The world thru my eyes.
I figured I talk alot why not write a lot also.
When the time is right, should Linux become mainstream?
Published on March 7, 2006 By DJBandit In Personal Computing
I have a good question for you Linux users and for those who don't use it as well. I have often heard that if Linux becomes mainstream (in other words what Windows in today) that it, too, will become another OS with hundreds of vulnerabilities found all the time. That it being an OS found on 90% of the computers in the world, that hackers will be working their butts off to hack it just like they do with Windows today.

If this were to happen and Linux could be in the same place Windows is now, why would anyone want people to switch from Windows to Linux? Why would you want an OS that, according to Linux users, is a solid OS with very little problems that is used by a very small amount of PCs, to become mainstream and a potential target for hackers who live trying to hack that which claims to be safer, specially when they can get to thousands and thousands at once because of the wide spread use?

I remember someone once saying that they don't understand why all the Linux people are trying to convince others to drop Windows and go for Linux. He likes it due to the fact that not everyone has it and so the potential for finding vulnerabilities in it is very, very low. He would rather have Linux stay the way it is rather than it become mainstream. What do you guys think?
Popular Articles in this Category
Popular Articles from DJBandit
Need help with decrypting, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Updated: In search of a Stardock gift, need help please.
To know thy self?
Fidel Castro nears death, it's Bush's fault
The 14 hour man
Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
16
tjesterb
on Mar 08, 2006
Becoming mainstream does not necessarily play to Linux's strengths. It is an extremely versatile, secure OS, but it's versatility is more in it's ability to be set up for many different kinds of dedicated purposes, such as a web server, or mail server, than as a workstation.
Linux has many obstacles to becoming "mainstream" not the least of which is the divisions within the Linux community itself.
With commercial development of an OS or application, you have one person or group of persons calling the shots, and moving the project toward a predetermined goal.
With an open source project you have a lot more individuals and "splinter-groups" that have their own vision of what goals are trying to be achieved.
Some of the Linux community wants it to become a mainstream "Windows-Killer", while others despise the thought of the masses using their elite OS (how else could they claim to have the superior, geekier OS if everyone is using it? ) They spend more time arguing over the superior distro than anything else I see.
There is also a "Catch-22" type of problem, in that the average user isn't going to be interested unless all their favorite applications will run on it. But the major application (and game)developers aren't going to develop for an OS that only has 4-6% of the desktop market share.
What Linux does, it does very well. But "mainstream" whatever that may mean, is not where its strengths lie. People have a hard enough time switching between PCs and Macs, much less Linux, and look how much market-share the Macs can claim.
17
zergimmi
on Mar 09, 2006
Many years ago when I first loaded red hat onto my old p2 system, to mainly have a look and learn about ths new system, I would have agreed with many o the comments above, eg: not user friebdly, needing to compile software , lack of drive support and lack of software.
However time has moved on and so has linux, I now use Linspire and have been since version 3, it still has some short comings, however so does XP. My point is I have not had to compile software for years now, drive support is stiil a bit slow, but this seems to be changing, and software is comparable to windows and osx. I have set my Mpther up with Linspire on here new laptop mainly due to its ease of use, especially when she needs new software or to upgrade existing. Linux is definitely a broadband system, and with the features such as CNR, is a system that suits me just fine, and costs me much less than xp. I suppose software is a personal thing, you buy what you need.
Personally I like XP and Linspire and for me each has its uses, I am now running Solaris on my server and am enjoying learning about it as well, maybe I am a software junkie, by I do enjoy learnig how all these systems work . Having said this I wuld say linux is a lot closer to mainstream than most would give it credit for. The true test will be when the major software vendors chose to support this platform.
18
PurrBall
on Mar 09, 2006
If a vulnerability is found within a package it is usually fixed in a few minutes.
19
DJBandit
on Mar 09, 2006
If a vulnerability is found within a package it is usually fixed in a few minutes.


Of which OS do you speak of? Linux? If so that doesn't mean no one will get to it. If people don't update they run the risk of getting attcked. That is one of the main reason many people have problems with Windows, I have read of problems a long time after a fix has been issued.
20
DJBandit
on Mar 09, 2006
When the time is right, should Linux become mainstream?


Just in case the title was not completely understood, when I said "when the time is right" I meant when Linux was much easier to use, more compatible and ready for Linux-version mainstream software and games. I can only think that the Linux community has in mind the idea of making it so that someday it, too, will play games like Windows does. I know there are ways of making it play games but I believe it should be part of the system not an add on. JMO. In other words if Linux was to be similar to Windows in the way it's installed, the ease of use, installing software, etc, should it become mainstream or just stay as it is?
21
tjesterb
on Mar 09, 2006
The true test will be when the major software vendors chose to support this platform.

That's going to be the biggest key.
For anyone who uses some of the big name software out there such as Creative Suite, or Dreamweaver, or someone who wants to do a lot of video/photo/audio editing, there are no comparable counterparts for the Linux OS.
I'm sure someone will point out that the GIMP is just as good as Photoshop, but, no, it isn't. In a recent survey asking what was the piece of software people would most like see ported to Linux, Photoshop was number one by a sizable margin.
Like it or not, some software and file formats have become the standards in their respective areas.
Linux, and Apache have become standards in the server arena, Macs are still the de-facto standard in the publishing industry, and Windows is the standard for the workstation and home desktop. I make a living because the average person doesn't even want to figure out how to operate their Windows PC at anything more than a minimal level. God help them if they're faced with a command prompt, or if they have to figure out what the heck "dev\hd\0" is.
In short, I just don't see Linux becoming mainstream to any great degree, at least in the United States. Some parts of the world that maybe don't have 20+ years of Window s background may adopt Linux more easily.
Just my $.02.
22
wriker
on Mar 24, 2006
I have to agree on that part.. Linux has a long ways to go before it can even make it in the mainstream and in the big brother realm. Infact I have tried linux versions from Fedora 3 to 4 and then from Linspire (wasn't really impressed by Linspire) they try hard to make linux seem easy but as I found out from trying out linspire the drivers on my Gateway Pc wasn't at all compatible with Linspire nor was the printing, scanning or the modem and the graphics card forget it! It doesn't even support 3D Drivers at all! With Susie 10 I tried that and forget it.
It comes down to this.. if anyone wants to run or use Linux go and get a Pentinum thru look thru the compaitablity list and see what hardware and software you would need to succesfully run an Linux OS on it.
Cause the computers nowdays well never be compaitble with any version or software of Linux at all!
23
Notok
on Mar 25, 2006
This means that while someone could infect a system with a virus, it's damage would be very limited, unlike Windows.
Well, if a virus infects a Windows machine under a limited user account, then the effect would be the same.. it would really only affect that profile and not the whole system (unless it used a privilege escallation expliot).

The default configuration is more of what makes Linux more secure than Windows. Microsoft had a lot of pressure to make it user friendly to everyone from the first time computer user to IT pros working in large corporate environments. To do that, they put everything in and turned it all on. In Linux you have to add things as necessary, and run under a limited user account by default. You can actually tweak Windows down to be fairly secure, and with some good security software and good internet "hygeine" you can stay very safe. A lot of malware spreads because of user naïveté.

Aside from the settings, they're probably pretty much equal. Open source software generally does patch problems faster, but MS has gotten a lot better these days, and are now being held up by security researchers as the standard of how companies should deal with security problems.

You can see how Windows compares to Linux regarding vulnerabilities at secunia.com (they list pretty much every vulnerability that's reported for any software). As an example:

XP Pro - 130 advisories
http://secunia.com/product/22/

Red Hat Enterprise Workstation 4 - 162 advisories
http://secunia.com/product/4670/

Probably about the same, although not every vulnerability can be exploited by malware.

As far as Linux vs Windows and malware, malware used to be made by kids being mischevious or looking for notoriety among peers, now it's all about money. Whether it's advertising, data mining, theft, identity theft, or extortion (give us money or we'll make every one of the infected computers we control attack your website and take it down so nobody will be able to do online business with you). Even if they did manage to make an OS 100% secure, every program that you run on the OS could potentially leave you vulnerable, just as Internet Explorer, Outlook/Outlook Express, most instant messaging programs, Windows Media Player, Winamp, etc. are now.. there's no way you could get every single programmer in the world to write 100% secure code. Even if you could then you would still have problems with malware being bundled in with other software and people clicking on email attachments and other things that they shouldn't. 100% security just isn't possible. The point is that they're going to go with what's profitable, and when that kind of money is the motivation there will always be a way, and when you want to make money from as many people as possible on a large scale, you attack what the majority of people are using.

The bottom line is that security goes far beyond any single operating system, and just changing operating sysems is no guarantee of anything.

Posted via WinCustomize Browser/Stardock Central
24
zergimmi
on Mar 25, 2006
Linux is mainstream in some areas where it has an advantage, mainly because of its relationship to UNIX, where it is a serious competitor, specifically large scale computing systems, specifically servers, and many areas where scalability is important, however is it ready for mainstream desktop usage, will depend on what usage that is. In some limited business workstation applications it has already had what could be referred to as mainstream acceptance, one oly needs to look at and in particular govt bodies shifting to Linux, including its introduction to schools. Having said if look at accross the board usage, then it still has some way to go in this market, not least the software available and of course compatibility with hardware and ease of use. Having said this it has made some incredible gains in its very short life, if Linux can continue to improve and garner confidence in the broader community, then it will go mainstream, of course this will not spell the end of Windows or Mac, just another system in a bigger range of choice.
2 Pages1 2 
Meta
Views
» 32452
Comments
» 24
Category
» Personal Computing
Comment
Recent Article Comments
I need a joke today
LightStar Design Windowblind...
The national debt.
Let's see your political mem...
Is it just me??
Saying "Hi"
Let's start a New Jammin Thr...
Climate Change Zealots
v2.5 & Warlords Expansion Gu...
Quick thoughts on Warlords f...
Sponsored Links
Terms of Service Privacy Policy About Us Contact Us Stardock.com
© 2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.
JoeUser v1.0.0.0