Which linux distro thats user friendly for a windows user....

[tgg]

Which is a good linux distro to install on a regular X86 compaq desktop and be user friendly as possible to windows?

I have a customer that they keep getting there windows xp pc infected. They do admit they go to myspace not sure yet if that site is dirty with junk, but who knows what else someone is going to. I was thinking linux might be more secure? Thanks.

 

[spr0k3t]

Mint is a good noob distro. It's very similar to Ubuntu with some features closer to Windows. If the end-user needs help, they can post requests on the Ubuntu forums and get the same response.

MySpeck has been known to have malware/virus installers in the past. Still, it's a horrible site.

Ultimate style for myspace.

* { display: hidden; }

 

[heatlesssun]

Not trying to start a big debate but does that customer run as an admin while surfing? If you run IE with DEP on and not run as an admin I bet that solves the problem.

 

[requiemnoise]

Not trying to start a big debate but does that customer run as an admin while surfing? If you run IE with DEP on and not run as an admin I bet that solves the problem.

Software DEP doesn't do anything. His computer has to support DEP to truly work.

Ubuntu should be fine for new users. Plenty of Linux bloggers who use Ubuntu.

 

[heatlesssun]

Software DEP doesn't do anything. His computer has to support DEP to truly work.

Ubuntu should be fine for new users. Plenty of Linux bloggers who use Ubuntu.

Most desktops made in the last four years and laptops in the last 2.5 years have DEP on the CPU.

I wasn't trying to start a big debate I was simply trying to ascertain if the user was doing the most basic things to secure his system. Even without hardware DEP using a non-administrative account is a must.

I've lost count of the number of people I've helped eliminate malware by simply creating standard user accounts. Having a user jump to Linux from Windows when they don't even understand basic security is just asking for a frustrated user.

I'm not saying that Linux is a bad way to go. It might very well be what this user needs. But before I'd just switch somebody over to Linux it might actually be a good thing for them to understand account security since its at the core of security in pretty much any OS.

 

[AbJ32]

Unless this user is particularly tech savy, I personally would stick to Windows and give him decent AV software, and set that up to scan regularly. Linux of any variety is probably not the ideal choice for most users, since they just don't know how to use it.

For example, let's say they buy an mp3 player, and the mp3 player has a CD for Windows that contains software to put music on the mp3 player. Most mp3 players will work without special software, but the end user doesn't always know that. They'll pop the disk in the drive, and when nothing comes up, they won't know what to do.

Anything involving proprietary software and peripherals will probably cause hardship for them.

If you're willing to help him learn his way around Linux, and find alternatives to whatever software he uses, he should be fine with Linux. However, he's probably going to be asking a lot of questions.

 

[requiemnoise]

Most desktops made in the last four years and laptops in the last 2.5 years have DEP on the CPU.

I wasn't trying to start a big debate I was simply trying to ascertain if the user was doing the most basic things to secure his system. Even without hardware DEP using a non-administrative account is a must.

Hardware DEP is better than nothing, but it has been broken since last year. People found attackers can utilize DLLs instead of execution. Hardware DEP is another layer that makes thing more difficult, but it isn't a full proof. Software DEP is just pointless. One thing I realized about a security over few years is it is always better to fix the source issue instead of relying on new applications to protect it.

 

[heatlesssun]

Hardware DEP is better than nothing, but it has been broken since last year. People found attackers can utilize DLLs instead of execution. Hardware DEP is another layer that makes thing more difficult, but it isn't a full proof. Software DEP is just pointless. One thing I realized about a security over few years is it is always better to fix the source issue instead of relying on new applications to protect it.

Multi-layered security mechanisms are in place to make it harder to attack a system, no one ever said that you shouldn't fix the underlying issue.

You keep brining up and DEP and that wasn't the main point of what I was trying say. Standard user accounts were where I was going.

When a Windows XP machine is behind a stealth fire wall, is running as a non-admin, and using hardware DEP on a fully patched system there's very little damage that be done to that system. Not saying its impossible but very, very improbable. That's just a fact.

I do these things. I surf all the "bad" places I want, with IE. I don't get hacked and I don't even run an active scanner, passive only.

 

[requiemnoise]

You mean it reduces the chance, because you tested by going to bad sites doesn't mean certain things in the world doesn't exist. How OS libraries handle the execution is based around the programs of those libraries. You are not seeing the picture that the security can be handle by the libraries. Also, randomization in the memory just make things difficult. It isn't a full proof. Anyway, this is another topic and another thread.

 

[heatlesssun]

You mean it reduces the chance, because you tested by going to bad sites doesn't mean certain things in the world doesn't exist. How OS libraries handle the execution is based around the programs of those libraries. You are not seeing the picture that the security can be handle by the libraries. Also, randomization in the memory just make things difficult. It isn't a full proof. Anyway, this is another topic and another thread.

Ask any knowledgeable Windows user that doesn't run as an admin all the time who many times they have been hacked, especially under Vista. It's EXTREMELY rare. You do Windows users a disservice by dismissing how this one thing, a practice that is core to Linux administration, dramatically reduces one's attack surface. I never said eliminate, I said dramatically reduce. In combination with a fully patched system, a firewall, things like DEP, UAC on Vista, spyware and AV. Show me one attack that can successfully penetrate all of this. If such an attack did exist it would be unstoppable and would be able to infect almost all Windows computers in a matter of days.

Of course I understand code security. But even secure code doesn't protect against all types of attacks. That is why any robust security multi-layered. Break one part and there are still other parts to penetrate. You don't seem to see what its such a tried and true approach to any security system, computer based or otherwise.

But to the OP please post back and lets us know. I really would like to know if the user has been using a standard account. Using a standard account for routine computing dramatically makes any computer safer, even Windows.

 

[requiemnoise]

Ask any knowledgeable Windows user that doesn't run as an admin all the time who many times they have been hacked, especially under Vista. It's EXTREMELY rare. You do Windows users a disservice by dismissing how this one thing, a practice that is core to Linux administration, dramatically reduces one's attack surface. I never said eliminate, I said dramatically reduce. In combination with a fully patched system, a firewall, things like DEP, UAC on Vista, spyware and AV. Show me one attack that can successfully penetrate all of this. If such an attack did exist it would be unstoppable and would be able to infect almost all Windows computers in a matter of days.

Security measure is based around three things.
1. Training and Policy
2. File and execution permission
3. How the OS operates.
What you have stated only applies to number one and two. If we live in a perfect world as you said, there would be no security updates required. You are forgetting there are various layers of security. Bad applications and layers will get constantly get patched and eventually will get pulled as the OS moves to the next revisions. Not to mention, you are assuming developers write perfect security libraries. Like I said, another day and this is another topic. If you still believe the security is only based around various layers of permission, it isn't true.

 

[heatlesssun]

If you still believe the security is only based around various layers of permission, it isn't true.

I understand that quality design and code are essential to a computers security. That is one of the layers in the system. I also know that no robust security system only has one point of failure. Every complex systems has flaws, you just don't necessarily know it until the system has been in use for some time. While all systems will have flaws, its unlikely that all systems will have the same flaw and be vulnerable with the same attack mechanism. Thus the best security mechanisms are redundant.

I think what you are trying to say is that nothing is stronger than its weakest link which isn't necessarily true with a computer system. Layers above can effectively protect layers below until layers below are corrected.

But all of this started out with me simply asking if the OP's customer actually was running on a standard account. You cannot dismiss the importance of this. Every Linux distro I know tells users to not run normally as a highly privileged user. This concept is a conerstone to safely using any modern OS. Part of Microsoft's misery around security is not promoting this concept, something that *Nix has always done.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

forget Linux mint, and run the OS it was based on, Ubuntu. I never understood the appeal of running a hacked up, even more bloated version of the OS, that doesnt have nearly as much support as the *real* one it is based on....

So yea, the answer to *any* "which linux is easy for xxxx kind of person?" will *always* be Ubuntu, if you have to ask.....

as for what heatlesssun said... its true, take a patched up Vista install and give the user a standard account, and they'd be pretty damn safe overall (though still not as care free as a Linux user.... since most of the malware on the web just simply doesnt run on Linux....)

 

[burnin8r]

forget Linux mint, and run the OS it was based on, Ubuntu. I never understood the appeal of running a hacked up, even more bloated version of the OS, that doesnt have nearly as much support as the *real* one it is based on....

Actually, Ubuntu 8.10 is 699MB and LinuxMint 6 is 644MB. I have used many versions of both (as well as plenty of other distros) and prefer Mint overall. as far as support, I would say Clem has more contact with his user base than the Ubuntu devs and Mint users have the advantage of using both forums...

take a patched up Vista install and give the user a standard account, and they'd be pretty damn safe overall

as stated in the original post, the user in question has XP, not Vista.

 

[tgg]

Ask any knowledgeable Windows user that doesn't run as an admin all the time who many times they have been hacked, especially under Vista. It's EXTREMELY rare. You do Windows users a disservice by dismissing how this one thing, a practice that is core to Linux administration, dramatically reduces one's attack surface. I never said eliminate, I said dramatically reduce. In combination with a fully patched system, a firewall, things like DEP, UAC on Vista, spyware and AV. Show me one attack that can successfully penetrate all of this. If such an attack did exist it would be unstoppable and would be able to infect almost all Windows computers in a matter of days.

Of course I understand code security. But even secure code doesn't protect against all types of attacks. That is why any robust security multi-layered. Break one part and there are still other parts to penetrate. You don't seem to see what its such a tried and true approach to any security system, computer based or otherwise.

But to the OP please post back and lets us know. I really would like to know if the user has been using a standard account. Using a standard account for routine computing dramatically makes any computer safer, even Windows.

No for the few times I installed xp pro sp3 for him it was always a administrator user account.

I already installed latest version of Ubuntu and so far looks like its ready to go. All the hardware drivers are working, even the usb wireless network card worked right away I guess ubuntu had the drivers already. Installed adobe reader and flash for them, and installed one hundred and something updates for ubuntu.

 

[tgg]

This is to everyone I guess. I have my own computer tech Business onsite/mobile service and that doesnt mean I know more then everyone because the truth is I dont. When I talk to customers I give them a quick general Explanation about infections instead all the technical stuff here heheh. I always say that you can have all the security prorgrams installed on windows but you can still get infections to come in. The key is the "USER" depends on what websites you go to, whats being clicked in email, and downloading files from other peoples harddrives around the universe, such as limewire, torrents, etc etc.

I do know or feel that vista is more secure then xp. And usually when customers call me and say can I get rid of their infected windows I say yes easy " Lets Backup your data and reisntalled windows fresh" Because I feel you can never 100% get rid of al infections in windows it'll seem like it runs good for couple hours, days weeks, but eventually it mess up again. I had some custoemrs complain they take the pc to geek squad or some shop and charge all kinds to remove infections but it still ran like crap or worse.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

It looks like this end user is all set with Ubuntu.....

But FYI, with the majority of *nix distros out there....you can download the CD and it supports booting to a live CD, often called a ..."Live CD". If you select that boot opion, it will boot from the CD..and run from the CD, without touching the computers current hard drive and messing with the current OS install.

This allows you to "test drive" the distro...see if it works with your systems hardware well, and get an overall feel for it. You can download a bunch of distros, and try them all out. Only cost to you is a tiny bit of time downloading the ISOs and burning the CDs.

Ubuntu has been a top choice to get their feet wet for those coming over from the world of Windows.

Mint is very fast growing

PCLinuxOS is another popular one...

OpenSUSE

Like everything else, everyone will have their opinion as to which is best. But the true answer to "best"...is what the end user likes better, and which one supports your hardware better.

 

[heatlesssun]

No for the few times I installed xp pro sp3 for him it was always a administrator user account.

I already installed latest version of Ubuntu and so far looks like its ready to go. All the hardware drivers are working, even the usb wireless network card worked right away I guess ubuntu had the drivers already. Installed adobe reader and flash for them, and installed one hundred and something updates for ubuntu.

Cool. Did you customer have many/any Windows client apps? If the main thing the person did was surf on the machine, Linux might very well be the way to go. Linux for web surfing is safer no doubt.

I bet you setup a standard user for the Ubuntu box, at least I hope. You're not letting him run root full time I hope.

Most Windows securities woes stem from people not doing the basic things. The exactly the same things as Linux distros tell you to do. Use a firewall and a standard account and don't run unneeded daemons. The vast majority of Linux users do these things. What good for the penguin is good for the gander.

 

[requiemnoise]

Cool. Did you customer have many/any Windows client apps? If the main thing the person did was surf on the machine, Linux might very well be the way to go. Linux for web surfing is safer no doubt.

I bet you setup a standard user for the Ubuntu box, at least I hope. You're not letting him run root full time I hope.
.

I guess you haven't tried Ubuntu yet. Ubuntu's default setup is using sudo. If you have used Ubuntu, you should know this.

 

[heatlesssun]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812

Limit root access (Do not log in or run programs as root). Ubuntu accomplishes this by locking the root account and the use of sudo.
Consider creating an account without sudo access for "daily use".

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear last time. I was simply trying to pass along a best practice.
This practice is straight from the horses mouth. I've got Ubuntu on two machines, including a tablet pc. I've installed it many times over the last few years but I don't use it much. Just like I've said before.

 

[requiemnoise]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812

This practice is straight for the horses mouth. Where do you think I got it? I've got Ubuntu on two machines, including a tablet pc. I've installed it many times over the last few years but I don't use it much. Just like I've said before.

Right. There is no root account in the default installation. I don't think you know too much about Unix at all and constantly offering bias opinions. You can't rename a root account as Bob. In Windows you can rename the Administrator account as Bob. You can't do that in Linux. The concept of sudoers have been around since the 90s, around last decade.

 

[heatlesssun]

Right. There is no root account in the default installation. I don't think you know too much about Unix at all and constantly offering bias opinions. You can't rename a root account as Bob. In Windows you can rename the Administrator account as Bob. You can't do that in Linux. The concept of sudoers have been around since the 90s, around last decade.

You said nothing about my point, which again is perfectly valid and totally correct. Standard best security practices for all OS'es pretty much say the same thing. Don't run as a user that needs more privileges than required for the task. That's old as dirt. I even provided documentation from the Linux distro in question that says the same thing.

You have an amazing ability to alter the point of a discussion. I never claimed to be a Linux guru, you're the Linux guru. I never talked about renaming accounts, I have no idea where you got that.

I'll say it another way. When all a person needs to do is use a web browser, why give that person more privileges than necessary to do that task? What benefit is there is giving a user more ability that they need? Why do you insist on ignoring this point when its perfectly valid and even recommended by Linux distros?

How is this in any way shape or form being biased? You're the one with the bias in this matter not me.

 

[requiemnoise]

You said nothing about my point, which again is perfectly valid and totally correct. Standard best security practices for all OS'es pretty much say the same thing. Don't run as a user than needs more privileges than required. That's old as dirt. I even provided documentation from the Linux distro in question that says the same thing.

You have an amazing ability to alter the point of a discussion. I never claimed to be a Linux guru, you're the Linux guru. I never talked about renaming accounts, I have no idea where you got that.

I'll say it another way. When all a person needs to do is use a web browser, why give that person more privileges than necessary to do that task? What benefit is there is giving a user more ability that they need? Why do you insist on ignoring this point when its perfectly valid and even recommended by Linux distros?

How is this in any way shape or form being biased? You're the one with the bias in this matter not me.

By default, Ubuntu has no root account. After the default installation, there is NO root account. They use sudoers. I don't know how clear I can be. You can enable the root account and login as a root. Nobody logins to windows manager as a root. Maybe, you should try Linux instead of just reading about it and say it sucks all the time.

I'm bias? I used DOS since 3.3.

 

[heatlesssun]

By default, Ubuntu has no root account. After the default installation, there is NO root account. They use sudoers. I don't know how clear I can be. You can enable the root account and login as a root. Nobody logins to windows manager as a root. Maybe, you should try Linux instead of just reading about it and say it sucks all the time.

I'm bias? I used DOS since 3.3.

Please, please, please find anywhere where I have said Linux sucks. From earlier in this thread I said:

I'm not saying that Linux is a bad way to go. It might very well be what this user needs. But before I'd just switch somebody over to Linux it might actually be a good thing for them to understand account security since its at the core of security in pretty much any OS.

You're being dishonest about my statements. I don't know why.

I don't use Linux much because it has no value to me. That's not saying that it sucks. I make a living on Windows as I have said many times before. Why do you know what to misrepresent what I have said many times before?

And you have not once refuted my point of least necessary privileges because you can't. It's a tried and true practice that all people who know security adhere to. It is a platform agnostic principle.

You're simply not being rational and this thread is going to be locked because you can't discuss thing reasonably.

 

[requiemnoise]

Please, please, please find anywhere where I have said Linux sucks. From earlier in this thread I said:

You're being dishonest about my statements. I don't know why.

I don't use Linux much because it has no value to me. That's not saying that it sucks. I make a living on Windows as I have said many times before. Why do you know what to misrepresent what I have said many times before?

And you have not once refuted my point of least necessary privileges because you can't. It's a tried and true practice that all people who know security adhere to. It is a platform agnostic principle.

You're simply not being rational and this thread is going to be locked because you can't discuss thing reasonably.

Listen... Please. Listen carefully. I will say it once, because I'm a bit tired of this and you are ruining the thread for the OP. He asked Linux users a question, NOT Windows users. Please don't bother going to Linux section and yell, "LINUX is too hard. Linux doesn't have enough drivers. Vista rocks. Linux doesn't have a tablet function." Just stay out of threads if you don't know anything about it. All your replies on Linux threads have been Vista can do better. It is really annoying. Thanks.
Stick with Windows. Please, stay out of Linux topic if you don't like it or don't use it.

 

[heatlesssun]

Listen... Please. Listen carefully. I will say it once, because I'm a bit tired of this and you are ruining the thread for the OP. He asked Linux users a question, NOT Windows users. Please don't bother going to Linux section and yell, "LINUX is too hard. Linux doesn't have enough drivers. Vista rocks. Linux doesn't have a tablet function." Just stay out of threads if you don't know anything about it. All your replies on Linux threads have been Vista can do better. It is really annoying. Thanks.
Stick with Windows. Please, stay out of Linux topic if you don't like it or don't use it.

Once again, I never said any of those things. You are simply making stuff up now. I just gave you my own quote saying that Linux might be right solution for this uer. And I pointed out basic security practices that the OP was failing to implement on Windows that are just as valid for Ubuntu. These practices are in the Ubuntu forums on security.

If someone lies about what I have said I will respond to set the record straight.

I gave the OP good, solid, tried and true advice that applies to Windows and Linux. You are gave him an infomercial at best.

You are making yourself out to be a person who simple uses ad hominem attacks when he's wrong instead of addressing the real issues. I'm not saying I'm always right, but I've not blatantly misrepresented you either.

 

[requiemnoise]

Once again, I never said any of those things. You are simply making stuff up now. I just gave you my own quote saying that Linux might be right solution for this uer. And I pointed out basic security practices that the OP was failing to implement on Windows that are just as valid for Ubuntu. These practices are in the Ubuntu forums on security.

If someone lies about what I have said I will respond to set the record straight.

I gave the OP good, solid, tried and true advice that applies to Windows and Linux. You are gave him an infomercial at best.

You are making yourself out to be a person who simple uses ad hominem attacks when he's wrong instead of addressing the real issues. I'm not saying I'm always right, but I've not blatantly misrepresented you either.

I beg you to stay out of Linux threads. Please and thank you. Please, go through your history statements that are related to what you said. If I have to go through your history statements and copy/paste everything, we are ruining the thread for the OP. You make money off Windows, so you want the Windows market share to stay the same. That is fine. You have to accept the fact, there are other alternative OSes out there. People will choose if they feel the alternative works for them. Once again, the OP completed his task and installed Ubuntu on his client machine. It is too late for your crusade to save another Windows installation. Just LET IT GO. Thanks again.

I make huge chunk of my money off Windows. I also make money off Linux. I have been using Microsoft for over two decades and Linux for one decade. I know which OS has certain advantages for certain tasks.

 

[heatlesssun]

I beg you to stay out of Linux threads. Please and thank you. Please, go through your history statements that are related to what you said. If I have to go through your history statements and copy/paste everything, we are ruining the thread for the OP. You make money off Windows, so you want the Windows market share to stay the same. That is fine. You have to accept the fact, there are other alternative OSes out there. People will choose if they feel the alternative works for them. Once again, the OP completed his task and installed Ubuntu on his client machine. It is too late for your crusade to save another Windows installation. Just LET IT GO. Thanks again.

I make huge chunk of my money off Windows. I also make money off Linux. I have been using Microsoft for over two decades and Linux for one decade. I know which OS has certain advantages for certain tasks.

Once again I will point out what the gist of what I said: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812

This came from the Ubuntu forums and it has everything to do with using Ubuntu. I made the point that instead of giving the OP's customer Ubuntu why not implement some basic security practices on Windows that also apply to Ubuntu.

The OP decided to go with Ubuntu, that fine. He made a decision that he thought was best for his customer. I then said that he should setup a standard user account for his customer on the Ubuntu box as as that's what the security guides recommend.

You never once refuted this and started out with irrelevant and personal attacks.

I can see past my biases. I also know that Ubuntu isn't a perfect solution for everyone. Neither is Windows. Neither is OS X. These OS'es are going to coexist for our lifetimes. That's just the reality of it. It's up to individuals to make their own choices according to their needs. Its called freedom.

Apparently you don't like the concept of freedom when you tell someone not to do something that they have every right as much as you do to do.

 

[requiemnoise]

Once again I will point out what the gist of what I said: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812

This came from the Ubuntu forums and it has everything to do with using Ubuntu. I made the point that instead of giving the OP's customer Ubuntu why not implement some basic security practices on Windows that also apply to Ubuntu.

The OP decided to go with Ubuntu, that fine. He made a decision that he thought was best for his customer. I then said that he should setup a standard user account for his customer on the Ubuntu box as as that's what the security guides recommend.

You never once refuted this and started out with irrelevant and personal attacks.

I can see past my biases. I also know that Ubuntu isn't a perfect solution for everyone. Neither is Windows. Neither is OS X. These OS'es are going to coexist for our lifetimes. That's just the reality of it. It's up to individuals to make their own choices according to their needs. Its called freedom.

Apparently you don't like the concept of freedom when you tell someone not to do something that they have every right as much as you do to do.

Just LET IT GO. It is very admirable you have so much passion for Microsoft products, but your views are bias. The OP made his decision.

 

[dr.stevil]

Unless this user is particularly tech savy, I personally would stick to Windows and give him decent AV software, and set that up to scan regularly. Linux of any variety is probably not the ideal choice for most users, since they just don't know how to use it.

For example, let's say they buy an mp3 player, and the mp3 player has a CD for Windows that contains software to put music on the mp3 player. Most mp3 players will work without special software, but the end user doesn't always know that. They'll pop the disk in the drive, and when nothing comes up, they won't know what to do.

Anything involving proprietary software and peripherals will probably cause hardship for them.

If you're willing to help him learn his way around Linux, and find alternatives to whatever software he uses, he should be fine with Linux. However, he's probably going to be asking a lot of questions.

x2

while linux is a decent OS, it's not for everyone... certainly not for the casual user that's coming from windows.

I tried setting it up for my mother a while ago (ubuntu) for the same security reasons... after a few fustrating months of trying to help anytime she couldn't figure something out, windows was re-installed.

 

[heatlesssun]

Just LET IT GO. It is very admirable you have so much passion for Microsoft products, but your views are bias. The OP made his decision.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting me? Nothing I've said in this thread was biased or untruthful. This has nothing to do about OS'es it has to do with you misrepresenting me.

So you need to let it go as well.

 

[heatlesssun]

x2

while linux is a decent OS, it's not for everyone... certainly not for the casual user that's coming from windows.

I tried setting it up for my mother a while ago (ubuntu) for the same security reasons... after a few fustrating months of trying to help anytime she couldn't figure something out, windows was re-installed.

Well you know you're not allowed to say this according to requiemnoise! New rule: Only happy Linux thoughts in Linux threads!

 

[AbJ32]

Just LET IT GO. It is very admirable you have so much passion for Microsoft products, but your views are bias. The OP made his decision.

Your views aren't the most objective around either. I think you should stop acting like this is a one sided deal, and that everybody who sides with Linux is right, and everybody who sides with Windows is wrong.

 

[requiemnoise]

Your views aren't the most objective around either. I think you should stop acting like this is a one sided deal, and that everybody who sides with Linux is right, and everybody who sides with Windows is wrong.

Here is a thing. It took me a while, but only few users in this forum actually spent time with multiple OSes. I work with both Windows and Linux servers for many years now. I have my dislikes and likes for both OSES. It seems like so many users use Linux firewalls and Linux firmwares and didn't liked them and cry out Linux sucks. It is hard to cry something sucks if a person hasn't spent some time with it. Haven't you said yourself in the past, you use DD-WRT and never really dig in very deep with Linux? I guess your opinion for Linux should be highly acceptable.

 

[heatlesssun]

Here is a thing. It took me a while, but only few users in this forum actually spent time with multiple OSes. I work with both Windows and Linux servers for many years now. I have my dislikes and likes for both OSES. It seems like so many users use Linux firewalls and Linux firmwares and didn't liked them and cry out Linux sucks. It is hard to cry something sucks if a person hasn't spent some time with it. Haven't you said yourself in the past, you use DD-WRT and never really dig in very deep with Linux? I guess your opinion for Linux should be highly acceptable.

When you are reasonable and make sense I'll agree with you all day long and you have a valid point.

But there has to be a motivation to use another OS. I've used Linux a lot in the past. It served not purpose for me professionally or personally. Sure its great to know different stuff but I already spend to much time on a computer. I have other things to learn. Right now I just got a task to work on a Windows Presentation Foundation proof of concept project for work. I have to do what I have to do to eat. If it was do a GDK project, guess what I'd be doing?

All I am saying is that for me to Linux extensively now at this point in my life requires real and tangible benefit, it can't just be some science project unless that of course has real and tangible benefit. I actually have something in mind with Linux with Zone Minder when I get to it.

There's just so much stuff out there. Linux is just a part. When it can benefit me I'm there. I'm not going to to it to be Microsoft free or some other political, non-financial, non-technical reason. Just like 99% of the rest of the working world.

 

[tgg]

Cool. Did you customer have many/any Windows client apps? If the main thing the person did was surf on the machine, Linux might very well be the way to go. Linux for web surfing is safer no doubt.

I bet you setup a standard user for the Ubuntu box, at least I hope. You're not letting him run root full time I hope.

Most Windows securities woes stem from people not doing the basic things. The exactly the same things as Linux distros tell you to do. Use a firewall and a standard account and don't run unneeded daemons. The vast majority of Linux users do these things. What good for the penguin is good for the gander.

The only windows program seems like they will need is microsoft office, but ubuntu has those type of programs built in that should do the trick right?

And yes jsut a standard user account not root.

 

[heatlesssun]

You can try OpenOffice or use WINE to run Office 2003 under Ubuntu. I don't think that Office 2007 works under emulation but I could be wrong.

If the user has large collection of MS Office documents you'd probably be better off with emulation. I am not the Linux expert but this is advice I have seen.

I'm sure requiemnoise can help you out more on this.

 

[AbJ32]

Here is a thing. It took me a while, but only few users in this forum actually spent time with multiple OSes. I work with both Windows and Linux servers for many years now. I have my dislikes and likes for both OSES. It seems like so many users use Linux firewalls and Linux firmwares and didn't liked them and cry out Linux sucks. It is hard to cry something sucks if a person hasn't spent some time with it. Haven't you said yourself in the past, you use DD-WRT and never really dig in very deep with Linux? I guess your opinion for Linux should be highly acceptable.

I use Smoothwall on my 900mhz AMD box as a router, along with having used a multitude of desktop oriented linux distros and I even tried the Linux From Scratch project. Do I have a deep understanding of Linux networking and low level linux developing, and enterprise level hands on experience with the operating system in a professional environment? No. Do I have more than sufficient experience with GNU operating systems on an end user level in a home environment? Yes, I do, and that's all I need to make a practical, unbiased, realistic opinion of the operating system for use in a home/home office environment.

You can't hide behind the smoke and mirrors any longer, and keep accusing people who dislike the OS of not having gotten their hands dirty enough. People can have used the OS thoroughly and still have a legitimate negative opinion of it.

 

[requiemnoise]

I use Smoothwall on my 900mhz AMD box as a router, along with having used a multitude of desktop oriented linux distros and I even tried the Linux From Scratch project. Do I have a deep understanding of Linux networking and low level linux developing, and enterprise level hands on experience with the operating system in a professional environment? No. Do I have more than sufficient experience with GNU operating systems on an end user level in a home environment? Yes, I do, and that's all I need to make a practical, unbiased, realistic opinion of the operating system for use in a home/home office environment.

You can't hide behind the smoke and mirrors any longer, and keep accusing people who dislike the OS of not having gotten their hands dirty enough. People can have used the OS thoroughly and still have a legitimate negative opinion of it.

This clearly states you don't what you are talking about...
If you think Smoothwall sucks, then blame Smoothwall.
I think Smoothwalls sucks too. It is too basic.
Linux is only the kernel. People can download the kernel and do whatever they please. Get with the program instead of yelling at others.
You don't know what you are saying and you are starting to look very foolish all the time.
Something tells me you never tried Linux from Scratch...

 

[AbJ32]

This clearly states you don't what you are talking about...
If you think Smoothwall sucks, then blame Smoothwall. I think Smoothwalls sucks too. It is too basic.

When did I say I think Smoothwall sucks? For it's purpose, I like smoothwall, and since FreeBSD and the motherboard in that system don't play well together, my other choice, PFSense, is out of the question.

Linux is only the kernel. People can download the kernel and do whatever they please. Get with the program instead of yelling at others.
You don't know what you are saying and you are starting to look very foolish all the time.

....An army of one is not going to be able to do anything earth shattering with the kernel, especially if they're not a software engineering with a handful of experience under their belt. That should be pretty obvious to anybody. I don't know how you can possibly find it reasonable to expect that people 'fix it themselves', since most people have much better things to do. Unless they work for one of the linux projects, they probably don't have time to be engineering and coding operating systems.

Something tells me you never tried Linux from Scratch...

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. People who tried Linux From Scratch aren't allowed to have opinions. That's right.

There you go again. Attacking people's credentials merely because they don't like Linux, despite the fact you know absolutely nothing about the individual in question.