Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, SecretSquirrel, notfred
Ryu Connor wrote:As he points out it's a UUID error from the fstab. Using a /dev configuration instead fixes the problem.
Ryu Connor wrote:That aside, I suppose it's hypothetically possible that a sysctl configuration might would break carrying Linux from one machine to another. It also seems probable that there could be a corner case driver bug that might make a given install unsuitable for one specific hardware configuration to another.
just brew it! wrote:Ryu Connor wrote:As he points out it's a UUID error from the fstab. Using a /dev configuration instead fixes the problem.
The UUIDs in the fstab refer to matching UUIDs in the meta-data (superblock) of the file systems being referenced. If you move a system (boot) disk from one system to another, the UUIDs in the fstab still match the UUIDs in the file systems on the drive, and there is no problem.
In a multi-drive system it gets a little trickier; if you have a system with multiple drives (say one drive with the OS and another one with the user home directories), and you move just the OS disk (expecting it to see an existing 2nd drive in the destination system as the home FS), yes it will have trouble unless you edit the fstab. But this does not seem to be the case he's talking about in the video.
In a single-drive system, or a multi-drive system where all disks are moved across, there is no fstab UUID issue, since the UUIDs all remain internally self-consistent. The video is simply incorrect on this one.
whm1974 wrote:All of this is making me wonder what other Linux myths needs to be busted?
just brew it! wrote:whm1974 wrote:All of this is making me wonder what other Linux myths needs to be busted?
Or which "myths" have been incorrectly busted and need to be un-busted?
just brew it! wrote:whm1974 wrote:All of this is making me wonder what other Linux myths needs to be busted?
Or which "myths" have been incorrectly busted and need to be un-busted? :lol:
Ryu Connor wrote:*In certain hardware configurations, please see this obscure bit of documentation that exemplifies the maddening descent of Linux into the weeds of unfriendliness and an OS built by developers for developers.
just brew it! wrote:With as pedantic as you can be (and yes, I'm guilty of it too...), I'm a little surprised you're willing to give the guy a pass on disseminating blatantly incorrect information (with comments disabled, no less!) just because it happens to support the "No, it doesn't always just work!" argument.
Ryu Connor wrote:IIRC he really just stopped at it, "this doesn't always work like the claim states."
Ryu Connor wrote:http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/
That's the site in question by and by. There's plenty to pick apart there.
just brew it! wrote:Ryu Connor wrote:http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/
That's the site in question by and by. There's plenty to pick apart there.
Indeed. I've been saying for years that Linux evangelists are often their own worst enemies. In fact, I think I've been saying that for about as long as I've been a Linux user.
timon37 wrote:Hahaha that proof is quite ironic. The scan in that video found stuff in .dll and .exe files, those are obviously windows files.
Either some stuff he just had lying around or part of one of those lame ports that just uses wine and launches a windows binary through it.
To clarify afaik "linux doesn't get viruses" is just a typical misunderstanding of the original point which goes more like: "viruses have very limited infection potential under unix-like systems due to memory protection, separate user accounts and limited privileges" in contrast to lets say windows 98 or amigaos. You can probably see how it's easy to shorten that into "linux get no viruses";)
Note that this mostly applies to multi-user setups (e.g. universities, work).
Finally I'm sure someone would misinterpret what I just said so preemptively: Yes of course you can make and there exists malware for linux.
It's just orders of magnitude less of a problem, mainly because there's very few reasons to bulk target personal linux systems.
BobbinThreadbare wrote:since Vista.
Ryu Connor wrote:BobbinThreadbare wrote:since Vista.
Further back than that. The entire NT family.
With regard to security as a whole, the Linux community is having a big discussion about that. There are implications that Linux is weaker than Windows at this time.
Elegant 0-day unicorn underscores “serious concerns” about Linux security - Scriptless exploit bypasses state-of-the-art protections baked into the OS.
The kernel of the argument - Fast, flexible and free, Linux is taking over the online world. But there is growing unease about security weaknesses.
The Linux is more secure, FOSS is more secure argument, may have had some level of momentum behind it more than a decade ago. Today though, there's a tough discussion to be had about Linux and FOSS security.
curtisb wrote:I haven't watched the video, but it could be that his issue with moving the system drive was UEFI on one system and legacy BIOS on the other. And that would be a problem no matter the OS.
Ryu Connor wrote:BobbinThreadbare wrote:since Vista.
Further back than that. The entire NT family.
Ryu Connor wrote:With regard to security as a whole, the Linux community is having a big discussion about that. There are implications that Linux is weaker than Windows at this time.
Elegant 0-day unicorn underscores “serious concerns” about Linux security - Scriptless exploit bypasses state-of-the-art protections baked into the OS.
The kernel of the argument - Fast, flexible and free, Linux is taking over the online world. But there is growing unease about security weaknesses.
The Linux is more secure, FOSS is more secure argument, may have had some level of momentum behind it more than a decade ago. Today though, there's a tough discussion to be had about Linux and FOSS security.