Hey all!
Long time no see!

I decided to create this post in response to a YouTube video that I came across.
Interestingly, it was a video debunking Linux myths.
The trouble I had, were that the majority of these ‘debunked myths’, were in actuality not debunked at all, or misrepresented, or taken out of context.
Here is the video, and my response to each myth supposedly debunked:

Myth: Linux has no viruses

This is the first myth that is being tackled.
Now I do agree, that there are in fact viruses on Linux. However, they are so rare that you most likely won’t come across them.
On top of that, due to the open source nature of Linux, and that software is for the most part installed through package managers, if a virus slips into a software, it gets removed quickly and the update pushed. So if you keep your system up to date, you should not ever encounter a virus.
But the approach taken here is unusual.
The presenter shows us a directory with a program inside it, and claims this is infected. He proceeds by running an AV over it which then shows there were three infected files found. And he makes the claim it shows there is in fact viruses on Linux!
However, those with a keen eye will notice the files infected are EXE’s and DLL’s. All which are Windows files. Since the user claimed that he does not have Wine, this wouldn’t affect his system. Secondly, they are not intended for a Linux environment (they are Windows files). Therefore, the myth in my opinion is not debunked with this example.

Myth: You never need to defrag

I will run over this one quickly since the reporter pretty much swallowed his own words himself.
Firstly, the two ‘defrag programs’ he talks about are reporting tools, not defrag programs.
Secondly, like the reporter stated, the way the filesystem on modern Linux systems are, you almost never need to defrag.
I have ran Linux for over 10 years now, and never had to defrag. We can get all semantics here, and say ‘almost never’ is not never, but if you can find a Linux user that has had to defrag, I will apologize and call this one busted, deal?

Myth: You never have to reboot

This one I found quite interesting.
What makes it so confusing is that in general it is accepted that reboots are few and far between. However, if you use Fedora for instance (like me), then you will get asked to reboot quite often. And then there is the memory story this guy tells us and it seems open and shut.
Firstly let me tackle the Firefox example below, and his mention of memory being full.
When you open an application, it loads what is required into memory, and will stay there until it is closed. The reason for this is speed and efficiency. This doesn’t mean that an app isn’t fully removed, because it is, but until you close the app, it’s process will continue to run. I once tried this by running ‘rm -rf /’ whilst running Ubuntu (don’t try that at home please). And yes, it’s remarkable, for the most part, it continues to run…with a lot of errors flying your way. You will notice icons become ugly, windows losing their borders, and much more. That’s because most of the things aren’t in memory and will be lost.
He also stated that you will need to reboot in order to have some changes take place. This is completely false.
Firstly, a simple logout and login will push the changes for user defined changes, and in most applications the service is restarted when it has been updated. If not, then a simple ‘sudo service <servicename> restart’ is sufficient.
Where it does require a reboot is kernel updates and those parts of the OS that is started during bootup time. These tend to be the connections between hardware and the OS. But this too will be a thing of the past as RedHat has announced they have found a way you can switch kernels whilst you are still running the OS.
So it’s kinda half true.
But you have to realize that this particular belief is aimed not at home desktops, but the server.
Most servers don’t update kernels very often unless it is essential. At my former workplace we had a Linux server which had an uptime of almost 3 years without a single issue. So, whilst I agree for the desktop this is indeed a myth, his reasons are wrong.

Myth: You can pull out a harddrive, and plug it into another machine and it works

Personally I have never encountered the issue this guy is having, but I don’t dispute it either.
Having cloned a Linux installation for multiple Pi’s, it seems to work pretty well, but let’s say it’s true.
Then yes, it may say it cannot find the UUID. After all, it’s a UNIQUE identifier.
But it’s such an easy fix.
You simply need to get new UUID’s.
Thanks to the commandline tool ‘blkid’, you can get these, you change FSTAB to reflect those changes and voila, it boots.
Sure, that’s more than just plugging it in and off you go, but considering the premise is that you CANNOT pull the hard drive out, plug it in elsewhere and have it boot, this proves it can actually be done.
Now please note though, I have never had to do this, so I am going by what Google tells me and by thinking hypothetically.
I know this is the basic steps to be taken, but please do tell me if you know the exact steps so I can change this post accordingly so it’s completely accurate.
Also, since his last statement was being a little harsh on semantics, I am going to have to do the same.
He states (18:55) ‘look, it’s not booting’. Considering it says ‘rootfs /$’…it HAS booted, and Grub was already shown, indicating it was booting…sorry my friend, that’s a wrong statement.
What I am getting at is that it is actually totally possible.


Some of these supposed debunks, are in fact not debunked at all, and are simply the reporters own misunderstanding, or misinformed idea of what Linux is or how it works.
Others while actually true, are not being portrayed correctly in his examples.
If we are to base the debunking entirely on his video, I am afraid all of these are not debunked at all.