[AuckLUG] internet banking

[Nevyn]

On 8/31/07, Ghodmode <ghodmode at ghodmode.com> wrote:
>...
> Regardless of the bank's source of information, I'd bet that we have a
> greater resource for technical expertise within this community than the
> banks employ.  I'll bet we can find at least one each of an IT Security
> Expert, a Professor of Computer Science, and computer programmers from
> several different disciplines.  Even outside of this community, I think that
> most people with considerable expertise would have to agree that Linux is
> generally less susceptible to computer viruses or spyware than Windows.
> What this boils down to is that real and sincere experts are in competition
> with compensated endorsers.
> ...
> -- Vince

Not that I'm looking for a flame war here, but I just want to make a
quick point which I think effects the Linux world in general. If we
are to make Linux mainstream, and I know that there are a fair few
people here which would disagree with the idea of Linux becoming
mainstream, we are going to have to think more like Microsoft.

Not in that we should offer something along the lines of "Genuine
Advantage" but more in that we are going to have to think in terms of
the user. This means your average user doesn't want to know anything
about the computer. Hell, some people when asked what OS they use will
answer with MS Office whatever. This, I feel, is a very good
indication that your average user isn't interested in whether an OS is
open, whether it can made to do x things. What they really want to
know, is that they can get done what they want to get done. This is
why MS Word doesn't use a similar interface to Lyx although does offer
the ability to do structured documents. Those that can use the
structured, the rest format every paragraph or line as they please and
individually.

With Dell offering (or in NZ eventually) Ubuntu with computers, and if
they are significantly cheaper, we're catering for the lowest common
denominator. In which case, assumptions about Linux users being more
in the know are going to be just plain wrong.

Personally, although I know enough about computers to get by and use
Linux, I want to know that if I do something, that something can be
done and with the minimum of fuss.

As Linux becomes more and more popular, viruses, rootkits and spyware
will become more and more prevalent. There are viruses for Linux -
you're not Completely safe though the ones I know about only effected
particular packages of particular distributions. This could well
change. Does it mater that a virus, if it does get on a Linux machine,
is only going to effect a particular user when the important
information (the OS can always be reinstalled) is that which is
contained within the home directories?

When's the last time that you looked for a security expert? Generally
speaking, if your email is working and you can browse the internet and
can do whatever else you need to do, do you seek a security expert to
audit the system? Holes may turn up just about anywhere.

For me, I use Ubuntu. But never have I questioned the integrity of a
package, opting instead to trust the repositories. Does this mean that
an update or a newly installed package doesn't have any security
holes?

Basically, we need to cater for the lowest common denominator. If this
means that people don't know what to look for when they suspect a
computer may have a virus, then a mainstream OS is out of the question
for Linux.