Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I'm having an argument with my father, he doesn't want or "allows" any computer to run Linux because he says "everyone can see the code and everyone can make changes". I'm trying to explain to him that it doesn't work like that in such a general sense (except for viewing the code). How would I explain to him how the kernel is maintained as well as the district Ubuntu as that's the one I want to install.
Is it better to trust something you pay for or something you build?
... I caught up with Uri Rivner, formerly of RSA and now vice president of business development and cyber strategy at BioCatch. He said that we are all stronger as a result of reviewed code and that open source “actually helps security”.
“There is a big difference between seeing code and exploiting it, and the truly talented hackers, security researchers and experts don’t work for Governments – those are the real “A” talent people who end up testing and evaluating our open source code,” he said. ...
Security experts want you to know about bugs and holes proprietary OSs don't!
I'd skim through all of the next two sites\links for more selling points:
Canonical has a large, experienced OEM engagement team that has been closely involved with hardware makers like Dell, HP and Lenovo for many years. We provide a complete, end-to-end device delivery solution on Intel, AMD or ARM silicon, helping our partners identify market opportunities and deliver to market on time and on budget. Above all, we ensure a stunning experience on every device.
Canonical was created alongside Ubuntu to help it reach a wider market. Our services help governments and businesses the world over with migrations, management and support for their Ubuntu deployments. Together with our partners, we ensure that Ubuntu runs reliably on every platform from the PC and the smartphone to the server and, crucially, the cloud.
The code which we can all see will be gibberish to the vast majority of people. Most of us would not know where to begin to make any changes. Also, as stated above, the software code is in repositories controlled by the developers who check it regularly. With Open Source, if some 'exploit' is discovered there is competition to remedy it and solutions are usually found much more quickly. Someone who finds an exploit in Open Source will get positive reinforcement for the discovery although not as much as the person who finds a solution to it.
With proprietary code, you have to totally trust the company which writes the code and believe that they have your best interests in mind. There have been countless instances over the years where some exploit has been discovered in proprietary code and the code creator has been informed. First thing they do, deny it. Next is saying they are working on it and will resolve it which they often do, eventually. Meanwhile, the users of their code can be suffering whatever problems the 'exploit' creates.
Every open source project has one or some person(s) who has/have the passwords for their infrastructure. Everyone else does not have the passwords. I can not go and make stealth changes to ubuntu. As you cannot, too, and your father cannot, too. To believe such a thing is silly.
However, I don't know how to convince your father. Who am I anyway? ;-)
(Mostly) project wide yes but once you have the code you can change\use\learn-from it, freedom (2nd link in my post.)
Many of the biggest security risks out there are letting someone have access to your keyboard, hardware and such. microcoughed-windblow$ is not secure just throwing money at it, it's more secure if you put time and effort in but if the code is hidden for proprietary reasons it makes that job more difficult. Anyone with billion$, in a world of billions, is trying to twist your arm!
Control over the use of one's ideas really constitutes control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.
Did you show your dad your phone?
Last edited by jamison20000e; 06-06-2014 at 07:21 PM.