Converting to Linux, Part II
Ok, yesterday, I started discussing the Microsoft-alternative operating system, Linux. I thought it might be a short story, but I think I'll end up saying nearly as much as in my discussions of "Porn." Let's cover some background that may help you put this in perspective. You see, just like the question Do you want the red pill or the blue pill? there is more to it than just the "color" or the price. But price is a great place to start.
Linux is a part of a movement called "Open Source" or sometimes "Free Software". The word "Free" has more than one meaning (don't most words?). One meaning is "Free as in Freedom". As an American, I am "free" to choose what I want. Another meaning is "Free as in beer". Hmmm, not as obvious, Free beer sounds very good (and usually is) but that implies that you're getting something of value for nothing. Happily, in the case of Linux, you are.
Linux, like a VERY LARGE amount of other computer software is available for FREE (as in Beer). You can get it and use it as the authors allow. Sweet!
Well, pretty sweet. But what if the software comes with strings attached? What if you can use the software only for a short time? Or, only for certain purposes? Or, only if you promise to send in some money later? Not as sweet, but maybe still acceptable. Ah, but what if the software was Free as in Freedom?
Truly free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation is available for users to study, copy, modify and redistribute. You can use it "as-is" or you can make it better (at least in your opinion).
How can this be? Why would someone or some group create ANYTHING of value and then distribute it for free? Things are only worth what you pay for them, right? If you receive something gratis, then it must be utterly without value yes?
No.
Using "Free" or "Open Source Software" is like standing on the shoulders of giants. It wasn't built/written by one, noble, benevolent programmer. It came from the labors of many thousands of programmers, each contributing as they saw fit. Each building on the work of others.
That sounds like bunch of Communist crap! Microsoft charges billions of dollars a year for their products. How could anybody GIVE AWAY software like that if it was any good. You are hiding something, I just know it.
Whoa there fellas, this is a "Pinko-free" zone! No communist sympathizers are at work for THIS WEBSITE. There might be commies contributing to Open Software, but that's not that I know of.
You only have to get hit over the head with Microsoft's "hammer" so many times before you start to wonder "Is this really the only way?" Think about it; You buy the thing (Windows). But it has problems (bugs). Sometimes it works pretty good. Sometimes, not. If you call for help, the first thing they ALWAYS tell you is "Please Reboot". That's because, all too often, just re-booting makes your problem seem to go away. (They don't really. But that's the Microsoft-way!). Approximately one year after you buy it you're told, there's a "better" version that you can get.
It has lot's of snazzy new features and won't lock-up so much, and oh yeah, it is more secure so you don't have to worry about bad people "hacking" into your computer and doing bad things. Coincidentally, this "new" version costs about as much as it did last time, because in fact, you ARE buying it all over again. Oops! Did I say "buy"? No, no my friend, I should have said "license." Even though you paid real, hard-earned currency, you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT own this thing. You have a "license" to use the OS on the one PC you bought it for (unless you bought multiple licenses). By rights, you must NOT install this new, upgraded, version on your wife's PC or children's PC's.
Now, we should stop here and mention that with versions of Windows up to 2000, there was no copy protection system. So, if you were willing to break the law and "steal" additional copies, you could install a second copy on your computer in the den and the other one back in Jr's room. Since Microsoft DOES make so effin much money, many people did this without losing much sleep. But now times have changed. Microsoft believes they've lost enough money to this sort of thievery and starting with XP they've built in a diabolically clever system. For each copy you install, you (or the computer) must call Redmond and "activate". This new system will certainly cut-out the piracy. But, will it encourage YOU to shell-out the $200 USD for each additional copy?
So, now we're back to the impoverished young grad-student in Helsinki and his idea to write his OWN OS so that he (and all of us) could freely use our computers. Perhaps an analogy might be buying a car. When you buy a car, it probably runs fine for some period of time (some kinds longer than others) and then it needs some maintenance. With your car, you have choices. You could return to the dealer for service. You could go to an independent "garage." Or, you could even repair the vehicle yourself, if you were so inclined (and able.)
Many businesses offer repair services. Some businesses sell manuals and books, or operate websites, to help YOU repair your own automobile. None of this is subversive or communist.
And finally the day came when my (licensed) copy of Windows wouldn't boot. I think the disk drive was probably at fault, and I was ready to buy a new one. A couple of times I managed to get it started, but it took a really long time and kept losing my windows' settings. I tried re-installing the OS but it seemed to me that the drive was about to go and maybe if I replaced it sooner rather than later, I would be able to salvage more of the data. (yes, yes, I have many backup CD's, especially of my digital photos, but it's much easier to copy the files across than to wonder if you got everything. Especially if your drive has 50 gig's of files!)
And so I think, "Hmm, perhaps in addition to replacing the main hard drive, I should also upgrade to XP?" But, jeez, $200.00? Plus, all these cursed viruses (viruii?). At the time I made this decision, there were several viruses and worms going around and wreaking havoc on Microsoft-based systems.
Hey, what was that last bit? Viruses and worms ONLY attack Microsoft based products? How could that be? Well, it isn't actually that simple. It's just that of the 30,000 or so known viruses VirusList.com lists only 27 affecting Linux. Part of the reason is the WAY you work in advanced, multi-user operating systems like Unix and it's intimater, Linux. You see, in Linux, although you create an administrator's account (called "root") that is NOT the login where you do your work. In fact, once installed, you might never need the "root login". Without the all-powerful root login you, and more importantly viruses, have a MUCH more difficult time getting in.
Let's give credit where credit is due. Microsoft, in versions like NT and XP, ALSO allows you to create administrator accounts separately from the normal user accounts. WITH TWO IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES. First, by default, everybody gets to be an administrator. That's because without that privilege you'll have a very hard time performing routine tasks. Microsoft and many companies writing software for Windows have written their programs expecting that you, whoever is sitting at the keyboard, is the admin. Secondly, even without an admin login, a user can still screw-up the system pretty badly. I'll let my brother, who's worked in tech support write stories about how badly that can happen, but if you've been working with Windows for very long you can probably supply your own.
Still not getting it. Why are there tens-of-thousands of viruses for Windows but only few dozen that threaten Linux?.
Well, because Windows is a bigger target. Because Windows sets defaults that make it VERY easy for viruses to get in and spread. And lastly, because Windows is "closed source". Face it, viruses are just programs, written to take advantage of some weakness or defect in the OS or your way of working. When bad people find ways to exploit the system, the Microsoft behemoth is slow to admit to and resolve the problem. Some security "holes" remain open for months while Microsoft debates a course of action. There is no way for people to review the "source code" of windows and look for the mistakes. This is called "Security Through Obscurity" and some people believe that it is a "good-thing". After all, if bad people were able to look at the source, they might find weaknesses and exploit them. Right?
Maybe. But let's look at the track record. 30,000+ viruses for windows, 27 for linux. That's 0.09% (nine one-hundredths of a percent) the number for linux as for the various version of Windows and it's components. And Linux is Open Source. Anyone and everyone can look at the code to try to find weaknesses. There haven't been that many exploited. What usually happens is this, someone is working on a piece of Linux and finds what they think is or might be a bug/vulnerability. They post a message on one of the many Linux development websites. To find and report something like this is considered a badge of honor especially if you also supply the fix (called a patch). To do so marks you as one of the elite. Smart enough to find and fix a potential threat. You have saved your fellows time and suffering. On the other hand, if you find what you think is a bug in the Microsoft OS or programs there is no way for you to tell people how to fix it. You are denied access to the source code and even if you had an stolen copy (and I don't think there are many around) you couldn't help anyone because there is no way for YOU to supply the fix. Only Redmond can do that. Actually, Microsoft is very sensitive about you even revealing that the bug exists. Some websites tried to post lists of these bugs to raise the alarm and to let Microsoft as well as users know what might happen. Microsoft has reacted harshly to these sites in the past. They claimed it was irresponsible to publicly announce security weaknesses because then someone might exploit them. Why it didn't occur to them to fix the problems instead?
OK, just one more comment on this topic before I move on...
I'm old enough to remember when it was "impossible" for a virus to be spread through reading e-mail. (you probably are too. Microsoft only made it possible a few years ago.) Back in the good old days, to get a virus, you had to pass around a floppy or download a program and run it without scanning it. You could read messages safely. Just don't do something stupid like accepting a program that someone sends you unexpectedly. But then Microsoft made it the default behavior for their e-mail, word-processor and spreadsheet programs to run programs that they receive from anonymous/un-trusted sources WITHOUT ASKING. This was pretty bad, but some very clever and very nasty virus writers realized that they could really cause damage if they played on this vulnerability along with the fact that people tend to trust their friends, family and co-workers. So they started writing viruses that, just by being opened, would read your computer address book and send copies of themselves to all your friends (and appearing to come from YOU!). One of the most famous of these was "Melissa" but because they were viruses written in Microsoft's "macro" language, they were exceedingly easy for marginally trained hackers (derisively known as "script kiddies") to mutate and write new variations that still squeak past anti-virus filters to this day.
And so, I've reached my "tipping point"...