The bloke presenting this video highlights a few interesting aspects of 'Linux Integration' for the end-user.
Just a caveat: I'm not an inveterate Linux-user, but just an interested Windows-user / consumer, who is curious about aspects of Linux, both good, and bad.
*click-on the link below to view video, and click-on Youtube cog to view in 1080p HD:
I you notice on the virus it is incapable of executing. This is why the program won't run user privileges are blocking it. Even though there was malware it couldn't do anything. There is AppArmor that sandboxes software that further isolates malware from the system.
The major file systems ext4, XFS and BTRFS do auto de-fragmentation and trash collection and you the user can configure that to be more often.
Software can be restarted (instead of rebooting) and package managers/ini systems have options to restart those services. You can even swap out kernels and GPU drivers without restarting. Servers do this. They don't restart automatically just in case something is being used by many users, like a database or website.
The hard drive stuff is right. You can set up your machine to be able to swap drives. I do it with my hot swap SSDs. Yes, it isn't set up to do that out of the box, though.
Both sides to those points aren't totally right.
Not to mention the malware is windows based. I can only imagine hes gone and downloaded that deliberately from an infected 3rd party site.
Thanks Taco, I appreciate your perspective, and clarification on this video :)
He was pretty fair in the video but I just wanted to add a few things
Not really. If you install the system on exactly one drive and then move the drive from one system to another the UUID is still the same and the system will happily boot. So it really depends on how you configured your system.
And no, UUID's have nothing to do with security… it's just better to identify the drives by UUID instead of the port they are plugged in.
So all in all this guy is at least partially wrong about everything he talked.
Who only uses one drive?
People who just click "next" all the time when installing? Ubuntu still installs to one disk by default, AFAIK.
Lol I forgot that auto install is a thing
Sorry but this video is utterly crap, I'm not a Linux fanboy who thinks it's the silver bullet for everything but he describes it best himself at the beginning of the video:
Some people think they know a lot while they have no idea what they are talking about.
Ironically this applies to his own video...
I.)His computer is infected by a virus, therefore the myth 'you cant have a virus on linux' is busted
-> Nobody really said that. Step one of any myth-busting video: Make up some myth so you have something to bust. He refers to this video of another Youtuber and this website http://whylinuxisbetter.net
In the linked Video the other youtuber says that there are only a few Linux viruses and almost none of them are floating around in the wild/ most are patched and the website says:
Linux hardly has any viruses. [] Of course, a Linux virus is not impossible to get.
However, Linux makes it very hard for this to happen
Both are correct statements, none of them implies it's impossible to get a virus.
-> The files he presents as the 'virus' are Windows executables.
-They don't run under Linux
-Linux is very strict about who is able to install something, even if they ran on his system (what's not the case) the only one who can allow this is himself by entering his root password
-If a Windows virus somehow is executed with the help of a compatibility layer like wine, it still doesn't harm the system in 90% of cases.
The only thing he proved is that files which can be harmful on a Windows machine can somehow end up on you disk when you run Linux.
First nobody ever said that's not the case, second in the comments of a follow up video he admitted that he created this situation by downloading and copying these files into the said directory, but only to reproduce a scenario which he encountered 'for real'.
You are the judge.
He also uses malware and virus as if it was the same, acts like 'a file is on the disk' means the file can be executed or already was executed and came up with some strange theories in the comments before he locked them about how this files infect Windows machines in the network which showed that he knows nothing about servers/clients/networking at all.
II) You have to reboot in a lot of cases etc. therefore the 'you don't have to reboot Linux' myth is busted
Again, nobody said you'll never have to reboot again. Just less (basically only after kernel updates, the new 4. kernel reduced those cases even further).
Again: first make up some myth, then bust it to sound intelligent.
What I say to this entire 'you can't do ____ without rebooting, you can't swap your HDD, you can't do ____ ( in the video but also in the comments):
Do not say “You can't … in Linux” when the truth is “I can't … in Linux”.
Sorry that may sound arrogant at the first view but that's the truth.
You can do that stuff, you only need to have the knowledge of how to do it.
But that does NOT mean that those things aren't real advantages of Linux or shouldn't be mentioned or are myths.
Because it IS technically possible to do things in Linux which you can't do in Windows (I think he was referring to Linux vs Windows promotion)
When I read things like “I had problems with application XY/network connection/whatever and after a reboot it worked, so don't tell me you don't have to reboot” well.. you don't have to reboot.
You only didn't know which service you had to restart and you didn't know how to do that. (for example).So yeah maybe YOU had to reboot, but not Linux.
I also have no idea what he wanted to show with that Firefox thing, and what memory cache has to do with the need of reboots, you can clear cache without rebooting, he simply didn't know how to do that, you obviously can kill any process but apart from that I also don't see what kind of problem he tried to represent there.
Lets face it, these are computers. If a Windows machine can do something, a Linux machine could do it and vise versa. It may require porting and compatibility layers but it can be done. I don't care about what an OS does but how easy it make it to do new things. Ironically that's what Windows aims to do but I say they failed at it. I find Linux to be a much easier platform to work with and to get stuff done with.
His points are pretty solid, only the last one seemed a little odd.
A UUID fstab is optional, meaning you can set it up to be transferrable if you want to.
Also you could edit the fstab after plugging it into the new machine and things would work just fine.
I mean his personality is a little abrasive because he seems to have more testosterone than most youtubers, but I watched the whole thing and liked it.
The problem with Linux, like logan said, is the community.
Imo people are way to opinionated and fanatical about their distros. If you like blue cats as a mouse pointer you're an idiot. Stuff like that. If everyone put their energy into promoting linux and getting it on more places than just embeded products then I think Windows and Apple would get a run for their money. But the average joe comes on a linux forum and asks a question and people tear him apart. Then Joe runs back to windows scared and emotionally damaged.
The community is quite insane. Another issue they have is hating on Ubuntu , which is in my opinion the best desktop Linux. It's funny though , It was, then it wasn't , but now I think its back on top for me.
The community being toxic also seems to be a recent development. I remember joining ubuntuforums back in 2009 and people were pretty open to all sorts of ideas and people generally didn't freak out if someone was using windows or liked some aspect of OSX. Then the Android vs Apple stuff came into being and new extremists started joining and the community has not been the same since.
Sorry, I didn't notice this thread. After few minutes of the video, I was quite sceptical of what that guy has to say, though. I do not think, though, that people in the community cannot have reasonable discussion. If that was true, no community-driven distro would be possible.
His points would be solid if he didn't start with trying to misguide the user from the beginning.
Using software that hasn't been updated in 5 years which somehow has windows malware on it suggests to me he went out of his way to find old infected Linux software from a 3rd party site.
Nothing hes said is necessarily wrong. But its very poorly presented.
Don't lump everyone in the one basket (i know you dont mean to), yous suggesting im part of that group of "toxic" linux users. But I try my best to help people if i can, and many people here do.
I agree with that the Ubuntu, or rather Canonical hate is quite silly. They do what they do to make Linux desktop better. People might not agree with their vision of the desktop, but that's what other distros are for.
Is there examples of this? I know many who don't like Ubuntu for many reasons, ive never seen anyone "hating" on Ubuntu or canonical or anyone using their products.
Fair point. I think the same applies here as everywhere in the world, Idiots scream louder and therefore seem to have more of an effect on the overall feeling.
That is actually a valid point, I can give you examples of people talking about Canonical hate, but I cant think of actual evidence of it. Looks like I need to do some searching.
