Well, Hell just froze over... ;)

  • Thread starter Deleted member 245375
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
It was bound to happen sooner or later: Ubuntu, now available, for Windows.



I just find it utterly hilarious, and yes I'm well aware of the underpinnings with Windows 10 allowing this to be a reality, even so seeing it there on the Windows Store page gave me a good laugh for all of oh, about 7.3 seconds I suppose. :D And yes we knew this was coming sooner or later but it's still giving me some giggles each time I think about it anyway.

Remains to be seen how useful it is for Windows users I suppose, I prefer just running Linux distros in VMs, never had issues with that and since I'll never be using Windows 10 that's how it's gonna get done anyway for me.
 
Tiberian said:
It was bound to happen sooner or later: Ubuntu, now available, for Windows.



I just find it utterly hilarious, and yes I'm well aware of the underpinnings with Windows 10 allowing this to be a reality, even so seeing it there on the Windows Store page gave me a good laugh for all of oh, about 7.3 seconds I suppose. :D And yes we knew this was coming sooner or later but it's still giving me some giggles each time I think about it anyway.

Remains to be seen how useful it is for Windows users I suppose, I prefer just running Linux distros in VMs, never had issues with that and since I'll never be using Windows 10 that's how it's gonna get done anyway for me.
Click to expand...
Why use that shitty link site when you can just drop it into the editor here?
 
I've been using bash on ubuntu on windows for months now to use my devops team linux tools/bash scripts that aren't available to run on windows..... Works fantastic, and even the linux guys are impressed with the improvements MS has made.
 
I can understand having Windows inside Ubuntu, not the other way around. It's like building your castle on swampland.
 
MrCrispy said:
Please stop with the FUD. Windows kernel, NTFS etc are as reliable as anything in Linux.
Click to expand...

You're about a million times more likely to infect your Windows host than a linux one. Also Windows updates are about a dozen times more likely to mess up your host than the linux updates. You missed the point entirely.
 
B00nie said:
You're about a million times more likely to infect your Windows host than a linux one. Also Windows updates are about a dozen times more likely to mess up your host than the linux updates. You missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...

Like all client software, there's a lot more Windows malware out there than for Linux so sure that's a bigger risk with Windows. As for updating, that's a much more complicated matter with really no way to prove your point one way or the other. First of all, the desktop Linux base is much, much smaller than that of Windows and a very large percentage of those folks are experienced computer folks and are much better equipment to manage updates than typical Windows users. There so much hardware and software out there as well, there's no way to predict how all of those devices would react to any given update with any OS. Then there are systems that have a lot of Windows only supported hardware and software, how well Linux updates on those is largely irrelevant if Linux doesn't support the system fully in the first place.
 
heatlesssun said:
Like all client software, there's a lot more Windows malware out there than for Linux so sure that's a bigger risk with Windows. As for updating, that's a much more complicated matter with really no way to prove your point one way or the other. First of all, the desktop Linux base is much, much smaller than that of Windows and a very large percentage of those folks are experienced computer folks and are much better equipment to manage updates than typical Windows users. There so much hardware and software out there as well, there's no way to predict how all of those devices would react to any given update with any OS. Then there are systems that have a lot of Windows only supported hardware and software, how well Linux updates on those is largely irrelevant if Linux doesn't support the system fully in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes so you agree that it's far safer to run linux as the host and virtualize windows instead.
 
B00nie said:
Yes so you agree that it's far safer to run linux as the host and virtualize windows instead.
Click to expand...

Man, you are like an expert on taking things to the extremes in terms of extrapolating meaning where none exists. :D
 
Tiberian said:
Man, you are like an expert on taking things to the extremes in terms of extrapolating meaning where none exists. :D
Click to expand...

Heatless just agreed with me that there are far more risks related to running windows compared to linux. So a windows host is very likely to be compromised in one way or another if you use it. I treat every windows install as if it was known to be infected. Most of them are, anyway. Regardless of the user knowing it or not.
 
B00nie said:
Heatless just agreed with me that there are far more risks related to running windows compared to linux.
Click to expand...

I said there's far more malware, the overwhelming majority of which is easy to avoid with basic security practices. Hell even if you got hit with something like WannaCry, if you had backups you'd be able to at least recover. If you don't have good backups, Linux can't save you when a drive fails or some other disaster strikes.
 
heatlesssun said:
I said there's far more malware, the overwhelming majority of which is easy to avoid with basic security practices.
Click to expand...

ROFL! Famous last words. About a few millions (if not hundreds of millions) of currently infected Windows machines speak otherwise.
 
B00nie said:
ROFL! Famous last words. About a few millions (if not hundreds of millions) of currently infected Windows machines speak otherwise.
Click to expand...

LOL! Really, how many well maintained Windows devices following basic security practices get it with something like WannaCry? If it were impossible to reasonably secure Windows machines no one would run them because they'd always be getting hosed. Like all of them all of the time.
 
heatlesssun said:
I said there's far more malware, the overwhelming majority of which is easy to avoid with basic security practices.
Click to expand...

ROFL! Famous last words. About a few millions (if not hundreds of millions) of currently infected Windows machines speak otherwise.
heatlesssun said:
LOL! Really, how many well maintained Windows devices following basic security practices get it with something like WannaCry? If it were impossible to reasonably secure Windows machines no one would run them because they'd always be getting hosed. Like all of them all of the time.
Click to expand...

No home user follows basic security practices. Most home users download pirated media and software from unknown third party sources for example, even if you completely disregard all the fly-by attacks that utilise built in services in Windows and Microsoft software such as Office. It's simply not safe to use Windows.
 
B00nie said:
No home user follows basic security practices. Most home users download pirated media and software from unknown third party sources for example, even if you completely disregard all the fly-by attacks that utilise built in services in Windows and Microsoft software such as Office. It's simply not safe to use Windows.
Click to expand...

Those same home users would disregard security practices on Linux as well. They'd run things as root, download whatever from where ever, etc. Linux would protect them at this point simply because there's just not much desktop Linux malware out there. That would change if lost more desktop Linux users, especially inexperienced ones.

Whatever you're argument against Windows not being safe to use, it's used without malware incident by hundreds of millions of people daily. If it were as unsafe and bugged as you say no one would be able to use it.
 
heatlesssun said:
Those same home users would disregard security practices on Linux as well. They'd run things as root, download whatever from where ever, etc. Linux would protect them at this point simply because there's just not much desktop Linux malware out there. That would change if lost more desktop Linux users, especially inexperienced ones.

Whatever you're argument against Windows not being safe to use, it's used without malware incident by hundreds of millions of people daily. If it were as unsafe and bugged as you say no one would be able to use it.
Click to expand...

Eek no. Linux users do not run as root by default and the most common distros have taken steps to prevent that in general. The fact that there is no malware makes linux extremely secure to use currently. Even if you do something stupid, chances are you get a windows attack which does you nothing.

Also linux is made more secure in several ways, you can't for example execute a downloaded file by default.

So as long as the mindless masses stay with Windows and give a target rich environment for the criminals, linux remains unattacked and safe (and even if it's attacked, the open source nature enables very fast fixes to exploits). Nobody has to depend on Microsoft.
 
B00nie said:
Eek no. Linux users do not run as root by default and the most common distros have taken steps to prevent that in general.
Click to expand...

Most desktop Linux users are experienced computer users though and that's more important in security than the OS.

B00nie said:
The fact that there is no malware makes linux extremely secure to use currently.
Click to expand...

Sure as long as it's below the radar. But if desktop Linux is to ever grow from being an OS used by mostly technical folks then this isn't a guarantee. A large influx of novice Linux users, that'd be a great target for malware and hackers.

B00nie said:
Also linux is made more secure in several ways, you can't for example execute a downloaded file by default.
Click to expand...

Sure, and that's part of the security process that's great and fairly confusing for Linux newbies. And something experienced Windows users avoid unless they know what it is they are installing. Which should be the case regardless of the OS.

B00nie said:
So as long as the mindless masses stay with Windows and give a target rich environment for the criminals, linux remains unattacked and safe (and even if it's attacked, the open source nature enables very fast fixes to exploits). Nobody has to depend on Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as desktop Linux remains an OS used by a relatively small group of techies. Once those mindless masses start using desktop Linux, things will change, it's guaranteed.
 
I've been using this since it was available in insider preview. Had to jump trhough some hoops to "upgrade" to another version of linux, but it worked. It's kind of badass to be able to pipe data between DOS and Linux commands (grep, awk, sed, etc) and have them all play together.
 
MrCrispy said:
Please stop with the FUD. Windows kernel, NTFS etc are as reliable as anything in Linux.
Click to expand...

If masses of people agreed with you... data centers would actually run MS servers, the internet would be on windows servers, Nasa would be launching probes with MS inside. MS would also have more then 0.002% of the super computer market. I doubt even hardcore MS people really believe the windows kernel is more reliable... I mean if I offered you a cross country drive in auto drive Linux powered Tesla, or one running a windows powered system, I think I know which one you would trust your life to.
 
ChadD said:
I mean if I offered you a cross country drive in auto drive Linux powered Tesla, or one running a windows powered system, I think I know which one you would trust your life to.
Click to expand...

Yeah, MeOS, my hands on the wheel, always. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
ChadD said:
I mean if I offered you a cross country drive in auto drive Linux powered Tesla, or one running a windows powered system, I think I know which one you would trust your life to.
Click to expand...

Considering the amount of flak I get from some Linux folks over things like VR and games that don't run under Linux and how no one should care about that, let's go to self driving cars. Because if VR is problem for Linux self driving cars are a piece of cake?
 
B00nie said:
You're about a million times more likely to infect your Windows host than a linux one. Also Windows updates are about a dozen times more likely to mess up your host than the linux updates. You missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? I specifically said kernel, filesystem, and not usermode. Althought just like Linux a lot of the core components also run in usermode.

And lets not talk abotu desktop Linux experience ok. Its not comparable. e.g. just today I was using a laptop with Ubuntu LTS XFCE installed. The USB3 ports ran at USB2 speeds. When we tried to eject the drive Thunar gave an 'not authorized' error. Wtf ??!! Do you expect users to then debug all this? And yes I know its just one distro and one data point, but its a pretty popular LTS version of a desktop distro, not bare bones install, and the error is indicative of things that happen all the time.
 
MrCrispy said:
The USB3 ports ran at USB2 speeds. When we tried to eject the drive Thunar gave an 'not authorized' error. Wtf ??!!
Click to expand...

But you're lying! Linux is perfect! It never fails! It always works! No one would ever need software that doesn't run under Linux! You don't need that USB 3 port! Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

Some desktop Linux fans are essentially promoting perfection. Desktop Linux will never get hacked, will never fail, it always perfect. Then the truth comes out when they blast the bejeezus out people who don't finest detail absolutely correct which still doesn't solve the problem.
 
heatlesssun said:
Considering the amount of flak I get from some Linux folks over things like VR and games that don't run under Linux and how no one should care about that, let's go to self driving cars. Because if VR is problem for Linux self driving cars are a piece of cake?
Click to expand...

This is hardly new news heatle. Tesla, Uber, GM, VW, Google... and many others developing self drive tech all use Linux.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/09/ubers-self-driving-pickups-pittsburgh-powered-ubuntu
https://www.linux.com/news/linux-leads-self-driving-car-movement

The only real other option for self drive software comes from BlackBerry... and to be honest QNX is likely more suited to the task at the end of the day. Its the only real time micro kernel around, and I would imagine it to be the most reliable option for life or death type tasks. (see even I can admit when Linux isn't the perfect solution... of course Linux is still a far better solution for something like a self driving car then windows which would be a wreck, pun intended... Linux may still win out at the end of the day as its 100% open source and manufacturers don't need to licence it)
http://www.businessinsider.com/blackberry-pursues-self-driving-car-software-through-qnx-2017-1
 
Last edited:
heatlesssun said:
But you're lying! Linux is perfect! It never fails! It always works! No one would ever need software that doesn't run under Linux! You don't need that USB 3 port! Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

Some desktop Linux fans are essentially promoting perfection. Desktop Linux will never get hacked, will never fail, it always perfect. Then the truth comes out when they blast the bejeezus out people who don't finest detail absolutely correct which still doesn't solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Whats the truth... that a laptop designed for windows that shipped with windows was most likely using some non standard oem futzed with usb3 controller. Shocking I know.

Yes Linux installed on windows laptops often requires a bit of power user level tweaking to hit the "perfect" zone.

That's ok though... your right Linux sucks. Windows rox. Windows update isn't an issue... millions of users not doing updates cause they find the entire process annoying isn't an issue, they're winners. 20-30 min update cycles, multiple reboots... not being able to use anything while the updater is running. Its the way windows has always been... who cares if the other (ALL) operating systems have proper inode setups that allow users to continue using their software while they update it. I mean those windows winners should be thankful that they have 16k choices on the steam menu... and realize for that level of polish preinstalled they need to pay the apple tax and just be thankful for what they are given. Ingrates.

Sure linux isn't perfect.... windows isn't perfect... macos isn't perfect. However I will take exception with people insisting that Linux is utter crap... cause its BS. Average users can't install operating systems no... average users can't install windows on a mac... or macos on pc hardware either. Linux is for sure easier to get running on hardware not designed for it specifically then either of the major commercial operating systems. When bought pre installed from a Linux vendor... NO you are not going to run into issues with USB3 or bluetooth or wi-fi or any other damn thing. If your going to install Linux on a machine designed for windows... chances are you may have to roll up your sleaves. I know its a shocking truth.

Its not Linux boosters claiming perfections.... Its some Linux haters that insist Linux sux until it is in fact perfect out of the box in every single hardware install case. Which is utter BS.
 
MrCrispy said:
Did you read my post? I specifically said kernel, filesystem, and not usermode. Althought just like Linux a lot of the core components also run in usermode.

And lets not talk abotu desktop Linux experience ok. Its not comparable. e.g. just today I was using a laptop with Ubuntu LTS XFCE installed. The USB3 ports ran at USB2 speeds. When we tried to eject the drive Thunar gave an 'not authorized' error. Wtf ??!! Do you expect users to then debug all this? And yes I know its just one distro and one data point, but its a pretty popular LTS version of a desktop distro, not bare bones install, and the error is indicative of things that happen all the time.
Click to expand...

Linux has had USB3 support longer than Windows. Your discovery was insignificant - there are millions of Windows computers currently that have configuration problems that limit them to USB2 speeds, too.
 
Vader1975 said:
Security through Obscurity. Hmm where have I heard that before?
Click to expand...

Linux is not more secure because it is obscure. That is just silly on the face of it. EVERY major server on connected to the largest network in the world is running Linux. Damn near every major data center in the world is likewise running Linux. There is nothing of major value stored on windows servers really anywhere. All the big juicy data targets that black hat types would love to get their hands on for profit are on Linux systems.

What makes it more secure is its very desgin.

Linux uses an onion arch... users don't have access to system files in the way they do in windows. Files need proper permission to do anything.

Do a bit of reading about file security in Linux and perhaps you will start to understand.

I know that most windows users don't understand what
-rwx-r-x-r-x (755) means or;
-rwx-------- (700)
But right out of the gate... that is the start of a system that can be properly secured. For any Linux files to have execute rights by default is rare.

The vast majority of Linux software (for end users in business settings in particular) is installed through package managers... which reduces the possibility of someone by accident fat fingering a website or something and installing something they shouldn't (or from a email... which even if someone emailed you say a linux .sh file to run it they would have to give it execute rights first... sure someone could be that stupid but it should in theory make it a bit less likely)

Patching... is also a major part of security. For end users Linux is simply far easier to update. Yes Linux has security holes like any other software... but I can download 500+mb of updates in Linux and have them installed in under 10 min... I can update software that is running, I don't have to shut anything down and watch a blue screen. I only need to reboot if I install a new kernel, or a driver for something like a gpu that requires a kernel rebuild. For most distros regular people would be using (not rolling release update to every kernel distros) that is going to be required a few times a year at most. So bottom line is Linux systems tend to be better updated overall... yes I know we can say that's cause Linux users tend to be power users, sure not untrue still lots of people turn off or use third party pick and choose windows update software to avoid them.

Then of course their is the LSM (Linux security module) which has been built into the kernel for some time. It allows things like AppArmor to work. AppArmor is a default install in many major distros such as Ubuntu and Suse.

Linux Pluggable Authentication Modules PAM isn't a Linux only solution... its a nix solution. Every major OS other then windows has a version of pam.

Linux also allows for very good system auditing with things like auditd which is installed by default in almost all server distros like RHEL and the like (you can log stuff in windows with the right setup but... in Linux it can go right down to the kernel level which... in the world of securing high level target servers and data centers is one of many reasons why windows server is no real option at all)

I am sure I am forgetting about a ton of other stuff that makes Linux more secure, bottom line... Linux is more secure then windows. No its not because no one uses it. Linux is the most dominant OS in the world. You can't even claim windows is the best OS to target regular users with malware and scam stuff anymore... android and its Linux kernel take that crown. So the biggest target$ are running Linux servers and the weakest target$ are running Linux phones.... Linux isn't more secure because its obscure. Its more secure because its more secure >.<
 
Lol Chadd. I was referring to desktop use. I also know exactly how Linux and Unix and AIX and Xenix (lol Microsoft) work. I was mostly making a funny at Apple's expense. Although I do enjoy causing Linux rage when I am actually a Linux user as that is even funnier as I type this from BSD. Wooohoo. lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Vader1975 said:
Lol Chadd. I was referring to desktop use. I also know exactly how Linux and Unix and AIX and Xenix (lol Microsoft) work. I was mostly making a funny at Apple's expense. Although I do enjoy causing Linux rage when I am actually a Linux user as that is even funnier as I type this from BSD. Wooohoo. lol.
Click to expand...

The rage must be inside your head because I saw none.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top