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.'"
For those of you in the F/OSS community who want to make their products more mainstream, here's a free user test and feedback.
I take it as a great compliment to you folks in the F/OSS community that someone like her is attempting to install and run your products! It means you are becoming a real alternative to Windows and this editorial is a wonderful way to continue and expand on your excellence.
Just my opinion.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
NORMAL USERS don't install OS's. If you install your OS, you have progressed to POWER USER. Windows "normal users" call a computer shop to reinstall their OS. I know, I'VE GOTTEN THE CALLS!
Also,
If you don't want to change, don't change, Linux isn't windows, it's not trying to be, it's something different.
Now flame me, please.
My Babylon
The author tries to act like a newbie in the first couple pages. But by page 3, the words "driver", "Wine" (as in the emulator), "partition", and more start to appear. Newbie?!! Are you kidding me?
When my Grandma sat down at a computer for the first time a few years ago, she tried waving the mouse in the air to make the pointer move. That is a computer newbie!
As one person trying to migrate off of Windows (XP and Win2K user), I liked the features of Feisty Fawn running from the Live CD that I wanted to install it to the hard drive.
If we want Ubuntu to move forward, the developers need to recognize the thousands of people who will see it as an installation on top of Microsoft instead of getting a fresh clean installed image from Dell. Get these people comfortable and then the others will follow.
If screen four can be made a little more clear of explain that it has detected a Windows OS and lead the user from there, then we have a wonderful comfort level even before they get to see how Linux is so much better than Windows.
For /. readers, this may be a slow and cumbersome process but then again, if you can have the CD help Mom and Dad install Linux instead of you doing it for her, then there is one less family help desk call you have to make. Also, it makes them feel like they can actually maintain and operate there own systems.
Don't worry, they will still love you, even if they don't need your help anymore.
Live CD. Just pop it in and go. If things don't work, just take the disk out.
Sic Semper MicroSoft
And even though I really dislike people who say things "I have no idea what it did, but that's the way I like it," The review is favorable and correct. I tend to use Ubuntu and Fedora the most these days, and the article (I think) correctly shows that Ubuntu is a very good distro for the user's user, someone who doesn't really care to learn their operating system, let alone to learn programming. (Ubuntu is plently good for techies too, make no mistake).
What I can't figure out is why the reviewer discusses Ubuntu *installation* when they claimed that the reason they decided to check was Dell's announcement that they were *preloading* Ubuntu on PCs and laptops.
Ubuntu desktop Linux is undoubtedly a great distro for end users. And it shows why Microsoft is pulling out the patent crap now. Linux distros are now at a point where, for most users, there is no reason to prefer Windows. Only hardcore gamers have a reason to stick with Windows at this point.
Ubuntu can't do anything about Adobe not shipping a 64-bit native flash, Win64 users have the same problem.
The fear she felt when Ubuntu's installer did not give any sign it was aware of, and respecting her Windows partition.
This is the kind of UI point that developers easily miss. They know what is going on under the UI, and therefore they are unaware of what the user is going to think when confronted with the interface.
I wouldn't be surprised if many newbie Linux experimenters are deterred part way through the installation process by something like this. It really is a pain to reinstall Windows.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yeah, because it's so silly to ask a simple and relevant question rather than download an ISO that is hundreds of megs large, burn it, and spend time fiddling with it to see if it works.
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. I've only tried Ubuntu briefly, and passed on it because I didn't like their init system, I'm too used to Suse and RedHat.)
-- Alastair
Correct. People tend to perceive anything that is known as safe, and anything unknown as unsafe. Whether or not it's safe is irrelevent.
Don't mock this fact: Embrace and abuse it.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
The real problem is she installed 64-bit without understanding the implications of such. Aka: buggy. If she'd have installed pure 32-bit, it probably would have just worked. Ditto the wine-wrapped picasa.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
What does "Rudes Again" mean?
Security of one's PC isn't a moral battle between platforms, though the holy wars between zealots do look like it. The relatively small payoff for targeting Linux might be the reason that Linux is more secure, but that reason is part of the proof that the result is that Linux is more secure.
I don't know why people think that giving reasons that explain why something is true somehow reduces the importance of that truth. But we often see people defending a losing side by explaining the reasons why the other side is winning. Maybe that excuses their support for the loser, but they have just further proven why the other side is winning.
--
make install -not war
If we could get it to the point of ease that Apple has then I feel Linux would be a real alternative to windows.
Can't be done. Too many device drivers to worry about to get the kind of stability you see in OS X, and that means installation and device use will never be as smooth as Apple. However, it is a worthy goal - so long as you understand that you'll never quite achieve it with an open device ecosystem.
I find it interesting when people compare installations between Windows and Linux. Funny thing is, they are usually only talking about Linux installations, because Windows was already on the machine.
Interesting thing about the Dell I bought a couple of years ago, when the hard drive is clean and I do an install, Ubuntu works great. M$, however, installs but fails to allow me to connect to my cable modem because the broadcom driver is not on the SP2 install disk.
That means if I were reviewing that install - I would stop right there. If I can't connect to the net, what is the point of installing the OS in the first place?
-- End Review.
"Once it's more of a target, you'll see a gain in attacks."
.mil servers, or the bulk of non-fluff on the net?
you don't still believe that, do you?
After all, a suicide bomber doesn't waste his time blowing up a single person unless they're of high importance.
A vast majority of the systems of "high importance" are *nix boxes. Do you really think the PCs owned by soccer moms across the country have more important data on them than bank servers,
One doesn't need to be "stupid" to get a virus in Windows. One merely needs to install a recent copy of the OS, and connect it to the internet. If they're NAT'd, then fine - they merely need to go to a few web pages, or watch a movie. Nothing stupid about any of that.
Do like everyone else does.....click the "Print Mode".... http://www.associatedcontent.com/pop_print.shtml?c ontent_type=article&content_type_id=233123
One page, all of the content, no advertisements.
Done.
Layne
Probably because the last time I did that (/etc/x11/xorg.conf) I forgot a quotation mark and the next time I turned my computer on I got a nice friendly blue screen informing me that there was a serious error before dumping me into a terminal. Fortunately the instructions had included a line that made a backup of the correct file. Unfortunately I had no idea what the command was to rename the file from a command line.
No, I'm afraid that editing these files still has the chance of screwing everything up, even with instructions. Until they auto-backup and auto-replace the files when you screw something up (or IDK, maybe check to see if the file is valid before letting you save changes that would cause a crash? Would that be so hard?) editing those files is just as bad as editing the windows registries - not something you should do unless you're really familiar with them.
Also, I seriously want a graphical interface for the mouse. Not just "speed" and "acceleration" I want to turn off my freaking touchpad by clicking a button. I want to enable all the buttons and even change their function in a few clicks.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
The deal is that nearly all of the Unix exploits were being done back in the early 1990s when *nix boxes were the only boxes on the internet for the most part. As much as I live by Microsoft software, the reason that people are going after it instead of Unix isn't because it's a bigger target. It is because the *nix world has already been there and done that. They've had their trial by fire and came out the other side of it. Microsoft is STILL learning the hard way. By the time I had my Win 3.11 box on the net with a 14.4 SLIP connection, my friends who were running Slackware and BSD had been there for a couple of years already.
And when someone criticizes free software (with reason), do you find that "scathing" as well? There's a lot of "non free" software. Are you implying that because Flash (!) doesn't work on 64-bit Linux then all "non free" software is a problem? Seriously?
That's interesting, because when she first published that initial article she was branded an idiot - predictably, I might add. But now everything's A-OK and she's picky and satisfied.
Yeah, I completely lose data all the time under "M$ Windoze" and have never lost any under any other OS. After all, backups are for pussies. Might as well just hope your OS is perfect.
And BTW, in all fairness if someone wants to switch away from Windows to something else because of activation then more power to them. Microsoft deserves to lose them. Activation and "genuine advantage" are a pain that each person needs to decide whether or not they want to put up with.
But "infested with spyware and viruses"? Please. If your computer is "infested" with anything then the most likely cause can be found between the chair and the keyboard.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
in light of the ongoing battle over DRM:
Although CDs played immediately, to play DVDs I had to locate and install some files that bypass content protection coding. The website I acquired them from, www.getautomatix.com , warned me that I might be installing something illegal, but I said, "Yarrr, matey", and clicked the install button. Automatix installed itself, then I selected what I needed. More files were downloaded and installedIOW, normal usage of the DVDs (not even gray-area "fair use" copying, but normal playback), on her fully-owned and legally-obtained system, was broken until she installed something that "may be illegal." This is a point we need to make noise about: DRM can make it impossible to simply watch a purchased movie.
I know, not exactly news (to readers here anyway), but it's another opportunity to point it out.
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
A vast majority of the systems of "high importance" are *nix boxes. Do you really think the PCs owned by soccer moms across the country have more important data on them than bank servers, .mil servers, or the bulk of non-fluff on the net?
No, but that's not the point. Your typical malware is after one of three things - (a) the ability to popup ads (b) the ability to intercept/redirect browser traffic or (c) control of the machine to send spam etc - they don't care about the data already on the PC. So yes, your typical bank server is running unix, and yes it's typically more secure that an average PC (running ANY o/s), but they have to be because the people trying to break them are a lot smarter and a lot more focussed than the random botnet operators who simply want access to everyone's broadband pipes.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Why stop at Linux? Installing anything on top of the OS, much less installing an OS, is a challenge for people like this. And being usable is mostly about what you are used to. My brother-in-law gave us a Mac mini. After hearing about how easy it was supposed to be, I found that I had trouble figuring out how to do some pretty rudimentary things. That's because I wasn't familiar with the Mac way. The "standard" location of things (think menu) is sometimes different between a Mac and Windows. Heck, I couldn't even cut & paste because ctrl-c/ctrl-v didn't work. Does that make a Mac harder to use? No, just different. Open Apple-C isn't harder, just different. The difficulty for Linux/Mac is that people's perception of "different" is "harder".
And you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
Making a living testing and hardening servers has taught me 2 things:
1) Securing a *nix box is EASIER than securing a Windows box because of the inherent security model (OS built to restrict and separate users)
2) MUCH MUCH MUCH (x 10 000) more importantly, the learning curve for a Windows administrator is simply too shallow. Windows' ease of use makes it way too easy to set up a web server, or a mail server (or god-forbid, a media streaming server, if a client asks for this, RUN, don't walk) without having to get a grasp on the fundamentals of what that service's impact is on security. Show me someone that can set up sendmail to work properly, and I guarantee you that the implementation has been thought out 1 000 better than some prat installing Windows SMTP from the add/remove dialog. VHOSTS in Apache, while significantly simpler to set up than 5 years ago, makes a similar counterpoint to IIS.
It's just too easy to be a (shitty) Windows admin, pushing out 'good enough' solutions, as opposed to someone that has had to figure out how things really work.
I loved your Sports car / Party bus analogy.
1. Sports Car: Mac OS X. Pretty fast, looks fancy, you think you're real cool. You paid too much, it's not that reliable. Eventually you'll just have to buy a whole new one, cause maintenance is a real bitch.
2. Party Bus: Windows XP. Kinda scary, might get viruses, but you'll have fun with silly games and plenty of porn. Might drive you to drink too much, might cause hang overs.
3. Work Truck: Debian Linux. Solid, reliable. Gets the job done. Boring. Nobody looks forward to it.
4. SUV: Windows Vista. Everybody wants it, because it looks better than your old car, but when you get it, it's slow, hard to do three point turns in, costs you way too much in gas, and doesn't do some of the stuff your old car did. You end up using your old car, and eventually put it up on Craig's List.
5. Classic Car: Ubuntu. If you keep it in fluids, it runs forever. It's fast, has clean simple lines, all of your friend's are jealous, but not brave enough to switch from their Toyota. Kinda missing some newer creature comforts like cup holders.
6. Moped: Knoppix. Saves money, time, is fast. But you can't do some things you do with your other car, like carry stuff and other people. Plus it's a little embarrassing.
7. Yugo: Windows ME. Barely drove even when brand new. Was KIND OF cute, at first, but within minutes you wished you had a different car. Any car.
8. Toyota: Windows 2000. Saves money, saves time, is pretty fast. Does most of the stuff you need it to do, and easily, but it's really not glamorous. Tons of people are still driving it, but nobody's proud. You probably still have the stock radio, which sucks, but at least it still plays music.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
This review was very well done overall. Nevertheless, a bit of unfairness did manage to creep in. And no, I'm not talking about the fact that her familiarity with Windoze is probably all that keeps her from seeing the Windows installation process as far more difficult than the Linux one. That's just how things are, like it or not.
Rather, I'm talking about her "no editing configuration files" rule, especially as it was invoked to prevent fixing the Gnome problem with default fonts for labels with a simple config file change. There may not be very many configuration files you need to or even can edit on Windoze, but it is unfortunately not exactly uncommon to have to piddle around with the registry on Windoze to get things working, and I fail to see a substantive difference between poking a setting in there you're not quite sure of versus editing a file and hoping you don't make a syntax error. Either way when you reboot you're sitting there with all your fingers and toes crossed hoping you haven't toasted the damn thing and that's just not an acceptable user experience.
And that's assuming you can find the right setting. Last week our support folks were engaged with a customer on Windoze who had changed some network configuration or other and managed to kill name lookups. It took quite a bit of effort to find the right places in the registry to poke for this.
Now, I'm sure there are plenty of Windoze users who have never had to do any registry hacking, but if so that's a matter of luck more than anything else.
The fact of the matter is that none of the systems in common use can really claim to be entirely free of the need to poke around under the pretty GUI hood to get things properly set up and keep them running over time. This certainly goes for Mac OS X as well, where there are plenty of settings that can only be changed through configuration files. (The one that really bugs me on Mac OS X is the media types to application mapping. This used to be configurable through Internet Config but now you have to download something like "Default Apps" to have a GUI interface for it. OTOH, at least there's a GUI available for it, which is more than I can say for some of the network settings that are only GUI-settable on Mac OS X Server.)
kinda doubt that networking was in there from the beginning - hence bsd sockets/netX releases. uucp doesn't count as networked. original arpa imp machines were specially coded machines.
there was also no concept of a "server" machine at the time - there were no clients for them to serve, just terminals
A properly set up Ubuntu is fine for grannies. Most grannies don't set up their windows boxes so one would not expect their grannies to set up their linux boxes.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
That's probably the best answer to the kde vs gnome debate I've seen. I still think it's the wrong answer, or more to the point, a good answer to the wrong question.
The OP was concerned about all the new things they were going to have to figure out. The answer for people new to the game is not to explain every decision as it comes up. The answer is to eliminate all the decisions that are not absolutely essential to get up and running.
So without being asked, here are my answers to some random questions:
What distro should I use as a newbie?
If you've got a friend who is patient enough to help you out, and you like hanging out with them, use whatever they use. If you don't, use Ubuntu. It's currently the most popular, there are very active forums and paper books to help you out.
GNOME or KDE?
Not important. Use whatever is the default with your distro. Play around with that for a while. When you know enough to know there are things you don't like and can't fix, then you can start to experiment with other options. You will have enough to learn when you install linux for the first time without worrying about more than one desktop environment.
I guess just about everything else falls out from that. Best apps to start with: the defaults. If there isn't a default, go with the popular choices: OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird. Make it easy on yourself, and work on new things as they come up. Once you know you don't like OpenOffice, you can take a look at AbiWord or Koffice or whatever, but these are not decisions that newbies need to be bombarded with on the first day.
Which is not to say you should actively avoid all the options available. It's really cool to have near instant access to a whole variety of different browsers, or mail clients, or whatever, and to be able to play around with them freely. But those of us with a bit more experience need to be very careful about not overwhelming newbies with choices that can and should be put off until they've settled in a bit.
The worst thing that could happen to a new user is to get worried about deciding between gnome vs kde, and asking google for advice. Next thing you know they've found one of Linus's gnome flame-fests and we all look like loons. Everyone suspects were fanatics already -- with a bit of effort newbies might go days or even weeks before they confirm this suspicion, but we'll all have to pull together for that to happen :)
yp.
It isn't the ports nor security nor the nagging UAC. It is the spyware as documented repeatedly including the WGN and WGA tools, the persistent need to reactivate (or redo that process every 6 months) and the fact that Microsoft is invading my privacy by doing this. You can also count in the checks against the HD media and the fact that they have "drafted" the hardware manufacturers into something none of us want. I would no more want this than I would allow Walmart to enter my home every 6 months to verify that those items I have in my home are actually paid for given that I may be a regular shopper at Walmart. What bothers me about Vista is Microsoft's history of deficiency. They claimed SP2 would significantly reduce the amount of problems with adware/spyware and other types of issues but they have not subsided. Sure there are larger problems with a sp1 patched machine but there are also huge numbers of problems with SP2 machines too. They didn't even come close to resolving the issue. I know because daily I fix computers and clean them of this crap and I see how far patched these machines are.
WGA/WGN was put on people's machine without fully explaining what it meant--that you were allowing Microsoft to spy on you. This is just nasty stuff and having that incorporated into Vista is a rather aggrievous violation of one's privacy. To potentially shut down a computer mis-identified is a rather nasty act. To spy on the content consumed is also very nasty. To force manufacturers to comply is also nasty.
This doesn't even remotely touch on the lock-in that DRM creates. No profit oriented business is going to make content with DRM that will run on multiple platforms because doing so for Microsoft's lock in is going to be costly on a per sale basis. What this means is that most likely Microsoft will get profits based on every sale of content with their DRM implementation. To then redo that content to comply with Apple's will be costly and then to release it for Linux will never happen.
Everyone has been saying that DRM has to go and we've heard words from Microsoft but those words are empty because the only reason they don't want DRM is to allow them to break Apple's hold on the music market. Once they have control they'll re-implement the DRM in their own image.
So, with all this spying we have the DRM lockin which means that consumers are not going to shift off of Windows due to the fact that the content cost them so much and that it won't run on other operating systems. This is a huge lock in and they have been hoping for this since long before Vista because they know how DRM can lock you in as demonstrated by Apple.
The dumb part would be to buy Vista and then buy HD content based on Microsoft's DRM. Linux isn't just Microsoft's competition, it is a product that people want to use. They should not be forced to use something they don't want.
Alas, this post is more on topic as it pertains to the original writeup because the original writeup talks about how this person hates the Microsoft activation process.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
The fallacy in that article is obvious. The author constructs a script that can cause damage on a Linux system if a h4x0r can get it onto your system and if it gets run and if it has root privileges. He then uses this to "prove" that Linux isn't secure and that we should all stick with Windows, even though the number of known Windows malware programs is probably well over 10,000.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
There are four simple reasons why Unix/Linux/Mac is safer There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory (Really a consquence of the following) Unix/Linux Runs no services by default and has no open ports by default, the ordinary desktop user dos not require any services to be running that require any open ports, Windows requires ports open for RPC to function these are normally blocked by a firewall but why are they open in the first place? An open port with a well known service actually using it is relatively safe, A large number of Web Sites run on Apache on Linux or Unix it is vunerable less often than IIS, an noticable is more often venarable when running under windows rather than Linux (if the program is kept up to date...) Unix/Linux/MacOSX is normally run as an ordinary user that has no rights over the operating system cannot install new services and cannot damage the system... Windows (up until Vista) would normally be run as an Administrator or Power user this was required to run basic programs (a legacy effect .. most Windows programs assume that the program is running as an Admin because they always have..) Even on Vista many programs still run as Admin (Internet Explorer) this still causes the system to be vunerable (IECursor attack...) While on Linux only the core runs as Admin(root) The Firefox browser e.g. runs as my user, the window decorator runs as me, the window manager runs as me in fact the only thing visible to me that runs as root is the Session manager (which asks for my password!) and X which runs as a service and communicates with the hardware
And lastly running programs/scripts, on windows if I receive an email with an attachment I can either run it directly (If it is not blocked as it should be) or save it and run it (or unzip and run) and potentially destroy my system... On Linux I would have to save it (no option to run) make it runnable, and then run it as me, at which point it can destroy my files ,and not the system.... Again Vista improves this since user programs run as the user (normally) but are still too easy to run ... It's the difference between "Press this button (to be shot)" and "To shoot yourself take this gun, load it, aim at yourself and shoot it" Windows makes it too easy to do by accident or ignorance?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
You: "I want to buy a car!" ... look, we have a nice Honda here. Has ABS, ESC ...
...
Car dealer: "Very well, sir. What kind of car?"
You: "I don't know, just some car. I had a dodge and it's no good anymore, so I want a new car."
Car dealer: "Ok. A diesel or gasoline?"
You: "I don't know, just some car."
Car dealer: "Erm
You: "Crap! I've no idea what you talk about! Can't you just sell me a car?"