6 ms·

If you think that's bad, check out this link: https://www.upgradetolinux.com/linux-differences-an-introduction-to-foss-fiction-fact/ https://www.upgradetolinux.

If you think that's bad, check out this link: https://www.upgradetolinux.com/linux-differences-an-introduction-to-foss-fiction-fact/ https://www.upgradetolinux.com/linux-differences-an-introduc... According to the link I clicked on to get here, this is supposed to be "linux differences". I daily drive linux and recommend it to people who I think would do well with it, but I would never link them this website.

1970-01-01 4y ago
>What do you mean by “It does not get viruses”? Well, I mean, um https://www.linuxexperten.com/library/e-resources/linux-malware-ever-growing-list-2022 https://www.linuxexperten.com/library/e-resources/linux-malw...
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  I know that some people say "virus" when they mean malware in general. However, a literal virus is a snippet of code that attaches itself to an executable. When the executable is run, the virus also runs. The virus then finds more executables and attaches itself to those too. Literal viruses on diverse unices were indeed fairly rare in the past (and are still not common). Traditionally on most linuxes (and bsds) you obtain trusted executables from a known good source (your distribution ) , whilst files from other sources are never run at all. This means that Linux viruses find it hard to actually spread in the wild. This particular strength doesn't mean other kinds of malware can't still be successful, of course. (Though naturally people try to harden Linux against many threats.)
  - the_jesus_villa 4y ago
    >Traditionally on most linuxes (and bsds) you obtain trusted executables from a known good source (your distribution ) , whilst files from other sources are never run at all. On the other hand, the vast majority of people installing applications by piping curl output to Bash are also on linuxes and bsds
    - dijksterhuis 4y ago
      What can I say, I enjoy living dangerously.
    - Filligree 4y ago
      Doesn't seem that different from running the application after installing it, to be honest.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      Is this worst-case scenario for linux users any worse than the average-case of windows users downloading an .exe from a vendor's website and running it? If you do not already have a pubkey for which the code can be signed, then there is no chain of trust to verify in the first place. What signature would you check the code against in such a scenario? One you download from the vendor's same website?
      - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
        > "Is this worst-case scenario for linux users any worse than the average-case of windows users downloading an .exe from a vendor's website and running it?" Uh, yes? The naïve Windows user has Windows Defender scanning downloads to offer at least some token protection against known threats.
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        A tiny bit, maybe. Those commands usually run as root, at least Windows warns you if the installer wants root. But I think the main point is that this debunks "whilst files from other sources are never run at all".
        Kim_Bruning 4y ago
        That's always the problem with using the word "Never". That should have been "Almost Never" or "Rarely" (which is true for me at least) , and I didn't catch it when I proof-read my comment. Sorry about that. And yes: while traditionally people might install just from their distribution, times have changed a bit and people now do install from pip, cargo, npm, etc; but these are _somewhat_ trusted repositories still (rightly or wrongly). Some people sometimes use curl as well. Due to the nature and low volume, this still doesn't give literal viruses much leeway. This is because it's not a target-rich environment (only a few executables), it's not guaranteed to happen on many computers, and most importantly, people tend to only curl in one direction. When you curl, you're mostly going to end up downloading executables from some central location. Typically these executables don't subsequently get copied to (m)any other computers or back to the server. So a literal virus doesn't get a lot of traction to replicate the way a virus wants to. If you do manage to curl some malware, what you'd get is probably going to be something that's properly called a Trojan. Trojans are definitely a thing. Just because you're on Linux doesn't mean you're magically completely invulnerable to all kinds of malware, you still need to act with care. On the upside many distributions are more or less designed to keep you safe by default, and won't suddenly do something crazy to get you into trouble. On the downside the human operators are not always similarly inclined. ;-)
bm-rf 4y ago
I wonder what the intended audience of this page is supposed to be
- jamiek88 4y ago
  Seo backlinks maybe. Or YouTube traffic generators for ad revenue?
- titoCA321 4y ago
  I don't understand this phenomena in the Linux community of trying to convert anyone and everyone to Linux. But then again, I'm not want to convert others to my religion, sports team or car model. Yes, there are Mac and Windows evangelist, but there's more and they are louder in the Linux community. You would think for a community that claims to support "freedom" and "opensource," they would live and let live what others use for operating systems.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    MS and Apple are doing plenty more advertising to try to convert people to use their OS. The difference is that Linux is not backed by a large corporation, so naturally it relies on people talking about it, it's more similar to a grassroots movement that tries to e.g. get you to grow your own vegetables instead of buying at the supermarket. I would also argue that the Mac community in particular is pretty vocal about trying to convert people to macs.
    - nuker 4y ago
      Lol. Macs are the best of two worlds for many people. Its like properly secured Linux that you dont need to fiddle with.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        Thank you for proving my point.
3np 4y ago
> Where are the .exe files? Glad they focus on the important stuff, at least.

1970-01-01 4y ago

>What do you mean by “It does not get viruses”? Well, I mean, um https://www.linuxexperten.com/library/e-resources/linux-malware-ever-growing-list-2022 https://www.linuxexperten.com/library/e-resources/linux-malw...

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
I know that some people say "virus" when they mean malware in general. However, a literal virus is a snippet of code that attaches itself to an executable. When the executable is run, the virus also runs. The virus then finds more executables and attaches itself to those too. Literal viruses on diverse unices were indeed fairly rare in the past (and are still not common). Traditionally on most linuxes (and bsds) you obtain trusted executables from a known good source (your distribution ) , whilst files from other sources are never run at all. This means that Linux viruses find it hard to actually spread in the wild. This particular strength doesn't mean other kinds of malware can't still be successful, of course. (Though naturally people try to harden Linux against many threats.)
- the_jesus_villa 4y ago
  >Traditionally on most linuxes (and bsds) you obtain trusted executables from a known good source (your distribution ) , whilst files from other sources are never run at all. On the other hand, the vast majority of people installing applications by piping curl output to Bash are also on linuxes and bsds
  - dijksterhuis 4y ago
    What can I say, I enjoy living dangerously.
  - Filligree 4y ago
    Doesn't seem that different from running the application after installing it, to be honest.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    Is this worst-case scenario for linux users any worse than the average-case of windows users downloading an .exe from a vendor's website and running it? If you do not already have a pubkey for which the code can be signed, then there is no chain of trust to verify in the first place. What signature would you check the code against in such a scenario? One you download from the vendor's same website?
    - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
      > "Is this worst-case scenario for linux users any worse than the average-case of windows users downloading an .exe from a vendor's website and running it?" Uh, yes? The naïve Windows user has Windows Defender scanning downloads to offer at least some token protection against known threats.
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      A tiny bit, maybe. Those commands usually run as root, at least Windows warns you if the installer wants root. But I think the main point is that this debunks "whilst files from other sources are never run at all".
      - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
        That's always the problem with using the word "Never". That should have been "Almost Never" or "Rarely" (which is true for me at least) , and I didn't catch it when I proof-read my comment. Sorry about that. And yes: while traditionally people might install just from their distribution, times have changed a bit and people now do install from pip, cargo, npm, etc; but these are _somewhat_ trusted repositories still (rightly or wrongly). Some people sometimes use curl as well. Due to the nature and low volume, this still doesn't give literal viruses much leeway. This is because it's not a target-rich environment (only a few executables), it's not guaranteed to happen on many computers, and most importantly, people tend to only curl in one direction. When you curl, you're mostly going to end up downloading executables from some central location. Typically these executables don't subsequently get copied to (m)any other computers or back to the server. So a literal virus doesn't get a lot of traction to replicate the way a virus wants to. If you do manage to curl some malware, what you'd get is probably going to be something that's properly called a Trojan. Trojans are definitely a thing. Just because you're on Linux doesn't mean you're magically completely invulnerable to all kinds of malware, you still need to act with care. On the upside many distributions are more or less designed to keep you safe by default, and won't suddenly do something crazy to get you into trouble. On the downside the human operators are not always similarly inclined. ;-)

bm-rf 4y ago

I wonder what the intended audience of this page is supposed to be

jamiek88 4y ago
Seo backlinks maybe. Or YouTube traffic generators for ad revenue?
titoCA321 4y ago
I don't understand this phenomena in the Linux community of trying to convert anyone and everyone to Linux. But then again, I'm not want to convert others to my religion, sports team or car model. Yes, there are Mac and Windows evangelist, but there's more and they are louder in the Linux community. You would think for a community that claims to support "freedom" and "opensource," they would live and let live what others use for operating systems.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  MS and Apple are doing plenty more advertising to try to convert people to use their OS. The difference is that Linux is not backed by a large corporation, so naturally it relies on people talking about it, it's more similar to a grassroots movement that tries to e.g. get you to grow your own vegetables instead of buying at the supermarket. I would also argue that the Mac community in particular is pretty vocal about trying to convert people to macs.
  - nuker 4y ago
    Lol. Macs are the best of two worlds for many people. Its like properly secured Linux that you dont need to fiddle with.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      Thank you for proving my point.

3np 4y ago

> Where are the .exe files? Glad they focus on the important stuff, at least.