a manufacturer that pre-installs windows on their machines is not the devil for it. like it or not, most people use windows, and its good business practice to be able to pre-install it and probably cut the end user a little bit off the price of paying for the os retail.
Whether or not it is a good business decision to install Windows by default is not the issue. Microsoft demands that users abide by a EULA that Microsoft itself refuses to abide by.
The EULA says that if you don't agree you can get a refund. But if you do in fact refuse the EULA Microsoft will not provide a refund. Assuming the EULA is a binding contract, Microsoft and/or the OEMs are in breach of that contract. That is the issue.
Re:Breaking things is not fixing the problem.
on
As the Spam Turns
·
· Score: 1
What if the someone that wants to talk to you just wants to sell your something? Or what if they want to convice you to change your opinion about something. Or what if they want to just reply to your Slashdot posting privately? How are you going to tell these apart?
I have spam filters that send a confirmation back to strangers, asking that they simply Reply to the confirmation. That reply serves to move the message from a holding area into my Inbox. Spammers generally either use invalid email addresses or don't read/respond to replies.
There is no way that anyone with the computing skills of your mom (i.e., none) can hope to get Linux into a state where they can do anything they consider useful with it.
But she could get Windows to such a state?
Repeat after me: Normal people do not install operating systems. Normal people do not install operating systems. Normal people do not install operating systems.
Computer people set all this stuff up either at a OEM vendor's lab or at the user's home, and they make sure that normal people don't have to do anything but turn on the power. That's how it's done with Windows, that's how it done with Mac, that's how it done with the ATM at the bank, and that's how it has to be done with Linux.
Talking about normal people setting up their own computers is pointless, because they don't do it any more than they do a brake job on their car. They simply use the thing and call an expert when anything complex needs to be done. I've received enough of these calls to know.
There may be reasons that out-of-the-box Linux distros are not ready for prime time, but this is not one of them.
What some of you tend to forget, there is freedom of speech.
That is a guaruntee that Congress may not abridge the freedom of speech. What corporations decide to do to each other is a lot of things, but it is not a freedom of speech issue.
I personally feel that pop-ups, pop-unders, exit-pops, and back-button disabling are all immoral behavior that the web browser should stop by default. A pop-up in response to a click is acceptable, on-load is abusive.
However, if you block the banners or ads from the site itself, I feel that you have crossed a line.
Popups are from the site itself. Do you think someone cracked the site and added them over the webmaster's objections?
Receiving the ads is the price of visiting the site. While you are welcome to receive the site's content in any way that you want, blocking banners, etc., is essentially the same as shoplifting. You are taking what you want without paying the costs.
Viewing advertising is simply not an accepted requirement for viewing the related content. There is no social expectation that people read the ads in newspapers and magazines, or watch every ad on television as a prerequisite for viewing the associated content. Your statement that there is such an expectation or obligation does not make it so.
Qualcomm does not ship NAI Inc.'s PGP plugin with its Eudora email client...
They used to. The usage of PGP grew fast during that time. You definitely have a point. But OE and Netscape ship with S/MIME and it is barely ever used. So it's not as simple as shipping the client with the capability included.
The problem is that the admins that know how to do this cost just as much as UNIX admins, and for the same reason: they generally know what they're doing. This puts a different twist on the TCO argument.
Learning curves. In the school and corporate environments, people don't want to waste time learning unix or linux. They don't work the same as Windows...
Double-click icon for word processor. Select File-New or click the New Document button on the toolbar. Type. Select File-Save or click the Floppy button on the toolbar. Select File-Print or click the Printer button on the toolbar. Select File-Close or click the X button on the top right corner of the window.
I have just described document creation using any of the following:
Word on Windows or Mac
AbiWord on Windows or Linux
StarOffice on Windows, Solaris, or Linux
There are probaly others, but you get the point. The apps are so similar that your argument simply doesn't stand up to examination.
Exactly what end user functions are so different on Linux that a Windows user could not do it. I'm talking about an end user in a corporate environment where there are system administrators.
My family has used Linux as their sole desktop for more than two years. Hell, it may hav been more than three years. Anyway, they simply did not have the kind of trouble you're talking about.
A secretary doesnt want to mess around - she wants to logon, read her email,
Click email icon to start Balsa, Messenger, Kmail, or Evolution. All have the common 3-pane view and buttons on the toolbar to do common mail functions (Compose, Reply, ReplyAll, Delete).
type a letter a print it out,
Double-click on the word processor icon. Create document. Select File-Print or click the printer icon on the toolbar. Select File-Save or click the floppy disk button on the toolbar. Then select File-Exit or click the X button in the top right corner of the window.
These steps are identical in Word (Windows, Mac), WordPerfect (Windows, Linux, SCO?), AbiWord (Linux, Windows), or StarOffice 6 (Linux, Solaris, Windows). Your argument that somehow doing these tasks in Linux would be too hard for a secretary is not supported by the evidence.
she knows windows and has been using it for years and can use explorer to find a file,
I haven't used KDE for a while, but the GNOME file manager has a basic file finder. I'm still using GNOME 1.2, and this version could stand a little interface work. It will find files though.
she understands macros and has customised templates and auto texts
I have never seen a novice or rote user create macros, templates, or auto text. They will continue doing it the long way because that's what they know. At most, they may reuse documents that only need minor changes for each use. If some guru sets up a template or walks them through setting up a macro or auto text, then maybe those features will get used. That behavior applies to any application on any platform. I just don't see most users using these features unassisted.
- you take away here machine she had better be able to immediately pick up the new OS and use it the same
Then you need to give her a fully configured replacemnt. Or are you pretending that she would be able to create all her macros, templates, and auto text on her own, given an off-the-shelf winbox?
Comparing a winbox that likely took lots of time to configure for her needs to any off-the-shelf box is an apples to oranges comparison.
(and NO console windows - shes never SEEN DOS)
My family manages to use Linux daily and they never use a command line. Never. Ever.
Yet they manage to use email, word processing, drawing, Web surfing, and file management without me hovering over their shoulders. Once they found the Foot/K buttons, they were off and running. For people who use the computer as an appliance, this is typical. It's the power users who need to learn new tricks that tend to have the most difficulty. If you just need to use the apps, it's just not that different.
Oh, and did I mention that they never use the command line. Never. Ever.
That old command line argument has outlived any semblance of any relation to reality. It's simply not true and repeating it only makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about. I have novice users in my household that I have been watching use Linux as their sole desktop for more than two years. They never use the command line. If you have better data than that, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.
and follow the same file and tree layout - KDE is almost there but i still cant give it to a secretary.
GNOME's file manager has the same tree-style layout as Explorer, with folders in the left pane and file in the right. With the files, you get a choice of icon view or list view, with options as to what details you want displayed in the list.
lets understand the realities - on windows desktops here my users use Outlook, Word, Excel, IE5.5, Powerpoint, SAP and some of them have apps like photshop, they know their sysytems and i doubt 1 in 50 have ever seen a command line.
I have 2+ years of daily use data that says normal users do not need the command line. -- sysadmins do. Please present data that supports a contrary conclusion or do us all a favor and stop repeating this out of date dogma.
There is no
ease-of-use
reason that MS Office apps can't be replaced by StarOffice. There are some file format compatibility limitations, and some guru or power user would have to recreate the templates (the same as in MS Office), but those are not ease-of-use issues. In the end, the rote or novice user can sit down, login, start the desired office app, save, print, and be just as productive. I'm not guessing. I've seen this with my own eyes.
Training, User acceptance, and external file format compatibility are significant issues. Ease of Use is simply not a significant issue, not for end users.
Locate is much faster and allows you to use grep to further refine the search. I use both environments regularly, and Linux has Windows beat for finding files.
Microsoft releases on time? Please.
on
Opposing Open Source?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
NT5 was due in 1998. Lots of great features were planned. Many companies bought into this plan and waited for the great upgrade.
It finally came in Feb 2000 as Win2k.
NT5 was supposed to integrate the stable NT kernel with the flexibility of Windows 95, resulting in a single OS for home and corporate use. Later, Microsoft said that feature would not make it into NT5. Instead we got a set of fixes for Win95, called Win98. A second set of fixes was called Win98SE. Then instead of the single combined OS (NT5), we got WinME and several flavors of Win2k.
In late 2001, we will finally get the combined OS that was promised in 1998, with most of the promised features. In the meantime, Microsoft released three other operating systems (not including WinCE), none of which had all the promised features. Along the way, costs have gone up and vendor lock-in is running rampant.
There are reasons to use MS software, but the ability to depend on their announced release dates is not one of them.
I don't know about the gnome-terminal thing, but the points made in the Sun usability study are being addressed. The latest release of gdm already incorporates changes made specifically because of that study.
He can have an agenda and still be correct in ppointing out errors and mis-statements on Microsoft's part. I don't think you need to be pro-Linux to see the inconsistency in Microsoft's anti-Open Source statements and it's use of BSD licensed code and operating systems.
Microsoft, like many others, has thrown around the term "open source" without really understanding all of the intricacies of the situation (they seem to suffer from the classic "open source = Linux = GPL" fallacy).
I disagree. I think MS execs use the term Open Source for several reasons, none of which stem from ignorance.
They see all Open Source as pontential competition, so they want to discredit all of it.
They are speaking for a non-technical audience and don't want to get into the technical weeds.
They didn't think they'd get called on it in a mainstream or business-oriented publication
I have no doubt that Microsoft's primary objection is to the GPL, but I don't believe it was just plain ignorance that led them to consistently use the term "Open Source" instead of specifically naming the GPL as the problematic license.
Besides when MS was "criticizing opensource", the arguments were against the licensing terms of GNU and not open source in general.
Even though MS statements actually describe potential problems with the GPL, they always use the term "Open Source". That is not an accident. They are attempting to use fear of some features of the GPL to keep managers from evaluating any Open Source product on its own merits.
The article is dumbed down too much to avoid explaining the different licenses. Microsoft also does this in their announcements. Most of Microsoft's arguments against Open Source are against GPLed software. The WSJ doesn't even mention GPL. That's either because they don't know how to explain it in a few paragraphs, or even more likely they don't understand the issues with the different licenses.
The reporter sounds like he's well aware of the differences between the GPL and BSD licenses, even though he does not specifically mention the GPL. I think that was probably a good move, given that his target audience would be businesses that use software rather than businesses that sell software.
On the other hand, Microsoft's announcements avoid mentioning the licenses in order to paint all Open Source products with the same broad brush. There is no way that Jim Allchin could be unaware that Windows contains BSD networking code. I also doubt that Mr. Mundie is ignorant of the key differences between the GPL and BSD licenses. While there is an element of audience targeting in their comments, the statements of the MS spokeperson about BSD and Hotmail make it clear that MS would like to paint a negative picture of all Open Source products.
Speaking of PostgreSQL, is there anyone one can get an already compiled, ready-to-run-setup.exe version of it?
It ships with Red Hat 6.x and there are RPMs available. If your machine has the right libraries, compiling it is a piece of cake: tar -zxvf postgresql*.tar.gz; cd postgresql-<version>;./configure; make; make install.
Some of the things in Windows have equivalents in Linux or in some of the more popular window managers and/or desktop environments. Many others do not.
For instance the autoexec.bat analogous to rc.local but the startup folder is more like ~/.xinit or, in GNOME, the Startup Programs in GNOME Control Center. There may be a similar facility in KDE2. A proper description of the way each functions would easily be a page or so.
Some things are simpler. The Add/Remove Programs function is performed by your package manager. A basic static site or personal homepage can be setup using Apache just by putting the HTML in the correct directory. It pretty much runs out of the box.
Dialup Networking may be handled by distro or desktop specific tools, but a descript of the working of pppd and one or more generic tools would also be required for a comprehensive doc.
Device management would be a chapter by itself.
All of these functions are affected by user and permission features that are almost unknown in consumer versions of Windows. A lot of what Linux can do just does not have an equivalent in an out-of-the-box Windows install.
My distro (Red Hat) came with distro-specific docs, including an Installation Guide, a Getting Started Guide, and a Reference Guide, all on the CD in HTML format. All you need is a browser and enough curiousity to actually look at the CD in a file manager. The "docs" directory is there in plain site.
Mandrake does the same thing and if the other major distros are significantly different, I'd be surprised.
Red Hat's Getting Started Guide along with a thick book on Linux is the way to get started on Red Hat for Windows users. I've learned over the years that the included docs are good for reference, but if you're learning something for the first time, buy a book. The vendor's docs may be good, but a book is usually more tutorial in nature.
if they were competent, and they thought it was infringing, they'd just download the source and figure it out themselves.
They already know. That's not the point. The point is they are willing to use lawsuits to keep themselves in busines, regardless of whether the lawsuits have any factual merit. Also, spreading FUD about Vorbis will influence PHB's in companies that might consider using it instead of paying license fees for MP3.
Slashdot Mirror
a manufacturer that pre-installs windows on their machines is not the devil for it. like it or not, most people use windows, and its good business practice to be able to pre-install it and probably cut the end user a little bit off the price of paying for the os retail.
Whether or not it is a good business decision to install Windows by default is not the issue. Microsoft demands that users abide by a EULA that Microsoft itself refuses to abide by.
The EULA says that if you don't agree you can get a refund. But if you do in fact refuse the EULA Microsoft will not provide a refund. Assuming the EULA is a binding contract, Microsoft and/or the OEMs are in breach of that contract. That is the issue.
What if the someone that wants to talk to you just wants to sell your something? Or what if they want to convice you to change your opinion about something. Or what if they want to just reply to your Slashdot posting privately? How are you going to tell these apart?
I have spam filters that send a confirmation back to strangers, asking that they simply Reply to the confirmation. That reply serves to move the message from a holding area into my Inbox. Spammers generally either use invalid email addresses or don't read/respond to replies.
There is no way that anyone with the computing skills of your mom (i.e., none) can hope to get Linux into a state where they can do anything they consider useful with it.
But she could get Windows to such a state?
Repeat after me:
Normal people do not install operating systems.
Normal people do not install operating systems.
Normal people do not install operating systems.
Computer people set all this stuff up either at a OEM vendor's lab or at the user's home, and they make sure that normal people don't have to do anything but turn on the power. That's how it's done with Windows, that's how it done with Mac, that's how it done with the ATM at the bank, and that's how it has to be done with Linux.
Talking about normal people setting up their own computers is pointless, because they don't do it any more than they do a brake job on their car. They simply use the thing and call an expert when anything complex needs to be done. I've received enough of these calls to know.
There may be reasons that out-of-the-box Linux distros are not ready for prime time, but this is not one of them.
What some of you tend to forget, there is freedom of speech.
That is a guaruntee that Congress may not abridge the freedom of speech. What corporations decide to do to each other is a lot of things, but it is not a freedom of speech issue.
I personally feel that pop-ups, pop-unders, exit-pops, and back-button disabling are all immoral behavior that the web browser should stop by default. A pop-up in response to a click is acceptable, on-load is abusive.
However, if you block the banners or ads from the site itself, I feel that you have crossed a line.
Popups are from the site itself. Do you think someone cracked the site and added them over the webmaster's objections?
Receiving the ads is the price of visiting the site. While you are welcome to receive the site's content in any way that you want, blocking banners, etc., is essentially the same as shoplifting. You are taking what you want without paying the costs.
Viewing advertising is simply not an accepted requirement for viewing the related content. There is no social expectation that people read the ads in newspapers and magazines, or watch every ad on television as a prerequisite for viewing the associated content. Your statement that there is such an expectation or obligation does not make it so.
Qualcomm does not ship NAI Inc.'s PGP plugin with its Eudora email client...
They used to. The usage of PGP grew fast during that time. You definitely have a point. But OE and Netscape ship with S/MIME and it is barely ever used. So it's not as simple as shipping the client with the capability included.
The problem is that the admins that know how to do this cost just as much as UNIX admins, and for the same reason: they generally know what they're doing. This puts a different twist on the TCO argument.
As long as the app supports the X clipboard. Just highlight the relevant text and center-click where you want to paste it in.
Granted, this does not work for non-text data.
Double-click icon for word processor. Select File-New or click the New Document button on the toolbar. Type. Select File-Save or click the Floppy button on the toolbar. Select File-Print or click the Printer button on the toolbar. Select File-Close or click the X button on the top right corner of the window.
I have just described document creation using any of the following:
Word on Windows or Mac
AbiWord on Windows or Linux
StarOffice on Windows, Solaris, or Linux
There are probaly others, but you get the point. The apps are so similar that your argument simply doesn't stand up to examination.
Exactly what end user functions are so different on Linux that a Windows user could not do it. I'm talking about an end user in a corporate environment where there are system administrators.
My family has used Linux as their sole desktop for more than two years. Hell, it may hav been more than three years. Anyway, they simply did not have the kind of trouble you're talking about.
A secretary doesnt want to mess around - she wants to logon, read her email,
Click email icon to start Balsa, Messenger, Kmail, or Evolution. All have the common 3-pane view and buttons on the toolbar to do common mail functions (Compose, Reply, ReplyAll, Delete).
type a letter a print it out,
Double-click on the word processor icon. Create document. Select File-Print or click the printer icon on the toolbar. Select File-Save or click the floppy disk button on the toolbar. Then select File-Exit or click the X button in the top right corner of the window.
These steps are identical in Word (Windows, Mac), WordPerfect (Windows, Linux, SCO?), AbiWord (Linux, Windows), or StarOffice 6 (Linux, Solaris, Windows). Your argument that somehow doing these tasks in Linux would be too hard for a secretary is not supported by the evidence.
she knows windows and has been using it for years and can use explorer to find a file,
I haven't used KDE for a while, but the GNOME file manager has a basic file finder. I'm still using GNOME 1.2, and this version could stand a little interface work. It will find files though.
she understands macros and has customised templates and auto texts
I have never seen a novice or rote user create macros, templates, or auto text. They will continue doing it the long way because that's what they know. At most, they may reuse documents that only need minor changes for each use. If some guru sets up a template or walks them through setting up a macro or auto text, then maybe those features will get used. That behavior applies to any application on any platform. I just don't see most users using these features unassisted.
- you take away here machine she had better be able to immediately pick up the new OS and use it the same
Then you need to give her a fully configured replacemnt. Or are you pretending that she would be able to create all her macros, templates, and auto text on her own, given an off-the-shelf winbox?
Comparing a winbox that likely took lots of time to configure for her needs to any off-the-shelf box is an apples to oranges comparison.
(and NO console windows - shes never SEEN DOS)
My family manages to use Linux daily and they never use a command line. Never. Ever.
Yet they manage to use email, word processing, drawing, Web surfing, and file management without me hovering over their shoulders. Once they found the Foot/K buttons, they were off and running. For people who use the computer as an appliance, this is typical. It's the power users who need to learn new tricks that tend to have the most difficulty. If you just need to use the apps, it's just not that different.
Oh, and did I mention that they never use the command line. Never. Ever.
That old command line argument has outlived any semblance of any relation to reality. It's simply not true and repeating it only makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about. I have novice users in my household that I have been watching use Linux as their sole desktop for more than two years. They never use the command line. If you have better data than that, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.
and follow the same file and tree layout - KDE is almost there but i still cant give it to a secretary.
GNOME's file manager has the same tree-style layout as Explorer, with folders in the left pane and file in the right. With the files, you get a choice of icon view or list view, with options as to what details you want displayed in the list.
lets understand the realities - on windows desktops here my users use Outlook, Word, Excel, IE5.5, Powerpoint, SAP and some of them have apps like photshop, they know their sysytems and i doubt 1 in 50 have ever seen a command line.
I have 2+ years of daily use data that says normal users do not need the command line. -- sysadmins do. Please present data that supports a contrary conclusion or do us all a favor and stop repeating this out of date dogma.
There is no
ease-of-use
reason that MS Office apps can't be replaced by StarOffice. There are some file format compatibility limitations, and some guru or power user would have to recreate the templates (the same as in MS Office), but those are not ease-of-use issues. In the end, the rote or novice user can sit down, login, start the desired office app, save, print, and be just as productive. I'm not guessing. I've seen this with my own eyes.Training, User acceptance, and external file format compatibility are significant issues. Ease of Use is simply not a significant issue, not for end users.
in both GUIs. The differences are not significant given equivalent skill levels. It's when you need extended functionality that differences appear.
Locate is much faster and allows you to use grep to further refine the search. I use both environments regularly, and Linux has Windows beat for finding files.
NT5 was due in 1998. Lots of great features were planned. Many companies bought into this plan and waited for the great upgrade.
It finally came in Feb 2000 as Win2k.
NT5 was supposed to integrate the stable NT kernel with the flexibility of Windows 95, resulting in a single OS for home and corporate use. Later, Microsoft said that feature would not make it into NT5. Instead we got a set of fixes for Win95, called Win98. A second set of fixes was called Win98SE. Then instead of the single combined OS (NT5), we got WinME and several flavors of Win2k.
In late 2001, we will finally get the combined OS that was promised in 1998, with most of the promised features. In the meantime, Microsoft released three other operating systems (not including WinCE), none of which had all the promised features. Along the way, costs have gone up and vendor lock-in is running rampant.
There are reasons to use MS software, but the ability to depend on their announced release dates is not one of them.
can make a significant difference in TCO. In medium sized company with in-house IT staff, the difference could allow you to hire a junior admin.
I've always been bothered by the slowness of the menus on my GNOME desktops. I knew about nice/renice, but I didn't think to apply it here. Thanks.
I don't know about the gnome-terminal thing, but the points made in the Sun usability study are being addressed. The latest release of gdm already incorporates changes made specifically because of that study.
He can have an agenda and still be correct in ppointing out errors and mis-statements on Microsoft's part. I don't think you need to be pro-Linux to see the inconsistency in Microsoft's anti-Open Source statements and it's use of BSD licensed code and operating systems.
I disagree. I think MS execs use the term Open Source for several reasons, none of which stem from ignorance.
I have no doubt that Microsoft's primary objection is to the GPL, but I don't believe it was just plain ignorance that led them to consistently use the term "Open Source" instead of specifically naming the GPL as the problematic license.
Besides when MS was "criticizing opensource", the arguments were against the licensing terms of GNU and not open source in general.
Even though MS statements actually describe potential problems with the GPL, they always use the term "Open Source". That is not an accident. They are attempting to use fear of some features of the GPL to keep managers from evaluating any Open Source product on its own merits.
The article is dumbed down too much to avoid explaining the different licenses. Microsoft also does this in their announcements. Most of Microsoft's arguments against Open Source are against GPLed software. The WSJ doesn't even mention GPL. That's either because they don't know how to explain it in a few paragraphs, or even more likely they don't understand the issues with the different licenses.
The reporter sounds like he's well aware of the differences between the GPL and BSD licenses, even though he does not specifically mention the GPL. I think that was probably a good move, given that his target audience would be businesses that use software rather than businesses that sell software.
On the other hand, Microsoft's announcements avoid mentioning the licenses in order to paint all Open Source products with the same broad brush. There is no way that Jim Allchin could be unaware that Windows contains BSD networking code. I also doubt that Mr. Mundie is ignorant of the key differences between the GPL and BSD licenses. While there is an element of audience targeting in their comments, the statements of the MS spokeperson about BSD and Hotmail make it clear that MS would like to paint a negative picture of all Open Source products.
Speaking of PostgreSQL, is there anyone one can get an already compiled, ready-to-run-setup.exe version of it?
./configure; make; make install.
It ships with Red Hat 6.x and there are RPMs available. If your machine has the right libraries, compiling it is a piece of cake: tar -zxvf postgresql*.tar.gz; cd postgresql-<version>;
...is posted at http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/pgp/prz_leaves_nai.t xt
Some of the things in Windows have equivalents in Linux or in some of the more popular window managers and/or desktop environments. Many others do not.
For instance the autoexec.bat analogous to rc.local but the startup folder is more like ~/.xinit or, in GNOME, the Startup Programs in GNOME Control Center. There may be a similar facility in KDE2. A proper description of the way each functions would easily be a page or so.
Some things are simpler. The Add/Remove Programs function is performed by your package manager. A basic static site or personal homepage can be setup using Apache just by putting the HTML in the correct directory. It pretty much runs out of the box.
Dialup Networking may be handled by distro or desktop specific tools, but a descript of the working of pppd and one or more generic tools would also be required for a comprehensive doc.
Device management would be a chapter by itself.
All of these functions are affected by user and permission features that are almost unknown in consumer versions of Windows. A lot of what Linux can do just does not have an equivalent in an out-of-the-box Windows install.
My distro (Red Hat) came with distro-specific docs, including an Installation Guide, a Getting Started Guide, and a Reference Guide, all on the CD in HTML format. All you need is a browser and enough curiousity to actually look at the CD in a file manager. The "docs" directory is there in plain site.
Mandrake does the same thing and if the other major distros are significantly different, I'd be surprised.
Red Hat's Getting Started Guide along with a thick book on Linux is the way to get started on Red Hat for Windows users. I've learned over the years that the included docs are good for reference, but if you're learning something for the first time, buy a book. The vendor's docs may be good, but a book is usually more tutorial in nature.
if they were competent, and they thought it was infringing, they'd just download the source and figure it out themselves.
They already know. That's not the point. The point is they are willing to use lawsuits to keep themselves in busines, regardless of whether the lawsuits have any factual merit. Also, spreading FUD about Vorbis will influence PHB's in companies that might consider using it instead of paying license fees for MP3.