Lets dispel this notion that Linux is considered communism once and for all. You could think that the concept is somewhat in line with the Libertarian ideology, but you are wrong there.
Linux and its software is monitored on the "free market" by its developers to keep out (((evil forces))) and malicious code.
So can we all agree that Linux or (GNU if you will for the picky faggots), is truly in line with the fascism doctrine?
Enjoy your botnet.
>implying
Enjoy being a leaf
>So can we all agree that Linux or (GNU if you will for the picky faggots), is truly in line with the fascism doctrine?
In retrospect, it destroyed certain types of careers for CS majors. Canada had at least one commercial Unix-type OS. Nobody's going to pay for this type of software now.
>what is osx
>(((commercial)))
Can't flux the Tux
rms seems pretty redpilled to be honest
pretty autistic.
Right now I am using Debian 8 with KDE.
Feels good man.
GNU/Linux is somewhat middle between liberty and communism.
Slackware here.
KKKubuntu here
Linux = Anti-capitalism and pro-meritocracy
Fascist societies have leadership structures with power in the hands of a few whos job it is to preserve the interests of its own people. Communist societies also have leadership structures, in the hands of many whos job it is to kill hundreds of millions of people until the entire world is enslaved under communism and forced to participate or die.
Linux is anarchy.
Red Star would be communism, and a fascist operating system would block media made by jews.
Communist societies
...
Temple OS would be the closest real OS to fascism.
youtube.com
Probably closer to theocracy.
youtube.com
>Youre a lazy communist and thats why your store shelves dont have goods
>Terry A. Davis
youtube.com
>Why Temple OS is better than Linux
Unfortunately the SJWs are well on their way to ruin Linux with actual communism.
What is Windows then?
I prefer my home grown Ubuntu but Ubuntu would not of been possible without Linux so thank you Linux.
Orwellian neo-liberalism obviously.
youtube.com
>Terry Davis' (TempleOS) Brutal Take-Down of Linus Torvalds
>nobody is paid for unix or Unix management
Bullshit
how so?
>Terry A. "I hit 7 CIA niggers with my car" Davis
>Linux is like a semi
>Windows is like a car
>Temple is like a motorcycle
>You know whats crazy about riding a motorcycle.. if you lean over, you crash.
>dont do that
No safe spaces.
Yes, that Terry A Davis.
Will never happen
True greybeards cannot be swayed
so.......
antivirus makers spend MILLIONS in R and D and cannot prevent all virus, trojans and rootkits
But you think an open source as huge as linux can?
Just because it's open source. It's more insecure.
He is retarded just like you English teachers.
>antivirus makers spend MILLIONS (they spend more than that btw) in R and D
>You think a single person with no funding can hack into them?
Your argument is invalid. The CIA hires private hackers who get caught in crimes because they are better than ones who get sent off to get an education from MIT.
Terry A. Davis is literally what would happen if a Cred Forums and Cred Forums combined
Less secure and more secure at the same time
The community is very strict and a single faulty commit and you're banned for life
In other words, yes, largely adopted open source = more secure.
Hackers dont like windows, you know, not when they are the ones using it.
bullshit
Windows is insecure, because 90% of the computers on the planet run it. So it stands to reason, it's being targetted the most.
Linux is open source, and it's RIFE for vulnerabilities. Just because I can put out software, that unless someone decompiles it, goes through the mountain of code
I will have infected how many thousands of computers before that happens?!
right. So open source. Sorry chubs. It's less secure.
I can take software, which is vetted. Inject my own code. Upload it to soundforge
and by the time ANYONE figures it out. I have infected litterally thousands of "im more secure" assholes.
So please...open source more secure
*grabs sides
Windows is the most insecure because they have been building backdoors into it since 7, which is why China stopped upgrading at windows XP.
All those NSA hacking tools just leaked and anyone can use them, they havent been patched, they are hard built in backdoors anyone can exploit.
GNU/Linux is pretty good, but I don't know if using it will ever stop feeling like a compromise.
Desktop Linux has become very stagnant in the last few years while MS for better or worse are pushing out feature uprgares to 10 at an unprecedented for them rate.
Linux is basically meritocratic fascism.
since vista*
Mint is pretty based in that regard.
Ive even heard that the intel CPU's have a backdoor in the hardware now.
that is correct
>Linux and its software is monitored on the "free market" by its developers to keep out (((evil forces))) and malicious code.
Then how did (((systemd))) happen?
This is the biggest bullshit post I've seen in a while. Congrats. There is no single Linux developer team. Anyone can add anything to it. The whole os/political ideology comparison is retarded, but this is as far from fascism as you can possibly get.
RMS is a retarded butthurt commie faggot who doesn't understand money. He is also fat and unhygienic. Pic related. He hates the fact that no one uses the Hurd and tries to compensate by claiming he wrote a part of Linux. Linus Torvalds wrote a nice rebuttal, telling him to stfu.
Antivirus is a complete meme. I wouldn't be surprised if most came equipped with Trojans themselves.
That's what I'm using too. Cinnamon's design is brilliant, but I wish it was rewritten from scratch. Mint is bloated, Cinnamon depends on too many other packages, and too much on Gnome.
Te software choices are bad and some of them don't even fit in with the theme since Cinnamon 3.0, there's vestiges of old Cinnamon in it, and it's starting to look like Windows in that regard.
Solus with the Budgie desktop shows a lot of promise. And the chinks with Deepin have made a better out of the box experience for newcomers than Ubuntu.
Unfortunately Canonical have been distracting themselves with bullshit side projects with no chance to succeed instead of improving Ubuntu, which is basically the only distro a normie might come into contact with and as such should leave a good impression.
linux users. They have to constantly have a one up on windows. It's like they have short penis's and have to say "well at least we have stamina" sorta boast
Instead of shutting the fuck up and realizing that every OS has it's uses, advantages and disadvantages.
95% of the time, pro linux users are not network admins. At best help desk support. So they have no real experience trying to run a network and what a cluster fuck linux is when trying to incorporate it into a network.
You better be prepared for bare metal backups of those linux servers in a mixed mode environment. Or have users that won't mind a day or two of being down. And if they dont' mind being down for a long period of time. Then that linux box isn't a critical server.
I can nuke ANY critical windows server. And rebuild it, to exactly the same as it was before it was nuked, operating at 100%. In 2 hours.
And the only thing i have is file level backups. Try that with a environment critical linux server. And before you try to argue. I have been doing this professionally and getting paid as a network engineer for over 22 years. So. Before you open your mouths. Think.
but linux is communism and software communism is good
>monitored on the "free market" by its developers to keep out (((evil forces))) and malicious code.
Linux Mint did such a good job at that didn't they? Mossad backdoored the ISO's for months.
I wonder why Ian Murdock killed himself....
He's a fat autistic Jew.
The anti virus analogy was just an example. Mr fucking literal man.
Because you just don't get it.
My point is. I can take "open source" software. Inject code into that mother fucker. And unless your one paranoid mother fucker.
NO ONE decompiles and sifts through the code before they install shit on linux.
Shit, most turn off the security features for repositories, just because it's less of a hassle for fuck sakes.
RIGHT THERE, if you do that. you open yourself up to people who can infect open source and you willingly and unknowingly run it. Cause your "but people look at this code"
By the time someone notices something fucky. And puts that info out. Too late!
Meanwhile, the guy has injected more code into 100 different little apps.
fuck..linux more secure.....seriously
>My point is. I can take "open source" software. Inject code into that mother fucker. And unless your one paranoid mother fucker.
you don't have to. just download the file from the vendor website and find the hash values and match them, no need to decompile and search line by line.
Sorry.
(((intel)))
...
You've clearly never actually used linux, and are just memeing. Nobody needs to decompile code to check it for malicious software, they just need to do a hash check.
You would need to take control of the distributor's website, and change the hash to match the hash of your change code to be successful.
To influence the normie user of linux, you'd actually need to take over the repository. Either way you're attacking a much more secure target than the average user's computer, in order to infect the average user's computer.
>systemd
Shit-tier
RIGHT. but do you do the MD5 checksum on every fucking file you install in linux
BULLSHIT. you do not. Unless you are one cautious paranoid mother fucker
But let me guess. You speak for everyone!
Well i am being a realistic son of a bitch and KNOW that's just not true for 90% of linux users
The false security they think they have, means you turn on the 3rd party repositorys.
And install away.
so fuck off, trying to defeat my point. When you know what i am saying. You have also done.
how many people do the md5 checks huh?
right. Basically no one. if you took a 1000 people. picked a common random software (not too common) something you must download from a web page
and ask if they did the md5 check. I bet my last fucking nut. less than 5% did.
THAT is a vulnerability. So now go ahead and say "well thats' their fault, it's not the OS's vulberability" Well son. Yes, that is.
No different than installing something on windows and that box gets infected.
pleaseeeeeee *waves you away
Cinnamon is not that bloated. RAM usage is much lower compared with GNOME or KDE.
Also, the Mint Development team forked all the components that it depended on from GNOME, which is good and bad, good in that it's less bloated, bad in that Wayland support might take longer. But Cinnamon doesn't actually depend on GNOME because it forked it.
t. Cinnamon on Arch user.
AMD has the same thing if I recall correctly
I can't find info about it right now though
some ARM cpus also have something like it, if I recall correctly
you can't even replace firmware with coreboot if you want a modern intel cpu though
it's a fucking joke
Easily fixed. Download FreeBSD, checksum on the LiveCD. If you can trust the security of the private key of the repo you're fine.
Yea, but Intel sends money to the Israeli government in the form of taxes.
> linux = communism
NOPE.
you are (like a moron) saying communism, when you mean State Socialism
actual communism is as rare as a vegan tiger
> linux = fascism
NOPE
socialism (which includes fascism) is defined by govt imposed "sharing" through the state
linux is, in every way, ACTUAL communism, not the authoritarian socialist state of bolshevism, juche, castroism, leninism, stalinism, khmer rouge wholesale murderism, baathism, or any of the various state socialist -isms found in reality
linux, open source software,hippie communes, israeli kibbutzes, agricultural co-operatives and whatnot are real communism
OP is as usual, a gigantic faggot
you join of your own free will, share what you want to share and can leave if you think youre getting hosed.
normies don't install third party repos. They don't even type sudo apt-get. They just open the app store, or whatever ubuntu is calling it, and install a secure app that meets their needs.
Just to clarify though, that's not s knock against using Linux as a platform, it just means that casual users need to think about risk. Businesses that purchase Redhat aren't going to have Russian mystery ips in their source libraries.
The seasoned IT manager and the causual desktop user have different risk profiles, and of course the distro matters in that decision. Lazy causuals are open for being rekd no matter what OS they pick.
but how many people DO that.
Fuck, is everyone just fucking dense. Or just butt hurt that their super OS is not so super.
Every OS has it's uses. Every OS has it's vulnerabilities.
Knowing them. makes you stronger. But to say "linux is the best cause its' more secure" is none sense.
LETS
> ubuntu is a south african product
NOPE.
it is a skin on top of debian, which was (like all good things of the last 2 centuries) created in the USA.
> not of been possible
> OF...
seriously?
"of" and "have" are not interchangeable
But every OS is vulnerable if the user installs compromised software on it. That's nothing new Weinstein.
Linux is generally less vulnerable because it has a sane permissions system, and most compromised software is designed to exploit windows, and not linux. Additionally, it has a sane software distribution system, which keeps casual users from even downloading compromised software, since they rarely have to visit www.1337haxxors.net/GNOME3-0.com to download an update to their desktop environment. Instead, most distros come with a software management system that automatically downloads updates from trusted sources.
At this point you're just arguing semantics, so unless you have something of substance to say, kindly go back to shilling in the trump general.
>RIGHT. but do you do the MD5 checksum on every fucking file you install in linux
Yes, the package manager does that for every package you install from a repository.
Oh, you mean by hand? No, nobody's that autistic.
yet the most profitable targets like servers run it, it is more secure than windows, i've written shit for both and it's harder on linux, but nothing's a 100% secure.
Still more secure than windows, if you look at the windows sourcecode, the one that was leaked, it was horrendeous even for that time.
if i was out for profit, i'd attack servers, not desktop computers, and most of the servers run linux nowadays.
My mistake. I thought I was talking to someone who had actually used Linux before.
/gpol/ is best Cred Forums
GNU/Linux have shitty drivers and has no professional software.
ya, cause i have never used it. But know about linux source code. Enabling 3rd party repositories. md5 checksums.
But yup. Never used linux. I am ignoring the fact that I am typing this on an ubuntu installed laptop.
But yup. Never used linux. Not even once.
*youre a fucking moron
If you wanted to infect a normies Linux box for most distributions you'd have to compromise several servers simultaneously. Hashes are checked concurrently through official update channels.
Opening Cinnamon's menu or any window really makes videos drop a frame. There's over 2300 packages in a fresh Mint install, and a lot of processes if you look at htop.
A lot of the stock programs are basically GNOME, the task manager, the screenshot tool, the video player etc. and their themes are inconsistent with some of the other programs.
You still have the option to add extensions to Cinnamon even though they are useless or deprecated, one of them is for cover flow alt+tab, even though this has been in Cinnamon for a while now.
It's like they are trying to recreate both the good and the bad sides of Windows.
Also
>common random software (not too common)
>something you must download from a web page
This literally never happens. Almost all software you need is in the repository and if there isn't you almost always download and compile it from source (.tar.gz) which de facto does not have malware since there is *no incentive whatsoever* to put malware into free software. Bugs? Yes, every software has bugs. But malware? Not a chance.
The only time you'd download a binary from the internet on GNU/Linux is if that were proprietary software. But if that proprietary software contains malware then there isn't anything you can do about that and it's your fault for downloading that software anyway if it compromises your system; Meanwhile, downloading untrusted proprietary binaries from the internet is common practice in Windows.
>Antivirus is a complete meme. I wouldn't be surprised if most came equipped with Trojans themselves