SRL Archive - General

Everyone around me is getting hacked somehow, then I find on the SRL forums that people are getting hacked by some dumbasses.

If you get a Mac or Linux, will that remove most of the hackers (minus the elite ones, but they won't be targeting simple people will they?) and their tools for infecting PC's?

I'm not going to go out rashly and buy a new PC for the sake of not being hacked ;), but I'm just curious if this will actually help offset being hacked.
Is it because the code between OS' are different and most viruses (virii?) target windows?

Or am I completely wrong?


EDIT: Even if the answer is flat out "yes get it now" I still won't just go out and buy one, this is more for discussion than anything

well either really
they are both based on unix
linux is free and you can install on almost every machine
mac you will have to get a hacked kernal to run on non mac hardware (unless you have one of the few pc's which can run mack without any changes)

~shut

Install Ubuntu Linux.

Also, the only people who get infected have no common sense. If you're smart, you will be fine.

Linux and macs do cut down on hacking, but so does common sense like not running exes unless you can confirm that it is a virus, and just running a virus scan doesn't confirm anything.

From: MylesMadness
Linux and macs do cut down on hacking, but so does common sense like not running exes unless you can confirm that it is a virus, and just running a virus scan doesn't confirm anything.

And common sense isn't always enough. You'll have to do heaps of regedit tweaks get it to be anywhere near secure. And if there are remote exploits in SMB (there have been a lot), you're just screwed anyway.

I'd say Ubuntu over OS X. :/ I really don't like OS X, and I've tried using it a lot. Ubuntu, however, works great for me. Definitely could help on cutting down some viruses.

The reason that most people go after Windows, in my opinion, is because there's so much use and so many idiots who use it; they're much more likely to get information they want, and OS X doesn't have as much information to gather so they simply don't care to make as many viruses for it. Of course they still do, just like they do for Ubuntu, iOS, WinMo/WinPho, Android, and any other thing they can hack, but it is a little less to be cautious of.

Granted, common sense is the best anti virus. I've never used an AV, and I've never been hacked.

Oh, and I'd suggest dual booting. :)

I went and checked Ubuntu and they said they have zero viruses. Is there a reason they have less than other platforms (or claim)? They said its open source, would that not allow people to find exploits in the system easier?

@luffs: Whats dual booting?

From: cstrike
I went and checked Ubuntu and they said they have zero viruses. Is there a reason they have less than other platforms (or claim)? They said its open source, would that not allow people to find exploits in the system easier?

@luffs: Whats dual booting?

The big difference is that (nearly) all the software you install comes from their repositories. So you can't be infected if you only install packages from Ubuntu. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Software_Center )
If you're anywhere near familiar with the App Store from Apple, this is like the App Store, just much better. (And has existed for many, many years)

Obviously bugs in Firefox or other applications *could* cause malicious software to do nasty things, but the chances of that are nil. It's probably a bigger treat to install Windows applications in wine. ;) (Or Adobe Flash)

From: cstrike
I went and checked Ubuntu and they said they have zero viruses. Is there a reason they have less than other platforms (or claim)? They said its open source, would that not allow people to find exploits in the system easier?

@luffs: Whats dual booting?

"Zero" is different from zero. ;) There are viruses for Linux, just they are really really obvious when its going to happen. You would have to give random programs permissions that they shouldn't have. Again, this is where common sense comes into play.

Ubuntu is a great distribution for starting with Linux. Its a bit bloated for me, but in general, everything works out of the box so its a good start. I might suggest Kubuntu though, I do prefer KDE to GNOME now that I am used to KDE.

Dual-booting is when you have multiple OS installed on your computer. I have Windows 7 installed on one partition and Debian Linux with KDE installed on a second partition. Its the best option if you have to work with Windows once and a while. (I only keep it for school.. grumble..)

From: Nava2
Ubuntu is a great distribution for starting with Linux. Its a bit bloated for me, but in general, everything works out of the box so its a good start. I might suggest Kubuntu though, I do prefer KDE to GNOME now that I am used to KDE.

Are you saying KDE is less bloated than Gnome? :rolleyes:

From: Wizzup?
Are you saying KDE is less bloated than Gnome? :rolleyes:

No, but Debian is definitely less bloated than Ubuntu ;)

You need common sense. Its free and depending on your capabilities, stree free and installation free.

I keed, but the above statement remains true. Common sense and instincts (depending how long you've been in the internet for) will dramatically reduce the chance of being hacked.

Dual booting is really simple, by the way. Burn the ubu .iso to a cd, go to disk management, shrink your c: drive, reboot computer to ubu, install ubu in the free space you created, and you're golden.

One thing is that Ubuntu 9.10+ (you'd be getting 10.04 or 10.10.. I personally like 10.10 more, but 10.04 is LTS) doesn't come with the wireless drivers installed. :/ So if this is for a laptop, you need to use a wired connection. Kinda upsetting to me, as that was always my biggest problem with switching OSs, especially with XP, and I was spoiled since 9.04 had them installed. :<

From: i luffs yeww
Dual booting is really simple, by the way. Burn the ubu .iso to a cd, go to disk management, shrink your c: drive, reboot computer to ubu, install ubu in the free space you created, and you're golden.

One thing is that Ubuntu 9.10+ (you'd be getting 10.04 or 10.10.. I personally like 10.10 more, but 10.04 is LTS) doesn't come with the wireless drivers installed. :/ So if this is for a laptop, you need to use a wired connection. Kinda upsetting to me, as that was always my biggest problem with switching OSs, especially with XP, and I was spoiled since 9.04 had them installed. :<

The installer can resize it for you. :) And wireless is completely dependant on the card. All drivers are there, if it doesn't work; then the driver is either not available or defunct.

From: Wizzup?
The installer can resize it for you. :) And wireless is completely dependant on the card. All drivers are there, if it doesn't work; then the driver is either not available or defunct.

The issue occurs on all Debian-based distributions, which is odd.. It happens for my wireless card, I have to do some work arounds when I reinstall my OS.

Well with 9.04 I didn't have to do anything; I just chose my router and put in the password. But with 9.10+ I had to have a wired connection to download and install the driver. If I opened up the hardware drivers, it shows the driver I need + my nVidia drivers (current and a previous one).

I do know that there was a way to install it without a wired connection, which worked but it was confusing, so I wouldn't expect cstrike to understand the first time he uses Ubu. ;)

From: Nava2
The issue occurs on all Debian-based distributions, which is odd.. It happens for my wireless card, I have to do some work arounds when I reinstall my OS.

What have you been drinking? It works flawlessly on my wireless card. It only happens that way if you only have proprietary driver for your hardware, in which case ubuntu-jockey will prompt you if you want to install the drivers. The newer the Ubuntu release, the less proprietary drivers.

From: Wizzup?
What have you been drinking? It works flawlessly on my wireless card. It only happens that way if you only have proprietary driver for your hardware, in which case ubuntu-jockey will prompt you if you want to install the drivers. The newer the Ubuntu release, the less proprietary drivers.

My wireless card is not the same as yours. ;) I also have to get the drivers off the website of the manufacturer. Its quite irritating. Although, my Debian install just doesn't play nice with it.. the drivers exist. That leads me to believe they are in Ubuntu now with the same issues.

Also, nVidia drivers will always be proprietary it seems.. AMD is working on there FOSS drivers though, which is quite nice!

From: Wizzup?
What have you been drinking? It works flawlessly on my wireless card. It only happens that way if you only have proprietary driver for your hardware, in which case ubuntu-jockey will prompt you if you want to install the drivers. The newer the Ubuntu release, the less proprietary drivers.

If you remember the time when I tried Ubu on my desktop, the wireless didn't work properly with Ubu (1 bar, dropped connection a lot) and with Windows it worked perfectly (5 bars all the time, never dropped the signal) because of a driver problem. I installed fresh drivers using a wired connection, but it still never worked as well as with Windows.

The fact is that Windows might get you hacked if you're dumb, but Linux can also get you hacked if you're dumb. Being stupid can't be fixed by getting a new OS…

To stay on topic, however, I'd stay with windows.

From: Nava2
My wireless card is not the same as yours. ;) I also have to get the drivers off the website of the manufacturer. Its quite irritating. Although, my Debian install just doesn't play nice with it.. the drivers exist. That leads me to believe they are in Ubuntu now with the same issues.

Also, nVidia drivers will always be proprietary it seems.. AMD is working on there FOSS drivers though, which is quite nice!

Wrong, Wrong. ;)
Debian doesn't ship a lot of drivers by default. It's not a distribution made to be user friendly. If there's an open source driver, you'll still have to install it with debian. Ubuntu does a lot more than just ``packaging Debian'' as Debian fans love to say. Plus, I was making the argument about the wireless drivers since you guys both stated Ubuntu ships no wireless drivers by default. I wasn't talking about specific cards. That I mention my card was only to enforce my argument.

There are already working open source nvidia drivers, and they have 3d support. Ubuntu 10.10 ships them by default. AMD has both closed and open drivers.

From: 3Garrett3
If you remember the time when I tried Ubu on my desktop, the wireless didn't work properly with Ubu (1 bar, dropped connection a lot) and with Windows it worked perfectly (5 bars all the time, never dropped the signal) because of a driver problem. I installed fresh drivers using a wired connection, but it still never worked as well as with Windows.

The fact is that Windows might get you hacked if you're dumb, but Linux can also get you hacked if you're dumb. Being stupid can't be fixed by getting a new OS…

To stay on topic, however, I'd stay with windows.

Depends. The only reason I think is fair to use to stay on Windows, is if you absolutely must use Windows specific software that doesn't work in WINE.

From: Wizzup?
Wrong, Wrong. ;)
Debian doesn't ship a lot of drivers by default. It's not a distribution made to be user friendly. If there's an open source driver, you'll still have to install it with debian. Ubuntu does a lot more than just ``packaging Debian'' as Debian fans love to say. Plus, I was making the argument about the wireless drivers since you guys both stated Ubuntu ships no wireless drivers by default. I wasn't talking about specific cards. That I mention my card was only to enforce my argument.

There are already working open source nvidia drivers, and they have 3d support. Ubuntu 10.10 ships them by default. AMD has both closed and open drivers.

Debian is minimalistic in its intentions. It takes up 1/2 the space that my Ubuntu install did.. after I cleaned it up. Of course you will have to install extra drivers, etc.. I wouldn't expect that to be different. I just think its silly to ship with everything. Its great from a easy-to-use stand point, but many users don't want that. For example, I'm just fine installing some drivers extra. It creates less bloat and informs me what I actually am installing.

Are the nVidia drivers any good though? I would use them if I could. I would much rather support the FOSS community rather than nVidia's proprietary means.

When I mentioned AMD I was only using it as an example because, from what I gather, they are more mature than those of nVidia.