A better linux for the future

[Growled Member]

But y'know, those lite users who make up 50% of all computer users could equally Get A Mac™ or use Windows. In terms of Joe public just wanting a computer so they can send emails, chat to friends, go on facebook, save photos, watch DVDs, type up a CV etc, it makes very little to no difference whether they use windows/linux/mac because they can all do those jobs.

That's true but a Mac is too expensive for most people and Windows is just too insecure. You get a great price and great security with Linux. For the 50% we are talking about (mostly computer noobs who will probably always be noobs) Linux is just what they need.

[draelas]

i think this just comes down to the age old thing of people wanting linux to work like windows.

my grandma is using ubuntu. i put it on her computer because i was going over to often to fix windows problems. everything she needs is there. internet, email, skype, IM. the best part is she's not getting all the spyware or virus' slowing down her system like before. i put it on over a year ago, havent had a single computer question or problem since. and when i did set it up i didnt have to use a single terminal command either. synaptic is the best program ubuntu could have.

[Shadrack]

Linux just needs a few killer apps to go mainstream. The desktop is ready. If your hardware is fully supported (and it probably is) then Linux will run fine and has all the features we expect of a modern desktop OS.

I could probably make a living running Linux. My main cash cow app, LabVIEW, has a version for Linux (granted my company has already paid thousands for Windows Licensing). For me, OpenOffice.Org is good enough (but everyone I work with is on Windows+MS Office). The one killer feature of Word that we use is the "track changes" and "review" features, that are not compatible with OO.o writer (i don't think).

There is a lack of an easy-to-use image editor to the quality of Paint.NET or Pixelmator (Mac). GIMP is out there, and meets my needs, so I could get by on that (but it is definitely not my preference).

Other than that...ummm... I have to use MathCAD every-so-often. The closest thing to that in Linux is Octave, but thats a math scripting language and MathCAD is a math modeling platform.

Linux is filled with alternative apps, but no killer apps (from my perspective). There is nothing pulling users to Linux for that most-have application.

i think this just comes down to the age old thing of people wanting linux to work like windows.

my grandma is using ubuntu. i put it on her computer because i was going over to often to fix windows problems. everything she needs is there. internet, email, skype, IM. the best part is she's not getting all the spyware or virus' slowing down her system like before. i put it on over a year ago, havent had a single computer question or problem since. and when i did set it up i didnt have to use a single terminal command either. synaptic is the best program ubuntu could have.

I think your story is becoming more common place. Linux is easy to use and has the apps that most people need day-to-day. There is less of a risk of getting malware, which makes it very attractive for the less tech-savvy.

[Electric Jolt]

That's true but a Mac is too expensive for most people and Windows is just too insecure. You get a great price and great security with Linux. For the 50% we are talking about (mostly computer noobs who will probably always be noobs) Linux is just what they need.

Uhm what? Windows 7 is extremely secure, the only thing you need to do anymore is get Microsoft Security Essentials and you're good to go. No more spending money on bloated AVs, Microsoft Security Essentials works great.

[08993]

Linux just needs a few killer apps to go mainstream

This post makes me cry. Linux is mainstream, it powers the web, probably your TV (Bravia's for example) and is present on thousands of devices that have any sort of GUI but you won't see the name Linux anywhere.

Are you talking about Linux distributions?

I guess the post highlights the main problem with Linux, it gets labelled as a sub standard desktop operating system and it is so much more than that. If Linux disappeared tomorrow you'd have no Internet that's for sure. This whole misconception of Linux is so deep it's still rampant after a decade.

Edited January 24, 2010 by 8993

[Growled Member]

Uhm what? Windows 7 is extremely secure, the only thing you need to do anymore is get Microsoft Security Essentials and you're good to go. No more spending money on bloated AVs, Microsoft Security Essentials works great.

I use 7 a lot and I have no problems with it. However, the users I have mentioned a couple of times (noobs) will click yes to anything and even if they read something they have no idea what it said. They can take 7 and have it filled with viruses and malware in a short time. With Linux the viruses and malware won't work. These noobs need to be on Linux, at least until the virus/malware writers write stuff for Linux.

[markwolfe Veteran]

... With Linux the viruses and malware won't work. These noobs need to be on Linux, at least until the virus/malware writers write stuff for Linux.

With Linux, the malware written for Windows won't work. ;)

Oh, and there is malware for Linux. Just about a month ago one made the news.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22625

[Shadrack]

People need to stop thinking about Linux as an OS, it's a framework. The distributions are what should be judged and discussed because I don't see how you can improve GNU/Linux, it's everywhere, it's probably in your HDTV for starters and you wouldn't know it.

EDIT/ It's Windows Fault! Linux is an OS I guess but the definition of OS has been defined by Windows as "the blob" and it's very hard to define the difference.

ANOTHER EDIT/ Maybe stop thinking about Linux as a desktop operating system, although it can be, bah I give up.

Desktop was the context of my post. Sorry you missed that...

I realize that there are applications beyond the desktop that Linux exists in. I didn't mean to make you cry. Here, have a tissue.

Further, I thought my post was very optimistic about Linux. I wonder if you actually read my post. Your backlash is very puzzling.

[markwolfe Veteran]

... I didn't mean to make you cry. Here, have a tissue.

Wow. No need to post like an ass about it.

[Shadrack]

Wow. No need to post like an ass about it.

Again. My post was just explaining what I thought of Linux and I think good things about it. He's the one being an ass about it. Obviously just a knee-jerk reaction to my first sentence but didn't care to read the rest of my post.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Again. My post was just explaining what I thought of Linux and I think good things about it. He's the one being an ass about it.

Yes. Except for that part that I quoted, your posts have had good points.

[Growled Member]

With Linux, the malware written for Windows won't work. ;)

Oh, and there is malware for Linux. Just about a month ago one made the news.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22625

That's true. However when you compare the amount of malware for Windows vs. what is out there for Linux it's like 1 billion to 1 difference. I don't blame Windows for it because it can plainly happen on all platforms. However, the situation is what it is. Windows has tons more and the average user would be much safer using Linux at the moment.

[Shadrack]

Yes. Except for that part that I quoted, your posts have had good points.

Well, if someone is going to blast me with:

This post makes me cry.

Then I'm going to blast back. Whats sad is I thought we would have been on the same side of the argument. Ah well.

[Electric Jolt]

I use 7 a lot and I have no problems with it. However, the users I have mentioned a couple of times (noobs) will click yes to anything and even if they read something they have no idea what it said. They can take 7 and have it filled with viruses and malware in a short time. With Linux the viruses and malware won't work. These noobs need to be on Linux, at least until the virus/malware writers write stuff for Linux.

Wow! So what happens if they turn off the firewall or start an SSH server or web server? What happens if somebody tells them the command to wipe their HDD and they don't realize it? Windows 7, out of box experience, can allow you to share with other computers, without the hassle of opening up ports yourself or choosing advanced share permissions. Linux distributions can't do that quite as easily, and doing it on your own can cause a security issue that lets people in through the backdoor. Windows 7 handles it all so backdoors do not occur. If you have common sense with computers, then Windows 7 is the best, if not, then *nothing* will ever work for you as there is nothing out there that has common-sense built-in.

[HeretikSaint]

That's true. However when you compare the amount of malware for Windows vs. what is out there for Linux it's like 1 billion to 1 difference. I don't blame Windows for it because it can plainly happen on all platforms. However, the situation is what it is. Windows has tons more and the average user would be much safer using Linux at the moment.

I love Linux and will continue to use Linux. However, I don't think it is necessarily good for average users who have become a Windows-dependant computer user. I've learned that anyone who has learned to use a computer with Windows simply goes stupid when you show them a Linux environment. Also, there may be less viruses and malware on Linux but I think there maybe a bigger danger that the average user could get in trouble within Linux: scripts. Scripts can be just as dangerous (if not more dangerous) when people start running them without knowing what they actually do. All they would have to do is go on to some webpage that promises to customize this or that with a run of "this script". The average user wont have the know-how to open the script up and figure out what it actually does and they might be a little naive to run it. With a script, the possibilities are endless in what they can potentially do.

[Lechio]

With Linux, the malware written for Windows won't work. ;)

Oh, and there is malware for Linux. Just about a month ago one made the news.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22625

The amount of "spyware" on Linux (those two combined don't even sound right) is so ridiculously low that when a kid writes a crappy script and publishes on a site that has content submitted by users and not controlled and approved, it makes the news. ;)

[ichi]

Linux distributions can't do that quite as easily, and doing it on your own can cause a security issue that lets people in through the backdoor.

Oh yes, it could also spawn a black hole and suck up the whole town :yes: actually I think the whole LHC is actually based on sharing files with a linux distro, at it's core.

[Mouldy Punk]

That's true. However when you compare the amount of malware for Windows vs. what is out there for Linux it's like 1 billion to 1 difference. I don't blame Windows for it because it can plainly happen on all platforms. However, the situation is what it is. Windows has tons more and the average user would be much safer using Linux at the moment.

Windows 7 is actually pretty solid out of the box. Even the recent IE exploit that screwed over Google in China that the press cried "IT CAN EVEN EXPLOIT IE8" will not actually work on a Windows 7 machine that hasn't been tinkered with. (You have to disable DEP for the exploit to work)

The way I see it, there are a few reasons why Windows 7 is considered insecure;

1. There are computer users who when asked for their admin password will put it in without thinking about what's asking for it. That's how malware gets in.

2. There are computer users who think it makes them hardcore to run with administrator privileges and that they're "not stupid enough to get screwed by malware" - these are the sort of "hardcore people" that don't install anti virus software because they "never get viruses" when truth is, their system is probably crawling with crap and they don't even know. These users usually disable UAC for being annoying. I used to know someone who always ran in "Safe Mode" because "It's the secret mode they put in XP that means you can't get viruses".

3. It has a much larger desktop market share than any other OS, therefore malware writers aim for Windows machines. The billion to 1 difference isn't so much because Linux is a billion times more secure as it is because for every 1 Linux user, there's a billion Windows users. Laws of statistics say, there's going to be more stupid users in the crowd of a billion than there will be in the crowd of 1.

4. The security reputation of previous version of windows wasn't particularly great and is still casting its ugly shadow.

If a linux user was always running as root - they'd be just as susceptible to crap like Windows 7 is when you run as admin. I don't know about other desktop-oriented distros, but Ubuntu doesn't even let you use the root account. All you can do is temporarily elevate a regular user's rights.

Fortunately, as the market shares stand, Linux isn't nearly popular enough on the desktop to warrant crapware writers making their crap work on it. Consider this the calm before the storm because as Linux gains popularity with regular people, it'll be targeted more.

As far as point 4 goes; I think that reputation will be shed somewhat with Windows 7. It's a huge step up from XP (I consider Vista to be Windows ME 2.0 and never used it, so can't judge). So long as they don't do another ME/Vista after Windows 7, I think Microsoft will be on track with a better reputation.

Edit:

tl;dr: A computer is only as secure as the person behind the keyboard. There just happens to be more idiots behind Windows keyboard than there are behind Linux keyboards. Mainly because the number of Windows users far outweighs the number of Linux users, but also because Linux is still primarily a hobbyist/enthusiast/geek OS on desktop machines.

[Mouldy Punk]

Wow! So what happens if they turn off the firewall or start an SSH server or web server? What happens if somebody tells them the command to wipe their HDD and they don't realize it? Windows 7, out of box experience, can allow you to share with other computers, without the hassle of opening up ports yourself or choosing advanced share permissions. Linux distributions can't do that quite as easily, and doing it on your own can cause a security issue that lets people in through the backdoor. Windows 7 handles it all so backdoors do not occur. If you have common sense with computers, then Windows 7 is the best, if not, then *nothing* will ever work for you as there is nothing out there that has common-sense built-in.

I think you need a more up-to-date Linux encounter.

I recently installed Ubuntu on some old hardware I had lying around. There are 3 other machines on the network, with varying versions of Windows on each. To access each of their network shares, do you know what I did? I clicked on "Places", then "Network", then "Windows Network" and then I could see all of the other Windows computers on that network and the folders they were sharing.

I then decided I wanted to share a folder on the Ubuntu machine with the other computers. So y'know what I did? I created a folder. Right clicked it, clicked "Share Folder". I was then prompted with the choice of installing support for Windows and/or linux networks. I chose just Windows networks, because that's what mine is. Once the progress bar was done I was then presented with a screen that let me name the folder, give it a comment and set whether or not I wanted it read only. Clicked OK and viola! It was accessible on all the other machines on the network.

Sounds like it has common-sense built in to me.

[Growled Member]

I think you need a more up-to-date Linux encounter.

He definitely does. It doesn't get any easier than Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Mint is as easy to use as Windows.

[markwolfe Veteran]

...

One thing that is in Linux's favor is the updates with the package manager.

While Windows does have Microsoft Update, it won't help when the user installs non-Microsoft apps like Celestia or GIMP or such.

[Growled Member]

If a linux user was always running as root - they'd be just as susceptible to crap like Windows 7 is when you run as admin. I don't know about other desktop-oriented distros, but Ubuntu doesn't even let you use the root account. All you can do is temporarily elevate a regular user's rights.

Yeah, but Linux is set up with security in mind. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've set up a Windows computer with an Admin account (with a password) an a User account (with a password) and the user comes back and says "make it come up with without typing passwords, and btw make it so I can install programs without a password," To be honest I sincerely hope all of those users stay with Windows. So I agree with you when you say A computer is only as secure as the person behind the keyboard.

[Mouldy Punk]

One thing that is in Linux's favor is the updates with the package manager.

While Windows does have Microsoft Update, it won't help when the user installs non-Microsoft apps like Celestia or GIMP or such.

Although that's true, many popular applications on Windows have their own automatic update tools. The Adobe suite, web browsers, antivirus, firewall etc all update themselves these days.

Yeah, but Linux is set up with security in mind. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've set up a Windows computer with an Admin account (with a password) an a User account (with a password) and the user comes back and says "make it come up with without typing passwords, and btw make it so I can install programs without a password," To be honest I sincerely hope all of those users stay with Windows. So I agree with you when you say A computer is only as secure as the person behind the keyboard.

Windows 7 is set up with security in mind too. Like you said, by default the user does have to enter their admin password whenever they want to install programs/do risky things. Just like Linux. But Linux, like Windows, can be set up so that you don't need to do that. Doing so compromises security significantly, but it's doable in both operating systems.

Admittedly, Microsoft took their sweet time to coming around to the "regular users don't need admin rights 100% of the time" philosophy - but I think they've been moving in that direction since XP.

[Syanide]

Although that's true, many popular applications on Windows have their own automatic update tools. The Adobe suite, web browsers, antivirus, firewall etc all update themselves these days.

Having a central update manager is much better, and easier to use. You don't need to run the app so it would update itself, you don't have to have background program(s) downloading it, you see the changes easily in one place etc.

Package managment in Linux is one of the things that sealed the deal in my case.

Oh, and when I set up new computers running Linux for people who are not techy, I just set the updates to check, download and install in background every third or fourth day, so they (the users) don't even know it, but they're always running the latest programs, with latest bug fixes, security enhancements etc. Makes both mine and their life much easier.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Having a central update manager is much better, and easier to use. You don't need to run the app so it would update itself, you don't have to have background program(s) downloading it, you see the changes easily in one place etc.

...

Indeed. Why require every app maker to code their own updater, so every little app would need to self-update. If it did not, the system is broken.

Using the repos and package manager, NO APP needs to contain extra unnecessary code to self-update. It is all handled by the central manager, which gives you ONE place to set your update preferences. If I wanted to change Linux to update daily instead of weekly, there is one place. In the alternative described for Windows.... Ewww... It is a lot of messy individual apps, and they certainly will not all have the same settings. Not to mention the multitude of apps that don't include a self-updater.