Game Anticipation: 2007

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always assumed Windows was more prone to viruses
was due to the fact that more people are putting effort into writing
viruses for it. When you get down to it, viruses are created by
somebody, for some reason. They don't just appear out of
nowhere. I can think of three main reasons:

1. Outright Maliciousness

2. Scammery/Shady Business

3. To Prove They're Smart Enough To Make One (aka The Atom Bomb)

If your intent is to make a Trojan that will record keystrokes to which
you will attempt to glean credit card numbers from, you're going to
want to design it for the people making online purchases in the most
relaxed, carefree manner possible. Therefore, you design for
Windows. You're not going to steal many credit card numbers
writing a virus for FreeBSD.

Likewise, if you're trying for outright maliciousness, again your
target will be the broad, careless populace and therefore Windows.

Only those trying to show off how smart they are might develop viruses
for other OSes. And, of the three, this motive is the one most
likely to belong to someone who will say "Hehe, look what I did!
This is how I was able to do it and this is how you can fix it."

Basically, it is Windows' position as the primary OS amongst the
non-tech savvy, and not its merits as an OS, that make it a primary
target of viruses. Likewise, this argument should not be
misconstrued to be vindicative of Windows' merits as an OS.

aaron_da_killa said:
@ otzman : Well I have tried Windows 95 all the way to Vista. Also Imac and I've seen some screen shots of linux.

You can't possibly mean that you know what it's like using linux just from looking at some screenshots?

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

For the most part: yeah. Windows is targeted because of the amount of people that use it. But it is so much easier to "break into" a Windows system.

On a Linux machine you cannot write ANYTHING to protected portions of the operating system (everything but your personal space). The reason why, is simply this: you don't have the permissions to write there (unlike Windows where you most likely have Administrator access at all times).

Linux systems can become vulnerable to viruses if left in an unprotected state (Root access), and various other methods. Keep in mind that almost all of the viruses are written for the x86 architecture ... not Windows specifically. The method in which they infect the computer is most likely Windows specific, but it can infect anything running that same hardware (based on hardware, there's even a possibility to do this to more current intel CPU based macs).

The issue is that Windows has insecurities in vital areas (like the kernel) and Microsoft applications actively give open ports to whatever fools it (IE, for instance).

You can still use AV and Firewall with Linux to make it even more secure. Of course, none of this is 100% hack-proof, but it's far better than purposefully letting in harmful incoming traffic and allowing it to directly write to kernel memory space, for example.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

If I've understood correctly there are different versions of linux, some of them more user friendly than others. Are there any versions that are about as "user friendly" as Windows (i.e. similar to Win with a similar user interface etc), and about as easy to install and manage?

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

Ubuntu, Red Hat, and SuSE are all pretty user friendly, I would personally go with Ubuntu.

The downside is it only supports debian packages, while most "binary" linux stuff is in RPM package format. The good news is, there's a package manager that links up to Ubuntu's servers and allows you to download pretty much anything available for the OS and automatically installs it and puts it in an easy to find launch location under applications.

Most everything will work from installation (sharing files and printing to windows based machines and printers included AND easy to set up wireless!).

It also allows you to find out about problems quickly with the desktop search. If Ubuntu could seamlessly run DX applications I wouldn't use Windows at all.

I'm thinking when the time comes, I'll have a machine set for dual boot, games will have a Vista partition, while the rest of the machine is Ubuntu.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Does this mean that most/all non DX10 applications run well on Ubuntu/linux?

EDIT:

I had a brief look at the Ubuntu website, and I'm tempted to give it a try right away. If I install it on the same computer as Windows, I'll get to choose which one to boot at startup just like when I have installed Win twice, right?

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

Does this mean that most/all non DX10 applications run well on Ubuntu/linux?
EDIT:
I had a brief look at the Ubuntu website, and I'm tempted to give it a try right away. If I install it on the same computer as Windows, I'll get to choose which one to boot at startup just like when I have installed Win twice, right?

You will find that a lot of windows applications won't run in linux. That includes nearly every PC game. A few games that use OpenGL are supported (Eg. Doom 3). As for everything else, there is some alternative software that can be used (OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim etc).

If you are using a certain application, check to see if it supports linux.

As for installing Ubuntu, it is best to have 2 separate partitions for each OS. Although I haven't installed it myself, I would assume it would be best if installed this way.

See what happens when I get bored at work? I found the SnarkPit. :razz:

YOu have to make a seperate partition to install ubunutu. It should then install a boot loader so you can choose between windows and linux.

Yeah, grub.

If you're worried about removing it while leaving Windows intact (for whatever crazy reason you'd want to do that for) it's very simple as well.

You can also configure grub to have a silent boot, which means it will automatically boot whichever OS you want unless you press a button (like escape) during the load sequence (which would, in turn, bring up the boot menu and allow you to choose).

Most Windows applications are not compatible. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, what I was saying is that, most of the applications that aren't games that are Windows specific are really poor applications anyway (Firefox vs Internet Explorer, MS Office vs Sun Open Office, Outlook vs Thunderbird, etc). However, many more 'tame' applications, like adobe products, either run natively on Linux or can actually run through Wine emulation (though I can't help you set that up as I've never personally gotten it to work). Most everything has an, at least, decent alternative.

As for configuration, I installed Ubuntu on a laptop (which I have since given to a family member) as well as a 'fresh' non-Home version of Windows ... everything in Ubuntu with little or NO configuration while the stuff in Windows didn't even work after official drivers were installed. (Though the laptop it self was a little more than buggy). I was able to browse Windows networks, print on Windows printers, as well as configure my graphics card and wireless card nearly automatically. The system, at one point, did have an odd error, but it was because of the Wireless card (and the overall bizarreness of the laptop), but overall there were very little problems on the Linux end, it's the one I used nearly exclusively on that machine. I had no reason to use the Windows portion.

Oh, the only other thing you may have issues with are some video codecs, some more "mainstream" ones don't have official versions for Linux (like quicktime). It shouldn't hinder things too much and I'm sure there is some solution out there.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I think I could take an old 15gb IDE hdd from one of our older computers and put into mine and install Ubuntu on it. I guess I'll have to do some searching for alternative applications if the ones I've been using for Windows aren't working. Glad to hear that the adobe products work decently though. As for emulation, I was suggested to give VMWare a try. What's the difference between VMWare and Wine?

After installing Ubuntu, what about drivers for the graphics card, sound, motherboard etc? I just saw that nVidia has Linux drivers on their website, so I take it I'll just go there and follow the instructions.

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

You're best bet will be to use the Synaptic Package Manager in Ubuntu for all these things. If there aren't official Linux drivers, or they're just ridiculously hard to use (like Intel's graphics drivers) there may be a package someone else has cooked up that will work.

Most sites will assume if you want Linux drivers that you're a Linux guru, so they'll give you some compressed file that has the drivers in it and you need to know how to install them ... that's why I suggest looking through the package manager. There are lots of people out there that hate doing that and would rather have binaries that "install", then doing a bunch of command line work.

I never said Adobe products work. I said you might need to use wine emulation to get them to work. This isn't an easy task, but there are alternatives for PDF viewing, for example.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll take a look at the package manager when I have Ubuntu installed.

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!