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.'"

31 of 636 comments (clear)

  1. Before anyone slams her.... by iknownuttin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Keep in mind that she has done the Linux Community a great service by documenting her trials and tribulations.

    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.
    1. Re:Before anyone slams her.... by cultrhetor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed, and well stated, sir. In her original article, she anticipated the attacks/questions/loudly shouted advice for which nerds are so (deservedly?) known:

      I can hear some of you now:
      * "The newsgroups are where you should go for help!"
      * "Website 'A' has the documentation you need!"
      * "You have to read the man pages!"
      * "Use 'apropos'!"
      * "It takes an expert to install and configure an operating system!"

      This caution, which was followed by a lengthy explanation that the article was written to address the feasibility of Linux as a viable mass-market (read: installable by idiots) operating system, was completely ignored in many of the flames that were posted. Let's hope she gets a fair shake this time.

      --
      "Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
  2. To bring this up yet again: by ericrost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:To bring this up yet again: by slackmaster2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you ever noticed that you can buy Windows at Target and Walmart? Plenty of normal users install Windows on their own. Some have trouble and call you, others don't. In my experience with colleagues and friends, quite a number of people attempt to reinstall or upgrade Windows all by their lonesome.

      You're sort of setting an arbitrary line between "normal" and "power" users, based on your own criteria, and then making your argument based upon this assumption. A computer user who can boot from a Windows CD, follow a few instructions, and install Windows is not a terribly special case. Lots of boneheads can do it. I know, they're my friends and family.

      Really, the only difficult question that the Windows installer asks is about partitioning and formating. If a user can get past that one, they're in most cases home free.

  3. Not at all clueless by DrDitto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Not at all clueless by kindbud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, she knew her computer was 64-bit, and chose to install the 64-bit Ubuntu distro. That this was the source of the only real problems she had - lack of commercial vendor support for 64-bit Linux - also indicates she has graduated from the newbie state to the knows-just-enough-to-be-dangerous state.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:Not at all clueless by jomama717 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I completely agree! She sounds just as savvy as some of the card carrying "geeks" (antonym of "newbie"??) I know. This line hit me right off the bat:

      My current system is a reasonably powerful, home-built one: I think home building a box disqualifies you immediately from newbie status.
      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
  4. Agreed: Dual Boot installation needs work by monkeyboythom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Agreed: Dual Boot installation needs work by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.


      I have never contributed to any OSS project so this will be my first. Anyone working on Ubuntu who reads this, or if someone can pass this along to the appropriate person, you have my unconditional permission to use what I am about to say about this VERY important comment.

      DO NOT simply say on the screen something to the effect, "Another operating system has been detected. Do you want to keep it or install over it?" 'Keep' 'Install'

      If a newbie reads this, their first question will be, "What's an operating system?" The next question will be, after clicking 'Install' because they are installing something, "What the fuck happened to my stuff!?"

      Instead, the message on the screen should read something to the effect:

      The installation has detected that you already have a working system. Do you want to keep all your files and settings?

      Selecting 'Yes' will keep everything you already have and allow you to load this copy of Linux without affecting your current system.

      Selecting 'No' will erase all your files and settings and load this copy of Linux in their place.

      By using the above phrases, you are telling the user in a clear and concise manner what will happen if they click Yes or No without them having to understand what an operating system is. Yes, those who install Ubuntu will probably get a chuckle out of the warning but then they already know what they are doing.

      If the linux community wants the average user to try out a distro, making clear, concise but easily understandable comments such as the above will go a long way to making the transition easier.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  5. I did RTFA... by evilpenguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. The best point to note by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Encouraging... by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:"still in the safety of Windows." by TodMinuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Edited title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does "Rudes Again" mean?

  10. So? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:So? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know why people think that giving reasons that explain why something is true somehow reduces the importance of that truth.

      I don't think that's the point. 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.

      It's not a question of "reducing the importance", it's a question of pointing out that the safety of linux is not a property of linux itself, but merely a byproduct of its relative popularity in the world. In other words linux isn't safer (if this reasoning is correct), less popular OSes in general are safer.

      That changes the truth itself, not the importance of it.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    2. Re:So? by iplayfast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not so sure that Linux is safer due to it's smaller target audience. I think it's just safer period. Of course the MS Zeolots claim that it's because of the smaller target and Linux would have the same problems as Windows, but were is the proof of that? It's just supposition. Linux does not automagically run things from the web, has security issues fixed as soon as they are found, and is easy to upgrade.

    3. Re:So? by Mockylock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I never said that either side was winning. In fact, I really don't give a shit. Just because a house on the corner of an intersection gets robbed more than the one on the end of a cul-de-sac doesn't mean that one's lock is stronger than the other.

      I use linux on a few of my boxes.. but it's like MacOSX, Vista, XP or Unix.. They're all different flavors that pertain to different people. A party bus or a sports car may cost the same, but they're not made for everyone.

      As far as exploits go... I know patches and such are still rolling out like crazy, but you have to admit that all OS are WAYYYYY more secure than what they were 5-10 years ago. I'd honestly be comfortable pulling up a chair in front of almost any OS and feel comfortable knowing that it's not going to get a worm that second. Windows WAS horrible, but face it.. right now, it's not THAT bad. Browser exploits are the majority, and they are patched so fast that they're hard to attack. With vista's new features.. it may make it safer if you can get around some of it's OTHER features, but all-in-all.. it's ok. Even Symantec praised it, and that's sayin quite a bit.

      Linux is more secure in most aspects and I like it.. like others, I'm just not comfortable with it. It will grow, and I doubt that even as it's more of a target.. security will get worse. More exploits will be found.. but it will still be secure.
      With every patch that's made.. it's harder for people to find new ways in. That goes with all OS's... Unfortunately, with new technology comes new problems. And as far as the problems go, they will remain until human's quit writing the code themselvs.

      --
      "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    4. Re:So? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The security scenario is dynamic. However, the "small target" argument is offered in response to claims that Linux is safer, not in response to claims that Linux will remain safer. Therefore that argument is void. But people offer it because it's hard to argue with, except to discount it as inappropriate to the point being made.

      Making that argument about the changing size vs security needs actual statistical facts, which should be available, to back it up. I have never seen anyone show that the relative security between Windows and Linux has matched their relative userbase sizes, as they've both grown and the ratios have changed. Nor have I seen anyone explain how anomalous disproportions merely precede some tipping point some point in the future, after Windows insecurity significantly changes the userbase ratios in favor of Linux.

      In other words, that argument is a weaselly way to change the subject without admitting it, and without backing it up. Which is exactly how that form of argument is always used. Because it works to fool people, even if it's invalid.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:So? by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      Your point, however, is wrong. Linux isn't more secure because it is targetted less. It is more secure because it uses a different security model with a whole lot fewer holes in it; *nix in general has been designed to be secure and account for restricting one portion of the system from other portions since very early days. Windows started wide open, and remained wide open for a long time, a lot of system software was written to be wide open, and even more importantly, a lot of system concepts, like activeX, were not designed with security in mind. Consequently, Windows security, such as it is, is an afterthought layer that was added to the original functionality, whereas *nix security, specifically linux security, is built in at the bedrock level.

      The fact is, it is a lot more difficult to hack a *nix system by design. Something else to note: A huge proportion of the servers out on the net are linux machines running apache. These machines are powerful (that's why they are servers), the tend to have big pipes (again, they're servers, they need relatively big pipes) they're online all the time (they're servers!) and so they are ideal for a botnet or a spamming system, etc. And so, the majority of spamming systems and botnets are linux machines, right? Because they're common and have the perfect set of capabilities for these tasks? No. Wrong. Most mal-servers are Windows machines. But why? All those many linux machines would be great mal-servers! They are a huge target! Well, the why is simple, and it's just what I said above: It is hard to hack a linux server, even one that isn't that well patched. A linux machine that is properly kept up to date is even harder. Macs are basically the same kind of hard target; they're *nix underneath.

      The bottom line is that Windows has the malware because it has been the easy target. Not because it is the common target.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:So? by theStorminMormon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, the "small target" argument is offered in response to claims that Linux is safer, not in response to claims that Linux will remain safer. Therefore that argument is void.

      Not necessarily. If the small target reasoning is correct then it is fair to say that there's nothing safe about linux, there's something safe about being a small target.

      Let's just say only red cars came with airbags. It would be correct to say "red cars are safer" but it would also be fair to say "the color is irrelevant, the fact that they have airbags is what matters."

      I think it's fair to say that some of the safety of linux derives from the fact that it is a smaller target, and to that extent has nothing to do with linux. You can easily just give that point away as a given and then continue to point out the other ways in which it is actually intrinsically safer.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    7. Re:So? by SadGeekHermit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> ...pointing out that the safety of linux is not a property of linux itself,
      >> but merely a byproduct of its relative popularity in the world.

      The problem is that this argument is bogus. Linux, the BSDs, Solaris, and OS/X are more secure than Windows because they possess a unix-type architecture. Unix, which dates to 1973, has been studied and improved for over 34 years. Its longevity in the market is a testament to the soundness of its original design; the fact that most truly large organizations use a unix derivative instead of Windows for their most important data is a testament to its secure nature.

      Unix was designed from the beginning to be a multiuser, networked, server operating system, by two men widely considered to be masters among computer scientists (just to give you an idea, they invented the C programming language specifically to use it to write Unix so it would be easy to port it across platforms -- they worked at Bell Labs, one of the pre-eminent research organizations of the period).

      SO...

      Unix-derived systems are more secure than Windows because they are the latest iterations of a long, prestigious legacy. They are more secure because they're the collective result of over 34 years of research, development, and design (even longer if you count the research into MULTICS that predated UNIX). they're more secure because they been attacked for far longer than Windows, and the ways in which they CAN be attacked are well understood (thus much easier to prevent).

      Unix-derived systems are JUST BETTER, and they will always be better.

      One interesting point I could make right now is that since Microsoft greedily insists on rewriting everything every five years, they will NEVER have decades with which to work all the bugs out of their code -- it will ALWAYS be immature code. Shame, really. But funny!

      --
      NO CARRIER
    8. Re:So? by MC+Negro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.


      I'm always slightly torn by posts like this. Fundamentally, I agree with the statement "Linux is safer [than Windows]". The problems set in when someone like the OP starts explaining his reasoning. For all the cries of "FUD!" by the typical Slashdotian Linux zealot, these people tend to make up more horseshit on a per-topic basis than any Microsoft-sponsored TCO report could hope to. And they get away with it. Gordonjcp, as someone who would like to see a an Open and Free environment like Linux proliferate in the enterprise market, I'm asking you - and people like you - to please stop. You're doing more harm than good.

      Windows is not a dwindling minority. A cursory glance at NetCraft would show that not only does IIS have a noteworthy 31% of the marketshare, it's actually gaining market, while Apache is declining, rendering your original claim almost completely incorrect.

      Windows does not have hundreds of unclosable ports. Please, cut that gimmick out. SP2 (included in the current boxed release of Windows) patched a great deal of the port issues and included a decent firewall for home users. Or were you referring to the original release of XP? If that's the route you were going, let me try it on the other end - "This whole Linux thing will never take off. It's not even compatible with common hardware! I just tried to install RedHat 7 on my workstation, and XFree86 wouldn't even start unless I was using 640x480 with the framebuffer driver!".

      I wish to reiterate - I would like to see Linux gain ground and acceptance, but I simply cannot stand the hypocrisy of resorting to the FUD tactics of Microsoft. Outlining reasons to not use Windows is a fucking cakewalk without making things up.

      Come on, people. Let's keep this a clean fight.
      --
      "You and your third dimension."
  11. Re:Ubuntu is hit or miss by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:And? by dAzED1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Once it's more of a target, you'll see a gain in attacks."
    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, .mil servers, or the bulk of non-fluff on the net?

    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.

  13. Re:Configuration Files by PieSquared · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  14. Hyperbole by dedazo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What is the point of all this hyperbole and creative spelling?

    Her comments about non free software are scathing ... shows a good grasp of what free software is all about ... figured out that the non free parts were the problem, not the free parts

    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?

    This is a picky user and she's been satisfied

    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.

    such as the complete loss of data and OS overwrite, came from M$ use

    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
  15. Another interesting passage by markbt73 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 installed ... really automagically! After that DVDs worked. I have no clue what it did, and that's the way I like it.

    IOW, 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?"
  16. Great Analogy: by crhylove · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  17. Re:And? by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  18. Re:And? by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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