None that are anything like as good though. Does it actually work through Wine? I've heard it's pretty hit or miss.CrazeD wrote:
There are many alternatives, or you can use Wine.ghettoperson wrote:
Photoshop.CrazeD wrote:
Find me a program that is in Windows and is not available for Linux (and I'm not talking about games).
Yes, I believe so.ghettoperson wrote:
None that are anything like as good though. Does it actually work through Wine? I've heard it's pretty hit or miss.CrazeD wrote:
There are many alternatives, or you can use Wine.ghettoperson wrote:
Photoshop.
Also, I dunno why Adobe doesn't just port it over. It wouldn't be all that difficult for them, seeings how it is available for Mac which is also UNIX based.
I don't think it's immune, it's the simple fact that those who program viruses realize that people who are computer-smart (as in street-smart) enough to use Linux steer clear of any suspicious programs. It just isn't worth it to bother making a Linux virus.CrazeD wrote:
But everyone is trained on Windows solutions. If people were trained on Linux machines and knew them in and out, it'd be fine. Also remember that you can pretty much write any program for Linux just as you can for Windows.mikkel wrote:
You're very welcome to try to create a corporate network with the same granularity of control, same relative ease of management, same extensive control elements, and the same seamless integration with clients as Windows coupled with Active Directory gives you, using Linux for your clients and servers. If you can do it cheaper, easier and with more seamless integration between client and server systems than the Microsoft solution, then you can say that Linux can do anything that Windows can do.CrazeD wrote:
Perhaps I missed an example, because Microsoft has terrible integration. It tries to make everything its own format and version, instead of using standards and thus has to be converted or interpreted for it to be compatible with other programs and such.
GNU preaches open source and sharing, so pretty much every Linux application that is open source follows the standards and can share with other programs very easily.
You can do anything in Linux that you can do in Windows, except utilize DirectX.
You can do good things in Linux, but there are areas where it has absolutely nothing on Microsoft solutions. It's not just for kicks that businesses pay for Microsoft solutions. They get a better solution than anyone else can provide.
Plus the fact that Linux is free, and it is a fuckuva lot more stable than Windows and also nearly immune to malicious software. Therefore you just saved a shitload of money on licenses and IT personal to fix the software when you get viruses.
It's also down to amount of users. you aren't going to infect many people with a Linux virus versus a windows one.Sydney wrote:
I don't think it's immune, it's the simple fact that those who program viruses realize that people who are computer-smart (as in street-smart) enough to use Linux steer clear of any suspicious programs. It just isn't worth it to bother making a Linux virus.
Yeah, you'd think the Mac version wouldn't require a lot of tweaking. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, but I need to play some games now and again. And I hate dual booting.CrazeD wrote:
Yes, I believe so.ghettoperson wrote:
None that are anything like as good though. Does it actually work through Wine? I've heard it's pretty hit or miss.CrazeD wrote:
There are many alternatives, or you can use Wine.
Also, I dunno why Adobe doesn't just port it over. It wouldn't be all that difficult for them, seeings how it is available for Mac which is also UNIX based.
And the fact that the user and permission system in Linux is very efficient. Even if you did pick up a virus, the chances of it actually damaging anything are very slim because unless you're the root admin, you can't do anything.jaymz9350 wrote:
It's also down to amount of users. you aren't going to infect many people with a Linux virus versus a windows one.Sydney wrote:
I don't think it's immune, it's the simple fact that those who program viruses realize that people who are computer-smart (as in street-smart) enough to use Linux steer clear of any suspicious programs. It just isn't worth it to bother making a Linux virus.
EDIT: Oh, and the fact that any security holes are very promptly fixed.
Last edited by CrazeD (2009-01-11 17:44:36)
Perhaps, but if Linux has the same market share as Windows does for as long, malice would emerge.CrazeD wrote:
But everyone is trained on Windows solutions. If people were trained on Linux machines and knew them in and out, it'd be fine. Also remember that you can pretty much write any program for Linux just as you can for Windows.mikkel wrote:
You're very welcome to try to create a corporate network with the same granularity of control, same relative ease of management, same extensive control elements, and the same seamless integration with clients as Windows coupled with Active Directory gives you, using Linux for your clients and servers. If you can do it cheaper, easier and with more seamless integration between client and server systems than the Microsoft solution, then you can say that Linux can do anything that Windows can do.CrazeD wrote:
Perhaps I missed an example, because Microsoft has terrible integration. It tries to make everything its own format and version, instead of using standards and thus has to be converted or interpreted for it to be compatible with other programs and such.
GNU preaches open source and sharing, so pretty much every Linux application that is open source follows the standards and can share with other programs very easily.
You can do anything in Linux that you can do in Windows, except utilize DirectX.
You can do good things in Linux, but there are areas where it has absolutely nothing on Microsoft solutions. It's not just for kicks that businesses pay for Microsoft solutions. They get a better solution than anyone else can provide.
Plus the fact that Linux is free, and it is a fuckuva lot more stable than Windows and also nearly immune to malicious software. Therefore you just saved a shitload of money on licenses and IT personal to fix the software when you get viruses.
Don't be a snob.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Open office, sif I'd pay for a word processor.VicktorVauhn wrote:
Unless you actually need your computer to do work...TheAussieReaper wrote:
Zero.
Long live ubuntu.
It's easy to fall back and just say 'Open Office,' but there are cross compatibility issues between it and Office 2007 that not everyone is willing to sit down and manually patch out, and in the business world, people are using Office 2007. Have fun getting calls about letters being scrunched up.
As to the OP: A many as Microsoft wants there to be, I guess. In my opinion, Home should be the base version, Business should be one licensed to three or four computers and then you can get into the whole Enterprise stuff with bundle deals. Ultimate is a cheap gimmick, and the extra features in it should be a given for others.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-01-11 18:07:41)
But it's not just about user base. Linux is worlds more secure than Windows, period. In Windows, you're always a root admin (at least, by default). That means that any script kiddie can make a file that deletes some vital file or something that fucks you. That will never happen in Linux.jsnipy wrote:
Perhaps, but if Linux has the same market share as Windows does for as long, malice would emerge.CrazeD wrote:
But everyone is trained on Windows solutions. If people were trained on Linux machines and knew them in and out, it'd be fine. Also remember that you can pretty much write any program for Linux just as you can for Windows.mikkel wrote:
You're very welcome to try to create a corporate network with the same granularity of control, same relative ease of management, same extensive control elements, and the same seamless integration with clients as Windows coupled with Active Directory gives you, using Linux for your clients and servers. If you can do it cheaper, easier and with more seamless integration between client and server systems than the Microsoft solution, then you can say that Linux can do anything that Windows can do.
You can do good things in Linux, but there are areas where it has absolutely nothing on Microsoft solutions. It's not just for kicks that businesses pay for Microsoft solutions. They get a better solution than anyone else can provide.
Plus the fact that Linux is free, and it is a fuckuva lot more stable than Windows and also nearly immune to malicious software. Therefore you just saved a shitload of money on licenses and IT personal to fix the software when you get viruses.
There have been viruses for Linux in the past, but the security holes were fixed quickly and that was the end of it. Look at how it takes Microsoft to patch shit, and it still doesn't help.
There are some aspects of Windows that have been vulnerable in the past. But most of came about because of features that came turned on by default. Take IIS for example. In version 5 it was horrifyingly vulnerable for one main reason, every extension and feature was on be default. If you pared those things down, appropriately set ACLs it was no more of a security risk than Apache (IIS was still a bad performer then but that's a different thread ).CrazeD wrote:
But it's not just about user base. Linux is worlds more secure than Windows, period. In Windows, you're always a root admin (at least, by default). That means that any script kiddie can make a file that deletes some vital file or something that fucks you. That will never happen in Linux.jsnipy wrote:
Perhaps, but if Linux has the same market share as Windows does for as long, malice would emerge.CrazeD wrote:
But everyone is trained on Windows solutions. If people were trained on Linux machines and knew them in and out, it'd be fine. Also remember that you can pretty much write any program for Linux just as you can for Windows.
Plus the fact that Linux is free, and it is a fuckuva lot more stable than Windows and also nearly immune to malicious software. Therefore you just saved a shitload of money on licenses and IT personal to fix the software when you get viruses.
There have been viruses for Linux in the past, but the security holes were fixed quickly and that was the end of it. Look at how it takes Microsoft to patch shit, and it still doesn't help.
Part of my original statement implied that with greater market share and use, the Linux as you know it would be different with vastly complex frameworks, and software that would have the potential to open vulnerabilities. Also the habit of not running as root could be applied by not running as an administrator on your local machine. Admittedly many sites I've have been to back in the day most users ran with local admin right, who is to say that would not have been the same with a large organization running Linux (with users running as root). I think it still comes down to the people, the training, and the implementation.
Last edited by jsnipy (2009-01-11 19:33:07)
Oh, really? Please show me this magical software that could save corporations billions of dollars, but no one seems to use. It doesn't exist, and it has nothing to do with "training". It has to do with existing possibilities and solutions, and Linux has nothing comparable.CrazeD wrote:
But everyone is trained on Windows solutions. If people were trained on Linux machines and knew them in and out, it'd be fine.mikkel wrote:
You're very welcome to try to create a corporate network with the same granularity of control, same relative ease of management, same extensive control elements, and the same seamless integration with clients as Windows coupled with Active Directory gives you, using Linux for your clients and servers. If you can do it cheaper, easier and with more seamless integration between client and server systems than the Microsoft solution, then you can say that Linux can do anything that Windows can do.CrazeD wrote:
Perhaps I missed an example, because Microsoft has terrible integration. It tries to make everything its own format and version, instead of using standards and thus has to be converted or interpreted for it to be compatible with other programs and such.
GNU preaches open source and sharing, so pretty much every Linux application that is open source follows the standards and can share with other programs very easily.
You can do anything in Linux that you can do in Windows, except utilize DirectX.
You can do good things in Linux, but there are areas where it has absolutely nothing on Microsoft solutions. It's not just for kicks that businesses pay for Microsoft solutions. They get a better solution than anyone else can provide.
Oh yeah, you "just" write a program. That's like saying that Skoda is as good as Ferrari at building cars, as they could "just" make a car as good. Most things in computing are plausibly attainable, which is why plausible attainability is irrelevant to real world implementations, and the currently or immediately possible is what matters. By the same logic, walking from Europe to China would be a serious alternative to flying, simply because it's possible.CrazeD wrote:
Also remember that you can pretty much write any program for Linux just as you can for Windows.
Linux is not "free" for businesses. It never has been. Linux is also not "nearly immune to malicious software". It faces more or less precisely the same general security challenges as other mainstream operating systems, and if you think that remote code execution, buffer overflow attacks and other vulnerabilities existing as consequences to poor coding don't exist in Linux, then you're sorely mistaken.CrazeD wrote:
Plus the fact that Linux is free, and it is a fuckuva lot more stable than Windows and also nearly immune to malicious software. Therefore you just saved a shitload of money on licenses and IT personal to fix the software when you get viruses.
If you execute malicious software with user level privileges in Windows, it often can't do much either.CrazeD wrote:
And the fact that the user and permission system in Linux is very efficient. Even if you did pick up a virus, the chances of it actually damaging anything are very slim because unless you're the root admin, you can't do anything.jaymz9350 wrote:
It's also down to amount of users. you aren't going to infect many people with a Linux virus versus a windows one.Sydney wrote:
I don't think it's immune, it's the simple fact that those who program viruses realize that people who are computer-smart (as in street-smart) enough to use Linux steer clear of any suspicious programs. It just isn't worth it to bother making a Linux virus.
That's absurd. Using administrative accounts instead of user accounts is a choice you make both in Windows and in Linux. If you use a root account in Linux for day-to-day use, you're just as vulnerable as using an administrative account in Windows for day-to-day use, so saying that it "will never happen in Linux" is just stupid. You defend Linux by citing user training, but you lambast Windows for something that user training would fix. Be consistent.CrazeD wrote:
But it's not just about user base. Linux is worlds more secure than Windows, period. In Windows, you're always a root admin (at least, by default). That means that any script kiddie can make a file that deletes some vital file or something that fucks you. That will never happen in Linux.jsnipy wrote:
Perhaps, but if Linux has the same market share as Windows does for as long, malice would emerge.CrazeD wrote:
But everyone is trained on Windows solutions. If people were trained on Linux machines and knew them in and out, it'd be fine. Also remember that you can pretty much write any program for Linux just as you can for Windows.
Plus the fact that Linux is free, and it is a fuckuva lot more stable than Windows and also nearly immune to malicious software. Therefore you just saved a shitload of money on licenses and IT personal to fix the software when you get viruses.
There have been viruses for Linux in the past, but the security holes were fixed quickly and that was the end of it. Look at how it takes Microsoft to patch shit, and it still doesn't help.
As for "quickly fixing" security holes, this is a crock of shit. Yes, it's often more fast than Windows, but Linux has huge blunders as well. Recent examples;
Debian OpenSSL bug. Every single SSH key generated and SSL certificate created in Debian for almost TWO YEARS was "randomised" to within 15 bits. For two years. Probably the single biggest broad security issue in recent times. It existed for TWO YEARS because of sloppy coding. People keep praising Linux for being open so that everyone can audit the code, but the fact that it took TWO YEARS for a bug as serious as that to be discovered in an important core utility goes to show that relying on the curiosity of users to fix errors and security issues is far from reliable.
DNS cache poisoning attack. It took days for most Linux distributions to release fixes for the cache poisoning attack to the core BIND distributions. Microsoft released same-day patches for Windows DNS servers.
Linux has its strengths, but you're way overestimating them.