Should Ubuntu concentrate on the Security and correcting bugs ?

[frenchn00b]

Since hackers are everywhere, Linux is the second target after windows.

Since the politics of Ubuntu are not much Security, should they go more into that direction?

[acelin]

Since hackers are everywhere, Linux is the second target after windows.

Since the politics of Ubuntu are not much Security, should they go more into that direction?

Mac is the second target first...

That and Linux is very secure and stable. I just want some programs that are to par (like either Adobe natives or something similar) and some better looks! :guitar::lolflag::guitar:

[Exsecrabilus]

I hear that there are around 800 viruses for Linux now.

People need to open their eyes and face reality: LINUX DOES NEED VIRUS PROTECTION.

I am aware of all its security advantages over Windows, but that still doesn't change anything.
Comparing a product to another isn't going to change anything, it needs to actually improve.

I vote on adding an antivirus software for Linux in the future.

[maniacmusician]

I hear that there are around 800 viruses for Linux now.

Do you have a source for that?

I've seen plenty of proof-of-concept exploits and whatnot, but they were all very intense and required a good amount of knowledge to act upon. Since I started using Linux on my desktops full-time (a little over 2 years ago, I believe), I've never seen or read about an actual, executable virus that could "infect" a well kept installation.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I hear that there are around 800 viruses for Linux now.

People need to open their eyes and face reality: LINUX DOES NEED VIRUS PROTECTION.

I am aware of all its security advantages over Windows, but that still doesn't change anything.
Comparing a product to another isn't going to change anything, it needs to actually improve.

I vote on adding an antivirus software for Linux in the future.

Nonsense and FUD

[aysiu]

Antivirus is more or less useless anyway. It's retroactive instead of proactive; and when it's not, it gives too many false positives. Even on Windows, you're better off with limited user accounts, smart browsing/downloading, and strong passwords.

[JC Cheloven]

I've been reading about linux malware these days, because I'm worried about the people (some friends and friend's bussines) shipped by me in ubuntu.

To be honest, I'm not as confident now as I was two weeks ago (either due to ignorance or to lack of paranoia). Linux seems to be a hard environment for viruses, that's right, but on-line hackers, troyan horses, root kits, and some others seem to be more a real threat than an imaginary one. My vote is for more security.

[aysiu]

I've been reading about linux malware these days, because I'm worried about the people (some friends and friend's bussines) shipped by me in ubuntu.

To be honest, I'm not as confident now as I was two weeks ago (either due to ignorance or to lack of paranoia). Linux seems to be a hard environment for viruses, that's right, but on-line hackers, troyan horses, root kits, and some others seem to be more a real threat than an imaginary one. My vote is for more security.
Trojans and other malware based on social engineering thrives on user ignorance, not flaws inherent in the operating systems those users use. They rely on tricking people into installing untrustworthy software or giving their passwords or confidential information when they shouldn't.

[swoll1980]

I hear that there are around 800 viruses for Linux now.


If your going to post something as extremely questionable as this you should probably include a source

[Exsecrabilus]

I was listing in all history of, not current active ones. (That's what Apple does, it says there are over 1 million viruses for Windows; it doesn't say if they're active.)

Stop denying the truth, Linux needs better security since now it is becoming more popular and is an emerging target.

[ibutho]

I was listing in all history of, not current active ones. (That's what Apple does, it says there are over 1 million viruses for Windows; it doesn't say if they're active.)

Stop denying the truth, Linux needs better security since now it is becoming more popular and is an emerging target.
I think you are being a little bit melodramatic. If you do more research, you will find that most of the so called "Linux viruses" are proof of concept and the few that actually do harm to your files are restricted to your home directory unless of course you work as root all the time. If Linux was vulnerable to viruses, I doubt that many organisations would be using it in their servers and other mission critical computers. If you have configured a good firewall, have installed a rootkit detection tool and use measures such as selinux and access control lists, and also use official software sources for your distribution, then chances of your system being compromised get reduced.

[swoll1980]

I was listing in all history of, not current active ones. (That's what Apple does, it says there are over 1 million viruses for Windows; it doesn't say if they're active.)

Stop denying the truth, Linux needs better security since now it is becoming more popular and is an emerging target.

Do you have a source or what?

[cardinals_fan]

Fix the bugs.

[cardinals_fan]

I hear that there are around 800 viruses for Linux now.

People need to open their eyes and face reality: LINUX DOES NEED VIRUS PROTECTION.

I am aware of all its security advantages over Windows, but that still doesn't change anything.
Comparing a product to another isn't going to change anything, it needs to actually improve.

I vote on adding an antivirus software for Linux in the future.
People need to open their eyes and face reality: WINDOWS DOES NOT NEED VIRUS PROTECTION.

Neither does Linux. Antivirus software is nothing but a pathetic scam.

Since hackers are everywhere, Linux is the second target after windows.

Sounds like this 90-year-old guy who wants to be able to carry his gun in national parks. His reasoning was that "punks are everywhere".

[ghindo]

Stop denying the truth, Linux needs better security since now it is becoming more popular and is an emerging target.When Linux adoption breaks 5%, then we'll talk. As long as Microsoft owns 90%+ of the market, that's a very paranoid attitude to have.

[wolfen69]

When Linux adoption breaks 5%, then we'll talk. As long as Microsoft owns 90%+ of the market, that's a very paranoid attitude to have.

probably true. i think canonical is doing a great job with fixing whatever. look at gutsy. at first, alot of people hated it. 200+ updates later, it has become pretty much rock solid.

[atoponce]

I want to see more focus on system administration and flexible installations. More documentation and push on preseed. Flexibility with the Debian installer in choosing multiple locations and formats where Ubuntu software could reside. Red Hat's Anaconda and Kickstart are leading the way by massive margins, making the Anaconda installer one of the most flexible installers on the market. Novell and SUSE have responded with linuxrc and AutoYAST. When are we going to pick up the pace in this area?

[wolfen69]

why are you comparing commercial oriented distros with desktop oriented? redhat does what it does, well. so does ubuntu. ubuntu alone is responsible for a huge upswing in linux usage. let the chips fall where they may, unless you're a developer. then make it happen. people like to talk about what should be done, but do little to change it.

[Bubba64]

If your going to post something as extremely questionable as this you should probably include a source

Funny that is my argument with so many posts in the community, especially the pink pony threads.

[ibutho]

why are you comparing commercial oriented distros with desktop oriented? redhat does what it does, well. so does ubuntu. ubuntu alone is responsible for a huge upswing in linux usage. let the chips fall where they may, unless you're a developer. then make it happen. people like to talk about what should be done, but do little to change it.

Ubuntu is commercial. Canonical is in this game to make money and thats why they are pushing Ubuntu Server a lot these days. The tools that atoponce mentioned are not only good for servers and advanced users, but they can also benefit people getting started with Linux.

[LightB]

Canonical may be commercial, but I doubt there's much expectation for anything but Ubuntu paying for itself. I could be wrong though but right now I doubt it.

[atoponce]

Ubuntu is commercial. Canonical is in this game to make money and thats why they are pushing Ubuntu Server a lot these days. The tools that atoponce mentioned are not only good for servers and advanced users, but they can also benefit people getting started with Linux.

My concern for Ubuntu is that it's as flexible as possible to satisfy both the end user on the desktop, and the datacenter specialist. Canonical is definitely showing interest in reaching the system admin, and making Ubuntu a solid platform for servers. This is why we have seen the break from ubuntu-desktop to ubuntu-server, as well as LTS releases. It appears to me that Canonical wishes to compete in a market that Red Hat controls. While I'm not mentioning that Canonical mimick Red Hat at all, I am mentioning that as a Linux instructor for Guru Labs (http://gurulabs.comm), when I setup a Red Hat classroom, I can install 20 machines in under 45 minutes. The flexibility that the Anaconda installer gives me makes this possible. I would love to see similiar flexibility with the Debian installer. As ibutho mentioned, this can provide many benefits to the end user too.