said by pandora:
This is an example of the weakness of the Linux model.
In the Windows world, we are taught it is dangerous to download content from an untrusted site, as it could contain harmful software. By converse here in the Linux world, we are taught we are to trust downloading dangerous content from trusted sites. Somehow we are told this is an improvement over the Windows model.
The Linux model seems to revolve around downloading any junk from any site and assuming it is all good, because if any of it was bad, someone, somewhere, should have read the source, because you see that is the beauty of open source.
At least with the Windows model, we know dangerous software can be downloaded and cause grief. As a result there is a vibrant security community. With Linux, when dangerous updates and upgrades create security vulnerabilities, instead of a means of repair, it seems the status quo is to bad mouth users while at the same time claiming superiority.
Linux - Download from Tom, Dick or Harry and assume all is well.
Windows - Download from Microsoft and assume all is well.
Gee, which model makes more sense ... let me think.
I just don't get it. There seem to be many circular stupidities going on with Linux. I'm thinking of writing about my Linux install experience in a post. The problem will be limiting the number of Linux stupidities I write about or else I'll be creating a book.