Are most Aspies Microsoft people.

Post Reply New Topic

I think that you are thinking that most of us use windows because of workflow familiarity. I haven't used Windows regularly since 2011, when I got a system that was loaded with Vista. I have a copy of 7Pro laying around for my other system, but I refuse to use it. I have been using Linux almost exclusively from 2011, but I have used it since 1999.

From what I've seen here and compared to 'normal' computer users, I think that most of the 'normal' computer users are happy with MS products and all of tha associated hazards, while I've noticed that at least here, Unixry is a much more prevailant thing, be it MacOS, Linux, or BSD.

I bought my first computer in 1982. A Columbia. 8088. I used DOS and eventually Windows until 2005 when my VAIO went down, and my guru was far away. I bought a Macbook. Lot's of MacStores have used computers... and I bought one of those. It took me a while to get comfortable, but unlike Windows, NOTHING went wrong... and now I am using an IMac... a used one that cost $700. These Apple computers are so superior to the Windows nonsense.

Macs are just better at hiding the fact they're equally troublesome as any other computer because FreeBSD unix is slightly better at memory management than DOS/NT. Mac viruses, malware and bugs are everywhere. OSX has multiple NSA back doors in the form of memory worms. Just look up superfish. That said I prefer log analyses and good terminal/cmd capabilities to the beach ball of death cursor. Computers shouldn't act cutesy and tell users nothing when something crashes.

Mac OS X and Android are living proof that Unix-like operating systems aren't inherently more secure than Windows. It seems that the more user-friendly they try to make things, the less secure they are. I think a lot of what makes GNU/Linux more secure is that distributions based on it generally follow a design philosophy that's not as user-friendly, but is also much more secure. Now, the reason why I specify GNU/Linux instead of just "Linux" is because Android is in fact based on a Linux kernel, but it doesn't use the GNU userland, nor does it follow the same design philosophy as traditional GNU/Linux distributions.

Linux is just a kernel, the software you run on top of it is really what makes the operating system itself.

I've always found it ironic that GNU/Linux is more secure, despite being open source. You'd think that an open source OS would allow potential black hats to analyze the code for vulnerabilities and use it to plan their attacks, but it just so happens that it makes it a lot easier for people to vet the code to make sure it doesn't have vulnerabilities. Closed source operating systems on the other hand, aren't generally as easy to vet for vulnerabilities by normal people who don't have access to the source, but since black hats don't give a crap about copyright law, they just run debuggers and disassemblers to find their vulnerabilities instead (this is just my theory, anyway).

Now, I'll admit, I still use a fair amount of closed-source software, mainly out of laziness, but also out of necessity. As well, since I don't really know much about programming, it doesn't make as much of a difference to me. I know how to follow a guide to compile a Linux kernel and optimize it for my system, what I don't know how to do is how to dig into the code itself and edit it manually. I like a lot of open source software, but I also like some software that's not open source. When you take into consideration all of the software found inside everyday devices, including the firmware for various components in your computer, it's pretty hard for even the most outspoken open source zealot to NOT use closed source software in some shape or form.

One-way functions (one-way in the sense that present day hardware takes forever to reverse it — if you tell everyone your software still uses MD5, brace yourself) can be open without any problems. Problems arise when John, Dick and Harry knows the salting algorithm, the key generation algorithm, and so on, which is why code obfuscation and tamper resistance is increasingly popular these days.

That would be an entire months worth of my income just about...sometimes the windows 'nonsense' is more affordable..and that's just used, how much is a new one?

I honestly do not understand any of that....but it seems to be quite popular from what I've seen, even people who don't have apple products wish they did or could. But I wasn't really talking about specific markets and number just what people seem to prefer.

A few years ago I bought a Sumsung Windows 7 laptop. The first year, the laptop was unusable as the computer would keep crashing for no reason. I ended up de-installing the operating system and reinstalling Windows. Even then I had to play with it for a couple of days to get it right. The reinstall didn't install the drivers for the Internet so I had to download the drivers from another source to get the internet. Then I found the graphics system was very poor so I had to download the latest graphics software from Samsung to get the computer working to my satisfaction. All this time the Sumsung support service were excellent at helping me to sort out the problems on the phone.
After all these problems above, I was stupid enough to buy one of the first Windows 8 Sumsung laptops. I found the graphics poorer than my Windows 7 machine and I hated the start up screen. Every few days Windows would download more and more updates. Windows 8.1 offered little improvement. Now I have Windows 8.2 on the machine which has restored my start up screen to what I previously had with Windows 7.
All my future computers will be MAC's. I love my Android phone though, so I can't see myself changing to an iPhone. And I've always had iPods.

But how does that explain why Android, Windows, and OS X are less secure than GNU/Linux?

The "nonsense" for me was that there were always problems with Windows. Updates... fixes... constant worries about viruses, and software updates... reinstalling, boot problems, blue screens. Often I would have problems that required help to stay afloat with my Windows machines. I don't have anyone to help me now, but with my Apple computers, the MacBook and now my IMac, I haven't needed any help.

They're not. Rootkits and malicious modules can damage your computer on Linux, something they can't do on Windows, thanks to secure boot and driver signature. In theory, a hypotetical Linux virus could write to your BIOS and prevent your computer from ever booting again. There's less malware in circulation for Linux, because of the simple fact that there's less commercial software (as in piracy being almost non-existant on Linux) and because so few people use it.

Operation Windigo is a living proof that it's entirely possible to wreck havock with Linux malware. There are also ransomware applications in circulation that hijack Linux powered smart televisions.

The Android kernel is almost identical to the Linux kernel, apart from a few pieces here and there from FreeBSD and NetBSD.

Lolz thanks for reminding me to run chrootkit... Btw rootkits absolutely exist on windows, they simply require abstracted mountpoints like boot records or writing around default scoped registry values. This is just a matter of semantics.

Everything about the computer I'm writing this on was free. Computer included.

Depends on how you define rootkit. If you mean software that gains root privileges, then sure, Windows 8.x has those. If you mean unauthorized software that can access your kernel, Windows 8.x will not be harmed by this unless you turn of driver signature and secure boot. Because there's no unified driver signature system on Linux, nor any secure boot on distros that haven't applied for it, a rootkit could do more harm here. The kernel is the only part of the OS that can communicate with hardware.

Linux kernel =/= GNU/Linux. Most Linux distributions are GNU/Linux. Android isn't. Also, Secure Boot is a moot point, since most PCs in use today still do not support it.

I know that there's malware for GNU/Linux, but it's much harder to achieve the sort of privilege escalation needed to wreak havoc on a GNU/Linux system than it is on a Windows or Android system, since a non-root user on GNU/Linux has less power.

It's not impossible for a GNU/Linux machine to be infected with malware, but you have to screw things up really, really badly in order for that to happen. The same could be said about Windows as well, in theory, but the very design of the OS means that users have to be much more careful, and most aren't. Stick Joe Schmoe in front of a GNU/Linux box, and even if he visits all the seediest porn sites or whatever, chances are he won't manage to download any malware. Do the same with a Windows box, and you get the picture.

Well I guess it helps that I specifically buy software to fix all that crap and virus protection, right now I have system mechanic but might see if there is a better one I can afford...haven't really had any trouble since I've installed that.