Oh, and just to add one last thing, about "Flash" again, in combination with the security concerns Adobe listed (I mention it in my post beneath this one): youtube. dotcom/watch?v=94QsgdXnsmU (replace dotcom!). Now, how secure is a Linux Distrobution again? ....
btw; according to an adobe employee (look up the adobe flash forums or go to askubuntu com and check it up), flash hardware acceleration has been disabled on linux, due to _security concerns_ and poor driver support/performance from nvidia/amd/intel drivers _and_ especially from the open source drivers for these brands.
ps: IF linux (whatever distro; ubuntu, debian, suse, mint, redhat etc.) gets more popular on the mainstream desktop, mark my words and quote me if you wish to (when the time comes); you WILL need an antivirus one day. every hacking amateur will be able to tell you: every system is hackable. nothing is 100% secure. ps: and about he plugin and flash things: i just launched mozilla on ubuntu and went to youtube; mozilla immediatly asked me, if i wanted to install adobes flash for linux.
and about the "sudo password" protection in linux or about the window, that pops up and asks you, if you want to allow whatever you're doing on linux. in linux it's "type in password" or sudo "filename, path" etc. and then type in password. in windows it's covered via UAC. it's a similair approach. In windows it's a simple question though: "allow this app to launch?" *click "yes" or "no"* and there you have it. in windows, you even get detailed information on the app, via the UAC-popup window.
and about user-friendly and about flash on linux: no, it does happen on it's own. on ubuntu it even gets installed (if you choose to during the install proc.) and works out-of-the-box, right after installation. and it's not only ubuntu, suse and a few other distros have been targeting the mainstream for some time now, thus making these steps automatic! in many cases, it's even easier on linux than on windows. installing a .deb package under linux is as easy as launched a .ex in windows.
linux more stable? linux (ubuntu, suse, debian, etc.) has crashes much more often on me (in 6 months), than Windows 7 ever has (since launch). also, I don't think any of the linux distros targeting the mainstream right now, is "more" secure than windows 7. it's a secure system, but not more secure and especially not invulnerable to viruses or malware. I remember some while I go, I went to gnomelook (.org) and downloaded a screensaver, which had maleware in it (look it up on google). so...
The only problem i got with this video is that you are driving while filming yourself in this video.
People are not multitasker, people are at best task switcher, You can not drive and made a elaborate video in the same time. Even, if you have your both hands on the wheel. You will lose your attention an instant and increase your chance to get in an accident.
A windows virus tried to install itself on my Linux computer, and I could not do anything to stop it! Of course, it failed. I was angered that software would try to install on my computer without my permisssion! I am so thankful not to be running windows! I got the link that sent me the virus, and I wrote a letter telling to stop sending viruses!
Kind of have to disagree on this one. I love and use Linux (Ubuntu). That said, I'd say it doesn't have (or need right now) an AV for the same reason that Macs generally don't. It's not that they are houses made out of stone, but rather, houses placed in obscure locations which an arsonist would never visit. Basically, it's security through obscurity. I'm not knocking it, it tends to work. But it's far from being equatable to an impervious system.
My own story is, that Windows is built on quick sand, but the house itself is strenhtened so many times, it is just floating. Linux is built on safe ground, strong foundation, but not that strengthened on the house itself. I prefere Linux, because... it is always easier to make something safer that is built on safe ground - than something built on quick sand. And almost impossible to make safe what is built on unsafe foundation.
I thinky you meant to say, "Why doesnt GNU/Linux need Antivirus" please correct the title of your video, Linux is the Kernel, GNU is the operating system
@thelleht It is correct that there are games for Linux. But you would know - I guess - that these games are not what people talk about if they game for real. How many Linux-only games have had real commercial cucces? Compared to Windows?
Linux is not even close to main stream IMO, but maybe that isn't nessesarily a bad thing. It keeps the most ignorant users away from Linux. Those users stick to Windows, and Windows will give them an OK-box instead of a password prompt and call that "security".
@MsPwain "Linux is not even close to main stream IMO, but maybe that isn't nessesarily a bad thing. It keeps the most ignorant users away from Linux. Those users stick to Windows, and Windows will give them an OK-box instead of a password prompt and call that "security"."
You do realize that you can set up Windows for a password prompt as well, right? Then again, if these users are the idiots you claim them to be, then perhaps they'd bode better on a Mac. ;)
@AndrewDeLong Yes - but not by default. That is the problem. The generaL user almost never change the initial setup. Or they do.. but then to something worse, because security is annoying.
Mac has like Linux an appstore. Which is a good way of avoiding malware - and it's even user friendly. The executable bit is also a virus-stopper. I have never heard of a virus that actually lived on Linux, unless via an exploit. Viruses: autoexecutable and autoreproducable files without the user knowing.
@MsPwain Well, theoretically, a virus could run in .exe through WINE...but that would be one convoluted (and crafty, might I add) piece of programming.
As for an App Store, MS doesn't have one, correct. But it does pre-approve certain programs, and even has links to the (free) ones it does offer/approve through it's website.
Personally, I like to think of myself as an average user, and I have yet to get a virus in Vista or Win 7. Then again, I employ common sense. ;-)
@AndrewDeLong I wonder... if when I was teen I would not have gotten the viruses/malwaree/spyware two/tree times a month if I had used Linux instead of Windows. Cracks, serialz and pron things like that, preferebly russian sites and P2P of course. It's not only about the OS. It's also about the user. If you never go to these "surden" sites, the possibility of getting an infection is rather low. Though doesn't prove that "Windows is safe", more it proves "The user has got some sense".
@AndrewDeLong Don't worry about appstore if you are a windows guy. MS will built in an appstore for windows8 as well. Not that it will change my opinion about Windows though.
@thelleht No it will not happen. Because Linux will never have gaming. And with that said, it will never gain more than 10-15% market share on desktop either. There is not enough money in it.
Still this means, that the dumb users who do not consider security an issue, they will stay on Windows, making that a very insecure system for all other users of that system.
Users have been taught from 95 to Windows7 that security is not important. It will take years, possibly generations to change that.
I only learned security when I moved to Linux. I never knew anything at all about priviledges when I ran Windows., and that was from Win95 too Windows Vista. On Linux, I HAVE to learn it to use the system. Those who do not want to learn security, they switch back to Windows very very fast. ...Probem solved for Linux.
@thelleht Nope. Linux users are per default better knowledge of security than Windows users. It may be hard for you to realize, but that is true. And Linux is, by the way it is built, encouraging users to use it safely. Take SoftwareCenter for an example, which is very user friendly, so everybody know it. One security advice is "Don't download from unknown source". And it is just one example of better knowledge of users and better security overall in the OS itself than windows.
@thelleht "Currently, linux has 1% of the desktop market," I really hate that argument. While there may not be alot of Linux users, you have to take into account marketshare is based on download or purchase. you can use one cd/dvd/usb item with linux and in theory run it on an unlimited number of machines, versus windows that needs an oem/product key to make it work and locks it down to one machine. If they measured use with OS like they do with web browser, you'd get a better look at the #
@experimental0000 One way of distributing viruses is through pirated software. Since Linux and programs in most cases are free, there is no need to pirate it. One more reason there are no viruses for Linux.
@thelleht That's a common myth. In fact, Linux isn't rare at all, as it runs nearly 60% of the internet, including large organizations like Google. And there is a huge payoff for someone who can crack an organization like that.
@thelleht If the issue is that people are stupid, then no antivirus software will protect them, just as antivirus software on Windows doesn't prevent them from getting infected if they are so inclined to do things they shouldn't.
@RedSevenLinux dude the first root-kits were for Linux and were very successful they could cripple the system then jump out and spread all with out you knowing unless you run tiger. I've written plenty of viruses for linux in c++. just to show it can happen, i put it in an email and sent it on its merry way to my other linux and bam infected.
i put a deactivation key in it though so i would not have to worry. i just ran an other program with the deactivation key in it. know your stuff
@depravedsinner Perhaps you should re-watch the video. I never said it couldn't happen, and your personal experience of writing malicious code nor the reminiscing of the first root-kits don't negate the point.
@the fact that i can write a virus that bypass all Linux security measures does negate your point.
your point is you don't need a anti-virus for Linux because it would only effect that program and you know when it tries to infect you.but as i said i have written a proof of concept virus/logic bomb that can infect go on with root prevs with out you knowing till it makes you crash.Imagen if i lose it and it goes wild, since most users think they'er safe it will hit linux users by surprise.
@RedSevenLinux it will be detected some i dont know 1 mouth afterward infection. AV software will catch on.and get it.Perl.Badbunny,Virus.Linux.Diesel.962,and OSF.8759 all are Linux malware. and i dont need a Degree OR A PH.D to exploit a computer i'm just a good hacker
@depravedsinner I never implied you needed a degree. What I'm saying is if your proof of concept was successful, it's likely not a secret and there's a white paper about it. As a result, the vulnerability you exploit has probably been patched. If you're saying that those things aren't true, then you're essentially claiming that you found a vulnerability, you've exploited it, and no one else in the world knows about it. This is not very believable, and I'm a good hacker too.
@thelleht Well that all depends. At RedSeven, we let people know that they should only install software through the package manager. On Windows, it doesn't take a user installing an .EXE to get infected. Browsing the web can cause a Windows user to catch an infection.
@thelleht It's not naive at all. I've been using Linux on the desktop for years; I click on anything and everything without a second thought, and there are no infections to be found. You're right that knowing what to click on is a big chunk of the battle for Windows, but not for Linux.
@RedSevenLinux I've heard though, that while Linux may not be affected by windows based viruses, they can carry/transfer them if the system has something in it. but I'm not 100% sure how accurate that is. Even though it's not likely, it is possible that some evil hacker will write or push a linux virus just to be a jerk.
Oh, and just to add one last thing, about "Flash" again, in combination with the security concerns Adobe listed (I mention it in my post beneath this one): youtube. dotcom/watch?v=94QsgdXnsmU (replace dotcom!). Now, how secure is a Linux Distrobution again? ....
AleXy86 1 week ago
btw; according to an adobe employee (look up the adobe flash forums or go to askubuntu com and check it up), flash hardware acceleration has been disabled on linux, due to _security concerns_ and poor driver support/performance from nvidia/amd/intel drivers _and_ especially from the open source drivers for these brands.
AleXy86 2 weeks ago
ps: IF linux (whatever distro; ubuntu, debian, suse, mint, redhat etc.) gets more popular on the mainstream desktop, mark my words and quote me if you wish to (when the time comes); you WILL need an antivirus one day. every hacking amateur will be able to tell you: every system is hackable. nothing is 100% secure. ps: and about he plugin and flash things: i just launched mozilla on ubuntu and went to youtube; mozilla immediatly asked me, if i wanted to install adobes flash for linux.
AleXy86 2 weeks ago
and about the "sudo password" protection in linux or about the window, that pops up and asks you, if you want to allow whatever you're doing on linux. in linux it's "type in password" or sudo "filename, path" etc. and then type in password. in windows it's covered via UAC. it's a similair approach. In windows it's a simple question though: "allow this app to launch?" *click "yes" or "no"* and there you have it. in windows, you even get detailed information on the app, via the UAC-popup window.
AleXy86 2 weeks ago
and about user-friendly and about flash on linux: no, it does happen on it's own. on ubuntu it even gets installed (if you choose to during the install proc.) and works out-of-the-box, right after installation. and it's not only ubuntu, suse and a few other distros have been targeting the mainstream for some time now, thus making these steps automatic! in many cases, it's even easier on linux than on windows. installing a .deb package under linux is as easy as launched a .ex in windows.
AleXy86 2 weeks ago
linux more stable? linux (ubuntu, suse, debian, etc.) has crashes much more often on me (in 6 months), than Windows 7 ever has (since launch). also, I don't think any of the linux distros targeting the mainstream right now, is "more" secure than windows 7. it's a secure system, but not more secure and especially not invulnerable to viruses or malware. I remember some while I go, I went to gnomelook (.org) and downloaded a screensaver, which had maleware in it (look it up on google). so...
AleXy86 2 weeks ago
Linux has an amazing immune system!!! :D
ChozoSR388 1 month ago
The only problem i got with this video is that you are driving while filming yourself in this video.
People are not multitasker, people are at best task switcher, You can not drive and made a elaborate video in the same time. Even, if you have your both hands on the wheel. You will lose your attention an instant and increase your chance to get in an accident.
Please be safe!
glaframb 1 month ago
@glaframb I can talk and drive, been doing it for years without accidents.
BelaFleckFan 1 month ago
thances vere much @glaframb
frederick8250 1 month ago
A windows virus tried to install itself on my Linux computer, and I could not do anything to stop it! Of course, it failed. I was angered that software would try to install on my computer without my permisssion! I am so thankful not to be running windows! I got the link that sent me the virus, and I wrote a letter telling to stop sending viruses!
SketcherMan2 2 months ago
where are you going?
inanme 2 months ago
Kind of have to disagree on this one. I love and use Linux (Ubuntu). That said, I'd say it doesn't have (or need right now) an AV for the same reason that Macs generally don't. It's not that they are houses made out of stone, but rather, houses placed in obscure locations which an arsonist would never visit. Basically, it's security through obscurity. I'm not knocking it, it tends to work. But it's far from being equatable to an impervious system.
Humility...it goes a long way. Try it.
AndrewDeLong 3 months ago
My own story is, that Windows is built on quick sand, but the house itself is strenhtened so many times, it is just floating. Linux is built on safe ground, strong foundation, but not that strengthened on the house itself. I prefere Linux, because... it is always easier to make something safer that is built on safe ground - than something built on quick sand. And almost impossible to make safe what is built on unsafe foundation.
MsPwain 3 months ago
and stone rocks. lol
godofbeats 4 months ago
I thinky you meant to say, "Why doesnt GNU/Linux need Antivirus" please correct the title of your video, Linux is the Kernel, GNU is the operating system
FlagSlatanikkaForFun 5 months ago
Wonderful explanation! :)
vertevero 6 months ago
@thelleht It is correct that there are games for Linux. But you would know - I guess - that these games are not what people talk about if they game for real. How many Linux-only games have had real commercial cucces? Compared to Windows?
Linux is not even close to main stream IMO, but maybe that isn't nessesarily a bad thing. It keeps the most ignorant users away from Linux. Those users stick to Windows, and Windows will give them an OK-box instead of a password prompt and call that "security".
MsPwain 8 months ago
@MsPwain "Linux is not even close to main stream IMO, but maybe that isn't nessesarily a bad thing. It keeps the most ignorant users away from Linux. Those users stick to Windows, and Windows will give them an OK-box instead of a password prompt and call that "security"."
You do realize that you can set up Windows for a password prompt as well, right? Then again, if these users are the idiots you claim them to be, then perhaps they'd bode better on a Mac. ;)
AndrewDeLong 3 months ago
@AndrewDeLong Yes - but not by default. That is the problem. The generaL user almost never change the initial setup. Or they do.. but then to something worse, because security is annoying.
Mac has like Linux an appstore. Which is a good way of avoiding malware - and it's even user friendly. The executable bit is also a virus-stopper. I have never heard of a virus that actually lived on Linux, unless via an exploit. Viruses: autoexecutable and autoreproducable files without the user knowing.
MsPwain 3 months ago
@MsPwain Well, theoretically, a virus could run in .exe through WINE...but that would be one convoluted (and crafty, might I add) piece of programming.
As for an App Store, MS doesn't have one, correct. But it does pre-approve certain programs, and even has links to the (free) ones it does offer/approve through it's website.
Personally, I like to think of myself as an average user, and I have yet to get a virus in Vista or Win 7. Then again, I employ common sense. ;-)
AndrewDeLong 3 months ago
@AndrewDeLong I wonder... if when I was teen I would not have gotten the viruses/malwaree/spyware two/tree times a month if I had used Linux instead of Windows. Cracks, serialz and pron things like that, preferebly russian sites and P2P of course. It's not only about the OS. It's also about the user. If you never go to these "surden" sites, the possibility of getting an infection is rather low. Though doesn't prove that "Windows is safe", more it proves "The user has got some sense".
MsPwain 3 months ago
@AndrewDeLong Don't worry about appstore if you are a windows guy. MS will built in an appstore for windows8 as well. Not that it will change my opinion about Windows though.
MsPwain 3 months ago
@thelleht No it will not happen. Because Linux will never have gaming. And with that said, it will never gain more than 10-15% market share on desktop either. There is not enough money in it.
Still this means, that the dumb users who do not consider security an issue, they will stay on Windows, making that a very insecure system for all other users of that system.
Users have been taught from 95 to Windows7 that security is not important. It will take years, possibly generations to change that.
MsPwain 8 months ago
@thelleht Why?
I only learned security when I moved to Linux. I never knew anything at all about priviledges when I ran Windows., and that was from Win95 too Windows Vista. On Linux, I HAVE to learn it to use the system. Those who do not want to learn security, they switch back to Windows very very fast. ...Probem solved for Linux.
MsPwain 8 months ago
@thelleht Nope. Linux users are per default better knowledge of security than Windows users. It may be hard for you to realize, but that is true. And Linux is, by the way it is built, encouraging users to use it safely. Take SoftwareCenter for an example, which is very user friendly, so everybody know it. One security advice is "Don't download from unknown source". And it is just one example of better knowledge of users and better security overall in the OS itself than windows.
MsPwain 8 months ago
nice analogy, easy for me to explain to my parents
ashkot 1 year ago
nice analogy
ashkot 1 year ago
This explains what I was trying to explain to a friend of mine a while ago. Thank you for the information. I'll subscribe :D
felixduhcat89 1 year ago
@thelleht I don't think you heard a think he just said.
danbrdoober 1 year ago
@thelleht it sure doesn't seem like it though *shrug* thanks for the info though
experimental0000 1 year ago
@thelleht "Currently, linux has 1% of the desktop market," I really hate that argument. While there may not be alot of Linux users, you have to take into account marketshare is based on download or purchase. you can use one cd/dvd/usb item with linux and in theory run it on an unlimited number of machines, versus windows that needs an oem/product key to make it work and locks it down to one machine. If they measured use with OS like they do with web browser, you'd get a better look at the #
experimental0000 1 year ago
@experimental0000 One way of distributing viruses is through pirated software. Since Linux and programs in most cases are free, there is no need to pirate it. One more reason there are no viruses for Linux.
MsPwain 8 months ago
@MsPwain agreed, plus being open source means more people can pick out and null infected code fairly quickly ;)
experimental0000 8 months ago
i do not have antivirus on my PCs and never will
2xtreem4u 1 year ago
i just use antiviruses in linux, cause i dont wanna infect windows users... i run vista side by side with linux mint... so yeah
Dreadfultime 1 year ago
@thelleht That's a common myth. In fact, Linux isn't rare at all, as it runs nearly 60% of the internet, including large organizations like Google. And there is a huge payoff for someone who can crack an organization like that.
nickcoons 1 year ago
@thelleht If the issue is that people are stupid, then no antivirus software will protect them, just as antivirus software on Windows doesn't prevent them from getting infected if they are so inclined to do things they shouldn't.
nickcoons 1 year ago
@thelleht "These people would be just as likely to get into the habit of entering their password whenever the request pops up."
Probably not. Entering a password is a much more conscious act than clicking a button alone.
"There is a lot of room for linux computers to get infected, when they become popular enough."
Some perhaps, but never the epidemic that exists in Windows.
RedSevenLinux 1 year ago
@RedSevenLinux dude the first root-kits were for Linux and were very successful they could cripple the system then jump out and spread all with out you knowing unless you run tiger. I've written plenty of viruses for linux in c++. just to show it can happen, i put it in an email and sent it on its merry way to my other linux and bam infected.
i put a deactivation key in it though so i would not have to worry. i just ran an other program with the deactivation key in it. know your stuff
depravedsinner 1 year ago
@depravedsinner Perhaps you should re-watch the video. I never said it couldn't happen, and your personal experience of writing malicious code nor the reminiscing of the first root-kits don't negate the point.
RedSevenLinux 1 year ago
@the fact that i can write a virus that bypass all Linux security measures does negate your point.
your point is you don't need a anti-virus for Linux because it would only effect that program and you know when it tries to infect you.but as i said i have written a proof of concept virus/logic bomb that can infect go on with root prevs with out you knowing till it makes you crash.Imagen if i lose it and it goes wild, since most users think they'er safe it will hit linux users by surprise.
depravedsinner 1 year ago
@depravedsinner "the fact that i can write a virus that bypass all Linux security measures"
A claim which everyone should take with a very large grain of salt.
"does negate your point."
Anything you custom write isn't going to be picked up by AV software that one might have installed.
"but as i said i have written a proof of concept"
Yes, you have said that.. where's your white paper?
RedSevenLinux 1 year ago
@RedSevenLinux it will be detected some i dont know 1 mouth afterward infection. AV software will catch on.and get it.Perl.Badbunny,Virus.Linux.Diesel.962,and OSF.8759 all are Linux malware. and i dont need a Degree OR A PH.D to exploit a computer i'm just a good hacker
depravedsinner 1 year ago
@depravedsinner I never implied you needed a degree. What I'm saying is if your proof of concept was successful, it's likely not a secret and there's a white paper about it. As a result, the vulnerability you exploit has probably been patched. If you're saying that those things aren't true, then you're essentially claiming that you found a vulnerability, you've exploited it, and no one else in the world knows about it. This is not very believable, and I'm a good hacker too.
RedSevenLinux 1 year ago
@depravedsinner You talk a lot, but you do not backup your talk with actual proof.
I can do that too, talking is easy.
MsPwain 8 months ago
@thelleht Well that all depends. At RedSeven, we let people know that they should only install software through the package manager. On Windows, it doesn't take a user installing an .EXE to get infected. Browsing the web can cause a Windows user to catch an infection.
RedSevenLinux 1 year ago
@thelleht It's not naive at all. I've been using Linux on the desktop for years; I click on anything and everything without a second thought, and there are no infections to be found. You're right that knowing what to click on is a big chunk of the battle for Windows, but not for Linux.
RedSevenLinux 1 year ago
@RedSevenLinux I've heard though, that while Linux may not be affected by windows based viruses, they can carry/transfer them if the system has something in it. but I'm not 100% sure how accurate that is. Even though it's not likely, it is possible that some evil hacker will write or push a linux virus just to be a jerk.
experimental0000 1 year ago