Even as Dell ships millions of Windows 7 systems, the PC giant is making a bold statement on its web site. Indeed, if you look hard enough you’ll find Dell stating that “Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft Windows.” Moreover, Dell quietly says it plans to ship Ubuntu 10.04 systems in mid-2010. Here’s the scoop from The VAR Guy.
Visit Dell.com/ubuntu and you’ll find a “Top Ten” list of “things you should know about Ubuntu.” Item number 6 on Dell’s list states:
- “6) Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft® Windows® The vast majority of viruses and spyware written by hackers are not designed to target and attack Linux.”
On the one hand, Dell states the obvious: Hackers target Windows (rather than Linux) because of Microsoft’s massive installed base. But on the other hand, it takes guts for a major PC maker to state — in black and white — that Canonical’s Ubuntu is safer than Windows. The move will surely ruffle some feathers in Redmond, and The VAR Guy wonders if Microsoft will come calling to pressure Dell to retract the assertion…
Either way, Dell’s Ubuntu endorsement arrives as Canonical tries to line up more Ubuntu hardware partners.
Biggest Ubuntu PC Maker?
But the story doesn’t end there. Dell claims it has shipped more computers pre-loaded and pre-tested with Ubuntu than any other computer maker in the world since 2007. (Alas, Dell doesn’t disclose exact shipment figures for Ubuntu PCs.) And Dell states that it will introduce Ubuntu 10.04 systems in mid-2010.
As Ubuntu fanboys know, Ubuntu 10.04 is a long-term support (LTS) release that launched in April 2010. The offering has been generally well-received and is designed for longer-term commitments from customers and partners.
No doubt, Dell remains committed to Windows 7. But Dell’s decision to ship Google Android-based tablets and Ubuntu 10.04 systems reinforces a hard fact: PC industry leaders continue to seek alternatives to Windows, especially in emerging markets like mobile devices.
Still, Dell’s track record with Ubuntu hasn’t been perfect. From time to time, Dell’s U.S. web site (www.dell.com/ubuntu) lists only one Ubuntu system — a netbook. At present, Dell also lists a notebook and there are hints that Dell may also come back soon with an Ubuntu desktop.
The VAR Guy will be watching. Oh, here\'s a screen shot - about Ubuntu safety… just in case it happens to disappear from Dell’s Web site.
Sign up for The VAR Guy’s Newsletter; Webcasts and Resource Center; and via RSS; Facebook; Identi.ca; Twitter and VARtweet.
Read More About This Topic
Share This Post
Tags: Canonical vs. Microsoft | Dell Google Android | Dell Streak | Dell Tablet | Dell Ubuntu | Streak Tablet | Ubuntu 10.04 vs. Windows 7 | Ubuntu NetBook | Ubuntu Notebook | Ubuntu vs. Windows
Interact: Add a Comment | Trackback Link | Permalink
Subscribe: RSS Feed
I still can’t get over the fact that Microsoft is trying to convince me Windows is safer. Watch me prove them wrong pretty much instantly.
In Windows, to install a program, you download a .exe file and double-click it to start a wizard. Let me spell it out – the file you download to install a program IS AN EXECUTABLE. You could have activated some malware that runs as the local user (completely bypassing the joke that is User Account Control) before you even see the first window of the installer.
By comparison, if you’re not going to use the repository (which is in itself yet another massively underrated method of completely bypassing malware) and download a .deb, then that is recognized as a FILE, as opposed to an EXECUTABLE or PROGRAM. That FILE is managed by a special program, much like .mp3s are handled by a music player or .docs are handled by a word processor. This outright forces the user to require administrator privileges and then type in their password to install the application.
How, pray tell, is Windows’ design more secure than Ubuntu’s?
the_madman: The VAR Guy isn’t a security expert. But our resident blogger has been running Linux on a home PC since July 2007. The Linux system has zero security. As far as The VAR Guy can tell, the system remains as responsive as ever and isn’t suffering from malware… …
Our resident blogger respects the progress Microsoft has made with Windows 7. But it seams like much of the IT channel’s profits come from fixing Windows problems…
-TVG
Hey, VAR! Surely your friend has that extra security tier where you have to enter your password for things like using Synaptic and whatnot, rite?
If you add a repository and then use it to install a virus, that’s basically the same shooting-yourself-in-the-foot as downloading a file in Windows, but because it is that much harder to do so, viruses still do not get their chance as often, and that’s what security is also about.
I think both companies are great, it’s just that Microsoft has those disadvantages. Not that it’s anything particularly eyebrow-raising.
I guess that extra bit of security has it’s price. Checking the specs and pricing on the Mini 10, one discovers that the Ubuntu version is $20 more than the XP version. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if all of Dell’s Ubuntu offerings are the same price or more, as the same machine running some version of Windows.
Every system which has such small market share as Linux is essentially safe from malware. That is not news.
Anyway, Windows will prompt you if the executable requires elevated rights, and not every Linux executable needs root privileges.
Also it’s pretty much irrelevant anyway since an uneducated user will be easily tricked into accepting the prompt or entering his password. That’s what social engineering is all about.
To sum up, the only thing that really makes Linux safer is that malware is not even targetting it. And given that Linux is far from begin a viable desktop platform, it will stay so for a long time.
Yeah right .. ¬¬ the fact is that Linux is better than Windows in many ways, indeed the act of adding a new repository to your package manager is in a secure environment, why? ask, you can add third party applications requires a key only the key can be ran by the system SUDO user… thus if something goes wrong it is a human cause more than operating system LOL, plus there are viruses for Windows are virtually undetectable for the operating system and anti-virus, so that GNU/Linux is more secure in many ways than Windows. …
rog: there is malware written to target Linux–particularly debian derivatives such as Ubuntu–in the form of tainted repositories and also executables. But there are reasons for the security of Linux distributions besides its supposed obscurity (and on that count, you can bet it’s being targeted by black hat hackers who want to intrude into a lot of major bits of network infrastructure that run on Linux).
The biggest security advantage Linux has is that, unlike Microsoft, Linux distributions CAN largely control and monitor and respond to vulnerabilities at the application level. Most applications are installed from package repositories associated with the distro (in fact, in one sense, they are the distro). So where the Windows security team may have lots of people working on updates, they can’t touch the applications most end-users are using, or control where those end-users are getting them. On the other hand, most Linux users stick with their distro’s official repositories, and the security team of a distro like Debian or Ubuntu assesses vulnerabilities in those repositories and responds to them. The repository system seriously cuts back on a major source of social engineering attacks (the user seeking to install something quickly) by providing a quick but secure downloadable application base.
Further, even if a non-technical user wanders off the repositories, Linux provides the option of, e.g., downloading a program tarball and installing it locally to your individual user account without giving the program root privileges. It then inherits only the privileges your non-privileged ordinary user account has–so even without a repo, just downloading random crap from the net, Linux is more secure on an architectural level.
Erm, where’s the screenshot? Seems to be mia.
> Further, even if a non-technical user wanders off the repositories, Linux provides the option of, e.g., downloading a program tarball and installing it locally to your individual user account without giving the program root privileges. It then inherits only the privileges your non-privileged ordinary user account has–so even without a repo, just downloading random crap from the net, Linux is more secure on an architectural level.
So you say, I can download a virus that can delete all my personal data on my computer but it’s good that it can’t infect the whole PC. Sorry, but my data is more important to me than the system.
The security in Linux is not that you can’t download a virus and install it on your computer. No software what-so-ever can ever prevent that. The multiple anti-virus software and the multiple viruses for windows are a prove of that.
The security of Linux is all about the lack of self installing, self replicating viruses. You can still be hit by a virus in Windows because every week there is a new zero-day vulnerability found. If you don’t patch your systems, all your systems can be in danger, because Windows viruses can infect other Windows systems.
But there is yet to be a big self installing, self replicating virus for Linux; and I can tell you there will never be, even if Linux surpasses Windows in market share.
Why is that? Because the security in Linux is all about transparency. Linux is widely used by multiple different companies in multiple different environments and all the companies making Linux more secure. If I’m, as a small company, using a Linux system, I get all the work from IBM, Novell, Sun, Oracle, Intel, etc. for free for me. If I’m a big company, I can either fix the kernel myself or I can go to many other companies that will give me support.
Windows’s security is all about obscurity. There is only one source for fixes, only one source that can offer support and only one source which makes Windows more secure.
“Every system which has such small market share as Linux is essentially safe from malware. That is not news.”
rog: How come Windows mobile is now having malware problems?
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Malware-Hidden-in-Windows-Mobile-Applications-424076/
a Pre-Installed Linux machine SHOULD be more expensive than a Windows machine.
It is worth more…
You’d probably pay more for a computer with an empty hard drive than you would for one with Windows on it. The default windows install will probably come with a million and one pieces of software that nobody wants except for the companies who are paying to have their software included in a default install. Just think of it as preloaded malware. You don’t even have to go on the internet for it now. Its already there.
Something to add, when talking about safe installs, are that linux-systems use md5sums/checksum mechanics to identify each package installed to be a valid program before installing.
There are ofcourse no 100% safety there, but way better than download a .msi or .exe file.
In addition to the above (in regards to Linux security) each file has it’s own read/write/executable permissions. Even in the /home directory. If a bug were to infect a Linux machine it would not be able to write itself everywhere due to the fact it would need separate permissions for almost ‘every’ file it tries to change. (Not a nice place to be if you’re a virus writer!)
To explain, if the bug were to try to migrate out of its own folder it would normally need new permissions for each file it tried to change outside of its own directory. Ever try to install Turbo Print for Linux? Anyone who is familiar with this will know you normally have to give even the icons it drops on the desktop permission to run! (Using Gnome, Right click – properties – permissions – allow executing.)
The “security through obscurity” argument is approaching urban myth level…and for most thinking people, it is beyond tiresome.
The same file structure that makes Linux safer on the desktop is found in the Linux server code that primarily runs the Internet. My educated guess is that if Windows servers ran the critical infrastructure that Linux now runs, the Internet would have been a vastly different place.
It cannot even be argued that Linux is the dominant server platform of choice for most of the mission-critical servers on the net…and most of the non-critical servers for that matter. It is a combination of file structure and user permissions that make Linux secure. No amount of market share increase is going to change this and I’ve found that most people who trot out the obscurity argument wouldn’t know a Linux Desktop if it kicked them in the shins.
Sure a stupid individual can hose their system with a rogue script but that’s the point. Windows assumes you are an idiot…Linux demands proof.
(QUOTE)
On the one hand, Dell states the obvious: Hackers target Windows (rather than Linux) because of Microsoft’s massive installed base.
(UNQUOTE)
This is a totally false piece of FUD spread by Microsoft and widely repeated by journalists who have no understanding of security.
The fact is that hackers target Windows and Linux equally.
FACT: Linux is actually much more exposed to hackers than Windows because there are a larger number of Linux machines directly connected to the Internet than Windows – Linux (along with FreeBSD) is what is used on most firewalls and the majority of Internet (as opposed to Intranet or PCs acting as home page servers). Windows servers on the other hand are more common sitting on private subnets in offices and homes sitting behind Linux firewalls.
FACT: The difference between Linux and Windows is that in Windows is that on Windows it is far easier to automate attacks than on Linux. This is a function of Windows virus and malware vulnerability, which Linux doesn’t suffer from. This vulnerability makes it easy to create the sort of automated self replicating worm attacks that we see on Windows and can’t be used on Linux.
FACT: In the case of Windows, its virus/malware vulnerability is due to security flaws in the design of the security model itself, and can’t be fixed for software compatibility reasons. If you need an anti-virus tool to protect Windows today, you will still need the tool to protect you in a years time. With both Windows and Linux you also get bugs in programs that lead to security vulnerabilities. However once these are fixed, they are fixed for good – you don’t need an anti-virus tool to protect you after it is fixed. This is the reason why Linux, and other Unixes like Apple’s OSX have never had a virus successfully attack them in the wild – that’s zero, zilch, nada attacks ever. The problem for Windows of this virus vulnerability is that with Windows, an automated attack can propagate far faster than the ability and speed of response of anti-virus companies to deliver anti-virus updates to protect Windows machines. This my friend is the simple and stark reason why such mass attacks occur on Windows and never on Linux – WINDOWS IS ATTACKED BECAUSE IT IS FAR EASIER TO AUTOMATE ATTACKS ON WINDOWS, WHEREAS LINUX HAS TO BE MANUALLY HACKED
Having used both, I’d say there is no comparison: Dell is absolutely correct.
However, when Dell has the guts to step up and refund the Microsoft tax, then we’ll know there is a true commitment.
As to the matter of the extra price for a Linux machine, consider it as assurance. Assurance that you get stuff done, that you get peace of mind. What price for peace of mind/sanity? I guess a hint would be to look at one’s medical bills. People use Linux to get stuff done, people use Windows to play the blame game. While games may be amusing, they’re not when one tries to be productive.
“FACT: In the case of Windows, its virus/malware vulnerability is due to security flaws in the design of the security model itself”
Anything else is pure FUD.
Linux rocks.
That’s all very well but I would never buy a Dell computer. I just run my Linux on good hardware
devent: I agree with everything you said, but I prefer to secure my user data with frequent backups to my external or my server. I’m more worried about “acts of God” (or spilled coffee!) than viruses.
On the self-replicating, self-executing virus point you’re absolutely correct. So far the only Linux “viruses” are basically Trojans, in that they’re programs that require the user to execute them. Some of them have fairly serious payloads, but none are self-replicating, and none are “stealth.”
@devent
What you basically are saying is that “why is a Volvo more safe in a heads-on-crash than my Ford, when last time I gave my car keys of my Ford to the (not-so-) trustworthy guy in South-Central LA to take care of it, he stole my car! If I do that with the car keys of a Volvo he can just as easily steal the Volvo!”
Sorry, but if you indeed are as moronic as to download and install anything from the inet on your local machine from dubious sources and think that it is the OS obligation to stop you from doing that then your data may not be as valuable as you think or you do not value your data as much as you say.
A bit too late.. I would have purchased a dell zino had they offered ubuntu. And because of this I think I’ll purchase from those who have been os option friendly versus dell.
I hope the Ubuntu option will be in ALL Dell PC offers. I’ll soon need a new Laptop and the decission Dell or no Dell depends on how much choice over the OS you leave here in Germany.
Windows only is NO choice…
Maybe dell are just hardening their backbone ready to sell Google Chrome OS installed hardware in the autumn….
@Dextar
that is exactly was I was talking about. No software can protect you to do stupid stuff. But because of the design and the policy of Linux you don’t have automatic, self infecting, self replicating viruses.
On Windows you restrict yourself and you buy expensive software to protected yourself. But still you get a Code Red* worm which will infect 359,000 servers.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Red_%28computer_worm%29
This is Fantastic! It’s always nice to hear some accurate PR for GNU+Linux.
“Indeed, if you look hard enough you’ll find Dell stating that “Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft Windows.”
Actually, seeing the statement is as simple as pointing your web browser to dell.com/ubuntu , you will see the statement:
“6) Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft® Windows®
The vast majority of viruses and spyware written by hackers are not designed to target and attack Linux.”
Right on.
Update, June 17, 2010: Dell has removed/changed the Ubuntu vs. Windows statement from its web site, amid alleged pressure from Microsoft.
Here are the details from The VAR Guy.
@The VAR Guy – Dell is right. But they have to change the entry from “6) Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft Windows” to “6) Ubuntu is secure” just because they have to take care their strategic business relationship with Microsoft.
Now go and type “Ubuntu” in the secunia advisory and vulnerability database search box and compare the security threats numbers with “windows”. Only then you see why Dell said so and which OS is the winner.
It should be “Linux Is Safer Than Windows”, rather than Ubuntu Linux. It makes other linux distro to be part of the “not safer” side.
No, Linux, according to networkworld.com is more vulnerable than Windows.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/dell-says-ubuntu-safer-windows
P.S – Since Ubuntu uses Linux kernel, then, of course “Linux Is Safer Than Windows”.
Hello,
I sure wish you’d publish Dell’s *entire* original Ubuntu page, including the two-column comparison of Ubuntu and Windows, not just the portion of the page that contained the wording about Ubuntu’s greater safety/security than Windows. I’d love to be able to provide that entire page to friends whom I’m trying to inform about foss in general and Ubuntus in particular.
Thanks.
Ray
Ray: Don’t look back. Look ahead. And if you’re serious about embracing Ubuntu, leverage PC partners that promote Ubuntu. Names like System76 and ZaReason come to mind…
-TVG
It surprises me how few people realize exactly what goes into the software you put on a Ubuntu machine. Because the software is open source, anyone can look at the code to ensure that there is nothing that attacks the system on it. Very little software is written for Ubuntu that is not open source, because generally the community writes something open source to get around badly written software that you have to pay for. The Linux community does not like software that is not open source. Microsoft does not have any kind of democratic system in place to review code. Their in-house goobers write it Microsoft software, and the companies that want their software Microsoft compatible are supposed to pay a licensing fee which means they have to charge for their product as well, and want to protect the code from others who would copy it to make a free version. The mistrust and money-changing inherently makes it a much less secure operating system. Don’t assume it’s all about market share. The bottom line: To avoid the security issues, with Windows, you pretty much have to be a power-user. To encounter security issues with Ubuntu, you have to be a moron. Another interesting note: Wine now works so effectively translating Windows programs to run on Ubuntu that you can actually run a Windows virus with it. Plus side: you can run all of that without root, so the malware gets shut down with the program using Wine.
I submit that the only real advantage to using Windows over Ubuntu in this day and age is so you can program for Windows or play video games without a Linux version.