ubuntu's popularity

funkmuscle · 2010-02-16 12:23:16

Hey, was just wondering, with the popularity of Ubuntu, that's putting Linux in the spotlight, you think that would open up to viruses created for unix based systems?

Personally, I don't know how folks deal with Ubuntu or any other linux distros once you've used Arch..

On the upside, Ubuntu's popularity may have companies look at Linux seriously and commercial apps can be made for those who chose linux as their OS and need these apps.

What do you think?

Lich · 2010-02-16 12:55:06

Linux is already used by companies, but not for their desktops. I've yet to see one company in my country (out of the ones that I'm in touch with anyway) that uses anything but Linux for their servers. And no, they don't use Ubuntu.
Even the subway plasma screens use Linux + some live feed client (seen them restart a bunch of times while waiting for the train).

As for Ubuntu's popularity, it's caused by the fact that it's really easy to use, easier than Windows, some might say. That until you hit trouble, like drivers and whatnot. But then again, I've seen people on Windows that had no idea how to reinstall a driver..so I guess that's no biggie.
I myself have used Ubuntu quite a lot (a lot more than I've used Arch), and it has it's fair share of appeal, making it popular. One good thing about it would be that it's really easy to set up once you have it installed (plus it already comes with a lot of useful applications), the other would be the community. Beeing so popular helped build a HUGE community, in which you can probably get a problem solving answer addressing your "issue" in a matter of minutes. That happens here too, sometimes, so I would say that our communities are a bit alike (YES! I SAID IT!).

Concerning viruses, odd enough, a Linux virus/worm/trojan would be A LOT easier to write than a Windows one nowadays. The good thing about that is that a normal v/w/t would only affect one user. The bad thing? For one, by default sudo has a timeout period, so any application that you run in that time period could run as root if it so wishes. Something to think about when you set up a sudoers file

Last edited by Lich (2010-02-16 12:55:41)

sHyLoCk · 2010-02-16 12:56:55

^ I use wheel NOPASSWD, ohnoez

Skripka · 2010-02-16 12:58:02

How many active viruses and exploits exist for Apache?

There went the "once it is popular and common, there will be lots of viruses" theory.

Skripka · 2010-02-16 12:59:44

Lich wrote:

Concerning viruses, odd enough, a Linux virus/worm/trojan would be A LOT easier to write than a Windows one nowadays. The good thing about that is that a normal v/w/t would only affect one user. The bad thing? For one, by default sudo has a timeout period, so any application that you run in that time period could run as root if it so wishes. Something to think about when you set up a sudoers file

You don't need sudo type permission to wreak havoc on a users system. Most users care more about what is in /home as a matter of fact.

Lich · 2010-02-16 13:00:55

Skripka wrote:

Lich wrote:
Concerning viruses, odd enough, a Linux virus/worm/trojan would be A LOT easier to write than a Windows one nowadays. The good thing about that is that a normal v/w/t would only affect one user. The bad thing? For one, by default sudo has a timeout period, so any application that you run in that time period could run as root if it so wishes. Something to think about when you set up a sudoers file
You don't need sudo type permission to wreak havoc on a users system. Most users care more about what is in /home as a matter of fact.

Yes, but you can't render the system unusable with only user permissions. Why settle for ~/ when you can kill / ?

Skripka · 2010-02-16 13:04:54

Lich wrote:

Yes, but you can't render the system unusable with only user permissions. Why settle for ~/ when you can kill / ?

You could get pretty damn close, at least from an Ubuntu users perspective. If you went to the effort of crafting a malicious ~/.DE-Config-Hidden-File you could easily render Gnome/KDE/etc unusable. Take away their GUI, and they is helpless Mwahahaaaa.

Last edited by Skripka (2010-02-16 13:11:15)

Lich · 2010-02-16 13:15:52

Well, there's lots you could do, that's why I said this stuff is easier to do on Linux. It's really easy to get in considering that not all Linux users are actually good sysadmins. They run whatever they find, some of them.

Misfit138 · 2010-02-16 14:12:09

In my opinion, distros like openSUSE and *buntu, though popular, are abysmal failures for one simple reason; they have created operating systems that you plop into a machine and cross your fingers, hoping they will work. Non-techy users WILL LEAVE immediately when their video resolution is wrong out of the box, or their Broadcom wireless is inoperable or flaky, or there is no way to play Fear at maximum settings.
I know there are many people who use the buntus and SUSE and everything "just works" for them. I have read testimonials to that effect. But as far as making headway into the desktop market, I for one, absolutely do not see it so far.
The development model of *buntu is flawed at best; a distribution based on another distribution's testing branch, patched and released every 6 months.
If you want to truly create a competitive product to OSX or Windows, there is a way to do it: Freeze all packages of any distribution, and then fork EVERY PACKAGE IN THE ENTIRE PROJECT, (as licenses allow) from the kernel on up to Xorg, squashing each bug along the way and without updating anything to "upstream", ever again.
The distribution would then eventually actually become an operating system, rather than a mish-mosh and mixture of hundreds of projects from all over the place, combined and proven to work with ~%70 of all hardware.
Ubuntu's plague of regression and subsequent failure as an OSX or Window's alternative will never end as long as they keep their current development model, imo.

JohannesSM64 · 2010-02-16 14:44:32

I agree. If the try-to-do-it-for-you-and-often-fail distros were all that's available, I would still be using Windows.

Ubuntu's popularity may have companies look at Linux seriously and commercial apps can be made for those who chose linux as their OS and need these apps.

...which are hardcoded for one specific distro and require hacks and workaround to run in a real distro like Arch

Last edited by JohannesSM64 (2010-02-16 14:46:55)

Cyrusm · 2010-02-16 14:48:35

Lich wrote:

It's really easy to get in considering that not all Linux users are actually good sysadmins.

I feel that this statement is true with any operating system. Some of the advantages that linux has over other operating systems when it comes to security,
is the openness and flexibility with text based configuration, user permissions etc. but if you don't know how to use these features (i.e. be a good sysadmin)
you're wide open for attack. someone could do something as simple as put a fork-bomb into your xinitrc and keep an inexperienced user out of business
for weeks. basically, the "security" that linux offers is nothing more than a set of tools that first must be properly configured and regularly monitored by the
admin. and if they aren't, that computer is at risk from malicious attack. The same can be said for any operating system. if you know how to use the security tools
your system will be relatively safe.

Last edited by Cyrusm (2010-02-16 14:53:17)

R00KIE · 2010-02-16 15:16:14

Well ... forking and freezing everything is stopping in time and that's bad, but if you want that I guess that debian stable or centos already sort of do that.

I guess that what makes linux so great is also one of its biggest problems, choice. People can fork a project or start a new one because they don't like something about current projects. In theory that's fine but in practice that spreads resources and creates confusion among new users, even worse it can create a really bad image.

Usually the alternatives have strong and weak points and usually some weak point intersects with one corner case of usage for many users. For people coming from windows having two sound systems, several sound servers, desktop managers and window managers aplenty is very puzzling.

That said *buntu, suse, fedora, etc. are a good entry point to the linux world. They present the user with a (mostly) working environment and (somewhat) sensible configurations. However when things don't work it's worse than a nightmare to fix, but then again, for someone fresh out of windows it's format and reinstall.

Eventually I guess _some_ users will want to learn more and have more control and will try other distros, most probably they will find Arch and stay but there are also other users that don't want or don't have the time to learn how things work and need something that works and updates itself without much user interaction.

I'm not saying that I fancy *buntu or other similar distros (and mind you that I have started with ubuntu), in fact, now when I take a peek at these distros with live cds sometimes I'm puzzled at the choices and configurations they make when taking into account the type of users that are targeted, but for new users they present something similar to what they are used to see and use, so they have their place.

Maybe that is another problem, new users expect linux to be a free windows while it's most certainly not, however *buntu & Co. seem to be doing a good job at captivating new users.

funkmuscle · 2010-02-16 15:17:17

well I use the computer for recording music. And I've tried all the other distros even the one made for studio work and yet none compares to Arch.
over at linuxmusicians.com, it sickens me when a question is asked, the repliers automatically assume the user is either a*buntu user or a Deb user.
That prompted the question I first asked... I a musician but also works as a sysadmin but for a Windows network.

Themaister · 2010-02-16 16:39:35

JohannesSM64 wrote:

I agree. If the try-to-do-it-for-you-and-often-fail distros were all that's available, I would still be using Windows.
Ubuntu's popularity may have companies look at Linux seriously and commercial apps can be made for those who chose linux as their OS and need these apps.
...which are hardcoded for one specific distro and require hacks and workaround to run in a real distro like Arch

Word ... Just look at the ATi proprietary drivers. It's thanks to lots of work that it even runs (?) on Arch.

raf_kig · 2010-02-16 18:58:11

Lich wrote:

Yes, but you can't render the system unusable with only user permissions. Why settle for ~/ when you can kill / ?

Because you don't want to kill anything. You want passwords (online-banking anyone?), you want nice little bots (spam mail, ddos, ...) but you sure as hell don't want to kill a box that you just owned.

Misfit138 wrote:

Freeze all packages of any distribution, and then fork EVERY PACKAGE IN THE ENTIRE PROJECT, (as licenses allow) from the kernel on up to Xorg, squashing each bug along the way and without updating anything to "upstream", ever again.

Sounds like debian stable (except for the 'ever again part', but is sometimes feels like forever :-))

JohannesSM64 wrote:

...which are hardcoded for one specific distro and require hacks and workaround to run in a real distro like Arch

Oh yeah, a real distro, let's play elitist fucktards!

Misfit138 · 2010-02-16 19:15:13

When I said "freeze everything and fork", I meant it...
That means no such thing as "upstream" forever more. Every single bug and all development is handled in-house by the new project staff.
There would never be a reason to "upgrade" to the next kernel or any other piece of software, from upstream sources. The entire "package set" of the entire distribution would be forked, then developed, and maintained by the new OS team. All software would be more tightly integrated, and all code would begin to be audited for working together and more reliably on a broader scope of hardware..
This is the only way to develop a desktop GNU/Linux OS to compete with Windows/OSX.

A billionaire, like Shuttleworth, could make it happen...but it won't happen.

raf_kig · 2010-02-16 19:33:24

Well, that's certainly not the way it works for Windows and OS X - you can't develop everything yourself.

A tightly integrated core and third party applications for everything else would be the way to go if you wanted to compete directly.
But there is a lot of stuff you'd have to do in order to get there. For example getting rid of this insane shared library system - no vendor likes putting up with the moving target mess that is an average linux distribution.
And users don't love it either - just have a look at the number of posts 'inspired' ;-) by the recent libpng upgrade.

And you'd have to get some standards that people actually implemented - not n standardized ways to select a default application for $file, drag and drop that works (always!), copy & paste working between all applications, ...

It all comes down to standardizing on one way to do things - and that is not gonna happen. Not ever. It's just orthogonal to how the open source world works.

Last edited by raf_kig (2010-02-16 19:36:49)

Skripka · 2010-02-16 19:35:56

raf_kig wrote:

Well, that's certainly not the way it works for Windows and OS X - you can't develop everything yourself.
A tightly integrated core and third party applications for everything else would be the way to go if you wanted to compete directly.
But there is a lot of stuff you'd have to do in order to get there. For example getting rid of this insane shared library system - no vendor likes putting up with the moving target mess that is an average linux distribution.
And users don't love it either - just have a look at the number of posts 'inspired' ;-) by the recent libpng upgrade.

Um. Yea.

Shared libraries are FAR FAR FAR less problematic than the alternative.

raf_kig · 2010-02-16 19:37:52

Are they? Would you like to expand your argument a little so that one could actually engage in a debate? :-)

Skripka · 2010-02-16 19:48:05

raf_kig wrote:

Are they? Would you like to expand your argument a little so that one could actually engage in a debate? :-)

Choose-elegance, and occasional library changes. Libpng/libjpeg updates are fairly uncommon, and those libraries go unnoticed 99% of the time by 90%+ users I'd wager. I had no problems here, but I've read of folks who have.

Or

The MESS and BLOAT filled "C:\Programs" directory. LOTS of libraries that are needed by LOTS of apps, that you have 12 versions (sometimes identical, sometimes different) of in C:\Programs-when you only need one. Keeping track of duplicates and their specific tweaks for hardware and software also complicates the hellscape that is the Windows registry. There's many reasons why Windows was a crash prone BSOD for a long time, the registry and duplicate libraries being some of the problems.

Ever wonder why an installer for a Printer driver (for my HP Colorsmart 6280) says that it "needs" 600-900MB of HDD space?...when Windows includes generic enough drivers/libraries to get basic functioning out of most all printers?

Last edited by Skripka (2010-02-16 19:48:44)

Primoz · 2010-02-16 20:07:43

"Back to the main question".
I remember the whole Gnome-look debacle with a Screen-saver that was actually a virus of some kind.
It created quite of panic in Ubuntu community.
So viruses? Yes they exist and are already here.
Malicious scripts? just take a look at Troll/bin and you'll see.
Better support? to some extent... But sometimes not shared. Or better varies from distro to distro....

raf_kig · 2010-02-16 20:37:07

Skripka wrote:

Choose-elegance, and occasional library changes. Libpng/libjpeg updates are fairly uncommon, and those libraries go unnoticed 99% of the time by 90%+ users I'd wager. I had no problems here, but I've read of folks who have.

Yeah, but having to maintain programs to sustain compatibility with $api is a PITA, recompiling thousands of programs against $new library is elegant?

Skripka wrote:

The MESS and BLOAT filled "C:\Programs" directory. LOTS of libraries that are needed by LOTS of apps, that you have 12 versions (sometimes identical, sometimes different) of in C:\Programs-when you only need one.

Yeah, but usually programs won't work with any version of $library, and disk space is dirt cheap.

Skripka wrote:

Keeping track of duplicates and their specific tweaks for hardware and software also complicates the hellscape that is the Windows registry.

not sure what you are trying to tell me here :-)
If i ship $program with $dll I don't need to 'tweak' anything in the registry - I just ship with my own libraries and I'm done. Software compiled 15 years ago, running ootb on an OS released last year. That's compatibility.

Skripka wrote:

There's many reasons why Windows was a crash prone BSOD for a long time, the registry and duplicate libraries being some of the problems.

The main problem was, that windows driver quality used to be extremely poor. Microsoft has worked on this (eg driver certs) and has come a long way. But this doesn't have to do anything with statically vs dynamically linked applications.

Skripka wrote:

Ever wonder why an installer for a Printer driver (for my HP Colorsmart 6280) says that it "needs" 600-900MB of HDD space?...when Windows includes generic enough drivers/libraries to get basic functioning out of most all printers?

Yeah I did, but I was unable to find a sane explanation, other vendors seem capable of doing the same with much less space :-)

But more to the point - I'm not arguing for NO shared libraries at all. I'd love a bunch of core libraries that are tightly integrated and have a stable api.
A vendor should be able to compile his package once, dynamically linking only against the stable core api, and ship the rest of his dependencies himself. So $package would work on all distributions and versions, not only on ubuntu xx.yy with a patch-level from dd-mm-yyyy.

Btw - I think OS X' way of having a folder containing the application + its dependencies and treating that as an executable is really nice from a user pov.

Last edited by raf_kig (2010-02-16 20:43:53)

Misfit138 · 2010-02-16 20:46:54

raf_kig wrote:

Well, that's certainly not the way it works for Windows and OS X - you can't develop everything yourself.
A tightly integrated core and third party applications for everything else would be the way to go if you wanted to compete directly.

This is pretty much exactly what I am proposing. The OS comes first, the 3rd party applications would follow-- if it was done right.

IMO, the best way to get things done is to grab a set of balls and to be the change you want to see happen. A change like this, however, requires massive resources. Unfortunately, the payoff for someone who has the resources to invest in the first place, would not be very attractive. However, if Shuttleworth were truly to put his money where his mouth is, this would be a very realistic project. Rather than re-inventing Debian, (and the wheel along with it) it would re-invent the OS by making a freely available, stable, reliable, predictable and technically superior system.

Again, I realize this will never happen, and I don't particularly care if it does or not. It's the way of things, I suppose..

raf_kig wrote:

But more to the point - I'm not arguing for NO shared libraries at all. I'd love a bunch of core libraries that are tightly integrated and have a stable api.
A vendor should be able to compile his package once, dynamically linking only against the stable core api, and ship the rest of his dependencies himself. So $package would work on all distributions and versions, not only on ubuntu xx.yy with a patch-level from dd-mm-yyyy.
Btw - I think OS X' way of having a folder containing the application + its dependencies and treating that as an executable is really nice from a user pov.

We're pretty much on the same page.

Bralkein · 2010-02-16 21:31:50

I always assumed that the popularity of Ubuntu was this benevolent universe's way of making me feel l33t for using Arch and also to give me a big bunch of people to look down my nose at.

Misfit138 · 2010-02-16 22:01:23

Bralkein wrote:

I always assumed that the popularity of Ubuntu was this benevolent universe's way of making me feel l33t for using Arch and also to give me a big bunch of people to look down my nose at.

Well, it's not quite a dead rat in a bottle. But it's a start.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-02-16 12:23:16

ubuntu's popularity

#2 2010-02-16 12:55:06

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#3 2010-02-16 12:56:55

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#4 2010-02-16 12:58:02

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#5 2010-02-16 12:59:44

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#6 2010-02-16 13:00:55

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#7 2010-02-16 13:04:54

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#8 2010-02-16 13:15:52

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#9 2010-02-16 14:12:09

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#10 2010-02-16 14:44:32

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#11 2010-02-16 14:48:35

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#12 2010-02-16 15:16:14

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#13 2010-02-16 15:17:17

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#14 2010-02-16 16:39:35

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#15 2010-02-16 18:58:11

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#16 2010-02-16 19:15:13

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#17 2010-02-16 19:33:24

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#18 2010-02-16 19:35:56

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#19 2010-02-16 19:37:52

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#20 2010-02-16 19:48:05

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#21 2010-02-16 20:07:43

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#22 2010-02-16 20:37:07

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#23 2010-02-16 20:46:54

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#24 2010-02-16 21:31:50

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#25 2010-02-16 22:01:23

Re: ubuntu's popularity

Board footer