A MS Brainwashing Rant

I'm going to vent here, and personally I think several others may want to join in somewhat just to vent to people who aren't totally brainwashed by M$ and 'doze. So here I go...

Before I start, if I have forgotten something and this kind of thing isn't allowed, reply to this in short and then you can delete it so I'll get the message via gmail, thanks.

Was talking to my dad who is die-hard Windows fan. I informed him of the issue there was with Windows that even M$ Engineers (the people who should be able to disassemble and rebuild the OS blindfolded), couldn't even fix, and so they were going to start selling a subscription of a service to fix what they broke.

Well, long story short, we ended up in a bit of an argument over security (my dad, oddly enough, is really big on security. Won't use wireless networks because he sees them as insecure), and said that if hackers spent as much time trying to make viruses for *nix and Macs as they did for 'doze, then Macs and *nix OSs would have the same problem, to which I replied that 'doze makes no difference between admin and user, and that you can't really do serious harm to a Linux system without being logged in as root, and that allot of programmers were finding security errors before most hackers would notice them, and releasing patches to fix them quickly.

Well, if there isn't any problems with all this, go ahead and vent some people. I think keeping any form of flamming to one thread (although I still don't like it), is better then having it spread over the forums entirely.

This is allowed---but also a very old topic.

First--trying to convince parents of anything--especially technology--is probably not the best use of your time...

The way to convert ANYONE is to expose them to the benefits and the relevant information (without being obnoxious).
<<Also, of course, if you are the sysadmin for a shared computer, then you will call the shots. Using this method, my wife and our pet-sitter are now Linux users. This would not have happened any other way.>>

Frankly, I cannot tell you in specific terms why Linux is more secure. Plus, I believe that it IS true that there will be more Linux virii as the usage increases. Personally, security was never a factor in my decision to change.

Assuming your father's correct (which he's not, but it doesn't matter even if he is), the fact of the matter remains that crackers do not spend as much time creating malware for Linux, and they probably won't even bother until Linux is above 10% in its desktop market share.

They do, however, spend a lot of time trying to crack into Linux servers, and Linux servers do not get compromised at an alarming rate.

Windows does encourage you to use administrator, but it also does make a distinction between administrator and user. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, it doesn't really make it convenient to run as user.

For example, if you run as user all the time and then want to install a Windows Update, guess what--you can't. You can try right-clicking on the Windows Update button and selecting Run As... and try to run it as administrator, but the updates will download and then not install.

To install Windows updates, you'd have to log out (or switch user), log in as administrator, install the updates, and then log out to go back to regular user.

You also can't use the "Run as..." command for Explorer. So if there's a file that belongs to the administrator that you want to change... guess you'll have to log in as administrator.

In Linux, you get the advantage of just typing su or sudo to temporarily gain administrator privileges. You can also create launchers to browse temporarily as root (using Konqueror or Nautilus) to change system files graphically.

In other words--while you can create a limited user in Windows, Windows isn't really designed to facilitate operating as user (and not administrator). It's really designed to be run as administrator.

It might be more accurate to say that, for about ten years or so, Microsoft never really stressed the importance of security levels ... either to its home users or to its entry-level developer community. Consequently, a lot of software has been released which was probably never tested on a non-Admin account. The documentation was never written to assume a non-Admin. Lots of products basically say that "if this does not work, make sure that your account has Administrator privilege," and basically, that's that. For many years and with gazillions of products, that was "okay."

It is going to take some [more] time for this approach to cease to be de rigeur among the Windows community. But Microsoft cannot be unaware that it has become a competitive issue for them. It's only a matter of time before some canny lawyer makes a product-liability lawsuit actually stick.

Read this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...dows_vs_linux/

It is a bit old, but the information in it still applies. Some of the statistics may have changed, but that's about it.

I've had this very same argument with my brother, who refuses to acknowledge that he's lost the argument (being an MCSE and all) despite the fact that he has NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER WITH LINUX. He only regurgitates crap that he has read on the internet and is unwilling to give Linux a go because "it's still unusable on the desktop". But hey, what do I know? I've only been using Linux on my desktop since 1999...

There is no convincing a Microsoft devotee. It doesn't matter to them that you HAVE seen both sides of the fence, they're too brainwashed to realise that something else may be better than Windows. They cannot accept that something could be inherently more secure and stable.

I avoid the subject when I can with my brother to try and keep the peace. If he brings it up, I usually pass a light hearted remark or joke and change the subject.

Don't let this come between you and your Dad, because one day you'll regret it. If he refuses to budge, let him be.

Ciao,


Rob.

It seems like some people have been using windows on a daily bassis without incident or error! I was never so lucky...

I know a lot of windows but not all. I completely ignore stuff like wmi scripting, active directory services, etcetra. Yet I would routinely need to fix something broken or disinfect something. (sometimes cleaning infections out breaks other parts of windows and files must be restored)

The OOBE experience for XP at home is fairly simple but setting up windows servers is more complex then linux sometimes... You could install Windows server 2003, then put in the Exchange server disk and what autoruns is not the setup program but a long list of preresiquits you must accomplish! Putting back in the windows CD to install more dependancies, going online and getting the updates for them, running complex command prompt commands, debugging all the services (database, dns, active directory, etc) to make sure all the updates worked and it is configured right!

At the end of the day, maybe you have Exchange server installed, or maybe you should just use the simple smtp/pop3 server included free on the windows cd! Then some of the stuff they have for business web site services/hosting... You have to open the files and edit them in notepad! That is the setup instructions!

I know the problems with Windows. My dad almost lost his comp to spy/adware, viruses, Trojans, ect. when his antivirus didn't cover it all (and people think Windows Firewall works. LOL), he had to get Norton I.S. and Systemworks (bundled at Best Buy at a cost of like 10 dollars after rebates), and that got rid of SOME of it.

As for them not thinking its stable, he just thinks Windows is better, just as secure, ect. when it comes down to it it seems, but, in the end, we just end the argument. Both of us just enjoy arguing, but sometimes I find it very annoying that someone would be so dead-set on even TRYING something new.

Originally Posted by rkelsen Read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...dows_vs_linux/ It is a bit old, but the information in it still applies. Some of the statistics may have changed, but that's about it.

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing that.

Originally Posted by rkelsen I've had this very same argument with my brother, who refuses to acknowledge that he's lost the argument (being an MCSE and all) despite the fact that he has NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER WITH LINUX. He only regurgitates crap that he has read on the internet and is unwilling to give Linux a go because "it's still unusable on the desktop".

They rather spend energy they could use learning a new thing criticizing it. Actually it comes very easy as they wouldn't want to perceive the time spent in the past as wasted. They help perpetuate "standards by conformity" but fortunately it doesn't last long in the computing world. We want true, tested and tried interfaces, not new fancy names.

Even if (and this is a big if) the only reason Windows is insecure had to do with a large marketshare... well, it's not like that marketshare is changing drastically in the next few years! So live it up--use Linux while it's still unpopular!

Originally Posted by aysiu Even if ... the only reason Windows is insecure had to do with a large marketshare

That isn't the reason.

If you read the article I linked to in my previous post, you'd see that these are just some of the reasons:

1. Windows is still really a single-user system.

2. Windows is monolithic by design.

3. Windows is too dependant upon RPCs.

4. Microsoft promote use of the GUI while logged in as administrator.

This is all explained further in the article. I highly recommend it. It is a great read.

rkelsen, I agree with you. I've already read that article, too.

Why did you leave out the "and this is a big if" part of my sentence? Hypotheticals aren't cool with you?

Maybe you should check out post #3 of this thread, where I explain how Windows encourages you to log in as administrator.

Originally Posted by aysiu Why did you leave out the "and this is a big if" part of my sentence? Hypotheticals aren't cool with you?

Not that one, no. Market share has absolutely nothing to do with the apparent lack of attacks on Linux. Sorry if I seem pig-headed here, but I'm REALLY sick of hearing that old line.

Linux viruses are kept in controlled labs as proof-of-concept designs. We don't know exactly how detailed and how well they handle diffrent configurations. A solid Linux system is about as bulletproof as you can make an OS from what I've seen, and only BSD in some forms can beat it, and thats usually onyl for a reason or two, and not because of something massive.

Windows is a monolithic hack. If you see how they change things and how much PCs require to run it, that starts to become fairly obvious. Its a single-user system hacked into a multi-user system, and is therefore insecure due to its original nature. Linux always has been and always will be a multi-user system that is, at its core, developed to be secure instead of being hacked together over the years by lazy programmers who have been drafted by a huge corporation that has little or no respect for the end-user.

Linux IMHO will always be more secure then Windows, and Windows will always be inherantly insecure unless they do a litteral re-write of the OS, which I severly doubt they will (if they were going to, they would have by now). Whine-doze will always be the Whinne-the-Poo (hope you catch the pun) of OSs. It looks cute and cuddly, but compare it to the big boyz (we're talking Poo vs. an angry Polar Bear mother defending her cubs here), and its just some weak little excuse thats gotten alot of publicity.

Like I stated in another thread, they can keep making their systems as bad as they do. Hardware will be cheaper for those of you/us (whether I use it right or not I don't know, but I'm getting there ) who know how to use it properly, so I say lets spur M$ on. When the tech reaches its limit (which it is getting closed to doing), we can start making in-tower networks (multiple CPUs, more RAM, ect.), and watch while M$ scrambles to reduce system overhead to fit their "new, innovative" OS onto desktops and other computers.

Originally Posted by rkelsen Not that one, no. Market share has absolutely nothing to do with the apparent lack of attacks on Linux. Sorry if I seem pig-headed here, but I'm REALLY sick of hearing that old line.

I'm tired of hearing it, too.

I was just saying if it were true, it wouldn't matter, anyway because the fact of the matter remains--for now and the next three years at least, Linux will not have a marketshare anywhere near Windows on the desktop.

My point is that the argument is irrelevant.