally generally once a month I press an update button on my machines or take the update on my work machine, go back to what I was doing while the updates are downloading and installing, and then sometime later reboot when it's convenient. The reboot on my faster devices is generally 5 minutes, 10 on the slower ones. Whatever the experiences others have with Windows update are what they are having with it. But for me it's hardly anything that interrupts anything or all that time consuming beyond the reboots. I spend more time dealing with updating games, software and drivers for various things. And almost none of that stuff runs on desktop Linux anyway.

So even if Linux updating works better, it doesn't do me a lot of good when the bulk of the stuff that is getting updated constantly doesn't even run on Linux. Well sure NVidia drivers do but they are generally getting updated for games that don't run on Linux.

 

[heatlesssun]

I was referring to Windows XP in particular, since the patch was only available to a certain subset of people, but I never specified, and that was my fault. So, I will humbly call out my own mistake.

In practice, whenever there's a 0-day exploit, Microsoft takes their time in developing a patch. This is just common knowledge.

Funny thing is that apparently WannaCry didn't work well on XP according to info out for it. And, in fairness, the warnings about XP have been there for many years now so that can't be completely ignored. But sure, if Microsoft is patching stuff for XP then just release it.

As for zero days, sure, Microsoft could be faster. But developing, validating and deploying a change to Windows isn't trivial. Sure it can be done more quickly on Linux, they patch the thing with basic testing and just deploy it.

 

[Qchan]

So personally generally once a month I press an update button on my machines or take the update on my work machine, go back to what I was doing while the updates are downloading and installing, and then sometime later reboot when it's convenient. The reboot on my faster devices is generally 5 minutes, 10 on the slower ones. Whatever the experiences others have with Windows update are what they are having with it. But for me it's hardly anything that interrupts anything or all that time consuming beyond the reboots. I spend more time dealing with updating games, software and drivers for various things. And almost none of that stuff runs on desktop Linux anyway.

So even if Linux updating works better, it doesn't do me a lot of good when the bulk of the stuff that is getting updated constantly doesn't even run on Linux. Well sure NVidia drivers do but they are generally getting updated for games that don't run on Linux.

Listen. I have a gaming rig too that runs Windows 10. I don't try to update that box for anything, because I simply don't care. So what? A virus infects my gaming rig. I format that sucker, reinstall the OS and reinstall my games via Steam. My saves are in Valve's cloud anyway, so I don't have to worry about it. Then BAM! I'm back in business. However, when it comes to my workstation, my data takes top priority, and I can't afford to reformat it. So, you know what I do? I have a separate Linux box for my web browsing, work and mission critical data. That box never reboots, nor should it, because Linux updates don't require it (unless they are kernel patches). That's how it SHOULD be. You should set up your network the same way. Have a dedicated box for gaming and a dedicated box for everything else.

 

[Vermillion]

So personally generally once a month I press an update button on my machines or take the update on my work machine, go back to what I was doing while the updates are downloading and installing, and then sometime later reboot when it's convenient. The reboot on my faster devices is generally 5 minutes, 10 on the slower ones. Whatever the experiences others have with Windows update are what they are having with it. But for me it's hardly anything that interrupts anything or all that time consuming beyond the reboots. I spend more time dealing with updating games, software and drivers for various things. And almost none of that stuff runs on desktop Linux anyway.

So even if Linux updating works better, it doesn't do me a lot of good when the bulk of the stuff that is getting updated constantly doesn't even run on Linux. Well sure NVidia drivers do but they are generally getting updated for games that don't run on Linux.

And there you go once again bringing up games and how they don't run on Linux and make it all about you. Blah blah blah. I never said a damn thing about games and much less YOU (you're not special). I gave an explanation about how Windows Update sucks compared to Linux. I gave a direct example of how a very average user sees it as a pain in the ass so he simply doesn't bother updating. I gave you direct examples of stupid shit Windows Update does like the Touchpad driver. Yet you ignore all that and basically say "It's OK guys! It's not an issue! It doesn't cause me and ma games grief".

Any new E5470 I build right now reboots 3 times per build. One is for that ALPS driver and ONLY THE DRIVER. It needs it's own install and reboot. Ridiculous! The sitting at 95% download for 15-20 minutes. Stupid. The Getting Windows Ready screen is beyond annoying. Then you get ANOTHER Windows Update screen. Bottom line the update process in Windows blows.

 

[ChadD]

So even if Linux updating works better, it doesn't do me a lot of good when the bulk of the stuff that is getting updated constantly doesn't even run on Linux. Well sure NVidia drivers do but they are generally getting updated for games that don't run on Linux.

You really have no idea what your talking about do you ? lol Nvidia updates their linux drivers cause yes believe it or not to improve actual Linux software.

And please stop with the OHHH my softwarezzz every time you loose an argument.

 

[ChadD]

Funny thing is that apparently WannaCry didn't work well on XP according to info out for it. And, in fairness, the warnings about XP have been there for many years now so that can't be completely ignored. But sure, if Microsoft is patching stuff for XP then just release it.

As for zero days, sure, Microsoft could be faster. But developing, validating and deploying a change to Windows isn't trivial. Sure it can be done more quickly on Linux, they patch the thing with basic testing and just deploy it.

MS doesn't even test anything anymore judging by the number of issues they have had with updates since the move to 10. Yes XP machines are old and many of them crash instead of being corrupted... and a bunch of windows 7 machines didn't get infected because they where already infected by other malware which closed the port.

Yes MS could be faster... and they could perhaps refrain from selling holes to Gov agencies. Their is a very good chance MS knew about this flaw years ago, and simply didn't patch it because someone asked them not to.

I prefer an open system where no one company can be extorted or paid to hold security flaws open. Closed source Operating systems will always be less secure.

 

[lcpiper]

And there you go once again bringing up games and how they don't run on Linux and make it all about you. Blah blah blah. I never said a damn thing about games and much less YOU (you're not special). I gave an explanation about how Windows Update sucks compared to Linux. I gave a direct example of how a very average user sees it as a pain in the ass so he simply doesn't bother updating. I gave you direct examples of stupid shit Windows Update does like the Touchpad driver. Yet you ignore all that and basically say "It's OK guys! It's not an issue! It doesn't cause me and ma games grief".

Any new E5470 I build right now reboots 3 times per build. One is for that ALPS driver and ONLY THE DRIVER. It needs it's own install and reboot. Ridiculous! The sitting at 95% download for 15-20 minutes. Stupid. The Getting Windows Ready screen is beyond annoying. Then you get ANOTHER Windows Update screen. Bottom line the update process in Windows blows.

OK, I'm not with you here at all.

Windows update is simply not the great big pain in the ass you claim it is. Oh it's true, once in awhile I want to log off and go to sleep and update wants to do it's thing. It's also true, once in awhile I wake up and it's waiting to great me. But it's not like this all the time and it's usually not that terribly inconvenient, it's occasionally inconvenient. It's never once bricked my machine, and it's never once cost me data. And I update drivers enough to know it doesn't always require a reboot so maybe that issue with your ALPS Driver isn't a Windows issue but an issue with the manufacturer of your touchpad and their software.

And on the flip side, that again, too many people want to gloss over and ignore, MS big customer is not Joe SixPack but the Enterprise customers and they patch at night or during off-peak hours, they use WSUS, and they rarely have serious problems that couldn't have been avoided if they had tested things first. Look you can argue all you want but it is not going to change these facts, MS completely dominates the business world on the desktop, and it's not going to be easy for any company or OS to change that.

 

[lcpiper]

I understood what you meant. Arguing about Linux taking over or not is a business argument not a philosophical one. I am likely not being all that clear on what I mean by replace MS either. I don't mean to say windows will go away completely. I get that they have long term contract with many companies and entities like the military. However they don't have 90% of the market because the army has a few billion dollars worth of desktops in bunkers. They have 90% because mom and pop average have windows machines at home... they used to have something closer to 95% of the market when they owned education. Now thy have less then 25% of the education market... and Google is the dominant share holder of that market. Over the next few years Google is going to invade the corporate space no matter what Heatles bank does. Dump terminals are all that is required for many companies moving to the cloud... they easier to maintain, protect, roll out and they are cheap. Google has dominated education because they are inexpensive to support... support costs are the enemy not hardware or licencing costs. Issues with a remote google terminal... issues with such machines you simply replace them... or with no local data you simply remote restore an image and done.

No I doubt Linux ever gets to 50%+ of the market... however I can see it tying windows in 5 years in the 20% range. Apple isn't likely to move far off its 10% and Google will take up the rest of the market with a combo of ChromeOS / Android and likely a ChromeOS Pro type os if needed. If google goes after mom and pop average I don't see MS holding that off. Google has been showing they are more then capable of chasing MS out of markets at this point... MS counter attacks have been years late and weak.

No, no no no..... You have it backwards by far. First issue, you think it's about numbers of installations. It's not really, but I'll address that anyway, in what other markets does any company control close to 90% of market share?

Cars?, Aircraft? Guns? Cellphones? Consoles? Tractors? Where else is there such complete dominance of a market?

It's sort of unique.

But that is not the real issue here. The real issue is what kind of money that equates to. You think that more little people using windows is what makes this turn. It is not, it's the huge money that businesses and governments pay MS for their Enterprise services, of which, desktop OS's are a small part. The business world pays MS so much that all the little people are just along for the ride.

Let's transpose this to another market, say cars.

Let's say that MS sells cars instead of software and services.

And MS has built a good car, and 90% of the cars on the road are MS cars.

Now there are people that don't get why the MS car is so popular, they know that there are better cars available and that the MS car isn't the best car.

But what these people don't consider is that the government and the business world all buy MS cars. They buy MS cars, the pay MS to train mechanics to work on MS cars, they pay MS to develop new features for their cars, and they pay more for their cars then what MS makes when they sell their cars to the little people.

The little people are only a small percentage of MS real revenue compared to the big buyers. So if the big buyers want MS cars to have load-jack then MS will add load-jack and the little people will get load-jack too, even if they don't need it or want it because frankly, the little people don't pay enough for MS to change their production lines and offer their cars without load-jack. So you are getting load-jack whether you want it, or will use it.

And this is also why OEMs load their systems with Windows, because Dell might sell little people computers, but they make more from the Enterprise world and it just doesn't pay to offer alternatives for a sub-set of their non-primary, lower paying customers.

Now your other ideas like Google running off with everything, maybe, maybe not. Just because education is jumping on the Google bus doesn't mean they will stay there. A high school might embrace the cloud and Chromebooks, it doesn't mean they will become as successful a solution as the initial adoption suggests. They have to stay with Google for multiple tech refreshes to make it stick. I remember all those Ipads they bought in California Schools that the schools then dumped because they weren't really a good solution.

We have a bunch of thin clients sitting in boxes. Our PM walks through and it chaps his ass to see them sitting on the shelves being wasted. But they were a bad move, a poor solution, we are a developer shop and our developers are working with multiple software versions and they all have different tools etc, we would need many different builds for our deployment pools to cover all their needs. They are all happier with desktops and that's what they have cause in a development lab, it's the coders that get what they want, not the PM or the IT staff.

 

[BulletDust]

OK, I'm not with you here at all.

Windows update is simply not the great big pain in the ass you claim it is. Oh it's true, once in awhile I want to log off and go to sleep and update wants to do it's thing. It's also true, once in awhile I wake up and it's waiting to great me. But it's not like this all the time and it's usually not that terribly inconvenient, it's occasionally inconvenient. It's never once bricked my machine, and it's never once cost me data. And I update drivers enough to know it doesn't always require a reboot so maybe that issue with your ALPS Driver isn't a Windows issue but an issue with the manufacturer of your touchpad and their software.

And on the flip side, that again, too many people want to gloss over and ignore, MS big customer is not Joe SixPack but the Enterprise customers and they patch at night or during off-peak hours, they use WSUS, and they rarely have serious problems that couldn't have been avoided if they had tested things first. Look you can argue all you want but it is not going to change these facts, MS completely dominates the business world on the desktop, and it's not going to be easy for any company or OS to change that.

Windows update is a ridiculous PITA, no matter how you spin it there is literally no way you can defend that shit without looking like you suffer from some form of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[BulletDust]

I will admit that I have been following this forum for a few years. However, this is the first time I've created an account here.

I am certainly a Linux expert, but I am not an apologist. I just happen to know my stuff...

Is ManOfGod somehow implying that I've made two accounts on [H]?! Why on earth would I even consider such a childish act?

Qchan, welcome to [H] my friend. Users that know their stuff are always welcome!

 

[grtitan]

Users that know their stuff are always welcome

And only feed the trolls when we are bored...