What would get you to switch to linux from windows?

B00nie said:
Lool no they don't. Especially IE/Edge. Flash autoplays, images autoload, scripts autorun. That's all it needs. With adblock / script block you're a bit better off but even that won't save you against the JPEG malformed header attack (yes I'm aware this was patched Win7 and forward already but historically speaking). You'd need to run your websites using text only lol.
Click to expand...

Your right dude, there is absolutely no way to protect it, silly me for having used IE this long on a windows system and never once getting hit with any of those attacks...
 
NoOther said:
Your right dude, there is absolutely no way to protect it, silly me for having used IE this long on a windows system and never once getting hit with any of those attacks...
Click to expand...

Countless people have walked through active minefields unscathed. You're one of them.

There's a fairly good chance that you're actually infected but just don't know it.
 
B00nie said:
Countless people have walked through active minefields unscathed. You're one of them.

There's a fairly good chance that you're actually infected but just don't know it.
Click to expand...

And yet a very small percentage of the population has ever encountered a minefield, apparently you like to frolick in them frequently despite countless ways around it.
 
giphy.gif
 
B00nie said:
Yeah you're totally safe, just in the news: Spotify Ads Briefly Served Malware To Your PC

Foolish Windows user! He should have known better than to use the computer.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this stuff, but 1) I have yet to contract any of these issues on my Windows systems that you seem to imply every Windows user is susceptible to, and 2) I am not solely a Windows user, in fact I use Linux far more than you do. So I don't know why you bother. Just because you are unable to properly use or secure Windows, does not mean others cannot.
 
MisprintedLies said:
I believe you've said this in the past, but unfortunately, I don't know of a good distribution for touch in Linux. I suppose there's Ubuntu Touch, but from what I've seen, it either looks like a smartphone or something like a Kindle tablet. It certainly doesn't look like a converged experience.

It's all well and good that support for the Surface line is officially brought into the Linux kernel, but the support needs to be brought forward through the supporting software experience. If you gave me a machine with just Linux (the Linux kernel), I don't think I could get anything done. Give me GNU/Linux, and I'll probably need to spend a lot of time searching for and typing commands to add software to be properly productive.
Click to expand...

While I get that UWA and the Windows Store are much maligned around here, that platform is good enough now to provide a pretty decent touch experience for Windows now. The big issue is the lack of apps in the ecosystem, but the effect is not a death sentence like it is for Windows phones because there are enough desktop apps to mitigate the problem to some extent even with touch and the converged experience is kind of the idea. Table mode when needed, desktop mode when needed. That's something that Windows 10, while not perfect, I think gets done well enough to not be a problem UI wise like with Windows 8.x.

MisprintedLies said:
That's why I can get cagey talking about the perceived deficiencies of Linux, as it is a foundation to build upon. I would be interested to know if "Windows" could be built upon the Linux kernel, and if anyone at Microsoft has tried to use another kernel to support the Windows experience. Could they build and Win32, WinRT, and DWM on the Linux kernel? What about on "Singularity" or "Midori"?
Click to expand...

Sure it can be done. That's what WINE kind of is. And the Ubuntu subsystem in Windows 10 is the same idea in reverse. But that's a lot of complexity to deal with.
 
Last edited:
BulletDust said:
Well that's not right, I got a Spotify update a couple of weeks ago.

The client works great, no issues that I've ever noticed. Can even control the client via the Spotify app.
Click to expand...

Read the article. They are still patching, just not working on "Linux specific" features anymore.
 
HeavensCloud said:
Read the article. They are still patching, just not working on "Linux specific" features anymore.
Click to expand...

I read the article, as someone that uses the Spotify for Linux application I wasn't aware that they had any Linux specific features.
 
In the article it mentions an Ubuntu sound menu. Never used it on Linux myself so I couldn't say.
 
HeavensCloud said:
In the article it mentions an Ubuntu sound menu. Never used it on Linux myself so I couldn't say.
Click to expand...

They're talking about an applet in the panel, it's not really needed nor is it exactly a Linux specific feature.

See applets below:

 
Dunno man, I'm not trying to argue about nothing. Just pointing out what the article states.
 
Point being, the Spotify application for Linux is still supported and updated, they're just not going to do anything specific for the Linux platform.

Which is fine by me as I don't really want anything specific to the Linux platform, I just want to listen to Spotify.
 
  1. I'd need full support from all games released on PC
  2. Equatable driver support from hw manufacturers as windows has
  3. Regular access to drives and partitions and not the stupid /dev/sdc/ shit
  4. Some manageable file system, where the files of the OS are not scattered to the wind, with the user files lost in there some user dir.
 
NoOther said:
You keep saying this stuff, but 1) I have yet to contract any of these issues on my Windows systems that you seem to imply every Windows user is susceptible to, and 2) I am not solely a Windows user, in fact I use Linux far more than you do. So I don't know why you bother. Just because you are unable to properly use or secure Windows, does not mean others cannot.
Click to expand...

You're suspect to 99,9999% of every IT security threat on this planet while you use Windows. No amount of 'self protecting' is going to remove that fact and you're always exposed. Antivirus vendors are always a step or two behind the attackers.

Oh and thanks for the Works For Me (tm).
 
SuperSubZero said:
Wow that's horrible, of course anyone who has a paid Spotify membership and wants to be safe should switch to Linux right away!

Spotify for Linux Is No Longer In Active Development - OMG! Ubuntu!

oh.
Click to expand...

Oh indeed:

Other Options
It’s not all doom and gloom for Spotify fans. Ubuntu Phone has an unofficial Spotify app (for premium users) and the core Music app is to soon leverage the Spotify API too (again, premium only).

Other options include the official Spotify Web player, which lets free and premium subscribers stream music through the browser using Flash (no vomiting) and the Windows version can run through WINE (permission to vomit).
Click to expand...

Letting aside the fact that Spotify sucks, there are always options. The browser based being universally available. Why didn't you mention the Windows vomit part? :D
 
I'd probably switch if I had to pay for windows. Haven't had to pay for windows in a long time (I don't pirate, I just have gotten free windows from school over the years), doesn't seem like I will need to in the future with the way they gave out win 10. If they are both free I'll take windows.
 
M76 said:
  1. I'd need full support from all games released on PC
  2. Equatable driver support from hw manufacturers as windows has
  3. Regular access to drives and partitions and not the stupid /dev/sdc/ shit
  4. Some manageable file system, where the files of the OS are not scattered to the wind, with the user files lost in there some user dir.
Click to expand...

The only real part of this quote that is vaguely correct and unbiased is the part about gaming. What you really should say is that you hate Linux and want nothing but a Windows clone OS. There's nothing wrong with claiming you hate Linux, in fact its more respectful than posting incorrect or largely biased claims.

That stupid /dev/sdc shit is more common in most operating systems than drive letters and really isn't that complicated to understand.

Windows is the OS with the user directory, not Linux. The hierarchy of the Linux file system makes far more sense than Windows and some PITA registry.
 
BulletDust said:
The only real part of this quote that is vaguely correct and unbiased is the part about gaming. What you really should say is that you hate Linux and want nothing but a Windows clone OS. There's nothing wrong with claiming you hate Linux, in fact its more respectful than posting incorrect or largely biased claims.

That stupid /dev/sdc shit is more common in most operating systems than drive letters and really isn't that complicated to understand.

Windows is the OS with the user directory, not Linux. The hierarchy of the Linux file system makes far more sense than Windows and some PITA registry.
Click to expand...

Heh yeah, they bash and show with their comments that they just don't know jack and that's the only reason they complain.
 
B00nie said:
Heh yeah, they bash and show with their comments that they just don't know jack and that's the only reason they complain.
Click to expand...

It's basically claiming "I'm too stupid and lazy to use anything but Windows".

That's not a comment directed towards any individual, it's just an observable fact in this thread that's justified when Windows fanboi's post largely inaccurate comments without the faintest notion of what they're even claiming?!
 
B00nie said:
Heh yeah, they bash and show with their comments that they just don't know jack and that's the only reason they complain.
Click to expand...

You mean just like you do?

B00nie said:
You're suspect to 99,9999% of every IT security threat on this planet while you use Windows. No amount of 'self protecting' is going to remove that fact and you're always exposed. Antivirus vendors are always a step or two behind the attackers.

Oh and thanks for the Works For Me (tm).
Click to expand...

That is complete and utter bullshit that you keep spreading. Only if you are completely naïve are you subject to most of those threats as most of them still require you to do something. On top of that if you have any modicum of security that takes a whole lot more out of that chunk. In reality even with all those 'security threats' out there, a lot of people never get hit, and those that do get hit by mostly harmless stuff that they can have any old tech clean up.

Also, just having Linux is not really making you any 'safer' against serious threats. A serious threat is one that is targeted and it won't matter what system you are using. If you don't actually take the time to secure either your Windows or your Linux box you are going to get burnt.
 
NoOther said:
Also, just having Linux is not really making you any 'safer' against serious threats. A serious threat is one that is targeted and it won't matter what system you are using. If you don't actually take the time to secure either your Windows or your Linux box you are going to get burnt.
Click to expand...

Could you define what a "serious threat" means in this context? The best I'm coming up with is spear phishing, and that's more about compromising the user rather than the computer regardless of securing it.
 
Frobozz said:
Could you define what a "serious threat" means in this context? The best I'm coming up with is spear phishing, and that's more about compromising the user rather than the computer regardless of securing it.
Click to expand...

Something that seriously damages the user: loss of PII, destruction of information, etc.
 
NoOther said:
You mean just like you do?



That is complete and utter bullshit that you keep spreading. Only if you are completely naïve are you subject to most of those threats as most of them still require you to do something. On top of that if you have any modicum of security that takes a whole lot more out of that chunk. In reality even with all those 'security threats' out there, a lot of people never get hit, and those that do get hit by mostly harmless stuff that they can have any old tech clean up.

Also, just having Linux is not really making you any 'safer' against serious threats. A serious threat is one that is targeted and it won't matter what system you are using. If you don't actually take the time to secure either your Windows or your Linux box you are going to get burnt.
Click to expand...

Lool spare me the bullshit. Millions of people are getting infected on Windows(tm) today, tomorrow and to beyond. Facts speak against you and that's the end of the story.

You're not able to 'secure' your Windows because you can't protect yourself against zero day attacks. Also the fact that you did NOT know that there are 'fly by' infections that infect you with zero user interaction, speaks volumes. You're just roaming about happy in the minefield, not knowing that you walk on one.
 
B00nie said:
Lool spare me the bullshit. Millions of people are getting infected on Windows(tm) today, tomorrow and to beyond. Facts speak against you and that's the end of the story.
Click to expand...

Millions, that is nice, and how many Windows systems are out there? Billions. And most of the infections are often harmless and hardly do anything more than mildly annoy the individual. Facts speak against you. But what do I know, I have only worked as a security professional in the field for 20 years... I have seen first hand exactly how secure systems are, especially when the attacks are targeted. To think you are safer with Linux is a common misconception, especially in today's world.

Here is the problem, you have been using Linux for a short while. I have been engineering Linux for decades. I have also done engineering for many other Operating Systems, many you may never have even heard of. When it comes right down to it, there is far more security engineering and planning for Windows than any other platform, including Linux. I use Linux every day in my work, and there are many advantages for it, especially if you are savvy. But just using Linux does not make you inherently more secure, it makes you inherently less alert.

In fact some of the biggest and most damaging attacks I have seen in my day involved breaking in and using a collection of others' Linux shell environments to create and launch attacks from.
 
Last edited:
NoOther said:
Something that seriously damages the user: loss of PII, destruction of information, etc.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that kinda kills the discussion as the threat is a nebulous "something" and can't be reasoned through how much an OS or security setup would protect the user. :-/
 
Some of you take this crap way too seriously.

Anyway I figured I'd post what I would need to move from Windows.

The number one priority would be game support. There are some games that support Linux but until everything I want to play does have a Linux option I'm sticking with Windows.

The second thing would be support for the applications I use for work and school. There are a lot of options these days (way more than there used to be when I last used Linux) when it comes to most productivity and business software so that's nice. There are even decent options for design software (FreeCAD.) I'd like to be able to use the AutoCAD and SolidWorks I paid through the nose for without needing to jump through hoops with Wine or using a virtual machine. I did the virtual machine thing for a while and thought "if I have to load a virtual machine to do what I need to do why the hell do I even have Linux in the first place?"

Basically as long as PC vendors are shipping PC's with Windows being the only option then Windows machines will remain the majority. As long as Windows machines are the majority then most companies aren't going to bother making versions of their software for Linux. I personally don't care for a lot of the things Microsoft did in Windows 10 but I'm still using it because that's the OS that consistently works with everything I need to do without any real issues. That's the reality of the world we live in.
 
Frobozz said:
Unfortunately, that kinda kills the discussion as the threat is a nebulous "something" and can't be reasoned through how much an OS or security setup would protect the user. :-/
Click to expand...

How is that nebulous? PII and destruction of information is something tangible and is how damage from attacks is regularly reported. What measure would you like to use?
 
NoOther said:
How is that nebulous? PII and destruction of information is something tangible and is how damage from attacks is regularly reported. What measure would you like to use?
Click to expand...
Yes. Those are bad, and a measurable. However...

I guess I got lost along the way.. We were talking (or yelling?) about the security merits of one system over the other, then you made generalized statements about how 'it doesn't matter what you run if you encounter a serious threat'. (paraphrased)
So I was trying to keep the discussion going on specifics instead of just a boogieman statement. Might as well say "If someone wants you bad enough they'll penetrate your firewall and kick your dog." and.. someone can't just do that because they want to. So I was hoping you were referring to a particular style of attack.

That's where I was coming from is all.
 
Last edited:
Frobozz said:
Yes. Those are bad, and a measurable. However...

I guess I got lost along the way.. We were talking (or yelling?) about the security merits of one system over the other, then you made generalized statements about how 'it doesn't matter what you run if you encounter a serious threat'. (paraphrased)
So I was trying to keep the discussion going on specifics instead of just a boogieman statement. Might as well say "If someone wants you bad enough they'll penetrate your firewall and kick your dog." and.. someone can't just do that because they want to. So I was hoping you were referring to a particular style of attack.

That's where I was coming from is all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you see my posts in both threads I had a lot more specific things to say on the topic, those posts were mainly in response to B00nie who frequently posts FUD. He is incredibly anti-Microsoft and barely understands the security architecture of Linux much less any other OS. He blindly evangelizes for people to switch to Linux because he believes it is inherently more secure. That isn't really true. Will it get less viruses, yes, most likely. Is it really more secure, no, not really.

Security depends on the setup and the knowledge of the user/admin. As more and more people move to Linux, far too few of them really understand how to secure their box and left vast holes in their security. Plus not all systems get major security holes patched in time. Just in the last 5 years, there were some major security holes that gave full root access to systems that were not correctly patched for almost a year. So it is a mistake to believe that any one OS is going to be inherently more secure than another.

One of the benefits I love about Linux is the ability to create a lot of content on your own within the system. There are many ways to customize your build and operation of the system if you do a little bit of looking around and learn some scripting or programming. There is also a lot of utility built into the system you can build off of. However, that also makes it dangerous, because improper configuration or customization can lead to more holes poked into your system. It is a constant battle I have with developers all the time. Sloppy work is sloppy work no matter what system you are using.

Just like adding more and more programs to your Linux thinking they are going to be more secure because its Linux can also get you into trouble. Some of those programs can be abused, just like programs are abused on Windows. Just because it may or may not be accepted by a distribution and receive updates does not mean it is inherently safe to install.
 
NoOther said:
Yeah, if you see my posts in both threads I had a lot more specific things to say on the topic, those posts were mainly in response to B00nie who frequently posts FUD. He is incredibly anti-Microsoft and barely understands the security architecture of Linux much less any other OS. He blindly evangelizes for people to switch to Linux because he believes it is inherently more secure. That isn't really true. Will it get less viruses, yes, most likely. Is it really more secure, no, not really.
Click to expand...

Considering the way software is installed under Linux, considering the use of software repositories and secure keys, and considering the inherent weaknesses of UAC as discussed earlier in one of these threads (I'm getting confused now that there's essentially two threads on the same topic) as highlighted by Microsoft themselves - Honestly, I think it's safe to claim Linux is slightly more secure than Windows. Of course the configuration of the OS and the knowledge of the user/admin can help considerably in making an OS more secure, however this applies to both operating systems in question and not just Windows.

Then you've got the issue of certain software packages under Windows insisting on running as Administrator or else they just don't run...

I've been using Linux as a desktop OS for many years and honestly, I've never come across malicious software on the Linux desktop platform. I wish I could say the same about Windows, but we all know that's just not the case. Having said that the (forced) popularity of Windows of an operating system plays a big part here.
 
Last edited:
NoOther said:
Millions, that is nice, and how many Windows systems are out there? Billions. And most of the infections are often harmless and hardly do anything more than mildly annoy the individual.
Click to expand...

Oh so now infections are harmless and ok. This discussion has run its course.

Oh by the way, I'm not anti Microsoft. I'm anti-Windows (as in non-gaming use). Microsoft has made some of the best gaming hardware ever. Still using my 20 year old Precision Pro I joystick.
 
Last edited:
BulletDust said:
The only real part of this quote that is vaguely correct and unbiased is the part about gaming. What you really should say is that you hate Linux and want nothing but a Windows clone OS. There's nothing wrong with claiming you hate Linux, in fact its more respectful than posting incorrect or largely biased claims.

That stupid /dev/sdc shit is more common in most operating systems than drive letters and really isn't that complicated to understand.

Windows is the OS with the user directory, not Linux. The hierarchy of the Linux file system makes far more sense than Windows and some PITA registry.
Click to expand...

Starts a thread asking people why they will not switch, people tell him, he rages against what people say, claims to be unbiased and claims other just hate it and then points a finger at others claiming they are biased.

We get it: STOP LIKING WHAT YOU HATE! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top