Linux

48677 readers

433 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

135

Do you use Gnome or KDE Plasma? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 weeks ago by bpt11@sh.itjust.works to c/linux@lemmy.ml

161 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm relatively new to the linux space, I was introduced by the steam deck which uses kde, and it's pretty similar to windows in terms of how it works so that's the DE i'd be leaning towards when I eventually switch. I've never used gnome so i'm not sure if it'd be worth using I guess?

So I'm just looking for some input from the community, do you use Gnome or Plasma, why do you use it, and what's kind of like a pros and cons kinda thing between the two?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Neptr@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The weakest link of any secured system is the user. I know that will never change, especially as computers/software become more complicated over time. But I don't understand why many people argue that "since the user is the weakest link, we don't need more secure systems, we need better users." We need both.

Explaination

For anyone who suggests that a user can "just be smarter and not install malware" think about this: do you check read all the commits to the software you install, for each update, and then compile from source. The answers is no. And I don't think we should need to.

Linux is not secure, it is still meant for tinkerers and by design is very open. This is one of my favorite aspects of Linux, just how open it is. The result though is an insecure system with many attack vectors that are hard to protect against.

For example, I recently wanted to patch a game for mod support. This required me to run a script that i didnt fully understand. I did my best to read it and nothing looked suspicious, but I couldn't fully understand because I am not a modder for that game.

This script could have done a number of things:

Added a fake sudo script to the path in the user's home resulting in privilege escalation.
Created a user Systemd service that logs everything added to the clipboard or keylog, since that is also possible on Wayland with an LD_PRELOAD attack.
Create a Systemd service that records the screen to grab passwords.
Edit the user's .bashrc file.
Delete/encrypt every file owned by the user.
Read and exfiltrate all app data from the $HOME
Or a combination of multiple other things.

The solution is sandboxing, permission system, secure defaults, and transparency to the user. And of course a way to disable security checks for tinkerers.

My point is that the perfect user does not exist. We (inevitably) use our computers to do all sorts of niche things, the perfect user does not even turn their PC on.