<b>Ubuntu</b> Bite the BIG ONE microlimp !

[kweaver]

My little computer geek brother sent me this link
http://www.ubuntu.com/
He has it on his PC and said it is running much faster than it did under windoze. Even his downloads are faster.

 

[digger]

I ain't usin nothin I can't pronounce!

 

[bjames]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzDN3YPucpU

Now you have no excuse.

 

[digger]

 

[bmcmeen]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

My little computer geek brother<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>And that is why Linux won't gain market share over Windows on the average desktop...

 

[kweaver]

I'm running it in the house and I like it.
Download from the link , burn it to a disc in ISO then it'll boot up and install then give you a choice of running winderz or Ubuntu.

It's SO EASY that EVEN Charlie could do it !

 

[bmcmeen]

Uh huh, and that's why the Mac has such a high market share, right? It was supposed to be "easy," too. Hell, you only needed one mouse button!

The only thing good about not having a large installed base is that the virus writers won't bother with you

I wonder how well that desktop PC with Linux pre-installed is selling at Wal Mart...

 

[rpalmer]

Linux is an operating system. It can replace Windows or run on the same machine with it. Linux unlike Windows and maybe Mac (I'm not sure) does not use executable file which makes it much more secure. Linux and MS Windows have as much in common as a goat and a fish. Ubuntu is the current Darling. This is a totally free operating system and all other "programs" that work with it are also free.

I have been using Linux since 1.2.23. That is a kernel version not a date. But that date IIRC goes to around the first part of 1998.

 

[kide]

The .exe files you are referring to in Windows DOES have an equivalet in the Linix distros..

From the UBUNTU forum:
"Binary executables in Linux are created just like on Windows: you compile them from source code.

Differently from Windows, Linux knows what a file contains, no matter the extension you put on it.

The ./configure, make , make install routine is how you compile most programs. They are a set of utils that help to configure the compilation, execute the compilation following those configurations and install the final binary program.
Who really does the compilation tho is GCC - the Gnu Compiler Collection (http://gcc.gnu.org/). It compiles code for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada languages. Also, GCC can compile for many platforms, including Windows, if the source code is written to run on Windows."

Linux is "more secure", but as Bryan said, only because it's a smaller target. A good insight into this is found here.. Along with the smaller target, is the fact that most Linux users may be more knowledgeable concerning computer "do's and don'ts" than the typical Windows user..

 

[rpalmer]

Kendell Ide,
"Binary executables in Linux are created just like on Windows: you compile them from source code.

I don't care what someone put on a forum. That statement is <u>wrong</u>. I read an article last week on Wired(.com) and that looks like a word for word copy. Linux <u>does not</u> have executable programs like MS Windows. It has files that can be executed if the user has permission to do so.

As for Linux being more secure because it is a smaller target, that's just wrong. Volumes have been written on Linux security. I can and will furnish you with what I can if you are interested.
Funny thing about Mac. Once they switched from ppc to i386 their problems increased dramatically. Ubuntu has been proven to be the most secure of out of the box Linux, Mac and MS Windows. There was a hacking contest this last year and Ubuntu won.

Here is the article: CLICK HERE

 

[kide]

Richard..it's called "security through obscurity" - not sure why that would be wrong, it's a well known fact in IT security, but can be a dangerous practice.

As far as binary code, that's what the OS feeds to the processor - .exe files are just the compiled binary code, while what you download (typically) for a Linux distro is the source code that YOU feed into a compiler, which generates the binary code for the proc. The real security of Linux is that users do not have root level access unless logged in as an admin, the theory being that an admin knows what he's doing....

There are and have been exploits for Linux, but most of them have been specific to a certain level of the kernel, although at least one was around for years. The onus is on the box admin to stay up to date on release levels.. BTW - I lived through business (actually govt) uses of Linux, especially in areas of network security, where you either paid big bucks for boxes running Sun's OS and commercial security software or used a Linux distro, and FOSS security applications. The biggest hurdle was and still is getting top management to buy into using software that has no ultimate path of responsibility. That was tough in the area of IT I ran. With commercial software, you can at least try to hold the company you bought it from responsible for helping fix problems. With FOSS, you get a committee who may put your problem on a list to look at....oops, sorry, I got lost there for a minute.

 

[rpalmer]

Kendell Ide,
Are you saying that Linux, being a smaller target, is secure thru obscurity? Because you should know that's not what "security thru obscurity" means.

I am very familiar with compiling software on Linux. I've been using Slackware since version 3. Back then things were not so well scripted. You had to "roll your own". I have seen many changes with Linux. Many of them not good and only meant to make money of of someone else's brow. Basically , I have never read much that Mr. Stallman has said that I disagree with. I believe he supported version 3 of the open source license which I could not believe and I personally do not support.

As for Sun's implementation of Linux, I and many others refer to it as slow lare is. It's really not very good. I take from what you are saying that in your government use of Linux you never used Secure Linux. The version developed by the U.S. gov.. It really is pretty secure. To address your Administration's stance on accountability.... All that boils down to is litigation. A company wants someone to sue if they can. And with open source you can't sue. Although There was a suit brought by SCO. It ended with financial disaster for SCO and about 10 days ago the suit's architect was fired.

Linux is currently used by the governments of several countries, the U.S. Navy, the U.S.A.F and N.A.S.A. to name a few. Linux servers and their older brother Unix "run" the internet. And they always have. The only reason not to use Linux is because of fear. Fear of the unknown and fear spread by people whose financial future rest on patching and protecting the virus magnet called MS Windows.

 

[kide]

Richard - no we were using REAL unix where we had to- Sun Solaris..
As far as lawsuits, you misunderstood - we were running a 24x7x365 Law Enforcement network serving over 900 jurisdictions statewide, plus those of our own department. When the network was down, cops - and the public were put at risk. We didn't have time to file a lawsuit. The problem was that with the state in a bad downturn in economy (and this started more than ten years ago), we didn't have money for the tools we needed. At the same time, we were dealing with high level management demands for more IT services, especially network related, thus the use of Linux and FOSS based tools. The VERY first time there was a failure - IIRC it was the IDS system we (the network security tech that worked for me) implemented, the you know what hit the rotary air mover because it took time to resolve the issue (go read more docs, look at security forums, etc) when for 30+ years it had been call a vendor and start the clock running...

I'd rather not continue this discussion - you believe Linux is more secure - I've seen things like the DNS structure that all 'NIXs use identified with major issues. No system is more secure than the least security conscious of it's users.....

 

[rpalmer]

Kendell Ide,
Thanks for your input. Linux/Unix/BSD are the best bet for security. While it is true that someone with extensive computer knowledge can hack into one of these systems it certainly will not be with an email. And it won't be done by some script-kiddie who goes to the likes of alt.2600, downloads a script and then tries to take over the world.

I believe every user on this site would greatly benefit from running Ubuntu. Both in security and cost. And there are more that a few posts from people wanting to save money by not using Hytran or OEM parts. So why spend a ton of money on MS Windows and the newest hardware to run it? Why be tied to the MS leash?

 

[kide]

Maybe if it came preconfigured, but I seriously doubt that most of the forum users would take the time to read and comprehend the requirements, create the ISO, back up their usable data, wipe the drive, install Ubuntu and then possibly chase drivers for that oddball piece of hardware.. I was hoping that when Wally World started selling a Linux machine it'd take off, but not to happen. Another frequent comment that I see is "anyone that is tech savvy enough to run a Linux OS is savvy enough to adequately protect themselves from Malware...".

My problem comes from having to support non-technical people (still, even though I'm retired) who want to do lots of things on their computer, most of which come as Windows applications. And yes, I know about all the FOSS replacements, but when they run to the craft store, pick up a pattern designer (for instance), it isn't gonna list which Linux distros it's ready to run on...so, you suggest "run WINE" - then we have the fake root to contend with and we're back with security issues, if they start running Windows apps that have a security aspect..sigh......maybe the Chrome OS will save us...(kidding)

 

[rpalmer]

Kendell Ide,
Ubuntu does not require any expertise. If one chooses to it can be installed along side MS Windows. Effortlessly. So there is no backing up, wiping the drive, repartitioning ect.

It can also be run from a CD or maybe it's a DVD. I'm not sure. So if they can burn a CD they can run Ubuntu. And that's the free way. If they can't burn a CD they can go here http://distrowatch.com/ and buy one for $1.95. It takes less time to do a complete install than for Windows. And they get a full complement of software with it. With MS Windows that's all they get. Then they have to buy the likes of Office, Photo Shop, ect, ect....

 

[kide]

Man, we must have a bunch of Linux users out there.. How many forum members are running Linux as their primary desktop machine - and how long? I had one of the early Red Hat distros 4.2 IIRC and tried 5 and 6. I've loaded Ubuntu distros 2 or 3 times since '04 or '05 more to assess the current state of their releases than to switch, again because until it's ready for my wife to seamlessly transition to, it won't be a winner in our house...and she's made the transition to Vista. I can usually live with any OS - I started with IBM DOS on a 360-30 mainframe, ran IBM mainframe OS's, Burroughs/Unisys MCP's, Univac 2200 and Dec versions of 'nix before becoming involved in the desktop world, but again I stay with what the family uses and it isn't Linux for the desktop at this point (just as it's been for a number of years - RSN ("Real Soon Now")..So -how many 'nix users out there?? Oh BTW - I've had to fix a number of dual boot loads that went wrong for people, that's why we stay single boot here (just a personal phobia against corrupted boot sectors).

 

[rpalmer]

Kendell Ide,

Things have changed a lot since then. First Knopix started a revolution with having a distro on a CD that you could run without installing. And it was very solid and eye appealing. RH went public and is not a choice of mine. Mostly because they have hacked the kernel to such an extent that many basic Linux commands are not found. Some Guys love it. I say they can have it.

As it stands today Ubuntu is the best bet for new users. It is very intuitive. It is almost automatic. If you know what you are doing and want to drive the install, you can do that too. And these are the people I'm hoping are reading this.

I have tried many distributions and from time to time I will install one or more to see what the good people who produce them have done. At one time I swore by SuSE. But now you might as well call them MS SuSE. Debian is still very good and rock solid. I run Slackware 13 on my desktop and Ubuntu on my AMD64 laptop. Ubuntu even makes running WPA supplicant easy. But I'm not sure how many people out there know what that is. But it's a piece of cake (No script to configure).

Linux is not hard to run. It just gives you so many choices that you did have to know what you wanted to set it up. But now it comes with defaults that let anyone install and run. And even if you decide to learn what is what you will discover that the defaults are what you would choose now that you know what you want.

I hope I'm done. Don't you? Really I can only say it so many times. It's free. It's easy. It looks good. It's fun. It's secure. And you can try it out without even installing it. If you do install it. You have to click "install". I'm out of here. - Peace -

 

[rpalmer]

Kendell,
Have your people do a cold boot on dual (or more) systems. I think most folks do a reboot (warm boot). I have always shutdown and then started the OS of my choice and NEVER had a problem.

 

[kide]

I'll load the latest one tonight on my test system (Asus a7n8x-e deluxe w/1 gig of DDR 3200). I have removable hard drive bays so I can test different OS loads, etc.... I'll let you know what I think of "Karmic Koala"...