I have to agree with the idea of Linus not becoming mainstream. I think it should stay as an OS for the advanced user, a way to teach people how computers and software really work. To make it mainstream only puts it in a position to become another bad OS out there. I have nothing against Linux, I just like things easier. Windows provides what I want in an OS and even with all the problems said to exist in Windows, I have hardly had a virus in my PC, or hardly any OS related problems like freeze-ups and bog-downs and even errors. I do my best to keep my system up to date, I use any and all kinds of protection such as ant-virus, spyware and pop-up blockers, firewalls hardware and software,, but most importantly what I do online. I watch all places I visit and am not that stupid to enter those which have potentials for viruses and all other types of malware. I learned that the hard way on my first ventures on the internet years ago.

Personally I couldn't care less what OS other people use. A person should use what works for them. I like Linux (Slackware) because it works for me. It's the best OS (for me) not because I use it, I use it because it's the best OS (for me).

Those who are constantly trying to get people to switch to Linux are fan boys who just want to feel like they are somehow a little better or something. Idiots.

My brand new laptop came with Xp, and I haven't yet installed Slack on it, but I will eventually when I have the time. It's not so bad. I simply prefer Linux.

My main box at home runs Xp, Slack, SuSE, and Mepis. I switch around between them and use them all even though Slack is my primary OS.

Linux should definitely become mainstream.

But only when the time is right.

I tried both Redhat and Mepis Linux and was not very impressed. I gave it a sincere effort for an entire semester in college. Even though I didn't have the time to dedicate to learning Linux and how everything works, I made the time. My experience with it, however, was lackluster. I did enjoy the Synaptic feature of Mepis. It allowed me to find a good number of software that I could use without any compiling. Some of these programs didn't quite cut it though. One major problem I found with open source software is the lack of documentation. Usually the programmer(s) believes that everyone in the world is on broadband (go ahead and criticize my use of dialup...I'm in the "chillin'-out-at-home-with-the-parents-after-graduating" phase of my life. As a result, I'm rockin' the dialup.). The problem with this assumption is that the documentation is online. I don't like to have to connect every single time I need to read something about my software. Another problem I ran into with Linux, was the fact that my soft-modem didn't work. 3-D acceleration didn't work as well as it should have, along with a slew of minor, but annoying problems. All of these problems convinced me to to go back to Windows XP. I was worried about viruses and the like, but I remedied that by simply getting anti-virus software and keeping it updated (duh). Spyware and all the other baddies out there hardly ever infiltrate my computer. (This thing is like a virtual Ft. Knox.)

All in all, unless any flavor of Linux actually runs everything I need it to without hours and hours of figuring out what to do, I won't be going back.

Until I have a problem with Windows, I have no desire to switch. Believe it or not, I haven't had a BSOD since I had Win95. No crashes or major freezes. Sometimes a program stop responding, but I've had that happen on OSX too. I think it's just what computers do.

The major problem I would have with Linux or even OSX is the limited number of programs available.

Linux has a long way to go before it's even close to mainstream.  It has several things it needs to address before that.  Like simple software installation, and yes I know there are package installations but those caused me just as many problems as compiling.

It's hardware incompatibilities are what the real problem is.  I can't count how many people I know tried linux and couldn't get some part of their machine to work.  Whether it's the video card, sound card, or modem.  The average user is not going to choose this.

I think the real question is "What makes Linux more secure then Windows?"

The volume of hackers possibly egged on by the greater volume of users shouldn't make much difference if the majority of or flagship distros of Linux truly are more 'secure' then Windows.

This is a very good question to ask but I would beg anyone to debate the issue honestly with as many examples as possible in an open fashion far away from rhetorical devices.

My lil bro' uses Linux, he got me in to the Redhat release (distro, whatever). I partitioned my hard drive so I can use both XP and Linux. Though I always have issues with spyware, malware, virii, etc. with Winxp, I've never had those problems with Redhat running WinX. I don't know enough about either system to argue for one over the other. I would really appreciate some articulate techie providing some insight, non-ideologically, regarding this matter.

I think I would prefer Solaris as a mainstream system.

Solaris has exactly one company behind it and you can buy it pre-installed on computers built for it.

If only Sun would get their act together.

So what most of you are saying is that the chance of Linux getting attacked as often as Windows does today, if it were to go mainstream(when ever it does), is not a problem because you feel it is secure enough to deal with the barrage of hackers that will be on the hunt?

Well then, what are you Linux guys waiting for? Why isn't Linux already mainstream? Why aren't there any installer type software to make it easier to use Linux for us average users? Money talks and I believe that many software makers will not hesitate to start making software compatible to Linux if it were more mainstream that it is today.

I think the real question is "What makes Linux more secure then Windows?"

And what would be the answer to this. Would like to know since I only know what I have read about Linux. I have never tried it myself.

The volume of hackers possibly egged on by the greater volume of users shouldn't make much difference if the majority of or flagship distros of Linux truly are more 'secure' then Windows.

You say shouldn't, I would like a more direct answer like "won't". If shouldn't is the best anyone can give then the chance of Linux becoming another "Windows" is still there. Your question of "What makes Linux more secure then Windows?" does not make Linux hack-free. Sure it might be harder than Windows, but that will only make hackers want to try harder and when they accomplish their mission, satisfaction will be greater than any Windows hack ever made. But then we would never really know just how good Linux is till we put it to a real world test. That would be interesting to see.

Your question of "What makes Linux more secure then Windows?" does not make Linux hack-free. - DjBandit

It wasn't a rhetorical question made to prove that point, DjBandit.

I am simply posing the question if Linux really is so much more 'secure' then Windows then the greater number of attackers shouldn't (won't would be an absolute and no O/S will ever be 100% 'secure') be a problem for it - so if someone comes along and makes a good case presenting Linux as more secure then Windows, the question of security with a higher number of users and attackers shouldn't somehow magically make Linux 'less secure'.

There is no such thing as a bullet proof system. That's a dream. If someone is skilled enough and determined enough any system can be cracked regardless of the OS. If you're looking for perfection, you won't find it in any OS.

Linux is more secure if it is used properly. Human error still plays a role. If someone is dumb enough to run as root user, they are opening their system up to everything. Properly used, with a proper user account with limited permissions, it is very difficult for that user to expose the core system to malware, and a cracker must be able to gain root access in order to affect the core system. This is what makes Linux more secure by default.

Another comparison is the fact that Windows allows self-executing programs, where Linux does not. In order to run a virus in Linux for example, the user would have to actually execute the file in order for it to run. And even then, it would only be able to run within that user's permissions, not gaining access to the core system unless the user was dumb enough to log in as root and actually give that virus root permissions. This means that while someone could infect a system with a virus, it's damage would be very limited, unlike Windows.

That said, I restate that there is no bulletproof OS out there. Some are more secure by default than others, but any system can be cracked given the right conditions. The primary problems with Windows is user. Most users run in the default Aministrator mode, which allows full access to the system. Creating a limited rights user can help make the Windows system more secure. Combine that with a good firewall and anti-malware tools, and it can be made reasonably secure. It's the defaults with Windows that blows.

As for "real world test", there are literally millions of Linux boxes out there now.

#10 by Deference Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Ok I got ya. But let me ask this, how often has Linux been attacked compared to Windows? I ask cause I only know so much. I know I can probably research it but if you know why not just ask right? Hehe. Has Linux been hit enough times to say for sure that it is very, very secure or is this all based on a few attempts and a very sure mentallity that it's not gonna happen often?

I personally just feel that Microsoft having so many PCs out there running their OS that it only makes sense for hacker to want to hit as many PCs as possible. JMO.

When the time is right, should Linux become mainstream?

Not until propeller-cap manufacture is sufficiently up to speed to enable their distribution with each copy of the OS....

Funny Jafo

Desert Fox

linux will never become mainstream unless people want to use it... and people will never want to use it because its not quite user friendly... your gramma or mom is not gonna figure out how to compile a program to run/install it etc... and like MasonM said... no OS is bulletproof... ever OS has a leak... it seems like Windows has major leaks because majority of the world use it and complain about it... you dont hear people complaining about problems with linux because majority of the people dont use it... and Also because the people who use it are techies ... so they know whats good and what not... there are many factors to why one OS is percieved more secure then other... although again like MasonM said .. not one OS is bulletproof... (and that default windows thing is so true haha).