Linux Mint Forums

I couldn't think of how to title this thread well, but here's my question:

My understanding is the architecture and system behind Linux's workings is better for handling these 3 CVEs (Meltdown, Spectre1/2), but I don't have the knowledge behind how that is the case, how they work differently (Windows Vs. Linux). I understand that with Linux we can install microcode and that with Windows that doesn't happen?

I set up a VM with Windows last night and, even using my SSD it took well over an hour to set up and update, whereas Linux VMs take mere minutes, almost just seconds to update.

I saw that Windows allowed me access to the interface while updating, that seems to be a new feature but I'm not so sure it is a good idea given the OS's proclivity to having problems with multitasking during installs and updates of softwares.

I'd like to have a more technical understanding of the root ways that Linux and BSD are superior in light of the CVEs because I need to understand for my own benefit, but more over, in order to speak to others intelligently who claim Linux is just anothing thing "and they are all the same".

Well since Linux is open source and anyone can read the source code, and lots of people do, exploits are found more often and fixed faster then such as operating system like OSX and Windows 10 are. On top of that Linux also uses repositories to install applications instead of going to random websites and D/L stuff.

No one else has any answers here for this person? I'm feeling that I left something out.

No BSOD is one I can think of. Just got one on my dual boot the other day

The way permissions work on Linux (with a normal user not being allowed to make changes to the system unless they invoke sudo rights) is a big factor here.

Moem wrote:The way permissions work on Linux (with a normal user not being allowed to make changes to the system unless they invoke sudo rights) is a big factor here.

Pretty much right out the box with Linux. We did have our Windows machine pretty secure for the end-users with global policies but man what a pain to setup Linux and Unix is like a breath of fresh air IMHO

Moem wrote:The way permissions work on Linux (with a normal user not being allowed to make changes to the system unless they invoke sudo rights) is a big factor here.

User (or malware) can easy to destroy all his documents (read all his life) but system remains intact. As battleship without crew, like flying dutchman.
System exists but nobody /home.
Price of loss system is 20 minutes of reinstallation. Prise of lost /home can be infinity. Linux is better because no need these 20 minutes of reinstallation time

BigEasy wrote:

Moem wrote:The way permissions work on Linux (with a normal user not being allowed to make changes to the system unless they invoke sudo rights) is a big factor here.

User (or malware) can easy to destroy all his documents (read all his life) but system remains intact. As battleship without crew, like flying dutchman.
System exists but nobody /home.
Price of loss system is 20 minutes of reinstallation. Prise of lost /home can be infinity. Linux is better because no need these 20 minutes of reinstallation time

That is what backups are for.

Sound's kinda trollish, but I will take...

First off, most Windows installs are single drive and most people think that they will lose everything and sometimes they do when the Windows install breaks. Linux handles volumes differently, and there are superior methods that ANYONE is free to use, at no cost as far as software. Unlike Windows (unless you know some complex steps), you aren't going being able to back up not only your data but installs and system setup parameters.

It's a choose your poison thing. If you don't like the poison that is Linux, why are you using it, whey are you here, is what I ask?

You can't object to hundreds of thousands of volunteer devs and writers who've given their time like you would some company seeking an exhorbitant charge. You can't complain about restruictions or licensing hassles. You can't even complain about lack of support since there ARE distros that you can pay for support, yes?

Linux asks for something back for all it gives: An ounce of effort, some mental sweat equity. You don't get on a bicycle and just ride, you learn first, so what you pay to learn, that is also given back to you in good measure.

After a user has really stuck with Linux for a few months and learned some basic ropes, they aren't going to tend to be victim of a lost /home directory, whereas the baby bottle fed Windows user will end up helpless and have lost their data because they never learned and got to know better.

I have not seen a single post anywhere of any Linux user losing all their data because of a /home directory failing, but oh my how many Windows users HAVE lost everything, or paid a lot of money to others that know what they are doing, to save them.

But this is all off topic to what I was actually seeking answers to: I want to understand on a technical level that a novice to programming might understand, how the mechanics of Linux, BSD, Unix (in its forms today) are less vulnerable in the ways they are, than Windows, or even OS9 or OSX (and yeah, I know that OSX is BSD Based, but I'm still asking).

EDIT:

I think, IOW, what I am searching for is "linux dev 101" where I can have some foundational understanding of the Kernel and GNU Structured parts that are less penetrable. I assume that there are things very integral to how the OS is designed besides simple permissions control and ownership that add to it's being more secure. Since there are no secrets in LInux, I'm wanting to start on my path to learning how that all works. I just waisted a few months languishing in personal issues and hadn't pursued my studies as much, and now I want to get back to learning some real, foundational, meaningful stuff, both from the dev viewpoint AND from the MIS viewpoint.

Surely we've got members that can steer me in the right direction and offer a paragraph or two about it to get me started? I realize most of the most skilled here are very busy, but "man amplification" involves training others in what we know. (I worked under Joe Engleberger decades ago and learned his concept of "man amplificaiton" where a good welder trains 3 robots with his skills so that he amplifies his skill through that training of the machines, which is a better way than just replacing the welder and gives the welder time and opportunity to further develop and improve the process because that welder is not replaced but enhanced.) I want to be one of those machines that the welder trains, I want to amplify his skills. Knowledge is power, power is giving, giving is life. Linux is, well, knowledge.

With Windows there is a registry, ini files, and libraries. In Linux there doesn't appear to be an analogue to that registry, and simply configuration files in text format. That lends to a beginning to my questions, is that method, using a registry that is cryptic, part of what makes Windows more vulnerable in the long run? Second, what is the analogue to ini files in Linux and, third, what other file types and systems are different, such as how is Windows services different from whatever Linux works using?

And then, what about the core mechanics of the Kernel, there must be foundational ways it is less vulnerable?

whm1974 wrote:That is what backups are for.

Right! Do you think only Linux users do a bacups? If Windows users also do backups then what differences?

Some of the differences that me, a 1 year noobie know of is that, yes, you CAN do a full mirror type backup or a full disk backup, even an incemental one with both OSs using the same softwares, but it doesn't stop there.

Let me be the first to tell you about programs like Aptik that do a LINUX style backup, that can be incemental, a backup that allows you to simply save what aspects/parts of your install that you want (what directories you want, what applications you want, what settings you want, etcetera) in a granualar way that not only backs up how you want, but that only backs up what matters to let you do a FRESH bare metal install first, including with a newer OS version, and then restore what you want, getting you back and forward at the same time.

And then there is Timeshift, another method. And there are others.

Can you do that in Windows?

May I ask in the most courteous manner a question: What is your purpose in these arguments? Are you arguing for Windows and asserting people should prefer Windows or perhaps dump Linux? Is your purpose to argue for the sake of it because it is fun? Are you on a mission to bring down Linux users? Are you angry? Please tell me why a Windows fan would frequent a Linux forum, I don't understand why you don't leave well enough alone?

Who told you I am Windows fan? I am not fan of any OS because I am IT engeneer.

A statement like "the architecture and system behind Linux's workings is better for handling these 3 CVEs (Meltdown, Spectre1/2)" doesn't make any sense to me.

Seems to me a lot of people installed Linux because they thought that being virus free makes you hack proof, and now they're apoplectic because they've discovered it is not hack proof.

While not having to run AV scans is very nice that's not why I use Linux. I just like it.

Actually I've adopted the old Unix mantra ... everything else is worse.

i agree with hoser rob on this...linux is not hackproof nor is it virus proof...its just a hell of a lot more resistant and resilient...it is by design much more difficult for any hacker or virus maker to make any inroads to linux based distros just by the sheer number of abundance of them (last i knew, at least 650 variations of linux)...we use linux because of ease of use over other main stream systems and also because we do not want to have a "nanny" system telling us whats for our own good and that we let the OS rule us rather than we being allowed to decide what is for our own good with OUR machines...THIS is what we call "freedom" ...the choice to use open source...what is the opposite of freedom?...its called enslavement...which do we prefer to have in our lives?...DAMIEN

BigEasy wrote:Who told you I am Windows fan? I am not fan of any OS because I am IT engeneer.

Fair enough, I was confused by your avatar, I'm used to avatars being a way for some people to tell others about themselves.

I will say, however, just because someone is in IT doesn't mean they won't have preferences or ideals about tools and products. I'm a former Photonics worker and I have opinions about my old trade, we all develop ideas, if you have a complete 50-50 viewpoint, kudos!

BigEasy wrote:Who told you I am Windows fan? I am not fan of any OS because I am IT engeneer.

I don't even have a Windows icon as my avatar and I could tell that Windows fans can be into Linux, including myself.