[Off Topic] Re: Linux security

[Florian Diesch]

"Michael T. Richter" <ttmrichter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-03-05 at 15:18 +0200, Florian Diesch wrote:
>
>     > For all its myriad flaws, Windows still kicks ass on any Linux distribution --
>     > even Ubuntu, so far the easiest distro I've found in terms of the end-user
>     > experience -- for ease of use.
>
>     I don't think so.
>
> Millions disagree.

IMHO most normal windows users never tried Linux. They don't care about
operating systems and just stick with what's there when they buy the
computer. A lot of people don't even know that there are computers
without windows.

>
>     There are some things that are more easy to do with
>     Windows, but others are much more difficult.
>
> The difference is that day-to-day affairs are simpler under Windows for the
> most part.

That's where we disagree


>     Think of all the programs
>     you have to install until you can work with windows (and you first have
>     to buy them!);
>
> You can work with Windows out of the box.  

I would not call it "work".


> To do the kind of work most people need a computer for you install one
> extra program: Microsoft Office (or equivalent).

So you agree that Ubuntu is easier to install for most people as it has
OpenOffice installed by default.


>     and all that viruses, worm, trojan horses and the like;
>
> The viruses, worms and trojans that haven't impacted my life at all since my
> DOS days, you mean?  That not a single member of my family nor a single friend
> have ever had a problem with?  Those viruses?
>
> Idiots are idiots no matter what operating system they run.

Fact is that malware is a real problem with windows. Maybe it's because
most people are not smart enough for windows. But then it seems a good
idea to me if they would switch to another OS that doesn't need them to
be that smart.



> (And why is it that nobody recalls that the first destructive Internet worm was
> one that infected UNIX systems?)

Because we don't compare OS's from 1988 here.

>
>     and all the things you have to configure to have a usable working
>     environment (hidden file extensions are kind of a bad joke, right?).
>
>
> Usable to whom?  Hidden file extensions work just fine for the average end-user

I have different experice here. Most people (including me) found it much
easier to work with window when file extensions are visible.


> -- and, indeed, are probably preferable to remembering the bizarre codes that
> get built in to them by geeks with no clue what an end-user wants to see/do.

At least here I agree. The whole concept of file extensions determining
the type of a file is IMHO just a design flaw.

But it doesn't get better by just hiding this valuable information.


>     IMHO for most end-users Ubuntu is much more easy to use unless they have
>     badly supported hardware or need specials software that's not available
>     for Linux.
>
> By "badly supported hardware" of course is meant "most new hardware -- and
> about half of hardware related to multimedia".  And Bluetooth.  

I didn't buy that much hardware during the last two years so I don't
know how the support is at the time. But I installed Linux on some one
or two years old boxers during this time and didn't found that much real
problems (except for softmodems). 

IMHO Ubuntu supports much more hardware out of the box than XP, but with
XP it's easier to install drivers for hardware that is not supported
directly.

> And "specialist software" also often means "software with a user
> interface that doesn't suck".  (The GIMP being a perfect example for
> the last kind.)

This seems to depend very much on the experience you made so far. 


   Florian
-- 
If only you and dead people understand hex, how many people understand hex?