Linux desktop OS a no go

[nihil]

1: HOLY **** nihil - a 5250? I knew you were old but damn man; exactly what did Christ look like?

......... my wife loved that one!

Back to the subject: I really don't see why people shouldn't use Linux.

1. Most users know nothing about Windows so both OSes are an equal mystery to them.

2. Most users don't consciously interact with their OS, only with the applications that run on it. Sure they learn how to navigate, save, print and so on, but those tasks should be trivial under any OS.

3. The big problem is getting skilled people to do the setup and provide support, particularly out in sticksville, like here.

[dinowuff]

Kind of on subject. Wasn't the first "user friendly" version of linux - Red Hat? You needed to set up a 3.5" LILO boot disk???

[westin]

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. Use it every day. [Along with MS, and OSX] -- But I am getting sick of the 'no malware/trojans' argument. The only reason that there is not any widespread malware, is that 95% of people use Windows. If Linux or OSX could creep up to the 30% market share mark, I am sure that we would see some changes in malware trends. A recent SANS webinar reported that while Windows had the least vulnerabilities in the last year, it had multiple exploits for each vuln. Linux had the most reported vulnerabilities [per distro], but very few exploits. It isn't that they weren't exploitable, but that isn't where the money is.

[gore]

Well part of that argument doesn't work either because Apache has the very Market share Linux doesn't, and in fact is the leader in Web Servers last I checked. So, Apache, being one of those Open Source projects, and you can get source code for it, and it has the majority of the market share, yet every server running it isn't exploited.

Also, don't those vulnerability reports include more than just base installs? Because that too is different. A boxed version of Windows comes with basically two text editors, a Web Browser, and a couple other small things.

A typical Linux installs comes with thousands of apps. I could grab two disks right now for installs, and if I trim that Linux or that BSD installation down to only what Windows comes with, I'm not going to have those same numbers.

[westin]

A typical Linux installs comes with thousands of apps. I could grab two disks right now for installs, and if I trim that Linux or that BSD installation down to only what Windows comes with, I'm not going to have those same numbers.

True, but most home users would not do that. They would just install it, and call it a day.

As far as Apache goes, there have been 38 vulnerabilities this year. [In version 2.2] -- But there really isn't much money in taking over webservers. People can and do throw drive-by malware on them, but they usually use web-app vulns, or poisoned banner ads. [At least from what I have seen] -- I haven't heard about many IIS attacks lately either.

[nihil]

True, but most home users would not do that. They would just install it, and call it a day.

I beg to differ. Most linux distros that I have looked at in the past couple of years were intended for home users not bloody geeks! They install a variety of applications by default......... you are not asked, it just does it and sticks an icon on the GUI. If you don't want it you have to uninstall it yourself.

By comparison, all you get with Windows is IE, Notepad, Wordpad ( mediaplayer outside Europe) and a defragmenter.

If you buy an OEM box with Windows you will get some "trial software" pre-installed.

I find it amusing when people knock distros that are obviously aimed at non-computer literates. Sure they are made to look like Windows......it is the most popular OS on the planet!

"Vox populi, vox Dei" or "Eat more sh1t, three trillion flies can't be wrong"

[westin]

nihil - I think you said 'I beg to differ', and then agreed with me? I was saying that I doubted home users would spend time going through unchecking/uninstalling apps they wouldn't use. :-P

[nihil]

Sorry Mate!

I misunderstood your post, I totally agree that they will just let it run.

I do not see the average user selecting stuff from what they don't understand, they will just go with what happens.............and probably do nothing more if they don't use it My point is that they get no choices at the start?

To those of us who have lived in the era of 256MB hard drives, you did not behave like that.

The oldest HDD I have is in an IBM PC XT (not an AT)......green screen, twin 5.25" floppy drives, and an humongous 10MB HDD!!!!

Basically DOS 3.3 and Wordstar 1.0

It still works though...............more than twenty years later?

Now, with Windows, you don't even get anything to select from or delete later? Linux is a good OS, other than it is hard to get any support in sticksville?

Just my opinion

[westin]

Linux is great, but it is still frustrating trying to find software occasionally. For instance, I am booted into Windows right now, because I cannot find any good software for loading *.gpx or *.loc files into my Garmin. The closest I have found was a command line utility, but it does not have some of the features that I want to utilize. I loaded EasyGPS up with wine, but it couldn't find the USB device. So after about 30 minutes of mucking about with symbolic links in the wine directory, I booted into Windows, downloaded the waypoints, opened EasyGPS, and sent them over. Thirty seconds in Windows, 30 minutes in Linux. For the most part, I use Linux exclusively, but it is these little things that force me to continue dual booting.

[wiskic10_4]

westin - exactly.

That's why I use Slackware on my server, but still opt for Windows 7 on my desktop. Sometimes I don't feel like being an uber-leet geek - I just want to plug something in and have it work without having to find a driver or use wine, etc etc etc...

Since nearly everything you buy is built and coded for Windows, it makes since that it would be easier to install it on a Windows machine.

That being said, it is still possible to use Linux as a desktop quite comfortably - but you'll have to put some work in to get it there. It doesn't make sense (to me) to install Linux on a common user's machine unless you know for a fact all they're ever going to use it for is access the Internet and write Office documents - and then you still need to give them the run-down on it and install TeamViewer or something so you'll be able to provide the support they will inevitably need as soon as you get back home.

My Sis in Law is bringing her friend's computer down this weekend - some "tech-friend" said he'd "fix" this poor bastard's computer. He wiped the drive, slapped on Ubuntu Linux and went on his way... the guy doesn't even know what to do with his computer now!