Slashdot Mirror
The Clueless Newbie Rides Again
overshoot writes "Anyone remember The Clueless Newbie's Linux Odyssey? As it happens, she's come back to have a go at Ubuntu Feisty. 'Four years ago I tried about a dozen Linux distributions, to see if they were ready for an ordinary user to install as an escape from the Windows world. None of the distros performed well enough for me to recommend them to a non-geek unless they were going to hire someone to install it. After hearing Dell's recent announcement that it will sell computers with pre-installed Ubuntu Linux, I decided to see if Ubuntu was user-friendly.'"
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.
Deleted
For those of you in the F/OSS community who want to make their products more mainstream, here's a free user test and feedback.
I take it as a great compliment to you folks in the F/OSS community that someone like her is attempting to install and run your products! It means you are becoming a real alternative to Windows and this editorial is a wonderful way to continue and expand on your excellence.
Just my opinion.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
NORMAL USERS don't install OS's. If you install your OS, you have progressed to POWER USER. Windows "normal users" call a computer shop to reinstall their OS. I know, I'VE GOTTEN THE CALLS!
Also,
If you don't want to change, don't change, Linux isn't windows, it's not trying to be, it's something different.
Now flame me, please.
My Babylon
The author tries to act like a newbie in the first couple pages. But by page 3, the words "driver", "Wine" (as in the emulator), "partition", and more start to appear. Newbie?!! Are you kidding me?
When my Grandma sat down at a computer for the first time a few years ago, she tried waving the mouse in the air to make the pointer move. That is a computer newbie!
As one person trying to migrate off of Windows (XP and Win2K user), I liked the features of Feisty Fawn running from the Live CD that I wanted to install it to the hard drive.
If we want Ubuntu to move forward, the developers need to recognize the thousands of people who will see it as an installation on top of Microsoft instead of getting a fresh clean installed image from Dell. Get these people comfortable and then the others will follow.
If screen four can be made a little more clear of explain that it has detected a Windows OS and lead the user from there, then we have a wonderful comfort level even before they get to see how Linux is so much better than Windows.
For /. readers, this may be a slow and cumbersome process but then again, if you can have the CD help Mom and Dad install Linux instead of you doing it for her, then there is one less family help desk call you have to make. Also, it makes them feel like they can actually maintain and operate there own systems.
Don't worry, they will still love you, even if they don't need your help anymore.
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.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
The fear she felt when Ubuntu's installer did not give any sign it was aware of, and respecting her Windows partition.
This is the kind of UI point that developers easily miss. They know what is going on under the UI, and therefore they are unaware of what the user is going to think when confronted with the interface.
I wouldn't be surprised if many newbie Linux experimenters are deterred part way through the installation process by something like this. It really is a pain to reinstall Windows.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Some spelling errors aren't.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
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:
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:
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
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
Kubuntu Linux
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
I never said that either side was winning. In fact, I really don't give a shit. Just because a house on the corner of an intersection gets robbed more than the one on the end of a cul-de-sac doesn't mean that one's lock is stronger than the other.
I use linux on a few of my boxes.. but it's like MacOSX, Vista, XP or Unix.. They're all different flavors that pertain to different people. A party bus or a sports car may cost the same, but they're not made for everyone.
As far as exploits go... I know patches and such are still rolling out like crazy, but you have to admit that all OS are WAYYYYY more secure than what they were 5-10 years ago. I'd honestly be comfortable pulling up a chair in front of almost any OS and feel comfortable knowing that it's not going to get a worm that second. Windows WAS horrible, but face it.. right now, it's not THAT bad. Browser exploits are the majority, and they are patched so fast that they're hard to attack. With vista's new features.. it may make it safer if you can get around some of it's OTHER features, but all-in-all.. it's ok. Even Symantec praised it, and that's sayin quite a bit.
Linux is more secure in most aspects and I like it.. like others, I'm just not comfortable with it. It will grow, and I doubt that even as it's more of a target.. security will get worse. More exploits will be found.. but it will still be secure.
With every patch that's made.. it's harder for people to find new ways in. That goes with all OS's... Unfortunately, with new technology comes new problems. And as far as the problems go, they will remain until human's quit writing the code themselvs.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Your point, however, is wrong. Linux isn't more secure because it is targetted less. It is more secure because it uses a different security model with a whole lot fewer holes in it; *nix in general has been designed to be secure and account for restricting one portion of the system from other portions since very early days. Windows started wide open, and remained wide open for a long time, a lot of system software was written to be wide open, and even more importantly, a lot of system concepts, like activeX, were not designed with security in mind. Consequently, Windows security, such as it is, is an afterthought layer that was added to the original functionality, whereas *nix security, specifically linux security, is built in at the bedrock level.
The fact is, it is a lot more difficult to hack a *nix system by design. Something else to note: A huge proportion of the servers out on the net are linux machines running apache. These machines are powerful (that's why they are servers), the tend to have big pipes (again, they're servers, they need relatively big pipes) they're online all the time (they're servers!) and so they are ideal for a botnet or a spamming system, etc. And so, the majority of spamming systems and botnets are linux machines, right? Because they're common and have the perfect set of capabilities for these tasks? No. Wrong. Most mal-servers are Windows machines. But why? All those many linux machines would be great mal-servers! They are a huge target! Well, the why is simple, and it's just what I said above: It is hard to hack a linux server, even one that isn't that well patched. A linux machine that is properly kept up to date is even harder. Macs are basically the same kind of hard target; they're *nix underneath.
The bottom line is that Windows has the malware because it has been the easy target. Not because it is the common target.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
windows actually has very few open ports since XP SP2, and even fewer with vista, especially if you choose public location for when you plug into any network.
please me, have no regrets.
in light of the ongoing battle over DRM:
Although CDs played immediately, to play DVDs I had to locate and install some files that bypass content protection coding. The website I acquired them from, www.getautomatix.com , warned me that I might be installing something illegal, but I said, "Yarrr, matey", and clicked the install button. Automatix installed itself, then I selected what I needed. More files were downloaded and installedIOW, normal usage of the DVDs (not even gray-area "fair use" copying, but normal playback), on her fully-owned and legally-obtained system, was broken until she installed something that "may be illegal." This is a point we need to make noise about: DRM can make it impossible to simply watch a purchased movie.
I know, not exactly news (to readers here anyway), but it's another opportunity to point it out.
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
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.
That's what I've got here. (Suse 10.1 distro, not Ubuntu, which may or may not make a difference. If Ubuntu is installing a 64-bit browser, they may want to rethink that.
Debian is working on the really ideal solution to that problem, they call it multiarch. The idea is to make the installer fully aware of all of the different variations of processors and which apps they can run and which libraries are needed.
In this case, what we want to happen is when you apt-get install the flash player, the installer realizes that the only version available is a 32-bit version and that it depends on a 32-bit version of the browser, which in turn needs a certain set of 32-bit libraries, so it downloads and installs all of it, installing the 32-bit libraries next to the 64-bit libraries and replacing the 64-bit browser. Multiarch will make all of that, and much more, not only possible but transparent to the user. It's still a work in progress, though.
In the meantime, I agree that a desktop-oriented distro like Ubuntu should probably install a 32-bit browser by default. Either that or accept a bit of temporary ugliness and code some specific flash and browser handling into the installer so it does the right thing.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
UnixA is NOT a smaller target audience, it is in the Desktop, but not on the server.
And let me tell you, servers with a fixed IP address, open well known ports listening, and lots of domains pointing to it are the most common target. I have a fixed IP address, on a Unix machine, and you should just see my logs. Tons of break-in attempts everyday, and my Slackware just resists all of them.
Desktop machines with windows with variable IP addresses are the target of bots. Unix servers with fixed IP addresses are the target of real crackers and wannabes trying to break in 24/7.
Unix is a far more secure platform than Windows; and it has been proved since it's more exposed to heavy attacks all the time.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I'm always slightly torn by posts like this. Fundamentally, I agree with the statement "Linux is safer [than Windows]". The problems set in when someone like the OP starts explaining his reasoning. For all the cries of "FUD!" by the typical Slashdotian Linux zealot, these people tend to make up more horseshit on a per-topic basis than any Microsoft-sponsored TCO report could hope to. And they get away with it. Gordonjcp, as someone who would like to see a an Open and Free environment like Linux proliferate in the enterprise market, I'm asking you - and people like you - to please stop. You're doing more harm than good.
Windows is not a dwindling minority. A cursory glance at NetCraft would show that not only does IIS have a noteworthy 31% of the marketshare, it's actually gaining market, while Apache is declining, rendering your original claim almost completely incorrect.
Windows does not have hundreds of unclosable ports. Please, cut that gimmick out. SP2 (included in the current boxed release of Windows) patched a great deal of the port issues and included a decent firewall for home users. Or were you referring to the original release of XP? If that's the route you were going, let me try it on the other end - "This whole Linux thing will never take off. It's not even compatible with common hardware! I just tried to install RedHat 7 on my workstation, and XFree86 wouldn't even start unless I was using 640x480 with the framebuffer driver!".
I wish to reiterate - I would like to see Linux gain ground and acceptance, but I simply cannot stand the hypocrisy of resorting to the FUD tactics of Microsoft. Outlining reasons to not use Windows is a fucking cakewalk without making things up.
Come on, people. Let's keep this a clean fight.
"You and your third dimension."
Yeah, I can only get one or two phaser hits on my linux boxes before they adapt.
I loved your Sports car / Party bus analogy.
1. Sports Car: Mac OS X. Pretty fast, looks fancy, you think you're real cool. You paid too much, it's not that reliable. Eventually you'll just have to buy a whole new one, cause maintenance is a real bitch.
2. Party Bus: Windows XP. Kinda scary, might get viruses, but you'll have fun with silly games and plenty of porn. Might drive you to drink too much, might cause hang overs.
3. Work Truck: Debian Linux. Solid, reliable. Gets the job done. Boring. Nobody looks forward to it.
4. SUV: Windows Vista. Everybody wants it, because it looks better than your old car, but when you get it, it's slow, hard to do three point turns in, costs you way too much in gas, and doesn't do some of the stuff your old car did. You end up using your old car, and eventually put it up on Craig's List.
5. Classic Car: Ubuntu. If you keep it in fluids, it runs forever. It's fast, has clean simple lines, all of your friend's are jealous, but not brave enough to switch from their Toyota. Kinda missing some newer creature comforts like cup holders.
6. Moped: Knoppix. Saves money, time, is fast. But you can't do some things you do with your other car, like carry stuff and other people. Plus it's a little embarrassing.
7. Yugo: Windows ME. Barely drove even when brand new. Was KIND OF cute, at first, but within minutes you wished you had a different car. Any car.
8. Toyota: Windows 2000. Saves money, saves time, is pretty fast. Does most of the stuff you need it to do, and easily, but it's really not glamorous. Tons of people are still driving it, but nobody's proud. You probably still have the stock radio, which sucks, but at least it still plays music.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.