Slashdot Mirror


The Clueless Newbie Rides Again

overshoot writes "Anyone remember The Clueless Newbie's Linux Odyssey? As it happens, she's come back to have a go at Ubuntu Feisty. 'Four years ago I tried about a dozen Linux distributions, to see if they were ready for an ordinary user to install as an escape from the Windows world. None of the distros performed well enough for me to recommend them to a non-geek unless they were going to hire someone to install it. After hearing Dell's recent announcement that it will sell computers with pre-installed Ubuntu Linux, I decided to see if Ubuntu was user-friendly.'"

11 of 636 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And? by rbanzai · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the final page:

    "I think Ubuntu Linux is definitely ready for almost anyone with a Windows system who is tired of havig their computer infested with spyware and viruses. It is also a way to avoid Microsoft's "activation" demands. It's free! It's good! It works!"

  2. Edited title by overshoot · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually, I submitted it as "The Clueless Newbie Rudes Again."

    Some spelling errors aren't.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  3. Re:And? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Informative

    summary: she likes it and would install it over Windows ... except for 2 items: the default gnome font (white with a black dropshadow) isn't acceptable for her as she's partially sighted. However she said she'd dump Gnome in favour of KDE so that's not a show-stopper.

    The show stopper was the lack of an outline feature for Openoffice. Until that 2000/2001 bug report gets resolved, she'll remain dependant on Office and so cannot get rid of Windows.

    Ubuntu came out with a big gold star though.

  4. Re:To bring this up yet again: by Trojan35 · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you don't want to change, don't change, Linux isn't windows, it's not trying to be, it's something different.

    You're kidding right? Almost every single new feature of linux is basically a copy of something on Windows. I'm a supporter of Linux, but that whole "it's not trying to be windows" argument is just people keeping their heads in the sand.

    The linux distros that are meant for end-users are trying to be exactly like Windows, but free/stable/secure.

  5. Re:And? by Kesshi · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the final page:

    "I think Ubuntu Linux is definitely ready for almost anyone with a Windows system who is tired of havig their computer infested with spyware and viruses. It is also a way to avoid Microsoft's "activation" demands. It's free! It's good! It works!"


    I could be considered a "clueless newbie" when it comes to *nix. Sure I know how to ls, I know what grep does, I understand what man is, and I've even heard of chmod and used a bit of vi ! But that's about where my knowledge stops. I imagine that a lot of other "average users" are very much like me, or worse, have less knowledge than me. No, I'm pretty sure the "average user" has less knowledge of computers than me; I've been configuring home NT networks since the first release of NT4.0 in the mid 90s. Even with this knowledge and experience *nix has always scared me.

    I've only ever used DOS and Windows my whole life, but after reading this article I feel comfortable to give UBUNTU a shot. And I like that.
    --
    Press +++ for Sysop access
  6. Re:So? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

    The point is that if everyone switches to linux because it is safer, and if the reason it is safer is that it's a smaller target, than the end result will be that the "truth" that linux is safer will end up as a thing of the past.

    That's a pretty big "if". The truth is that Linux is safer, because it's simply harder to break into. A default Ubuntu install doesn't expose any open ports. Windows is designed to expose hundreds of ports, none of which can safely be closed because that would break random bits of software that Windows depends on. Linux ought to be extremely easy to write exploits for; after all, the code is right there in the open. If it was that easy then most of the servers on the Internet would have been broken into by now, where the vast majority are Linux and Windows is a dwindling minority.

  7. Re:So? by rizzo420 · · Score: 4, Informative

    windows actually has very few open ports since XP SP2, and even fewer with vista, especially if you choose public location for when you plug into any network.

    --
    please me, have no regrets.
  8. Of course I'm not clueless! I'm a tech writer! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am a technical writer: I think like a Clueless Newbie when I am testing user documentation. My biggest gripe with the Linuxes of the first article was mostly that it was impossible to just RTFM and accomplish things because it depended on arcane knowledge and there was no FM to R. My goal with this project was to see if Ubuntu was something that a minimally competent computer user could install on their own, and end up with a working system. Point and click and copy and paste ... the basic skills. BTW: Ubuntu's GUI and help pages talk about drivers and partitions and Wine. I was surprised ... happily surprised ... to see so much clearly written, useful information in one spot.

  9. Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 32-bit Flash plugin works just fine with 32-bit Firefox on a 64-bit (x86-64) system.

    That's what I've got here. (Suse 10.1 distro, not Ubuntu, which may or may not make a difference. If Ubuntu is installing a 64-bit browser, they may want to rethink that.

    Debian is working on the really ideal solution to that problem, they call it multiarch. The idea is to make the installer fully aware of all of the different variations of processors and which apps they can run and which libraries are needed.

    In this case, what we want to happen is when you apt-get install the flash player, the installer realizes that the only version available is a 32-bit version and that it depends on a 32-bit version of the browser, which in turn needs a certain set of 32-bit libraries, so it downloads and installs all of it, installing the 32-bit libraries next to the 64-bit libraries and replacing the 64-bit browser. Multiarch will make all of that, and much more, not only possible but transparent to the user. It's still a work in progress, though.

    In the meantime, I agree that a desktop-oriented distro like Ubuntu should probably install a 32-bit browser by default. Either that or accept a bit of temporary ugliness and code some specific flash and browser handling into the installer so it does the right thing.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  10. Unix receives more attack attempts than windows. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 5, Informative

    UnixA is NOT a smaller target audience, it is in the Desktop, but not on the server.
    And let me tell you, servers with a fixed IP address, open well known ports listening, and lots of domains pointing to it are the most common target. I have a fixed IP address, on a Unix machine, and you should just see my logs. Tons of break-in attempts everyday, and my Slackware just resists all of them.

    Desktop machines with windows with variable IP addresses are the target of bots. Unix servers with fixed IP addresses are the target of real crackers and wannabes trying to break in 24/7.

    Unix is a far more secure platform than Windows; and it has been proved since it's more exposed to heavy attacks all the time.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  11. Re:And? by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    How about I answer you right here?

    As you know, Windows has a particular look to it's User Interface (the windows, the task bar, the buttons, all the stuff you interact with to make the computer do stuff for you.) In Windows XP, the User Interface (or UI) is called Luna. In Windows Vista there are Two UI's; Aero (the core UI), and Aero Glass (the nifty 3D one)

    Well Linux has MANY available UI's that can be loaded. GNOME and KDE are the two most popular. Most distributions ("brands", if you prefer) of Linux choose at least one UI to start with. Ubuntu Linux uses the GNOME UI. Kubuntu uses the KDE UI.

    As far as selecting one over the other, it's really a matter of personal taste:

    KDE is the traditional "Windowsy" looking UI. It has a task bar along the bottom of the screen, and the KDE equivalent to the "Start" button in the lower left corner, right where it is in Windows. However, it is more complex than Windows with far more options to work with. This can be confusing to new users, but many users who like to tinker find this interface enjoyable to use.

    GNOME is the more "Mac-like" interface. It uses two task bars, one at the top, and one at the bottom. The top bar has all the menus on it, and yes, there is more than one. It is somewhat less configurable than KDE, but no less powerful. It is preferred among those who like a cleaner interface with a more mac-like approach to menus and usage.

    Again, there isn't necessarily a "better" choice here. They are both equally good at what they do, they just do it in different ways. I would recommend using the Live CD's to explore the UI options you have without having to commit to one or the other right away. You can run the live CD, and then just rboot when you are done, with no changes made to your PC.

    You can download the Ubuntu live CD here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
    You can download a Kubuntu live CD here: http://www.kubuntu.org/download.php#latest

    Just download, burn to CD with your favorite burning software, insert into CD drive, reboot and enjoy!

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory