This is a thread from Reddit by Zeike on how important it is to learn the proper functions of Linux before learning Kali. I found it very useful and changed my perspective. This is not my own work, I am sharing it because this is for all new people who are planning on learning Linux and what is not recommended.
"Linux is cool. You're interested in Linux and that makes you cool too. You should be proud of your interest in Linux. You're now part of a community that is full of cool people (OK, a few of us are jerks, but what can you do).
What else is cool? Computer hacking. Password cracking. Network penetration. These things are neat, and the people who can do them are usually pretty cool too (though some of them are jerks too). Learning to do these things is fun, and if you want to do it, you should. When practiced responsibly, these things can make fun hobbies, or even a lucrative career. The purpose of this post is not to discourage anybody from learning to do these things.
One of the major problems new Linux users face when starting out is figuring out which Linux distribution is right for them. There are a lot of options after all. Everybody likes to recommend their favorite distro (and also occasionally give their opinion on their least favorite distro). Very frequently I see questions in this subreddit, and in related subreddits, like "What distro should I use?", "I want to learn to code, what distro would be good for me?", "What is the best distro for python programming?", or "What distro should I use to learn penetration testing?". New Linux users who might be interested in penetration testing (or some other related topic) might, by some means or another, discover Kali Linux. They might think "Hey, I want to learn Linux and also pen-testing! I should use Kali Linux." They'd probably be wrong.
The thing is, most desktop distributions provide access to the same software. If you want to watch Youtube videos and write email, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, etc, are all equally capable of that. If you want to learn python programming, you can do that on any of those distributions. Similarly, if you want to learn pen-testing, you can do it from any of those distributions.
Kali Linux is a distribution specifically designed to be a toolkit for professional pen-testers. As such, it might be very attractive to new Linux users who are interested in security. However, Kali is /not/ designed as a general purpose Linux distro. Some elements of it's design are simply not suited for use as a general purpose desktop. If you're a new Linux user who installs Kali Linux chances are you will have a frustrating experience. The Kali Linux maintainers even have a FAQ page "Is Kali Linux right for me?"
http://docs.kali.org/introduction/should...kali-linux
Please read that article before deciding to use Kali as a desktop OS, especially if you're new to Linux. If you don't yet understand some of the points made in that article that's probably a sign to avoid Kali for now.
It's quite often that I see people asking questions like "How do I do X in Kali Linux?" or "[Kali] Y is not working. Please help." Unfortunately these users don't usually get the help they need, which makes me sad. The posts are often dismissed or downvoted. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd wager that most of the people asking these questions don't need Kali. They need a desktop distribution.
I am worried that if your first adventures with Linux are in Kali you will have a frustrating experience and be turned off from the whole endeavor. Your questions might be dismissed and left unanswered because you appear to be in over your head.
Using Kali Linux as your first desktop Linux distro is like learning to drive on a racecar. Please don't do it.
Peace." (Zeike)
Well kiddies that use Kali act like they're hackers
"if you dont shut ur fucking mouth ill turn kali linux on"
oh big fuckin deal
I don't see the point in new Linux users downloading and trying to use it to hack websites. Everything that is on Kali can be on Ubuntu (which, for some reason, gets badly criticised even though it's by far one of the best for hardware support and hardware/software compatibility). All Kali has going for it is its nature of being a penetration testing ready operating system. That means it's distributed with fully-working packages that are relevant to the professionals, the kernel is already patched for several attack types (such as injection), and has everything professionals need in one place which saves a lot of time.
For people who are new to Linux, they should understand first what the packages are. Then, once they are familiar with the packages they use and what they're doing exactly, they will discover why their kernel needs to be patched and why certain patches are relevant to what they're doing and how those patches are even made. Even compiling and running a custom kernel is a fun thing to do, and it's something I do on a regular basis. Never have I had the need for my work to use something like Kali and I'm one of the professionals it's targeted at.
It's one of my pet hates to see people asking if they should go for Kali or Backtrack when they're new to Linux.
(Dec 18, 2015 05:56 AM)NON- Wrote: I don't see the point in new Linux users downloading and trying to use it to hack websites. Everything that is on Kali can be on Ubuntu (which, for some reason, gets badly criticised even though it's by far one of the best for hardware support and hardware/software compatibility). All Kali has going for it is its nature of being a penetration testing ready operating system. That means it's distributed with fully-working packages that are relevant to the professionals, the kernel is already patched for several attack types (such as injection), and has everything professionals need in one place which saves a lot of time.
For people who are new to Linux, they should understand first what the packages are. Then, once they are familiar with the packages they use and what they're doing exactly, they will discover why their kernel needs to be patched and why certain patches are relevant to what they're doing and how those patches are even made. Even compiling and running a custom kernel is a fun thing to do, and it's something I do on a regular basis. Never have I had the need for my work to use something like Kali and I'm one of the professionals it's targeted at.
It's one of my pet hates to see people asking if they should go for Kali or Backtrack when they're new to Linux.
NON-, my old friend. This is why I say you will go far on HF.
(Dec 18, 2015 05:56 AM)NON- Wrote: which, for some reason, gets badly criticised even though it's by far one of the best for hardware support and hardware/software compatibility.
Ubuntu, like GNU, has added several new features in their system..
As for the hardware support.. you better be smoking something because, Linux is Linux and that is one thing that will never change. Hardware support is exactly the same on all GNU/Linux distributions.
(Dec 18, 2015 05:56 AM)NON- Wrote: I don't see the point in new Linux users downloading and trying to use it to hack websites. Everything that is on Kali can be on Ubuntu (which, for some reason, gets badly criticised even though it's by far one of the best for hardware support and hardware/software compatibility). All Kali has going for it is its nature of being a penetration testing ready operating system. That means it's distributed with fully-working packages that are relevant to the professionals, the kernel is already patched for several attack types (such as injection), and has everything professionals need in one place which saves a lot of time.
For people who are new to Linux, they should understand first what the packages are. Then, once they are familiar with the packages they use and what they're doing exactly, they will discover why their kernel needs to be patched and why certain patches are relevant to what they're doing and how those patches are even made. Even compiling and running a custom kernel is a fun thing to do, and it's something I do on a regular basis. Never have I had the need for my work to use something like Kali and I'm one of the professionals it's targeted at.
It's one of my pet hates to see people asking if they should go for Kali or Backtrack when they're new to Linux.
I agree. This is why I like arch. I get to add what I want/need and not have a bunch of software per-installed that I may or may not ever use. Plus installing arch lets you be sure what's going on behind the installation.
Dec 20, 2015 01:38 AM
(This post was last modified: Dec 20, 2015 01:46 AM by NON-.)
(Dec 18, 2015 03:16 PM)Loki123 Wrote: As for the hardware support.. you better be smoking something because, Linux is Linux and that is one thing that will never change. Hardware support is exactly the same on all GNU/Linux distributions. Just because a distribution is Linux, this does not mean they are all the same. For instance, take Debian. Debian's policy on software is only FOSS. Ubuntu, on the other hand, provides access to non-paid software.
The way different systems work can also serve as a detriment to the way their drives work with some hardware. So while, generally speaking, there is wide support for hardware compatibilities, it's not always that easy. At least, in the case of Ubuntu, they have Canonical funding which serves to further their a great deal over their competitors like Mint, just like Fedora does. Further to the point of Ubuntu, they are able to select from a pool of drivers and software packages that are made for any Debian-based system and, because they're one of the most popular systems, naturally have a larger pool of code submissions to fix their bugs.
Ubuntu also uses a newer kernel last time I checked. Ubuntu also gets updates more regularly whereas Debian, a developer-first distribution, waits longer to make significant updates to ensure compatibility is flawless and without bugs.
One thing Debian does have with support over Ubuntu is support for more architectures.
For example, I recently tried to install Debian 8 onto my PC because I finally felt the need for it. Debian disliked my graphics driver and hated the computer using multiple monitors. But when I tried to install Ubuntu, they were fine with it.
So in short, Ubuntu does have far better hardware and software compatibility - as an added bonus, this comes out-of-the-box.
Debian as well as Ubuntu provides an easy access to proprietary software in their repositories. Same goes for Gentoo and so on.
Support of specific set of drivers isn't held down to the distributions policy on software. There philosophy usually only one repository, their main one, then others have the proprietary software in another one, like Debian.
Linux Mint, Gentoo, Slackware, Ubuntu and Debian all support the same hardware.. What comes with them by default isn't the question. If the hardware is supported it means drivers exist for Linux to utilize the hardware. If it does, then it is supported in all distributions. Ubuntu does not have better hardware support, they just don't. If hardware is supported on one then it will work and be supported on another one. What comes out of the box with the distribution and what does not come with it out of the box is irrelevant to what hardware is supported.
For the record, I assume that Debian graphics card issue was a problem because you wanted to use a proprietary drivers, and tried to install with the binary file while Xorg was running. Both ATI and Nvidia cards are fully supported and drivers for linux released by AMD and Nvidia themselves so support for them isn't a problem. As well does Intel and AMD for the on board graphics cards.
If you think updates on regular basis has anything to do with the support then you are completely off.. If you want updates on "more frequent" basis go on and check Arch Linux out for example; They are constantly updating packages for your system and pushing through very frequently.. That has absolutely nothing to do with what is and isn't supported. Having updates frequently on the whole distribution has nothing to do with the support they offer, they don't even need to have an update like that but instead having a rolling release distribution.
Yeah, a larger pool of users to fix their bugs, sure... That exactly is the reason Ubuntu is using Unity isn't it ? Yet another example of a "feature" as mentioned before.
There is too much wrong with Ubuntu.. FFS, I installed it few days ago, installed Google Chrome and it fucking crashed three times until I stopped opening up chrome. Best my fucking ass.
As for their Canonical funding, that is exactly yet another reason why people dislike Ubuntu.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html
I think that having these drivers in the main repositories means a lot more than you'd think actually. Given that Debian uses three (testing, unstable, and stable) and does not include proprietary in any of them for their philosophies while Ubuntu has, does make a large difference to out-of-the-box support. Yes these drivers are available to you regardless of which distribution but overall, for new Linux users who don't have a clue about kernels, modprobe, proprietary software over FOSS and the like is a headache waiting to happen. I'm not going to argue anymore about this but if you don't believe me, have a google. I've worked with these systems for long enough to know what I'm talking about, in personal and professional contexts.
As for Unity, think what you want of it. I don't personally like it but Unity paved a way for the new GNOME appearance that's default in Jessie. It's all about evolution. And while we're on about "spyware", this is old ground. Debates over this have been going for years and I doubt will never stop. You can read their privacy statements if you like but it doesn't matter whether they collect this information or not; they'll never know it was you because they don't collect anything that can be used to identify you.
Are you another one of the paranoid systemd haters as well?
I'm not that stupid. Jessie had poor support for the hardware from its code. Plenty of it in their bug tracker.
Remember that for as biased and full of hate as you seem towards Ubuntu, there are reasons it's been the most popular distribution for the last ten years. You just need to accept that you don't believe those who know better.
Aight, I think you have gotten the point I was making when you said "Yes these drivers are available to you regardless of which distribution".
Ease of access wasn't our topic, the topic was if these drivers were supported or not.
It doesn't matter what Ubuntu collects, what is important is that Ubuntu does collect that data.
About systemd then yes, I'm not much fan of systemd. I like the old OpenRC init style. But that isn't the reason I stay away from distributions that utilize systemd at all. Currently I stay away from anything that has something to do with GNU. Maybe you should take a look at how incredibly stupid some of their coreutils are, as they do not agree with the use of shell redirection for one.
However, as you agreed with my point earlier. It doesn't matter which distribution you use, these drivers are available and it in no way means Ubuntu has the best hardware support. It just means that Ubuntu has the best access to drivers.
Thank you for reposting this. I was looking at Kali Linux seeing it as a distribution I could grow in to. Thanks to you I will not be making that mistake and will instead look for a Debian or Ubuntu based distribution to adapt as I progress. Thank you.
|
