Replacing Kindle for PC in Linux

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Here is an instance where a Linux update broke the DeACSM plugin. It's since been fixed. Start reading from here.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...72#post4217272

I'm more concerned with Linux not breaking itself, something like a Windows BSOD after an update. Not running down DeASCM, but this is a very, very small niche' add-in for a small niche' application (Calibre). And you'll notice how quickly it was fixed.

Also note that Ubuntu 22.04 is a "cutting edge" version, just released in April (and the sub-thread you refer to was posted on May 1st and, apparently, the issue was fixed on the same day). I, personally, choose not to use "cutting edge" Linux distributions. I let others find the bugs.

Right now Windows 11 users are finding a lot of bugs and applications that won't run correctly. Unfortunately I think Microsoft is angling towards a controlled "app store" like Apple's Mac and iOS stores and Google's Play Store. So more control over how you use your computer.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by haertig

It really depends on what's important to you. Me, I'm running my desktop on a 10+ year old CPU (15 years maybe?) and have 4Gb of installed memory. And it still runs rings around many Windows systems running on hardware an order of magnitude better and 10x the cost. This may or may not be important to you, but it is a factor for me. Not the only factor, but still a factor.

Same here. Old computers that simply won't run Windows, work fine with Linux. Even the newer ones I own (7 years old, or so) are not eligible for Windows 11 (which, if I used Windows, I would consider a plus, no nags). Lots of great hardware almost given away because modern Windows crawls on these machines — if it works at all.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Why would anyone run Norton and McAfee together? I've been running the AV that comes with Windows for a long time and I don't even notice it. I see no need to pay for AV when what comes with Windows just works. I would never run Norton or McAfee.

Don't buy a new computer then. Many of them come with either Norton or McAfee trial version preinstalled - whether you want it or not. And then to change to some other anti-virus (which you absolutely need on Windows, but not on Linux) you have to uninstall the pre-installed version. Good luck with getting a clean uninstall without jumping through all kinds of hoops. Like going to the software manufacturers website to manually download their super-duper uninstaller (which I've had to do many times), since the uninstall you got the normal Windows way doesn't completely uninstall, and you run into problems when you subsequently install a competitors anti-virus. Many people don't even realize that they have a problem, which typically presents as general computer slowness (sometimes worse), because they're accustomed to that being the nature of Windows.

Why do you think every new version of Windows needs more and more powerful hardware? It's because the average user couldn't even come close to doing a clean install of Windows. They would lose all their program settings and history that are stored in that horrid thing called "the registry". And so, they just install the new version of Windows over the top of their old version of Windows, dragging all that old garbage along for the ride. Microsoft calls this "automatically transferring your settings" as if it's some kind of desirable thing, dragging all that dilapidated crap along to the new installation. And bingo, the new installation is instantly hobbled by all the old compost, and you need newer and faster hardware to even run the new installation at the already degraded speed of the old one.

But as I said (or at least implied) before, Windows is the perfect match for many users. More power to 'em. The two are forever intertwined, like McAfee/Norton and the Windows kernel. Your computers OS is only a tool. If it works for you and does what you need and expect, you're good.

[ZodWallop]

This'll be my last response, as a Linux vs. Windows fight isn't that interesting.

Originally Posted by haertig

Do you run anti-virus and/or anti-malware programs on your Windows computers?

Just the installed Windows Defender. No Norton, no McAfee. I used to like Avast. But Windows no longer needs it.

I don't use any of that on my Linux computers.

Again, it is because so few people use Linux, so nobody bothers to target it. There is Linux Malware.

Me, I'm running my desktop on a 10+ year old CPU (15 years maybe?) and have 4Gb of installed memory. And it still runs rings around many Windows systems running on hardware an order of magnitude better and 10x the cost.

I have an old potato laptop that I run Fedora on. It works. But I wouldn't dream of saying it runs rings around any of my old Windows PCs.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Windows is more robust than Linux.

I already mentioned: everything runs on Windows.

...there are some great Linux programs (Libre Office, Calibre, etc.), they tend to be ported over to Windows. But there are plenty of Windows programs (K4PC for instance, many computer games) that are not ported to Linux and are finicky to get working with WINE.

To use a thread-related example: If you want to run K4PC 1.17 and you are running modern Windows, you're golden.

If you are on a Mac running modern firmware, you're out of luck.

If you're on Linux, you might be able to get it running if you have a degree.

Of the three OSes, two will require you to own an actual Kindle to back up your books.

That's what I mean when I say Windows is more robust.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Just the installed Windows Defender. No Norton, no McAfee. I used to like Avast. But Windows no longer needs it.

And there's a bug in Defender that slows Intel-based CPUs. And most virus checkers scan each website in your browser, which slows access. Most Windows users overcome this delay by using more and more powerful machines. Not necessary in Linux.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Again, it is because so few people use Linux, so nobody bothers to target it. There is Linux Malware.

Almost all Linux malware requires that you install it. You won't find "drive-by" malware on Linux (at least none that I've ever heard of). Linux is better, more secure, by design. I do manually scan downloads with a version of anti-virus (ClamAV) to check Windows files I download (like the Sony T2 updater) but I do this so I don't pass a Windows virus on to another Windows user, not because I'm worried about infecting my computer.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I have an old potato laptop that I run Fedora on. It works. But I wouldn't dream of saying it runs rings around any of my old Windows PCs.

I run modern Debian Linux installs on some really old machines (even on an Atom Netbook with 1.5 GBs of RAM).

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I already mentioned: everything runs on Windows.

Which has nothing to do with robustness.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

To use a thread-related example: If you want to run K4PC 1.17 and you are running modern Windows, you're golden.

If you are on a Mac running modern firmware, you're out of luck.

If you're on Linux, you might be able to get it running if you have a degree.

Of the three OSes, two will require you to own an actual Kindle to back up your books.

That's what I mean when I say Windows is more robust.

As I mentioned in another post, it's not because Linux can't run it under Wine, it's because Amazon rejects the connection. Apparently, if you can make Amazon think you're a newer version of K4PC (then downgrade), it'll bypass that rejection — but this has nothing to do with Linux's capabilities (even under Wine).

[haertig]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Of the three OSes, two will require you to own an actual Kindle to back up your books.

Right up until Amazon decides to reject ALL connections from old versions of K4PC, regardless of OS.

And they will probably do this in the future. Just like B&N disabled eBook downloads except for direct to a Nook.

Look how well the Nook is doing now. I guess Amazon wants their Kindles to be like that.

I abandoned my Nook and switched to a Paperwhite. I suppose I could abandon my Paperwhite and switch to a Kobo if push comes to shove. It's not like these readers are outrageously expensive and out of most peoples financial reach. But moving to a Kobo is assuming that I actually need to ever buy another eBook. I already have thousands more than I could ever read in my remaining lifetime. Buying additionals is more of an addiction than a requirement.

[DNSB]

Just to jump into the Linux vs. Windows malware tiff, I have to deal with Windows, Linux and MacOSX devices. Not to mention VMWare and other virtualization platforms. Sorry folks but going by the CVE reports, nobody is going to get any awards for security. Spend a little time browsing at the National Vulnerability Database before patting yourself on the back for your choice of OS.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Just to jump into the Linux vs. Windows malware tiff, I have to deal with Windows, Linux and MacOSX devices. Not to mention VMWare and other virtualization platforms. Sorry folks but going by the CVE reports, nobody is going to get any awards for security. Spend a little time browsing at the National Vulnerability Database before patting yourself on the back for your choice of OS.

There's a difference between a security expert targeting a specific computer and a computer being infected by contacting "drive-by" ransomware or malware. The ransomware "industry" goes for the "low hanging fruit" — which happens to be Windows.

[Quoth]

Using noscript, umatrix or ublock origin etc as a plug-in on the browser is more important now than choice of OS or using AV.

Drive by (3rd party scripts, can be adverts on BBC or CNN) can change DNS settings on your router if the default password was never changed. Various things to local PC too. The horrible UAC added at Vista doesn't help much, but user training is more effective than AV.

[rashkae]

Originally Posted by rcentros

There's a difference between a security expert targeting a specific computer and a computer being infected by contacting "drive-by" ransomware or malware. The ransomware "industry" goes for the "low hanging fruit" — which happens to be Windows.

Please don't misunderstand.. I'm a big fan of Linux, even for Desktops, and have come to despise Windows for many many reasons that would only be a rant derailing what is left of this thread.

But this talking point was always on shaky ground, and really needs to die. Windows drive-by malware is low hanging fruit for one simple reason, it's ubiquitous with a much larger vulnerable user population

Linux would actually fare much much worse in this regard, (in it's current state.).. simply because both Microsoft and Apple have been taking great strides to improve security that protects the user from themselves. (Unfortunately, the technical issues this causes are a constant source of problems for me, and the technology measures are far too easy to corrupt with impure motives. What acts as a measure to protect users also conveniently gives a competitive advantage to the company store for apps and payment methods, for example.)

If you can trick a Linux user to run a linux binary, or even just a script, with malicious intent, there is *nothing* even warning you of the worst possible damage. And while everyone is always focusing of privilege escalation, it's laughable how minor an issue that is for an adversary targeting the user.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Using noscript, umatrix or ublock origin etc as a plug-in on the browser is more important now than choice of OS or using AV.

Ublock Origin is about the first thing I add to a Linux installation.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by rashkae

If you can trick a Linux user to run a linux binary, or even just a script, with malicious intent, there is *nothing* even warning you of the worst possible damage. And while everyone is always focusing of privilege escalation, it's laughable how minor an issue that is for an adversary targeting the user.

That's the thing, though. You have to trick a user into running a binary or a script with Linux. If I'm on a website and I'm asked for permission to run an unknown program or script, I'm not going to provide it. I can't imagine why anyone would.

[NullNix]

Originally Posted by rcentros

And there's a bug in Defender that slows Intel-based CPUs. And most virus checkers scan each website in your browser, which slows access.

... or, well, they try to. Both Firefox and Chrome now blacklist almost all antivirus scanners from running in the (sandboxed, security-sensitive) contexts in which the actual content of the webpage is accessible, because they are generally written by absolute monkeys on the assumption that they are *not* sandboxed, and as a result have a distressing tendency to call out to things prohibited within the sandbox (a list which is always growing, for good reasons) and get killed. And when this happens it leads to *every single webpage* turning into a sad-face crash, often after a browser update improves the sandbox.

The difference between virus scanners and rootkits and malware is basically just intent, these days. Virus scanners use a very large proportion of the techniques used by rootkits, and unsurprisingly things that actually want to be secure tend to react to virus scanners as if they were malware.

[NullNix]

Originally Posted by haertig

It is beyond the average user to install a different OS. Microsoft is making sure of that by adding things with worthwhile sounding names like "trusted computing" and "secure boot". It just so happens that these little gems have the side effect of not allowing non-Microsoft OS'es to boot out of the box.

As someone deeply involved in the Linux world for decades now, on mainstream x86 platforms this is nonsense. Yes, the only signing key installed by default is an MS one, but a) MS has *as a requirement of Windows certification* that additional keys must be installable at user request b) Microsoft has signed a boot shim which maintains a root of trust up to GRUB (and resigned it with commendable speed whenever bugs in it are found and require new releases) and thus c) more or less all Linux distros install on freshly-purchased Secure Boot systems without incident. You're more likely to have problems with non-free firmware than with Secure Boot. Yes, Secure Boot *could* be used as an anticompetitive system very easily, but it's been well over a decade now and this hasn't happened: and given that in that time period MS has basically become a Linux company (with most of its profits coming from the mostly-Linux Azure) it is most unlikely ever to happen in future. If they did that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and pissing off a lot of their developers and infuriating their own staff, and MS has never been prone to any of those things.

(It happens that I don't use Secure Boot much myself on my own dev machines, but that's because I'm an OS-level developer who's always rolling his own kernels, and for people like us often doing things to the lower levels of the system by hand Secure Boot often introduces exciting new ways to break boot if you make one mistake. For everyone else, mostly running distro kernels, those mistakes won't happen and Secure Boot is basically all benefit.)

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by rcentros

That's the thing, though. You have to trick a user into running a binary or a script with Linux. If I'm on a website and I'm asked for permission to run an unknown program or script, I'm not going to provide it. I can't imagine why anyone would.

It constantly amazed me when I was in IT support that people would simply click on dialog boxes "That got in the way". Or Click links on emails or open attachments without checking what they were.

They'd also rather believe a random website or friend or half remembered stuff at school than the IT support.

And then also not know the difference between clicking on something that loads in an application and something that executes (binary or script). Proper training makes a big difference. Not the sort invented by marketing that tours all the features of an application.