What's your favourite Linux distro?

Post Reply New Topic

Very relevant to the thread I think

You should give the link, so you can see the hover text... http://xkcd.com/272/

Oh of course, the mouseover text is as good as the comic. Apologies.

How vulnerable an OS has a lot less, if not nothing to do with its market share. Its more to do with coding practices, the design of the OS and the design of its permissions/security system(s). Why do you think there was a 17 year old vulnerability in Windows NT based releases? Surely not because of its market share, but because of coding practices namely code recycling. MS is not the only company or IT firm that recycles code, but it seems quite apparent that they are recycling insecure and poor quality code all to often.


You're pretty much spot on here.

Last edited by lxuser on 25 Dec 2011, 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cautionary

A quote from a satire article called 'Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?', you can read the rest of it HERE

Why do you keep equating Linux with Unix, viruses with malware, bare bones system disconnected from the net with what the average user requires? You say more is required once the browser has been exploited. Have you looked at Ubuntu's security page? How many libraries have buffer overrun vulnerabilities etc? Getting access through malformed iso's etc?

A few months ago I researched this stuff when MacDefender hit. I do not use a mac, though have in the past and find it too dumbed down (why do you think schools are using them?) I have Lion running in a vm just to support these puter illiterate users.

I've had absolutely no malware (that me or Santa Claus knows of) in the time I've been running win7. I will set up a default win7 box, behind a basic non-firewalled router. If you can hack it I will give you $1000. No joke. You said it was easy. Lets see your balls.

BTW, I'm building a system based on LFS's guidelines as an Android and arduino dev environment (none of the distros make wet stains in my pants) so I'm not anti-linux. Just don't believe that any OS is immune to attacks. It all comes down to the neuronal mess that sits between those ears. Also what is more viable economically. Tell me, what is the number one stolen car model in America? And how expensive is it?

EDIT: And when you say "Linux" you're talking about a kernel. When you say "Windows" your'e talking OS kernel with packaged software - apples to oranges. Also when Miller was asked last year what his safest choice for web surfing was, between windows and mac, he said Win7 with ie8 or chrome and no flash.

Well for starters, where did anyone say that Linux is immune? We said it was far more secure, not 100% secure. I think everyone knows that Linux is technically a kernel, but when most people say 'Linux' they are referring to distros' as a whole not just the kernel.

I really don't buy his claims of Windows 7 using IE8 or Chrome with no Flash being the most secure because: 1 Things already become less vulnerable by taking away 3rd party plug-ins. 2 Most people are saying the opposite about IE. 3 IE still allows for the use of ActiveX Controls which has been one of IE's many weak points in the past and still is.

I pretty much agree and is the reason I don't use IE. Ever. Sure it's running in the background all the time but I minimize any troubles it could create. What Miller actually said though was it's not so much which browser, just don't use flash. Bang. Linux may be fine for us geeks, But when you want to start surfing your favoritel pr0n sites, facebook etc, that's when s**t might hit the fan. But going by the Ubuntu security bulletins I see basically no difference between OS's when it comes to vulnerabilities. Lot's of buffer overrun attacks (which managed, virtualized code helps prevent. Thanks MS).

The difference is how quick the exploits get fixed. Linux is good in this respect. But the relatively small number of updates MS are pushing with win7 show it's nowhere near as bad as it was with XP etc. And yet there is so many people here who think XP is the bees knees of windows OS's. I tell you the number of infections I see on Windows machines drop around 80-90% when people upgrade from xp to w7, without changing browsing habits. which correlates with the studies done by nonsuckmydick reviewers. I get maybe 5 critical updates every couple of months. You think that's just because they're lazy? Many high-profile high security organizations run win server these days and it's rising.

I agree with you that Windows 7 is an improvement over XP, but it still won't change the fact that Windows is still a rather vulnerable OS. I highly doubt that there is a rise in the amount of Windows Servers being used by high-profile organisation which require high security. Some Linux distros patch their packages to much which may lead to vulnerabilities as it has on few rare occasions in the past, besides I don't anyway use a distro where you have to wait 6 months to get a new version of a kernel or what not I use a rolling release distro. I have to use Flash for those pesky YouTube videos, but I can't wait until they completely ditch Flash altogether and I disable Flash in Firefox until I need to use it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkLtXfsPqVQ[/youtube]

Brilliant, isn't it?



lxuser already addressed this, so I won't repeat him.

I may make a shift to Linux after the new Amigas come out, apparently, the new Amiga OS is going to be a Linux flavor.

Just Commodore is dragging their heels with the new Amigas.
Well, they are not a very large operation these days, so development is very slow.

But being a fan of the Amiga in the past, I have high hopes for the new platform to take over the Linux world.

Ok so sort of back on topic - what's a nice lean, clean and stable distro to use as a dev environment base? Aren't there some built just for this purpose? I may be getting an Arduino this week and haven't the time to get my LFS system done for it.

I recommend Arch Linux or if you are game enough maybe Gentoo.

Seriously, just install Debian. It's simple, easy, stable, and it works. Arch/Gentoo/Slackware are Linux for masochists. (Note Halibut asked for something stable- Arch and Gentoo are rolling releases and hence significantly less stable than Debian)

If you want to run Linux because it's better than Windows for what you do, then Debian is the most straightforward way of doing it. If you only want geek cred, then you can run Gentoo.

That is not true, believe me I am very picky when it comes to the general quality of a distro and I have had less problems with Arch and Gentoo. Debian is too outdated, their patches that make the software apparently more stable have led to vulnerabilities in the past. Orwell, have you ever used Arch or Gentoo before? And please explain to me why Arch/Gentoo/Slackware are for masochists, it less of a pain then Ubuntu or Debian.