How to Kill Linux
 

I came across a funny article and would like to hear other opinions on it. Does it sound like a big joke?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1768171,00.asp

Look at the date.

I'd guess that if MS thought they could kill Linux, they'd have done it by now.

I know. I did read the date. He mentions its been "shelved" now and might come up. He mentions "At some point in the future Microsoft will make its move on Linux, you can be certain."

I doubt it will happen, I just wish all these elitists could die off. The world is a better place with Linux.

The only thing that is endangering Linux is all the fragmentation I see at the moment. Too many distro's, new desktop GUI's that treat the user as an idiot etc...

I know. Its so sad. Like Ubuntu. And its so ironic since its got the biggest security vulnerability. All you need to do for root access is type sudo before each command, so a malicious browser script can just prefix sudo before and destroy the machine or do whatever. Even when I started linux, I started with security and that required a LOT of command line. I do use the GUI but I only use it for firefox, VLC (to play videos on tutorials about linux) and to be able to have multiple shells. Thats about it. I do ocassionally look at PDFs but most of my work is done on the shell and I love it. I do see how one can easily fall victim to just using the GUI but linux (or rather UNIX) was designed to be used from the command line. I can see why most folks like FreeBSD.

hee hee,linux by it's definition as open source software can't be 'killed off', because even if the powers that be were to slam shut the source on the latest version of the linux kernel somehow, there are still older versions of the linux kernel that are still in open source that could be picked up, dusted off and improved upon, yes it would be an undertaking, but it would be possible, however such a thing would be, so killing off linux alltogether would be impossible as it is so embedded in the community they would simply shrug off any attempt to close the source and start with an older version, or fork the existing source, minus the closed parts (since i doubt licensing structurs would allow a complete closure of the linux kernel source)

and yes i agree, ubuntu's sudo method of security is crap compared to having a hard to guess root password, since hello, if any user account in the sudoer's file is cracked all you need is that user's password to use sudo to access root privileges, how is that more secure then just enabling the root account and using su -c and needing the root password?

apple does that practice with osX (disabling root account similarly to ubuntu, but apple's website offers instructions on how to enable the root account, ubuntu's forums ban you for even mentioning enabling root)

Yeah I think from watching some online tutorials about say, NIS or NFS done in Ubuntu GUI, I notice that when the operator needs to type a superuser command, just a prefix of sudo with no prompt for ANY password whatsoever will grant access to that query. Even Debian's native installation has tons of holes that need to be closed off, one of them also being that the grace time period for sudo is something like 5 minutes, which means if any superuser command has been executed within the last 5 minutes, another superuser command can be executed without a password. This can be mitigated in the sudoers file. I also disabled gksu and gksudo. They both have holes but at least Debian isn't as bad natively. Ubuntu is really bad, and very bloated.

Oh and I love the signatures.
How about this one:
living with a windows pc is like having a disease, installing linux is like getting rid of it. LOL
Love the Micro$oft > /dev/null