Frustrated new user

Just a few points. How is double clicking on an install .exe file and then telling it where to install a program and where to put the menu any easier than typing in apt-get install 'program'? I have not compilied anything remotely considered mainstream software on linux in years. Second, you mention setting it up as a router. It's not something joe user at home does on a regular basis. Windows doesn't really do this (I wouldn't consider ICS to be real routing) out of the box so you have to purchase more software. Also, somebody without networking knowladge would more than likely have problems anyway.

I agree that linux is not for everybody. Grannie at home isn't necessarily going to do an install from scratch, however once it's running the gui is just as intuitive as windows whether you use gnome, kde, icewm, or another lightweight wm. Also, if you used linux in '96, then I'm guessing it was RH 5 or 6, or perhaps an early version of slack. How you can say that the install period with hardware dectection and auto-configuration haven't improved ten-fold is beyond me.

Yes, documentation continues to be a thorn in the side of most open-source projects. It tends to really lag a bit, though I think commercial documentation has gotten steadily worse over the years anyway. It was much better in the DOS days IMHO.

Don't get me wrong, I use windows at home still myself on some of my machines. I just run each OS to the best of it's abilities and tend to not complain about their shortcommings. Just use them to their advantages. You've made a few good points and I hope I've refuted some others well enough to bring my point home.

# start sig block
# Join MUU - Mepis Users United today!
# Blathering away since.... February?
# My public key

You make some good points as well. Hardware detection has definitely come a long way. I had forgoten how hard it was from me to get xwindows up and running on Redhat5. I guess it all boils down to what your expectations are going in. Obviously this time I went in looking for a "Free Windows". This is obviously not what Linux is.

Many people do push this image of Linux as a Free Windows onto the unsuspecting public. To some extent this drives up sales of commercial products that are avalible at your local Best Buy or Circuit City. Chances are that if your an average Windows user and you buy linux as a free alternative you will be slightly surprised and or disappointed. I wonder how many people shell out some cash for a Linux distro and never really use it beyond the initial install and tinkering.

All of this aside, Linux stands up very well on it's own merit when it's taken in the right context. It's obviously the most customizable operating system on the planet. This time I am definitely going to stick it out for the long haul and learn to use it. I hope to someday soon be running Linux exclusively.

I've used computers since the 1980's. I kinda grew up on them because my father always had to get the latest toys and I wanted to use them too. So I learned how to write programs to get the first computer we owned to run a game. Then Dos came out and it got better. Then Windows came. I'm not the average Joe when it comes to computers. I've always loved them and wanted to know everything about them from the hardware to the software. Linux is not for everyone. But for the person that loves to learn new things and loves computers, it's the best. Windows is too easy. Linux is fun.

...is this turning into an educated conversation about Windows vs. Linux??? I haven't heard one of these since......well, never!?? It is about time.?? The one thing that has frustrated me the most in linux land is the constant bashing of MS??and it's users for??no reason other than they use MS.?? This, IMHO, is the biggest hurdle linux will have??to clear; the stigma of??arogance from linux users,????It is not a representation of the whole.?? I will continue to plug down the linux path (because I refuse to let it beat me), but I will still keep my 2K system going so I can play BF1942 and a few other games.?? I know that in due course I will not look back, but I will do what I want with my computer to make sure it??does what I want??it to.

I feel your pain on the documentation, it is one of my biggest complaints.?? I will just have to keep killing the printer at work to get what I want!!!!!?? Happy computing all......

---------------------------------------------------

P4 3.0GHz/Intel 865 board

1Gb DDR333

SB Live! 5.1

G4 Ti4200

I'm a Linux user that doesn't bash Windows. I turned to Linux, not because of hatred of Bill Gates or Windows but because Linux is the best OS for me. There are some people that should stick to using Windows forever. Those are the people that are not interested in learning about their computers, people that just want things simple that they don't have to think about. There are all kinds of computer users in the world. Some are meant for Windows and some are meant for Linux. But...those people using Windows will just have to put up with all the viruses all the time. The price they pay for using an OS they don't have to mess with themselves.

The viruses are getting very bad indeed. It amazes me just how many are coming out now, and the frequency. Soon there will have to be a government warning sticker on the side of the box for Windows stating, "Using this operating sytstem could be hazordus to your security" For some people it's a small price to pay, for me, well I'm getting a bit tired of sweeping out all the internet filth that is leaking INTO my windows system every week. I've never had a major worm or virus (cause I know what not to do), just those things that are now piggybacked onto every piece of software you download.

Some day we will look back on this time and say "Geez I can't belive that people were just wide open like that". I'm sure there is a small nitch of people out there that need to be on the internet for buisness reasons who will switch from MS to Linux just for the security reasons. Maybey this userbase will grow into something and even get it's own Distro. Heck it may already exsist, I'm not too keen on all of them.

in a unix based system, something has to be able to get root permissions to be able to install and run. that's why potential security problems often make remarks about root permissions.
If one program eg cdrecord needs root permissions to run and then you run it with k3b having those permissions then a root exploit on k3b could then progress to other problems eg a trojan which could run.
that's why you should install those security fixes
because it lessens the risk of your computer being compromised.
nothing ever prevents it, remember, unless you don't have a network connection of any description, never add software of any type and so on.
of course that other OS doesn't have such difficult permissions and it is esaier to run worms and virii on it and install trojans.

by the way, why don't people run virii that run DOS attacks against porn sites? It would be something useful in this world

"by the way, why don't people run virii that run DOS attacks against porn sites? "

Lol for some reason this gave me visions of creating a huge bank of servers to fight internet porn and spam. It could be something like that eye on Lord of the Rings. When it looks at your server it's all over. People could submit their spam mail to the beast and after enough reports it would just start frying the offending spammers & porn dealers. Maybey it could be government sponsored in the name of preserving international comemrce trade routes. Spam and porn clogs up the pipe right?

One of the problems is MS starts in an Admin profile.?? All of the linux loads I have seen create the root account but also make you a user account, and??it is pretty functional.?? The limited user account on a MS box is restrictive (it is supposed to be I guess).?? You also have to go in a create a non-Admin account yourself.?? I know, kinda lazy, but still.?? Create the account, save some headache.?? It is a mindset thing....something that the SP2 for XP is supposed to be changing.....we shall see.

My take on the virus issue is a little different.?? I do??take the "MS is top dog" arguement as true.?? But??reactive, oblivious??users are the culprit.?? Look at all of the big virus attacks.?? They were for the most part preventable.?? This last one was, like most of them, created AFTER MS had the patch for it.?? Do the update, system??not affected.?? The one thing we all agree on,?? there??is the one virus that no OS will be able to prevent; the idiot-that-clicks-everything-and-doesn't-read-a-single-thing user.?? You can't do anything about that one.

---------------------------------------------------

P4 3.0Ghz/Intel 865 board

1Gb DDR333

SB Live! 5.1

G4 Ti4200

You could use Linux to protect Windows. I found this:

""Protector" is a GPL software package that allows a linux mail server to block Windows (TM) viruses without the need to keep signature files upto date.

"Protector" grew out of the need to protect a small network of windows machines from the rising flood of viruses on a shoe-string budget.

The software integrates with "sendmail" or "postfix" and edits incoming e-mails to remove any attachments types that COULD contain viruses. In this sense it is deliberate "over kill", but its advantage over traditional virus scanners is that even the newest viruses are blocked without having to download a new signature file.

"Protector" is for networks where "better safe than sorry" is the motto, and users accept that a few benign attachments will be removed in order to obtain the confidence that what does get through is safe.

For documentation and download, see.. http://www.lowth.com/protector"

I wonder why major ISP's are not already offering this sort of protection for their lemmings? When has a VB script attached to a windows email EVER been used for something good?

I thought of one clever way for a virus to infect Linux. Since it's so difficult to get filesystem access, someone could target Windows machines that are wide open that dual boot linux. Windows could possibly give access to the files inside the linux partition.

This same philosophy could be used to make a virus that writes to Samba shares that are on linux. Even if the virus does not infect the linux machine it could still use it to propigate.

Since Linux is open source if there ever was a bad virus, there would be more than a few smart people fixing the problem very quickly. It's not like MS where noone knows the holes are there until someone decides they are done with it and they publish it, then it's up to MS to take their time in providing a fix which may or may not be a good solution.

You'd need to write ext2/ext3/reiserfs support in to that virus, since these are the most common linux file systems and Windows doesn't support them. This fact alone makes it a fairly impractical virus delivery method (thankfully )

Not just permissions make it almost impossible for the current crop of virus writers to write viruses for Linux/Mac OSX/*NIX/*BSD.?? Here are some citations, by those who have thought far more about this than I:

This author seems to be stating that, although permissions play a large part of the sensitivity of Windows to viruses and malware, the proliferation of different architectures; programming models and environments; and the overall discipline and maturity of the average Linux/Mac OSX/*NIX/*BSD programmer, as opposed to the average proprietary-universe Windows programmer, and the difference in oversight in the Open/Free Community vs. that in the proprietary/Windows pseudo-Community are just as important (thereby negating many of the original parent's points against Linux-unified language/IDE and unification of programming models and consolidation of desktops/default apps).

Librenix??points out that there HAVE been Linux viruses in the wild, but that they died a quick death, due to an unfriendly ecosystem...here is a complete list of the Linux viruses?? and Trojans and for Worms, netproject's unaccepted bitch-slap smack-down to Sophos.

Finally on the pro-Linux side, Doug Muth's observations, ??the SecurityPortal guide to sealing the de facto and default "holes",?? and, finally, the "Central Command (not the centcom.us.mil domain, but the centralcommand.com domain) vs.The-Rest-of-the-World-Who-Are-Clued-In" debate.

On the other side, are the virus writers themselves, the UNIX cases????(which, incidentally, was later pointed out as pure FUD), the same author revising and trying to counter his critics (and just spreading more FUD - and ignorant, uninformed FUD at that), the Linux virus-writing HOWTO, some VERY Bad Things (see the last post in the thread), and the ability of Linux to capture and reproduce virii and worms.

Bottom line, I doubt??Linux contaminiation by viruses, Trojans, worms and other mal-ware??will ever be a problem, for all the above reasons and, especially??because I expect the NSA's SELinux patches will become default features of the kernel by the end of this year.?? SELinux is already distributed as a kernel-source in most commercial Linux variants (and can be easily integrated into Mepis with apt-get).

Essentially, it is not just permissions that keep Linux more secure. Nor is it the obscurity afforded by being a minority desktop. It goes far beyond that. I posted other views because they exist and many don't see them. As in most community sites, I believe in showing all sides of an argument to start and then trying or arguing my view.

There ARE and have been Linux worms, viruses and Trojans. There are currently some issues about a Mach/*BSD (and therefore Solaris) bit of malware currently in the wild and affecting (perhaps only) Mac OSX, so Unix/*nix is not immune to viruses and other malware - yet.

But Linux is rapidly moving to an architecture wherin individual machines may not be immune to infection by various malware, due to stupidity and bad operating practices of the system's owner, but the overall Linux ecosystem will be relatively immune. Digital viruses and malware need a friendly environment and ecosystem to survive and thrive in. Unix and Linux do not offer that friendliness and so the viruses never really become a serious threat. Additionally, once a problem is discovered, it is no longer a problem ever again, as proven by the case of the rapid improvements in standard and default security in the Linux kernel (built-in firewall and DDOS immunity) and the example of the BLISS and LION/DNS infections. Nothing like this level of security out of the box exists in Windows. A new, unpatched installation of WinXP will fall prey to BLASTER and now the varieties of LSASS worms today just as rapidly as the same box would have six months ago. A user buying an XP SP1 box today, unless he or she knows to start correctly will have a mess on their hands VERY rapidly.

The issue is that Microsoft, due to the very things that the parent post seemed to say makes it strong, will NEVER be even half as secure as Microsoft seems to believe they can make it. The very strengths of Windows are its most jarring and dangerous weaknesses. The major issue is the philosophy of Windows' architecture vs. what it would take to make it secure. Windows as we know it, today, can never be a secure OS, without sacrificing the things the parent post intimates make it successful. History is proving that currently, in the Mac ecosystem, by showing that to adopt some of Windows friendliness and ease-of-use and sacrifice secure practices and architectures (especially when the apps hosting the malware are from Microsoft) is a SERIOUS mistake. additionally, the 'security through obscurity' offered by the proprietary-OS business model of Microsoft, Apple and others, fails EVERY time over the long run.

From study, however, Unix, and especially Linux and OpenBSD seem to be inherently secure operating systems. We become more like Windows at our peril. A diverse, FREE (libre/beer) and OPEN environment and an advanced and correct architecture makes for a VERY unfriendly ecosystem for malware, and that ecosystem will become more unfriendly (to include the current activities of so-called 'active' immunization in the kernel) as time goes on.

dedmike

Sounds like Slashdot to me