Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Linux in Canada 284

Posted by michael from the northern-lights dept.
Flxstr writes "Lots of Linux articles in Canada's national newspaper today, starting with Calgary switching from SUN Unix to Red Hat Linux. Another article discusses whether Linux will become a target for viruses as its popularity grows. This article mentions how Linux costs less, so more firms are becoming interested. Finally, an article discusses how pushes by major vendors such as IBM, HP, and others is speeding acceptance of Linux over other alternatives. Altogether, some good articles for any CIO's desk."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux in Canada More

Linux in Canada

Comments Filter:

  • Linux, eh? (Score:4, Funny)

    by strictnein ( 318940 ) * <{strictfoo-slashdot} {at} {yahoo.com}> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:38PM (#8804740) Homepage Journal
    Linux, eh?

    What's that, a Pengiun? There ain't no penguins in Canada!

  • Linux of course costs less (Score:3, Funny)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:40PM (#8804756) Homepage Journal
    Canadian dollars cost less than American dollars.
    • Yeah, but that means that my linux license, after exchange, will end up costing me $927.74 CAD.
    • Today. With the slide of the US $ that many not be true tomorrow.

      What I really want to know is does the localized version of Canadian Linux end all querries with , eh?
      Also given Canadian law regarding the dual language requirements, since Linux is not a product for sale does it still have to support Canadian French?

  • Proprietary in one form or the other (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stecoop ( 759508 ) * on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:40PM (#8804760) Journal
    If they were serious about saving money why did they invest in Intel? Why not AMD to really make a statement about proprietary lines go with the IBM Power PC [slashdot.org].

  • Viruses spread by stupidity not OS'es. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jason Straight ( 58248 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:42PM (#8804778) Homepage
    As we all really know viruses are spread by stupidity of users, not the OS'es, so Linux popularity on the desktop will be it's deciding factor to virus targeting.

    As it becomes easier to use and more useful to dumbasses who still open attachments they aren't expecting, it will likely be targeted more by virus writers.

    • Yeah, but The important question is : will the stupid user ruin everyone else's life? With Linux, I think, a lesser chance than Windoze.

      • Unless those stupid users are running everything as root, something that I can definitely see happening.

        • Agreed, but that'll be on an @home basis. Companies will not allow this kind of behaviour, as the first thing any admin learns on Unix in general is to swallow the peice of paper the root password came on.

          Long live the sudo in this respect, it simply eradicates the need for a more complex (and thoroughly unuseable in Windows case) privilege system. Maybe users will be able to install packages for personal use, but only using urpmi, pointed at a regulated rpm database,m legislated by the admin.

      • Re:Viruses spread by stupidity not OS'es. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jason Straight ( 58248 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:50PM (#8804886) Homepage
        Yeah, to some extent. I think the distro's and desktop makers are doing a good job making things like rpm and apt usable to non-root users through wrappers. For most people if they had to be root to install software all the time they'll just run as root all the time.

        Many people will be confused by the security model of unix and run as root all the time so they don't have to su to traceroute, make install, etc...

        • Re:Viruses spread by stupidity not OS'es. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by theNote ( 319197 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:10PM (#8805139)
          This is problem you need to address differently than just SUing.

          The idea of a username/password combo to protect resources is quickly becoming a thing of the past, as the trend to recognition of the individual continues.
          I for one can't wait to do away with uname/password headaches.
          For example, in a PKI/Smart Card/Biometric authentication system, your rights are based on who you are and not what uname/pass you have.

          In this scenario, what are you going to do?
          Impose some artificial barrier to privledge escalation?
          Any attempt will become nothing more than a "Are you _sure_ you want to execute this?."
          These kind of protections are already in windows, and users will inevitably click "yes".

          • The issue behind the privileged user is that the rights should not be easily accessible to a users account. My login that I use for day to day work should not include privileges associated with a root or administrator role. I should have to intentionally have to switch to that role using mechanisms like sudo, su, runas, or actually logout/login as root or administrator.

            The argument people make about users (particularly home users) running with privileged accounts is generally based on the fact that poo
          • Trust me, passwords are NEVER EVER going to go away.

            Even sci-fi recognizes that.

            A wildly optimistic sci-fi show such as star trek, which uses biometric identification with the computer for most things, still asks for a password to enable the self-destruct sequence.

            Also, biometrics are a lot easier to steal than most people recognize. The problem is- once your biometric data is compromised, its kinda hard to change your auth tokens isnt it?

            • I'm not saying passwords are going away, just that switching contexts, passworded or not, is an artificial barrier.
              In the end, the user (assuming a home user), does have the root rights, even if they have to type in 50 username/password combos.
              This is why I called it an artificial barrier.
              Any user who wants to run some attachment to an email that looks like its from their buddy will do it. At that point all the prompts and context switching just become an annoyance to the user, rather than a security mechan
      • I don't see that as a much lesser chance. My mail is filled with
        virus mails, wether they come from windows or linux(root or non-root) users doesn't make much diffrence.

    • Re:Viruses spread by stupidity not OS'es. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:00PM (#8805019) Homepage Journal
      As we all really know viruses are spread by stupidity of users, not the OS'es, so Linux popularity on the desktop will be it's deciding factor to virus targeting.

      It's possible to secure against stupidity - well, not completely, but better than MS has. Given a decent SELinux install, and an email app written for it, running an email virus would get a nice dialog:

      'Tis executable has attempted to access files "addressbook.xml" and ports "25, 3169" which it is not currently priviliged to access. Please run the executable under a different domain and role to execute it properly'

      Sure, someone will be dumb enough to run it anyway, but that would put a second thought into the minds of many a dumb user.

      Jedidiah.
      • This came up in a seperate article earlier in the week and I still don't see how Linux users could ever be affected by a supposed "exectable" sent in an e-mail.

        As far as I know there are no linux e-mail apps that run a file automatically. Files have to be specifically marked as executable and I know of no way to do that within an e-mail. So you would have to be not just stupid but brain dead to save the attachment, mark it as executable, and than click on it before it could possibly have an affect. Someone
    • As linux popularity increases... we can hope for some of the following:

      a) Lindows doesn't become the primarily popular distro
      b) Users will *not* run as root - see (a)
      c) Root SSH disabled (most distros do enable root SSH by default) or no bootup SSH server

      Open SSH ports (or NFS for that matter, but it generally needs some more setting up) with root access and easy passwords would be the gold for virus writers. The same for root-level user access. Give the users their sandbox, let them play in it, and
    • No we don't know that.

      Viruses are spread by the stupidity of developer's that code apps that run executable attachments automatically or by a single click.

      There was a time when I could tell people in all seriousness that they COULDN'T be infected by a virus through e-mail. Than Outlook came along and all hell broke loose. Outlook is the most popular so I blame it's developers but it could be any e-mail app that automatically runs .bat,.exe,.com etc. files. How is that the user's fault! They shouldn't have

  • Damn it all (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:42PM (#8804781) Homepage Journal

    According to the Bank of Canada's website US$699 ~= CA$917.79

  • A more favourable environment for Linux (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:44PM (#8804813)
    In my opinion, Canada is definitely a more favourable environment for Linux. Partly because of less Microsoft influence spreading FUD about it, and partly because they don't develop laws designed specifically to stifle technology like the DMCA and the Patriot act.
    I used to be proud to be an American because of our technological culture ... I'm not proud any more :(

    • Re:A more favourable environment for Linux (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:53PM (#8804932) Homepage Journal
      they don't develop laws designed specifically to stifle technology like the DMCA and the Patriot act.

      or the encryption/munitions legislation... why do you think the openbsd team resides in canada? (calgary in fact... i can see theo's house from my office window right now :))

    • Re:A more favourable environment for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:55PM (#8804956) Journal
      Microsoft is up here and is just as aggressive in corporate centres as in the US. However, Canada's national government has slightly different objectives than the US government or businesses, and that is a huge opportunity for Linux.

      First off, for national defense or other confidential government affairs, linux would be the logical way to go -- its completely open source. The government could hire a Canadian company to customise and secure a linux kernel for specialised functions. If Canada buys Windows, however, there's no guarantees about security, and lets be honest...I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that there's a nudge-nudge/wink-wink backdoor in microsoft products for the NSA or CIA to leverage if necessary.

      The other issue is languages. French isn't very popular in the US, but about 20% of our population speaks it and we're officially a bilingual country. We also have a whole territory (e.g. think 'province-lite') that is native speaking (Nunavut). When Windows 2000 came out here, the French version was several months behind...and it was more Parisienne French instead of Quebecois French, which was what was promised.

      Finally, I think there's huge savings to get off the 'upgrade now' software assurance lifecycle. For government terminal functions (e.g. get a new driver's license) baseline it, secure it, and let it run for 10 years. No need to refresh you hardware and software every 3 years. Hell, refresh every 5 years and you've increased your equity by 40%.

      • Re:A more favourable environment for Linux (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Sepper ( 524857 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:05PM (#8805073) Journal
        and it was more Parisienne French instead of Quebecois French, which was what was promised.

        So true... don't know how much time I lost because the french Windows install default to AZERTY instead of QWERTY keyboard...

        "Dammit, Where was the 'M' Key again?"

        The devil is in the details

  • More viruses for Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBAFK ( 769131 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:44PM (#8804820)
    Even if this is teh case I think the bigger problem will be when we have more Joe Blogs users who surf the internet as root. I see a lot of n00bs doing it and we always try and talk them round.

    Even with the distro installers creating a normal acount its still worryinglt common. Run as root and you are more likely to be pwned in a nasty way.
    • It will be interesting to see what happens as(if?) linux gains enough popularity. The distro installers will create a standard account for the user and allow them to set a root password. But I think the difference will come in that the default accounts usually aren't admin-level, unlike Windows. If you asked the average Joe Sixpack Windows user if his account has admin privelages, he'll likely just stare at you in confusion.

    • Re:More viruses for Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:05PM (#8805070)
      oh fer heck's sake can we ditch this "run as root" crap...

      No modern distro (Suse 9, Mandrake 10 etc.) lets you run as root now. They specifically exclude root from the login screen and even if you do manage to achieve root login, your menu and desktop options are severely restricted to maintenance tasks only.

      you really have to be extremely determined to browse the net and do your email as root these days...
    • Maybe mozilla should refuse to run as root unless the user jumps through some hoops. It seems like the global benefits would outweigh the minor inconvenience. Oh, of course any ideas about "run application X" as root first to set up some preferences would result in well deserved headaches for the developers :-)

  • /me blushes. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by benow ( 671946 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:46PM (#8804845) Homepage Journal
    Not only is the city now run on linux, but the Light Rail Transit system is powered by wind power. Go Calgary (about time they did something to balance all the non-renewable promotion coming from this town). Now, they just need to move the University away from Sun.

    A (Mostly) Proud Calgarian.

    • Last time I was at the university labs (1999), the numbers of Suns were shrinking (all the old Sparcstation 2s were moved out), and huge numbers of PCs running Windows NT 4 and a custom version of Redhat 6 were put in.

      I think all the terminals were gone too, to make room for PCs. I actually enjoyed working on the VT220s, using screen and vi. Talking to my peers, however, I was in the minority.

      AFAIK the backend servers are still Sun hardware (Sun still does NFS best!). And those rooms with the Sparcstation
    • that is indeed very cool news on all parts. wind power, eh? (no joke intended, i use that "eh" myself)

      my question lies with avoiding sun. to me, they represent extremely reliable, however overpriced, machines with good operating systems. im not terribly sold on solaris, i think linux could do as well on the hardware, but i think the sparc hardware is of superior quality and design. our older ultras around here do way more than an x86 from the same era could. obviously i am still in school, so i am bi

    • Re:/me blushes. (Score:3, Informative)

      by felis_panthera ( 160944 )
      Mount Royal College is already running Linux, and switching over to RedHat over the summer break...

  • "Canada's national newspaper?" (Score:4, Informative)

    by handslikesnakes ( 659012 ) <wfwdzqqgqiq@@@mailinator...com> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:51PM (#8804905)
    We have more than one, you know.

  • PLEASE... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:52PM (#8804918)
    Will someone please tell these morons that the underlying architecture of *nix based OS's with their permission structures, and the need for admin passwords to do any system level changes, make them MUCH harder to write a serious virus for. SCREAM it if they don't hear you. I'm really starting to get tired of this crap.
    • I think this is a funny one.

      someone's trying to talk from a virus writer's POV

    • Re:PLEASE... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
      Sorry if I sound harsh, but you are very wrong.

      1) A basic virus doesn't need root permissions. It can wipe out _your_ files (which are the most precious files on the system - you can get the system files by reinstalling). It can sit in your crontab and periodically try to spread. It can write your .profile and launch itself every time you log in.

      2) Do you install software? Does that mean you run an install script (directly or through a package manager) as root? Have you checked the script code for virii?

  • Less monoculture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:52PM (#8804920) Homepage Journal
    Windows is also more standardized than Linux, Mr. Friedrichs says. There are a number of distributions of Linux from different vendors, with differences significant enough that a virus or worm designed for one won't necessarily have the same effect on all the others. That fragmentation is a good thing when it comes to discouraging virus writers who want their work to have the maximum impact.

    There's another advantage that they don't mention. Linux plays nicely with the BSDs, Solaris, OS X, and most other operating systems, so it really is easier to have a diverse environment - not just diverse distributions, but diverse operating systems and architectures.

    Yes, Windows will work okay on a heterogenous network, but it doesn't really like it much. Compared to the shared UNIX foundations of Linux, OS X and BSD it is much easier to have all of them happily running side by side on the network sharing resources. Linux or Solaris workstations for the research division, Macs for the designers, Linux and/or BSD for the servers, developers get to choose their platform... and maybe even a nice pretty GNOME or KDE desktop for the paper pushers.

    Jedidiah.

    • Re:Less monoculture (Score:5, Interesting)

      by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:02PM (#8805036) Journal

      Linux plays nicely with the BSDs, Solaris, OS X, and most other operating systems

      I was off work, ill, and working from home (I'm a web-developer - SunONE-ASP on Raq boxes) and needed my girlfriend's XP laptop to talk to my server. Normally that's no problem - server runs Samba. But I didn't have SunONE ASP, so I had to use Microsoft IIS ASP (the server's dual-boot). Could I get a Windows XP laptop to talk to a Windows 2000 server? Could I hell! Now I accept I'm not the most capable Windows admin, but c'mon! How hard can it be!

      Moral: Linux plays nice with other operating systems. Windows barely gets along with earlier versions of Windows.

    • There's another advantage that they don't mention. Linux plays nicely with the BSDs, Solaris, OS X, and most other operating systems, so it really is easier to have a diverse environment - not just diverse distributions, but diverse operating systems and architectures.

      True. That's a function of having open standards at the interface level. Standards that Windows is just as welcome to make use of - they just choose not to.

      The idea of homogeneous interface specifications and heterogeneous implementations i

  • virus-targeting, and the cause of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by perlchild ( 582235 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:53PM (#8804925)
    About those viruses becoming more prevalent...
    Can someone balance that FUD with equivalent numbers from MacOS X?? It's a lot more popular than Linux, and both haven't been plagued with viruses(yet) in widely publicised numbers.
    The bit about multi-user was nice, but user-education about the benefits of proper privilege separation is very low, and needs to be addressed by those people who think changing OSes is a solution to the social problem of viruses. Of course, a lot of CIOs would rather use viruses to justify spending half a mil to change servers, than 10000$ on training... Even on equivalent returns...
    That's also a social factor.

  • linux in canadian universities... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord Haha ( 753617 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:58PM (#8805003) Homepage
    I goto SMU [www.smu.ca] and I know that we (as in cs faculty) have been slowly getting the univeristy aquianted with the whole open source ideas. Problem is there are still many people to educated, the in house tech support peeps still havn't fully grasped the whole idea I don't use Windblows and manage to be able to figure out how to map a network drive without logging 1st into the NT network and using all the XP "special" login scripts...

  • Viruses on Linux? Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:00PM (#8805023) Homepage
    It takes user stupidity to infect a Linux box with a virus, namely because you _don't run as root_ unless it's necessary (su, please) and no code is therefore fully trusted. Therefore, it takes an idiot running as root, _multiple_ steps thanks to the encrypted archive files), and a Linux port of a virus to infect a Linux box.

    With Windows, it's open, input password, extract, run. Wow. You're boned. Simple, ain't it?

    Linux is secure simply because no one runs as root for daily work. Those who do are either idiots or have _really_ strong bowels.
    • As already pointed out in this thread, the most important data to most people (the homedir) can already be deleted by programs (viruses?) running as that user.

      There's something else that does help though: for a file to be executed under Linux, it has to have the executable access permission set, which is normally not the case when you download/save a file from a browser or e-mail program. As long as mail programs take very good care not to execute things, this means we're pretty safe after all.

      But it would

    • Rubbish. You don't need root access to 'infect' a Linux box. It would be very easy to write a virus which deletes all the user's files, sends itself to everyone in their addressbook, listens on a port, joins in DDoS, etc. All without root access.

      The main difficulty faced by someone writing a virus for Linux is getting someone to run it in the first place. It's pretty hard to persuade a KMail user, for example, to execute a virus. They have to save an attachment and give it execute permission first.

      Rik

    • User stupidity (Score:3, Interesting)

      by phorm ( 591458 )
      The problem is, that even in linux a dumb user is still a dumb user. Instead of this:

      "Install: Bonzai buddy will be installed to C:\program files\pwned"

      You get something like:
      "Install: Bonzai buddy will be installed to /usr/local/bin/pwned, /etc/pwned"
      "Error, you need to run as root to install this program. Please enter your root password:"
      *****
      "Thank you. Installation will now continue"

      You don't think it will happen? Just wait. Safety comes in that the user doesn't always get the root passwor

    • Erm, believe it or not, there are a few people in the world who run Windows day to day with user accounts, and switch to administrator to do installations, etc.

      The kind of user that gives his account admin privs under windows is the same user who would run as root on a linux box, because they don't know any better or they really don't care. These individuals will never be protected by any operating system.

      PS. I believe Lindows runs as root by default.


    • Viruses ?? Say "worms".

      Given that majority of "mal-ware" in past few months was "worm-ware", it is not a very alien thought for any other OS.

      Worms rely on social engineering and tricking unsuspecting users into running them. Few points to note on what worms do-

      1. Open an Open Relay on port xyz
      2. DDoS
      3. Key logger
      4. Act as Backdoor/Trojan

      Mind that, NONE of these activities "need" root priviledges... and a worm that can open a backdoor hole so that you can later be exploited through any N number of local
    • It pretty well takes user stupidity to infect yourself on windows these days, too, though. It's not that there aren't any security holes in the OS or Outlook/Outlook Express that virus writers have exploited, but most of the problem is still technically the 'trojan-horses' that people run unknowingly.

  • Something is wrong here (Score:5, Funny)

    by mkro ( 644055 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:02PM (#8805038)
    From the "virus" article:
    Alec Taylor, senior manager of platform strategy at Microsoft Canada Co. in Mississauga, agrees Linux is likely to get more of the kind of unwanted attention Windows has had from virus writers. "It's a challenge that we all face and we're all targets in the software industry," Mr. Taylor says.
    ... and that was it. That is the end of the Microsoft quote. Wtf? No mention of communism? No "Yeah, but the TCO of a virus attack is larger on Linux"? I'm speechless. Mr Taylor can probably expect a phonecall from Mr. Balmer tonight.

  • Real World Linux offers discounted LPIC exams..but (Score:3, Informative)

    by darthcamaro ( 735685 ) * on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:04PM (#8805060)
    The main reason why the Globe and Mail, ran these articles is because the Real World LInux show (www.realworldlinux.com) starts next week.
    The Linux Professional Institute (LPI) is offering discounted LPIC exam certifications [lpi.org] at the event, BUT here's the CATCH.
    They're offering the exams at the same time the Keynote Speaches are being delivered...I guess the braniacs at LPI figured that tech's are a bunch of 'properller-heads' and won't understand the business of Linux...
    I think I'm just gonna get an RHCT and screw the LPIC.
  • ... but in the print: a full page infomercial from M$ consisting entirely of:

    a) Anecdotes about random Canadian companies that still prefer Microsoft products.

    b) a big TCO diagram pulled from an IDC study "conducted for Microsoft."

    Clever Microsoft, focussing on their core business market:
    CIOs with no critical thinking skills ...

  • Mayo! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Knight Thrasher ( 766792 )
    Linux takes in Canada. Microsoft says 'Eh?' RIAA continues to cry over inability to force ISPs in Canada to release the names of folks running linux servers that utilize file sharing apps.
  • Another article discusses whether Linux will become a target for viruses as its popularity grows.

    I say bring it on.

    Linux systems might be vulnerable to root exploits (as are all things on a network), but I want to see how well we would do against viruses.

    As we've all seen, Windows systems are very vulnerable to fire-and-forget attacks, which pick up momentum as they infect. I want to see how well an automated attack can propagate itself against Linux.

  • Advanced IT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by andawyr ( 212118 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:07PM (#8805098)
    A few years ago (10?) the Alberta government started to move the primary focus of Alberta business away from the Oil patch. At that point in time, Alberta was sort of a one-trick pony - most of the head offices for the Oil industry were here (and situated in Calgary), with a large number of the smaller businesses supporting the larger (fewer) oil companies.

    If the Oil economy went down, so did the rest of Alberta. Bad.

    Over the past 10 years, business diversity has increased a tremendous amount; the oil industry is still a large part of our economy, but not so large that we'd be hammered to death if the price of oil dropped substantially. It would hurt, but much less than it would have 10 years ago.

    Part of the reason for this success is the high level of technology in this province. Calgary especially is very high tech, and this latest story just enforces that point. Businesses tend to move fairly quickly here, and are able to take advantages of the benefits of newer technology.

    Through the use of and research into technology, Calgary is both a very good place to work and live.

  • Dancing Dog? :-( (Score:3, Funny)

    by danZenie ( 613768 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:07PM (#8805102) Homepage
    " Linux was like the dancing dog -- it's not about how well it does, it's that it does it at all."

    that is very disrespectful. how about a dancing penguin?

  • We may be ahead of the curve on this... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:09PM (#8805127)
    "Another article discusses whether Linux will become a target for viruses as its popularity grows."

    Yes, it will and distros like Lindows that run the default user as root had better get their act together. Poor judgement calls like that could make Linux the next security joke right behind Microsoft.

    I just installed Mandrake 10.0 and noticed that it offers an open source anti-virus product called "CLAM." According to the docs this product will automatically update its virus definition files. So assuming that these files are kept current we may be way ahead of the curve on this.

    • Re:We may be ahead of the curve on this... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I just installed Mandrake 10.0 and noticed that it offers an open source anti-virus product called "CLAM." [...] So assuming that these files are kept current we may be way ahead of the curve on this.

      The only trouble is, because there are no viruses for Linux in the wild, we don't have virus scanners for them. ClamAV is a scanner for Windows viruses. I use it to keep our mailserver from filling up with Windows viruses, even though it's a FreeBSD server and we only use Linux and MacOSX clients.

  • Good Day, Eh! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 )
    Good day, eh! This Linux thing is a very good thing for the economy and all that. However the only penguin we acknowledge comes from Pittsburg and we don't like that Mario Lemieux guy all that much. If it sucks as bad as that hockey team did this season, I wouldn't stake my reputation on that penguin eh.

    How 'bout we make our own brand called Maple Leaf Linux or Red Toque. Or maybe we can call it Gretzky Linux and charge 99 Canadian for it.

    Heck in Edmonton the best one-two combination was Gretzky to Ku
  • This is true, and granted, as more apps for the linux desktop become widely used, exploits involving them will be more easily propagated.

  • This is probably redundant by now... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by meme_police ( 645420 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:30PM (#8805396)
    ...but Calgary should be switching to OpenBSD. They'd have plenty of top notch support nearby.

  • Virus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:38PM (#8805481) Journal
    Virus writering/crackers are master at spending little energy. They will write them to go for the easiest target possible with the most damage being a side effect.
    As soon as linux is one of the easiest targets, then we will see lots of them. Until that time, well...

  • Virus' Due to install base?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fritz1968 ( 569074 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:38PM (#8805492)
    Mr. Friedrichs says the majority of viruses and worms today are aimed at Windows, because of its large installed base. Threats that target Windows also tend to have more impact and get more publicity than those aimed at Linux, because there are so many Windows-equipped computers for them to affect, he says.

    From what I have read and understand, the install base has nothing to do with it (or very little at least). The problem is that MS software is so easy to crack.

    For example, MS Exchange has roughly a 85 million install base. That email system has been hit hard over the past several years. Lotus Notes has not been hit nearly as hard (if at all) during the same time frame. If install base had anything to do with it, then one would assume that Lotus Notes has a substantially lower install base than MS Exchange. The fact is that Lotus Notes has a comparable install base (of roughly 90 million).

    It's the insecure software that is the problem, people!
  • "if you want to really defend yourself, the way you defend yourself is by diversity."

    It cuts on both ends. More diversity means less chance that _all_ your systems will be compromised, but increases the chance that some of them will. I think you are better of using one system that you know how to secure and keep secure well.

    In my case, that would be any open-source *NIX - *NIX because I know the workings reasonably well, and open-source because I can verify it's not doing something sneaky.
  • Last time I checked out contract list, we were still supporting a fairly large number of Sparc/Solaris boxes at the city of Calgary. Much of the storage has migrated from antique Sun systems to NetApp, though.

    I don't know what part of the city's infrastructure has moved to Linux, but it's certainly not all of it. This article seems a bit...blind.

  • Journalists: STOP the FUD......Pretty Please!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IceAgeComing ( 636874 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @05:04PM (#8808532)
    Really, it's such a simple idea:

    If you use GPL code, you publish somewhere the modifications you make under the GPL.

         THAT'S IT. END OF STORY. JOURNALISTS, YOU CAN GO HOME NOW.

    Instead, we get heart-wrenching human interest CRAP like the following:

    (From speeding acceptance of linux [globetechnology.com])

    Linux evangelists have prophesied for years that the open-source operating system would challenge Microsoft Corp.'s Windows. But it wasn't until the past year or so, when International Business Machines Corp., Novell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. seriously threw their collective and considerable weight behind it, that a challenge became a real possibility.

    Victory, however, will not come cheaply.

    The problem is that the future of Linux was never dependent on its quality. If quality were all that is required to win, everyone would be watching movies on Beta videotape and working on Apple Macintosh computers.

    The problem is cultural.

    The open-source community, an ad-hoc worldwide network of programmers dedicated to creating free software, has been too shrill, evangelistic and hot-eyed for corporate interests to deal with; the ferocity of their anger at proprietary software became the Linux community's own worst enemy -- nobody wants to gamble a corporate future on fanatics, no matter how worthy their bible.

    Why do journalists slather this "human community" BS on top of this very simple idea?

    It's like they're trying to freak people out! How completely idiotic is that???!!!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close