Whither Linux?

[TheAnimus]

Spyware i thought merrited its own post.

Spyware isn't really MS's fault, their patching system has always been easy, problem is it wasn't turned on by default. Now the problem is peopel still open .exe's even when they see SP2 style warning box.

they will do this on ANY platform except a TCPA style.

You can't blame stupidity on users. Adding the family users on windows is easy, adding them as regular users i mean. If they cant manage to do that on XP, there not going to manage to understand the mounting system of unix, or indeed any part of the owner group public.

You can put them on a security by obscuirty type thing, in which case linux clearly isn't the option to go for (neither is firefox)

[dangel]

there's a subtle difference between percieved and real need. for most average off-the-street people, when their computers start spooging popups and porno links, they learn to just ignore and cope - pretend there;s no problem. admitting there's a problems means you've lost control - and that's unpleasant psychologically.

I think this is a side issue - at least for me. That's just down to browser choice and you're not tied to IE now are you? Plus we live in a world where the press made firefox out to be the second coming of christ so people are pretty aware of it as an alternative.

the difference for me, at least, is i pick up on every annoyance. i found myself needing to use a cybercafe recently, and in less than 20 minutes, i was ready to put a keyboard through the MSIE-based terminal - it made a simple task like buying a telly so bloody difficult i felt my blood boil.

Yes we've all been there And being a tech-head myself i understand the feeling implicitly.

the assumption, of course, is that you're moving from one system to another. if you have a blank slate, then the comparative cost of training is about the same. problems lie with systems where people are educated (in schoold and courses) on training themselves to the microsoft-only way of doing things, so even a change of word processor or web browser is a shock to the system.

I find browser change remarkably easy to push to people - but then, again unlike linux, you're offering them new functionality (tabbed browsing, popup blocking etc etc) which has instant appeal. The same isn't true for OS' - they're very much different beasts. I guess Apple shift a lot of PC's because they have a very clean looking UI with lots of flashy bits - and that's look great in the shop.

£90 is a lot, though, for xp pro (home has no RDP server). You can cross your fingers and hope that the person you give the machine to will do the right thing at all times (.exe attachments et al), but you can't guarantee it. and once they screw up, no amount of antivirus and spybotsd will help - it's formatting time. just consider the latest sony rootkit - try ripping that out, and you lose your CD drives. and even when it ISN'T irreperable, free tools like spybot or ad-aware are really inadequate against 2005's spyware

Well I'm not sure if i can agree here - Spybot/adware et al do a very good job in my humble experience and rootkits aren't exactly common (yet). I've de-spyed a fair few PCs and they've carried on working afterwards.. But.. I do have a backup plan Before i hand over any PC i steal a bit of their drive space for a hidden partition. Contents? One True Image backup of the system as given to them Total time to revert is usually about 3 mins Any user can kill any machine if determined or stupid enough. Linux has the user not running as root (IF they don't do it..) on it's side but you can still fundamentally knacker it. Idiot proof OS' don't exist in my experience!

i started my belief in a better way with BeOS r4.5 - it was so much cleaner, faster, and more reposnive, than 98. Truth be told, I only got into Linux about 24 months ago - before then, I'd tried it and every time I'd failed to see what it offered me compared to Windows. However, Linux has improved at a phenomenal rate since the early 1990s, and Microsoft will have real issues in beating that rate of improvement, even with Vista. Of course, they'll have no issues with having Vista installed on every new computer until gone 2010, but whether they have the technical advantage by then, in any area, I'd be highly skeptical.

Yes, but the point is that MS _are_ evolving. In fact, one of the principle factors in them deciding to rewrite windows for Vista is the need to modularise their code so they can adapt much quicker to the market. The lack of said modularity means they've had a hard time injecting features into windows without destabalising the OS or, perhaps worse, adding insecurity. We're going to see a very different Windows - and some things will really alter the way we percieve a PC: the desktop 3d model means everything will be smoother and slicker, the driver model no longer means errant drivers can barf the kernal so more stability and better error handling etc, users will not *SHOCK* run as root!
Will they be able to keep pace with the competition? Maybe..

There's also an increasing groundswell from small business, who have been burnt by soon-to-expire upgrade contracts that have never been used, or are runnign unsupported older windows versions on aging hardware - Debian 3.1 will run on a 486 with 24MiB RAM if need be, Vista won't, so there's an increasingly tempting option to just spend £25k or so on a linux sysadmin who can make all the hardware and software upgrade issues go away for a few years

Perhaps, but medium sized companies often just contract out and hire or replace PC's on a very regular basis. It's usually around the 3-4 year mark. Certainly this is true for the multinational I work for now and my preview 3 jobs with varying sized companies. The bulk of people running WinXP will simply be able to install Vista without some great slow-down shock. People seem most worried about 3d card requirements which is odd, seeing as aeroglass is optional. In any case, i don't see IT departments across the land suddenly switching to linux now (or even Vista) immediately (it just doesn't happen in reality as sys admins are pretty nervous about anything new until it's been out for ohhhh.. 5 years).

[dangel]

Spyware i thought merrited its own post.

Spyware isn't really MS's fault, their patching system has always been easy, problem is it wasn't turned on by default. Now the problem is peopel still open .exe's even when they see SP2 style warning box.

they will do this on ANY platform except a TCPA style.

You can't blame stupidity on users. Adding the family users on windows is easy, adding them as regular users i mean. If they cant manage to do that on XP, there not going to manage to understand the mounting system of unix, or indeed any part of the owner group public.

You can put them on a security by obscuirty type thing, in which case linux clearly isn't the option to go for (neither is firefox)

In support of linux i'll say one thing - it does setout to be more secure from the get-go than XP. XP isn't half as bad as was, but it's still letting people run as root. In fact, most software is built around that assumption (this is true for our company). I'm at a loss to describe anything over and above that feature tho..
Windows big plus, as you point out, is that it's pretty good at updating itself now - and it does strive to warn you when you virus checker is out of date/not installed etc.

[TheAnimus]

There are NO shortage of linux distros which do that.

one of my personal favourates DSL has far too much of a root happy approach. (also file perms not set properly).

if you've got idoit users and want to be safe from spyware put them on RISC OS running Origano (or what ever its called).

they'll be safe, not able to do much, but be safe.

The big debate is how restricted should a newb be. In the late 90s everyone thought no restrictions at all, they only mess up themselfs, and thats the support peoples problem.

Now its different, people are more worried about stopping people loosing control of their box unwitingly.

Fact of the matter is, its taken my mum until now to have her "own" computer, a laptop. We've had PCs in the house since before i was born (BBCs etc) but its only now she is intrested.

Now i don't want to restrict her, she is learning very fast, and swiftly become a compitent user. As such i didn't give her the normal PE execution prevention i do. Because she knows when she gets it wrong, she'll be reloading it. That laptop is only used by her no one else is inconvienced. (there is a hardware firewall isolating her from the network, and from doing anything to my farthers comupter, and the "family" one, or apra!).

If i'd put her as a low level user, she wouldn't be learning nearly as much, using this tool to let her have more time for her hobbies, read the news in a better way. She was so pleased when she installed the BBC news alerter thing all by herself. When she came accross kapsules, even more so. If i hadn't had her run as admin to start with, she wouldn't of learnt this. At xmas i'm going to explain permissions and the like to her. When you first learn't computers did you have all that complex stuff? I had shift + ctrl + break, **** + ctrl + a, disk

[iranu]

I only read the first couple of posts and don't have the knowledge to get into the Linux v Windows debate but I am certainly looking at switching from xp to linux as my main OS soon. I'll use a dual boot for games under xp.

Why am I looking to change? DRM - Vista will have some of this built in (I am lead to believe) and WMP10 already does. I don't want anything to do with it so will go with whatever OS is not bound by big music/movie corporations money grabbing.

[0iD]

Linux's BIG problem i my eyes is the 'Windows frame of Mind'. It's taught all the way thro school, and on into the workplace. People get conditioned in the 'apparent' simplicity of windows. The don't have to think about installs, etc, just randomly click Yes & OK a few times. To overcome that you need to get to the grass roots, the schools and the young kids just learning. That's where Linux will find mass acceptability imo.

Having said that, my 13yr old daughter's teacher reprimanded me thro her for teaching her linux fundamentals as they have 'no place in real world computing', 'it's a hobbyist thing at best', and 'it would confuse her when using windows'. In response she refused to convey the message that I thought he was a clueless kn0bhead...

[directhex]

one thing i find odd in TheAnimus' arguments.

If Linux performance is so very bad compared to Windows and *BSD, then why do large clusters run it?

I mean, these people are willingly paying for Quadrics and Itanium (and even on Xeon/Myrinet, that's £400 per machine on networking). Windows licenses would be small potatoes - these people want to squeeze every last drop of performance they can. After all, a 1% increase on a 1000 node cluster is equivalent to ten free machines.

So if Linux is so very bad, then why is it the OS of choice for *REAL* performance computer users?

[directhex]

Having said that, my 13yr old daughter's teacher reprimanded me thro her for teaching her linux fundamentals as they have 'no place in real world computing', 'it's a hobbyist thing at best', and 'it would confuse her when using windows'. In response she refused to convey the message that I thought he was a clueless kn0bhead...

that's the usual attitude of people who've spent three or four figures on an ECDL and/or MSCE - fear of the unknown, and fear of lack of control

[TheAnimus]

one thing i find odd in TheAnimus' arguments.

If Linux performance is so very bad compared to Windows and *BSD, then why do large clusters run it?

I mean, these people are willingly paying for Quadrics and Itanium (and even on Xeon/Myrinet, that's £400 per machine on networking). Windows licenses would be small potatoes - these people want to squeeze every last drop of performance they can. After all, a 1% increase on a 1000 node cluster is equivalent to ten free machines.

So if Linux is so very bad, then why is it the OS of choice for *REAL* performance computer users?

I would sincerly hope that someone who is admin for a cluster, knows the differnece in proccess paradigms for clustering, than oposed to MPC desktop. Not to mention license restrictions which really would work in linux's favour.

If you don't belive me about the performance, bench it. BSD is slightly slower than linux post 2.6, but not once u've put selinux on. (which is really needed for multi user security).

I've noticed that in some of my posts i've just got pissed off because of some of the sugestions, the cd analagy is a prime example. I actually still use linux on a box of mine (debian) and DSL on a completely stealthed box. Its just linux has people lie blatently about its flaws as much as FF users lie about its security. (when often their still running their browser as admin user, why?!)

[directhex]

Not to mention license restrictions which really would work in linux's favour.

which restrictions? money is no object on top500.org, and you've already said that everyone should be writing binary patches or getting ahold of not-open-source source code to fix any issues they have.

I've noticed that in some of my posts i've just got pissed off because of some of the sugestions, the cd analagy is a prime example.

the cd analogy is as reasonable as the original assertations in the first post. every stated example in the analogies is realistic - in an exact set of circumstances and experiences. ATI drivers *have* randomly screwed registry permissions before. SP2 *does* fail to install if you have anything that touches atapi.sys installed. i actually missed the "installing mobo drivers/flashing bios due to random bugs/whatever causing you to reactivate, but it refusing to do so because you've done it too often" option.

the original assertation was that windows "just works", and linux requires bootstrapping and hacking. in some cases, maybe. in others, not. either way, that doesn't make my analogy any less valid than the OP's. my exact scenario could have occured for anyone with an a7n8x, belkin usb 802.11b adapter and a radeon, with an xpsp1 cd and sata disk. you'd have to be pretty unlucky, but it's a quite real analogy (or amalgamation of anecdotes, more accurately)

Its just linux has people lie blatently about its flaws as much as FF users lie about its security.

there are several reasons to run firefox - it can render post-1997 web sites correctly, it has handy features like tabs, and for the most part "extensions" aren't the same thing as "drive-by activex-downloaded 'search toolbar' spyware". MSIE7 only exists because firefox forced microsoft into a corner.

the main 'security' argument has always been about activex - and the ease with which activex objects (or javascript) can do nasty things to your PC. even with SP2, without a virus scanner, you can still get infected by the IRC/sdbot virus, courtesy MSIE's weak security model.

it's not a holy grail, but it is demonstrably more secure than MSIE.

(when often their still running their browser as admin user, why?!)

because windows, by default, and on almost all home computers installed worldwide, gets you to run as an admin user.

[TheAnimus]

BSD license is more restrictive, than linux, i'm saying this as a point in linux's favour. Now as for patching code, all I'm saying is i've seen many a source code thats useless, its not well written the person didn't really understand what their doing, and its just easyer to patch around it. That its completely possible to do that stably.

The dvd i had lieing about with deb had the same problem on that board too, newer versions again dont. Thats not a windows problem.

The cd comparison is stupid, an out of date CD of ANY os will course problems, linux dosen't fix that.

Espesually as i use eOpen to license, so i can download a "media kit" of the latest streamlined version. Also streamlining yourself an XP disk is easyer than using Jidgo.

On the whole, because of window's HAL and actually has some idea of classification of device drivers, its far more stable with bad hardware, and its much better with drivers, how can you deny that? There are some cases where it won't be, but in 99% of circumstances it is.

SP2 had some major changes, including things like DCOM been turned off, this will confuse some programs (winfax pro was one that i had to 'update' around). Point is, its much easyer than doing a kernel update (even with tools like debian's excelernt package management).

Which brings me onto one massive pro no one has mentioned (pro for linux) application package management, the distro manages all your apps for you. You don't need to visit windowsupdate microsoftupdate (thanks anti trust, you really helped useability) corelupdate and foobarupdate...... etc. This is a major pro, problem is, most automated package management systems either bring in nasty insecure things (perl, which is why i dislike debian so much because of its reliance on it) and there is no continuity with updates, every minuite of every day is an at risk period, and because "proof of concept" code is posted so swiftly, even 12 year olds can use it, and break in before you've been patched. (ssh 1 this was a MAJOR head ache with).

The admin user by deafult, i've already posted one example of how its best to start people like that. If everything is disabled, they need to know its worthwhile to battle with the computer to get it to know what you want to do. Microsoft has done so much good in helping take off home computing, thats indesputible (granted, they done too much of it helping them exclusivily acording to certain law suites). An example of that is someone i know from halls who farther is rich, bought her an apple laptop, she never uses it, she saw me taking notes on my really old tablet pc, and she instantly wants one, saying "that would actually be useful to me" people don't do research before buying products.

If they can't figure out the nice GUI driven limited user option in XP, then there NOT GOING TO HAVE THE EFFORT FOR LINUX.

[directhex]

On the whole, because of window's HAL and actually has some idea of classification of device drivers, its far more stable with bad hardware, and its much better with drivers, how can you deny that? There are some cases where it won't be, but in 99% of circumstances it is.

too much experience with sound card drivers bluescreening when plugging in speakers (philips acoustic edge, latest version), or network drivers bluescreening every 20 minutes (belkin f5d6050, latest drivers). this is xp sp2, of course.

[TheAnimus]

I've googled that soundcard problem, but can't find anything on it.

The USB network adaptor, isn't even worth debating as usb network devices are bound to course problems, on any platform (but bluescreening isn't exceptable) and again, google is finding very little on it (found some about standby hybernation issues).

But i've got a very very long list of hardware that dosen't work with linux, and i've currently found nothing which dosen't work under NT. A nice example is the via eden ITX, i've got a 5000 board, which some distro's sudenly stopped working on. The installer failes to bootstrap properly. Its a bug in the code, but it seams common, NetBSD has it, Debian has it. But yet lilo/grub has no problem.

Don't supose u've got a dump of either of those problems still?

[dangel]

So if Linux is so very bad, then why is it the OS of choice for *REAL* performance computer users?

Again, I reiterate - the question isn't whether linux is bad, but more whether it had any real value over and above what windows can provide for joe average user. Performance has become much less of an issue on the modern PC (hey, people will use a java or a .NET app without worrying about resource hogging!) than it was. Sure, for server applications Linux fits a great niche, and there's no denying it's abilities in that area. But how about the desktop? What am I being offered that will make me drop WindowsXPSP2 for it?

[dangel]

(when often their still running their browser as admin user, why?!)

..because inherently software will assume that you are an admin user in the most part thesedays and may not work otherwise. In the past, MS added features with no regard to security - 'easy of use and more features' had priority over secure design and Windows was only ever built on top of what was already there and so the mistakes were never undone. It's not the user's fault in this case.

[directhex]

Don't supose u've got a dump of either of those problems still?

hm? tbirdhd.sys and bkusbxp.sys, DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL issues with both. don't have specific memory addresses.