Lindows Allowed to Use Company Name in Holland 228
Supp0rtLinux writes "It appears that Lindows/Linspire has finally made some headway against Microsoft in the Netherlands. According this article, the Judge ruled that Linspire's continued, but minimal use of 'Lindows' for legal and trademark purposes doesn't violate Microsoft's trademark. With the US court date on this issue coming up soon, one can only wonder if Microsoft will have effectively cut off its nose to spite its face. And following immediately on the heels of today's Netherlands news, the latest Michael's Minutes from Linspire pegs all the blame for virus problems on Microsoft and basically says that Linux (well, Lindows anyway) is the cure."
to michael credit (Score:5, Insightful)
difference between Europe and US (Score:5, Insightful)
Lindows and Security??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux is magically more secure (Score:5, Insightful)
And the fact that all home users were "root" by default prior to XP means nothing?
And the fact that unless set up differently, even in XP the average user is "root" is not an issue?
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure....
Re:Linux is magically more secure (Score:5, Insightful)
The only other option would be to try and exploit a security hole in the Kernel. Given that not everybody runs the same Kernel this would also prove difficult.
Re:Linux is magically more secure (Score:5, Insightful)
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony of this statement is that Lindows will probably be one of the driving forces in getting Linux viruses popular. By marketing the software to those who are less computer-savvy while making the root user the default user, Lindows is opening up the door for some nasty widespread security exploits. Some of the reasons why viruses have not been a problem under Linux so far has been due to smaller desktop market penetration, heterogeneity, the computer literacy of those who run Linux, and the restricted account privileges of the user. Lindows threatens all of those factors.
Mandatory Linux vulnerability disagreement here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of all those vulnerabilities that are defaults in Windows. Think also about the fact that most Linux distros do not encourage the user to run as "root". Not that Linux has no potential vulnerabilities, but they are much fewer than Windows..
Re:Windows a generic term? (Score:1, Insightful)
You have been Rooted (Score:1, Insightful)
This is pretty brain dead at the best of times and will allow worms to propogate as badly as at present. If windows users were not always logged in as admin there wouldn't be such a problem as there is. I am sure the same will be said for any OS, where you can do anything as the normal user.
If a Lindows user gets a browser worm or similar and is root, it can still propgate and do what it like just as on windows.
Re:Linux is magically more secure (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that a virus/worm needs its exploited user to be root to replicate and spread to other people is ludicrous. Almost all recent Windows viruses wouldn't have been particularly hindered if the user wasn't running as root - in most cases, they simply replicate, by email - a situation you don't need to be running as a privileged user to replicate.
And if we're picking random piece of software oft-associated with a platform, and looking at their security history, try taking a deep look bind/sendmail.
+Pete (a commited OpenBSD user)
Re viri: MacOSX is the one to watch (Score:3, Insightful)
MacOSX is a real OS. What's the virus situation here? I think it will be a good indication of what life will be like when Linux desktop becomes more common.
BTW: this is a question... not a statement, but my hunch is that MacOSX malware is rare (?)
Re:difference between Europe and US (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who started using the term WINDOW(s) ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, first off... (Score:3, Insightful)
But saying Linspire pegs all the blame for virus problems on Microsoft and basically says that Linux (well, Lindows anyway) is the cure." strikes me as wrongheaded. The problems with Microsoft/virus issue are all legacy issues. If you think about it, all Microsoft code is based on a pre-Internet OS. It really isn't geared to the Internet to day. It's kind of like why pre-'70s (US) cars may not need to meet modern pollution codes. This does not make it right. But Microsoft itself is too monolithic to respond properly.
Also the users that are having the problems are all the "unwashed masses" that don't know to patch their systems properly and to pratice safe web surfing. They need to be educated.
Re:Linux is magically more secure (Score:2, Insightful)
Although I think that Linux is more secure, I think the writer of the parent article is (almost) right.
How many Worms/Viruses/Spams we "see", is less related to the number of security hole that exist in a certain system, it is more related to the number of "attackers" and the number of targets!
Not every securityhole is exploited, typically a high number of securityholes means nothing more, than only a tiny fraction of them are exploited.
If the number of systems prone to an attack is the same and the number of attackers is the same, then the fraction of exploited securityholes just increases
Re:Big fish in a small pond (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, this hoary old chestnut has been done-to-death. No. I don' think for one second that if Linux yada yada yada. For numerous reasons outlined already in this thread. Because Linux has a competent security model. Because Windows is homogenous - many/most users use identical apps (think Outlook Express, IE), on Linux there's too much choice for a worm, etc, to successfully propogate using one target. Because Linux doesn't default to running as root, and provides an easy mechanism for dropping-into root when you need to (disclaimer: maybe Windows has this - I've never found it, and I've been running Windows a lot longer than I've been running Linux).
Please, people, rather than using arguments like "I'll bet...", try just googling for facts. Or give up trolling.
The problem is the business model (Score:4, Insightful)
A team of programmers in a commercial company distributes the work in the most cost-effective way, so that each person in the team specializes in a section of the code. There is little cross-checking if any. In open source, OTOH, there are people with different backgrounds verifying the code, independently.
That's the same reason why crackers find weak spots in software, they verify details that the programmers who created the software never thought about checking. In open source there is a balance of forces that's strongly biased to "good", instead of "evil", because the "black hats" are more often immature teens while the "white hats" are university professors. In commercial software, the balance of forces tends more to the "evil" side, because of the larger number of people in the black hats.
So then why isn't spyware blamed on Windows too? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most slashdotters direct much wrath towards the makers of spyware, adware, and malware in general, because they are a pain in the ass that inconvenience users.
However when someone writes a virus that inconveniences users, almost everyone here blames Microsoft and not the writer of the virus.
Seeing how there is almost no difference between the two, why are spyware publishers lambasted but virus writers given a free pass, and in many cases, lauded as champions against the evil Microsoft Empire?
Re:Big fish in a small pond (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean, 'if'? Linux does have the attention of hackers worldwide. How else do you think it ever got written?
Re:So how long... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows a generic term? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think there's any doubt about that but that isn't enough. The question is whether "Windows" is a generic term in computer graphical interfaces and it seems pretty obvious that it is.
People are allowed to capitalize on all manner of things. Saying "but he's obviously trying to make money and stuff!" doesn't make a case for trademark infringement.
Re:Windows a generic term? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which, in itself, is not a problem and is not illegal.
It's is a problem, and it is illegal, when the term in question is trademarked. And companies shouldn't be allowed to trademark terms that are generic in their industry. Microsoft trademarking "windows" is akin to Ford trademarking "wheel".
So, in short, if Microsoft wanted protection from this kind of thing, they shouldn't have used a term that is generic to the computer industry as the name of their operating system.
moron (Score:3, Insightful)
We have buffer overflows in programs just like them.
So, it's good to know that Lindows distributes itself with no user accounts, but you run as root.
Re:Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
In holland? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is the business model (Score:1, Insightful)
Yet when the source code to Windows was released on the Internet how many flaws were discovered? One (if it would even count). So much for the "many eyes" argument. Seems that's not a factor (at least not with Windows).