Linux.com

End of Message

#

I agree. Windows stickers help secure my network. And the EULA! Wooo... scares those crackers away faster than you can blink. Who'da thought windows would be my OS of choice. Now I know why! It's the stickers!

#

Before reading this artical through i was ready to get pissed off for this being posted on newsforge. LOL is me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

"Windows boxes, however, come with a certificate of authenticity that Linux distributions lack. You are meant to remove the certificate of authenticity from the box and carefully scrutinise it to ensure that it is legitimate..."

Actually, whilst Linux doesn't come with a piece of paper that says "I'm Authentic", it does come with a way of determining authenticity.

1. Go to Distro's download page, grab the MD5Sum.

2. Stick each disc in turn into the CD-ROM drive, and run: md5sum<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/cdrom -- and compare the result with the above code from the website.

If they all match, then the CD is authentic.

This method does a byte-by-byte analysis of the CD, and hence, I believe this is a much more reliable way of verifying authenticity than examining some screwy piece of paper littered with holograms.

Another way is using GPG keys. This is more advanced again.

Then again, who's to say someone didn't switch the discs in the box? A hologram won't tell you that...

"In contrast to the flimsy paper envelope holding the Linux CD, the Windows CD is typically in a plastic case that is secured shut with a label that warns you to be sure you are in compliance with the licensing terms found elsewhere in the box before opening it."

Quite the contrary, all the copies of Windows 2000 & XP I've ever seen have come in just as flimsy cases. The boxed sets of WinXP Pro I've seen came with an equally flimsy folder to hold the CD. Office XP came in a cheap flimsy cardboard sleeve. Plastic Case?? I don't think so.

"Once the Linux distribution CD has finished installing, the computer requests that a superuser and regular user account be created by the person. This obvious lack of security involved in having more than one user on a computer that can be logged in simultaneously has driven Linux into relative obscurity."

Okay, when you set up Windows, by default all users are set up with administrative privledges for day-to-day tasks. This means that they can practically do anything with the system.

In contrast, most Linux systems only set up one administrator account, <tt>root</tt>. Any other accounts are standard user accounts, and have limited privledges (equivalent to the Power Users group in Win2K). People then only use <tt>root</tt> when they need to. Clearly this must be more secure than the Windows solution.

Now, I notice the author hasn't yet commented on actually using the operating systems.

"Once installed, Windows can easily be set up to connect to the Internet and be used to browse the Web, check email, and run productivity software without any flaws, and unlike the insecure hacker operating system Linux, will quickly and without complaint run any software offered it from any Web site or email attachment as requested."

Uh huh..... And you can do the same with Linux.

KPPP and similar dialup tools are very easy to configure, likewise with X-ISP, wvdial and the likes. Many distributions come with a firewall based on the netfilter firewall system built into the Linux kernel, and can share internet right out of the box.

Most distributions come with productivity software (notably OpenOffice.org). In contrast, Microsoft Office is a separate package you have to buy separately.

Ohh, and for those using this for private & educational use, there's an added bonus, Linux is available free of charge. Windows is approx $200 at least, plus Office, another $100, plus whatever other 3rd party apps.... you don't get a lot out of $500. (Prices above are approx $AU prices) For a university student like myself, this makes Linux a much better deal.

Linux, since it is not compatable with Windows binaries, is also not suseptable to the latest viruses floating about. Yes, there are viruses for Linux too -- but they are extremely rare (let's just say, in the 7-8 years of me using Linux, I've only heard of one or two, and they were only a problem for server admins of public machines).

Windows on the other hand -- ohh dear, most of the latest viruses seem to be targeted at Outlook/OE. Oddly, Mozilla doesn't seem to suffer with these viruses, even under Windows.

Now, okay, we can't blame Microsoft for the viruses, a lot of this is tall poppey syndrome. MS happens to be the tall poppey, and virus makers are trying to cut it down. However, why is it that they still haven't fixed these holes in Outlook? If they actually sat down and sorted out these problems, I think we'd slowly start to see a drop in the number of viruses.

Okay, now, I'm not advocating Linux as the bees knees here. There is no such thing as a all-purpose OS. Windows and Linux come close, but no where near close enough. Experience has tought me that Microsoft seems to put features & usability ahead of security. Security is an afterthought. Linux has concentrated more on security and stability -- usability has been an afterthought.

When choosing an OS, I've found that it is a horses for courses market. Windows makes a reasonable desktop OS, it's a very good gaming platform, and a decent workstation. However, it starts to fall apart at the server level.

Windows started its life as a MS-DOS application. MS-DOS is a single-user, single-tasking OS. And hence, Windows has inherited a lot of this. Hence, whilst it can work as a server, and do the job quite successfully, it can end up with some funny quirks as a result.

Linux was written from scratch. Thesedays, it's produced by several hundred developers working directly on the kernel around the world, and more than several hundred packages worked on by thousands of developers. It shares a little code with some other OSes, but most of it is unique. The code for Linux is wide open, anyone can look at it, anyone can scruitenise it, anyone can contribute. Contributions are normally in the form of source code patches, which are heavily scrutenised by the core developers.

Over the years, Linux has seen many additions, including improvements to its security. Since the code is open, when a hole is found, it usually isn't long before someone comes up with a fix, the fix gets trialled, and eventually accepted (or rejected). The person with the fix could be anyone -- even from Microsoft or SCO... this is the open nature of Linux.

Microsoft however, prefers to keep its code behind closed doors. This is fine, I have nothing against that -- when you order food at a restaurant, you don't need to know what the ingredients are normally. It's the same thing here. Now, if there is a problem with the code, because Microsoft are the only people with the code, they're the only people who can help us. How long does it take for them to make a patch? Sometimes they can do it suprisingly quickly, but often, it's a long wait.

Moreover, you don't get to see what they changed. You don't know if they really did fix the problem, and what other bugs got introduced in the process. So I now ask the question...

After all this evidence provided above, is Windows really more secure than Linux?

Now, with OSes, I've already demonstrated (IMHO) that there is no perfect OS. Linux has its flaws, as does Windows, as does MacOS, as does just about any other OS you care to mention. So therefore, which is the better OS?

I'm forced to admit, Linux seems to have the upper hand here. (IMHO of course)

I always choose on this criteria:

1. Pick an operating system suitable for the intended task.

If you're setting up a home desktop, then this will most likely be Windows, but could be anything...Linux, *BSD, OS/2, anything you like. Servers: You may want to look at a Unix-like OS such as Linux or *BSD, or the Server-class versions of Windows.

2. Pick an operating system you are familiar with.

It's no good running down to the shop to buy Linux to set up your server if you've never used it before. If you know one OS better than another, then I would consider using that OS. Some people only know Windows, in which case, go Windows 2003 Server or something similar -- I'm used to Linux, and I prefer it as a server OS. I don't know FreeBSD very well, so I tend to avoid it for production purposes.

Anyways, that's my opinion, and my little rant. Hopefully I've presented the other side of the story which I think is missing here.

Stuart Longland
< stuartl at longlandclan dot hopto dot org >

#

Heh, and after (1) clicking the wrong reply button and (2) writing that long essay, I notice the "Category: Humour" part at the top of the page.

Ahh well, such is life. But hopefully people see my point of view... if somewhere to take that document seriously. (Which I'll bet will happen)

At least I wasn't the only one to miss it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Stuart Longland
< stuartl at longlandclan dot hopto dot org >

#

Windows is the most secure


  COMPLETELY OUT of anyone's box.

(not to be confused with that cardboard thingy it comes in)

#

...which will pick up this headline, add to it a sentence out of context, and befuddle millions: a lie, remember, can travel half way around the world before the truth can get its boots on, and the same is true of misunderstanding. Humor is very, very dangerous in the Google Age we live in. If you don't believe me try it: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe<nobr>=<wbr></nobr> UTF-8&q=linux%2Bsecure&sa=N&tab=wn

Very very silly I am afraid.

#

Well done. You searched for "linux+secure" in the news section, thus ensuring that this article gets picked up. Unfortunately, most people search in the "Web" section. Try <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&edition=us&q=linux%2Bsecure&btnG=Google+Search" TITLE="google.com">this</a google.com>. Et voila! No NewsForge article.

#

actually I just searched for "Linux" in google news and this was the first article thrown up. This is something I do everyday as I compile a linux news thread for a community IT support group. It's also something i encourage others to do as a way of showing the breadth of activity around Linux, that ordinary Microsoft users are mostly completely unaware of. You'd be amazed (or not!) how many offices I go into where people have still never heard of Linux - this was indeed funny, but not helpful<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(

#

>this was indeed funny, but not helpful<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(

And so I rest my case - one of the stupider pranks ever encouraged by NewsForge. Sorry, but that's the truth.

#

Unfortunately the PHBs are going to search in the News section and not the "regular" section.

#

Yep, there it is, the first link returned with a caption of -

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... finally in. Microsoft's flagship Windows software is more secure than Linux. You can demonstrate this for yourself just as we did.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Oh well, let MS have it. It's no worse a thret to Linux than any of the "real" articles MS puts out. Plus, when the PHB's bring this to us and say (with their smug little smiles), "See! Now what do you have to say?" we can simply point them here and tell them Satire/Scarcasim. It was a joke.

#

Out of the box, Windows has proven to have less holes than that of Linux... but which are more deadly? Windows, of course. Ask yourself this: Would you rather have 5 small holes or one HUGE hole that people can fit through in your house?



Also, it seems that Microsoft want to fix their patches about 6 months-1 year later -- making the situation worse for every and all Windows users. Linux fixes them almost instantly.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

This article is sarcastic, my friend. The author is not really claiming that Windows is safer. We all know Linux is more secure, simply because Windows is selling well the way it is: there is no incentive for M$ to fix it.

And Windows has many more holes than Linux. Free software has been praised for its quality. And one of the reasons for that is exaclty what you point out: the greater speed with which bugs are fixed in free software.

#

>>
Out of the box, Windows has proven to have less holes than that of Linux...


  This is only true if you are comparing a CD distro.


  However something like SUSE professional also comes with a CD ( one hole) and CDs (7 holes).


  SO it is not necessarily so.

#

does the double sided DVD count as two holes or one?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Just stop to think, what security would a serial number bring? None, it's just a way to ensure the user paid for the software and bought a genuine copy, also, creating a normal user besides the super-user, ensures safety since linux is a permissions-based system, what means that, even executing attachments (which more windows users do when compared to linux users) won't bring the hole system down, out of the box, windows surely has all the physical security it needs, but once installed, there's no comparison.

This is my opinion...

#

Actually, I disagree with most of this article - in fact its just a propagandized, shameless and factually base-less dig. I was actually expecting a lot more from this, perhaps with such as a reference to CERT's determination of the same topic.
Instead, what I got from this article is a slightly humorous jaunt at OS installs.
Well, sorry to say this, but most people would rather just use their PC than rebuild kernels.
Windows can be "secured" (depending upon what we define as that term). Additionally, the response time for critical MS patches is usually shorter than for Linux distros. I honestly don't know how people can think otherwise... Because its just not there...
Yeah great, its cool to know Linux - and its awesome for server applications - but it takes more know-how to secure it (properly) than for what the average Joe can easily do in Windows within minutes. Linux seriously fails here - and this is the real reason why its less secure.
Those who use Linux don't know it enough to secure it properly - even out of the box.

My dos centavos.

#

1. Topic is HUMOR

2. If you were expecting a lot more from this, well... stupid you, again it's HUMOR

3. Rebuild kernels??? I guess time passes for everybody but you, I haven't rebuilt kernel for 2 years now, and I always patch it trough regular yum update (for your info, click the icon and enter root password is all that it takes to update your system)

4. Most people would rather use their computers??? But most people running windows have problems with worms, security holes etc. so they can't use their computer

5. respose time for MS patches???
Watch this, http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.<nobr>h<wbr></nobr> tml and tell what you think

6. Based on what you told us, conclusion follows: YOU'RE TOO SCARED OF THE FACT THAT THERE WOULD BE OS FOR WHICH YOU WOULDN'T BE AT THE STAGE AT WHICH YOU ARE AT WINDOWS. SO, LIKE ALL STUPIDS, BETTER BASHING THAN LEARNING

7. average Joe can easily do in Windows within minutes??? So average Joe Schmoe can uninstall IE??? that would be the only securing that Windows need. For your info it doesn't matter if you run as simple user, IE and some parts of Office still run with administrator privileges. Most of the Windows security is based on GUI not on underlaying layer. But if you don't code I can't blame you for not knowing that

8. All distros came more than enough secured out of the box for at least one year now.

9. It's cool to know Linux??? Then start learning, you've already told us that you don't know shit about linux.

p.s. MS Security patches??? Try once in a while securing 40 Windows machines as my job requires, patching them takes a lot more than patching 50 Linux machines. With linux machines it's a minute matter, download patches to a secure repository and update info, although it could be done automatically, I still preffer to check the patches before approving them. yum on local and remote machines takes updates automatically, at least in my set up. Since this secure storage is the only update storage I provide for machines I'm preety sure the updates won't be falsified

#

Your sarcasm and dry wit are even better than the article.

"it takes more know-how to secure it (properly) than for what the average Joe can easily do in Windows within minutes. Linux seriously fails here - and this is the real reason why its less secure.
Those who use Linux don't know it enough to secure it properly"

That is sooo funny. ROTFLMAO

#

actually... on my sisters computer... I put Debian stable on it, put in apt-get update && apt-get -y upgrade in a cron.daily script, and have security.debian.org line in my sources.list. secured daily, without any intervention from the user, and unlike windows updates (which i deal with on a daily basis working at a computer repair shop) the computer doesn't cease to work sometimes with a simple browser update.

#

IT'S HUMOR, LOOK AT THE TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE

Serial number is nothing but pain in the ass for customers who bought the product, it looks just like M$ thinks that average people who don't buy Windows are too stupid to copy a number too with CD

#

You forgot to mention the Windows XP activation.

#

Oh Yeah ! every time a Win 2003 server is shutdown it asks for the "reason" for the shutdown<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....... Now thats a new one for a MS platform<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..

#

... when it remains in the shrink-wrapped box than Linux is when it's installed.

(That's about the only way I could ever find Windows being more secure than any other OS.)

I'll bet we'll see a lot more of this sort of story now that April 1 is nearing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

HUMOR ! !
FACT.....
3 christmas ago my brother-in-law worked for M$ and gave me XP.
It is still secure, in the shrink-wrap plastic, sitting on top of the desk as a *framed* momento

NOW.........
This is absolutely NO JOKE, stupid readers will pick this up and parrot it around creating more FUD.

To the author....
You have been infected with the M$ AC virus which is only curable by taking the black cord from the pc to the wall and removing it from the wall.
Turn off the PC and go out and get some fresh air !

#

You've done the right thing, so far, by keeping it quarantined so you can't get sore at your
brother for catching Xp. (It's like any other
SWD: get your shots early enough and it's
relatively harmless)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

You know, I just hadn't considered this before, but what's to stop someone from going into a CompUSA, Borders, or wherever people buy Linux, and replacing all the good copies with bad versions containing some form of malware. As long as the boxes looked the same, and the store tags were identical, no one would be the wiser until hundreds of Linux boxes became spam sites.

Thankfully, being the most used OS on the Internet, Windows doesn't have this security problem. Otherwise, I'd be getting all sorts of mail about how to buy cheap drugs or make my penis larger. Umm, oh, nevermind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

#

Well, the first thing would be the signed rpm packages. You can quickly tell where an rpm was forged by checking its signature. Second, have you ever tried to create a distribution of todays girth and order the cd's properly? If it asks you to insert a disc you have already inserted its probablly forged. Third getting master cd burns is more expensive than it looks, and to get a properly boxed set someone had to do it for you... which makes it really easy to track down who did the forgery... which breaks the first rule of doing such a operation, dont get caught:)

Thats just a quick overlook, but you get the point.

#

Guess I should have added the smiley. Just the thought of replacing a bunch of shrink-wrapped packages in a store without being detected seemed ludicrous enough.

You are correct, of course, RPM has checksums, so any "counterfeit" ones would have to be rebuilt. Since our hypothetical counterfeiters/crackers would probably not have access to CD duplication equipment, the CDs would almost certainly be burned CDRs - which I suspect most people wouldn't be able to tell from the real ones if the CD labels looked right. As for the complexity of rebuilding a distribution, cracking seems to be an activity that is primarily pursued by people with too much time on their hands.

Of course, none of this is a concern if you just download the ISO images from the distributor's website<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

You forgot that they'd have to have them mass prodiuced, otherwise the non-silver CD and lack of silk screening would give it away. Also, they need a shrink-wrap machine.

#

This is not a problem specifically related to Linux. You could do that with every kind of Software. You could even do it with music cds, so people who pop them into a Windows PC unwittingly install some kind of malware. But do you get the manipulated boxes to the customers? Bring them back into the shop? Sell them directy?

#

More like Linux user faggotry.

#

Here students, we see the lame insult constructed by an anti-linux person.

The word 'faggotry' is meant to exicte those who would find it insulting. Judgung my the sucess of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, this may actually be a complement.

Or, most people who resort to homesexual remarks have a deep seated fear that they are homosexual themselves. It matters not to me, you are free to stick it in someone else's pooper as long as they are ok with that. (And it is not going to be mine.)

Usually loyalty to a platform that is this intense comes from insecurities, the same insecurities that caused the use of the word 'faggotry'. I suspect that this person, while extremely loyal to Microsoft (and probably secretly desires to be BillG's butt-buddy, hey, for a few $(2^30) I could swing that way once or twice) this person is concerned that his platform loyalty will result in his demise as Linux becomes the dominant platform. Grappling with the reality of the reasonable possibility that his fears come true, he lashes out and subconsciencely seald his fate.

Another possibility is he tried to grasp it and failed.

But the writer of the comment will suredly agree with me on this one: Linux (&OSS) is only going to get better.

#

well sorry for my bad english, but as a linux admin, i have to say this is a biased article, linux is mainly distrod as downloadable isos, its a FREE OS, all u buy from the store is the package, not the OS, windows on the other hand, u have to pay for it, and all those "security" measures are to stop piracy, not to make the user feel safer, a newbie windows user wont be able to tell the diference from a original windows disk and a evil install disk, also this "swap evil disk" security hole is software wide problem, not only OS, and out of the box, linux is more secure, u cant install winxp and leave it connected to the internet cause it catches a worm within 5 minutes.

#

Point missed, well done.

#

Newsforge dudes, make the humour tag bigger ffs. I think we've all been caught out on a pre-caffinated rant before.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

ooooooooo...i was *this* close. during the day my eye glances across the news ticker. although i usually stay away from the excitable topics, it was nearing the end of my day & i was already riled up from searching for an obscure bug in some code. touché!

#

Wah! I had a bad sunday full with problems IPL. This article made it a bit worse because it caught my eyes, i took it serious, thought wtf, and then finally got the hint. Thanks!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Yeah, great humor!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

damn... some of the big-wigs at microsoft might really like this stuff... it seems just about as good as any of theredefences for windows.... lol... kewl stuff..... u didnt mean this seriously did you???..... ?:0)

#

Even more reason to use BSD<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

#

BSD is dead.

#

on the first glance through the article, I actually thought it was for real. Which says something about the amount of FUD being spread around.

#

We are forced to admit that, with the use of certificates, stickers, and serial numbers, Windows vastly outpaces Linux security out of the box.

Yep most linux distros have disk checksums guess what you have to go online to get them.

Now Point Number one.

We don't need jokes like this.

Pointer Number two.

Get your facts right.

Note when I buy a Suse DVD it has a case from some providers and not others. Basicly it is a option by with case by with out.

Main reason is that it is cheap to ship cds without case then with. Ie Sollys/The Warehouse/chain stores can get cases to you cheaper in most cases that sending them in mail or other means. Even then I have cases I rotate

#

Ok Linux vendors, (cough RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian) its time to fix that. Set services off by default requireing a user to at least know enough to make themselves insecure.

We need to adopt "it just dosent work" pratices.

#

er since when is debian a VENDOR?

#

Well it was very funny reading this article. It was one of the most idiotic articles I have ever read in my whole life. Who would ever be as stupid as to think that because you can get a serial number from anywhere on the net makes it safe. A hacker could simply not change the serial numbers and still insert worms in a forged cd. Those stupid windows certificates are quite easy to forge. Furthermore how many times have we ever heard of a distro that has false distributors that then bundle it with a worm? And Debian for example works with everything that is found on its mirrors, which is lots. Windows users have lots of crap programs out there, but a lot of the time they have worms, etc. bundled with them. At least when we download software from ftp sites, we sort of know that it won't be bundled with a worm(I have never heard of this for Linux, but have heard of it and seen it for Windows).

The verdict is out: a dult wrote this article, or someone who decided to joke around.

Like the article!

#

Note that this article is in the humor category? Ever heard of satire? Probably not because you dropped out of high school to make more time for Ultima Online. And just because your mom's basement is rent-free doesn't mean you should live there your whole life. Cheers!

#

I knew it was satire, but even at that idiotic satire--a waste of writing. On top of that I'm actually a MIT student in my 2nd year, so I'm the furthest thing from a high school drop out. Please don't respond to this, because I have better stuff to do.



Adieu!

#

dult? what the hell is a dult? MIT student eh? sure you are you DOLT!

#

Very funny. I couldn't stop laughing.
Still LOL Mr David 'cdlu' Graham.
-Anonymous

#

whoever took this seriously should bang his head on a wall 500000000000 times
It's a joke damit

#

One of the funniest things is the number of respondants who thought this was serious!!!


    I would bet that MS uses better cardboard for their boxes as well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

One for every time the proprietory OS crashes I guess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....

#

Sometimes I wish that I could do

emerge -u sarcasm humor life

on the general population.

It was a funny article, indeed.

#

^v^ "In a world without fences or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows." ^v^

#

I bought Suse 9.0 pro, let me tell you somthing when I installed it it automaticly installed a firewall, wich is definitly a security + but doese this article mention this,No! Also the fact that there is a root user helps security not hurt it! It makes it so when you browse the internet on a normal user you have 0 chances of system curuption becuase normal users cant hurt system files. And how is some one going to put worms into the suse cd I bought? Its already finalized and bought from bestbuy, I dont think they can "Hack" the cd, This article is BS

#

Hahahahaha!!!! I can't stop laughing at this. Unbelievable. At first I thought the article was someones serious opinion, but, this is a great joke!!! It kind of reminds me of Bob Newhart's (remember him?) "dry" humor. This ariticle will definitely "make my day"!!!! hahahahahaha!!!!!!!

I last installed my Debian server over two years ago (it IS behind a hardware firewall/router) and have established just about every serv(er/ice) for which I have a need (still need to configure LDAP though). Although we do see the occasional security alerts, these are usually for "user applications" (i.e. a buffer overflow in XMMS does not equal a security flaw in Linux). I'm still running 24 x 7 and have never been hacked (at least within the reach of my auditing abilities to detect). Forget about hacking, I have never been able to run a windoze system for more than two or three months (let alone establish all the apps on it that I want to use). This includes XP. I'll (finally) give MS a little credit with XP. They actually did do a decent job with it. Still, it can't touch Linux for security or reliability. If you really need to ultimate in security (on affordable hardware), you should probably go check out the BSD offerings (most notably, OpenBSD).

#

What Linux distro was used in this "test"? I agree with an earlier poster, a serial number does nothing for security.

#

Sure it does "something" for security - just lose the license paper with it's key on it then try and install Windows. Pretty tough to get by the license key dialog and get a running OS without it (legally).

Therefore MS OS's must be more secure - clearly a non running OS sitting on a shelf on a CD is safer than a running Linux OS on a PC.

IT'S A JOKE DIMWIT!

#

Note to staff:

The serial number is not really much of security feature, as is insinuated by the aforementioned article, but is, rather, a means to keep the honest people honest. As long as the 'law fearing' developed nations continue to pay exorbitant prices for my (I mean 'our') software, then I really could care less if the rest of the world 'pirates' my ('our') stuff. It's not like the developed world can't afford it or anything. And if they are stupid enought to pay the price, well, so what? Ubiquity, that's the key. "The more people that use my ('our') software, the better" is what I always say.

This FOSS thing, though, is very troubling. Imagine people throughout the world with the ability to examine and change their operating system software, to pervert it to their own heinous ends, to develop their own applications and to generally customize it for the needs of their own peoples, their own communities without paying me ('us') my ('our') tithe? Without needing or even thinking to seek my ('our') approval? This is downright un-capitalistic. And no less than a threat to my ('our') power, profits, and perhaps to my ('our') very existence as a player in the technology business!

In order to nip this FOSS thing in the bud I propose that we promote the myth of 'the serial number as security' in the west, provide cutrate prices to our current 'piracy market' in the east and begin to offset the overall cash flow problem by increasing the marketing of DRM and NGSCB (Palladium, you idiots) in the industrialised world.

"Steve, get off that table and get me the Attorney General's number."

Thanks.
b.

#

This text was translated into portuguese at <A HREF="http://www.propus.com.br/news/35" TITLE="propus.com.br">Propus</a propus.com.br>.

Este texto foi traduzido para o português em <A HREF="http://www.propus.com.br/news/35" TITLE="propus.com.br">Propus</a propus.com.br>.

#

A lie is a lie. It is wrong to lie to get things, to avoid trouble or for amusement.

I am unimpressed at the deceptive articles that like to come on April Fools, but the policy on having these types of articles all year long should be changed.

#

What is really interesting is that this was also posted in portuguese at <A HREF="http://www.softwarelivre.org/news/1871" TITLE="softwarelivre.org">SoftwareLivre.Org</a softwarelivre.org> (under the Humor section, just like here) and it generated a lot of <A HREF="http://listas.im.ufba.br/pipermail/psl-ba/2004-March/001274.html" TITLE="im.ufba.br">rants</a im.ufba.br> [pt_BR] just like it were truth.

Maybe we should, indeed, save our humor for april's first?

#

Well, maybe people that can't take humour/satire/sarcasm in the way it's meant should avoid reading topics from ther humour section, thus alleviating the problem of people "missing-the-point" altogether.
Or maybe we SHOULD close down all those sites such as BBSpot and TheOnion, which mislead the less intellectually endowned of our species eh. That'd make society such a wonderful haven of repression.
Woo Yay!

#

So the author is trying to "sell" boxed software as a security feature. Ok I'll buy that physical security bit, but not because of the flimsy cd case. Then the author tries to sell the "serial number" as a security feature. Again a limited point. Now no mention is made of md5. I guess the author is not interested in mentioning Linux security.

Now the statement that is the crown jewel in this article is "Once the Linux distribution CD has finished installing, the computer requests that a superuser and regular user account be created by the person. This obvious lack of security involved in having more than one user on a computer that can be logged in simultaneously has driven Linux into relative obscurity." Surely this is non-sense. Having multiple user able to securely access the system by password and then being resticted by disk access is critical to modern security systems. Now Windows typically allows for the bypass of user accounts making the system insecure because different people simply used the same computer environment; and even when user accounts are created it is still highly insecure since password access does not tie in with limiting disk access. Any Joe can read my files in c-drive; what can be restricted is the Windows profiles (not user files). Hence a virtue of Linux is turned into a vice and fault of Windows is spun into a virtue.
.
That this author needs to write this kind of 'propaganda' as a point of fact is childish and tedious. And it should not go unchallenged in the event Joe's aunt happens to read this article looking for information.
.
Please go buy Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... manipulating consumer choice is the business tactic today. However Linux is not merely a consumer product. Indeed, its reality as a business commodity is secondary.
.
AS for the implication that commidity software is superior to open-source software, I will offer up a counterfact from history. OS/2 Warp did not fail to win markert share because it was technologically inferior to Windows or any other OS at the time of its launch. There is a real gap between the best and the popular in our world; not only in computer technology.

#

Ok, I understand your concern, but please go back and read the title of the story again, then look underneath it. There is the date. Then read, out loud, what it says underneath the date.

"Topic: Humor"

It's a joke article, he was not being serious. I'm sure he know all about all the points you made, and much, much more, in order to even begin to make a joke about this.

#

Hum, some Linux geeks really have no sense of humor. (see first thread).

#

omg? wtf was this written by a moran? I dont see how anything can be less secure then windows if its in the box or out of it??? How about Microsoft also running software u download from the net? Linux isn't the only one you know and MAC can do it too. If you looked it up youll see that there's no reason to say that security numbers and all that hoo har is anything to do with "security" to benefit the user but "security" to benefit "microsoft" which is just keeping a monopaly running

I cant believe I am reading this!!!

#

This is not funny. It's embarrasing.
On behalf of the open source community, I would like to apologize for:
a) this article
b) Newforge/OSDN not removing it sooner.

#

that infest the Linux world, who don't bother to actually read articles before commenting, and when they do read them, still get it wrong

#

I did read it. I understand it's supposed to be funny and topical.
As an IT academic and professional, with appropriate experience and understanding of the topics, and with a well developed sense of humor, I will state again that the article is not funny.

Allow me to summarize:

Paragraphs 1-3. Stating the obvious with little style and no humor.
Paragraphs 4-6. State the obvious. Mix in some grade 3 sarcasm.
Paragraph 7. Attempt a joke whose success rests on an assumption that the common person thinks multi-user OSs pose a security threat. The reason this assumption fails, is that the common person doesn't actually have opinions on the security of multi-user OSs. Only people like us do.
Paragraph 8-10. Poorly executed grade 2 sarcasm.

ROFL

#

Thanks, but you're not qualified to apologize for anything published on NewsForge -- or for the open source community. Read it or don't read it, but we'll make the editorial decisions here. And you're still welcome to comment any time you want.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp

#

As an "editingwhiz" you should do some research before you make claims. Or at least try to infer the obvious.
And when you don't have the facts, don't act like you do.

1. Obvious: I'm here. I posted.
2. Not obvious but still true: I have been a part of the open source community for almost 8 years. I use open source software and have contributed bugfixes directly to many projects, and worked with countless developers through forums, newgroups, etc. I participate on Slashdot, buy from ThinkGeek
and find fresh meat from freshmeat.

I am part of your demographic as well as part of the open source community. Contrary to your claim, I am qualified to apologize for something I'm a part of.

And although you have the power to make editorial decisions, those decisions aren't good, bad, right or wrong until the readers say they are.

#

Just a sec, let me order up a binary LED clock and an air bazooka, just so my opinion counts more...

#

You may be within our "demographic," and that's fine. But if you were a journalist trained to present information for mass consumption, you probably would have told us by now. In news stories, we deal in facts. In analysis or opinion pieces, we also use facts, then add what we believe to be true -- based on research and logic -- in order to build a persuasive case.

This is a humor piece, designed to earn smiles and make you think, nothing more. Judging by the high number of pageviews it received, it did its job.

You may comment all you want on what we present; we encourage it. Just remember this: The editorial decisions we make in our publications are the best ones we can make at the time we make them. The power you have is that you can read, choose not to read, or comment. Your comments will be taken into account, because your opinions are important to helping us make future editorial decisions.

But when we post a story, it's the result of the best editorial decisions we can make. Whether it's a good, bad, right, or wrong decision isn't a reader's problem, because the reader has no power in making the editorial decision. Comment after the fact: good.

It's the reader's job to read and hopefully gain valuable knowledge from our work. And you may let us know how you feel about the topic, too. But do not apologize for our work. We'll do that, if needed. Hopefully, it won't be too often.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp

#

you're kidding, right ?...tell me you're joking with you're response. You were born on this Earth, right ?

The author is dead-on funny and correct...obviously you've no experience with computing of any kind.

#

But to be honest the title should read. Windows:- safest operating system, when kept IN the box.

#

When you install Windows, you get the automatic protection of the Business Software Alliance, who may visit your site and make sure that your software is properly licensed on all your computers. Linux offers no such service.

#

The author is right!

I just checked the paper envelope that my Linux CD came in, and got a VERY nasty paper cut.

Why, oh why didn't I stay with XP and those blunt plastic jewel cases.

Oh, woe is me...

#

Wow, I'm glad I figured out that this was humor lol. I got so pissed off by the end of reading it that I was like "ok, who let Microsoft's CEO write an article?"

#

We are forced to admit that, with the use of certificates, stickers, and serial numbers, Windows vastly outpaces Linux security out of the box.

This is the part that really made me Xplode with LOL`s

#

I have it on good authority that this report was leaked to the Internet 11 days before it was due for publication.

#

Well after reading this i would run into shop and buy an box of Microsoft Windows XP and get rid of Linux from my computer...lol

i really peed in my pants after reading this

hey Alex if you happen to read this do post your comments..