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.'"

7 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?"
  6. 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."
  7. 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.