Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Correcting Common Linux Misconceptions? 44

abolishPenguinPhobia asks: "I am a teacher at a comm. college and was looking to install Linux on a couple machines for students to use. I figured since the students have to learn *nix anyway they might as well have access to some Linux machines. Anyhoo...I was told by the network administrator that the linux machines were not to be connected to the network for fear of viri, DoS attacks, and so on. My question for the /. community: Why do people fear Linux? It seems to me that people are misinformed that Linux is only a 'hackers' OS. How can we change this?" This is only one of the common Linux "myths", and there are several more where these came from. Is there a central clearing house of such myths and intelligent efforts at debunking them somewhere online?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Correcting Common Linux Misconceptions?

Comments Filter:
  • by gi-tux ( 309771 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2001 @04:00PM (#2727930) Homepage
    I disagree with your take. I use both Windows (unfortunately) and Linux (fortunately). I have less trouble deciding what to use on Linux than on Windows. With Windows I can't afford to make a mistake due to the cost of everything. When you are talking about spending several hundred dollars for Office versus one hundred dollars for Anyware 2.0 Desktop for Linux (from Vistasource) the decision is much easier. I can buy several different packages for Linux to find the parts that work for me.

    I can even go find Star Office (from Sun), or KOffice (from KDE), or Gnome Office (from Gnome) for free.

    And being a System Administrator for many years, I know how to secure a system, either a Linux/Unix system or a Windows system. Unfortunately neither Microsoft nor most of the Linux distributions (until recently) came very secure. Both have gotten a little better with recent releases. Unfortunately, it takes several years to get the older machine out of the loop. Given the fact that you can go to CompUSA or Best Buy or many other stores and get a new Linux distribution for under fifty dollars while a Microsoft OS will cost several hundred dollars, more folks are likely to upgrade their linux distributions. This doesn't totally fix security problems, but it does help get rid of some of the issues.

    While there may be personal agenda behind some open source software, there is a much worse agenda (IMO) behind Microsoft. Have you tried to find a competitive office suite recently? What has happened to web browsers? Where are the email programs that used to be out there? What about development tools? It is beginning to be like a song I remember from way back when "I owe my soul to the company store".

    Someone from Mircosoft once called Linux a virus, it seems to me that Microsoft is more of a virus as it is killing off everything else. At least with Linux you have choices. They may not all be good and they may not have all the features, but there is usually a choice.

  • by gi-tux ( 309771 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2001 @04:12PM (#2728017) Homepage
    Yes, the word 'hacker' is usually used when 'cracker' would be better. With a properly configured Linux/Unix machine, you can really restrict users. In the past, I have seen some that were locked down almost as tight as an IBM mainframe using RACF.

    While the standard permissions set on Linux/Unix isn't as rich as the ACLs on some other OSes, the capabilities are much more versatile. For instance, most Unix systems have rsh (restricted shell) that will completely lock down the programs to which the user has access. With rsh as their shell, they can't even execute a command if they know the full path to it.

    On most Unix systems, services can be locked down with limited access. On all Unix systems, services can easily be turned off. With no services running, you don't have to worry about being attacked nearly as much as you have no doors or windows (no pun intended).

  • by qurob ( 543434 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2001 @04:25PM (#2728096) Homepage
    Some old PC's, a old hub, and some wires.

    This way you can do anything you need to do, but, it won't affect the network at school.

    He'll either come to understand, and let you play with the rest of the network, or he won't.

    You win either way.
  • by Webmoth ( 75878 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2001 @06:49PM (#2729075) Homepage
    Myth: Linux is a "hacker's OS"
    Rebuttal: There are more well-known, well-*cough*-exploited security holes in *cough* Microsoft Windows *cough* than in any *nix. This makes it appear that *cough* hackers *cough* no, crackers, *cough* are more interested in cracking *cough* Microsoft Windows *cough* than Linux. (Please excuse my *cough* hacking, I have junk in my *cough* throat.)

    Myth: Linux is hard to set up.
    Rebuttal: No harder than setting up multiple simultaneous users and desktops under Windows 95.

    Myth: Linux has no support.
    Rebuttal: On the contrary, my Linux server is sitting on a concrete block as we speak. I set my Win2K server on the edge of my beanbag chair and it crashed immediately. On to the floor, I mean.

    Myth: Linux is not ready for the desktop.
    Rebuttal: In my new office, I will have a Linux box sitting on the floor on each side of me. A large sheet of plywood will lay across the tower cases, on which I will set my monitor and keyboard.

    Myth: Linux is hard to use.
    Rebuttal: Bicycles are hard to use, too, if you've never ridden one before. Windows probably was the first time you used it. It's just a matter of having patience, learning, trying, experimenting, and falling over a few times, getting up, dusting off, a couple of stiches here and there, you'll be good as new. And you'll have learned something.

    Myth: I don't have time to learn Linux.
    Rebuttal: You have time to wait for your Winows box to restart 10 times a day.

    Myth: Most Linux advocates are zealots.
    Rebuttal: All. (Just kidding)

    Myth: The command shell is obsolete.
    Rebuttal: The command shell is ugly. It's also extremely useful when you screw up your window manager or need to administer the system remotely. vi from the command line, you can change the configuration very much more efficiently than from a pretty window. You've also got access to every configuration parameter this way. Nothing beats the command shell for a quick connection to your mailserver to check your mail when you don't have time to wait for Outlook Express to open, download all your messages, render and display the HTML, ad nauseum.

    Myth: Linux is hard to configure.
    Rebuttal: Learn how to use a vi. In Linux, every option can be changed with a text editor. In Windows, you might get lucky in the Registry Editor -- if the option is there, if it's documented, etc.

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.

Working...