I have to agree with the idea of Linus not becoming mainstream. I think it should stay as an OS for the advanced user, a way to teach people how computers and software really work. To make it mainstream only puts it in a position to become another bad OS out there. I have nothing against Linux, I just like things easier. Windows provides what I want in an OS and even with all the problems said to exist in Windows, I have hardly had a virus in my PC, or hardly any OS related problems like freeze-ups and bog-downs and even errors. I do my best to keep my system up to date, I use any and all kinds of protection such as ant-virus, spyware and pop-up blockers, firewalls hardware and software,, but most importantly what I do online. I watch all places I visit and am not that stupid to enter those which have potentials for viruses and all other types of malware. I learned that the hard way on my first ventures on the internet years ago.

Personally I couldn't care less what OS other people use. A person should use what works for them. I like Linux (Slackware) because it works for me. It's the best OS (for me) not because I use it, I use it because it's the best OS (for me).

Those who are constantly trying to get people to switch to Linux are fan boys who just want to feel like they are somehow a little better or something. Idiots.

My brand new laptop came with Xp, and I haven't yet installed Slack on it, but I will eventually when I have the time. It's not so bad. I simply prefer Linux.

My main box at home runs Xp, Slack, SuSE, and Mepis. I switch around between them and use them all even though Slack is my primary OS.

Linux should definitely become mainstream.

But only when the time is right.

I tried both Redhat and Mepis Linux and was not very impressed. I gave it a sincere effort for an entire semester in college. Even though I didn't have the time to dedicate to learning Linux and how everything works, I made the time. My experience with it, however, was lackluster. I did enjoy the Synaptic feature of Mepis. It allowed me to find a good number of software that I could use without any compiling. Some of these programs didn't quite cut it though. One major problem I found with open source software is the lack of documentation. Usually the programmer(s) believes that everyone in the world is on broadband (go ahead and criticize my use of dialup...I'm in the "chillin'-out-at-home-with-the-parents-after-graduating" phase of my life. As a result, I'm rockin' the dialup.). The problem with this assumption is that the documentation is online. I don't like to have to connect every single time I need to read something about my software. Another problem I ran into with Linux, was the fact that my soft-modem didn't work. 3-D acceleration didn't work as well as it should have, along with a slew of minor, but annoying problems. All of these problems convinced me to to go back to Windows XP. I was worried about viruses and the like, but I remedied that by simply getting anti-virus software and keeping it updated (duh). Spyware and all the other baddies out there hardly ever infiltrate my computer. (This thing is like a virtual Ft. Knox.)

All in all, unless any flavor of Linux actually runs everything I need it to without hours and hours of figuring out what to do, I won't be going back.

Until I have a problem with Windows, I have no desire to switch. Believe it or not, I haven't had a BSOD since I had Win95. No crashes or major freezes. Sometimes a program stop responding, but I've had that happen on OSX too. I think it's just what computers do.

The major problem I would have with Linux or even OSX is the limited number of programs available.

Linux has a long way to go before it's even close to mainstream.  It has several things it needs to address before that.  Like simple software installation, and yes I know there are package installations but those caused me just as many problems as compiling.

It's hardware incompatibilities are what the real problem is.  I can't count how many people I know tried linux and couldn't get some part of their machine to work.  Whether it's the video card, sound card, or modem.  The average user is not going to choose this.

I think the real question is "What makes Linux more secure then Windows?"

The volume of hackers possibly egged on by the greater volume of users shouldn't make much difference if the majority of or flagship distros of Linux truly are more 'secure' then Windows.

This is a very good question to ask but I would beg anyone to debate the issue honestly with as many examples as possible in an open fashion far away from rhetorical devices.

My lil bro' uses Linux, he got me in to the Redhat release (distro, whatever). I partitioned my hard drive so I can use both XP and Linux. Though I always have issues with spyware, malware, virii, etc. with Winxp, I've never had those problems with Redhat running WinX. I don't know enough about either system to argue for one over the other. I would really appreciate some articulate techie providing some insight, non-ideologically, regarding this matter.

I think I would prefer Solaris as a mainstream system.

Solaris has exactly one company behind it and you can buy it pre-installed on computers built for it.

If only Sun would get their act together.

So what most of you are saying is that the chance of Linux getting attacked as often as Windows does today, if it were to go mainstream(when ever it does), is not a problem because you feel it is secure enough to deal with the barrage of hackers that will be on the hunt?

Well then, what are you Linux guys waiting for? Why isn't Linux already mainstream? Why aren't there any installer type software to make it easier to use Linux for us average users? Money talks and I believe that many software makers will not hesitate to start making software compatible to Linux if it were more mainstream that it is today.

I think the real question is "What makes Linux more secure then Windows?"

And what would be the answer to this. Would like to know since I only know what I have read about Linux. I have never tried it myself.

The volume of hackers possibly egged on by the greater volume of users shouldn't make much difference if the majority of or flagship distros of Linux truly are more 'secure' then Windows.

You say shouldn't, I would like a more direct answer like "won't". If shouldn't is the best anyone can give then the chance of Linux becoming another "Windows" is still there. Your question of "What makes Linux more secure then Windows?" does not make Linux hack-free. Sure it might be harder than Windows, but that will only make hackers want to try harder and when they accomplish their mission, satisfaction will be greater than any Windows hack ever made. But then we would never really know just how good Linux is till we put it to a real world test. That would be interesting to see.

Your question of "What makes Linux more secure then Windows?" does not make Linux hack-free. - DjBandit

It wasn't a rhetorical question made to prove that point, DjBandit.

I am simply posing the question if Linux really is so much more 'secure' then Windows then the greater number of attackers shouldn't (won't would be an absolute and no O/S will ever be 100% 'secure') be a problem for it - so if someone comes along and makes a good case presenting Linux as more secure then Windows, the question of security with a higher number of users and attackers shouldn't somehow magically make Linux 'less secure'.

There is no such thing as a bullet proof system. That's a dream. If someone is skilled enough and determined enough any system can be cracked regardless of the OS. If you're looking for perfection, you won't find it in any OS.

Linux is more secure if it is used properly. Human error still plays a role. If someone is dumb enough to run as root user, they are opening their system up to everything. Properly used, with a proper user account with limited permissions, it is very difficult for that user to expose the core system to malware, and a cracker must be able to gain root access in order to affect the core system. This is what makes Linux more secure by default.

Another comparison is the fact that Windows allows self-executing programs, where Linux does not. In order to run a virus in Linux for example, the user would have to actually execute the file in order for it to run. And even then, it would only be able to run within that user's permissions, not gaining access to the core system unless the user was dumb enough to log in as root and actually give that virus root permissions. This means that while someone could infect a system with a virus, it's damage would be very limited, unlike Windows.

That said, I restate that there is no bulletproof OS out there. Some are more secure by default than others, but any system can be cracked given the right conditions. The primary problems with Windows is user. Most users run in the default Aministrator mode, which allows full access to the system. Creating a limited rights user can help make the Windows system more secure. Combine that with a good firewall and anti-malware tools, and it can be made reasonably secure. It's the defaults with Windows that blows.

As for "real world test", there are literally millions of Linux boxes out there now.

#10 by Deference Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Ok I got ya. But let me ask this, how often has Linux been attacked compared to Windows? I ask cause I only know so much. I know I can probably research it but if you know why not just ask right? Hehe. Has Linux been hit enough times to say for sure that it is very, very secure or is this all based on a few attempts and a very sure mentallity that it's not gonna happen often?

I personally just feel that Microsoft having so many PCs out there running their OS that it only makes sense for hacker to want to hit as many PCs as possible. JMO.

When the time is right, should Linux become mainstream?

Not until propeller-cap manufacture is sufficiently up to speed to enable their distribution with each copy of the OS....

Funny Jafo

Desert Fox

linux will never become mainstream unless people want to use it... and people will never want to use it because its not quite user friendly... your gramma or mom is not gonna figure out how to compile a program to run/install it etc... and like MasonM said... no OS is bulletproof... ever OS has a leak... it seems like Windows has major leaks because majority of the world use it and complain about it... you dont hear people complaining about problems with linux because majority of the people dont use it... and Also because the people who use it are techies ... so they know whats good and what not... there are many factors to why one OS is percieved more secure then other... although again like MasonM said .. not one OS is bulletproof... (and that default windows thing is so true haha).

Becoming mainstream does not necessarily play to Linux's strengths. It is an extremely versatile, secure OS, but it's versatility is more in it's ability to be set up for many different kinds of dedicated purposes, such as a web server, or mail server, than as a workstation.
Linux has many obstacles to becoming "mainstream" not the least of which is the divisions within the Linux community itself.
With commercial development of an OS or application, you have one person or group of persons calling the shots, and moving the project toward a predetermined goal.
With an open source project you have a lot more individuals and "splinter-groups" that have their own vision of what goals are trying to be achieved.
Some of the Linux community wants it to become a mainstream "Windows-Killer", while others despise the thought of the masses using their elite OS (how else could they claim to have the superior, geekier OS if everyone is using it? ) They spend more time arguing over the superior distro than anything else I see.
There is also a "Catch-22" type of problem, in that the average user isn't going to be interested unless all their favorite applications will run on it. But the major application (and game)developers aren't going to develop for an OS that only has 4-6% of the desktop market share.
What Linux does, it does very well. But "mainstream" whatever that may mean, is not where its strengths lie. People have a hard enough time switching between PCs and Macs, much less Linux, and look how much market-share the Macs can claim.

Many years ago when I first loaded red hat onto my old p2 system, to mainly have a look and learn about ths new system, I would have agreed with many o the comments above, eg: not user friebdly, needing to compile software , lack of drive support and lack of software.
However time has moved on and so has linux, I now use Linspire and have been since version 3, it still has some short comings, however so does XP. My point is I have not had to compile software for years now, drive support is stiil a bit slow, but this seems to be changing, and software is comparable to windows and osx. I have set my Mpther up with Linspire on here new laptop mainly due to its ease of use, especially when she needs new software or to upgrade existing. Linux is definitely a broadband system, and with the features such as CNR, is a system that suits me just fine, and costs me much less than xp. I suppose software is a personal thing, you buy what you need.
Personally I like XP and Linspire and for me each has its uses, I am now running Solaris on my server and am enjoying learning about it as well, maybe I am a software junkie, by I do enjoy learnig how all these systems work . Having said this I wuld say linux is a lot closer to mainstream than most would give it credit for. The true test will be when the major software vendors chose to support this platform.

If a vulnerability is found within a package it is usually fixed in a few minutes.

If a vulnerability is found within a package it is usually fixed in a few minutes.

Of which OS do you speak of? Linux? If so that doesn't mean no one will get to it. If people don't update they run the risk of getting attcked. That is one of the main reason many people have problems with Windows, I have read of problems a long time after a fix has been issued.

When the time is right, should Linux become mainstream?

Just in case the title was not completely understood, when I said "when the time is right" I meant when Linux was much easier to use, more compatible and ready for Linux-version mainstream software and games. I can only think that the Linux community has in mind the idea of making it so that someday it, too, will play games like Windows does. I know there are ways of making it play games but I believe it should be part of the system not an add on. JMO. In other words if Linux was to be similar to Windows in the way it's installed, the ease of use, installing software, etc, should it become mainstream or just stay as it is?

The true test will be when the major software vendors chose to support this platform.

That's going to be the biggest key.
For anyone who uses some of the big name software out there such as Creative Suite, or Dreamweaver, or someone who wants to do a lot of video/photo/audio editing, there are no comparable counterparts for the Linux OS.
I'm sure someone will point out that the GIMP is just as good as Photoshop, but, no, it isn't. In a recent survey asking what was the piece of software people would most like see ported to Linux, Photoshop was number one by a sizable margin.
Like it or not, some software and file formats have become the standards in their respective areas.
Linux, and Apache have become standards in the server arena, Macs are still the de-facto standard in the publishing industry, and Windows is the standard for the workstation and home desktop. I make a living because the average person doesn't even want to figure out how to operate their Windows PC at anything more than a minimal level. God help them if they're faced with a command prompt, or if they have to figure out what the heck "dev\hd\0" is.
In short, I just don't see Linux becoming mainstream to any great degree, at least in the United States. Some parts of the world that maybe don't have 20+ years of Window s background may adopt Linux more easily.
Just my $.02.

I have to agree on that part.. Linux has a long ways to go before it can even make it in the mainstream and in the big brother realm. Infact I have tried linux versions from Fedora 3 to 4 and then from Linspire (wasn't really impressed by Linspire) they try hard to make linux seem easy but as I found out from trying out linspire the drivers on my Gateway Pc wasn't at all compatible with Linspire nor was the printing, scanning or the modem and the graphics card forget it! It doesn't even support 3D Drivers at all! With Susie 10 I tried that and forget it.
It comes down to this.. if anyone wants to run or use Linux go and get a Pentinum thru look thru the compaitablity list and see what hardware and software you would need to succesfully run an Linux OS on it.
Cause the computers nowdays well never be compaitble with any version or software of Linux at all!

This means that while someone could infect a system with a virus, it's damage would be very limited, unlike Windows.

Well, if a virus infects a Windows machine under a limited user account, then the effect would be the same.. it would really only affect that profile and not the whole system (unless it used a privilege escallation expliot).

The default configuration is more of what makes Linux more secure than Windows. Microsoft had a lot of pressure to make it user friendly to everyone from the first time computer user to IT pros working in large corporate environments. To do that, they put everything in and turned it all on. In Linux you have to add things as necessary, and run under a limited user account by default. You can actually tweak Windows down to be fairly secure, and with some good security software and good internet "hygeine" you can stay very safe. A lot of malware spreads because of user naïveté.

Aside from the settings, they're probably pretty much equal. Open source software generally does patch problems faster, but MS has gotten a lot better these days, and are now being held up by security researchers as the standard of how companies should deal with security problems.

You can see how Windows compares to Linux regarding vulnerabilities at secunia.com (they list pretty much every vulnerability that's reported for any software). As an example:

XP Pro - 130 advisories
http://secunia.com/product/22/

Red Hat Enterprise Workstation 4 - 162 advisories
http://secunia.com/product/4670/

Probably about the same, although not every vulnerability can be exploited by malware.

As far as Linux vs Windows and malware, malware used to be made by kids being mischevious or looking for notoriety among peers, now it's all about money. Whether it's advertising, data mining, theft, identity theft, or extortion (give us money or we'll make every one of the infected computers we control attack your website and take it down so nobody will be able to do online business with you). Even if they did manage to make an OS 100% secure, every program that you run on the OS could potentially leave you vulnerable, just as Internet Explorer, Outlook/Outlook Express, most instant messaging programs, Windows Media Player, Winamp, etc. are now.. there's no way you could get every single programmer in the world to write 100% secure code. Even if you could then you would still have problems with malware being bundled in with other software and people clicking on email attachments and other things that they shouldn't. 100% security just isn't possible. The point is that they're going to go with what's profitable, and when that kind of money is the motivation there will always be a way, and when you want to make money from as many people as possible on a large scale, you attack what the majority of people are using.

The bottom line is that security goes far beyond any single operating system, and just changing operating sysems is no guarantee of anything.

Linux is mainstream in some areas where it has an advantage, mainly because of its relationship to UNIX, where it is a serious competitor, specifically large scale computing systems, specifically servers, and many areas where scalability is important, however is it ready for mainstream desktop usage, will depend on what usage that is. In some limited business workstation applications it has already had what could be referred to as mainstream acceptance, one oly needs to look at and in particular govt bodies shifting to Linux, including its introduction to schools. Having said if look at accross the board usage, then it still has some way to go in this market, not least the software available and of course compatibility with hardware and ease of use. Having said this it has made some incredible gains in its very short life, if Linux can continue to improve and garner confidence in the broader community, then it will go mainstream, of course this will not spell the end of Windows or Mac, just another system in a bigger range of choice.