Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Originally Posted by rclark my maintenance for his laptop has gone to about zero since the change over years ago now.

No security updates? Brave.

Originally Posted by rclark Windows 'does' work ... well enough... So why change???

True.

No security updates? Brave.

I'd say your somewhat 'paranoid' . Sheesh. Of course there is security updates ... but not every day, or week, or even month. Just when we happen to visit and I get a chance, I will update for him. Linux plays nice that way. That takes all of a couple a minutes... Security updates is 'not' a big deal for home environments anyway (unlike Windoze). That said, I don't get the 'calls' that 'a' isn't working or the machine stopped working, disk events, virus checker needing to be updated, or all the other M$ problems I used to have to help recover from. Nor registering with big brother or any of the other software $$ that the try to push. His out of pocket expense now is just the laptop. No Linux was a great move in this situation. Biggest maintenance now is wiping Windows and installing latest KUbuntu LTS when a new laptop is needed every few years. Went thru the upgrade cycle twice now...

Originally Posted by rclark virus checker needing to be updated, or all the other M$ problems I used to have to help recover from.

If you seriously think that installing and/or using a "virus checker" was a wise choice, it's not Microsoft's fault. Don't.

If you seriously think that installing and/or using a "virus checker" was a wise choice,

Back in the day you installed Mcafee or Norton. That was the way it was. I don't know now, as my last Windows system was Windows 7.

Even back in the day, that was an extremely unwise idea. A Symantec guy said that Norton "Antivirus" usually detects malware from 360 days after their initial spreading. I imagine that the numbers haven't become much better lately. Seriously, if you think Windows "needs" more security software than other systems, you might be mistaken about what security software actually does.

Originally Posted by rclark Back in the day you installed Mcafee or Norton. That was the way it was. I don't know now, as my last Windows system was Windows 7.

Back in that time, using a bootable Kaspersky disc (or the like) was the only way to clean. These days, encrypted disc to "protect" from loss of data, becomes a royal pita when you try to clean from a bootable AV tool. I'll save my end-end & disc encryption rant for another thread.

These days, encrypted disc to "protect" from loss of data, ...

Since none of my 'data' is sensitive NSA material, disk encryption is just an unneeded layer of complexity. Format ext4 and go... Good backups on the other hand are a necessity -- on site and off site. Also data server is kept off the internet interface (two network interfaces). Only plug in cable to occasionally update to the latest packages, then unplug... I feel secure enough... KISS is the principle I go by within reason.

Originally Posted by rclark Back in the day you installed Mcafee or Norton. That was the way it was. I don't know now, as my last Windows system was Windows 7.

Ah yes, happy days in the last millennium when McAfee or Norton was enough for safety, as long as you never got a boot virus. Some of those (CIH, for instance) were programmed to DCC themselves around over IRC.

Now it's Govt. Departments spawning new threats and ransomware, sent from hacked but innocent-seeming sources. Remember the sophistication & patience involved in that xz hack attempt? And these jealously guard their otherwise undiscovered exploits so they won't get patched. For them, windows must be easy, but linux is not impossible.

What intrigues me is the 'privilege escalation' stage of hacking linux. How does a user in a 'users' group become root?

Originally Posted by rclark Since none of my 'data' is sensitive NSA material

Where do you draw the line?

Originally Posted by business_kid How does a user in a 'users' group become root?

Usually, by exploiting one or more of the numerous bugs in Linux (the kernel) and/or its software, due to the lack of QA.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Most operating systems, including (but not limited to) the BSDs and Windows, are notably easier to use than contemporary Linux distributions without reading an encyclopedia's worth of manpages and/or handbooks first.

While you're entitled to your opinion, as is anyone one else, right, wrong, or indifferent, and I'll be the last person to take that away from you; If you're seriously suggesting that the Unix BSD's (not that there is anything wrong with them that I know of) are "easier" to use than a Linux distro designed for desktop users (such as, but not limited to, Ubuntu, Linux Mint to name a few), then you are once again just flat out wrong.

There almost isn't the words in the english language to express how wrong you are on that. Therefore I cannot take you seriously.

If that was a joke, then good one, ROTFL, good one.

PS: The above is based on actually using Windows from Windows 3.0 when you still needed DOS as the OS to run Windows, and 20 years (or very close to now) of using Linux, and various distributions of. So if you think you can convince me that what you say is actually true to any extent for all Linux distros, then you are also very wrong, let alone if you think I'm going to ignore over 30 years of experience with both Windows and Linux combined, then you couldn't be more wrong if you tried - because I ain't going to be doing that for a single second.

Don't agree? Well, I'll let you in a little secret, I don't care - which is very easy when you are flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by why_bother If you're seriously suggesting that the Unix BSD's (not that there is anything wrong with them that I know of) are "easier" to use than a Linux distro designed for desktop users (such as, but not limited to, Ubuntu, Linux Mint to name a few), then you are once again just flat out wrong.

Don't get me wrong: Of course, a contemporary Linux distribution designed for use on the desktop by non-experts is not complicated to use. My favourite example is Fedora, which (believe it or not) I used myself on a daily basis for a while: super easy to install and super easy to run - until there are problems and you have to fix things on the console, which didn't get any easier with the advent of binary logs (systemd) as far as diagnostics are concerned. You can't even use grep in the normal way any more.

I would be happy to hear from you how this is easier to repair than OpenBSD, for example (although it should be hard enough to get OpenBSD to crash in the first place). Quite apart from the fact that, in my opinion, installing and starting up OpenBSD is even easier: Press Enter a few times and that's essentially it.

Originally Posted by why_bother There almost isn't the words in the english language to express how wrong you are on that. Therefore I cannot take you seriously. If that was a joke, then good one, ROTFL, good one.

Linux users are absolutely adorable, sometimes. They always remain so matter-of-fact and don't just snarl at you from the sidelines.
You, Sir/Madam, are an idiot, in the most friendly (i.e. LQ-compatible, Greek) way.

Originally Posted by why_bother So if you think you can convince me

If there is one thing that life has taught me, it's that life's too short and too sweet to convince strangers on the internet. Please, by all means, continue to prefer whatever you like. I honestly don't care what you use and what you don't use, and I can't see a reason behind your outburst. Grow up, my friend.

Originally Posted by why_bother let alone if you think I'm going to ignore over 30 years of experience with both Windows and Linux combined, then you couldn't be more wrong if you tried - because I ain't going to be doing that for a single second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Originally Posted by why_bother Don't agree? Well, I'll let you in a little secret, I don't care

Thank you for taking the time to add your witty opinion to this discussion, considering how little you care about other people's opinions. I hope this has fully satisfied your need for recognition.

Originally Posted by why_bother which is very easy when you are flat out wrong.

Because - as everyone knows - there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong when it comes to the simplicity of operating systems. We're lucky to have you here.

LQ Rules

Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack. Differing opinions is one of the things that make this site great.

I do suggest that everyone re-read LQ Rules or infractions will be given.

Originally Posted by rclark Since none of my 'data' is sensitive NSA material, disk encryption is just an unneeded layer of complexity. Format ext4 and go... Good backups on the other hand are a necessity -- on site and off site. Also data server is kept off the internet interface (two network interfaces). Only plug in cable to occasionally update to the latest packages, then unplug... I feel secure enough... KISS is the principle I go by within reason.

But companies want their stolen data from lost/stolen laptops, and drives that never made it to the eye-in-mountain shredder...... to remain hard to get at. TPM, HSM, etc. Win11 requires TPM2.0.... so say MS, but I running Win11 on device that has TPM but it's currently not 2.0, I need to do a flash update or something to the TPM, so more hassle now.

The best way to get Linux to the desktop, just wrap a support model around it, and don't call it linux. MS, Gool, some others, seem to be morphing their code in some version of Ai, so I suspect soon we shall see more stuff like "Ai OS". The coders of Linux OS's need to start doing the same thing. A RH or ubuntu or debian flavor/version that is heavy with OpenAi stuff would be ok. My guess is, soon we'll see on the wall-smart shelves "Copilot OS" and "Gemini OS", marketing terms to hook you in.

Originally Posted by Linux_Kidd The best way to get Linux to the desktop, just wrap a support model around it, and don't call it linux.

Red Hat was acquired by IBM. IBM is commercially successful and sells a lot of Red Hat subscriptions. Businesses like to have support. It's a viable choice for businesses who don't want to run Microsoft.