Vista Vs. Gutsy Gibbon

ricegf writes in with the account of one Rupert Goodwins writing in ZDNet UK. Goodwins has 7 computers running various versions of Windows and Linux, and explains why he chooses to do most of his work on the Gibbon. "So here's the funny thing. I've used Windows since 1.0. I've lived through the bad times of Windows/386 and ME, and the good times of NT 3.51 and 2K. I know XP if not backwards, then with a degree of familiarity that only middle-aged co-dependents can afford each other... Then how come I'm so much more at home with Ubuntu than Vista? It boils down to one abiding impression: Ubuntu goes out of its way to get out of your way... Vista goes out of its way to be Vista and enforce the Vista way."

Comments

Re:My take on it

[lattyware]

And with Gutsy, and it's 'never crash out to bash' ideology, and the x-settings manager that will start if x crashes, you now would not even need to be an intelligent user in this case with Gutsy to get it to work. It's a long-awaited idea, and one that'll be gladly received. It works well too, in 99% of situations. Of course there are some hardware setups that would not work even in this 'safe-mode' style of graphics setup - but they are very few and far between - and anyone using them will probably be able to solve it at a bash prompt, and this is a huge step forward. I've laughed at people for saying Windows is easier. Bull. Windows is more familiar, maybe. But Linux has now been made so much more easy than windows. Installing and using Vista for gaming after more than a year of Linux only use was hell.

Aside

[IthnkImParanoid]

In my experience there's really no reason to run Norton antivirus, unless you enjoy giving your operating system the equivalent of 300 pound cell mate named Bubba. Between Avast!, AVG, Clamwin, Panda, and any other free antivirus software out there, there's got to be something to replace Norton.

Why Vista Security is like the TSA.

[mmclure]

At work, I got a shiny new machine. Since we need to certify some of our products with Windows Vista, we designated it the Vista certification machine. So far, so good.

We use the MKS Toolkit software suite to simplify several tasks while developing on Windows. Everything seemed to work fine, until I had to use patch to apply a diff to some sources. As soon as I typed

        patch -p0 foo.diff

at the command prompt I got a pop-up window from Vista asking permission to run the executable. If I answered "yes, go ahead" instead of running the program in the same command prompt window it popped it up in another command prompt which promptly disappeared. And, apparently, did absolutely nothing to the files that were supposed to be patched. Experimentation shows that even

        patch --help

pops up the dialog and fails, so it isn't a permissions problem on the files to patch. So I say to myself, "Myself, we're a revision or two back on MKS Toolkit, and this is not the Vista-certified version - let's try another patch.exe." So I go get the GnuWin32 version of patch.exe. I put it first on the PATH, and try again. Another pop-up. I answer yes, and not only does patch run in a window that disappears, but it GPFs as well.

At this point, I'm pissed. But suddenly the penny drops. I rename the MKS toolkit patch.exe to ptch.exe and type

      ptch --help

which produces a nice help message. Trying on the original diff causes the required files to be patched correctly.

Apparently the Windows Vista User Access Control considers patch.exe to be a forbidden executable name. I investigated further and the only way to disable this functionality appears to be to completely turn off UAC, which I did immediately.

But there you have it - Windows Vista's vaunted security is about as logical and effective as banning water bottles in carry-on luggage.

Re:Why Vista Security is like the TSA.

[SirMeliot]

That's a compatibility fudge to run old install programs that don't have a manifest saying whether they need admin privs or not.

Try it with with setup.exe, update.exe or anything that sounds like it might be an installer. Vista assumes it's an installer and tries to run it as admin.

For extra fun rename a text file to be setup.exe. Try to run it. Vista will give you a UAC prompt, then discover it's not a real executable and finally give you a cute little message box saying 'The application didn't install correctly'

Try Gutsy Gibbon

[icsEater]

You may want to give Gutsy Gibbon a try. It has a new GUI-based screen configuration utility that handles dual screens. http://www.ubuntu.com/files/GutsyImages/Screen-and-Graphic-Preferences.jpg This is a feature that I've been waiting for :-) Yes, mucking around with xorg.Conf isn't too hard, but this makes life easier for new comers.

Re:Ugh iPhoto

[c_forq]

I believe this behavior is done for two reasons. One: so it can edit pictures non-destructively (as in none of your original data is destroyed, very important to those of us who might use the same picture multiple times and edit it differently for different occasions). Two: to avoid the issue of loss of data through compression. Almost any slashdotter can tell you of the ability of jpeg to destroy pictures after repeated compression.