Why I am sticking with Win XP

Slutmonkey57b

Khannie wrote: »

Package management and software installation from a trusted source is IMO the greatest advantage that the various linux distros have over windows.

Christ....the very notion of going back to googling for software, installing it and hoping that it's not riddled with crap just fills me with terror.

On that topic, wouldn't you say that that system is simply another type of WHQL certification for software? Complaining that you can end up installing crap 3rd party software on Windows is a bit disingenuous - you can end up installing badly written, or dodgy software, on any OS. There's no reason MS couldn't implement a "trusted source" system for windows software either, other than the fact that it would land them in court. Would you support it if it did?

Slutmonkey57b

sobriquet wrote: »

Does the manufacturer supply Linux drivers for it? Given what you outlined, I doubt it, thus comparing it to using it on Windows isn't exactly apples to apples. There exists a specific project to build drivers for whatever manufacturer wants them built. The will is most certainly there, and that project is apparently oversubscribed with developers wanting to participate, and under subscribed with companies willing to bother taking advantage of the service.

But in that case, you're asking commercial operations to allow access to proprietary software and hardware that's going to go out of their control. It's analagous to walking up to a market trader and saying "Hey, nice oranges! Who's your supplier, I want to give em away for nothing and put you out of a job?" You're not going to get many takers.

Um...? Yes, we should leave that idea aside. The source for the Linux kernel and drivers, and for the BSD systems, is already there, freely available. If companies released drivers that weren't up to par, they wouldn't be integrated into the mainline kernels. Most likely the kernel hackers would use that code as a reference to implement their own.

Let me phrase it another way. Say there are two versions of the same hacker in different boxes. They are both given the same machine to hack into. Hacker A has all the source code in his hand. Hacker B does not. Which hacker will find it easier to find an exploit in the code?

Ok, now you've lost me - I've been using Ubuntu since the 5.10 release, and that's never happened to me. I don't make note of these things, but certainly installing 7.10 in october has since left me with sdb1 automounted every time I boot up, no juju necessary. For the record these are Western Digital SATA2 disks, nothing special... what disks do you have?

A variety of drives. Funnily enough, looking through the official docs and forums on ubuntu gave me about three different versions of whether or not ntfs support was there. One doc said it wasn't at all, another said it was but it was read only, another said you could have write access but had to install the driver and then link the mounting points in the console.... In the end I wiped the partition and reinstalled and that time it found the drives OK. Maybe it was in a bad mood. Wiping and re-installing just to get access to a hard drive would garner no end of claims of shoddy programming were it a windows box I suspect.

ntlbell

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You are consistently telling me that anyone who uses Linux must be prepared to code solutions to the problems they encounter.

I'm not telling anyone to code, but the option to do so is there if yous so wish.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If there are so many flavours or projects within Linux, that's a nonsensical statement to make - they all have different aims in mind, and the idea that users who are not prepared (or not qualified) to code should not be using the OS, as you are saying, proves only my point above that Linux is still stuck as a nerd's OS rather than an end-user's one. The difference between the two is not a matter of attractiveness, it's a difference of purpose - a general "user" has an objective they want to achieve with the OS - and should expect the OS to get out of their way and let them do it. A nerd approaches an OS as a project to be tinkered with.

Of course you can use the OS if you can't code but be prepared to do that really difficult task READING.
and it's up to that user to find the OS that lets them do that, who's arguing with you?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

However, the simple fact is that in order to achieve those aims, they are going to have to persuade end-users to take up their OS-namely making them switch from the dominant platform. Being unable to perform basic functions like Wifi access, or ntfs support, without substantial hacking on the part of the user is not going to persuade users that Linux is a useful replacement or alternative from the status quo (whatever that might be).

Who's trying to persuade anyone to use anything?

I've never had to hack anything to enable my wireless cards on any Opensource OS I've ever used, I've never had to hack anything to mount an NTFS in any Opensource OS I've ever used
Maybe look into a different OS or do more research.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

What's my point? You were berating people earlier for not being prepared to work at using Linux, either because they're stupid or lazy. The truth is that Linux is still nowhere near robust enough to be considered a mainstream OS, and for all the buzz the various devs are making about it, it is still far from being usable.

Berating people who were not prepared to READ READ READ.
Who said it was an OS for the main stream? did I? can you point me to the person who did or even better can you have this discussion with him?
so I'll ask one more time? who is arguing? what is your point?

I can use it and hundreds of thousands of people all over the world find it usable, millions of web servers all over the world serve up pages using it no problems? *shurg* i guess they lucky and were born with manpages implanted in their brains, or maybe they just learned to read? *shurg*

sobriquet

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

But in that case, you're asking commercial operations to allow access to proprietary software and hardware that's going to go out of their control. It's analagous to walking up to a market trader and saying "Hey, nice oranges! Who's your supplier, I want to give em away for nothing and put you out of a job?" You're not going to get many takers.

I don't think there's much in that argument tbh. We're talking about driver code here, which is for the most part just ugly code that interfaces to the hardware and turns it into something useful. Writing drivers for hardware is a cost sink, not a value add for a business; the idea that it supplants a revenue stream just doesn't make sense. Besides that, the Linux Driver Project states that many of their devs are willing to sign NDAs in relation to hardware specs so long as the resulting driver code can be GPLed. AMD/ATI are doing just this - releasing the hardware specs so that open source drivers can be written and maintained. There's a business (graphics) that has more of a claim than most over the idea that driver code is doing deep voodoo and should remain closed.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Let me phrase it another way. Say there are two versions of the same hacker in different boxes. They are both given the same machine to hack into. Hacker A has all the source code in his hand. Hacker B does not. Which hacker will find it easier to find an exploit in the code?

I think you're overestimating the usefulness of having the source code when trying to crack something. As I said, the source for the Linux and BSD kernels, and the source for the Mach, the basis for OSX, is freely available. (Come to think of it, so is OpenSolaris, on which runs many enterprisey mission critical things.) Further to that, there was a recorded high profile leak of Windows source. No less than the possibility that blackhats are sitting on exploits based on the *Nix codebases, there's the possibility that more than we know of the Windows source is in the wild.

When an attacker is trying to find an exploit that raises privileges on a system, he'll be looking at the points where the kernel and userspace make contact. To do that, whether you've got the source or not, you'll be all sorts of tracing and disassembling. It's useful, but not necessary, and the history of exploits on proprietary platforms like Windows illustrates this. To do stuff like write rootkits that hide your presence on a system, you do need to know how the internals work. So how do rootkits for Windows work? By using the documentation that Microsoft makes available for driver writers, people who need to know that stuff but aren't necessarily going to get to see that source either.

The very history of Windows illustrates the point that the quality of the source matters more than its' availability. MS having been making concerted efforts to make XP and Vista more secure, and as far as I can see (I don't follow bugtraq or anything) it shows.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

A variety of drives. Funnily enough, looking through the official docs and forums on ubuntu gave me about three different versions of whether or not ntfs support was there. One doc said it wasn't at all, another said it was but it was read only, another said you could have write access but had to install the driver and then link the mounting points in the console.... In the end I wiped the partition and reinstalled and that time it found the drives OK. Maybe it was in a bad mood.

Maybe. The version thing is as a result of the different efforts to write NTFS drivers for Linux, and as far as I know the NTFS-3G isn't bundled with Ubuntu. (I'm not sure, I've not bothered trying to write to my NTFS parts.)

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Wiping and re-installing just to get access to a hard drive would garner no end of claims of shoddy programming were it a windows box I suspect.

Yes, it would, and it's justified when applied to any given Linux distro; but could you lay off the repeated implications that those of us using Linux are sticking our heads in the sand about its' quality? I for one, and pretty much every user I know, understands fully well that it's not a faultless drop in replacement for Windows or OSX, and don't hawk it as such. We spend plenty of time berating devs for doing stupid things, finding and documenting fixes to things that don't work, and helping those who ask for it.

Now, for those of us who aren't core developers for a program or distribution maintainers, there's not a whole lot we can materially do to improve the situation when a newbie encounters a problem other than suggest the appropriate fix or point them to the relevant documentation. Telling someone to 'RTFM n00b' isn't helpful; but asking them to in future try googling the most likely relevant search terms isn't unreasonable. Similarly, losing a little patience with someone who gives out about the problems they're having, and then won't detail what those problems are, isn't unreasonable either, and certainly isn't limited to Linux/BSD channels.

Pawwed Rig

Will do. Thanks for that

Khannie

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

On that topic, wouldn't you say that that system is simply another type of WHQL certification for software? Complaining that you can end up installing crap 3rd party software on Windows is a bit disingenuous - you can end up installing badly written, or dodgy software, on any OS.

For open source stuff, at least I can be sure that it's not riddled with spyware / adware.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

There's no reason MS couldn't implement a "trusted source" system for windows software either, other than the fact that it would land them in court. Would you support it if it did?

Two problems that I see with that:

1) I don't trust Microsoft. I wouldn't imagine that most of their users do either.
2) Most windows software is closed source. Microsoft would have no way of knowing whether or not there was spyware / adware / malware in it unless they got access to a lot of closed source code.

Just for clarity: I think that for the most part windows is a pretty decent OS. It's just not for me.

Khannie

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The truth is that Linux is still nowhere near robust enough to be considered a mainstream OS

I disagree with this. Linux is very robust IMO. It is making serious inroads at the backend in telcos (who demand the highest uptime possible). Their goal is generally "five nines". This means 99.999% uptime (around 1 second of customer downtime a month).

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

and for all the buzz the various devs are making about it, it is still far from being usable.

I think it's a lot more usable than it used to be, but I wouldn't install it for my mother in law. No way.

ntlbell

Khannie wrote: »

I think it's a lot more usable than it used to be, but I wouldn't install it for my mother in law. No way.

Careful now, bit sexist!

Khannie

Hehe.

For the record: She is the person that I give most computer support to.

Slutmonkey57b

Khannie wrote: »

For open source stuff, at least I can be sure that it's not riddled with spyware / adware.

Obviously true, but I'm not convinced that "trusted source" necessarily implies "quality software". Azureus is listed as a "trusted source" high-feedback app, but in reality is a bloated piece of junk when compared to uTorrent.

Two problems that I see with that:

1) I don't trust Microsoft. I wouldn't imagine that most of their users do either.
2) Most windows software is closed source. Microsoft would have no way of knowing whether or not there was spyware / adware / malware in it unless they got access to a lot of closed source code.

Just for clarity: I think that for the most part windows is a pretty decent OS. It's just not for me.

Maybe even 5 years ago I would have said that I don't trust MS either. But the truth is it's more likely that a subset of programmers and vendors numbered at <= 0 can be "trusted" in any useful sense. WHQL certification is certainly trustworthy, and while MS may be an operationally evil company, I don't see any problems with "trust" as regards them providing a list of trustworthy software. I'd maybe have suspicions about laziness though.

Slutmonkey57b

To follow on from that point, I just had a perfect example of why "trusted sources" isn't as much of a genius idea as it first appears - the Flash plugin had to be pulled from the 7.10 libraries because a recent update from Adobe was broken, and because it was closed-source, could not be tinkered with by the community.

Pros: Support from the Devs was good and they came up with a workaround and a shell script within a few days.
Cons: Proves that just because something is listed as a "trusted source" doesn't mean it "works" or has actually been subject to testing before being placed in the list. Trusted source in a practical sense actually just means "we assume these guys are OK, but we haven't actually checked it or anything." This is exactly the same problem I'd see cropping up at Microsoft, although if they were implementing a WHQL system they would have the resources to actually check the software before it goes online (insert joke about windows security holes here).

ntlbell

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

To follow on from that point, I just had a perfect example of why "trusted sources" isn't as much of a genius idea as it first appears - the Flash plugin had to be pulled from the 7.10 libraries because a recent update from Adobe was broken, and because it was closed-source, could not be tinkered with by the community.

Pros: Support from the Devs was good and they came up with a workaround and a shell script within a few days.
Cons: Proves that just because something is listed as a "trusted source" doesn't mean it "works" or has actually been subject to testing before being placed in the list. Trusted source in a practical sense actually just means "we assume these guys are OK, but we haven't actually checked it or anything." This is exactly the same problem I'd see cropping up at Microsoft, although if they were implementing a WHQL system they would have the resources to actually check the software before it goes online (insert joke about windows security holes here).

Once again, what's your point?

Can you state clearly your point as you just ramble on about nonsense.

Slutmonkey57b

ntlbell wrote: »

Once again, what's your point?

Can you state clearly your point as you just ramble on about nonsense.

Post reported. I'm not going to bother responding to the bait thank you.

Pawwed Rig

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Post reported. I'm not going to bother responding to the bait thank you.

I'm surprised it took you so long. I stopped replying to him long ago. Some people only see one point of view i.e. their own

syklops

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I couldn't even get WINE loaded so gave up on the whole project tbh

Do you mean you couldnt start wine? Or you couldnt install wine?

What was the program you were trying to get running? I am sure there is a linux version.

I use Unix 80% of the time. The rest of the time I have to use windows for work. I first used it when I was 17, im 24 next week. Im still not an expert, but could not go back to using a system like windows full time.

As for its ease of use. I bought my sister a book on ubuntu for xmas as well as an EEE. After a week with Xandros, all by her self she ditched it and installed ubuntu, and now has everything working. All I did was show her how to boot from CD, and she was away. She has shown it to her best friend and now he has installed it too. Neither of them are geeks, they just had a decent book, and went in open minded.