[nfbcs] Sonar or Vinux

[Blaine Clark]

Linux's security through obscurity is totally off-base. When the US lost 
that drone to Iraq several years ago, it was because Iraq managed to 
break and overpower the radio control frequency and simply took over the 
Microsoft OS that ran the drone. Within a year, all drones in use by the 
US military were converted to use Linux. Of course this won't stop any 
further radio jamming, but when Linux looses contact with it's 
controller, the default programming takes over and the drone either 
finishes it's planned recon or it returns to base. It can't be hacked if 
it's protected by a solid password. The unmanned sub being used to 
search for the downed Malaysian airliner uses Linux. The servers of the 
New York Stock exchange and the European Stock Exchange use Linux. The 
White House uses a Red Hat Linux server. Half of the development 
stations at Google use Goobuntu which is their remake of Ubuntu. Android 
is Linux. The Federal Aviation Administration uses Linux on the 
monitoring and alert systems of the air traffic controllers. The US 
Postal Service has used Linux since 1998, not for it's security, but for 
it's stability and superiority at being able to decipher addresses on 
envelopes. Both China and Russia are ditching Microsoft for their own 
builds of Linux due in no small part to the eavesdropping of our NAS.
The French Gendarme replaced Microsoft many years ago with Linux. Google 
Chrome netbooks, which are taking off by being used by schools is a 
severely stripped down version of Linux with mainly just a browser for 
the user interface. Munich, Germany is replacing all of the Microsoft 
proprietary programs such as MS Office and all others with Open Source 
alternatives in preparation of getting the city employees ready for when 
they switch from Microsoft to Linux. Linux has replaced the operating 
system and all the laptops being used on the Mir Space Station. This is 
partly for security and stability, but mainly because everything about 
Linux is open source and when the need arises to alter the OS for new 
hardware and new proceedures, it is so much easier than relying on 
copyrighted, proprietary permissions to be given.
98% of the world's super computers use Linux because it is more 
efficient, IE faster. It's more secure and it's much more stable than 
Microsoft. Linux, in any of it's over 400 various builds, is used by 
millions all over the world. Some of those builds are so complex that it 
truly takes a degree in Linux computer science to operate them while 
there are others that are as simple and as easy to use as Microsoft, 
easier as a matter of fact. Case in point; Most of the menus and 
navigators used on smart TVs are Linux.
The best firewall for any desktop or laptop is probably the hardware 
firewall built into your modem. Software firewalls can be configured on 
Microsoft, Mac and Linux with little trouble. On my Debian-based 
Linux-Mint all I need to do is open a terminal and type 'ufw -enable' 
after I perform a fresh install and the firewall is permanently enabled 
with default iptable settings. The firewall isn't enabled automatically 
because software firewalls are thought by some to be not the best home 
firewall approach even though a monitoring daemon can be set up to log 
each transmission in or out of each port and corresponding iptable rules 
can be made. The best way to keep a cracker/hacker from entering your 
system be it Microsoft, Mac or Linux is to have a complex password that 
can't be broken.
This brings up where Linux is totally superior to Microsoft by default. 
There is absolutely no way anything or anyone can write to the Linux 
system files without the express, written permission of the 
administrator. Microsoft can be set up this way, but the administrator 
account must be used for very limited purposes and not used for general 
access by any regular user of the system. All sub user accounts have to 
be very carefully set and maintained to prevent most unauthorized 
access, and even then it's still possible for some some well crafted 
malware to slip through Internet Explorer or Outlook and it's various names.
The Linux.com repositories, where the authorized Linux software packages 
reside, are on Linux servers which have every type of shielding, 
monitoring and alerting methods available and set to either prevent 
intrusions or to notify the administrators of a server breach. I use a 
couple of third-party packages such as TeamViewer, a remote conferencing 
and access program and Spotify, a radio styled online music player. When 
I download or update any third-party packages I scan them with ClamAV. 
When they pass, I install them, then I immediately perform a deep system 
scan. Other than maybe three or four times a year I don't use an 
anti-virus program.
To address the Heartbleed security problem, This was an OpenSSL problem 
that had absolutely nothing to do with Linux. The OpenSSL project has 
about 14 developers even though it is Open Source. No one on the Linux 
development side paid any attention to OpenSSL. So, is it any wonder 
that a widely used, large-scale product made by a very small handful of 
developers had a problem? What's surprising is that these 14 developers, 
not all of whom are full time even, have such a successful record. 
Compare that record to Microsoft's security record with their hundreds 
of developers and testers!
People from all over the world work on the packages that go into the 
Linux.com software repositories. Those packages are sent to the Linux 
Foundation for testing, review and approval, so yes, not only is every 
single line of code checked, it is tested and evaluated as well before 
it is released to the repository.
With some finagling it's possible to not only have a live DVD or USB to 
carry around, it's also possible to have a fully functional mobile 
computer operating system on USB that you can carry around. The 
difference between a Live media OS and a fully functional mobile OS is 
that with the mobile OS you can save files and settings on the USB which 
you can't do on a Live Load media. With this, it's possible to run a 
desktop or laptop that has no hard drive as though it does. You're just 
substituting a USB drive. It could be a thumb drive or it could be an 
external drive.
Let's compare out of the box security between Microsoft and Linux. 
Microsoft's default account is the administrator's account which is set 
to be as easily accessible to all parts of the system as possible for 
the 'easiest', most user-friendly customer experience. That means 
everything is wide open to any user, even ones who visit you over the 
internet. With Linux, the administrator account is not open. To cause or 
to allow any system changes, the 'root' users password must be given at 
all times. This doesn't diminish ease of use, it's just a different 
approach. As for hardening Microsoft to prevent hacking? Don't think for 
one minute that the US military hadn't tried that on those drones. If 
they couldn't do it, can you?
The reason I switched from Microsoft to Linux was because throughout all 
of the summer of 2007 I fought with MS support over one particular 
update that destabilized my XP. I could Restore to a prior date as long 
as the system stayed stable long enough, otherwise I'd have to 
reinstall. I proved the problem wasn't hardware related by installing 
Linux and using that computer for another four or five years. I started 
with Ubuntu and my wife, who had just bought a new computer with Vista 
late in 2006 or early 2007 had trouble with about every third update. By 
the way, she still uses that computer. She's blind in one eye and has 
slightly distorted vision in the other so her graphics settings are 
critical. MS updates reverted those settings to default every third 
month. She watched over my shoulder for about a month and wanted to try 
that Linux thing. I set up a dual-boot for her with Vista and Ubuntu so 
she could start either one when starting the computer. By April of 2008 
she discovered she hadn't used Vista for quite a while and didn't need 
it. I removed it and from early 2008 we haven't had Microsoft in this 
house and we don't miss it one bit. We have Linux Mint on both desktops 
and both laptops. We both switched because Linux is much more stable 
than Microsoft. Not because it's more secure, that was nice though! Not 
because we had any experience with Linux, because we sure didn't! 
Stability is one of the reasons why the Vinux developers don't recommend 
updating the older versions of Vinux. Updating some, but not all 
packages can break the speech engine. In the latest version of Vinux 
updating is recommended mainly because they have been working with 
Ubuntu on maintaining stability in regards to the speech engine. Ubuntu 
has taken the challenge to heart and has instituted it's own 
accessibility coordination group. Ubuntu has been including the speech 
engine and a couple of screen readers in it's installation files. Main 
stream accessibility was the first aim of Vinux all along, providing 
what the main builds of Linux wouldn't was really their second aim. All 
in all, they were and are deliberately trying to eliminate their own 
project and they are slowly succeeding. Ubuntu is working on including 
the entire speech engine compatibility issue into it's updates. Other 
packages with accessible mouse control and head and eye control are 
moving along with great strides. Voice control has a long ways to go, 
but there has been progress in that area too. Ubuntu has also been 
working on compatibility with the speech engine on it's server builds. 
Accessibility in mainstream Linux is growing and it's due in no small 
part to the Vinux project. Remember that I said the reason that I 
switched as well as my wife was because Microsoft kept breaking or 
reverting default settings? Microsoft has this major problem too.
The originator of Vinux is a lecturer for the Royal National College in 
the UK. He dropped out of the Vinux project for a while due to personal 
reasons and is now back to a very limited degree. The development team 
that Tony Sales managed to assemble and who stepped in when Tony had to 
leave are all either blind or legally blind. They are also a totally 
volunteer group. They pay for the server and the bandwidth used by 
people who download Vinux and access the documentation. They ask for 
donations and do get some, but the bulk of the financing comes out of 
their own pockets.
As for which is better, Sonar or Vinux? It all depends on you. I've said 
elsewhere that the main problem with Linux is all the choices that it 
throws at the uninitiated to have to wade through to find what's right 
for them. At the same time one of the main advantages of Linux is all 
the choices that it offers! All those choices are a problem and an 
advantage! Sonar is free as well as Vinux. All you're going to be out is 
the time trying each one. Another thing to keep in mind is that Linux is 
not Windows. There are differences. On the surface the differences are 
the programs used, however if you install the Firefox browser, the 
Thunderbird email client and Libre Office and practice using them, quite 
a bit of the learning curve will be taken care of. Next, under the 
surface, read, study and practice the differences between the keyboard 
navigation styles you'll find in Linux. Go over the documentation that 
Vinux provides. Download each build and make your own boot media, DVD or 
USB. Try them in live mode as often and for as long as you like to get 
used to them and when you've made up your own mind as to which one is 
better, install it, or install both and dual-boot. I will say though, 
that Sonar changing to a non-Debian build is going to take away from the 
ease of installation in the future, however, that should put 
accessibility focus on the other build as Vinux has done to Ubuntu. The 
Ubuntu-Debian build is so easy to install and they have no intention of 
changing that. Also, in the future, Vinux may disappear only to be 
incorporated into the mainstream Ubuntu build.
One more point, to install Microsoft, set aside around three hours to 
babysit, then add on more hours for the updates and restarts. On top of 
that, now you have to install all of your third-party programs and then 
... you have to go through all your settings. This can easily take an 
entire day.
To install an Ubuntu build figure on either around 20 minutes for a 
clean install or about one hour to install alongside Microsoft. The 
Linux installer has to move all those MS files into one area to make 
room for itself and that takes time. Add on about 15 to 20 minutes at 
most for updates if you have a fast internet connection. If you're 
reinstalling Linux you could have made a backup list of all your added 
software. No, not a full backup of your software, just a special list of 
the software you had installed! Now you can have Linux install and 
update your extra software from that list. Depending on what special 
stuff you installed before, you could be done in 10 to another 20 
minutes. Now, all you have to do is go through and make all your 
settings, or if you backed up your /home folder, just copy that back 
into the new installation and your settings are back too as well as your 
personal files. You can install Linux in less than an hour or, in just 
over an hour.