I do multi-layered protection. At the MTA level, I utilize some DNSRBL lists to block from known spam servers. In addition, I require HELO and reject people who are claiming to be my server. In addition, I will reject invalid recipient domains, etc.
From here I run accepted emails through AMaViS / SpamAssassin / ClamAV / Sophos Sweep (I have yet had Sophos catch a virus that ClamAV did not detect.. though ClamAV caught two that Sophos did not..) and will not deliver (but notify postmaster) of spams over a set value (ie 8), deliver spam between 5-8 tagged and items under a certain value get passed without tagging. Viruses are always blocked and reported.
Overall this has reduced unwanted email significantly. On networks of 40-60 users, between 35-50% of email is rejected at the SMTP level, about another 10% or so is quarantined (either viruses/spam), another 10% or so is tagged but delivered and the rest is legit.
I have yet had any compliants of false positives (granted there is a risk that they do not know) but have had a lot of priase for reduction in spam levels. I am not aware of any viruses penetrating.
Check out http://jimsun.linxnet.com/misc/postfix-anti-UCE.tx t for more info (this is postfix centric, but the ideas could be applied to other setups)
1. Software firewall? I hope your running as an underprivileged user so another program can't simply terminate the firewall.
2. Anti-virus -- ever check how many system resources that chews up? Lemme give you a hint- a lot.
3. Check registry -- how exactly? With probably hundred of thousands of different values, it seems like it would take a significant amount of time to shift through. Do you have a program like "diff" and a shell script that automatically notifies you of changes?
4. HijackThis, AdAware, Spybot -- it sounds like you are on the up-and-up.. just curious, how often do these programs find something? If this is greater than 0, doesn't that make you even the slightest bit concerned that even you, as a knowledgable Windows user, can't stop this malware from infecting your computer?
To be honest with you, I am glad to see that you are active in keeping your system running well. However, wouldn't it be nice to use a system that had a sensible security model where things like viruses, spyware, adware and other malicious code were not a big issue?
With XP SP2 now out and exploited, it appears that Microsoft still doesn't get it. Perhaps while your running your full virus checks, spyware removers and other non-sense monitoring,, you could be writing out letters to those companies who software/services you use that force you to stay with Windows.
Of course if you have nothing better to do than admin your personal box and don't have any data on it that is of value, then you can completely disregard this message.
Re:Nice, but they've got it all wrong...
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Your right. Lets pack up our things and go home.
The problem I see is your posting this to slashdot. On here, I would be VERY surprised if 85%+ of the people on here DID NOT start (or have a significant portion of their computing life) on Microsoft DOS/Windows/etc.
So you look at these people, who now run either exclusive a *nix system, hybrid setup or at least have a certain sustainable interest in the FOSS movement.
I tried out Slackware Linux back in 1996ish and was turned off fairly quickly since it just seemed like too much work, revisited it a few years later, thought the same thing. It wasn't until I was trying to learn ASP when I came across PHP (thanks to the recommendation by a webmaster) and coupled with a step-by-step how-to about PHP/MySQL was able to finally achieve my goal.
At that point in time, I thought the world of PHP. Not only was I able to grok it MUCH faster than ASP/MSSQL development but it was totally absolutely 100% free. The fact it was a FOSS/GPL product sparked my interest enough to finally buckle down and start truly learning Linux.
No friends knew Linux, my school didn't have Linux, my workplace didn't have Linux. However, I was drawn by it. I'm guessing there are a LOT of others out there that will find value in Linux but simply do not know about it.
Perhaps this is just what I need as an advocate of Linux and FOSS. If someone has interest, I can reference them to this guide to *hopefully* get them up to speed and using Linux much faster than I ended up "taking up linux".
Perhaps people who have never used a computer *MIGHT* be using Linux as their first system. Linux makes a GREAT public terminal. Linux is GREAT for computer labs at schools and coupled with a Knoppix CD, Students can use the same exact programs from school at their homes, at friends houses and so forth. It truly does make sense for a lot of applications where individuals are exposed to computers. Perhaps its time for guides to be available for these users -- nothing that hammers on the command line or installation but rather applications, interface usage and other basic computer GUI skills.
10.5hours?! Man oh man.. the way I look at it is like this:
If spyware, viruses, etc get on a machine, it is effective "0wn3d".. Going back to sys admin 101, if a box is owned, you have to restore it from trusted media.
Granted, since I can't make a distro of Win98 (with all the upgraded patches, Office, etc) and reduce the re-install time from the 3hrs+ of most-of-the-time sitting at the computer hitting "next" or rebooting (seriously, the time it takes to backup data, format, reinstall Windows, upgrade patches, install applications, reinstall virus/spyware scanned data, install additional protection measures and configure (spywareblaster, virus scanner, firewall, firefox, yada yada) then I tend to do the following:
Run spyware check & virus check (both run mostly unattended, can do other stuff) -- consider the box good. If there are outstanding issues, run a quick hardware diagnostic (unless symptoms make me believe it is the issue initially) and if it checks ok, then reinstall.
Microsoft could have made it a LOT easier if we as IT pros could make a reliable windows "distro" -- throw all the most-requested software on the disk, be able to install it virtually unattended and have it have an updated driver database so hardware installs, again, mostly unattended.
I do use ghosting/sysprep when possible, but there are some serious limitations that only make it feesible for certain situations (ie computer labs, standardized business desktops).
I suppose to an extent, it is job security, but I'd rather spend my time building solutions, than fixing Microsoft's issues. Oh wait, WinXP SP2 will fix all that.. bwhahhahah.. I can't even type it with a straight face.:)
I am quite unsure of your position. I am unsure how a lack of security equates to better usability. Lack of security ends up allowing malicious code in the form of adware, spyware, trojans, worms and viruses to enter a system, take up system resources, increase the headache factor of dealing with pop-ups, re-installs, loss of data and other issues.
At minimum, if someone trashes a user account, it shouldn't be any big deal to simply copy data files from that user account, create a new user account and be done with it. How this type of a seccurity model impacts usability is beyond me.
The fact that people build their sites to Microsoft's propietary code and not a standard is where the big usability issue comes in. Its as simple as that. As long as web developers have to code to IE and test in a multitude of various browsers and versions, it increases development costs, inhibits advancement of web development and drains resources from researching better *usability* of web page/application layout.
I find all of this to be a moot point. I install Firefox on atleast 5-6 different PCs a week (this week I'll be installing on ~60). The added usability of the system (tab browsing, pop-up blocker, etc..) and reduction of spyware related issues that plague IE keep people using Firefox. I routinely have people writing back to me on how they installed Firefox on other peoples computers to "fix" an IE related problem.
I have people using Firefox on Mac, Windows and UNNIX machines. From a usability standpoint, this is insanely great. It is possible to go from one platform to another and be 100% productive because it is the same exact browser on all the systems.
#1 -- Suse, Redhat, Lycoris, etc.. pop in the CD and clickk "next" a few times.. full install. Infact, compared to Windows, its faster and simpler -- no entry of CD Keys, clicking through EULAs, etc.
Too hard? Ok.. use Knoppix Linux. Pop in a cd, turn on computer. Don't even have to click Next to get a fully functional desktop.
#2 -- I'm really not sure about this anymore. Sure, a few years ago I would have agreed, but the past few have had a lot of focus on usability and interface design. I have people using my FreeeBSD/KDE box all the time for general computing and beyond an initial run down of the different icons, they don't have an issue.
#3 -- So people are not familiar with the interface, big deal. I had the same issues with Macintosh, Windows, DOS, OS/2 and other systems. It takes a while to get familiar with the interface. Even the "holy grail" of intuitive interfaces (MacOS) took me a while to fully get up to speed. Just because it isn't familiar (Windows) doesn't mean its bad, its just different, people need to realize that Linux/FOSS is NOT Windows. After they accept that it is different, the learning curve is greatly reduced.
hmm... aptget? up2date? portupgrade? perhaps instead of every single program having its own update mechanism, it should be one update mechanism for the entire machine? Seems to make more sense to me. I hate having to run a live update for antivirus, antispyware, windows, yada yada yada..
I like having my programs and commands have names that actually make sense
Like what? Outlook Express? Excel? Access? PowerPoint? FrontPage? Sure you know what they are by using them, but sit someone down at the computer that doesn't know what they are, and its just the same as "grep "gimp" "x" in your example.
but if I have the money, I can get a Windows computer set up the same way
I must ask -- why? Why would you want to spend money on something that you don't necessarily need to? Fortunatley a significant amount of FOSS software IS cross platform (unlike Microsoft's wares) so you can run it on Windows w/o spending the money.
From my perspective as a basic desktop computer user, the only thing Linux has going for it is the cost (usually zero) and perhaps security.
I find it interesting that you just discount both of those items. Spend a few thousand on hardware/software that you don't need for the privelege of having a less secure computing experience where you have to worry about people hijacking your credit card numbers, personal information and so forth.
Its true. From a wiped clean computer to productivity, Linux IS faster. I have yet been able to install Windows, install drivers, do Windows update, install applications, configure, etc faster than simply popping in the latest Linux distro and being done with it.
Of course, this assumes two things:
#1 -- Your hardware is supported #2 -- The software you want/need is made for Linux
I'm finding that both of these requirements are being met more and more every day. The latest hardware seems to be supported, the applications are becoming more feature rich and very useful to a wide range of users (some of the apps are the best no matter how you slice it (mozilla, firefox, etc..))
As far as being "spoiled" well umm.. I dunno. I think its more of a "meets expectations" type of a thing -- stable, reliable, secure. Though I must admit, I do feel a lil' spoiled a bit when my Windows buddies get zapped with the latest spyware or IE issue -- but honestly, should I?
Naturally, we'll exclude non-profit and free-software vendors because they couldn't possibly have the financial resources necessary to produce quality software.
So you're saying that Linux and its graphical work environments, upon the development of which large companies spend billions of dollars each year, don't have much money? Or are you claiming that a Linux 2.6 box running Gnome or KDE is a piece of shit? Inquiring minds want to know...
If MS fixed all their problems, I'd jump for joy. Granted, I think certain problems are lack of a good shell, lack of good text based admin tools, lack of good security, lack of use of open standards, etc.. Now if your just talking about Internet Explorer related problems, well I already solved that.. its called FireFox.
I agree, WinXP is perhaps the most user friendly OS Microsoft has put out yet. I still give my props to them for W2K being the most productive (I find many of the interface changes in XP to be umm.. annoying).
Infact, I agree that for a desktop, XP is adaquately stable and generally don't have too many issues assuming that you don't pound the system with a huge array of applications.
However, in todays computing environment, people are connected to the Internet. Just that action alone makes any Windows OS equate to "extra aggravation". I'm talking spyware issues, adware issues, viruses, security issues. Even the more tech saavy among regular end-users get hit with spyware on occasion.
So whats the solution? Well on a WinXP box you start by running an antivirus application, spyware blocker, pop-up blocker, setting up a firewall, perhaps switching out Outlook & Internet Explorer for something like Mozilla.. Of course, setup Windows Update to auto-update. Perhaps if your lucky, you can even setup users with restricted accounts (though I *STILL* run into required apps that insist on having admin access) so security is improved in that regard.
Thats one of the big things I like about Linux distros.. pop in a CD, tell it you want it setup as a workstation.. after about a half hour or so, your booted up into the system, the default security is not to give administrative access (nice), default reasonable firewall is already setup, applications already installed and the computer is ready to use.
WinXP (and definitely W2K) are old enough that the CD you use is too old to have the latest drivers and security updates. So even a basic install takes significantly longer (and requires more skill) than grabbing the latest (free) Linux CD.
Of course, then there is the entire LTSP which is great for many-many-many installations (nothing like taking a computer out of a box, setting it to network boot and presto everything is good to go..), the fact that I can yank out a Linux hard drive and pop it into another system and be able to continue to work (never understood why Windows creates such a fuss requiring basically a fresh install), better package management, ability to move to different hardware platforms (choice), ability to customize virtually every aspect of the system (choice), etc..
Of course, there are many drawbacks, mainly stemming from marketshare -- there are still lots of niche apps that simply are not available for Linux. It truly is unfortunate. However, it seems like every month I see some positive news in this regard -- either better compatibiltiy with Win32 apps, apps being ported or other natvie apps providing the needed functionaility.
First, BBS software is dead.. don't even think about attempting a telnet based sychronet, wwiv, or whatever other old bbs software you can find. I use to run a BBS, was very active 1990-1994ish in the BBS "scene" and I wouldn't even bother getting into something like this -- much less someone who never used a BBS before.
Second, use Internet technologies -- DHCP, DNS, HTTP, etc.. its around, its free, its mature and generally speaking, pretty easy to setup in an intranet setup.
Third, focus on your advantages: #1 known demographic (same region) and #2 highspeed access (802.11B and higher.. right?) --->
So you get lots of people together that have high speed versus broadband/dialup to the larger internet.. this says lots of high-bandwidth content.. Great way to get people interested? perhaps video personals.. I think for many, it would spark some interest in atleast checking out the system.
Other content would be the local scene news -- where bands are playing, upcoming events, yada yada.. perhaps get some of the local radio stations involved (streaming their content over the network? perhaps some free publicity as well), web cams galore (its fun), discussion forums, etc..
Ultimately there *NEEDS* to be enough huge-bandwidth offerings to make people want to use the system.. too much of this same content is already available in the much more easily accessible Internet..
From where I am sitting, it costs more and offers less.
Significantly reduced command line
Lack of many modern GUI interface items (shaded windows, customizable task bar, mouse gestures, advanced hot key support, ability to define certain windows to stay on top/below others, yada yada)
no centralized app management (FreeBSD I can have it notify me what apps are out of date, easily install new apps, etc.. how about Windows?)
Limited hardware compatibility (particularly 64bit systems, non i386 based architectures, etc..)
Restrictive EULAs
Bastardized versions (Ie XP Home having reduced network functionaility)
Spyware, Viruses, Adware, ad naseum..
Granted, thats the short list. Ultimately though, for me, I have realized that Windows simply restricts what I can do.
Using basic tools found on *nix, I have been able to create lots of very useful utilities that interact with me via email. Its great as I routinely check email so it makes sense to have as much information delivered via email as possible. Virtually everything can be redirected to email which is very nice -- how bout Windows? Seems like I have to check a handful of different application GUIs to collect the information.
Bottom line -- the flexibility is the key point. Granted, I'm sure if I spent a few hundred more on development tools, I could probably do many of the same things on Windows, but why?
So? Who cares if they are about service or consumer sales or whatever.. The bottom line is their profits,after taxes, are 31% of their revenue stream (of the the year ending June 30, 2003).
Before tax consideration, their profits are 46% of revenues!!
Basically this means close to half of the money paid to Microsoft is profit.
For your information, IBM, which I think many would consider a services company has a profit margin (before taxes) of a more reasonable 12.2% and after tax of 8.5%.
I suppose when you look at the $4.7 billion that Microsoft gave the government last year in income tax (not to mention all the tax money from employees, lobbying money, etc..) its not too surprising they get to be above the law.
Take a look at Windows 98.. [URL="http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html"] According to Google[/URL], 21% of users are running Windows 98, a 6 year old OS which while it doesn't run the latest MS (W2K+) software, is still being used day in and day out by millions and millions of people.
Historically Microsoft could get 3-4 year cycles.. People running Win98 by and large tend to be happy with their systems and generally only upgrade (atleast in my experience) due to hardware failure or incompatibility with some current must-have-software.
Microsoft takes a look at the media giants, looks at internet providers, looks at phone companies, cell phone companies, etc..etc.. All of these have people paying out $40+ a month without a flinch. $40 a month x a 3 year contract is $1440. If your Microsoft, that looks a heck of a lot better than that same individual paying for a $500 box and well.. umm.. thats it.
Not only can they get the monthly revenue stream, but they won't technically have to "innovate" nearly as hard.. people will grow accustomed to paying and just accept it as another media/telecom cost.
If I was Microsoft, I'd want to achieve this business model as well.. reduced R&D, consistent monthly income, total lockin and piece-of-cake to restrict (DRM and so forth)
Of course, initially this platform will be pretty cool.. I wouldn't be surprised if the broadband companies are the ones who actually do the install.
Get your highspeed internet, pay another $50 or so a month, get the computer which has access to the online music store and other exclusive online content (of course the music store would only play on the computer.. burning to CD or so forth would be extra) plus the standard set of Microsoft software.
Perhaps MS would even setup the box in such a way where documents and all that are stored online in a "trusted" passport account or similar. Then they can tout ease of use! "Have a problem with the system? Hit the "restore" button on the front and it will reload everything from a disk image! All your documents are safely stored online!" -- I dunno, to the masses who have pounded their head against data loss and doing everything by themselves, that might sound rather appealing.. heck its only $50/mo and you get the free computer!
It probably won't be profitable if you look at it this way. However, a lot of the R&D to develop this router will find its way into a wide range of other products.
After reading this article, it sounds like Microsoft, atleast in the Asia-Pacific region, does not have any advantage in the market over OSS.
Perhaps its about time for Microsoft to realize the playing field has changed and it should figure out (like IBM, Novell, etc..) how to utilize OSS instead of trying to fight it.
"Linux distribution vendors only have the right to charge equivalent costs to Windows if and when their distribution is equivalent or better than Windows in all respects, out of the box."
That seems rather silly. Vendors can charge whatever they want for their product. If it is percieved too high, then people simply won't buy it.
Considering price, lets take a look at prices:
Suse Linux 9.1 Professional from Amazon.com is $79.99 Windows XP Home from Amazon.com is $179.99
Here are just a few features that the $100 cheaper Suse Linux has that WinXP does not:
- 64-bit CPU support - Support for Windows network domains - Desktop Publishing app (Scribus) - Graphics Editing app (GIMP) (vs MS Paint?) - 3D modeling/animation (Blender) - Sound Editing (Sweep) (vs Sound Recorder?) - Personal Accounting Software (GNUcash) - Full Office Suite (OpenOffice) - PIM (Kontact/Evolution) - Multi-client instant messenger (Kopete) - Development tools (KDevelop, gcc,etc..) - HTML Editor (Quanta Plus) - Advanced/Professional-grade server software (mail, web, proxy, nat, etc..)
Of course, in addition to all of the additional software that comes bundled, there is no need to run resource intensive apps like spyware scanners, anti-virus utilities, etc.. This ultimately makes the system that much more responsive.
Oh yah, almost forgot.. Suse comes with 90 days of installation support and _unlimited_ licenses so the same $79.99 copy can be legally installed on ALL your systems..
I see it as a kog in migration. It goes something like this:
Phase 1: All Windows w/Windows apps, no FOSS Phase 2: Windows w/some FOSS (mozilla, gaim, OOo) Phase 3: Linux w/Windowsish interface w/FOSS and perhaps Wine or similar.. Phase 4: Full FOSS desktop with native apps
While I currently have a full FOSS desktop, many people I work with (sys admin) are around a Phase 2.. Its getting close to moving many of them to a phase 3 setup.. When that time comes, they will already be familiar with the mozilla icon, openoffice, gaim, etc, so besides some minor interface differences, they will be able to compute with ease.
After they use a FOSS desktop (KDE, Gnome, whatever..) then that will define the upgrade path they take.. they will start tapping into rich features of the system (on KDE -> all the added QT goodness, ioslaves, dcop, accessibility features, etc..) and be able to customize it to make them more productive.
I don't see how he is implying that at all.. the simple fact is that Photoshop is still in a league of its own, no matter if you look at FOSS or commercial offerings.
I think I know exactly how Microsoft works -- whatever Microsoft thinks the customer will buy, the customer gets. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that I have a quote from a head of one of Microsoft's 2 large cash cows basically stating the same reinforces that belief.
Microsoft is purely a marketing company -- As a result, what they release is based on how profitable it will make them in the short term. Period. From a business perspective, this isn't terribly bad, however from a technology perspective, it is what it is -- a short sighted mess.
I don't quite understand your argument. I give Knoppix CDs to people all the time. They pop them in, in a minute, the desktop comes up fully loaded with a wide range of applications and they can be as productive or unproductive as they need to be. No need to compile a kernel, no need to look at millions of lines of code, heck, don't even have to sit around and watch software compile.
As far as being "tacked on" what is so wrong about that? It, for one thing, provides a modular system. Pull out one piece and replace it with a piece that provides compatible interfaces and you are able to keep on going.. Sure, this level of customization is not for everyone, but the fact that there is flexibility for those that want this flexibility is great.
As far as Unix being "the One True Way" -- I dunno.. perhaps it is. While I might be forgetting an OS, isn't every actively developed OS besides Windows based significantly on Unix in some way? BSD, Darwin, Mac OS X, Solaris, IRIX, OpenServer, Tru64, Linux, Minix, UnixWare, AIX, QNX, HP-UX, OS/390, etc..etc.. are all Unix based in some way. Gates saw the usefulness of Unix, had MS Xenix and used it as a primary development platform throughout the 80s and early 90s..
Slashdot Mirror
You have the right concept, but wrong feature. The feature most useful to the average user is ... WordArt.
Sadly, this appears to be a major feature of MS Office.*wince*
I do multi-layered protection. At the MTA level, I utilize some DNSRBL lists to block from known spam servers. In addition, I require HELO and reject people who are claiming to be my server. In addition, I will reject invalid recipient domains, etc.
x t for more info (this is postfix centric, but the ideas could be applied to other setups)
From here I run accepted emails through AMaViS / SpamAssassin / ClamAV / Sophos Sweep (I have yet had Sophos catch a virus that ClamAV did not detect.. though ClamAV caught two that Sophos did not..) and will not deliver (but notify postmaster) of spams over a set value (ie 8), deliver spam between 5-8 tagged and items under a certain value get passed without tagging. Viruses are always blocked and reported.
Overall this has reduced unwanted email significantly. On networks of 40-60 users, between 35-50% of email is rejected at the SMTP level, about another 10% or so is quarantined (either viruses/spam), another 10% or so is tagged but delivered and the rest is legit.
I have yet had any compliants of false positives (granted there is a risk that they do not know) but have had a lot of priase for reduction in spam levels. I am not aware of any viruses penetrating.
Check out http://jimsun.linxnet.com/misc/postfix-anti-UCE.t
My thoughts: What a pain in the ass.
.. just curious, how often do these programs find something? If this is greater than 0, doesn't that make you even the slightest bit concerned that even you, as a knowledgable Windows user, can't stop this malware from infecting your computer?
1. Software firewall? I hope your running as an underprivileged user so another program can't simply terminate the firewall.
2. Anti-virus -- ever check how many system resources that chews up? Lemme give you a hint- a lot.
3. Check registry -- how exactly? With probably hundred of thousands of different values, it seems like it would take a significant amount of time to shift through. Do you have a program like "diff" and a shell script that automatically notifies you of changes?
4. HijackThis, AdAware, Spybot -- it sounds like you are on the up-and-up
To be honest with you, I am glad to see that you are active in keeping your system running well. However, wouldn't it be nice to use a system that had a sensible security model where things like viruses, spyware, adware and other malicious code were not a big issue?
With XP SP2 now out and exploited, it appears that Microsoft still doesn't get it. Perhaps while your running your full virus checks, spyware removers and other non-sense monitoring,, you could be writing out letters to those companies who software/services you use that force you to stay with Windows.
Of course if you have nothing better to do than admin your personal box and don't have any data on it that is of value, then you can completely disregard this message.
Your right. Lets pack up our things and go home.
The problem I see is your posting this to slashdot. On here, I would be VERY surprised if 85%+ of the people on here DID NOT start (or have a significant portion of their computing life) on Microsoft DOS/Windows/etc.
So you look at these people, who now run either exclusive a *nix system, hybrid setup or at least have a certain sustainable interest in the FOSS movement.
I tried out Slackware Linux back in 1996ish and was turned off fairly quickly since it just seemed like too much work, revisited it a few years later, thought the same thing. It wasn't until I was trying to learn ASP when I came across PHP (thanks to the recommendation by a webmaster) and coupled with a step-by-step how-to about PHP/MySQL was able to finally achieve my goal.
At that point in time, I thought the world of PHP. Not only was I able to grok it MUCH faster than ASP/MSSQL development but it was totally absolutely 100% free. The fact it was a FOSS/GPL product sparked my interest enough to finally buckle down and start truly learning Linux.
No friends knew Linux, my school didn't have Linux, my workplace didn't have Linux. However, I was drawn by it. I'm guessing there are a LOT of others out there that will find value in Linux but simply do not know about it.
Perhaps this is just what I need as an advocate of Linux and FOSS. If someone has interest, I can reference them to this guide to *hopefully* get them up to speed and using Linux much faster than I ended up "taking up linux".
Perhaps people who have never used a computer *MIGHT* be using Linux as their first system. Linux makes a GREAT public terminal. Linux is GREAT for computer labs at schools and coupled with a Knoppix CD, Students can use the same exact programs from school at their homes, at friends houses and so forth. It truly does make sense for a lot of applications where individuals are exposed to computers. Perhaps its time for guides to be available for these users -- nothing that hammers on the command line or installation but rather applications, interface usage and other basic computer GUI skills.
10.5hours?! Man oh man.. the way I look at it is like this:
.. Going back to sys admin 101, if a box is owned, you have to restore it from trusted media.
.. bwhahhahah.. I can't even type it with a straight face. :)
If spyware, viruses, etc get on a machine, it is effective "0wn3d"
Granted, since I can't make a distro of Win98 (with all the upgraded patches, Office, etc) and reduce the re-install time from the 3hrs+ of most-of-the-time sitting at the computer hitting "next" or rebooting (seriously, the time it takes to backup data, format, reinstall Windows, upgrade patches, install applications, reinstall virus/spyware scanned data, install additional protection measures and configure (spywareblaster, virus scanner, firewall, firefox, yada yada) then I tend to do the following:
Run spyware check & virus check (both run mostly unattended, can do other stuff) -- consider the box good. If there are outstanding issues, run a quick hardware diagnostic (unless symptoms make me believe it is the issue initially) and if it checks ok, then reinstall.
Microsoft could have made it a LOT easier if we as IT pros could make a reliable windows "distro" -- throw all the most-requested software on the disk, be able to install it virtually unattended and have it have an updated driver database so hardware installs, again, mostly unattended.
I do use ghosting/sysprep when possible, but there are some serious limitations that only make it feesible for certain situations (ie computer labs, standardized business desktops).
I suppose to an extent, it is job security, but I'd rather spend my time building solutions, than fixing Microsoft's issues. Oh wait, WinXP SP2 will fix all that
I am quite unsure of your position. I am unsure how a lack of security equates to better usability. Lack of security ends up allowing malicious code in the form of adware, spyware, trojans, worms and viruses to enter a system, take up system resources, increase the headache factor of dealing with pop-ups, re-installs, loss of data and other issues.
At minimum, if someone trashes a user account, it shouldn't be any big deal to simply copy data files from that user account, create a new user account and be done with it. How this type of a seccurity model impacts usability is beyond me.
The fact that people build their sites to Microsoft's propietary code and not a standard is where the big usability issue comes in. Its as simple as that. As long as web developers have to code to IE and test in a multitude of various browsers and versions, it increases development costs, inhibits advancement of web development and drains resources from researching better *usability* of web page/application layout.
I find all of this to be a moot point. I install Firefox on atleast 5-6 different PCs a week (this week I'll be installing on ~60). The added usability of the system (tab browsing, pop-up blocker, etc..) and reduction of spyware related issues that plague IE keep people using Firefox. I routinely have people writing back to me on how they installed Firefox on other peoples computers to "fix" an IE related problem.
I have people using Firefox on Mac, Windows and UNNIX machines. From a usability standpoint, this is insanely great. It is possible to go from one platform to another and be 100% productive because it is the same exact browser on all the systems.
#1 -- Suse, Redhat, Lycoris, etc.. pop in the CD and clickk "next" a few times .. full install. Infact, compared to Windows, its faster and simpler -- no entry of CD Keys, clicking through EULAs, etc.
.. use Knoppix Linux. Pop in a cd, turn on computer. Don't even have to click Next to get a fully functional desktop.
Too hard? Ok
#2 -- I'm really not sure about this anymore. Sure, a few years ago I would have agreed, but the past few have had a lot of focus on usability and interface design. I have people using my FreeeBSD/KDE box all the time for general computing and beyond an initial run down of the different icons, they don't have an issue.
#3 -- So people are not familiar with the interface, big deal. I had the same issues with Macintosh, Windows, DOS, OS/2 and other systems. It takes a while to get familiar with the interface. Even the "holy grail" of intuitive interfaces (MacOS) took me a while to fully get up to speed. Just because it isn't familiar (Windows) doesn't mean its bad, its just different, people need to realize that Linux/FOSS is NOT Windows. After they accept that it is different, the learning curve is greatly reduced.
If this was an issue with IE and not Firefox, I hope you'd still be saying the same thing?
:)
Yes, it still wouldn't stop me from using Firefox.
hmm... aptget? up2date? portupgrade? perhaps instead of every single program having its own update mechanism, it should be one update mechanism for the entire machine? Seems to make more sense to me. I hate having to run a live update for antivirus, antispyware, windows, yada yada yada..
I think it is a familiarity thing..
I like having my programs and commands have names that actually make sense
Like what? Outlook Express? Excel? Access? PowerPoint? FrontPage? Sure you know what they are by using them, but sit someone down at the computer that doesn't know what they are, and its just the same as "grep "gimp" "x" in your example.
but if I have the money, I can get a Windows computer set up the same way
I must ask -- why? Why would you want to spend money on something that you don't necessarily need to? Fortunatley a significant amount of FOSS software IS cross platform (unlike Microsoft's wares) so you can run it on Windows w/o spending the money.
From my perspective as a basic desktop computer user, the only thing Linux has going for it is the cost (usually zero) and perhaps security.
I find it interesting that you just discount both of those items. Spend a few thousand on hardware/software that you don't need for the privelege of having a less secure computing experience where you have to worry about people hijacking your credit card numbers, personal information and so forth.
Its true. From a wiped clean computer to productivity, Linux IS faster. I have yet been able to install Windows, install drivers, do Windows update, install applications, configure, etc faster than simply popping in the latest Linux distro and being done with it.
Of course, this assumes two things:
#1 -- Your hardware is supported
#2 -- The software you want/need is made for Linux
I'm finding that both of these requirements are being met more and more every day. The latest hardware seems to be supported, the applications are becoming more feature rich and very useful to a wide range of users (some of the apps are the best no matter how you slice it (mozilla, firefox, etc..))
As far as being "spoiled" well umm.. I dunno. I think its more of a "meets expectations" type of a thing -- stable, reliable, secure. Though I must admit, I do feel a lil' spoiled a bit when my Windows buddies get zapped with the latest spyware or IE issue -- but honestly, should I?
Naturally, we'll exclude non-profit and free-software vendors because they couldn't possibly have the financial resources necessary to produce quality software.
So you're saying that Linux and its graphical work environments, upon the development of which large companies spend billions of dollars each year, don't have much money? Or are you claiming that a Linux 2.6 box running Gnome or KDE is a piece of shit? Inquiring minds want to know...
*whoooooosh!!*
If MS fixed all their problems, I'd jump for joy. Granted, I think certain problems are lack of a good shell, lack of good text based admin tools, lack of good security, lack of use of open standards, etc.. Now if your just talking about Internet Explorer related problems, well I already solved that.. its called FireFox.
I agree, WinXP is perhaps the most user friendly OS Microsoft has put out yet. I still give my props to them for W2K being the most productive (I find many of the interface changes in XP to be umm.. annoying).
Infact, I agree that for a desktop, XP is adaquately stable and generally don't have too many issues assuming that you don't pound the system with a huge array of applications.
However, in todays computing environment, people are connected to the Internet. Just that action alone makes any Windows OS equate to "extra aggravation". I'm talking spyware issues, adware issues, viruses, security issues. Even the more tech saavy among regular end-users get hit with spyware on occasion.
So whats the solution? Well on a WinXP box you start by running an antivirus application, spyware blocker, pop-up blocker, setting up a firewall, perhaps switching out Outlook & Internet Explorer for something like Mozilla.. Of course, setup Windows Update to auto-update. Perhaps if your lucky, you can even setup users with restricted accounts (though I *STILL* run into required apps that insist on having admin access) so security is improved in that regard.
Thats one of the big things I like about Linux distros.. pop in a CD, tell it you want it setup as a workstation.. after about a half hour or so, your booted up into the system, the default security is not to give administrative access (nice), default reasonable firewall is already setup, applications already installed and the computer is ready to use.
WinXP (and definitely W2K) are old enough that the CD you use is too old to have the latest drivers and security updates. So even a basic install takes significantly longer (and requires more skill) than grabbing the latest (free) Linux CD.
Of course, then there is the entire LTSP which is great for many-many-many installations (nothing like taking a computer out of a box, setting it to network boot and presto everything is good to go..), the fact that I can yank out a Linux hard drive and pop it into another system and be able to continue to work (never understood why Windows creates such a fuss requiring basically a fresh install), better package management, ability to move to different hardware platforms (choice), ability to customize virtually every aspect of the system (choice), etc..
Of course, there are many drawbacks, mainly stemming from marketshare -- there are still lots of niche apps that simply are not available for Linux. It truly is unfortunate. However, it seems like every month I see some positive news in this regard -- either better compatibiltiy with Win32 apps, apps being ported or other natvie apps providing the needed functionaility.
First, BBS software is dead.. don't even think about attempting a telnet based sychronet, wwiv, or whatever other old bbs software you can find. I use to run a BBS, was very active 1990-1994ish in the BBS "scene" and I wouldn't even bother getting into something like this -- much less someone who never used a BBS before.
.. right?) --->
.. this says lots of high-bandwidth content.. Great way to get people interested? perhaps video personals.. I think for many, it would spark some interest in atleast checking out the system.
.. perhaps get some of the local radio stations involved (streaming their content over the network? perhaps some free publicity as well), web cams galore (its fun), discussion forums, etc..
Second, use Internet technologies -- DHCP, DNS, HTTP, etc.. its around, its free, its mature and generally speaking, pretty easy to setup in an intranet setup.
Third, focus on your advantages: #1 known demographic (same region) and #2 highspeed access (802.11B and higher
So you get lots of people together that have high speed versus broadband/dialup to the larger internet
Other content would be the local scene news -- where bands are playing, upcoming events, yada yada
Ultimately there *NEEDS* to be enough huge-bandwidth offerings to make people want to use the system.. too much of this same content is already available in the much more easily accessible Internet..
Granted, thats the short list. Ultimately though, for me, I have realized that Windows simply restricts what I can do.
Using basic tools found on *nix, I have been able to create lots of very useful utilities that interact with me via email. Its great as I routinely check email so it makes sense to have as much information delivered via email as possible. Virtually everything can be redirected to email which is very nice -- how bout Windows? Seems like I have to check a handful of different application GUIs to collect the information.
Bottom line -- the flexibility is the key point. Granted, I'm sure if I spent a few hundred more on development tools, I could probably do many of the same things on Windows, but why?
So? Who cares if they are about service or consumer sales or whatever .. The bottom line is their profits,after taxes, are 31% of their revenue stream (of the the year ending June 30, 2003).
Before tax consideration, their profits are 46% of revenues!!
Basically this means close to half of the money paid to Microsoft is profit.
For your information, IBM, which I think many would consider a services company has a profit margin (before taxes) of a more reasonable 12.2% and after tax of 8.5%.
I suppose when you look at the $4.7 billion that Microsoft gave the government last year in income tax (not to mention all the tax money from employees, lobbying money, etc..) its not too surprising they get to be above the law.
...if your Microsoft.
.. [URL="http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html"] According to Google[/URL], 21% of users are running Windows 98, a 6 year old OS which while it doesn't run the latest MS (W2K+) software, is still being used day in and day out by millions and millions of people.
.. People running Win98 by and large tend to be happy with their systems and generally only upgrade (atleast in my experience) due to hardware failure or incompatibility with some current must-have-software.
.. umm.. thats it.
.. people will grow accustomed to paying and just accept it as another media/telecom cost.
.. heck its only $50/mo and you get the free computer!
Take a look at Windows 98
Historically Microsoft could get 3-4 year cycles
Microsoft takes a look at the media giants, looks at internet providers, looks at phone companies, cell phone companies, etc..etc.. All of these have people paying out $40+ a month without a flinch. $40 a month x a 3 year contract is $1440. If your Microsoft, that looks a heck of a lot better than that same individual paying for a $500 box and well
Not only can they get the monthly revenue stream, but they won't technically have to "innovate" nearly as hard
If I was Microsoft, I'd want to achieve this business model as well.. reduced R&D, consistent monthly income, total lockin and piece-of-cake to restrict (DRM and so forth)
Of course, initially this platform will be pretty cool.. I wouldn't be surprised if the broadband companies are the ones who actually do the install.
Get your highspeed internet, pay another $50 or so a month, get the computer which has access to the online music store and other exclusive online content (of course the music store would only play on the computer.. burning to CD or so forth would be extra) plus the standard set of Microsoft software.
Perhaps MS would even setup the box in such a way where documents and all that are stored online in a "trusted" passport account or similar. Then they can tout ease of use! "Have a problem with the system? Hit the "restore" button on the front and it will reload everything from a disk image! All your documents are safely stored online!" -- I dunno, to the masses who have pounded their head against data loss and doing everything by themselves, that might sound rather appealing
yikes.
It probably won't be profitable if you look at it this way. However, a lot of the R&D to develop this router will find its way into a wide range of other products.
After reading this article, it sounds like Microsoft, atleast in the Asia-Pacific region, does not have any advantage in the market over OSS.
Perhaps its about time for Microsoft to realize the playing field has changed and it should figure out (like IBM, Novell, etc..) how to utilize OSS instead of trying to fight it.
"Linux distribution vendors only have the right to charge equivalent costs to Windows if and when their distribution is equivalent or better than Windows in all respects, out of the box."
That seems rather silly. Vendors can charge whatever they want for their product. If it is percieved too high, then people simply won't buy it.
Considering price, lets take a look at prices:
Suse Linux 9.1 Professional from Amazon.com is $79.99
Windows XP Home from Amazon.com is $179.99
Here are just a few features that the $100 cheaper Suse Linux has that WinXP does not:
- 64-bit CPU support
- Support for Windows network domains
- Desktop Publishing app (Scribus)
- Graphics Editing app (GIMP) (vs MS Paint?)
- 3D modeling/animation (Blender)
- Sound Editing (Sweep) (vs Sound Recorder?)
- Personal Accounting Software (GNUcash)
- Full Office Suite (OpenOffice)
- PIM (Kontact/Evolution)
- Multi-client instant messenger (Kopete)
- Development tools (KDevelop, gcc,etc..)
- HTML Editor (Quanta Plus)
- Advanced/Professional-grade server software (mail, web, proxy, nat, etc..)
Of course, in addition to all of the additional software that comes bundled, there is no need to run resource intensive apps like spyware scanners, anti-virus utilities, etc.. This ultimately makes the system that much more responsive.
Oh yah, almost forgot.. Suse comes with 90 days of installation support and _unlimited_ licenses so the same $79.99 copy can be legally installed on ALL your systems..
Sounds like a good deal to me.
adblock + popup blocker + mozilla = pleasant web experience.
I see it as a kog in migration. It goes something like this:
..
.. When that time comes, they will already be familiar with the mozilla icon, openoffice, gaim, etc, so besides some minor interface differences, they will be able to compute with ease.
Phase 1: All Windows w/Windows apps, no FOSS
Phase 2: Windows w/some FOSS (mozilla, gaim, OOo)
Phase 3: Linux w/Windowsish interface w/FOSS and perhaps Wine or similar
Phase 4: Full FOSS desktop with native apps
While I currently have a full FOSS desktop, many people I work with (sys admin) are around a Phase 2.. Its getting close to moving many of them to a phase 3 setup
After they use a FOSS desktop (KDE, Gnome, whatever..) then that will define the upgrade path they take.. they will start tapping into rich features of the system (on KDE -> all the added QT goodness, ioslaves, dcop, accessibility features, etc..) and be able to customize it to make them more productive.
I don't see how he is implying that at all.. the simple fact is that Photoshop is still in a league of its own, no matter if you look at FOSS or commercial offerings.
I think I know exactly how Microsoft works -- whatever Microsoft thinks the customer will buy, the customer gets. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that I have a quote from a head of one of Microsoft's 2 large cash cows basically stating the same reinforces that belief.
.. perhaps it is. While I might be forgetting an OS, isn't every actively developed OS besides Windows based significantly on Unix in some way? BSD, Darwin, Mac OS X, Solaris, IRIX, OpenServer, Tru64, Linux, Minix, UnixWare, AIX, QNX, HP-UX, OS/390, etc..etc.. are all Unix based in some way. Gates saw the usefulness of Unix, had MS Xenix and used it as a primary development platform throughout the 80s and early 90s..
Microsoft is purely a marketing company -- As a result, what they release is based on how profitable it will make them in the short term. Period. From a business perspective, this isn't terribly bad, however from a technology perspective, it is what it is -- a short sighted mess.
I don't quite understand your argument. I give Knoppix CDs to people all the time. They pop them in, in a minute, the desktop comes up fully loaded with a wide range of applications and they can be as productive or unproductive as they need to be. No need to compile a kernel, no need to look at millions of lines of code, heck, don't even have to sit around and watch software compile.
As far as being "tacked on" what is so wrong about that? It, for one thing, provides a modular system. Pull out one piece and replace it with a piece that provides compatible interfaces and you are able to keep on going.. Sure, this level of customization is not for everyone, but the fact that there is flexibility for those that want this flexibility is great.
As far as Unix being "the One True Way" -- I dunno