Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Windows vs. Linux for software
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Deux
Dec 24, 2011, 6:19:55 AM12/24/11
to
I have Windows and Ubuntu on a dual boot. Ubuntu is my OS of choice. When
I want some software I usually find that Ubuntu Software Centre has the
software that I'm looking for. Occasionally I'll download the software
from a website.
One piece of software I wanted, a file recovery program I found in USC
but it only recovered part of the file. As I wanted this file I decided
to try in Windows. Surely Windows being the lead OS, this should be
simple, right?
As there is no equivalent of USC I Googled for an undelete program. I was
taken to some website that had a free version but was trying to push me
to pay for the full version. Eventually I managed to download an
executable that just gave me an error message when I ran.
I tried the next link which also wanted money but had a free version. I
downloaded, installed and found that program was actually quite good at
finding deleted files (although it didn't pick up files that the Linux
program found). I gave up at that point and stayed with Windows as I had
some work to do in a Windows only program.
About 30 minutes later a message popped up on my screen that a virus had
been detected! This is the one and only time I've ran executables (apart
from trusted sources such as Adobe, HP, etc.) so I've introduced a virus
into my system by downloading software from the top 2 search results in
Google.
Ubuntu/Linux seems well in the lead of for downloading software. Ubuntu
encourages users to download from a repository of software which is
trusted, stable and free.
Windows users are forced to go into the wilderness of the Internet to
download software, which may contain viruses, require payment, be too
error prone to be usable. I'm quite surprised that Microsoft haven't
got their act together over this and gave Windows users access to a
repository of FREE (or even not) and TRUSTED software.
I want some software I usually find that Ubuntu Software Centre has the
software that I'm looking for. Occasionally I'll download the software
from a website.
One piece of software I wanted, a file recovery program I found in USC
but it only recovered part of the file. As I wanted this file I decided
to try in Windows. Surely Windows being the lead OS, this should be
simple, right?
As there is no equivalent of USC I Googled for an undelete program. I was
taken to some website that had a free version but was trying to push me
to pay for the full version. Eventually I managed to download an
executable that just gave me an error message when I ran.
I tried the next link which also wanted money but had a free version. I
downloaded, installed and found that program was actually quite good at
finding deleted files (although it didn't pick up files that the Linux
program found). I gave up at that point and stayed with Windows as I had
some work to do in a Windows only program.
About 30 minutes later a message popped up on my screen that a virus had
been detected! This is the one and only time I've ran executables (apart
from trusted sources such as Adobe, HP, etc.) so I've introduced a virus
into my system by downloading software from the top 2 search results in
Google.
Ubuntu/Linux seems well in the lead of for downloading software. Ubuntu
encourages users to download from a repository of software which is
trusted, stable and free.
Windows users are forced to go into the wilderness of the Internet to
download software, which may contain viruses, require payment, be too
error prone to be usable. I'm quite surprised that Microsoft haven't
got their act together over this and gave Windows users access to a
repository of FREE (or even not) and TRUSTED software.
Postman Delivers
Dec 26, 2011, 10:41:06 PM12/26/11
to
Deux,
Windows 8, is talked about with Microsoft charging vendors to have their
software in the application store. I believe they were not going to let
the vendors sell the software outside of the Microsoft Store, but I
believe that closed ended repository dream ended with Microsoft being to
expensive for a lot of software vendors.
Also Users, were quite vocal about not being able to install their solder
software. With the illegal software market prices in Middle East, Africa,
and China costing less than a dollar, store only software might backfire
restricting software.
Also the restrictive boot, not allowing a dual boot or other operating
systems to boot on OEM/Retail branded computers, believe that is still
being pushed by Microsoft...
Microsoft tell the public this is for security reasons, I think it is to
prevent (make it more difficult) other operating systems from being
installed on hardware by the average user looking for a more secure O/S.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-secure-boot-to-block-linux-339322781.htm
or Short url
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6d4bdcw
JR the postman
Ammammata
Dec 27, 2011, 6:25:23 AM12/27/11
to
Il giorno Sat 24 Dec 2011 12:19:55p, *Deux* inviava su alt.comp.linux il
messaggio news:FcqdnRvts8PGKGjT...@supernews.com. Vediamo cosa
scrisse:
> About 30 minutes later a message popped up on my screen that a virus had
> been detected! This is the one and only time I've ran executables (apart
> from trusted sources such as Adobe, HP, etc.) so I've introduced a virus
> into my system by downloading software from the top 2 search results in
> Google.
>
well, consider also the fact that many "recovery" tools, in particular
password recovery tools (nirsoft, i.e.), as well as remote management
software (ammyy admin i.e.), are considered potentially dangerous by many
antivirus/antispyware/antiwhateveryouwant programs and reported to the user
attention for deletion; this is not true, but you get the warning
--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
>>>>> http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........
messaggio news:FcqdnRvts8PGKGjT...@supernews.com. Vediamo cosa
scrisse:
> About 30 minutes later a message popped up on my screen that a virus had
> been detected! This is the one and only time I've ran executables (apart
> from trusted sources such as Adobe, HP, etc.) so I've introduced a virus
> into my system by downloading software from the top 2 search results in
> Google.
>
password recovery tools (nirsoft, i.e.), as well as remote management
software (ammyy admin i.e.), are considered potentially dangerous by many
antivirus/antispyware/antiwhateveryouwant programs and reported to the user
attention for deletion; this is not true, but you get the warning
--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
>>>>> http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........
Seeks X
Jan 28, 2012, 9:28:48 AM1/28/12
to
On Dec 26 2011, 6:41 pm, Postman Delivers <JR_the_post...@xyzahoo.com>
wrote:
> installed on hardware by the average user looking for a more secure O/S.http://www.zdnet.com.au/windows-8-secure-boot-to-block-linux-33932278...
> or Short urlhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/6d4bdcw
>
> JR the postman
I think I've read somewhere that their EUFI push hits ARM
architectures the hardest, with x86 architectures still being allowed
to disable the secure boot 'feature'. This is most likely because
microsoft doesn't want to entirely alienate their base of customers
who still want to use Windows XP / Windows 7 in the future, though I
wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out that yes, MS wants to
force people away from their own aging operating systems in another
money grab.
I'm finding more and more that my default position of 'never trust
Microsoft, ever' is easier to justify every passing month.
wrote:
> or Short urlhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/6d4bdcw
>
> JR the postman
I think I've read somewhere that their EUFI push hits ARM
architectures the hardest, with x86 architectures still being allowed
to disable the secure boot 'feature'. This is most likely because
microsoft doesn't want to entirely alienate their base of customers
who still want to use Windows XP / Windows 7 in the future, though I
wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out that yes, MS wants to
force people away from their own aging operating systems in another
money grab.
I'm finding more and more that my default position of 'never trust
Microsoft, ever' is easier to justify every passing month.
Aragorn
Jan 28, 2012, 11:04:00 AM1/28/12
to
On Saturday 28 January 2012 15:28, Seeks X conveyed the following to
alt.comp.linux...
> I think I've read somewhere that their EUFI push hits ARM
> architectures the hardest, with x86 architectures still being allowed
> to disable the secure boot 'feature'.
That is correct.
> This is most likely because microsoft doesn't want to entirely
> alienate their base of customers who still want to use Windows XP /
> Windows 7 in the future, though I wouldn't be surprised at all if it
> turns out that yes, MS wants to force people away from their own aging
> operating systems in another money grab.
Two very important remarks here...
(1) Microsoft is not after the money. They've got loads of that
already. It is the power that they want, the monopoly. Having
Windows on a(t least one) computer in every household - as Willy
Gates himself once put it - gives Microsoft power in the business
market and leverage over what people can and cannot do with their
lives. That is, and has always been, the goal of the game.
(2) Given the above, Microsoft is definitely not going to drive people
away from their own platforms on purpose. The software they
develop is for their own operating systems only - and possibly
they might still offer some variants of that software for Apple,
that other evil empire - so their own badly designed operating
systems will always be around, for as long as Microsoft has the
power to twist arms, bribe politicians and government
institutions, form cartels with hardware vendors for Windows-only
support and, finally, throw million US Dollar budgets into
advertising campaigns intended to have the pointy haired bosses
drooling over the corporatism.
> I'm finding more and more that my default position of 'never trust
> Microsoft, ever' is easier to justify every passing month.
That is also my attitude towards Microsoft, and I fully agree with your
assessment in this paragraph.
--
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
alt.comp.linux...
> I think I've read somewhere that their EUFI push hits ARM
> architectures the hardest, with x86 architectures still being allowed
> to disable the secure boot 'feature'.
> This is most likely because microsoft doesn't want to entirely
> alienate their base of customers who still want to use Windows XP /
> Windows 7 in the future, though I wouldn't be surprised at all if it
> turns out that yes, MS wants to force people away from their own aging
> operating systems in another money grab.
(1) Microsoft is not after the money. They've got loads of that
already. It is the power that they want, the monopoly. Having
Windows on a(t least one) computer in every household - as Willy
Gates himself once put it - gives Microsoft power in the business
market and leverage over what people can and cannot do with their
lives. That is, and has always been, the goal of the game.
(2) Given the above, Microsoft is definitely not going to drive people
away from their own platforms on purpose. The software they
develop is for their own operating systems only - and possibly
they might still offer some variants of that software for Apple,
that other evil empire - so their own badly designed operating
systems will always be around, for as long as Microsoft has the
power to twist arms, bribe politicians and government
institutions, form cartels with hardware vendors for Windows-only
support and, finally, throw million US Dollar budgets into
advertising campaigns intended to have the pointy haired bosses
drooling over the corporatism.
> I'm finding more and more that my default position of 'never trust
> Microsoft, ever' is easier to justify every passing month.
assessment in this paragraph.
--
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Alexandre Aguiar
Jan 31, 2012, 5:51:23 PM1/31/12
to
on Sáb 28 Jan 2012 14:04, Aragorn said to people at <alt.comp.linux>:
> that other evil empire - so their own badly designed operating
> systems will always be around, for as long as Microsoft has the
Yep! Regarding the 'badly designed' thing, I suspect that M$ might actually
be using a subtler market strategy. Every minute that M$ users waist
redoing work lost by windoze malfunctions and doing things that have
nothing to do with their jobs means less ideas and less production.
Millions of hours waisted daily worldwide. Several consequences can be
speculated. For instance, it makes less likely the emergence of powerful
competitors that could be a menace to M$ monopoly plans beyond OS market.
The fact that windoze is the only OS that version after version offers
neverending support to things like viruses, trojans and related stuff and
user data destruction suggests (strongly, IMHO) that windoze is designed to
be like this.
I mean, windoze is designed to waist users' time and work. Besides, software
to remedy widoze design 'deficiencies' generate huge amounts of money. This
is M$ heaven: users paying to waist their own time!
--
--
Alexandre
> that other evil empire - so their own badly designed operating
> systems will always be around, for as long as Microsoft has the
be using a subtler market strategy. Every minute that M$ users waist
redoing work lost by windoze malfunctions and doing things that have
nothing to do with their jobs means less ideas and less production.
Millions of hours waisted daily worldwide. Several consequences can be
speculated. For instance, it makes less likely the emergence of powerful
competitors that could be a menace to M$ monopoly plans beyond OS market.
The fact that windoze is the only OS that version after version offers
neverending support to things like viruses, trojans and related stuff and
user data destruction suggests (strongly, IMHO) that windoze is designed to
be like this.
I mean, windoze is designed to waist users' time and work. Besides, software
to remedy widoze design 'deficiencies' generate huge amounts of money. This
is M$ heaven: users paying to waist their own time!
--
--
Alexandre
Aragorn
Jan 31, 2012, 5:59:22 PM1/31/12
to
On Tuesday 31 January 2012 23:51, Alexandre Aguiar conveyed the
following to alt.comp.linux...
Well, I'm not so sure that I agree with all of your assessment, but it
is a fact that there never would have been an antivirus industry if it
hadn't been for Microsoft. So it is in the antivirus companies' best
interests that Microsoft keeps on marketing bad software.
It baffles me that nobody's ever stood still at that thought.
following to alt.comp.linux...
is a fact that there never would have been an antivirus industry if it
hadn't been for Microsoft. So it is in the antivirus companies' best
interests that Microsoft keeps on marketing bad software.
It baffles me that nobody's ever stood still at that thought.
FromTheRafters
Jan 31, 2012, 6:58:02 PM1/31/12
to
Aragorn
Jan 31, 2012, 7:32:20 PM1/31/12
to
On Wednesday 01 February 2012 00:58, FromTheRafters conveyed the
>> > I mean, windoze is designed to waist users' time and work. Besides,
>> > software to remedy widoze design 'deficiencies' generate huge
>> > amounts of money. This is M$ heaven: users paying to waist their
>> > own time!
>>
>> Well, I'm not so sure that I agree with all of your assessment, but
>> it is a fact that there never would have been an antivirus industry
>> if it hadn't been for Microsoft. So it is in the antivirus
>> companies' best interests that Microsoft keeps on marketing bad
>> software.
>>
>> It baffles me that nobody's ever stood still at that thought.
>
> Because it's wrong, nobody should be surprised.
Ambiguous statement. Please elaborate and substantiate.
following to alt.comp.linux...
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:59:22 +0100
> Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 31 January 2012 23:51, Alexandre Aguiar conveyed the
>> following to alt.comp.linux...
>>
>> > [...]
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:59:22 +0100
> Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 31 January 2012 23:51, Alexandre Aguiar conveyed the
>> following to alt.comp.linux...
>>
>> > I mean, windoze is designed to waist users' time and work. Besides,
>> > software to remedy widoze design 'deficiencies' generate huge
>> > amounts of money. This is M$ heaven: users paying to waist their
>> > own time!
>>
>> Well, I'm not so sure that I agree with all of your assessment, but
>> it is a fact that there never would have been an antivirus industry
>> if it hadn't been for Microsoft. So it is in the antivirus
>> companies' best interests that Microsoft keeps on marketing bad
>> software.
>>
>> It baffles me that nobody's ever stood still at that thought.
>
> Because it's wrong, nobody should be surprised.
FromTheRafters
Jan 31, 2012, 9:12:59 PM1/31/12
to
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:32:20 +0100
Microsoft is wrong.
IMO hey are indeed responsible for the current state of proliferation
of malware, but mostly because they made insecure OSes available to the
great unwashed for so long that it became profitable to write malware
to exploit them (both the user through the classic trojan vector, and
the insecure OSes through exploiting yet another software flaw).
Viruses are inevitable for any general purpose computer, and the AV
industry would exist without Microsoft ever having existed. Malware in
general can be largely avoided with a system geared toward safe
practices, but viruses cannot be avoided so easily without some
automated detection method.
In response to:
"So it is in the antivirus companies' best interests that Microsoft
keeps on marketing bad software."
It was actually the antimalware arena that did so well by this. Most of
this sludge isn't viral and travels as a program from system to system
rather than as a function from program to program.
Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2012 00:58, FromTheRafters conveyed the
> following to alt.comp.linux...
>
> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:59:22 +0100
> > Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday 31 January 2012 23:51, Alexandre Aguiar conveyed the
> >> following to alt.comp.linux...
> >>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> > I mean, windoze is designed to waist users' time and work. Besides,
> >> > software to remedy widoze design 'deficiencies' generate huge
> >> > amounts of money. This is M$ heaven: users paying to waist their
> >> > own time!
> >>
> >> Well, I'm not so sure that I agree with all of your assessment, but
> >> it is a fact that there never would have been an antivirus industry
> >> if it hadn't been for Microsoft. So it is in the antivirus
> >> companies' best interests that Microsoft keeps on marketing bad
> >> software.
> >>
> >> It baffles me that nobody's ever stood still at that thought.
> >
> > Because it's wrong, nobody should be surprised.
>
> Ambiguous statement. Please elaborate and substantiate.
>
The statement that there would be no antivirus industry if not for
> On Wednesday 01 February 2012 00:58, FromTheRafters conveyed the
> following to alt.comp.linux...
>
> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:59:22 +0100
> > Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday 31 January 2012 23:51, Alexandre Aguiar conveyed the
> >> following to alt.comp.linux...
> >>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> > I mean, windoze is designed to waist users' time and work. Besides,
> >> > software to remedy widoze design 'deficiencies' generate huge
> >> > amounts of money. This is M$ heaven: users paying to waist their
> >> > own time!
> >>
> >> Well, I'm not so sure that I agree with all of your assessment, but
> >> it is a fact that there never would have been an antivirus industry
> >> if it hadn't been for Microsoft. So it is in the antivirus
> >> companies' best interests that Microsoft keeps on marketing bad
> >> software.
> >>
> >> It baffles me that nobody's ever stood still at that thought.
> >
> > Because it's wrong, nobody should be surprised.
>
> Ambiguous statement. Please elaborate and substantiate.
>
Microsoft is wrong.
IMO hey are indeed responsible for the current state of proliferation
of malware, but mostly because they made insecure OSes available to the
great unwashed for so long that it became profitable to write malware
to exploit them (both the user through the classic trojan vector, and
the insecure OSes through exploiting yet another software flaw).
Viruses are inevitable for any general purpose computer, and the AV
industry would exist without Microsoft ever having existed. Malware in
general can be largely avoided with a system geared toward safe
practices, but viruses cannot be avoided so easily without some
automated detection method.
In response to:
"So it is in the antivirus companies' best interests that Microsoft
keeps on marketing bad software."
this sludge isn't viral and travels as a program from system to system
rather than as a function from program to program.
Alexandre Aguiar
Feb 1, 2012, 9:13:02 AM2/1/12
to
on Qua 01 Fev 2012 00:12, FromTheRafters said to people at <alt.comp.linux>:
> Viruses are inevitable for any general purpose computer, and the AV
Your statement seems to be right. However, the fact that version after
version m$ introduces new or keep old flaws leads to two possibilities:
either m$ is the lousiest OS producer or it is all intentional.
I'll take 3 wide scope suppositions (all favorable to M$):
1. M$ developers are up to their tasks.
2. M$ developers do their best to deliver secure OS's.
3. if virus and malware incidents had a random incidence, then we would have
incidents in the same proportion as OS's market shares.
Note that 1 supports only two states (true or false) without grades. If 1 is
false M$ is lousy. If 1 is true, 2 and 3 are the field for discussions.
Below I assume 1 is true.
3 can be considered completely false as long as 2 is completely true and the
clear predilection of malware makers for M$ OS's is explained on the basis
of the more attractive bigger market share. But evidence supports that 3 is
not completely false and 2 is not completely true.
The inevitability of virurses and malware and the market share hypothesis
stand true as we have seen the emergence of Mac-targeted malware recently.
Nonetheless the kind of flaws exploited in Macs are so different. Under Mac
(and other well designed OS's), there is no flaw in privilege scalation,
for instance, as is usual under M$'s. No flaw related to exposure of system
wide configurations as it happens under M$'s. Besides, the (often
justified) expectation of the existence of flaws also drives 'research' by
malware makers.
If 1 is true (and, thus, M$ is *not* lousy), then 2 can't be completely true
because flaws like the above mentioned do exist *by design*, have long been
known but persistent under M$'s and, thus, can only be intentional.
The inevitability of viruses and malware and the market shares are only part
of the story. And perhaps not most of it.
--
Alexandre
> Viruses are inevitable for any general purpose computer, and the AV
version m$ introduces new or keep old flaws leads to two possibilities:
either m$ is the lousiest OS producer or it is all intentional.
I'll take 3 wide scope suppositions (all favorable to M$):
1. M$ developers are up to their tasks.
2. M$ developers do their best to deliver secure OS's.
3. if virus and malware incidents had a random incidence, then we would have
incidents in the same proportion as OS's market shares.
Note that 1 supports only two states (true or false) without grades. If 1 is
false M$ is lousy. If 1 is true, 2 and 3 are the field for discussions.
Below I assume 1 is true.
3 can be considered completely false as long as 2 is completely true and the
clear predilection of malware makers for M$ OS's is explained on the basis
of the more attractive bigger market share. But evidence supports that 3 is
not completely false and 2 is not completely true.
The inevitability of virurses and malware and the market share hypothesis
stand true as we have seen the emergence of Mac-targeted malware recently.
Nonetheless the kind of flaws exploited in Macs are so different. Under Mac
(and other well designed OS's), there is no flaw in privilege scalation,
for instance, as is usual under M$'s. No flaw related to exposure of system
wide configurations as it happens under M$'s. Besides, the (often
justified) expectation of the existence of flaws also drives 'research' by
malware makers.
If 1 is true (and, thus, M$ is *not* lousy), then 2 can't be completely true
because flaws like the above mentioned do exist *by design*, have long been
known but persistent under M$'s and, thus, can only be intentional.
The inevitability of viruses and malware and the market shares are only part
of the story. And perhaps not most of it.
--
Alexandre
FromTheRafters
Feb 1, 2012, 10:59:33 PM2/1/12
to
despite how it appears today with almost all malware being non-viral and
written specifically for Windows. Viruses and worms (as well as classic
trojans) predate Windows.
Loki Harfagr
Feb 3, 2012, 10:06:53 AM2/3/12
to
Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:59:33 -0500, FromTheRafters did cat :
and Windows is the worst predator for user data and sanity ;-)
of course in this field being worst is being the best so they finally
achieved something some time.
of course in this field being worst is being the best so they finally
achieved something some time.
FromTheRafters
Feb 7, 2012, 10:51:47 AM2/7/12
to
On 03 Feb 2012 15:06:53 GMT
The old addage about Microsoft making vacuum cleaners comes to mind.
0 new messages