Linux, Where Crapware Goes to Die

Remember this cute little purple ape? If you’re a Linux user, you might not, so let me enlighten you a bit. This little guy is the "Bonzi Buddy" ape. He was one of the earliest malware/spyware/crapware programs for the Microsoft Windows platform. Arguably the cutest of his breed, BonziBuddy became a widespread problem for Windows users for years.

One of the biggest problems for end users is that BonziBuddy almost did something useful. It sorta supplied some value to users (heck, just seeing his little ad dance around was entertaining), but it also did nefarious things in the background. His evil backdoor santa activities, however, were not what made people hate the "product." The dumb monkey was insidious about popping up when you didn’t want to see him, and was impossible to delete! He was sorta like "Clippy Extreme" when it came to annoyance.

So why were Linux users left out in the cold during the heyday of BonziBuddy? Well, there’s a few reasons. Some are obvious, some aren’t.

Yes, Linux is Hard to Infect

BonziBuddy was easy to accidentally install in Windows. At some points in its history, it was hard not to install. With Linux, programs have a much more difficult time forcing their way in. While an inadvertent click in Windows can give you a virus that is difficult to eradicate, with Linux it’s generally more difficult to do so. Which brings us to the next point:

Linux is Easy to Disinfect

Sure, there are dumb programs that can be installed in Linux. Generally, they are pretty straightforward to uninstall though. Sure, you could mess up your Linux system if you tried hard enough, but in general programs are fairly easy to sanitize or destroy. Certainly there are complexities at play with things like gconf, but they’re nothing compared to the Windows’ system registry. It usually doesn’t get that far though, and that’s where I was going with this article to begin with:

Linux Apps Come Pre-vetted!

Go ahead, try to run ‘apt-get install BonziBuddy’ -- it won’t work! Linux distributions come with thousands of programs, of varying usefulness, that you can install all day long. Those packages have all been vetted by communities of people before they ever get to your package manager. In fact, while one of the rally cries of Windows supporters is that the selection of software is so much greater for Windows -- it begs the question of whether or not that’s a good thing.

Yes, there are 100 applications you can buy, or try, or demo, or evaluate, or install for free on Windows for any given task. One of the big problems, however, is that no one determines if they are any good. Google may be a great search engine to find Windows apps, but it certainly isn’t a good quality assurance method for picking Windows software. As Linux users, we not only have a community of developers making free and open source applications for us to use, we also have a community of users that make sure spyware and malware don’t make it into our software repositories. So the next time someone asks why the Linux community is so important and we make such a big deal out of "community", tell them it’s because we all help keep out purple apes. :)


Shawn is Associate Editor here at Linux Journal, and has been around Linux since the beginning. He has a passion for open source, and he loves to teach. He also drinks too much coffee, which often shows in his writing.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More truths...

linuxiac38's picture

A major point that seems to have been missed is that the majority of the science, office, productivity, server, and educational programs included in the 30,960 GNU software repository selections at Debian, Ubuntu, Mint repositories, was developed at the huge cost borne by State and Federal taxpayers (in over 124 nations!), hundreds of Universities and Corporations, in educational, business, the space program, military, aerospace research and development programs!

The majority of FREE, Libre, Open Source Software was created at great expense of time, money, labor, and is FREE to individuals or businesses to use because of the huge investment by taxpayers and consumers!

IBM alone invests over $1 billion per year, since 1999, that they get back in the sales of their excellent server products!

Some GNU/Linux noobs/users are stumped at the plethora of "FREE" stuff they get, for free!

Then, they are astounded to find that it ALL works at first click!

Finally, they want to know If Linux has anything like the million Microsoft Virus/mal-ware/exploits! Nope!

Almost agree completely. But

Anonymous's picture

Almost agree completely. But when you say it's easy to remove malware, you're incorrect. Once a machine (any platform) has been compromised, you can never really know if the malware was removed completely.

This person, AKA: Dumbass,

Anonymous's picture

This person, AKA: Dumbass, has no idea what he/she is talking about. You can easily tell if your computer has a virus out of it in more ways then there are to peel a banana (2 effective I've counted (also banana, purple ape, get it?))

This person, AKA: Dumbass,

Anonymous's picture

This person, AKA: Dumbass, has no idea what he/she is talking about. You can easily tell if your computer has a virus out of it in more ways then there are to peel a banana (2 effective I've counted (also banana, purple ape, get it?))

Please review the meaning of

Anonymous's picture

Please review the meaning of the phrase "beg the question" or any variant before using it in the future. Please DO NOT USE it when you mean "raise the question"

We Already Did This... :)

Shawn Powers's picture

I've been arrested, and let out on bail, pending the trial.

Shawn is Associate Editor here at Linux Journal, and has been around Linux since the beginning. He has a passion for open source, and he loves to teach. He also drinks too much coffee, which often shows in his writing.

Purple Monky.

Treah's picture

I was working for MS during these days, doing windows 95 and later windows 98 support. I can tell you that you have reignited the burning hatred of a thousand suns for this app. No other application begot so much distaste from the support reps then this app second only to AOL and third to Norton AV. Spyware is what drove me to Linux and I am glad it did. As far as security goes with Linux that is something that is controlled by the user not the operating system. I will admit that there are less threats out there for Linux and it is harder to infect it. It only takes someone opening up port 22 and not securing things to become compromised easily.

As far as OSX is concerned I actually like the operating system it self, but like everything else apple there package deals with outlandish prices will always drive me away. Apple users who think there systems are better cause they paid more just amuse me, because in reality new apples are nothing more then a PC with a $1500 apple tax.

Excellent title got me to read

Anonymous's picture

I use PCLinuxOS exclusively; so around here "Anti-Virus Application" refers to a condom.

Where crapwear goes to die?

Chris Bruner's picture

I liked the article, but the title? It sounds like if there is crapwear around you will still find it on Linux.

You know I always buy the Linux Journal at the magazine stand. And I read it on line. I'm just a sucker for a good story. (But please work on those titles!)

Standing online on a line in line.

Anonymous's picture

on line or online ?

We had a bonzai buddy too!

Luis Cerezo's picture

What about the amor? (amusing misuse of resources)? Why do we forget so easily? Won't anyone think of the children?


Shawn Powers's picture

I vote that we, as a community, create an Ubuntu metapackage called "BonziBuddy" -- it can include things like amor, xroach, xeyes, and ...KDE.

(tee hee, just teasing about KDE, I figured why not start a holy war)

Shawn is Associate Editor here at Linux Journal, and has been around Linux since the beginning. He has a passion for open source, and he loves to teach. He also drinks too much coffee, which often shows in his writing.

KDE comment

Mackenzie's picture

Good thing we're not at OLF right now. I think your beer would've just "accidentally" spilled on you :P


Shawn Powers's picture


Shawn is Associate Editor here at Linux Journal, and has been around Linux since the beginning. He has a passion for open source, and he loves to teach. He also drinks too much coffee, which often shows in his writing.

Someone please provide a list

Ralph Cramden's picture

Can someone please provide a comprehensive list of the hundreds of Linux viruses/trojans/rootkits? I have been using Linux for about 12 years and haven't been able to get infected. What am I doing wrong?

Re: Someone provide a list ...

GreyGeek's picture

It's a short list, Ralph ... less than a dozen. Yes, I know that Symantec and other AV houses try to maintain a "list" of Linux infectives, but nearly all are merely Windows malware with "Linux" stuck in their name in an attempt to get Linux newbies to buy their AV products. They know that Linux newbies still think like Windows users and assume that Linux is as easily infected as Windows is. So they capitalize on that ignorance for the sake of profits.

What you are "doing wrong" is that you are not being gullible enough. The next time you get an email with an attachment, DELIBERATELY save it to your HD. Then, ADD the execute permission to it. Then RUN it. See how simple it is! All you have to do is believe the Social Engineering that makes up the body of the text of the email. In other words, just act like a typical Windows users... wait ... forget that ... all they have to do to get their Windows installation infected is to click on the email or open a web page, or, sometimes, just turn their PC on.

Surely you know better.

Oli's picture

I've seen this argument quite a fair few times since I started using Linux. But it's a complete joke and you should realise that.

None of those points stands up to the idiocy of end users.

I've written up the full argument on my blog:

You are going too far. First,

Jose_X's picture

You are going too far.

First, Windows doesn't have the equivalent of distro maintainers. For example, these people aim to provide most anything you would want. Does Window come with a repo of thousands of safe applications and utilities? No, and the major other stuff people want are from (mostly) trusted sources anyway (eg, Adobe). On Windows, if you want things for $0, you have few choices besides taking chances. Windows users expect to take chances. What other choices do they have? Do they have another easy model to follow? No. Meanwhile, once on Linux, many that get burned once (assuming they will at some point in time) or who are nervous from the get go will learn that they have a safe haven and will learn how to stay there. And the safe haven is pretty large. Thousands of packages is nothing to sneeze at.

Second, generally, once you are on Linux, habits change because of expectations, tools, and community. The tools are free in most cases (come with the distro). Together with guiding and helpful community, people have less temptation as well as inclination to try some crazy solution from something they ran across out in the wild.

Third, when on Linux, you build a habit of trying distros or at least maintaining more than one. This itself improves the situation in a number of ways. For one, this implies the target for malware is changing and diverse, so you will always be a smaller target than when you were on Windows. Two, testing out distros periodically also means less malware tends to accumulate. If the window of bad guy opportunity is smaller, you are more likely to avoid problems during that critical time period. Three, testing out distros also means you develop the skill of re-installation. You are less likely to keep using a system you believe may have been compromised severely since you are more likely to be able to reinstall. Also, competition (from Linux' transparency) means you are more likely to be able to find help at a low price and hence seek it out earlier. Four, seeing your computer features from multiple perspectives promotes learning. Knowing more about your computer means you will make fewer mistakes. Five, new distro installations are much safer and solve past problems. On Windows, your re-installation option is for an old and very vulnerable Windows. It is more risky and trouble to get an old Windows into safe mode than to get a new Linux distro into safe mode.

Fourth, generally, Linux' openness leads to users gaining more insight into their computer. On Windows, it's too easy not to understand many things, so you don't. On Linux, there is more free documentation on the apps you are likely to try. And people will over time, at least in larger numbers, peek at source code or at least learn to appreciate it. Also, many configuration options exist. An environment of openness promotes learning.

Fifth, there are distros out there that are very locked. If you get burned once or if you are worried, you can have others build something for you (or seek these out) that makes it difficult to create problems for yourself. On Windows this option never existed. Default Windows is default Windows.

Sixth, Linux is open source, so you get better response time. This means that anything that becomes a problem in practice will be solved much quicker by the wider community. [This addresses your concern more directly than most other points I'm mentioning.] There is no huge revenue stream to protect, red tape, or politics. Linux is for users by users. If people want to kill ads, for example, someone will build a plugin for it before you even realized you wanted that feature. If a few people get hit by something hard, the problem will likely be solved or mostly solved before most people even knew there was a problem.

Seventh, Linux is open source, so you get more source code, generally, and learn safer options. This means that third parties are pressured to open up, and also many more will. Users learn to identify the difference between binaries with sources and those without (or at least are more likely to recognize this difference). This doesn't mean a user won't make mistakes or be tempted, but users will develop the concepts necessary to be more careful simply because essentially Linux runs on open source. Windows does not encourage people to think about this issue of source code and binaries, low risk vs high risky.

Eight (and related to various points above), $0 increases the odds you will keep Linux up to date with app and OS security patches, antivirus (should you chose to use some), etc.

Finally, ninth (and there are more points, but I'll stop), the better security and defaults of typical Linux does mean that fewer people will get into trouble. You have fewer ways to accidentally hurt yourself, all else being equal.

Fact is that despite the possible threats, Linux users, are having a safer time, and we aren't talking about just a few people or hard core geeks.

There are various reasons Microsoft really wants open source apps to move to Windows. Ultimately, it's to help protect their monopolies (monopoly pricing, etc), and "one" reason they want WinFOSS is because of at least some of the points I mentioned above.


April Fools!!

No, I'm kidding about kidding.

True, but...

Josh's picture

What you say is largely true, but it does come at a price. Centralizing software distribution to repositories puts commercial vendors at a disadvantage, especially when the entry point into the market is unclear. Apple does the same thing with app store except that commercial vendors know exactly where they need to go to get an application into the store (assuming Apple approves the application, of course).

The question of "vetted" applications can also mean multiple things. It may not install malware on my machine, but it also may be a useless application and add nothing but clutter to the repositories and my machine. Does such an application warrant distribution? In the open source world, who sets the rules for what is and is not allowed to end up in the repositories?

In fact, repositories may even put users at risk. If users expect that all applications have been vetted and are inherently safe, what if a particularly nasty one gets through? Users may install it without any qualms and disaster can still ensue. For those will ill intent, a "safe" repository represents a gold mine. If one can break in, the damage could be tremendous.

Fedora's repo was compromised in 2008

Mackenzie's picture

And so they took it offline immediately for like 2 days til they figured out exactly what happened, then revoked the old signing key, released a new one, and released clean versions of the one or two packages that had been signed since the compromise.

Except you forget one thing,

CaptainPedantic's picture

Except you forget one thing, any major software repository will have maintainer signing keys, and all packages within that repo will be cryptographically signed by the maintainers' keys. Could you upload a tainted package? Possibly. Could you spoof the maintainers' signing key? Extremely unlikely, as you would either have to get lucky (brute force) or solve either the RSA or discrete log problem to break the signing key. Combine this with the fact that most major distributions incorporate automatic security checks when installing packages and will ask the user if they are SURE that they really want to install this un-signed package that could potentially be full of exploit code and your potential attack surface drops down to the ignorant or sloppy. Now while this population is probably non-zero, its not particularly large either, especially in comparison to its equivalent user class on Windows who will open every attachment and run any binary they come across.

Commercial vendors at no disadvantage

Peter's picture

I have downloaded several packages from commercial vendors' websites, which install just fine with the gDebi installer.

How do repositories put them at a disadvantage? I would not expect to find commercial software in an Ubuntu repository, but there's nothing stopping, say, NewEgg, from creating their own repository for commercial software.

"[..]If one can break in, the

Ruben's picture

"[..]If one can break in, the damage could be tremendous."

And how would you set about doing that? We're talking Linux here pall! ;) The day that someone will break into my pc, I'll eat my shoe. And trust me, I'm pretty sure our holy repo's are better protected then my pc... =D

When you run one of the major distro's or one of the distro's who's repo's are largely based upon the repo's of one of the major distro's, you have nothing to worry about. If stuff does happen, it's just evolution at work, the weak and foolish will perish (since the only way to destroy a Linux system is to try really, really hard)...


mwallette's picture

Ruben: I am a big fan of Linux, in no small part because it has proven to be a relatively stable, secure operating system. However, as good as Linux is, I would urge you not to be overconfident in your Linux machine(s). I *have* seen Linux machines compromised (albeit, the exploit was minor and easily remedied -- basically a public-facing web host had PHPShell uploaded into a user's directory, and was being used to send spam).

Regarding the security of the repositories...well, it isn't Linux, but the BSD's are much more similar to Linux than to Windows, and IIRC, there was a compromised package in one of the BSD repositories a few years ago (can't find the link right now, though). It was detected and fixed in recently short order, but it *CAN* happen.

Regarding the only way to destroy a Linux system...well, I've BTDT, too (though I blush at the memory). I had gotten away with it before, but...well, let's say sym-linking a different version of to /usr/lib/ is a Really Bad Idea (tm).

Sure, nothing is 100%

Ruben's picture

Sure, nothing is 100% bulletproof and bad things *can* happen as you said. However, the way I read Josh's post made it seem like there is a very plausible chance someone can cause damage by messing up the repo's, while in fact, even if someone manages to fiddle with the repo's, as Anonymous also said, the damage wont be that big. It's like with Wikipedia, there are probably more people checking the repo's and making sure everything is secure then there are people installing the software. It's why the community is so important, we all guard the system and are able to do something when things go bad. If you are an impostor and try to mess with us, within seconds a dozen guys will rise up and put you in your place.

So yeah, sure you can break Linux, but it's not easy, likely or anything an average desktop user should worry about.

FreeBSD compromise

Anonymous's picture

the freebsd infection was automatically flagged and would not install unless you manually turned off all of the security checks.

IIRC about a dozen people more or less downloaded the trojaned port it was never clear if anyone actually compiled the port, as at least two of the people that downloaded the port complained and asked why it didn't compile.

Since that incident FreeBSD has become more paranoid about securing the ports, so it is much harder than the earlier mostly failed compromise.

Linux, Where Crapware Goes to Die

Jean's picture

@ Khürt Williams: Yes, OS X is as secure as Linux, but OS X is proprietary and it doesn't come cheap, whereas Linux is Open Source and free.

But that's the point with Windows users looking at Linux: the community. For many Windows users Linux community means "geeks" and they don't look any further. One Windows user on another blog even said that he didn't want to get Linux because he thought that being Open Source meant that his machine was wide open for anybody to get in and do whatever they wanted with, including looking at his personal stuff.
How many infected Windows machines I've cleaned in my neighborhood! And when people ask me if I got the same problem with mine and what do I do to not get infected, I tell them I've been on Linux for over two years and I haven't caught a virus once. Not a one! Then they ask me what anti-virus or protection programs I use. None! Oh wait, my mistake, I use one, ClamAV, to check files sent from Windows machines, in case said files carried a malware, and not that said malware would attack my Linux OS, but to not spread it to other Windows machines!
Man, most of these people I help don't even know that IE is NOT the internet, that IE is but a browser among many others, and really, really not the best of browsers. So I educate them, never pushing it, mind you, and only if they want to hear me. I introduce them to Firefox and Opera (personally I use Opera, I think it's way better than FF, but that's just me). I direct them to what I think are the best free anti-malware programs for Windows, saying to those who pay for protection that no, you don't have to pay, many anti-malware programs are as good and even better than many paying ones. And when I say that, some look at me quizzically, believing that a free program cannot be as good as a paid one (that thinking includes the OS, of course). Then, there are a few who are genuinely interested with Linux. So I run a live cd on their machine, usually Linux Mint, the closest to a Windows look, or Ubuntu. I've converted, hm, let me think, oh, about 10% of the people who ask for my help, that is, 5! Maybe a 6th one, he's not sure, he's still playing with a live Linux Mint cd I gave him.
All that to say that one by one, slowly but surely, I'm educating the people in my neighborhood, making them at least aware that there are alternatives to Windows and IE.
One last thing: kids and the Penguin get along very well. My 9 year old daughter has been on Ubuntu for as long as me, and as far as she's concerned the Penguin rules! She skinned hers Princess Pink! And whenever I get a kid on a live Linux cd, they get on with it like it's nothing.

And DON'T state that its free

Anonymous's picture

When I give out live CD's (usually Mint or Ubuntu) I never state that it's free, only if specifically asked and then hinting that it's an illicit copy, it seem's to lower the barriers to resistance and they'll find out the whole story in due course once they adopt it. Some come back with the fact I withheld the truth but my response back is "would you really have given LINUX a fair shake if you had know it was free", most admit that would have been a negative when evaluating it from the new user status.


Khürt L Williams's picture

Interestingly my conversion rate to OS X is higher using a similar strategy. I lend them my MacBook for a day or so. And you make my point for me. Non-technical people generally don't care about the proprietary vs open argument since they don't read source code. An OS being open or not is not a feature they care about.

In case you think I'm a Linux hater I should let you know I do a lot of my day to day work at the Linux console (in Perl, awk, etc). I also use Windows XP on the desktop (since that is what my employer uses).

Build a custom distro with

Jose_X's picture

Build a custom distro with all the bells and whistles, and lend those out instead (eg, if you trust the user or have nothing that valuable there). Then build a custom respin of that to your friend's tastes. [Heck, run a business and charge for this.]

Also, MacOS is not as safe as Linux. Linux has many more eyeballs than MacOS. MacOS started with open source but Apple could have ended up with more holes than swiss cheese if they were so inclined, greedy, or careless (or under eyeballed).

Anyway, fewer people helping to maintain the Windows monopoly is good, just as long as Apple doesn't come close to building their own on the desktop.

Lending out a personal

Anon's picture

Lending out a personal computer to anyone is asking for trouble, even if you give them a user account to play inside.

The comment you replied to gave some numbers. I notice you didn't. How can we believe what you tell us in this case, about the people you have "converted" to OSX?

W00t! apt-get is what lead

Dr. Jomamachubby's picture

W00t! apt-get is what lead me to convert from redhat to debian ten years ago! Windows STILL has nothing even comparable to the various distributions' package management facilities. Every time I seek something in taskmgr or on a drive I have to ask Google what it is and hope there's an answer. dpkg answers that question with ease for everything on my system.

you are SO RIGHT

Anonymous's picture

I had a friend who came over to set up his new Windows 7 laptop using my WiFi. He made it clear that what he meant by 'set up' was to make his new toy look like my laptop with PCLOS on it.

He turns to me (w/ all seriousness) and says, " where do I go to download Synaptic?". PRICELESS.

Later on:"Google to find out how to make Aero look like KWin/CompizFusion" and "This Control Panel won't add virtual desktops to Windows 7"

At the end of the day he turns to me and says, "I think I may have gotten ripped off".

Sentence Arrested

Anonymous's picture

"In fact, while one of the rally cries of Windows supporters is that the selection of software is so much greater for Windows -- it begs the question of whether or not that’s a good thing."

The above sentence was arrested on March 31, 2010. It is charged with violating Federal Law Section 123431.39, Statute 34, which makes it unlawful for any sentence written by a writer of sentences to use the word "while" for contrast, as in: "While Shawn Powers normally writes decent stuff, he doesn't always use the word 'while' correctly." "While" should be used instead to indicate a period of time during which a condition holds true, as in: "While Shawn Powers is writing decent stuff, he makes sure that he doesn't use the word 'while' incorrectly."

This sentence was also charged with violation of Federal Other Law Section 45,000,493, Statute 2,000,000, Section 392, Clause 1, Subclause 0.999991, which makes it unlawful for any sentence, written by a writer of sentences or otherwise, to use the phrase "begs the question" to indicate *raising* the question. This is adequately explained over at DWT: "The expression 'to beg the question' is a term of logic. It refers to the logical fallacy of arguing without evidence." It is indeed possible that the Windows supporters are arguing without evidence; this is not how the sentence was structured.

The aforementioned sentence has been sentenced to a fine of $390,000, or 399 years in prison. It is summoned to appear in court on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 by 12:00 PM.

Oh contrarywise...

Shawn Powers's picture

I totally meant it the correct way.

I meant "during the time Windows supporters used 'the selection of software is so much greater' as their rally cry, the question was begged."

I assumed that was perfectly clear.

While your arrestafication of my sentence may have been semi-justifiable, it begs the question of whether or not it's judicious use of such legal proceedings. I show no prior convictions that would justify such a charge, and cite Shawn's proper use of "its, it's, and y'all" as a testament to the mastery of his craft.

Executive Editor Jill Franklin was unavailable for comment. She was busy copy editing Shawn's magazine articles, which were FULL of gramaticalistic incorrectables.

L. O. L.

Shawn is Associate Editor here at Linux Journal, and has been around Linux since the beginning. He has a passion for open source, and he loves to teach. He also drinks too much coffee, which often shows in his writing.


L4SMB's picture

As an unauthorized un-Litigator, I challenge the aspect of improper use of "while" and "beg the question" as described above. The above mentioned statutes, thankfully fictional, severely impinge upon my un-client's 1st amendment rights to write as he sees fit.

I recommend that concerns about proper us of english, colloquialisms and questionable grammar be addressed to Mr. Powers' editor and grammar teachers. Though I sincerely doubt they will take a stance against such a stalwart supporter of freedoms and choice.

Good Day.

spot on

apexwm's picture

This is right on. It's been documented and stated so many times that Linux is more secure than Windows. Linux distributions contain an entire suite of programs, for everything imagineable. That's a common misconception. Technically, Linux is considered the kernel portion, and the GNU Operating System consists of all of the supporting programs along with the kernel. That's why you may see it referred to as the GNU/Linux operating system.


Khürt Williams's picture

Do a rewrite of this blog post. Replace references to Linux with OS X.

That'd Be Silly

Shawn Powers's picture

For 2 reasons:

1) OSX Doesn't generally have a vetted repository of software.

2) This is Linux Journal.


Shawn is Associate Editor here at Linux Journal, and has been around Linux since the beginning. He has a passion for open source, and he loves to teach. He also drinks too much coffee, which often shows in his writing.

Yes it does...

Anonymous's picture

Although not one provided by Apple, it has MacPorts

port install whateverappyouwant

I use OS X on my macbook pro and Kubuntu on my desktop, i personaly much prefer Kubuntu to OS X but instaling it on my laptop would be way too much of a hassle...

apt-get as well as the ubuntu software center are truly great, and learning how to use the command line and at least one scripting language also helps make my life easier.

keep your Macbook, but

Anonymous's picture

Steve Jobs would prob stop laughing at the Self-Hating Linuxers if you guys would stop humping his leg all the time. Also, your priapism for OS-X would go away.

I was told, by a programmer friend showing me his very-expensive Macbook running WinXP in Parallels, that his OS had prob been 'eclipsed' by PCLOS running WinXP in VirtualBox. I immediately went home to check it out.

He was right.


Mackenzie's picture

Or Fink! Which is just the Debian repos recompiled for OSX. And also the only thing that makes that OS even close to usable (now if only OSX had a decent window manager...)