The only thing I can add to this arguement is that my girlfriend runs SuSE on her laptop (recently died) and desktop. She has no problems. She uses photoshop 7 with crossoveroffice.
She is by no means a computer geek, nor does she want to be. She refuses to go back to windows. I use windows for games. Also, I use ubuntu, and everything works fine for me. The only time I had problems was when I tried to upgrade and was using a debian repository. So if I had just stuck with the default repository that ubuntu gave me, I would never have a problem. As far as inserting a cd and installing drivers, thats nice and all, but as far as I can tell, distros like SuSE have hardware detection, which does it all for you. I didn't even have to insert a cd when I installed a new sound card into my girlfriends computer. I just put it in and it worked. So did the new video card. --mat John Hebert wrote: > --- "Baudouin, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>I'd like to preface this reply by saying I use >>Ubuntu Linux primarily, and I >>have a Gentoo firewall and laptop. My wife uses >>Windows XP Pro and refuses >>to try Linux. I'm OK with this. > > > Funny. My wife also uses WinXP Pro and refuses to try > Linux. She was also a kickass VB and Access/SQL Server > programmer. And we still talk to each other. > > >>I am not a Windows fanboy, nor am I a Linux fanboy. >>I simply feel the need >>to be current on all computing technology so that I >>can be competitive in >>the job marketplace. For your information, my >>current job is VB.Net >>programming and my previous job was LAMP >>programming. > > > We are very much alike then. However, I am a C#.Net > programmer. We laugh at you VB.NET programmers. ;) > > >>It's as simple as creating limited user accounts, >>installing the latest >>patches, and optionally moving to >>Firefox/Thunderbird. You don't have to >>have a MCSE to understand that. > > > I assume you read Scott's email. He made it clear that > he chose to not support Windows-using relatives > because he was simply more familiar with Linux/UNIX, > and not because of some assumed religious zealotry. > > >>>I think you are jumping to conclusions rather than >>>asking questions and assessing all the information >>>objectively. >> >>Linux geeks do that. It's clear that everyone here >>does that. > > > Humans do that. But that is no excuse to continue to > do so when it is shown to lead to error. And you were > in error to assume Scott's reasons for not supporting > his Windows-using relatives. > > >>>>MS Windows is great too, especially if you like >>>>sharing your computer resources with others on >> >>the >> >>>>Internet. ;) > > > BTW, Andrew, the above ^^^ was a _joke_. > > >>Firefox on Windows doesn't support ActiveX. I am >>giving that browser to >>people to use now because of the crappiness of >>IE...which I am not arguing >>is superior in any way. > > > Um, I'd like to point out that Microsoft's defense in > the recently monopoly trial it went through was that > IE was an essential _part_ of the Windows operating > system. Ergo, by your admission, Windows is "crappy". > :) > > >>>So the solution to badly implemented local >> >>security is >> >>>to purchase more Microsoft software? >> >>They are going to buy Office anyway. > > > Negative, more incorrect assumptions on your part. > Very few of my Windows using relatives buy/use > Microsoft Office. > > I own Windows XP Pro and I don't own and never will > own Microsoft Office. Don't need it; Open Office and > Thunderbird are perfect for my needs. My wife owns a > copy as it came with her laptop. She hasn't felt an > overwhelming urge to shell out more money for Office > 2003. Granted, we are not typical home users, but I'll > bet most home users do not own MS Office. > > >>Why not use >>the Outlook 2003 instead >>of 2000/2002? > > > $100 > http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?ref=froogle&pfp=froogle&product_code=306248&cm_ven=froogle&cm_cat=&cm_pla=&cm_ite=feed > > >>Or even Mozilla Thunderbird for that >>matter... > > > For the Windows users I know, Thunderbird is fine and > can do everything they need. Spam filtering included! > For business users with an Exchange server, Outlook > works great. Wish there was more effort to do iCal on > open source mail servers, but then again, I am not > contributing code to that effort. :P > > >>Gambling, porn, and card gaming sites are untrusted. >> These types of sites >>are known to install spyware and untrusted >>applications. It's simply a >>fact! > > > My goodness, you just love generalizations. > > You are either missing or ignoring my point. My point > is that you are educating users not to go to certain > sites because the browser/OS is not secure. > > Based on your logic, as long as a user does not go to > a gambling, porn or card gaming site, they are safe > from spyware? That's ignorant. There are other "types" > of sites (gaming, anime, etc.) that are known to be > vectors for spyware. And just because a site is of a > certain "type" or not, it does not necessarily follow > that it will be a vector or not a vector for spyware. > ANY webserver can be a vector for spyware. Some merely > have a decent business plan, and therefore do not have > to rely on spyware for income. > > >>These are methods to make sure a person can use >>Windows securely. They >>work. You might think them ridiculous, but they do. > > > Those aren't security "methods". They are urban myths. > And still ridiculous. However, I will give you points > for recommending that users run Firefox. > > >>>Linux users that run as root all of the time would >>>have the same problems as >>>a Windows user who runs with administrative >>>privileges. >> >>>True, but irrelevant. >> >>How? Half to 90% of the Windows vulnerabilities > > > Wow, impressive. Sounds like you did an in-depth study > using RO statistical analysis. > > >>would be ineffectual if the >>user did not run with administrative privileges. I >>see your fanboy colors >>shining through. > > > *sigh* I'd be pissed off, but it's Friday, and you are > obviously just trying to piss me off. > > As Scott pointed out, anyone who runs as root to do > trivial tasks deserve to be hax0rd. Linux/UNIX > administrators have said this from day one. Microsoft, > on the other hand, have only recently come to adopt > this stance after learning hard lessons about > security. > > The basic fact _is_, Andrew, is that Linux users > _don't_ run as root. They know better. If some do, I > am sure the number is statistically irrelevant, > compared to those who run with admin privs on a > Windows box. This is because the Linux/UNIX community > have taken security much more seriously, for far > longer than Microsoft has. > > >>Beside the point, but Synaptic regularly crashes on >>my Ubuntu machine and I >>am forced to use apt-get install. > > > Stop bitching and start submitting patches. > > >>Wouldn't want my >>mom to ever have to drop >>to the command line to type in any commands to >>install software. > > > Good point. See above. > > >>>Why pay $5 when you play card games on-line for >> >>free, >> >>>without installing software? >> >>>http://www.solitairecentral.com/sol_web.html >> >>Thanks. That doesn't even address my question. > > > Then you missed the subtle point I was making. CD > based software is on the way out; the web is in. And, > that most home computer users only want to run a web > browser, on a secure machine, connected to the > Internet. > > Of course, I understand your point. It is easy for > users to buy and install software for Microsoft > Windows because the Windows desktop is ubiquitous, > therefore there are lots of programs available for > Windows. That's great, but is it worth it? > > I have a feeling that the trade between > easy-to-install software with system security is not > worth the security problems we are seeing with > Microsoft Windows. Microsoft has simply chosen in the > past to trade usability for security. I hope the > situation changes, but they deserve much blame for > making an insecure OS. > > >>And >>as for wine, how many of >>your non geek family members, even those who use >>Linux can set up a >>successful wine install that will support all of >>their directX/OPENGL games? > > > You missed the smiley clearly denoting it was a JOKE. > I would like to point out that Xandros not only comes > with Wine installed, but the CrossOver Office plugin > as well. > > >>Can you install Nvidia's or ATI's closed source >>(another strike against you >>fanboys) > > > Maybe we should start our own political party. > > >>drivers from a CD? Can you click an >>executable and have it both >>compile and install your drivers and automagically >>update your XF86Config-4 >>or xorg.conf configuration files? No. > > > Horrors! You got me! I give up and will go back to > Windows immediately! > > Jeez, you know what the problem is? People like you > bitching that Linux sucks and not doing a damn thing > about it. Quit yer bitching and start coding already. > It is _free_, fer chrissakes, it ain't perfect. It is > a _group_ effort. There is no Linux, Inc. out there. > > >>Until standards are developed and people can insert >>a CD of their favorite >>software or drivers and hit Next a few times to >>install, I will never >>recommend Linux to any of my family members. > > > I'll bet you will now sleep much better at night, > admitting that in a public forum. Maybe I should just > start using an acronym: SBSC (Stop Bitching, Start > Coding). > > >>Sorry. All of the software for Linux requires >>expertise using package >>managers to install. There are no $5 CD's in >>Walmart that run on Linux. > > > FREE, fer chrissakes. > > >>>"Linux market may grow to $35 billion by 2008" >>>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6719248/ >> >>Permit me to laugh at your choice of news sources >>for that little tidbit.. > > > Thanks. The irony of it is why I chose that particular > URL, instead of the many other news sites reporting > the same story. > > >>You're a geek. You want free, open source software. > > > I do too, but until there is a standard free and > >>open source distribution of GNU/Linux where you >>can go buy software off the shelf, insert the CD, > >>and click a few buttons to install it is simply NOT >>FOR NEWBIES. > > > I understand what you are trying to say. And I will > agree with you to a point: Linux is not easy to use > for SOME people. > > But you misunderstand the nature of free software. > Freedom means that the different distributions have to > _compete_ with each other on their merits. Out of that > competition will come technological innovation, which > could lead to a widely used software package standard > for Linux. Debian made a good early start with this > effort, and the Linux Standards Base project > (http://www.linuxbase.org/) is trying to make what you > want happen. > > I never said Linux was the best OS for complete > newbies. In fact, I said that Windows and Linux both > are great at some things, not so great at others. > > >>I'm not arguing that point at all. It simply is an >>easy to use alternative to Windows. Linux is NOT >>EASY TO USE. > > > That is merely your opinion. Others have already > pointed out that Linux is good enough. And that's all > that really matters. > > Andrew, I know you are an intelligent guy, but can we > just agree to disagree here? Have you considered > directing some of your energy to the LSB project and > help to make Linux standards a reality? > > Yule Tidings! :) > > John > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. > http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > >
