virus (and Windows/Linux-wars)

[Jim Herrmann]

I just thought I would share with my friends on KCLUG my response to 
what one of the people on our homeschool chat list said about Linux. 
This was after some people on the list were winging about having been 
hit by the latest worm-of-the-day, and I suggested that when they had 
had enough, I would help them install a real OS and leave that crap all 
behind.  Maybe I've gone off the deep end, but it's important to have 
passion.  ;-)

Just a little background, this guy I'm repling to is way right wing, and 
he and I have many email battles regarding politics and religion on our 
chat list.  Also, most people on our list are non-technical.

Enjoy,
Jim

-------- Original Message --------

Chris, there you go again, bringing up religion!  ;-)

Let me just say that most of your knocks against Linux are both dated,
and mostly FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, which is Microserf's
primary weapon against an opponent that it can not buy, can not embrace,
extend and extinguish, and can not defeat on a level playing field.

Let me just say for those of you who won't read the rest of this email,
that most of the points Chris made in his email, are mostly misleading
or misguided, and if you are serious about securing your computer, you
need to talk to me about Linux.

For a relevant analogy try this.  Microsoft is to Linux what the public
school system is to homeschool.  People put their kids in public school
because that's what everyone else does, and it's the easy way in today's
world.  Homeschooling is a little harder, but far more rewarding, and
you get a better result.  Which do you want, easier or better?  Linux is
not free in terms of requiring you learn something slightly different,
but it is said that nothing worth having is easy.

I'm going to get on my technical soapbox now.  What follows is not for
the faint of heart.  Cover your children's eyes.  :-)

Comments inline.

Chris M. Darby wrote:
> Hereafter follows ranting. . .
>  
> On the topic of Microsoft compared with Linux, let's keep in mind
> that hackers and media tend to focus efforts more on Microsoft
> for three reasons (listed in order of relevance):
>  
> (1) Windows is the most prevalent O.S. on end-user's desktop PCs,
>     and holds a significant share of the server market;

I would contend that this is THE most important argument for destroying
the M$-Monopoly.  Homogeneous networks are the easiest to crack.
Monocultures are the easiest to destroy.  BTW, it's estimated that Linux
commands around 30% of the server market now and will have half of all
shipments by 2005.  It's hard to say for sure how invasive Linux is
since people can legally buy one copy and install it on many servers, so
that percentage may be higher than anyone has estimated.  If Linux
attains 100% of the server market, it will still not appear to be a
homogeneous network because of the ease of customizing Linux.  Also,
Linux on the desktop is expected to pass Apple this year for the number
two spot of desktop shipments.  That's not counting the millions of free
downloads.

Another point that is an undeniable fact is that the internet as we know
it today would not exist today without open source technologies.
TCP/IP, DNS, Kerberos, Apache web server, sendmail, and numerous other
infrastructure applications.  It is safe to say that open source powers
the internet, and Microsoft software is merely a few million contact
points on that enormous network.

>  
> (2) Everyone loves to slam "the big guy" Billy Gates; and,

I really don't think this is relevant to the frequency of worm attacks,
or the apparent inability of M$ to put out secure products.  More FUD.

>  
> (3) Vulnerabilities exist and are made public.

How many vulnerabilities exist that are not made public?  Nobody knows,
because the source code is a big secret.  Many eyes pouring over the
important pieces of open source code mean that vulnerabilities are
found, and made public BTW, and fixed, way before any script kiddie has
a chance to exploit them.

>  
> I use Windows because:  for desktop processing it's mature and
> convenient; numerous software packages are available for Windows
> that are not available for other platforms; I can exchange data
> more readily with others, both personally and professionally; the
> application development tools are great; and, there are adequate
> searchable support databases available on the Internet when
> problems do arise.

You use Windoze because that's what came installed on your computer.
It's easy because of that.  This is where the monopoly begins and ends.
   If everyone had to separately purchase and install their own
operating system, Microsoft would soon go out of business.  How many of
you non-technical people have ever installed Windoze?  It might go
smooth, it might be hell.  Linux installs used to be hard, three or four
years ago, but are now so easy it's not even funny.

There are applications, for free, for Linux to do anything you would
ever want to do with a computer, but if you just absolutely must have
that bloated and expensive M$-Office, then you can buy Crossover Office
from Codeweavers for $70 and run it under Linux just fine.  However,
OpenOffice.org, can handle 99% of anything you can do with the M$ suite,
including reading and writing M$-Office documents, and do somethings
that Microbloat can't, like a built in feature to print to a PDF.  All
this in a *free* 60M download.

Exchanging data is not a function of the OS, it's a function of using
open standards, which M$ does not play well.  Openly documenting file
formats should have been part of the anti-trust settlement, and would
have been if Ashcroft's army hadn't bent over for Bill.

As far as development tools go, the only significant development tool
that is available for Windoze, that is not available for Linux, is
M$-Visual Basic.  Who cares?  There are *way* more great development
tools for Linux, because it's all created by the developers.  I am not a
developer, but every developer I've ever talked to that has used both
Windoze and Linux prefers Linux.

Don't even talk about searchable support databases.  The open source
community is an endless fountain of people more than willing to help.
There are more MCSE (Must Call Someone Else) out there, who will charge
you money to call Microsoft for you, but a real community provides more
and better support.

>  
> Linux is no stranger to security vulnerabilities, so far this
> month we're aware of two, July saw five, and June saw three, and
> I'm not even listing distribution-specific vulnerabilities.  It
> does appear that there are (presently) fewer vulnerabilities in
> Linux, but these are only  _known_  vulnerabilities.  Again:
> Microsoft gets a  _lot_  of attention, and (I believe) they have
> more people stressing their products; though, I will agree, M.S.
> tends to let more problems "slip through the cracks" than the
> Open Source community does, though this is partly attributable to
> M.S. trying to provide a more open and usable architecture (API)
> for developers (while keeping their products closed-source), and
> also so as to provide more and more usability to please the
> desires of the masses (as identified by their P.R. and R&D
> staff). . .  which is typical of the trade-off between security
> and usability.

More FUD.  Linux is inherently more secure for both servers and the
desktop.  I am not going to go out and find the articles that discuss
this, but if you push me on this, I will.  Trust me, Linux is more
secure because it is a better architecture.  Very few linux users cerf
the internet logged on to their root, or adminstrator account, whereas,
I suspect 98% of all Windows users today are logging on to an account
that has full rights over their account.  Under linux, and virus or worm
would have to be socially engineered to get you to enter the root
password to infect a machine.  Much more difficult to do than simply
write a script that executes an ActiveX script when someone opens an
email, that, by default, has full access to your naked machine.  You
see, Linux is a better architecture.  Windows was created before the
wild wild west of the internet.  Linux is a creature of the internet.

>  
> CERT observed that in 2002, "...Linux software accounted for 16
> out of the 29 advisories published during the first 10 months of
> 2002.  During those same 10 months, only seven security problems
> were documented in Microsoft products."
> ( http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19996.html )

More FUD.  Statistics misused to prove a predetermined point.  First of
all the vulnerabilities are not all for Linux, but for other open source
applications, whereas only the Windows OS vulerabilities are used.  To
say that these are Linux vulnerabilities is like saying that AOL bugs
are Windows bugs.  In this study, Aberdeen mixes apples and oranges to
get the fruit punch they want.

>  
> Where Windows lacks in some areas, *nix (Linux, UNIX, etc.) can
> offer alternatives, such as in the areas of server speed and
> stability; per processor cost effectiveness; distributed
> computing; and, specialized research and forensic toolkits that
> do not exist outside of the *nix world.  I appreciate Linux, and
> I am thankful for those that contribute to it.

And PDAs and Super computers and IBM mainframes and reduced cost of
ownership and higer security and pretty much anywhere a computer is
used, Linux can fill the gap.  How does a one trick pony like MS compete
with that?  Hire SCO to file legal claims against the GPL, I guess.  In
that they will fail.

>  
> I have no desire to  _worship_  Gates, but I do find it
> _acceptable_  to use Microsoft products when it's the prevelant
> O.S. of the era in which we live.  Though the obstinate bigot I
> may be <sly-grin> (there's that word again), my ideals are not
> such that I'll avoid using Microsoft's products, not any more so
> than I would want to avoid using Linux for some unreasonable and
> non-relevant reason.  I would like to think that I can have an
> effect on some of the big things in the world, but it's not
> always practical for my schedule <grin>.  I have other things
> that I'd like to do with my time, so I will not pursue goals of
> eliminating those entities which do not  _perfectly_  contribute
> towards the most idealistic improvements of the human condition.
> (Let's keep W.M.D. out of this, though.  <cough-cough>)

Are you talking about Windows of Mass Destruction?  ;-)

>  
> On the Linux front:  if someone wants to sponsor a Linux
> installation party, I would be happy to contribute my time and
> assistance, as long as we're able to ensure to those end-users
> (whom we would assist) that they will have their data restored,
> and will be able to utilize their existing data.

I'll go one better than that, Chris.  I will personally come to any
LEARN member's house, for free, and install Linux on your existing
machine in such as way that you will not only not lose any data, but you
  will be able to boot into Windoze or Linux.  I will also be available
for any questions you may have about how to do things in Linux.  I'll
even give you my cell phone number.  The only thing I would ask in
return is that you actually use Linux exclusively for at least two weeks
before making any decisions about switching back.  If you are one of the
brave souls that has read this far, you are interested enough that you
should take me up on my offer.  It will be the best thing you have ever
done for your computer.

Peace, love, and linux,

Jim Herrmann

_______________________________________________
Learnchat mailing list
The opinions expressed are those of the sender and not necessarily those 
of the LEARN organization.
http://kclearn.org/mailman/listinfo/learnchat