The Clueless Newbie Rides Again 636
overshoot writes "Anyone remember The Clueless Newbie's Linux Odyssey? As it happens, she's come back to have a go at Ubuntu Feisty. 'Four years ago I tried about a dozen Linux distributions, to see if they were ready for an ordinary user to install as an escape from the Windows world. None of the distros performed well enough for me to recommend them to a non-geek unless they were going to hire someone to install it. After hearing Dell's recent announcement that it will sell computers with pre-installed Ubuntu Linux, I decided to see if Ubuntu was user-friendly.'"
Before anyone slams her.... (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you in the F/OSS community who want to make their products more mainstream, here's a free user test and feedback.
I take it as a great compliment to you folks in the F/OSS community that someone like her is attempting to install and run your products! It means you are becoming a real alternative to Windows and this editorial is a wonderful way to continue and expand on your excellence.
Just my opinion.
To bring this up yet again: (Score:4, Insightful)
Also,
If you don't want to change, don't change, Linux isn't windows, it's not trying to be, it's something different.
Now flame me, please.
Not at all clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
When my Grandma sat down at a computer for the first time a few years ago, she tried waving the mouse in the air to make the pointer move. That is a computer newbie!
Agreed: Dual Boot installation needs work (Score:5, Insightful)
As one person trying to migrate off of Windows (XP and Win2K user), I liked the features of Feisty Fawn running from the Live CD that I wanted to install it to the hard drive.
If we want Ubuntu to move forward, the developers need to recognize the thousands of people who will see it as an installation on top of Microsoft instead of getting a fresh clean installed image from Dell. Get these people comfortable and then the others will follow.
If screen four can be made a little more clear of explain that it has detected a Windows OS and lead the user from there, then we have a wonderful comfort level even before they get to see how Linux is so much better than Windows.
For /. readers, this may be a slow and cumbersome process but then again, if you can have the CD help Mom and Dad install Linux instead of you doing it for her, then there is one less family help desk call you have to make. Also, it makes them feel like they can actually maintain and operate there own systems.
Don't worry, they will still love you, even if they don't need your help anymore.
Re:Encouraging... (Score:2, Insightful)
I did RTFA... (Score:4, Insightful)
What I can't figure out is why the reviewer discusses Ubuntu *installation* when they claimed that the reason they decided to check was Dell's announcement that they were *preloading* Ubuntu on PCs and laptops.
Ubuntu desktop Linux is undoubtedly a great distro for end users. And it shows why Microsoft is pulling out the patent crap now. Linux distros are now at a point where, for most users, there is no reason to prefer Windows. Only hardcore gamers have a reason to stick with Windows at this point.
Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n (Score:2, Insightful)
The best point to note (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the kind of UI point that developers easily miss. They know what is going on under the UI, and therefore they are unaware of what the user is going to think when confronted with the interface.
I wouldn't be surprised if many newbie Linux experimenters are deterred part way through the installation process by something like this. It really is a pain to reinstall Windows.
Re:Not at all clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Encouraging... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Before anyone slams her.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, and well stated, sir. In her original article [archive.org], she anticipated the attacks/questions/loudly shouted advice for which nerds are so (deservedly?) known:
This caution, which was followed by a lengthy explanation that the article was written to address the feasibility of Linux as a viable mass-market (read: installable by idiots) operating system, was completely ignored in many of the flames that were posted. Let's hope she gets a fair shake this time.
Re:To bring this up yet again: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I've got here. (Suse 10.1 distro, not Ubuntu, which may or may not make a difference. If Ubuntu is installing a 64-bit browser, they may want to rethink that. I've only tried Ubuntu briefly, and passed on it because I didn't like their init system, I'm too used to Suse and RedHat.)
Re:"still in the safety of Windows." (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't mock this fact: Embrace and abuse it.
Re:Not at all clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Before anyone slams her.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As she did her editorial, she mentioned a few things the didn't like and/or had problems with. Unfortunately, some folks take feedback like that as "fighting words" - even if the overall opinion is excellent. I know I've done it and sometimes, when I'm not thinking, still do it. So, I'm speaking as someone who's a member of the choir - so to speak.
I just want to frame her opinion in a way that can help the F/OSS community. Yes, I agree, most of the F/OSS folks just focus on excellence and produce awesome software. But sometimes, and I'm speaking from experience here (I won't mention names), folks can get a little too, well; combative.
everything above applies to myself. There, I am progressing towards my own personal growth.
Re:To bring this up yet again: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:To bring this up yet again: (Score:5, Insightful)
You're sort of setting an arbitrary line between "normal" and "power" users, based on your own criteria, and then making your argument based upon this assumption. A computer user who can boot from a Windows CD, follow a few instructions, and install Windows is not a terribly special case. Lots of boneheads can do it. I know, they're my friends and family.
Really, the only difficult question that the Windows installer asks is about partitioning and formating. If a user can get past that one, they're in most cases home free.
Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Edited title (Score:3, Insightful)
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why people think that giving reasons that explain why something is true somehow reduces the importance of that truth. But we often see people defending a losing side by explaining the reasons why the other side is winning. Maybe that excuses their support for the loser, but they have just further proven why the other side is winning.
Re:Ubuntu is hit or miss (Score:5, Insightful)
If we could get it to the point of ease that Apple has then I feel Linux would be a real alternative to windows.
Can't be done. Too many device drivers to worry about to get the kind of stability you see in OS X, and that means installation and device use will never be as smooth as Apple. However, it is a worthy goal - so long as you understand that you'll never quite achieve it with an open device ecosystem.
Installation Comparison (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it interesting when people compare installations between Windows and Linux. Funny thing is, they are usually only talking about Linux installations, because Windows was already on the machine.
Interesting thing about the Dell I bought a couple of years ago, when the hard drive is clean and I do an install, Ubuntu works great. M$, however, installs but fails to allow me to connect to my cable modem because the broadcom driver is not on the SP2 install disk.
That means if I were reviewing that install - I would stop right there. If I can't connect to the net, what is the point of installing the OS in the first place?
-- End Review.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that's the point. The point is that if everyone switches to linux because it is safer, and if the reason it is safer is that it's a smaller target, than the end result will be that the "truth" that linux is safer will end up as a thing of the past.
It's not a question of "reducing the importance", it's a question of pointing out that the safety of linux is not a property of linux itself, but merely a byproduct of its relative popularity in the world. In other words linux isn't safer (if this reasoning is correct), less popular OSes in general are safer.
That changes the truth itself, not the importance of it.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
you don't still believe that, do you?
After all, a suicide bomber doesn't waste his time blowing up a single person unless they're of high importance.
A vast majority of the systems of "high importance" are *nix boxes. Do you really think the PCs owned by soccer moms across the country have more important data on them than bank servers,
One doesn't need to be "stupid" to get a virus in Windows. One merely needs to install a recent copy of the OS, and connect it to the internet. If they're NAT'd, then fine - they merely need to go to a few web pages, or watch a movie. Nothing stupid about any of that.
Re:Links... (Score:3, Insightful)
One page, all of the content, no advertisements.
Done.
Layne
Re:Configuration Files (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'm afraid that editing these files still has the chance of screwing everything up, even with instructions. Until they auto-backup and auto-replace the files when you screw something up (or IDK, maybe check to see if the file is valid before letting you save changes that would cause a crash? Would that be so hard?) editing those files is just as bad as editing the windows registries - not something you should do unless you're really familiar with them.
Also, I seriously want a graphical interface for the mouse. Not just "speed" and "acceleration" I want to turn off my freaking touchpad by clicking a button. I want to enable all the buttons and even change their function in a few clicks.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
The deal is that nearly all of the Unix exploits were being done back in the early 1990s when *nix boxes were the only boxes on the internet for the most part. As much as I live by Microsoft software, the reason that people are going after it instead of Unix isn't because it's a bigger target. It is because the *nix world has already been there and done that. They've had their trial by fire and came out the other side of it. Microsoft is STILL learning the hard way. By the time I had my Win 3.11 box on the net with a 14.4 SLIP connection, my friends who were running Slackware and BSD had been there for a couple of years already.
Re:Before anyone slams her.... (Score:2, Insightful)
You can easily offer a toggle to switch to the better linux way of doing things. When people are more comfortable, you can try to convince them of the benefits of switching.
Features that are likely to confuse people should be (at least until the user decides otherwise) hidden away in somewhere that is clearly marked 'advanced'
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
I use linux on a few of my boxes.. but it's like MacOSX, Vista, XP or Unix.. They're all different flavors that pertain to different people. A party bus or a sports car may cost the same, but they're not made for everyone.
As far as exploits go... I know patches and such are still rolling out like crazy, but you have to admit that all OS are WAYYYYY more secure than what they were 5-10 years ago. I'd honestly be comfortable pulling up a chair in front of almost any OS and feel comfortable knowing that it's not going to get a worm that second. Windows WAS horrible, but face it.. right now, it's not THAT bad. Browser exploits are the majority, and they are patched so fast that they're hard to attack. With vista's new features.. it may make it safer if you can get around some of it's OTHER features, but all-in-all.. it's ok. Even Symantec praised it, and that's sayin quite a bit.
Linux is more secure in most aspects and I like it.. like others, I'm just not comfortable with it. It will grow, and I doubt that even as it's more of a target.. security will get worse. More exploits will be found.. but it will still be secure.
With every patch that's made.. it's harder for people to find new ways in. That goes with all OS's... Unfortunately, with new technology comes new problems. And as far as the problems go, they will remain until human's quit writing the code themselvs.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Making that argument about the changing size vs security needs actual statistical facts, which should be available, to back it up. I have never seen anyone show that the relative security between Windows and Linux has matched their relative userbase sizes, as they've both grown and the ratios have changed. Nor have I seen anyone explain how anomalous disproportions merely precede some tipping point some point in the future, after Windows insecurity significantly changes the userbase ratios in favor of Linux.
In other words, that argument is a weaselly way to change the subject without admitting it, and without backing it up. Which is exactly how that form of argument is always used. Because it works to fool people, even if it's invalid.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point, however, is wrong. Linux isn't more secure because it is targetted less. It is more secure because it uses a different security model with a whole lot fewer holes in it; *nix in general has been designed to be secure and account for restricting one portion of the system from other portions since very early days. Windows started wide open, and remained wide open for a long time, a lot of system software was written to be wide open, and even more importantly, a lot of system concepts, like activeX, were not designed with security in mind. Consequently, Windows security, such as it is, is an afterthought layer that was added to the original functionality, whereas *nix security, specifically linux security, is built in at the bedrock level.
The fact is, it is a lot more difficult to hack a *nix system by design. Something else to note: A huge proportion of the servers out on the net are linux machines running apache. These machines are powerful (that's why they are servers), the tend to have big pipes (again, they're servers, they need relatively big pipes) they're online all the time (they're servers!) and so they are ideal for a botnet or a spamming system, etc. And so, the majority of spamming systems and botnets are linux machines, right? Because they're common and have the perfect set of capabilities for these tasks? No. Wrong. Most mal-servers are Windows machines. But why? All those many linux machines would be great mal-servers! They are a huge target! Well, the why is simple, and it's just what I said above: It is hard to hack a linux server, even one that isn't that well patched. A linux machine that is properly kept up to date is even harder. Macs are basically the same kind of hard target; they're *nix underneath.
The bottom line is that Windows has the malware because it has been the easy target. Not because it is the common target.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily. If the small target reasoning is correct then it is fair to say that there's nothing safe about linux, there's something safe about being a small target.
Let's just say only red cars came with airbags. It would be correct to say "red cars are safer" but it would also be fair to say "the color is irrelevant, the fact that they have airbags is what matters."
I think it's fair to say that some of the safety of linux derives from the fact that it is a smaller target, and to that extent has nothing to do with linux. You can easily just give that point away as a given and then continue to point out the other ways in which it is actually intrinsically safer.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
>> but merely a byproduct of its relative popularity in the world.
The problem is that this argument is bogus. Linux, the BSDs, Solaris, and OS/X are more secure than Windows because they possess a unix-type architecture. Unix, which dates to 1973, has been studied and improved for over 34 years. Its longevity in the market is a testament to the soundness of its original design; the fact that most truly large organizations use a unix derivative instead of Windows for their most important data is a testament to its secure nature.
Unix was designed from the beginning to be a multiuser, networked, server operating system, by two men widely considered to be masters among computer scientists (just to give you an idea, they invented the C programming language specifically to use it to write Unix so it would be easy to port it across platforms -- they worked at Bell Labs, one of the pre-eminent research organizations of the period).
SO...
Unix-derived systems are more secure than Windows because they are the latest iterations of a long, prestigious legacy. They are more secure because they're the collective result of over 34 years of research, development, and design (even longer if you count the research into MULTICS that predated UNIX). they're more secure because they been attacked for far longer than Windows, and the ways in which they CAN be attacked are well understood (thus much easier to prevent).
Unix-derived systems are JUST BETTER, and they will always be better.
One interesting point I could make right now is that since Microsoft greedily insists on rewriting everything every five years, they will NEVER have decades with which to work all the bugs out of their code -- it will ALWAYS be immature code. Shame, really. But funny!
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
If said were true, then don't you think that MS (fan boys) would be working night and day to break a hole in Linux that spread like wildfire, take out 60% of the web, and the let the press run wild with the story? It would literally kill the potential of Linux adoption with one single program.
Re:Agreed: Dual Boot installation needs work (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never contributed to any OSS project so this will be my first. Anyone working on Ubuntu who reads this, or if someone can pass this along to the appropriate person, you have my unconditional permission to use what I am about to say about this VERY important comment.
DO NOT simply say on the screen something to the effect, "Another operating system has been detected. Do you want to keep it or install over it?" 'Keep' 'Install'
If a newbie reads this, their first question will be, "What's an operating system?" The next question will be, after clicking 'Install' because they are installing something, "What the fuck happened to my stuff!?"
Instead, the message on the screen should read something to the effect:
By using the above phrases, you are telling the user in a clear and concise manner what will happen if they click Yes or No without them having to understand what an operating system is. Yes, those who install Ubuntu will probably get a chuckle out of the warning but then they already know what they are doing.
If the linux community wants the average user to try out a distro, making clear, concise but easily understandable comments such as the above will go a long way to making the transition easier.
Hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
And when someone criticizes free software (with reason), do you find that "scathing" as well? There's a lot of "non free" software. Are you implying that because Flash (!) doesn't work on 64-bit Linux then all "non free" software is a problem? Seriously?
That's interesting, because when she first published that initial article she was branded an idiot - predictably, I might add. But now everything's A-OK and she's picky and satisfied.
Yeah, I completely lose data all the time under "M$ Windoze" and have never lost any under any other OS. After all, backups are for pussies. Might as well just hope your OS is perfect.
And BTW, in all fairness if someone wants to switch away from Windows to something else because of activation then more power to them. Microsoft deserves to lose them. Activation and "genuine advantage" are a pain that each person needs to decide whether or not they want to put up with.
But "infested with spyware and viruses"? Please. If your computer is "infested" with anything then the most likely cause can be found between the chair and the keyboard.
Another interesting passage (Score:5, Insightful)
in light of the ongoing battle over DRM:
IOW, normal usage of the DVDs (not even gray-area "fair use" copying, but normal playback), on her fully-owned and legally-obtained system, was broken until she installed something that "may be illegal." This is a point we need to make noise about: DRM can make it impossible to simply watch a purchased movie.
I know, not exactly news (to readers here anyway), but it's another opportunity to point it out.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Finding nothing but logical fallacies in that offered argument shows it's worthless.
Unless something else is added. Like the actual stats I suggested that could dis/prove it. But though it seems a fair argument, security behavior of large, networked populations is usually surprising. So I reject its assertions until they're backed up with some rigor.
For the same reasons I would reject the counterargument that Linux's small target size makes it insecure, because Linux security depends on many people using, examining, and reporting/fixing its security holes. Until I get some evidence of that process.
So the whole line of thinking is nearly all holes, and very little substance. Which I find is nearly always the case when that kind of "the reasons are the excuse" argument is made.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Using your analogy, that would be like never verifying you have airbags, but assuming your car is safer because it's red.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but that's not the point. Your typical malware is after one of three things - (a) the ability to popup ads (b) the ability to intercept/redirect browser traffic or (c) control of the machine to send spam etc - they don't care about the data already on the PC. So yes, your typical bank server is running unix, and yes it's typically more secure that an average PC (running ANY o/s), but they have to be because the people trying to break them are a lot smarter and a lot more focussed than the random botnet operators who simply want access to everyone's broadband pipes.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the Linux servers, will have admins (because their in data centers) who are focused on keeping it secure, there are firewalls in place to make sure the network is secure
Now most windows machines are on home user's PCs, home users don't understand security, they plug their routers in and 1/2 are too incapable to even set WEP on their wireless
So which is the easier target ? the machine that is not kept secure, the PC which is not maintained, the PC which the user doesn't understand how to operate
I mean - jeez windows.com is hosted on IIS - how many times have you see the windows.com site hacked ?
The Skill:OS ratio is also different for Linux, most Linux users are skilled, but most windows users are not (and then there are those that think they are)
Now although i agree that Linux is in fact more secure, because the kernel itself is built to be used in a multi-user environment, so it has to be, Linux was designed to work on networks, windowz was more designed to work for a single user
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider the difference! Today, if you find a 0-day vulnerability in Windows Explorer for XP SP2 with a 50% chance of slipping past all security software, you can own the world. Where is the Linux equivalent? A 0-day vulnerability in Konqueror would have no effect whatsoever on Gnome users.
Re:NEWBIE?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why stop at Linux? Installing anything on top of the OS, much less installing an OS, is a challenge for people like this. And being usable is mostly about what you are used to. My brother-in-law gave us a Mac mini. After hearing about how easy it was supposed to be, I found that I had trouble figuring out how to do some pretty rudimentary things. That's because I wasn't familiar with the Mac way. The "standard" location of things (think menu) is sometimes different between a Mac and Windows. Heck, I couldn't even cut & paste because ctrl-c/ctrl-v didn't work. Does that make a Mac harder to use? No, just different. Open Apple-C isn't harder, just different. The difficulty for Linux/Mac is that people's perception of "different" is "harder".
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, where do you want to get fucked today?
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always slightly torn by posts like this. Fundamentally, I agree with the statement "Linux is safer [than Windows]". The problems set in when someone like the OP starts explaining his reasoning. For all the cries of "FUD!" by the typical Slashdotian Linux zealot, these people tend to make up more horseshit on a per-topic basis than any Microsoft-sponsored TCO report could hope to. And they get away with it. Gordonjcp, as someone who would like to see a an Open and Free environment like Linux proliferate in the enterprise market, I'm asking you - and people like you - to please stop. You're doing more harm than good.
Windows is not a dwindling minority. A cursory glance at NetCraft [netcraft.com] would show that not only does IIS have a noteworthy 31% of the marketshare, it's actually gaining market, while Apache is declining, rendering your original claim almost completely incorrect.
Windows does not have hundreds of unclosable ports. Please, cut that gimmick out. SP2 (included in the current boxed release of Windows) patched a great deal of the port issues and included a decent firewall for home users. Or were you referring to the original release of XP? If that's the route you were going, let me try it on the other end - "This whole Linux thing will never take off. It's not even compatible with common hardware! I just tried to install RedHat 7 on my workstation, and XFree86 wouldn't even start unless I was using 640x480 with the framebuffer driver!".
I wish to reiterate - I would like to see Linux gain ground and acceptance, but I simply cannot stand the hypocrisy of resorting to the FUD tactics of Microsoft. Outlining reasons to not use Windows is a fucking cakewalk without making things up.
Come on, people. Let's keep this a clean fight.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Making a living testing and hardening servers has taught me 2 things:
1) Securing a *nix box is EASIER than securing a Windows box because of the inherent security model (OS built to restrict and separate users)
2) MUCH MUCH MUCH (x 10 000) more importantly, the learning curve for a Windows administrator is simply too shallow. Windows' ease of use makes it way too easy to set up a web server, or a mail server (or god-forbid, a media streaming server, if a client asks for this, RUN, don't walk) without having to get a grasp on the fundamentals of what that service's impact is on security. Show me someone that can set up sendmail to work properly, and I guarantee you that the implementation has been thought out 1 000 better than some prat installing Windows SMTP from the add/remove dialog. VHOSTS in Apache, while significantly simpler to set up than 5 years ago, makes a similar counterpoint to IIS.
It's just too easy to be a (shitty) Windows admin, pushing out 'good enough' solutions, as opposed to someone that has had to figure out how things really work.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw the if and I understood it. However, there is no "if." That simply isn't the case, as I was trying to point out. The idea that linux isn't targeted because it isn't as popular is nothing more than a myth, or perhaps wishful thinking.
Lack of popularity not the "only" reason or even "any" reason. It's a myth. The reason linux is not often a target is because it is a very difficult target. I laid out some of the reasons, others have added others further into the thread, but they all come back to the same thing: linux has been a lot harder to break into than windows has been over a network connection.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Program Internet Explorer wants to open a port, cancel or allow?"
user: "WTF is a port?"
Great Analogy: (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Sports Car: Mac OS X. Pretty fast, looks fancy, you think you're real cool. You paid too much, it's not that reliable. Eventually you'll just have to buy a whole new one, cause maintenance is a real bitch.
2. Party Bus: Windows XP. Kinda scary, might get viruses, but you'll have fun with silly games and plenty of porn. Might drive you to drink too much, might cause hang overs.
3. Work Truck: Debian Linux. Solid, reliable. Gets the job done. Boring. Nobody looks forward to it.
4. SUV: Windows Vista. Everybody wants it, because it looks better than your old car, but when you get it, it's slow, hard to do three point turns in, costs you way too much in gas, and doesn't do some of the stuff your old car did. You end up using your old car, and eventually put it up on Craig's List.
5. Classic Car: Ubuntu. If you keep it in fluids, it runs forever. It's fast, has clean simple lines, all of your friend's are jealous, but not brave enough to switch from their Toyota. Kinda missing some newer creature comforts like cup holders.
6. Moped: Knoppix. Saves money, time, is fast. But you can't do some things you do with your other car, like carry stuff and other people. Plus it's a little embarrassing.
7. Yugo: Windows ME. Barely drove even when brand new. Was KIND OF cute, at first, but within minutes you wished you had a different car. Any car.
8. Toyota: Windows 2000. Saves money, saves time, is pretty fast. Does most of the stuff you need it to do, and easily, but it's really not glamorous. Tons of people are still driving it, but nobody's proud. You probably still have the stock radio, which sucks, but at least it still plays music.
Pretty good, but some double standards crept in (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather, I'm talking about her "no editing configuration files" rule, especially as it was invoked to prevent fixing the Gnome problem with default fonts for labels with a simple config file change. There may not be very many configuration files you need to or even can edit on Windoze, but it is unfortunately not exactly uncommon to have to piddle around with the registry on Windoze to get things working, and I fail to see a substantive difference between poking a setting in there you're not quite sure of versus editing a file and hoping you don't make a syntax error. Either way when you reboot you're sitting there with all your fingers and toes crossed hoping you haven't toasted the damn thing and that's just not an acceptable user experience.
And that's assuming you can find the right setting. Last week our support folks were engaged with a customer on Windoze who had changed some network configuration or other and managed to kill name lookups. It took quite a bit of effort to find the right places in the registry to poke for this.
Now, I'm sure there are plenty of Windoze users who have never had to do any registry hacking, but if so that's a matter of luck more than anything else.
The fact of the matter is that none of the systems in common use can really claim to be entirely free of the need to poke around under the pretty GUI hood to get things properly set up and keep them running over time. This certainly goes for Mac OS X as well, where there are plenty of settings that can only be changed through configuration files. (The one that really bugs me on Mac OS X is the media types to application mapping. This used to be configurable through Internet Config but now you have to download something like "Default Apps" to have a GUI interface for it. OTOH, at least there's a GUI available for it, which is more than I can say for some of the network settings that are only GUI-settable on Mac OS X Server.)
! networked, ! server (Score:1, Insightful)
there was also no concept of a "server" machine at the time - there were no clients for them to serve, just terminals
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Agreed: Dual Boot installation needs work (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd argue that "Yes" and "No" are bad buttons, because you have to explain what will happen when you click them. Similarly, "Keep" and "Install" are bad because "Install" does not mean the same thing as "Overwrite". If you must have buttons, be a bit more verbose and use "Keep old data" (or just "Keep", that's fine) and "Overwrite". Better yet, provide a radio selection using text similar to your "Yes" and "No" descriptions, but with radio selection buttons next to each item. Default to no selection with "Next" disabled, and only enable the "Next" button once a selection has been made. If you must have a default selection, default to "Keep".
By using Yes/No, OK/Cancel, Abort/Retry/Ignore default buttons with descriptive text in the dialog, you're making the user's life harder. A user doesn't read text. He sees buttons, and then has to guess at what "Yes" and "No" mean. There's just as much of a chance for the user to click on "No" as there is on clicking "Install" because he's always been told to choose "No" or "Cancel" when in doubt. Moving the selection into the text itself forces the user to read and understand, especially when there's no default action and thus he can't click through blindly.
Good answer, wrong question (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably the best answer to the kde vs gnome debate I've seen. I still think it's the wrong answer, or more to the point, a good answer to the wrong question.
The OP was concerned about all the new things they were going to have to figure out. The answer for people new to the game is not to explain every decision as it comes up. The answer is to eliminate all the decisions that are not absolutely essential to get up and running.
So without being asked, here are my answers to some random questions:
What distro should I use as a newbie?
If you've got a friend who is patient enough to help you out, and you like hanging out with them, use whatever they use. If you don't, use Ubuntu. It's currently the most popular, there are very active forums and paper books to help you out.
GNOME or KDE?
Not important. Use whatever is the default with your distro. Play around with that for a while. When you know enough to know there are things you don't like and can't fix, then you can start to experiment with other options. You will have enough to learn when you install linux for the first time without worrying about more than one desktop environment.
I guess just about everything else falls out from that. Best apps to start with: the defaults. If there isn't a default, go with the popular choices: OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird. Make it easy on yourself, and work on new things as they come up. Once you know you don't like OpenOffice, you can take a look at AbiWord or Koffice or whatever, but these are not decisions that newbies need to be bombarded with on the first day.
Which is not to say you should actively avoid all the options available. It's really cool to have near instant access to a whole variety of different browsers, or mail clients, or whatever, and to be able to play around with them freely. But those of us with a bit more experience need to be very careful about not overwhelming newbies with choices that can and should be put off until they've settled in a bit.
The worst thing that could happen to a new user is to get worried about deciding between gnome vs kde, and asking google for advice. Next thing you know they've found one of Linus's gnome flame-fests and we all look like loons. Everyone suspects were fanatics already -- with a bit of effort newbies might go days or even weeks before they confirm this suspicion, but we'll all have to pull together for that to happen :)
yp.
Re:And yet (Score:3, Insightful)
WGA/WGN was put on people's machine without fully explaining what it meant--that you were allowing Microsoft to spy on you. This is just nasty stuff and having that incorporated into Vista is a rather aggrievous violation of one's privacy. To potentially shut down a computer mis-identified is a rather nasty act. To spy on the content consumed is also very nasty. To force manufacturers to comply is also nasty.
This doesn't even remotely touch on the lock-in that DRM creates. No profit oriented business is going to make content with DRM that will run on multiple platforms because doing so for Microsoft's lock in is going to be costly on a per sale basis. What this means is that most likely Microsoft will get profits based on every sale of content with their DRM implementation. To then redo that content to comply with Apple's will be costly and then to release it for Linux will never happen.
Everyone has been saying that DRM has to go and we've heard words from Microsoft but those words are empty because the only reason they don't want DRM is to allow them to break Apple's hold on the music market. Once they have control they'll re-implement the DRM in their own image.
So, with all this spying we have the DRM lockin which means that consumers are not going to shift off of Windows due to the fact that the content cost them so much and that it won't run on other operating systems. This is a huge lock in and they have been hoping for this since long before Vista because they know how DRM can lock you in as demonstrated by Apple.
The dumb part would be to buy Vista and then buy HD content based on Microsoft's DRM. Linux isn't just Microsoft's competition, it is a product that people want to use. They should not be forced to use something they don't want.
Alas, this post is more on topic as it pertains to the original writeup because the original writeup talks about how this person hates the Microsoft activation process.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You are wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
You: "I want to buy a car!" ... look, we have a nice Honda here. Has ABS, ESC ...
...
Car dealer: "Very well, sir. What kind of car?"
You: "I don't know, just some car. I had a dodge and it's no good anymore, so I want a new car."
Car dealer: "Ok. A diesel or gasoline?"
You: "I don't know, just some car."
Car dealer: "Erm
You: "Crap! I've no idea what you talk about! Can't you just sell me a car?"