[slackline]

I've a friend who whenever we catch up regales long arduous stories about how much time he's spent cleaning his OS and others who use M$-Winblows of viruses/spyware/adware/etc. it just sounds like an absolute fucking nightmare, even re-installing every six months can be a bit of a ball ache, especially when you've paid hard earned readies for something that should purportedly "just work".

I'm not having a dig. I get this whole rebellion against microsoft thing, I really do, I'm a certified Novell engineer and M$ single-handedly destroyed the job market for me, but blaming microsoft for their dominant position in the OS market is a bit unfair. They arrived on the scene with some great products before anyone else had even thought about home computing.

Hmm, well I refer you to the add campaign that Apple ran when Windows95 came out.  Windows95 they're "new" desktop was basically copying Apples from 1985!!!

I know they dropped the ball with Vista, but in general they've got a pretty good track record and it's not as if the viruses and malware that infest the web are Microsoft's fault is it?

I'd disagree, it really is their fault.  They pissed off a lot of smart hackers with the Win-tel market dominance and forcing restrictive license on people.  Further they released software riddled with security holes and features that were easily exploited.  Eg. Outlook exploits that meant when an infected email was opened it sent itself to every address in the address book.

More fundamentally though they completely ignored the architecture of having a 'root' (or 'Administrator' in their parlance) account that is permitted to do everything with regular user accounts that are restricted and can't modify executables or system files.  This had been round on UNIX main-frames since the 60s, with good reason, it stops your system getting screwed up by people fiddling with it and confers a high degree of immunity to viruses!!!

remember when they brought out windows for workgroups? What else was there for home users? It was quite simply a revelation, and what about windows 95?! The only other contender was OS warp ffs!

See above!  Macs had been doing it for years before Win95!

I know there are alternatives now and that people should broaden their horizons, but the open source lads have shot themselves in the foot with their completely uncoordinated approach. Everyone is so confused by all the different flavours knocking around (with the exception of Slackers!) that the latest offering from Microsoft seems like the easy, hassle free option, which is what the majority of end users are after.

There certainly are more failures in distributed opens source software projects than success', I read an interesting essay by Alan Cox on this very topic last night.

But the fact is there are software packages and distros that are as feature rich as anything you'd pay for (e.g. Firefox, and no since you can't get IE for anything other than windows I wouldn't consider it to be a Free browser, since you have to buy the OS first!).


Distribution wise, its very simple, just read the FAQ for each distribution and you'll see that Ubuntu et al (Kubuntu/Xubuntu/Eeebuntu/Mint Linux) are all based on Debian.  The main distros besides Debian are Novells SuSE, Mandriva, RedHat (which is an Enterprise version where you buy support services), Fedora (the free version of RedHat), Slackware (with a number of derivatives) and Gentoo (again with a number of derivatives).

To just go "Well I can't be bothered trying to understand this, I'm just going to hand some cash over, and be happy with that" is in my opinion pretty lazy.  Some people have critically looked and tried the options and decided M$ is for them, thats fine, but unless you've tried it you can't knock it.  I grew up with M$ 3.11 then Win95 before trying Linux, yes there was a learning curve, but its a more transparent one (waaaay too much obfuscation in Windows).

If the Linux fanbois and devs would stop criticizing everything Microsoft produces they'd have enough spare time to organise a unified approach, start marketing Linux properly and put enough support infrastructure and driver compatibility in place to really challenge Microsoft.

I look forward to that day.

As per above, most of the "fanbois" have actually tried M$ OS's over the years and no doubt try new ones when they come out, so they have a more informed opinion (even if it is biased!!!).

Fedora do pretty damn well for themselves.  Sun Microsystems have open sourced SolarisOS and are big advocates.  LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/[PHP/Perl/Python]) sits behind some of the largest web sites on the net (Amazon, Flickr being two examples).  Google developed their own version of Linux and are doing okay for themselves.  People/companies can and do make money out of open source projects.

I don't see any need for marketing (*spit*) and I don't get people who think things should "just work^TM".  A computer is a tool, a very complex one, and you'd be far better served understanding how your tool works and leveraging it further as a consequence by taking the time to understand the basics.

 

[Jaspersharpe]

[slackline]

 

[BB]

I started responding to each one of your points slackers, but I realised that life really is too short and I'm not interested enough in IT. You win. I promise not to install another Microsoft product until my copy of windows 7 arrives.

[cofe]

Win7 seems fine to me. Not shit like Vista. I'm afraid I too am someone who prefers things to just work. I think my time is far better spent actually doing my job using these things.

[slackline]

Win7 seems fine to me. Not shit like Vista. I'm afraid I too am someone who prefers things to just work. I think my time is far better spent actually doing my job using these things.

But heres the crux, you can't just start using a computer.  You, me and everyone else have learnt how to use a computer OS and associated software (whether thats M$, Linux, Solaris, Mac OSX etc.) over time, and quite rightly people are reluctant to throw away their knowledge and start again from scratch.  I found trying to troubleshoot problems under Win95 an absolute nightmare, documentation was crap and settings were obfuscated and hard to find.

Personally I started tinkering with Linux because it was required for work (someone hacked the UNIX server and set it up to sell pr0n so I said "get me a spare computer and I'll set up a Linux system).  I found that actually it wasn't that hard, documentation was prolific and generally of a very high quality and in fact it was a lot easier to find and edit settings, so I switched.

I started responding to each one of your points slackers, but I realised that life really is too short and I'm not interested enough in IT. You win. I promise not to install another Microsoft product until my copy of windows 7 arrives.

Its not a competition though or really an argument, I was simply responding to your points .

As I wrote, as long as people have tried something before dismissing it then I'm fine with that.  M$ are having to change their business model in light of the increasing popularity of FOSS, they're adopting an open format for their office suite.

I do stand by my point that the proliferation of viruses and malware is attributable to the railure to implement a tiered administration rights until very recently (oh yeah, and leaving the firewall wide open by default until XP SP2!!).


Sermon closed (I should get on with some work, getting a new work computer today and have a fresh install to do, and I'm not completely opposed to M$, I've used their Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 for years, its brilliant, best ergonomic keyboard I've ever used).

[Johnny Brown]

Surely virus targeting is just a function of popularity? The more users of the OS, the more viruses? I've never had one on either XP or 7.

Linux is great in theory but until it can be used for serious work like design, photography, or many other tasks that require professional software, its not even an option for the indivdual user. I'm sure its great for running servers etc.

[slackline]

Surely virus targeting is just a function of popularity? The more users of the OS, the more viruses? I've never had one on either XP or 7.

I don't think its quote as simple as that, users don't write viruses, coders do, and they choose to exploit security holes in different OS's.  If the holes are there then they exploit them

Linux is great in theory but until it can be used for serious work like design, photography, or many other tasks that require professional software, its not even an option for the indivdual user. I'm sure its great for running servers etc.

Software only improves through use and user feedback, look at Photoshop today and compare it to the original, far more feature rich now.  Whether this is done under a bespoke business model of open-source project doesn't change that.  Photography software is improving on Linux, the film industry developed GIMP for use in CGI in innumerable films into what is now Cinepaint which is available to individual users.

At the moment companies like Adobe think that developing for Linux isn't worthwhile, but they're happy to co-develop for Mac OSX and Windows.  IN theory though since OSX is based on BSD its not too disimilar to Linux so it wouldn't be too hard to port to Linux, and then make it a viable option.  I doubt M$ will ever develop Office for Linux though 

Personally I'm put off having to fork out for software license fees for OS, image software, anti-virus, movie player/editor, database, office software, stats packages (I get work to pay for the one stats package I use  ).  It all adds up to a considerable amount that I can't justify and I don't like using pirated software (in part because they're often riddled with viruses!).

[Jim]

Surely virus targeting is just a function of popularity? The more users of the OS, the more viruses? I've never had one on either XP or 7.

I don't think its quote as simple as that, users don't write viruses, coders do, and they choose to exploit security holes in different OS's.  If the holes are there then they exploit them

I really do think its a simple as that.
if 95% of the people use windows and 85% of those people use internet explorer and WMP then why would anybody write viruses/trojans/malware etc... for anything else plus the fact that probably 95% of hackers have got some sort of grudge/dislike against M$

[Johnny Brown]

What Jim said.

The best software will always cost money, for the same reason decent hardware costs money. Anyone needing to compete in a technical market will need to pay for the best software to remain competitive. Opensource will improve but the best programmers will end up at Adobe etc where they get paid shitloads instead of doing it for free.

pirated software (in part because they're often riddled with viruses!

I thought this was a myth spread by software firms? Never experienced it myself, and I thought virus writers were too busy getting one over on Gates, not targeting their own?

[slackline]

Surely virus targeting is just a function of popularity? The more users of the OS, the more viruses? I've never had one on either XP or 7.

I don't think its quote as simple as that, users don't write viruses, coders do, and they choose to exploit security holes in different OS's.  If the holes are there then they exploit them

I really do think its a simple as that.
if 95% of the people use windows and 85% of those people use internet explorer and WMP then why would anybody write viruses/trojans/malware etc... for anything else plus the fact that probably 95% of hackers have got some sort of grudge/dislike against M$

The targetting though is only in part because of the number of users.  It is (or was) a lot easier to write effective viruses for windows because of the inherent security flaw I wrote in the other posts (i.e. lack of tierd permissions).  This is fundamental, irrespective of how many users there are.  If you had locked down admin accounts from the start on windows systems then it would have been far harder for viruses to proliferate, irrespective of the number of users!

This is further compounded by people using cracked software which is often riddled with viruses.  Why do people want to use cracked software?  Because they don't want to pay for it!  So they end up with an infected system.  Not the best situation really.


Interesting preview of some of the features of Windows 7.  Have to say many of these desktop useability features (moving things on the toolbar, previews, tiling windows evenly (although thats still a complex way of doing that!)) have been in some of the Linux desktop software/window managers for some time, I wonder where M$ got their ideas from 

BBC Windows 7 Snippet

[Jim]

come on slackers, just admit that your wrong. its all about %'s, the security loopholes where just convinient. even if they weren't there (which they do exists on all software) the vast majority of virus's etc.. would be for windows systems.

had some good iphone/imac/apple jiving last week

[slackline]

What Jim said.

The best software will always cost money, for the same reason decent hardware costs money. Anyone needing to compete in a technical market will need to pay for the best software to remain competitive. Opensource will improve but the best programmers will end up at Adobe etc where they get paid shitloads instead of doing it for free.

You should check out how the GNU project developed.  Set out initally to write a UNIX-like (POSIX compliant) OS, and develop concomitant software such as a C compiler (gcc) and text editor (Emacs) but were flexible in the direction projects took.  If someone liked they're efforts but wanted particular features that were lacking GNU embraced that and said "Sure, we'll develop that for you..if you pay us".  This to my mind is an excellent way of developing software, you listen to what people want, and if they want it bad enough they will pay for it.  Overall the software improves, your business has made money and you can pay yourself and your coders.  Even better, because its opensource, everyone else benefits too as the feature developed for one paying customer.

More info on this here.

pirated software (in part because they're often riddled with viruses!

I thought this was a myth spread by software firms? Never experienced it myself, and I thought virus writers were too busy getting one over on Gates, not targeting their own?

Virus writers need a delivery method, whats to stop them from taking someone's cracked version and infecting it and then posting it back up on an alternative site, saving themselves shit loads of work and having a nice easy delivery system for very little work.

In part its why the advice to scan downloaded software for viruses is so pervasive.

[slackline]

Windows Install Torrent Party 

come on slackers, just admit that your wrong. its all about %'s, the security loopholes where just convinient. even if they weren't there (which they do exists on all software) the vast majority of virus's etc.. would be for windows systems.

The number of available hosts to be infected will have made it more attractive, but I think that virus writing has evolved over time.  Initially it was a proof of concept, then it was done maliciously to spite M$, and these days its done for profit (i.e. botnets for sending out spam).  Thus people didn't initially just sit down and say "lets see, the most prolific home computer OS is M$, lets write a virus for that".  They started off doing it to see if it could be done.  Obviously thats not the case these days, but to just say its only because of the market place dominance isn't giving a clear picture.

[Jaspersharpe]

come on slackers, just admit that your wrong.

Not a fucking hope sunshine.

 

[slackline]

 

[slackline]

Thanks to Tomtom for the heads up on this.

New Ubuntu release (purportedly faster than Win7)]

[Johnny Brown]

Your sales job has been better Slackers, I doubt anyone will sign up on the strength of that.

[slackline]

Your sales job has been better Slackers, I doubt anyone will sign up on the strength of that.

  Cheers.  Haven't bothered watching the video myself, I just read the article.

The thing is that the majority of users just want a computer to...

a) Surf the net securely.
b) Email
c) Manage and upload pics
d) Write letters/simple spreadsheets

Thats it, they don't need the latest quad-core w/4Gb and Tb's of storage (ok maybe in the long term they will need that amount of space).

In light of this why shell out anywhere between £80 to [urlhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-Windows-Ultimate-English-Pack/dp/B002NGQLTS/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1256635320&sr=8-10]£540[/url] pound for an OS, only to then have to buy antivirus, malware, adware office suite etc. on top of that.  Just doesn't make sense, but then some people have more money than sense I guess.

[Johnny Brown]

Note to slackline - watch videos before posting them. Boils down to 'its free! But it won't run any of your software... though you won't get any viruses... you can't access itunes, or much else... and at somepoint your probably going to need to code by hand.' Oh yeah, I'm sold.

[slackline]

Well I read the article before posting and linked to that, the BBC/Simple Machines Forum (that UKB runs on) automagically embedded the video I guess I'm just too sad/backwards reading things these days 

Why would anyone want itunes its a piece of crap? (Even many iPod owners conceed this!)

Besides which it won't need to run any of the expensive software you've paid hard earned pennies for since there are free alternatives if all you want to do is as I highlighted above (caveat : for most people the need to have photoshop, or a variant thereof, is massive overkill and a waste of money).

I've never really coded anything in my life for Linux.  I learnt C back in 1999 for my MSc but never really used it and dabble in perl for work on occasions.  My main coding is in two stats packages (Stata and R).  Its simply not necessary to be a coder, but you do have to be able to read documentation, udnerstand it, and be able to edit configuration files (under Ubuntu they have nice GUI's to do this for you for almost everything, but all they're doing is changing text files in the background which you can, if inclined, go in and edit directly yourself).

[tomtom]

My main coding is in two stats packages (Stata and R). 

Busted - now I understand 

[Jim]

you are persistant aren't you slackers.
maybe once you could give in and admit your wrong tho, or maybe that linux might not be the best solution.
I'm not sure to wad or punter you

[slackline]

you are persistant aren't you slackers.

I'm perhaps a little too evangelical 

maybe once you could give in and admit your wrong tho, or maybe that linux might not be the best solution.

Sure I'm wrong, I hold my hands up.

Besides, its not like I have any social responsibility or even obligation, to let people know that an alternative even exists, its free, and will satisfy their needs quite satisfactorily (viz.).  They can keep on paying for their hardware upgrades that are required for the latest and greatest OS (although I do note that Win7 has started to address this and doesn't necessarily require a >3Ghz processor and +4Gb RAM), pay for their OS license, office software, AV/adware/malware/spyware and still have problems that they can't resolve without having to reinstall from scratch or pay a technical engineer (or PC World or similar ilk) to resolve.  No skin off my nose.

I'm not sure to wad or punter you

I'd go for punter, it'll balance out some of Magpie's wadage

 

My main coding is in two stats packages (Stata and R). 

Busted - now I understand 

Well I am a statistician

[butters]

The thing is that the majority of users just want a computer to...

a) Surf the net securely.
b) Email
c) Manage and upload pics
d) Write letters/simple spreadsheets

Thats it, they don't need the latest quad-core w/4Gb and Tb's of storage (ok maybe in the long term they will need that amount of space).

How many users actually think about security when they are surfing the web? I suspect that most of them just push the mouse pointer round the screen clicking away at anything and everything put in front of them and say "of course I surf securely blah blah blah" when put to the question. Other than that you are largely correct but telling your mates in the pub (slackers mates excluded here obviously ) that all you need to do all of the above is a 5 year old laptop running one variant or another of linux is not going to garner a huge lot of kudos is it. Not saying you are wrong slackers but that is the way it is - people get awfully excited by numbers in IT hardware and most have no idea what they are actually referring to!