2025 the year of Linux

[RealityRipple]

windows marks everything it downloads as executables

Eh? There's nothing to 'mark' as executable on Windows, file extensions determine whether a file can be executed. Those are restricted to .COM, .EXE .BAT, .CMD and a couple of other more recent ones. And for the longest time, files downloaded from the internet are blocked from opening without a prompt about how they might be risky.

this thing, i believe:

winmark.png

Oh, and re: UEFI benefits, most of them are security or rare use cases, not performance. The Resizable BAR feature is all-but-useless on any AMD or NVidia GPU; the feature only does anything noticeable on rare Intel GPUs. A lot of the wider memory access features only really get used in crypto mining. Etc etc...

[Massacre]

Many distros use what you call old software, but it is not outdated because it has a track record which means it is very stable. Stable does not break things. This is why the Mint distro has a very good reputation for ease of use that does not break things software wise.

As for newer software, if someone likes "newer" software or even "bleeding edge" software, then two linux distros come to my mind. The first distro is Arch. Purist power users in linux who love doing things with the command line and not using gui windows by choice, most of them use Arch. Arch is known for the newest or bleeding edge software. If it breaks in Arch, the power users can fix it using the Terminal. Basically the Terminal in Arch is the power users domain.

I know about Arch and that it is rolling release, so this will be really "bleeding edge" for entire system with risk of failed startup because of a buggy update. What I need, is a stable core that is able to install latest release versions of certain software without having to build it from source. Unfortunately this requires either external repositories (may cause dependency conflict, and actually caused it in case of openconnect) or building it from source.

If only Linux software ceased to depend on specific system library versions...

[frostknight]

Sandboxing and account access are two different things. What was said was that even an administrator level account still gets UAC prompts for some actions. Not so on Linux - when you are root (either through sudo or natively) all protections are off, period.

Do you use linux ever? I am curious where you got that information from.

In any case though, does windows always run in root?

Want to talk about forced upgrades? look in your own back yard first. "Roling releases" have you entirely at the whim of often daily updates, without regard to what you have running on it (which is why things like CentOS and RHEL exist(ed) - to have a stable platform). Something breaks because a dependency got upgraded/changed/removed by choice of the distro managers? It is then your responsibility as a user to fix it. Good luck.

That is why I don't use ArchLinux lol.

I never have used CentOS or RedHat though. (Also I hate redhat!)


If windows has more protections in place, then it must get malware more easily due to the backdoors windows usually ships with.

Windows has never forced an upgrade on me in the time I have used it (decades...). Especially across major versions.

Didn't you say you had LTSC version of windows? If so, you are an exception.

Enterprise also is an exception. Home users are screwed tho.

But you do raise a good point a bout rolling release, I don't use those distros due to stability reasons and their security gets compromised much easier.

[frostknight]

Windows also has problems with any website you go to, has temporary files left over after you visit a website, linux might do this also... the problem?

That's browser caching, not an OS feature. You don't 'go to' a website using Windows or Linux, you use a browser on either of those platforms.

windows marks everything it downloads as executables

Eh? There's nothing to 'mark' as executable on Windows, file extensions determine whether a file can be executed. Those are restricted to .COM, .EXE .BAT, .CMD and a couple of other more recent ones. And for the longest time, files downloaded from the internet are blocked from opening without a prompt about how they might be risky.

EXE is supposedly auto executable and that was how viruses get in so easily in the early windows. 90s, etc... this was why that caching was dangerous.

This might have changed since I used it, which was 8.1, which if so, feel free to show me info.

Yeah caching is not a problem unless stuff is marked executable just because it is the default for certain file extensions.

[moonbat]

EXE is supposedly auto executable and that was how viruses get in so easily in the early windows. 90s, etc... this was why that caching was dangerous.

That has nothing to do with caching. It was always PEBKAC and continues to be so now in the smartphone era.

Do you use linux ever? I am curious where you got that information from.

I've been using Linux as a daily driver for the last 6 years. So what is it exactly that you are prevented from doing even if you have root privileges? Post Windows 8, there are registry keys, folders and files that one can't access/modify/both despite being logged in as administrator , the system account is set to have higher privileges.

In any case though, does windows always run in root?

That question doesn't make sense. Different processes run under different accounts with different privileges, whether they are system services or user sessions, and this applies to all current OSes.

[Moonchild]

Do you use linux ever?

...on a near daily basis.

does windows always run in root?

There is no such thing as "root" in Windows. You clearly don't have a clue and just make assumptions. Maybe the SYSTEM account can be considered an equivalent to "root" but that isn't an interactible account that anyone can log into and use.
Also, the pervasiveness of malware on Windows has everything to do with it historically having 95+% market share, and not with any supposed backdoors.

Didn't you say you had LTSC version of windows? If so, you are an exception.
Enterprise also is an exception. Home users are screwed tho.

My workstation has always run a regular version of Windows (Pro flavour since Win 7). I'm a "regular home user" as far as the O.S. is concerned.
Windows' NTFS has full ACL, ownership with inheritance, and additional ADS (where the "mark of the web" gets stored) to secure file system access.
Running out of options to blame me for running something exceptional that somehow invalidates my points, yet?

EXE is supposedly auto executable and that was how viruses get in so easily in the early windows. 90s, etc... this was why that caching was dangerous.

Do you even use a computer, bro?

[frostknight]

There is no such thing as "root" in Windows. You clearly don't have a clue and just make assumptions. Maybe the SYSTEM account can be considered an equivalent to "root" but that isn't an interactible account that anyone can log into and use.

Perhaps my information is bad. But yes, I meant system account probably.

workstation has always run a regular version of Windows (Pro flavour since Win 7). I'm a "regular home user" as far as the O.S. is concerned.
Windows' NTFS has full ACL, ownership with inheritance, and additional ADS (where the "mark of the web" gets stored) to secure file system access.
Running out of options to blame me for running something exceptional that somehow invalidates my points, yet?

I thought you said you used some enterprise or LTSC even. This baffles me. Am I getting people mixed up? Possibly?

Do you even use a computer, bro?

Yes, but I haven't used the newer windows alot. It's possible, I am thinking on outdated info or false info I have heard. I will admit this.

The web is full of confusing information at times.

I don't know.

all I know for sure is that I have never gotten hacked on linux and on windows, even up to 8.1 I got malware a few times.

And also that deprecation of hardware as new as 10th gen is idiotic.

Most of all I wish that Microsoft wasn't so evil when it came to "planned obsolescence"

The world gets more cluttered in landfills by Microsoft deprecating perfectly good hardware. This aspect of Microsoft I think annoys me more than even the privacy issues, because it affects everyone even linux users.

...on a near daily basis.

This is out of order how I responded, but w/e.

Which flavor do you use out of curiosity? If you don't wish to say, thats fine though.

[frostknight]

That has nothing to do with caching. It was always PEBKAC and continues to be so now in the smartphone era.

I should probably look up what PEBKAC means then.

I have no knowledge of this.

EDIT:

User errors seems to be what it means more or less.

Yeah, okay, that does make sense.

[frostknight]

If nothing else Moonchild, I think we can agree that 2025 isn't going to be the year of linux either if by year of linux people mean linux gets as much of a market share as apple devices let alone android or windows.

In any case as previously stated, never gotten virus on linux (12+ years and counting) Windows, 18 years gotten probably 15 or more. Then again, Linux lets you be reckless, so its possible that's why I got more. It is what it is.

I like the freedom to not have to worry what websites I go on giving me malware.

You do you though.

[Night Wing]

In any case as previously stated, never gotten virus on linux (12+ years and counting)

Like you, I have been using Linux since January of 2013. That is also 12 years and still counting. In all of that time, I have "never" installed any anti-virus program in any linux distro I've experimented with including the present distros you can see in my signature.

[Mæstro]

If nothing else Moonchild, I think we can agree that 2025 isn't going to be the year of linux either if by year of linux people mean linux gets as much of a market share as apple devices let alone android or windows.

When you phrase it like this, the fabled Year of the Linux Desktop has already arrived. From the historical data, Linux enjoys about as much use today as MacOS twenty years ago. While Windows certainly dominated then, Mac established itself in the layman’s mind as the viable alternative, in the way I sometimes see laymen speaking about Linux today online. If we use the W³ records instead, Linux and Mac were about equally widespread in the early 2000s, at least among the technically inclined users who would visit that site.

I should probably look up what PEBKAC means then.

I recommend the Free Dictionary for this. It provides, among many other topical reference works, a dictionary of computer terms popular among older users.

[frostknight]

When you phrase it like this, the fabled Year of the Linux Desktop has already arrived.

How much market share does apple have and how much does linux have?

I had thought apple had more like 8% or more and linux more like 4-5%

EDIT:

Unless things have changed, since 2024, I read in some articles that Apple has 2x as much market share as Linux.

So... not quite yet. But it is remarkable how close it has come. I assumed it was at least 4% Seems I was right.

[gepus]

... I think we can agree that 2025 isn't going to be the year of linux either if by year of linux people mean...

However there are good chances that 2025/2026 is going to be the year of the Chrome browser shipped with most (if not all) Linux distros by default...

[Pentium4User]

... I think we can agree that 2025 isn't going to be the year of linux either if by year of linux people mean...

However there are good chances that 2025/2026 is going to be the year of the Chrome browser shipped with most (if not all) Linux distros by default...

Maybe Chromium, but now Chrome due to licence issues.

[Moonchild]

However there are good chances that 2025/2026 is going to be the year of the Chrome browser shipped with most (if not all) Linux distros by default...

Well, with Mozilla tacking on "terms of use" for the Firefox browser and removing "we don't sell your data; never have, never will" and going back on that promise... It's quite possible that will happen.

[jobbautista9]

Off-topic:
The funny thing is that in their recent blog post they say:

Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data”), and we don’t buy data about you. We changed our language because some jurisdictions define “sell” more broadly than most people would usually understand that word.

And then as an example of a jurisdiction for their justification they gave the CCPA:

As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

Well guess what Mozilla, that's how most people would usually understand what "selling your data" means!

But that's not even the thing that made me uninstall vanilla Firefox from my laptop recently... The section that made me seriously concerned has definitely improved now after I and many others uninstalled the browser over it (they now explicitly disclaim ownership of your own content), but I still don't get why the browser vendor (Mozilla Corp) needs a non-exclusive, royalty-free and worldwide license over the content you send/upload via Firefox. It doesn't make sense; that's like saying when I scan a document into my HP scanner I give HP the company permission to use the resulting digital form from the document I scanned. That's not how it works. HP the company is not the scanner, just as Mozilla Corp is not the Firefox browser.

[frostknight]

Well, with Mozilla tacking on "terms of use" for the Firefox browser and removing "we don't sell your data; never have, never will" and going back on that promise... It's quite possible that will happen.

And if they do, that will only make people be more spied on. The irony is thick here.


Btw, when I had mentioned the whole linux executable thing vs windows thing, I should have mentioned, most times in order to mark a linux app executable, it has to be chmod +x to be used on it.

Although, after rethinking, some linux executable still are marked executable becase the vendor does so anyhow. So... that only holds a half glass of water if anything it seems.

However there are good chances that 2025/2026 is going to be the year of the Chrome browser shipped with most (if not all) Linux distros by default...

That would be mega stupid because chrome is less secure and more privacy invasive by default.

Thus, it will make privacy worse not better.

[Pentium4User]

However there are good chances that 2025/2026 is going to be the year of the Chrome browser shipped with most (if not all) Linux distros by default...

That would be mega stupid because chrome is less secure and more privacy invasive by default.

Thus, it will make privacy worse not better.

Agreed, but I think people need to show Mozilla that they disagree with the path FF went.

[moonbat]

people need to show Mozilla that they disagree with the path FF went

Mozilla hasn't cared for what its users wanted since Firefox version 4 debuted in 2011. And their marketshare shows.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

Mozilla hasn't cared for what its users wanted since Firefox version 4 debuted in 2011. And their marketshare shows.

Sort of a tangent here so marking off-topic.
I recently watched a video by Louis Rossman on this topic and he made a very good point in it, that in his opinion "Money for nothing destroyed Mozilla".
He's talking there about the fact that Mozilla is the Google lapdog being paid for by Alphabet just so they can say "see? we're not a monopoly because Mozilla exists!" (which is something we've been saying for years in our community here), and Mozilla increasingly getting their income from on-going investment returns and not from their user base. Basically Mozilla is acting like the nepo-baby of the tech industry, wasting heaps of money not on proper development or pushing back against what they should (Web API, standards and strong-arming stupidity), but rather on failed service after failed service after failed product... Why? Because the money from investments and sugar daddy Google will come in regardless of what they do.
This has bred an attitude where they do not care about the user, and the user has become just another figure in their calculations for more profit, while continuing to pretend they are somehow altruistic in what they do (which hordes of people still seem to hungrily guzzle up and defend). They have become completely spineless and will no longer remain principled on even their most core values they used to have. Why? IMHO, because any impact backlash might have won't matter for the bottom line of their management who make these decisions.
{/mini-rant}