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.'"

Comments

And?

[Colin Smith]

WTF? You don't expect me to go RTFA do you? That's what all those high UID peons are for. Someone post a cogent summary.

Re:And?

[rbanzai]

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!"

Re:And?

[gbjbaanb]

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.

Re:And?

[Enry]

WTF? You don't expect me to go RTFA do you? That's what all those high UID peons are for. Someone post a cogent summary.

Exactly. Let me know when you're done, newbie.

Re:And?

[Kesshi]

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.

Re:And?

[dAzED1]

"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.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

the default gnome font isn't acceptable for her as she's partially sighted

Well, keep your eyes out, I'm sure you'll spot the whole of her eventually.

Re:And?

[dave562]

Once it's more of a target, you'll see a gain in attacks. Not only that, but recently any exploits to a *nix based system weren't as publicized as Windows, due to the pure hate of Microsoft.

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.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enry, Enry, Enry. I was here when you signed up, and I'll be here when you head to the last shutdown. Be a good fellow and write a summary will you? There is a good lad.

- A.C.

Re:And?

[HoosierPeschke]

You know, I've written ROFLMAO before just for symbolism, but I actually fell out of my chair laughing so hard...

Re:And?

[radish]

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.

Re:And?

[rindeee]

Hmmm...I'm dependant on MS Office as well. And IE6 (for certain work related web sites). So I installed the former using WINE in about 10 minutes (Office 2003) and the latter using IEs4Linux in about 2 minutes. And for the record, neither took any amount of special 'skillz'...nun-chuck or otherwise. While one could argue that a newbie couldn't do it, I found that two quick Google searches produced step by step instruction for each that were about 3 steps per install.

Re:And?

[Mockylock]

The move to linux is good to everyone in quite a few ways. Not just for features or security, but all the other OS companies need a swift kick in the ass to get themselves straight.

Competition is always good. You can see what's happening in the AMD/Intel and even NVidia battles. MS will eventually make a *nix based system themselves if they begin to feel a death near. (my theory)

As far as games go, there are a few proggys in the making that actually run windows based games faster than windows itself. How reliable it is, I don't know.. but, you'll start to see a trend, I'm sure.

I've been running Windows since it was introduced and it's alright. It's always had it's bugs and such... but, I'm comfortable with it. Server 2003 in my eyes, is the most relable and easy-going system on the planet. Again, that's my theory. I recommend those who haven't messed with it, give it a try. It's in all honesty the best operating system that Microsoft has created. Unfortunately, they'll find some way to fuck it up.

Re:And?

[Kesshi]

If you like to tinker (which it sounds like you do), I recommend Kubuntu over Ubuntu because KDE is more for people who like to change things while GNOME is for people who just want to "consume" their computer without changing a single damn setting.

Of course, it's completely based on personal preference, so give 'em both a try (before choosing which one to install).

I have no idea what you just said. :)

And this is the part of *nix that has always scared me. :(

I don't know what GNOME or KDE means. I don't know if they're acronyms or abbreviations or what. I'm sure 5 minutes on Google can help me, but I don't want to spend 5 minutes searching for everything "new" in *nix, because, well, EVERYTHING is new to me! If I were to spend 5 minutes on each new *nix term I heard, I would end up spending the better part of a weekend just learning. That's not what I want to do with my weekend.

Your comments, jZnat, look like they're trying to be helpful, but things like this are where people like me get worried and/or scared. I totally understand there will be a learning curve; I expect there to be one. However, I've only just decided to install, and already I'm worried I'm going to do something wrong.

I live alone and I don't have an in-house geek to default to when things go wrong, nor will there be anyone to 'fix' anything I do wrong. Granted, I have a legit copy of Windows 2k Pro (yes, I bought it) which I've reinstalled countless times before, and nothing on my hard drive is irreplacable, so the worst case scenario is a clean Win2kPro install.

Let me sum it up as best I can: I'm wary because you just gave me an option and I don't know of the reprocussions to choosing one over the other.

Regardless, I put my contact info into my bio, and will leave it there for a day or two, so if anyone wishes to contact me they can. Wish me luck. :)

Re:And?

[Mockylock]

Your sister is my mom? So.. you're my uncle? Holy shit. It's been a long time. How's the brothel?

Re:And?

[d3ac0n]

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!

Re:And?

[Sproggit]

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.

Re:And?

[HermMunster]

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.

Re:And?

[techno-vampire]

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.

Re:And?

[rastos1]

but I don't want to spend 5 minutes searching for everything "new" in *nix, because, well, EVERYTHING is new to me!

Right. And when your old Dodge gives up, you go to the shop and it goes like this:

You: "I want to buy a car!"
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 ... look, we have a nice Honda here. Has ABS, ESC ...
You: "Crap! I've no idea what you talk about! Can't you just sell me a car?"
...

Re:And?

[ryder]

Mr. Enry,

I expect your report on my desk within the next 30 minutes.

kthxbai.

Ubuntu is hit or miss

[geek]

I installed it on my windows laptop not too long ago. Things in Edgy worked fine but as soon as I went to Feisty I started having issues. Like my wireless card suddenly stopped working. Feisty is riddled with bugs, especially for laptop users. The Dell deal will probably solve that problem on Dell hardware but for most of us Ubuntu needs some more Q&A. I was very disappointed when they released a kernel update that killed most peoples installs while Feisty was in beta, and then had a full Feisty release the next week. Hardly enough time to repair and test the fixes.

Ubuntu isa nice distro but it needs work. I will continue to use it but nly beause I know how to tweak and fix things. Your average user does not. IMO software installation on Linux needs a lot of work. f we could get it to the point of ease that Apple has then I feel Linux would be a real alternative to windows.

Re:Ubuntu is hit or miss

[Drew McKinney]

I experienced the exact opposite.

I installed Edgy on a Dell D800 laptop with okay results - networking was spotty and wireless didn't work at all (i tried every trick in the book). Feisty fixed all of my problems - every piece of hardware was identified correctly. Wireless and wired networking works perfectly. Feisty is weird.

I'll be installing the new Ubuntu Studio for my video/audio/image editing needs in lieu of a Mac.

I know I sound like a fanboy, but Ubuntu is the linux distro i've been waiting for. Not unlike Clueless Newbie, this is the one distro that has worked for me almost flawlessly.

Re:Ubuntu is hit or miss

[kalidasa]

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.

Re:Ubuntu is hit or miss

[l0b0]

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.

This relies on the assumption that one device = one driver. How about Michel Xhaard's driver for 235 webcams? Common, even open, protocols seem to be getting more popular every day.

Before anyone slams her....

[iknownuttin]

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.

Re:Before anyone slams her....

[cultrhetor]

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.

Re:Before anyone slams her....

[iknownuttin]

Why would we slam her? She gave it a thumbs up.

As she did her editorial, she mentioned a few things the didn't like and/or had problems with. Unfortunately, some folks take feedback like that as "fighting words" - even if the overall opinion is excellent. I know I've done it and sometimes, when I'm not thinking, still do it. So, I'm speaking as someone who's a member of the choir - so to speak.

I just want to frame her opinion in a way that can help the F/OSS community. Yes, I agree, most of the F/OSS folks just focus on excellence and produce awesome software. But sometimes, and I'm speaking from experience here (I won't mention names), folks can get a little too, well; combative.

everything above applies to myself. There, I am progressing towards my own personal growth.

Re:Before anyone slams her....

[ConfusedVorlon]

Given that most folks are going to be coming from Windows, it probably makes sense to have their initial experience use the windows-like metaphors that they understand as much as possible.

You can easily offer a toggle to switch to the better linux way of doing things. When people are more comfortable, you can try to convince them of the benefits of switching.

Features that are likely to confuse people should be (at least until the user decides otherwise) hidden away in somewhere that is clearly marked 'advanced'

Re:Encouraging...

[insanius]

That problem unfortunately still exists.

Nice...

[MeanderingMind]

...but does it run lin... er... WoW... I mean... nevermind.

Re:Nice...

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

It runs Second Life ... without WINE.

To bring this up yet again:

[ericrost]

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.

Re:To bring this up yet again:

[Kjella]

Just because you get the calls doesn't mean there's quite a few normal users that do their own reinstall of Windows. Unfortunately for them, unless they get some professional help with automatic updates / firewall / anti-virus / anti-spyware they're extremely likely to end up where they started. Hell, I've seen users where the first thing they do is install the same crapware-infested "free" gizmo that'll invite all its friends back in. Either that or the "poweruser", or shall we call it "powerwarezer" who'll run that infected crack / keygen again. The first seems to cover the clueless, the other the dangerously clueful. Few rise above that level.

Re:To bring this up yet again:

[slackmaster2000]

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.

Re:To bring this up yet again:

[Trojan35]

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.

Re:To bring this up yet again:

[ericrost]

Really,

What in windows is Network Manager? Have you used a Wireless Network with Windows? Beryl and Compiz go the opposite direction (Windows was playing catch-up on the whole composite desktop front). What other "new features" ie things that haven't been a core part of every GUI for 3+ years are you referring to?

And then you have MySQL, Apache, etc on the server side, which Windows has been playing catchup with for years.

Re:To bring this up yet again:

[massysett]

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.

You're right, lots of boneheads can do that; the problem is that installing Windows takes a lot more than what you have described. Windows doesn't come with a lot of the drivers that you need, so getting the printer, video, network, etc etc to work requires rounding that stuff up and installing it all. Installing Linux is not easy, but neither is installing Windows.

Not at all clueless

[DrDitto]

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!

Re:Not at all clueless

[Durrok]

I installed Ubuntu FF on one of my roommate's PCs since he was always having problems with various forms of spyware and general sluggishness. The install was fairly smooth but not smooth enough that he could have done it on his own. After that everything worked at startup, I restored his data from the hard drives we had backed it up to (NTFS even, very nice), gave him a tour, turned on beryl, and let him at it. He didn't ask me any questions for a week. I came up and saw him about 9 days after the install and he had a terminal open and installing some multimedia recording software that he had found on his own. When I asked him why he wasn't using synaptic he said that "Sudo apt-get whatever is just a lot easier if you already know what you are looking for".

Don't know what it is or why but Linux makes people want to become power users. He has since upgraded his box to Ubuntu Studio and fixed a few networking problems that he was having. Sure, he probably googled most of it, but he actually felt the need to learn more instead of just scratching his head and offering me beer to fix his problem. I do miss the beer though :(

Re:Not at all clueless

[TodMinuit]

He waited and bought her a Nintendo Wii.

Re:Not at all clueless

[kindbud]

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.

Re:Not at all clueless

[gEvil (beta)]

Sure, he probably googled most of it, but he actually felt the need to learn more instead of just scratching his head and offering me beer to fix his problem. I do miss the beer though :(

Ahhh, yes, when "free as in beer" means the end of free beer...

Re:Not at all clueless

[jomama717]

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.

Re:Not at all clueless

[powerlord]

Don't know what it is or why but Linux makes people want to become power users.

Thats easy. With windows people take things for granted (like the OS crashing, but coming back after a reboot), and that "any software will run on it.

With Linux there is a cognitive break with their "Windows Knowledge", so the user feels they need to learn in order to make sure they don't "mess it up".

Of course once they start learning one of two things happens:

1) They get overwhelmed by bad/wrong/lots-of information and ask someone else to help (similar to lots of windows folks).
2) They find that it makes sense, they can do what they want without problems, and their system doesn't keep crashing. Once they no longer have to husband the system and be afraid that anything they do will make it crash, they can actually start to have fun with it.

Re:Not at all clueless

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

I built it. The old system died.

Every system I build gets easier and easier because more things get integrated into the mobo, like USB and graphics and sound and Ethernet. I don't remember which mobo I have, but the instructions were excellent. If you can assemble IKEA furniture, you can build a computer.

Agreed: Dual Boot installation needs work

[monkeyboythom]

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.

Re:Agreed: Dual Boot installation needs work

[smooth wombat]

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.

Re:Agreed: Dual Boot installation needs work

[Osty]

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.

I'd argue that "Yes" and "No" are bad buttons, because you have to explain what will happen when you click them. Similarly, "Keep" and "Install" are bad because "Install" does not mean the same thing as "Overwrite". If you must have buttons, be a bit more verbose and use "Keep old data" (or just "Keep", that's fine) and "Overwrite". Better yet, provide a radio selection using text similar to your "Yes" and "No" descriptions, but with radio selection buttons next to each item. Default to no selection with "Next" disabled, and only enable the "Next" button once a selection has been made. If you must have a default selection, default to "Keep".

By using Yes/No, OK/Cancel, Abort/Retry/Ignore default buttons with descriptive text in the dialog, you're making the user's life harder. A user doesn't read text. He sees buttons, and then has to guess at what "Yes" and "No" mean. There's just as much of a chance for the user to click on "No" as there is on clicking "Install" because he's always been told to choose "No" or "Cancel" when in doubt. Moving the selection into the text itself forces the user to read and understand, especially when there's no default action and thus he can't click through blindly.

Re:Encouraging...

[YetAnotherProgrammer]

Live CD. Just pop it in and go. If things don't work, just take the disk out.

I did RTFA...

[evilpenguin]

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.

Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu can't do anything about Adobe not shipping a 64-bit native flash, Win64 users have the same problem.

Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n

[Otter Escaping North]

I stopped reading after this point. I hope the conclusion was something on the lines of "it works if you have a live-in geek". That's a cop out - saying you've got a problem but it was resolved by the fact that your partner is a technical expert.

Exactly! Until it can be used by someone without ever having to rely on outside assistance from someone more savvy, Linux remains an obvious step below such issueless competitors as Microsoft Windows (whose users are known the world over for their trouble-free operations and complete eschewing of support), and that caveat should be mentioned at every opportunity.

Still a long way to go

[TodMinuit]

The ultimate in easy-to-use Windows-to-Linux distributions would be one that's custom built for each user. You'd download a small program to Windows that'd scan your system looking at hardware, software, and configuration information. It'd then download all the needed drivers, equivalent open source software, and backup your system and software configuration information (converting it to Linux, of course.) Even give them the option to backup all their personal files. Then it'd build you a custom installation ISO, just for their system.

As much as possible would be brought over from Windows. Network configuration information, browser favorites, email client configuration, desktop icon layout, even the desktop wallpaper -- anything to make Linux feel more like home. It's all there, just the way they like it, why not copy it as much as possible?

If there's any problems, they can be found and addressed while the user is still in the safety of Windows.

The best point to note

[hey!]

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.

Re:The best point to note

[Hijacked Public]

Ha, I felt that same fear just this weekend.

While cleaning out my hunting cabin I found a Dell Latitude LS that I thought I'd lost. Nice small laptop but it had Windows 98 on it.

Since my current laptop needs are met by Apple I thought I might as well see how Ubuntu will run on it. During the install I was concerned that it might somehow think I wanted to keep the Win98 partition despite the fact that I specifically asked it to use the entire disk. It never really did confirm anything.

Much to my relief Win98 was gone upon reboot.

Doesn't Clobber Win2k

[sconeu]

The author was surprised that Ubuntu didn't clobber her Win2K partition.

Maybe she should realize that there's only ONE COMPANY out there that assumes it owns your whole PC....

Re:Doesn't Clobber Win2k

[JonXP]

Well, to be honest, it wasn't until the first time I installed an Ubuntu flavor of linux that my Windows partition didn't get clobbered. For whatever reason, Red Hat, and subsequently Fedora, would always, without fail, cause my system to be able to only run Linux despite the fact that it asked me if I wanted to set up a dual boot.

Re:Doesn't Clobber Win2k

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Some of my previous Linux experiments clobbered the existing OS. Red Hat did, and IIRC "Linux for Windows" did it by default.

Edited title

[overshoot]

Actually, I submitted it as "The Clueless Newbie Rudes Again."

Some spelling errors aren't.

Re:Edited title

[Anonymous Coward]

What does "Rudes Again" mean?

Re:Encouraging...

[MalleusEBHC]

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.

Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n

[AJWM]

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.)

Re:"still in the safety of Windows."

[TodMinuit]

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.

Yes I can just see that working

[sakdoctor]

Scanning registry 1 of 1000 MB...

Found alexa
Found About Blank
Found Russian spam bot
Found Office 2003

Attempting to apt-get...

Could not find alexa
Could not find bonzi buddy
Could not find Russian spam bot
Installing open office

Importing spam mail 3 of 106,184

Done.

I'm impressed, she figured it all out.

[twitter]

Holy crap! a complete newbie installed a complete 64 bit system and it worked with a few minor problems with non free software not found in 32 bit versions. She had trouble with DVDs, Nvidia drivers, Flash and Picasa, and did not like the GDM login fonts. She was able to solve the Nvidia problem without too much trouble and seems to have made DVDs and Adobe Flash work. All of this with less effort than she would have put into a Windoze box. One reboot and everything "very automatic".

Her comments about non free software are scathing:

Adobe's Flash video player was extremely difficult to install. I have a 64-bit microprocessor, and installed 64-bit Ubuntu. Although 64-bit Linux has been available for more than five years, Adobe hasn't bothered to develop 64-bit version of Flash for Linux yet. My live-in geek tracked the problem down for me, and Adobe is reportedly working on 64-bit software.

The [Picasa] problem is Google, not Ubuntu. Instead of writing real Linux software, all Google did was take their Windows version and wrap it in WINE (fake Windows) to make it work in Linux. I expected Google to do better than that.

This is really cool and shows a good grasp of what free software is all about. She figured out that the non free parts were the problem, not the free parts. This kind of enlightenment from a non programmer is great to see.

Her conclusion is an uncompromising endorsement:

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!

The more I think about it, the nicer the article is. This is a picky user and she's been satisfied. Many of her fears, such as the complete loss of data and OS overwrite, came from M$ use, so her opinion is likely to improve.

Wireless Networking

[SpzToid]

For anyone trying the latest K/X/Ubuntu flavor, or Debian 4 for that matter (as I did), wireless networking is easy, and cheap too, of you don't stray too far from these instructions.

1. Choose hardware from this madwifi/ Atheros list: http://madwifi.org/wiki/Compatibility. Last week I picked up two El Cheapo Sweek 802.11g cards for 20 euros each, and Ubuntu flashed its restricted driver message at one once, I accepted, and it just worked, even with WPA2 + TKIP encryption at the router. Note there are no USB wifi dongles supported. But PCI & pcmcia, etc.

2. Part of the above is working with Gnome NetworkManager.

Stay focused on 1 & 2, and don't use little USB wireless sticks, and wireless on Linux IS easy.

disk encryption: bonus points for starting with Debian 4, since the EZ installer gives you the option to encrypt the whole (laptop?) disk from the Get Go. I opted for Debian's easy disk encryption (Ubuntu doesn't offer it, really) and chose to fight the wireless puzzle. It was a hard fight, but I think I picked the correct battle to fight. So now just add a nice rsync backup to my http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?134994 Debian server's non-public disk-space for $7 a month, and well that's a secure, yet functional laptop.

Oh, and www.Hamachi.cc makes for easy newbie intranets, and Firestarter is a nifty newbie GUI for IPTables.

- --

You can't be ahead of the curve if you're stuck in a loop.

Re:ya

[wizardforce]

So ease of install is UBER-important because Joe 6-pack will have to do it himself.

joe sixpack doesnt bother to change his IE homepage let alone his OS. no matter how easy the install would be he's still gonna think windows is "good enough" pay close attention to history- where there is a lack of knowledge- there is no choice

Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n

[Rhys]

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.

So?

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:So?

[theStorminMormon]

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.

Re:So?

[iplayfast]

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.

Re:So?

[Gordonjcp]

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.

Re:So?

[Mockylock]

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.

Re:So?

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:So?

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:So?

[theStorminMormon]

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.

Re:So?

[SadGeekHermit]

>> ...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!

Re:So?

[rizzo420]

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.

Re:So?

[PinkPanther]

safety of linux is not a property of linux itself, but merely a byproduct of its relative popularity in the world

If said were true, then don't you think that MS (fan boys) would be working night and day to break a hole in Linux that spread like wildfire, take out 60% of the web, and the let the press run wild with the story? It would literally kill the potential of Linux adoption with one single program.

Re:So?

[jonbryce]

I don't think Vista automagically runs things from the web either. I tried installing Adobe Flash player on a friend's laptop that had the 64 bit version of Vista. It wasn't easy, and certainly not something you would do accidentally.

su
*******
urpmi flash
exit

is just so much easier

Re:So?

[Doc Ruby]

The problem is circular logic. "If the small target reasoning is correct, then X." You can't use X to demonstrate the small target reasoning's correctness.

Finding nothing but logical fallacies in that offered argument shows it's worthless.

Unless something else is added. Like the actual stats I suggested that could dis/prove it. But though it seems a fair argument, security behavior of large, networked populations is usually surprising. So I reject its assertions until they're backed up with some rigor.

For the same reasons I would reject the counterargument that Linux's small target size makes it insecure, because Linux security depends on many people using, examining, and reporting/fixing its security holes. Until I get some evidence of that process.

So the whole line of thinking is nearly all holes, and very little substance. Which I find is nearly always the case when that kind of "the reasons are the excuse" argument is made.

Re:So?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

But what most Linux zealots and macfanbois (which I am) say is that we're more secure than windows.
Using your analogy, that would be like never verifying you have airbags, but assuming your car is safer because it's red.

Re:So?

[yahooadam]

your argument is marginally flawed

Most of the Linux servers, will have admins (because their in data centers) who are focused on keeping it secure, there are firewalls in place to make sure the network is secure

Now most windows machines are on home user's PCs, home users don't understand security, they plug their routers in and 1/2 are too incapable to even set WEP on their wireless

So which is the easier target ? the machine that is not kept secure, the PC which is not maintained, the PC which the user doesn't understand how to operate

I mean - jeez windows.com is hosted on IIS - how many times have you see the windows.com site hacked ?

The Skill:OS ratio is also different for Linux, most Linux users are skilled, but most windows users are not (and then there are those that think they are)

Now although i agree that Linux is in fact more secure, because the kernel itself is built to be used in a multi-user environment, so it has to be, Linux was designed to work on networks, windowz was more designed to work for a single user

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't quite as big a factor as some Linux zealots would have us believe, however.... It's most likely that the hypothetical throngs of ex-Windows users will congregate in a very small set of Linux distributions, at least until Linux knowhow increases in the ranks of the less technical....

Nonetheless, it will still be safer. Even if Windows were to disappear tomorrow and Linux were to take its place, there would never be a single Linux target as big and inviting as Windows XP is today. Some people would use various versions of Fedora, because it would be like the Red Hat they used at work; others would use one of the numerous flavours of Ubuntu, because it's easy; others might choose Xandros or Linspire, because they were nostalgic for Windows and wanted something designed to be familiar. Instead of a single monolithic platform with market dominance, you would have a (small) number of similar platforms sharing the market - very similar, so doubtless cross-distro vulnerabilities would exist, but nonetheless different enough that users of each flavour would be likely to be safe from attacks on other flavours.

Consider the difference! Today, if you find a 0-day vulnerability in Windows Explorer for XP SP2 with a 50% chance of slipping past all security software, you can own the world. Where is the Linux equivalent? A 0-day vulnerability in Konqueror would have no effect whatsoever on Gnome users.

Re:So?

[level_headed_midwest]

There is a big difference between the value (to the cracker) of a compromised Linux server versus a relatively anemic Windows desktop or notebook. The Linux server is much more valuable of a target because:

1. Its Internet connection is far faster than the desktop/notebook's connection. This greatly increases the number of spam e-mails sent out or illegal files served/stored in any one time period.

2. The server has much more disk space to hold illegal files, and a good server's disk system is much, much faster, allowing for more users to use the illegal server. A notebook or laptop has a relatively small, slow drive that grinds under the load of far fewer connected users.

3. The Linux machine has many more tools built-in that can be used to wreak havoc on other computers. Windows doesn't have much more than tracert and ping installed and cannot spoof packet sources like Linux can (at least XP SP2 and 9x/Me can't.)

4. Servers often hold a lot of things that are of interest to people for nefarious reasons- lots of SSNs, CC numbers, medical records, etc, regardless of OS. My university just has 22,300 SSNs stolen from it off a server (a Windows server, actually.) The average desktop rarely contains anything more interesting than one or two SSNs or cached CC numbers. Cracking one machine is much less intensive than cracking 22,300 of them to get the same information.

5. Desktops and laptops generally use DHCP while servers have fixed IPs. This makes the server much easier to nail and then access after it's been cracked.

So servers, especially Linux servers, are a much better target than Windows desktops are. If they were equally difficult, the servers would be THE target as they are far more high-value than a desktop or laptop is. Think of it this way- would you rather rob a bum or a bank if both were equally easy to do and get away with?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't need a single open port so long as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player are available.

So, where do you want to get fucked today?

Re:So?

[Andrei D]

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. No man, over 67% of Internet servers are running Windows. The rest run a dead OS because Linus has a job.

Re:So?

[MC Negro]

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.

Re:So?

[fonik]

Yeah, I can only get one or two phaser hits on my linux boxes before they adapt.

Re:So?

[rolfwind]

I mean - jeez windows.com is hosted on IIS - how many times have you see the windows.com site hacked ?

I saw the subdomains hacked a few times, but I don't know if the site is really running IIS or if it is just saying they are. I can have my firefox browser report that it is IE quite easily...

Re:So?

[fonik]

"The rest run a dead OS because Linus has a job."
And Bill Gates isn't the CEO of Microsoft anymore, either. Windows must be dead, too!

Save us, Steve Jobs, you're our only hope!

Re:So?

[fyngyrz]

Sheesh people, can you not read the word "if"!?

I saw the if and I understood it. However, there is no "if." That simply isn't the case, as I was trying to point out. The idea that linux isn't targeted because it isn't as popular is nothing more than a myth, or perhaps wishful thinking.

I don't actually think that's the only reason linux is safer.

Lack of popularity not the "only" reason or even "any" reason. It's a myth. The reason linux is not often a target is because it is a very difficult target. I laid out some of the reasons, others have added others further into the thread, but they all come back to the same thing: linux has been a lot harder to break into than windows has been over a network connection.

Re:So?

[Jorgandar]

Yes im sure in Vista, all ports are closed, as per their fabulous security model.

"Program Internet Explorer wants to open a port, cancel or allow?"

user: "WTF is a port?"

Re:So?

[zxsqkty]

Now most windows machines are on home user's PCs, home users don't understand security, they plug their routers in and 1/2 are too incapable to even set WEP on their wireless

More than the clueless users, the ISPs have to share a lot of responsibility with the packages they sell. A friend of mine who lives across town finally got broadband access. He couldn't get ADSL where he lives because he's too far from the exchange so he got cable installed, and the company supplied a set top TV box and a cable modem. He IM'd me to let me know:

Him: "Hey, I got internet!"
Me: "Congrats."
Him: "I got a package from Company X that gives me 30 million TV channels and free phone calls and a fixed IP address for only $x a month. The guy came and installed it all this morning."
Me: "Nice. What's your IP?"
Him: "It's xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. It's really fast, I can download stuff in seconds that used to take me ages. Gimme links to some good porn sites... and where can I download some tunes?"
Him: "Weird..."
Me: "What?"
Him: "Some file just appeared on my desktop. It wasn't there earlier."
Me: "It's just a text file. Read it."
Him: "It says I should unplug my network cable and go buy a router."
Him: "How did you know it was a text file?"

He runs XPsp2.

Re:Ubuntu needs to slow down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. If only we had a distribution that was kind of like Ubuntu, but had slower releases. Ubuntu does releases twice a year, so maybe we could make a new distribution based on Ubuntu that had releases every couple years. It would be known as a uber-stable distribution, but wouldn't have all the newest bleeding-edge versions of apps. That would be totally sweet.

Installation Comparison

[InfiniteSingularity]

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.

more and more stuff is Just Working

[bcrowell]

The article matches up fairly well with my own experience, although I think the contrast between her earlier trial and the current one may be a little overstated. I just did an install of ubuntu on a laptop yesterday, and I was impressed that (a) the system was installed successfully (not so long ago, installing linux on a laptop was unlikely to work without major pain and suffering), and (b) the wifi card automagically worked. This is in contrast to the situation a year ago, when I installed ubuntu on my daughter's desktop machine, and had to spend a weekend messing around before I could get her wifi to work.

One thing that I think is not acceptable yet is printing. Within the last few months, I got my vanilla laser printer working on my linux box. It was a truly nasty and time-consuming process. This is not a case where you can blame patents and proprietary interfaces, etc., either. The printer is a Brother HL-1440. Brother hired the CUPS developers to write GPL'd linux drivers. The problem is mainly just that the linux implementation of CUPS is a disaster. (The MacOS X implementation seems fine, AFAICT.)

Re:Encouraging...

[mrchaotica]

My laptop works better out-of-the-box in Ubuntu than it does in Vista (I installed both, dual-booting, this past weekend).

Of course, I should probably mention that I cheated: the laptop in question is a Thinkpad x60 Tablet, and Thinkpads are almost always well-supported in Linux. It's got Intel graphics, a screen with a weird resolution (1400x1050), Atheros WiFi, a Wacom digitizer, extra buttons next to the screen, volume buttons, a fingerprint scanner, and a hard drive accelerometer. Here's what worked, and what didn't:

Windows Vista

• accelerated graphics: worked, but Windows Update prompted me to install a new driver anyway
• screen: worked, but sometimes switches to 1024x768 when waking from sleep
• WiFi: worked
• digitizer: had to be recalibrated
• screen bezel buttons: had to install a driver from Lenovo (not Windows Update)
• volume buttons: STILL DON'T WORK, even after installing every Lenovo driver that looked relevant! Grr...
• fingerprint scanner: not listed in device manager until I installed Lenovo driver; haven't tested it yet
• hard drive accelerometer: had to install a driver from Lenovo

Kubuntu Linux

• accelerated graphics: worked (even with Beryl!)
• screen: worked
• WiFi: worked
• digitizer: worked
• screen bezel buttons: needed to use xmodmap to assign actions to them, and copy a few scripts to implement those actions
• volume buttons: worked, except the "mute" button mutes but doesn't unmute (the "volume up" button works fine for that, however)
• fingerprint scanner: probably doesn't work, but haven't looked into it
• hard drive accelerometer: driver is broken, from what I've heard

I should note that this page was extremely useful.

Overall, both Kubuntu and Vista work pretty well. Vista has a few unresolved annoyances though, such as the non-working volume keys and the fact that the screen orientation doesn't automatically change in tablet mode (note: I had to add acpi actions to do that in Linux). If it weren't for the lack of tablet-friendly applications in Linux, I wouldn't have Windows on here at all.

Pitiful Shame She Can't Run Debian Etch

[mpapet]

I read the article. She had some requirements up front that exclude her running Etch.

It should not come as a surprise that she is really indifferent to Free (as in speech) software. She wants her hardware to "just" work. This unfortunately excludes a default Debian Etch. I've been through Sarge and Etch and I think Ubuntu competition has only benefited the Debian project because Etch is a far superior release of Free software. Yes, non-free is out there and relatively painless, but it still requires some stuff that she specifically did not want to do.

I would encourage potential Ubuntu users to give Debian Etch a spin first. It's much, much more reliable, has many different installers including the excellent graphical installer and is a huge improvement over Sarge, pretty much blowing away the old complaints about Debian.

Re:Links...

[SQLGuru]

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

Re:Configuration Files

[PieSquared]

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.

Re:ya

[theStorminMormon]

no matter how easy the install would be he's still gonna think windows is "good enough" pay close attention to history- where there is a lack of knowledge- there is no choice

Err... Joe 6-pack has to change eventually. To Vista or to Linux. (Or Apple, I suppose.) And a lot of Joe 6-packs have heard distant rumbling, kind of like thunder on the horizon, that Windows is bad or kills kittens or something. Every day MS gives people more reasons to consider a move to Linux - even regular users. And I don't see his as an anti-MS troll. I currently have (between work and home):

Apple MacBook Pro (dual boot OS X, Windows XP Pro)
openSUSE desktop/test server
Vista Ultimate desktop
Windows XP Pro desktop

So I do most of my work in Windows and I admire a lot of the powerful things you can do (excel is my favorite Windows program). But it doesn't change the fact that even if Vista and Office 2007 are better, they are different. And most people know this. And as long as they are doing something different, they think "why not try that linux thing I hear so much about. Isn't it free?"

Linux needs to be ready for those users to capitalize on the turbulence of MSs switch to Vista and 2007 over the next couple of years.

Hyperbole

[dedazo]

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.

Another interesting passage

[markbt73]

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.

Of course I'm not clueless! I'm a tech writer!

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

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.

Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n

[swillden]

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.

Unix receives more attack attempts than windows.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

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.

Re:NEWBIE?!

[sg3235]

A newbie is an old grandma who barely knows how to use her mouse, and who when asked to show her computer will point her finger at the monitor. And Linux stil has a looooooong way to go before being usable (not to mention installable) by people like this.

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".

Funny, I just installed 7.04 myself...

[MarcoAtWork]

... and I really, really, really don't belive it's ready for non-technical users at all unless they have a fairly basic PC configuration: I have two (older) video cards in my linux box, and there was absolutely no way to get ubuntu to actually initialize/configure them both in dualscreen/xinerama without serious editing of xorg.conf (basically creating the device entries for the non-detected card from scratch and configuring xinerama etc.).

Having been using linux since the 1.2pre days I do know how to gets my hands dirty, but if I had been a non technical user there'd have been no way I could've managed. On the other hand the networking and general system configuration was quite painless, automatix and synaptic have been a pleasure to use and the install was very straightforward, even to the point of putting my 2k partition in the grub boot menu (and it actually working, which is definitely a new experience).

With a slightly more robust x configuration (quite a few folks nowadays run dual screen, most developers for sure) it would be nearly perfect.

Re:What if you don't have a free partition?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Ubuntu re-sized the Main Windows partition to make enough room for itself and its swap file. It didn't mess with the data drives.

Picasa and Ubuntu

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Problem 5: Google's Picasa does not work. Every time I launch Picasa it locks up my computer and sends the CPU utilization to 100%. The problem is Google, not Ubuntu. Instead of writing real Linux software, all Google did was take their Windows version and wrap it in WINE (fake Windows) to make it work in Linux. I expected Google to do better than that.

I tried Google's Picasa offering for Linux a week ago when I wanted to upload like 50 pictures to a web album. It ran fine, but the version Google decided to Linux-ify with wine didn't have web album upload support. I downloaded the latest windows version and installed it with wine and it runs wonderfully. I was able to upload the photos to my picasa web albums and haven't had a single problem. Everything that I tried just worked, it was a lot slicker than the version specifically for Linux.

This is with: Ubuntu 7.04; wine 0.9.33; picasa 2.7 (build 36.4000,0)

And yet

[WindBourne]

it is windows WITH services esp IIS, not just windows, that is cracked so heavily. In contrast, Linux with many "services" still has a much better record.

I find it funny that so many virus writers and crackers will do stories where they say that they choose Windows because it is much easier to crack than any other OS, and yet, folks like you fight this. Soon we will get "experts" like you claiming that Linus created Linux because aliens told him to.

Re:And yet

[blowdart]

IIS5, unpatched perhaps. IIS6 however has a decent security record; at least according to Secunia with a grand total of 3 vulnerabilities, one of which was in ASP, which is disabled by default, one in WebDAV, disabled by default and a low criticality problem with cookie handling. All are patched. Apache 2.0 has 33, 3 of which are unpatched and 2.2 has 1 out of 3 unpatched.

Re:And yet

[HermMunster]

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.

Great Analogy:

[crhylove]

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.

Pretty good, but some double standards crept in

[EdwinFreed]

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.)

Do you really want to play this game?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Windows and OS X have been copying features from Linux for years. In fact, all of them copy from everyone else.

Notice how the default Ubuntu desktop has a very Windows-like taskbar at the bottom, for minimized stuff, and a Windows-like system tray in the upper right, and an OS9-like menu bar at the top left... Notice how we also have virtual desktops, which are a hackish addon everywhere else but Leopard, which isn't out yet...

Notice how we also have things like package management, which does not exist ANYWHERE except in the Unix world, except (you guessed it) as hackish addons, or very proprietary things. That is, Apple has Software Update, which updates Apple software only. Windows has Microsoft Update, which is the same thing, but for Microsoft software. There's Fink for OS X, which is out of date, ugly, and hackish, and I forget what there is for Windows, other than cygwin, which hardly counts. And before any of these, we had apt on Linux.

We also had print to PDF in OpenOffice before anyone else.

We have a file/web browser (Konqueror) which is a bit like Windows/Internet Explorer (only done right), and we have external drives automagically appearing on the desktop (almost exactly like OS X, only they're mounted under /media instead of /Volumes).

Need I go on?

The Linux distros that are meant for end-users are still way more flexible than Windows or OS X. For a quick example, install a different window manager or desktop environment -- even GNOME to KDE should show a difference, but try Fluxbox, WindowMaker, RatPoison, Enlightenment, or straight Beryl for something completely different. Or hit ctrl+alt+f1.

Sure, out of the box, they resemble Windows a bit more closely, but even the stupidly-conservative GNOME has things that Windows doesn't. KDE, while it superficially looks more like Windows, has even more -- out of the box, on Kubuntu, try alt+space and start typing something (like "konqueror") to see what I mean. Or pop a CD in -- on Windows, you can always eject the CD by punching the botton on the drive, but if it's in use, you get something resembling a BSOD. (It's been awhile, so this may be better by now...) On my Kubuntu, the physical "eject" button is intercepted by the OS, and if the CD is busy, it won't eject, but it will pop up a message telling you it couldn't, and exactly what programs are still using the CD. (And if you know what you're doing, you can always force-unmount it and then eject, or kill the processes involved.) This is actually somewhat borrowed from Macs, which have no physical eject button, only a button on the keyboard which is handled entirely in software.

Good answer, wrong question

[yankpop]

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.

Re:Unix receives more attack attempts than windows

[Bargearse]

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. 99% of these break-in attempts are portscans. Any machine on the net, running any OS, fixed IP or not, is subjected to this barrage on a daily basis. The people doing this generally don't care what kind of machines they get in their botnet, they'll be used for the same purpose one way or another.

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. Any machine connected to the net has the same exposure to these general attacks. The difference is not Unix/Windows/whatever; the difference is the setup and administration. Most servers are managed by professionals who know how to configure, maintain and monitor a machine properly. Most desktops are not.

Re:You are wrong

[Gordonjcp]

"A default Ubuntu install doesn't expose any open ports"
True, but misleading: A default Ubuntu install doesn't offer any server-type services, so far as I know, so it doesn't have to open any ports.

And the vast majority of Windows users don't need to run any servers, either. Why does it have them?

Also, is it still true that a default Ubuntu install doesn't have a password around the root account?

No, there is no root password set, so you cannot log into Ubuntu as root in the default configuration. Have a read of this - it explains a little bit about what root is, and the pros and cons of using sudo instead of having locked root account

You're right about the ports. Looking at a couple of PCs running XP, they seem to only have about 10 ports open. Apart from the NetBIOS ports, I don't know what most of them are - looking them up in my /etc/services they're either not listed or don't match what I'd expect. I don't really know why they'd be open.

Re:You are wrong

[damium]

Also, is it still true that a default Ubuntu install doesn't have a password around the root account?

True. This is by design and a security feature. Don't confuse it with a *blank* root password. There is no way for the root user to login to a default Ubuntu install to discourage users running as root.

"Windows is designed to expose hundreds of ports" Care to list them all?

RPC :)

The truth is, as best I recall, a default Windows XP install has 4 or 5 open ports, all related to SMB and Windows Networking - and anyone with a clue wouldn't ever allow those to be exposed to the Internet - that's what hardware NAT/firewalls/routers are for.

I count 3 by default, 7 if you turn file sharing on, and more than 20 if you disable the windows firewall.

And, from a home perspective - every ISP I've ever dealt with filters those at their routers. I know that Time-Warner still does, on their Roadrunner network, and as far as I know, so does Verizon.

I'd be willing to bet that just about every ISP does as well - they'd be foolish not to.

When I was with Verizon they were filtered from the internet but not from other Verizon customers (2 years ago or longer). The very last time I dealt with a Verizon network was when a friend of mine who had no computer experience went down to the local Best Buy, bought a computer, got service from Verizon got p0wn3d following their directions.

Step 1: Put the CD into your computer.
Step 2: Plug the (pre-SP2) PC directly into the DSL modem.
He never made it to step 3. Time to infection was about 24 seconds. By the time he called me and I drove over he had no less than 10 distinct viruses/worms. He only knew about them because one of them was closing his Anti-Virus software when he tried to activate it.

I hear they are doing better these days and shipping wireless routers with service. When I was with them you couldn't even get support for a dead line if you were not plugged into the modem directly. My point from all of this is that I wouldn't trust your ISP to keep known malicious traffic out. Most ISPs are too large and don't even care enough to disconnect known bots from within their network.

Re:You are wrong

[JasterBobaMereel]

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?