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.'"
And? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
"I think Ubuntu Linux is definitely ready for almost anyone with a Windows system who is tired of havig their computer infested with spyware and viruses. It is also a way to avoid Microsoft's "activation" demands. It's free! It's good! It works!"
Re:And? (Score:4, Informative)
I could be considered a "clueless newbie" when it comes to *nix. Sure I know how to ls, I know what grep does, I understand what man is, and I've even heard of chmod and used a bit of vi ! But that's about where my knowledge stops. I imagine that a lot of other "average users" are very much like me, or worse, have less knowledge than me. No, I'm pretty sure the "average user" has less knowledge of computers than me; I've been configuring home NT networks since the first release of NT4.0 in the mid 90s. Even with this knowledge and experience *nix has always scared me.
I've only ever used DOS and Windows my whole life, but after reading this article I feel comfortable to give UBUNTU a shot. And I like that.
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no idea what you just said.
And this is the part of *nix that has always scared me.
I don't know what GNOME or KDE means. I don't know if they're acronyms or abbreviations or what. I'm sure 5 minutes on Google can help me, but I don't want to spend 5 minutes searching for everything "new" in *nix, because, well, EVERYTHING is new to me! If I were to spend 5 minutes on each new *nix term I heard, I would end up spending the better part of a weekend just learning. That's not what I want to do with my weekend.
Your comments, jZnat, look like they're trying to be helpful, but things like this are where people like me get worried and/or scared. I totally understand there will be a learning curve; I expect there to be one. However, I've only just decided to install, and already I'm worried I'm going to do something wrong.
I live alone and I don't have an in-house geek to default to when things go wrong, nor will there be anyone to 'fix' anything I do wrong. Granted, I have a legit copy of Windows 2k Pro (yes, I bought it) which I've reinstalled countless times before, and nothing on my hard drive is irreplacable, so the worst case scenario is a clean Win2kPro install.
Let me sum it up as best I can: I'm wary because you just gave me an option and I don't know of the reprocussions to choosing one over the other.
Regardless, I put my contact info into my bio, and will leave it there for a day or two, so if anyone wishes to contact me they can. Wish me luck.
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
As you know, Windows has a particular look to it's User Interface (the windows, the task bar, the buttons, all the stuff you interact with to make the computer do stuff for you.) In Windows XP, the User Interface (or UI) is called Luna. In Windows Vista there are Two UI's; Aero (the core UI), and Aero Glass (the nifty 3D one)
Well Linux has MANY available UI's that can be loaded. GNOME and KDE are the two most popular. Most distributions ("brands", if you prefer) of Linux choose at least one UI to start with. Ubuntu Linux uses the GNOME UI. Kubuntu uses the KDE UI.
As far as selecting one over the other, it's really a matter of personal taste:
KDE is the traditional "Windowsy" looking UI. It has a task bar along the bottom of the screen, and the KDE equivalent to the "Start" button in the lower left corner, right where it is in Windows. However, it is more complex than Windows with far more options to work with. This can be confusing to new users, but many users who like to tinker find this interface enjoyable to use.
GNOME is the more "Mac-like" interface. It uses two task bars, one at the top, and one at the bottom. The top bar has all the menus on it, and yes, there is more than one. It is somewhat less configurable than KDE, but no less powerful. It is preferred among those who like a cleaner interface with a more mac-like approach to menus and usage.
Again, there isn't necessarily a "better" choice here. They are both equally good at what they do, they just do it in different ways. I would recommend using the Live CD's to explore the UI options you have without having to commit to one or the other right away. You can run the live CD, and then just rboot when you are done, with no changes made to your PC.
You can download the Ubuntu live CD here: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download [ubuntu.com]
You can download a Kubuntu live CD here: http://www.kubuntu.org/download.php#latest [kubuntu.org]
Just download, burn to CD with your favorite burning software, insert into CD drive, reboot and enjoy!
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:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. And when your old Dodge gives up, you go to the shop and it goes like this:
You: "I want to buy a car!" ... look, we have a nice Honda here. Has ABS,
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
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: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:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
su
*******
urpmi flash
exit
is just so much easier
Unix receives more attack attempts than windows. (Score:5, Informative)
And let me tell you, servers with a fixed IP address, open well known ports listening, and lots of domains pointing to it are the most common target. I have a fixed IP address, on a Unix machine, and you should just see my logs. Tons of break-in attempts everyday, and my Slackware just resists all of them.
Desktop machines with windows with variable IP addresses are the target of bots. Unix servers with fixed IP addresses are the target of real crackers and wannabes trying to break in 24/7.
Unix is a far more secure platform than Windows; and it has been proved since it's more exposed to heavy attacks all the time.
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
That's a pretty big "if". The truth is that Linux is safer, because it's simply harder to break into. A default Ubuntu install doesn't expose any open ports. Windows is designed to expose hundreds of ports, none of which can safely be closed because that would break random bits of software that Windows depends on. Linux ought to be extremely easy to write exploits for; after all, the code is right there in the open. If it was that easy then most of the servers on the Internet would have been broken into by now, where the vast majority are Linux and Windows is a dwindling minority.
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
And yet (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it funny that so many virus writers and crackers will do stories where they say that they choose Windows because it is much easier to crack than any other OS, and yet, folks like you fight this. Soon we will get "experts" like you claiming that Linus created Linux because aliens told him to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
True, but misleading: A default Ubuntu install doesn't offer any server-type services, so far as I know, so it doesn't have to open any ports.
And the vast majority of Windows users don't need to run any servers, either. Why does it have them?
Also, is it still true that a default Ubuntu install doesn't have a password around the root account?
No, there is no root password set, so you cannot log into Ubuntu as root in the default configuration. Have a
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: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: (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 t
Re: (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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Its Internet connection is far faster than the desktop/notebook's connection. This greatly increases the number of spam e-mails sent out or illegal files served/stored in any one time period.
2. The server has much more disk space to hold illegal files, and a good server's disk system is much, much fast
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 tar
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: (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: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.
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.
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: (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, yo
Re: (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 w
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
The show stopper was the lack of an outline feature for Openoffice. Until that 2000/2001 bug report gets resolved, she'll remain dependant on Office and so cannot get rid of Windows.
Ubuntu came out with a big gold star though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I expect your report on my desk within the next 30 minutes.
kthxbai.
Encouraging... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Encouraging... (Score:5, Interesting)
My laptop works better out-of-the-box in Ubuntu than it does in Vista (I installed both, dual-booting, this past weekend).
Of course, I should probably mention that I cheated: the laptop in question is a Thinkpad x60 Tablet, and Thinkpads are almost always well-supported in Linux. It's got Intel graphics, a screen with a weird resolution (1400x1050), Atheros WiFi, a Wacom digitizer, extra buttons next to the screen, volume buttons, a fingerprint scanner, and a hard drive accelerometer. Here's what worked, and what didn't:
Windows Vista
Kubuntu Linux
I should note that this page [no-ip.org] was extremely useful.
Overall, both Kubuntu and Vista work pretty well. Vista has a few unresolved annoyances though, such as the non-working volume keys and the fact that the screen orientation doesn't automatically change in tablet mode (note: I had to add acpi actions to do that in Linux). If it weren't for the lack of tablet-friendly applications in Linux, I wouldn't have Windows on here at all.
Re:Encouraging... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ubuntu is hit or miss (Score:4, Interesting)
Ubuntu isa nice distro but it needs work. I will continue to use it but nly beause I know how to tweak and fix things. Your average user does not. IMO software installation on Linux needs a lot of work. f we could get it to the point of ease that Apple has then I feel Linux would be a real alternative to windows.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I installed Edgy on a Dell D800 laptop with okay results - networking was spotty and wireless didn't work at all (i tried every trick in the book). Feisty fixed all of my problems - every piece of hardware was identified correctly. Wireless and wired networking works perfectly. Feisty is weird.
I'll be installing the new Ubuntu Studio [ubuntustudio.com] for my video/audio/image editing needs in lieu of a Mac.
I know I sound like a fanboy, but Ubuntu is the linux distro i've been waiting fo
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.
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.
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:The best point to note (Score:5, Funny)
While cleaning out my hunting cabin I found a Dell Latitude LS that I thought I'd lost. Nice small laptop but it had Windows 98 on it.
Since my current laptop needs are met by Apple I thought I might as well see how Ubuntu will run on it. During the install I was concerned that it might somehow think I wanted to keep the Win98 partition despite the fact that I specifically asked it to use the entire disk. It never really did confirm anything.
Much to my relief Win98 was gone upon reboot.
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: (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
Nice... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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: (Score:3, Informative)
You're right, lots of boneheads can do that; the problem is that installing Windows takes a lot more than what you have described. Windows doesn't come with a lot of the drivers that you need, so getting the printer, video, network, etc etc to work requires rounding that stuff up and installing it all. Installing Lin
Re:To bring this up yet again: (Score:4, Informative)
You're kidding right? Almost every single new feature of linux is basically a copy of something on Windows. I'm a supporter of Linux, but that whole "it's not trying to be windows" argument is just people keeping their heads in the sand.
The linux distros that are meant for end-users are trying to be exactly like Windows, but free/stable/secure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What in windows is Network Manager? Have you used a Wireless Network with Windows? Beryl and Compiz go the opposite direction (Windows was playing catch-up on the whole composite desktop front). What other "new features" ie things that haven't been a core part of every GUI for 3+ years are you referring to?
And then you have MySQL, Apache, etc on the server side, which Windows has been playing catchup with for years.
Do you really want to play this game? (Score:3, Interesting)
Notice how the default Ubuntu desktop has a very Windows-like taskbar at the bottom, for minimized stuff, and a Windows-like system tray in the upper right, and an OS9-like menu bar at the top left... Notice how we also have virtual desktops, which are a hackish addon everywhere else but Leopard, which isn't out yet...
Notice how we also have things like package management, which does not exist ANY
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!
Re:Not at all clueless (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't know what it is or why but Linux makes people want to become power users. He has since upgraded his box to Ubuntu Studio and fixed a few networking problems that he was having. Sure, he probably googled most of it, but he actually felt the need to learn more instead of just scratching his head and offering me beer to fix his problem. I do miss the beer though
Re:Not at all clueless (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhh, yes, when "free as in beer" means the end of free beer...
Re:Not at all clueless (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats easy. With windows people take things for granted (like the OS crashing, but coming back after a reboot), and that "any software will run on it.
With Linux there is a cognitive break with their "Windows Knowledge", so the user feels they need to learn in order to make sure they don't "mess it up".
Of course once they start learning one of two things happens:
1) They get overwhelmed by bad/wrong/lots-of information and ask someone else to help (similar to lots of windows folks).
2) They find that it makes sense, they can do what they want without problems, and their system doesn't keep crashing. Once they no longer have to husband the system and be afraid that anything they do will make it crash, they can actually start to have fun with it.
Re:Not at all clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not at all clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not at all clueless (Score:4, Informative)
Every system I build gets easier and easier because more things get integrated into the mobo, like USB and graphics and sound and Ethernet. I don't remember which mobo I have, but the instructions were excellent. If you can assemble IKEA furniture, you can build a computer.
Of course I'm not clueless! I'm a tech writer! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: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.
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.
Still a long way to go (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as possible would be brought over from Windows. Network configuration information, browser favorites, email client configuration, desktop icon layout, even the desktop wallpaper -- anything to make Linux feel more like home. It's all there, just the way they like it, why not copy it as much as possible?
If there's any problems, they can be found and addressed while the user is still in the safety of Windows.
Yes I can just see that working (Score:5, Funny)
Found alexa
Found About Blank
Found Russian spam bot
Found Office 2003
Attempting to apt-get...
Could not find alexa
Could not find bonzi buddy
Could not find Russian spam bot
Installing open office
Importing spam mail 3 of 106,184
Done.
Re:"still in the safety of Windows." (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't mock this fact: Embrace and abuse it.
Doesn't Clobber Win2k (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe she should realize that there's only ONE COMPANY out there that assumes it owns your whole PC....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Edited title (Score:5, Informative)
Some spelling errors aren't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm impressed, she figured it all out. (Score:5, Interesting)
Holy crap! a complete newbie installed a complete 64 bit system and it worked with a few minor problems with non free software not found in 32 bit versions. She had trouble with DVDs, Nvidia drivers, Flash and Picasa, and did not like the GDM login fonts. She was able to solve the Nvidia problem without too much trouble and seems to have made DVDs and Adobe Flash work. All of this with less effort than she would have put into a Windoze box. One reboot and everything "very automatic".
Her comments about non free software are scathing:
This is really cool and shows a good grasp of what free software is all about. She figured out that the non free parts were the problem, not the free parts. This kind of enlightenment from a non programmer is great to see.
Her conclusion is an uncompromising endorsement:
The more I think about it, the nicer the article is. This is a picky user and she's been satisfied. Many of her fears, such as the complete loss of data and OS overwrite, came from M$ use, so her opinion is likely to improve.
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.
Wireless Networking (Score:3, Informative)
1. Choose hardware from this madwifi/ Atheros list: http://madwifi.org/wiki/Compatibility [madwifi.org]. Last week I picked up two El Cheapo Sweek 802.11g cards for 20 euros each, and Ubuntu flashed its restricted driver message at one once, I accepted, and it just worked, even with WPA2 + TKIP encryption at the router. Note there are no USB wifi dongles supported. But PCI & pcmcia, etc.
2. Part of the above is working with Gnome NetworkManager.
Stay focused on 1 & 2, and don't use little USB wireless sticks, and wireless on Linux IS easy.
disk encryption: bonus points for starting with Debian 4, since the EZ installer gives you the option to encrypt the whole (laptop?) disk from the Get Go. I opted for Debian's easy disk encryption (Ubuntu doesn't offer it, really) and chose to fight the wireless puzzle. It was a hard fight, but I think I picked the correct battle to fight. So now just add a nice rsync backup to my http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?134994 [dreamhost.com] Debian server's non-public disk-space for $7 a month, and well that's a secure, yet functional laptop.
Oh, and www.Hamachi.cc makes for easy newbie intranets, and Firestarter is a nifty newbie GUI for IPTables.
- --
You can't be ahead of the curve if you're stuck in a loop.
more and more stuff is Just Working (Score:4, Interesting)
The article matches up fairly well with my own experience, although I think the contrast between her earlier trial and the current one may be a little overstated. I just did an install of ubuntu on a laptop yesterday, and I was impressed that (a) the system was installed successfully (not so long ago, installing linux on a laptop was unlikely to work without major pain and suffering), and (b) the wifi card automagically worked. This is in contrast to the situation a year ago, when I installed ubuntu on my daughter's desktop machine, and had to spend a weekend messing around before I could get her wifi to work.
One thing that I think is not acceptable yet is printing. Within the last few months, I got my vanilla laser printer working on my linux box. It was a truly nasty and time-consuming process. This is not a case where you can blame patents and proprietary interfaces, etc., either. The printer is a Brother HL-1440. Brother hired the CUPS developers to write GPL'd linux drivers. The problem is mainly just that the linux implementation of CUPS is a disaster. (The MacOS X implementation seems fine, AFAICT.)
Pitiful Shame She Can't Run Debian Etch (Score:4, Interesting)
It should not come as a surprise that she is really indifferent to Free (as in speech) software. She wants her hardware to "just" work. This unfortunately excludes a default Debian Etch. I've been through Sarge and Etch and I think Ubuntu competition has only benefited the Debian project because Etch is a far superior release of Free software. Yes, non-free is out there and relatively painless, but it still requires some stuff that she specifically did not want to do.
I would encourage potential Ubuntu users to give Debian Etch a spin first. It's much, much more reliable, has many different installers including the excellent graphical installer and is a huge improvement over Sarge, pretty much blowing away the old complaints about Debian.
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.
Funny, I just installed 7.04 myself... (Score:3, Informative)
Having been using linux since the 1.2pre days I do know how to gets my hands dirty, but if I had been a non technical user there'd have been no way I could've managed. On the other hand the networking and general system configuration was quite painless, automatix and synaptic have been a pleasure to use and the install was very straightforward, even to the point of putting my 2k partition in the grub boot menu (and it actually working, which is definitely a new experience).
With a slightly more robust x configuration (quite a few folks nowadays run dual screen, most developers for sure) it would be nearly perfect.
Picasa and Ubuntu (Score:3, Informative)
I tried Google's Picasa offering for Linux a week ago when I wanted to upload like 50 pictures to a web album. It ran fine, but the version Google decided to Linux-ify with wine didn't have web album upload support. I downloaded the latest windows version and installed it with wine and it runs wonderfully. I was able to upload the photos to my picasa web albums and haven't had a single problem. Everything that I tried just worked, it was a lot slicker than the version specifically for Linux.
This is with: Ubuntu 7.04; wine 0.9.33; picasa 2.7 (build 36.4000,0)
Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n (Score:4, Funny)
I stopped reading after this point. I hope the conclusion was something on the lines of "it works if you have a live-in geek". That's a cop out - saying you've got a problem but it was resolved by the fact that your partner is a technical expert.
Exactly! Until it can be used by someone without ever having to rely on outside assistance from someone more savvy, Linux remains an obvious step below such issueless competitors as Microsoft Windows (whose users are known the world over for their trouble-free operations and complete eschewing of support), and that caveat should be mentioned at every opportunity.
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:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Debian is working on the really ideal solution to that problem, they call it multiarch. The idea is to make the installer fully aware of all of the different variations of processors and which apps they can run and which libraries are needed.
In this case, what we want to happen is when you apt-get install the flash player, the installer realizes that the only version available is a 32-bit version and that it depends on a 32-bit version of the browser, which in turn needs a certain set of 32-bit libraries, so it downloads and installs all of it, installing the 32-bit libraries next to the 64-bit libraries and replacing the 64-bit browser. Multiarch will make all of that, and much more, not only possible but transparent to the user. It's still a work in progress, though.
In the meantime, I agree that a desktop-oriented distro like Ubuntu should probably install a 32-bit browser by default. Either that or accept a bit of temporary ugliness and code some specific flash and browser handling into the installer so it does the right thing.
Re:"Problem solved by live in geek?" - So that's n (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Err... Joe 6-pack has to change eventually. To Vista or to Linux. (Or Apple, I suppose.) And a lot of Joe 6-packs have heard distant rumbling, kind of like thunder on the horizon, that Windows is bad or kills kittens or something. Every day MS gives people more reasons to consider a move to Linux - even regular users. And I don't s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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:What if you don't have a free partition? (Score:4, Informative)