StupidOS

Moooooobingaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Sup dawg?! Missed u meeeehn #YesHOMO
Hafar?

Ubuntu linux is more secured that Ms OS. I am currently running Ubuntu Natty 11.04.

Remember it is an Open Source!

all4naija:

Ubuntu linux is more secured that Ms OS. I am currently running Ubuntu Natty 11.04.

Remember it is an Open Source!

And Open Source ain't prone to hacking abi?

And Open Source ain't prone to hacking abi?

This is one of the particular reasons why I love my Nigerian people.

I only pointed out that Ubuntu Linux is more secured than MS OS. And, it's Open Source, for the simple reason you don't actually need licenses to operate the OS and its subsequent packages. You know what that means? Don't you?

More secured doesn't mean it can't be hacked. .get my drift?
Yes it's Open Source, yes you don't need to run anti-viruses on it. .yes, it's more engaging than winblows (I use Linux Mint btw on a virtual machine) and i've picked up a few tricks and i know some of the advantages it has over winblows but what we're on about here is 'how secure' it is?

Is it more secure than windows? I'll give that you. .but is it hackable. .YES! which flaws your 'security' logic in every sense of the word.

I hope you know the meaning of the word SECURE.

Oh and btw, don't you need a license to run Linux RedHat?

I wouldn't like to treat it as issue here cos you are getting out of the topic. Ubuntu is actually different from Redhat Linux. The differences are:

Courtesy of  http://ubuntuforums.org/
1.

Ubuntu uses debian packages while Redhat uses rpm.
Ubuntu is Free.
Best is to run Ubuntu Live CD (even better if you install) and experience it.

2.In other words,

Redhat Enterprise Linux is not free, and its also used for business. Its not kept as current as Ubuntu, its more like the Dapper LTS.

Also it uses the .rpm package management system instead of .deb apt.

It would be better to compare Ubuntu to Fedora which is a free community based Redhat

Above all, it's like we are begging the question.

Note: From an observation, I can tell you don't find Ubuntu rather Linux interesting.

*sigh*
There's no need for long speech. .it all comes down to one thing, SECURITY (whether Open Source or Licensed).

I very well know Ubuntu is quite different from Linux Redhat. .I only referenced Redhat cuz it felt like you were implying (i could be wrong though) why pay for a Windows-Licensed OS when it's STILL less "secure" than whatever free BSD/Distros we have in the Ubuntu/Kubuntu market?

all4naija:

Note: From an observation, I can tell you don't find Ubuntu rather Linux interesting.

Naaah, you're TOTALLY wrong on this one

As a teaser. .aside virus attacks, what are other security features Ubuntu holds over Windows?
I'm willing to learn from you sir. .

We know that security is in the hand of the user but generally, Linux is more secured than Windows:

You can as well Google on that. Not everything you need to ask me to prove here.

Much better patch management tools: In Windows, the automated update procedure just updates the components supplied by Microsoft. No third party applications are patched. Now, third party applications make up the bulk of the security vulnerabilities. Using Real player? You have to update separately. Using Flash? Update separately. So, for all applications, you have to regularly check for updates for each and every software. This is extremely cumbersome, (though, fortunately, this experience is made tolerable by use of the Secunia PSI) and most users just forget to do it. In Linux, you have automated update system which will update all your software. In Ubuntu, any product you have downloaded, if present in the repository, will be updated at the single click of a mouse. In other distros, if the downloaded software is not present in the repository provided by the distro, adding the product repository is a one time process. This greatly increases user compliance in staying fully updated.
Much stronger default configuration: Linux was designed to be a multi-user system. Therefore, the underlying system files will remain protected even if the user is compromised. If, unfortunately, any remote code execution takes place, it will only take place locally. This is to be contrasted to Windows XP, where the user logs in as administrator by default, and any compromise takes on a system wide character. Windows Vista has also moved to a limited user account by default, and therefore is more secure than its predecessor.
Modular Design: Linux is modular by design, that is, any system component may be removed if unnecessary. As a result, if the user feels that a part of the system is more insecure, he or she may remove that component. The same cannot be said of the Windows system. e.g If I feel that Firefox is the most vulnerable part of my Linux distro, I may remove it completely and replace it with another browser, say, Opera. In Windows, I cannot remove Internet Explorer.
Better tools to protect against zero-day attacks: It is not always sufficient to keep oneself fully patched. Zero-day attacks (an attack where the exploit code is released before the vendor patches the vulnerability) are increasingly becoming common. One study has also shown that it takes only six days for crackers to release exploits, it takes vendors much longer to release them. Therefore, a sensible security policy will make provisions for zero-day attacks. Windows XP has no such provision. Vista, in protected mode, though useful, provides only limited protection to Internet Explorer Attacks. Contrast it to the protection provided by AppArmor or SELinux, both of which provide finely granular protection against any types of remote code execution attacks. It is increasingly becoming common for Distros to ship with AppArmor (e.g SuSE, Ubuntu Gutsy) or SELinux(Fedora, Debian Etch, Yellow Dog) by default. In others, they can be downloaded from the repositories (e.g AppArmor in Mandriva 2008)
Open Source Architecture: In Linux, it is mostly “What you see is what you get” as far as security is concerned. The Open code means that vulnerabilities are seen by “many eyes” and fixed as fast as possible. What, more importantly, this also means, is that there is no scope to hide the patched vulnerabilities, there are no hidden fixes. The user, if motivated, may find out the security issues known for his Operating System, and take precautionary measures against potential exploits, even if the vulnerabilities are not patched. In the Windows world, however, many security issues are hidden. Internally found flaws are not publicly released, and the vendor waits for a major update or service pack to patch silently. While this may lead to lesser vulnerability counts, and better publicity using flawed statistics, this keeps the user in ignorance. As a result, an user may not patch a system if he finds that he is not vulnerable to the reported vulnerabilities, while he may, in reality, be affected by a hidden patch.
Diverse Environment: The Windows environment has been likened to a monoculture. There is great homogeneity which makes it easier for crackers to write exploit code, viruses and the like. Compare this to the Linux world. Here, a program can be a .deb, .rpm, or source code, to name a few. This heterogeneity makes it difficult for crackers to have the widespread impact that is possible on Windows.

guy stop fighting dirty. I go run decoy/recon ooo.

one, runlevels, privileges. userspace segmentation.

You can google on that !

4llerbuntu:

guy stop fighting dirty. I go run decoy/recon ooo.

one, runlevels, privileges. userspace segmentation.

Waait small nah. .i was just beginning to like the guy you know
Make i toss am around a bit sir

aGBAYA,

ALRITE carry on. root permissions granted. elevated privilegs acquired. make sure u exploit properly

4llerbuntu:

aGBAYA,   

ALRITE carry on. root permissions granted. elevated privilegs acquired.  make sure u exploit properly

all4naija,
I don't do long epistles.
You cited security as a flaw in Windows, i countered it from a hacker's point of view by saying Linux Ubuntu could be hacked as well ( it does have its own flaws/security loopholes).

Here's what you're said:

All4naija: ^{*beats gong to get peoples attention*} Ubuntu Linux is more secured than Windows! ^{*throws a huge party*}
And in the 'same' breathe you say
All4naija: Ermm, my people. .I meant to say the security of Ubuntu is in your hands o. .not in the O.S itself. E ma binu #hokaybye ^{*drops mic*}

Do you talk from both sides of your mouth

IF YOU LIMIT YOU UNDERSTANDING WITH WHAT I WROTE GUY IT'S ALL LEFT FOR YOU JARE!

Abeg make I relax if you not understand what I try to let you see. I know your type − argumentator.

all4naija:

IF YOU LIMIT YOU UNDERSTANDING WITH WHAT I WROTE GUY IT'S ALL LEFT FOR YOU JARE!

Abeg make I relax if you not understand what I try to let you see. I know your type − argumentator.

If you have nothing else to type. .then let it rest, don't resort to throwing cheap shots. Its that simple
You came up with a theory, I opposed it. .you shot yourself in the foot again and instead of admitting the obvious(your errors). .you keep taking the piss. Anyways, its the internet. No worries, we cool

Theory! Hmmm, Naija people!

On a general ground there are every evidence that Linux(which is not what the topic is all about − but Ubuntu which is a particular Linux) is more secured than Windows. You made mentioned of not being prone to Viruses.

I know you didn't read my comments to understand what I am trying to point out but did look for an avenue to make it looks like I am putting Windows down. I am new to Linux. I have used Windows for almost all my life but the differences of Vista from Windows 7 made me change my mind. I can't be ripped off for a simple reason Windows 7 was just a polished Vista and made to be paid for after Microsoft not making it to expectation with Vista product.

Well, I am using both operating systems at the moment. I think Open Source Packages like Ubuntu broadens my mind and help me to learn something interesting without paying much yet beneficial to my community. The disadvantages are there but, as the developers community get larger it will get better.

Just my two cent contribution.

all4naija:

On a general ground there are every evidence that Linux(which is not what the topic is all about − but Ubuntu which is a particular Linux) is more secured than Windows. You made mentioned of not being prone to Viruses.

I know you didn't read my comments to understand what I am trying to point out but did look for an avenue to make it looks like I am putting Windows down. I am new to Linux. I have used Windows for almost all my life but the differences of Vista from Windows 7 made me change my mind. I can't be ripped off for a simple reason Windows 7 was just a polished Vista and made to be paid for after Microsoft not making it to expectation with Vista product.

Well, I am using both operating systems at the moment. I think Open Source Packages like Ubuntu broadens my mind and help me to learn something interesting without paying much yet beneficial to my community. The disadvantages are there but, as the developers community get larger it will get better.

Just my two cent contribution.

For the sake of peace. .i'll let this slide.
At least you admit being new to Ubuntu&Open Source content. Welcome bro

what is your take on Ubuntu natty, V3?Did you find it better than the other versions of Ubuntu?

@a4naija
Haven't tried it out yet, still #famzin' with Mint.
Where's 4llerbuntu sef

Why una come stop na? I just dey enjoy the arguement.

Anyways, I hereby declare the case a mistrial!! Court's adjourned!

u and who dey

I have been using Ubuntu for the past 6 months or there about. The command lines are simple and very interesting. GUI is not as rich as you would find in Windows and something not as effective. Issuing commnds  at the Terminal is one interesting thing and almost unix -like.

I think it a good Operating System as a whole besides being Open Source.

GUI not as rich as windows?
guy stop spreading FUD. every tom dck and harry knows that when it comes to bling, design and beauty, linux DE floors windows hands down.

research more before u make such statements. are u even aware that windows 7 copied the KDE desktop extensively?


anyway, this weekend i officially said goodbye to the last windows install on any of my pc. now i officially sole boot ubuntu.
adieu bill.

hey 4llerbuntu please, am having a problem installing Ubuntu on my external drive pls any assistance,

beebee2000:

hey 4llerbuntu please, am having a problem installing Ubuntu on my external drive pls any assistance,

My guy I wouldn't advice you to do that cos you will have issues trying to boot in to your pc esp if the grub/bootloader ain't on the pc you installed from
I would advice you to try it out first by installing inside windows 1st and see how it is
Cheers

GUI not as rich as windows?
guy stop spreading FUD. every tom dck and harry knows that when it comes to bling, design and beauty, linux DE floors windows hands down.

research more before u make such statements. are u even aware that windows 7 copied the KDE desktop extensively?


anyway, this weekend i officially said goodbye to the last windows install on any of my pc. now i officially sole boot ubuntu.
adieu bill.

Spreading what? Come on! If you think you are a guru in this SHIT ain't here to learn anything from you. I am saying what I have seen and observed so far after using Ubuntu Natty. Whether you like it or not the Graphic User Interface in Windows is richer and more effective that Ubuntu's, PERIOD. I think other people who have made use of both of them can be a good testament to that. I don't just come here to type something because I feel it should be - like the way you sounded it to be. I first of all try it, then observe the extent of it capabilities and apply it.

Your reference to KDE doesn't hold water, and if you don't know that KDE is simply an international community producing softwares for many platforms, from Windows to Linux. I don't actually get what you are trying to express with that. In the area of aesthetic and designs Windows still have the upper-hand over Linux. There are more softwares in the GUI created for Windows than I have seen in Linux rather Ubuntu which the fastest growing kind of Linux. The next generation of Windows is going to be largely based on GUI -almost everything. I am talking about Windows 8.

I would like you to prove your evidences, even if it requires posting images.

Lets not drag this on any longer, we're all free to express views as we see fit. .we're all learners in different ways

@4ller
Be nice

@all4naija
There's quite ALOT that Ubuntu has to offer in terms of interaction but you've gotta ask yourself,"How far am i willing to go?". Ubuntu can be very powerful and less-appealing. .depends on who's sitting in front of the pc and running cmds' or doing some customization.

Funny thing is when it comes to design. .Ubuntu sort of goes the extra mile than Windows. . the only thing windows 7 has going for it in terms of design is its Aero effect which with time, Ubuntu would catch up with. .if it hasn't already.

Windows just makes O.S more interactive while Linux sort of 'engages' you more cause you get to do most of your stuffs via a terminal if your App Center can't get it done.

I leave you with the footnote, ^{though stolen}
Windows is a bug. .Ubuntu is the cure #OkBye

Windows gui better than ubuntu?!!
Yeah rite!!!
As per kde ask bigrovar n he will tell you a thing or two, or even more

Seriously though. .where's N3rve/Ralvy?