the state of linux as i see it 13302
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:40:32 -0700, Skeets
I already think Microsoft does waaaay too much to try and restrict what is and is not permitted. You seem to suggest that Microsoft should do more to *protect* the "average" user. Most (not all), of said users problems are primarily self inflicted. The only way Microsoft can prevent those types of problems is to be even more invasive and restrictive than it already is. By your comments it seems you favor widespread adoption of solutions like Palladium, perhaps you feel something similar should be developed for Linux. Personally I'd rather have more control of my own system and not have my hand held by Microsoft or anyone else, but maybe that's just me.
the state of linux as i see it 13307
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:03:44 +0100, Kier As I said in another post, I'd prefer...
Nothing 'magic" about it, and the information is available on the net for the price of a little googling.
the state of linux as i see it 13308
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:27:16 -0700, Skeets Look, the Google reference was a simple way of saying that I don't consider that I'm...
Look, some people, probably even the vast majority of people, are not going to expend the effort to learn even just the most basic principles of computers and networking. They don't care, they don't see the need, they're not interested, whatever. For those people AV software is the best alternative to try and protect them from their own mistakes.
Otoh, for those people who are willing to invest a little effort in understanding the fundamental principles involved in the operation of computers and networks, AV software doesn't actually provide much benefit. These folks won't be making the mistakes AV software is designed to protect them from.
Sometimes, I have a copy of firefox set as the default, but IE is better for some things.
It's a little hard to accept such a general and unsubstantiated claim that IE is frequently responsible for "jacking up a computer." As I've mentioned I use it from time to time and a complete virus scan which completed a couple of hours ago gave the system a clean bill of health. Would you please explain in detail, using specific and precise examples detail exactly how IE can "jack up" a system?
I don't need to write anything, or tell anything to anyone. All the needed information is already available and easily accessible.
For most people AV software is probably the only *realistic* choice. My point is that in absolute terms it's *not* a strict requirement for every system without exception.
the state of linux as i see it 13303
and is not permitted. You seem to suggest that Microsoft should do more to *protect* the "average" user. Most (not all), of said...
Unfortunately not everyone uses it.
Do I think it would be better if Microsoft *forced* a non admin account at install time, yeah. Microsoft's counter argument would probably be that at install time you're *probably* going to be installing additional things after the OS is in. Be that as it may, if a user does even the tiniest amount of research regarding best practices, or safe computing or practically anything regarding using a computer, they will be quickly informed that routinely logging on with Admin privileges is bad.
Why is it that in order to use Linux, the community *insists* the user must be willing to accept a bit of a learning curve, yet if anyone suggests that learning some basics before jumping into Windows, might be a good idea, it automatically means that Windows is poorly designed or faulty?
Please, let's stick to problems that actually exist in current versions. I've not heard of any recent national or worldwide virus outbreaks, so what exactly are you referring to here.
Luckily you don't have to, just fire up Google and enter a few search relevant search terms.
You keep referring specifically to IE as causing problems, i.e. "Jacking up the system," Please be specific and give me a concrete demonstration with an example URL that shows the specific problem you're talking about.
Does that mean that you think it *is* magic and-or *not* well understood?
No need, it would just be redundant, all the necessary information is readily available, and easily accessible.
No they haven't, they are lazy and don't want to be bothered with having to learn how to do things a better way.
Realistically, most users are not willing to invest the time or effort to learn even the simple basics that would allow them to safely go without AV software. Since that's the case, Microsoft is just facing reality and providing the next best alternative.
Believe it or not there *are* Windows users who know what they are doing, you're talking to one of them. There are also inept Linux users who make one mistake, then compound it with another, and end up totally hosing their system. Bottom line is, good and bad users exist on both sides. Linux may have a few million users world wide, Windows has hundreds of millions of users. If you transfer any significant percentage of those hundreds of millions to Linux, it's silly to suggest that a fair number of them aren't going to bring with them the some bad habits and practices that get them in to trouble under Windows.
Debatable, and doesn't exactly square with the published results of formal testing. Windows was rated EAL4+FLR3, while Linux under the same tests achieved only EAL3...so far.
So why is it unreasonable to suggest that a little education would go a long way in keeping a lot of Windows users out of trouble?
Why is all of the responsibility *only* on the OS when referring to Windows?
Since the information that's already available hasn't made any difference, it would seem that the problem lies somewhere other than who says it.
That can already be done. I don't believe you can provide a single specific and detailed example of exactly how browsing the net with IE can cause a problem, other than some theoretical scenario that has never actually happened to anyone.
Yes indirectly it *is* Linux's fault. It should be relatively easy to build a driver that works across all 2.6.x kernels, or all 2.4.x kernels, the driver interface shouldn't be changing across minor versions. In reality it's impossible to create a binary driver that works across all 2.x kernels. Hardware vendors don't have to release their source code in order to support Windows. Now, if you're a hardware vendor who doesn't want to release the source for your driver, and supporting Linux with a binary is a major PITA, what would *you* do. Most HW vendors choose to just not support Linux, or support is provided by a driver that someone has managed to reverse engineer and-or hack together from data sheets.
I'll say it again, if Linux was more accommodating to binary drivers, a lot more hardware vendors would be willing, downright happy in fact, to support it.
Man, you've got a real MS conspiracy atbreastude working there. In the real world, Joe user decides he wants a new computer, at that point he's not thinking whether it's compatible with Linux, or Windows for that matter. He's thinking technical specs and performance that will fit in his budget. *New* computers often come with *new* technology, this puts Linux at a disadvantage right from the start, but it's mot Microsoft's fault, it's simply the user choosing to buy what s-he perceives to be the latest and greatest technology.
Nope. If Linux doesn't have drivers for bleeding edge hardware, then when a user buys a nice shiny new box with the best specs they can afford, Linux isn't going to be very attractive alternative for that user. Linux is great on older hardware, but that's really not a very convincing argument for someone who just bought a new computer. Which by the way, is exactly the time someone is most likely to possibly consider an alternative OS.
Munich was the largest project of that type, and it hasn't really gone so well.
Small victories here and there, but on the whole Linux's share of the desktop hasn't changed all that much for years, and years, and years.
-- Cheers T.G. Reaper AMD64 Gentoo & Windows user *******************************************************************