I’m quite impressed by Ubuntu so far (only couple of days of perusing through)/usage and want to get away from Windows. What are some of the personal impressions of users who have had made similar leap in recent years?
Which distribution you prefer and why?
Any limitations you see in terms of multimedia (playing videos, burning dvds, graphics, playing musics etc) vs Windows?
Any other thoughts?
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Experience and there is no substitute for it... Try and you will know.. If you are an average Desktop user then stay with windows.
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
ubuntu is great.. plenty of help online..
depends mostly on your hardware but a ubuntu distro will work on a p2 even.!
With the current 7.04 you can even run windoze inside ubuntu.
I say go for it...the experience is liberating..and windows telling you it will kill your copy every 15 mins if you dont have a genuine copy.....you get to escape that too :)
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Anyone has a VM I can use ?
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Asif, if I'm understanding you correctly then you don't need a VM for ubuntu. You simply can download a "liveCD" from ubuntu site and launch ubuntu from it without having to install it on the machine!
If you prefer, you can even use "wubi-installer.com" utility which installes ubuntu as an app on your windows machine allowing you to test around ubuntu. you can uninstall wubi just like anyother windows app. This is what I installed and I've been so much impressed that I've decided to go the ubuntu way for good.
For all others,
I read at couple of places that there are no virus/spyware threats for ubuntu or at least they are minimal and at "conceptual" level. For those who understand it better could someone please explain to me that why this is so? why there is no viruses for ubuntu. **I'm looking for more details in terms of reasons other than " since windows have bigger share so virus writting programmers focus on windows mainly"
**Thanks.
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Final nail in Vista coffin:
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Asif, if I'm understanding you correctly then you don't need a VM for ubuntu. You simply can download a "liveCD" from ubuntu site and launch ubuntu from it without having to install it on the machine!
If you prefer, you can even use "wubi-installer.com" utility which installes ubuntu as an app on your windows machine allowing you to test around ubuntu. you can uninstall wubi just like anyother windows app. This is what I installed and I've been so much impressed that I've decided to go the ubuntu way for good.
I only use VMWare's Virtual Machines for my day to day work running on XP Pro. I am sure there is a virtual machine for Ubuntu that I can get from somewhere. I prefer doing this instead of changing the main OS.
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
aasif, I believe that wubi thingie creates a vm to run ubuntu off. check it out.
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Anyone has a VM I can use ?
I tried Ubuntu and Fedora on VM only to dump em.. I have VM 6.0 you can try...
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
You can use
Instead of VMWARE.
Or even
Good for virtual machines & virtual servers. Less resource hogging than vmware too, plus free.
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Ubuntu looks for for those new to Linux, very good active support. However I never really like it for some reason, I much prefer OpenSUSE great mix of making life easy with enough advanced features available without out changing stuff around.
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
So no one knows the answer to this?
[quote]
For those who understand it better could someone please explain to me that why this is so? why there is no viruses for ubuntu. *I'm looking for more details in terms of reasons other than " since windows have bigger share so virus writting programmers focus on windows mainly"
[/quote]
*
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Rom, you are asking about Linux in general I guess. There is a huge difference in security when it comes to Unix or Linux vs Windows. You can't simply go on rampant and copy or destroy user's data/mail/programs/files or gain 'su' root privileges or hack secured passwords/shadows. Even breaking in or sniffing in a secured 'NIX is quiet a challenge. Who will 'sar khappaying' for a virus or spyware for such thing, instead enjoy checking out remote Windows system activities for free.
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Here is an excellent article on security in Linux vs Windows:
“There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory.”
So there are far fewer viruses for Mac OS X and Linux. It’s true that those two operating systems do not have monopoly numbers, though in some industries they have substantial numbers of users. But even if Linux becomes the dominant desktop computing platform, and Mac OS X continues its growth in businesses and homes, these Unix-based OS’s will never experience all of the problems we’re seeing now with email-borne viruses and worms in the Microsoft world. Why?
Why are Linux and Mac OS X safer?
First, look at the two factors that cause email viruses and worms to propagate: social engineering, and poorly designed software. Social engineering is the art of conning someone into doing something they shouldn’t do, or revealing something that should be kept secret. Virus writers use social engineering to convince people to do stupid things, like open attachments that carry viruses and worms. Poorly designed software makes it easier for social engineering to take place, but such software can also subvert the efforts of a knowledgable, security-minded individual or organization. Together, the two factors can turn a single virus incident into a widespread disaster.
Let’s look further at social engineering. Windows software is either executable or not, depending on the file extension. So if a file ends with “.exe” or “.scr”, it can be run as a program (yes, of course, if you change a text file’s extension from “.txt” to “.exe”, nothing will happen, because it’s not magically an executable; I’m talking about real executable programs). It’s easy to run executables in the Windows world, and users who get an email with a subject line like “Check out this wicked screensaver!” and an attachment, too often click on it without thinking first, and bang! we’re off to the races and a new worm has taken over their systems.
Even worse, Microsoft’s email software is able to infect a user’s computer when they do something as innocuous as read an email! Don’t believe me? Take a look at Microsoft Security Bulletins MS99-032, MS00-043, MS01-015, MS01-020, MS02-068, or MS03-023, for instance. Notice that’s at least one for the last five years. And though Microsoft’s latest versions of Outlook block most executable attachments by default, it’s still possible to override those protections.
This sort of social engineering, so easy to accomplish in Windows, requires far more steps and far greater effort on the part of the Linux user. Instead of just reading an email (… just reading an email?!?), a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable. Even as less sophisticated users begin to migrate to Linux, they may not understand exactly why they can’t just execute attachments, but they will still have to go through the steps. As Martha Stewart would say, this is a good thing. Further, due to the strong community around Linux, new users will receive education and encouragement in areas such as email security that are currently lacking in the Windows world, which should help to alleviate any concerns on the part of newbies.
Further, due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system. He could damage his /home directory, but that’s about it. So the above steps now become the following: read, save, become root, give executable permissions, run. The more steps, the less likely a virus infection becomes, and certainly the less likely a catastrophically spreading virus becomes. And since Linux users are taught from the get-go to never run as root, and since Mac OS X doesn’t even allow users to use the root account unless they first enable the option, it’s obvious the likelihood of email-driven viruses and worms lessens on those platforms.
Unfortunately, running as root (or Administrator) is common in the Windows world. In fact, Microsoft is still engaging in this risky behavior. Windows XP, supposed Microsoft’s most secure desktop operating system, automatically makes the first named user of the system an Administrator, with the power to do anything he wants to the computer. The reasons for this decision boggle the mind. With all the lost money and productivity over the last decade caused by countless Microsoft-borne viruses and worms, you’d think the company could have changed its procedures in this area, but no.
Even if the OS has been set up correctly, with an Administrator account and a non-privileged user account, things are still not copasetic. **On a Windows system, programs installed by a non-Administrative user can still add DLLs and other system files that can be run at a level of permission that damages the system itself. Even worse, the collection of files on a Windows system - the operating system, the applications, and the user data - can’t be kept apart from each other. Things are intermingled to a degree that makes it unlikely that they will ever be satisfactorily sorted out in any sensibly secure fashion.
** The final reason why social engineering is easier in the Windows world is also an illustration of the dangers inherent in any monoculture, whether biological or technological. In the same way that genetic diversity in a population of living creatures is desirable because it reduces the likelihood that an illness - like a virus - will utterly wipe out every animal or plant, diversity in computing environments helps to protect the users of those devices.
Linux runs on many architectures, not just Intel, and there are many versions of Linux, many packaging systems, and many shells. But most obvious to the end user, Linux mail clients and address books are far from standardized. KMail, Mozilla Mail, Evolution, pine, mutt, emacs … the list goes on. It’s simply not like the Windows world, in which Microsoft’s email programs - Outlook and Outlook Express - dominate. In the Windows world, a virus writer knows how the monoculture operates, so he can target his virus, secure in the knowledge that millions of systems have the same vulnerability. A virus targeted to a specific vulnerability in Evolution, on the other hand, might affect some people, but not everyone using Linux. The growth of the Microsoft monoculture in computing is a dangerous thing for users of Microsoft products, but also for all computing users, who suffer the consequences of disasters in that environment, such as wasted network resources, dangers to national security, and lost productivity (note: the link is to a 880 kb PDF file).
Now that we’ve looked at the social engineering side of things, let’s examine software design for reasons why Linux (and Mac OS X) is better designed than Microsoft when it comes to email security. Microsoft continually links together its software, often not for technical reasons, but instead for marketing or business development reasons (see the previous link for corroboration). For instance, Outlook Express and Outlook both use the consistently-buggy Internet Explorer to view HTML-based emails. As a result, a hole in IE affects OE. Linux email readers don’t indulge in such behavior, with two exceptions: Mozilla Mail uses the Gecko engine that powers Mozilla to view HTML-based email, while KMail relies on the KHTML engine that the Konqueror browser uses. Fortunately, both Mozilla and the KDE Project have excellent records when it comes to security.
Further, the email programs themselves are designed to act in a more secure manner. The default behavior of the email program I prefer - KMail - is to not load external references in messages, such as pictures and Web bugs, and to not display HTML. When an HTML-based email shows up in my Inbox, I see only the HTML code, and a message appears at the top of the email: “This is an HTML message. For security reasons, only the raw HTML code is shown. If you trust the sender of this message then you can activate formatted HTML display for this message by clicking here.” But even after I activate the HTML, certain dynamic elements that can be introduced in an HTML-based email - like Java, Javascript, plugins and even the “refresh” META tag - do not display, and cannot even be enabled in KMail.
Finally, if there is an attachment, it does not automatically run … ever. Instead, I have to click it, and when I do, I get a dialog box offering me three options: “Save As …” (the default), “Open With …”, and “Cancel”. If I have mapped a file type to a specific program - for instance, I have associated PDFs with the PS/PDF Viewer, then “Open With …” instead says “Open”, and if I choose “Open”, then the file opens in the PS/PDF Viewer. However, in either case, the dialog box always contains a warning advising the user that attachments can compromise security. This is all good, very good.
For all these reasons, even if a few individuals got infected with a virus due to extremely foolish behavior, it’s unlikely the virus would spread to other machines. Unlike Sobig.F, which is the fastest spreading virus ever, a Linux-based Virus would fizzle out quickly. Windows is an inviting petri dish for viruses and worms, while Linux is a hostile environment for such nasties.
Some caveats
There is one Linux distribution that is ignoring many years of common sense, good design, and an awareness of secure operating environments in favor of a Microsoft-like deprecation of security before the nebulous term “ease of use”: Lindows. By default, Lindows runs the user of the system as root (and it even encourages the user to forgo setting up a root password during installation by labeling it as “optional”!), an unbelievably shortsighted decision that results in a Linux box with the same security as a Windows 9.x machine.
If you go to the Lindows Web site, they state that it is possible to add other, non-privileged users, but nowhere in the operating system do they advocate adding these other users. Yet they claim their distribution of Linux is secure! In an effort to emulate Microsoft and make things “easy”, they have compromised the security of their users, an unforgivable action. No one in the field of security, or even IT, can recommend Lindows while such a blatant disregard for security is the norm for the OS.
Yet some Linux machines definitely need anti-virus software. Samba or NFS servers, for instance, may store documents in undocumented, vulnerable Microsoft formats, such as Word and Excel, that contain and propagate viruses. Linux mail servers should run AV software in order to neutralize viruses before they show up in the mailboxes of Outlook and Outlook Express users.
Security is, as we all know, a process, not a product. So when you use Linux, you’re not using a perfectly safe OS. There is no such thing. But Linux and Mac OS X establish a more secure footing than Microsoft Windows, one that makes it far harder for viruses to take hold in the first place, but if one does take hold, harder to damage the system, but if one succeeds in damaging the system, harder to spread to other machines and repeat the process. When it comes to email-borne viruses and worms, Linux may not be completely immune - after all, nothing is immune to human gullibility and stupidity - but it is much more resistant. To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. I know which one I’ll trust. How about you?
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
ubuntu has a different filesystem to windoze. You cant just "click to install" like in win...
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Some comments made me smile ... :) - Whine'dows it not bad for an average user though, Linux is good only if you know how to use/manage it & special if u know what you are doing.
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
i didnt know jack diddly bout linux...and guess what i managed to install and get ubuntu to work and i got everything i needed to work..to work!
To all those people who havent tried it....they should at least once give it a go!
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Tremulous..............Another reason to leave windoze....free online FPS gaming!!!!!!!
sweeeeet :)
Re: Thinking about leaving Windows and switching to Ubuntu
Some comments made me smile ... :) - Whine'dows it not bad for an average user though, Linux is good only if you know how to use/manage it & special if u know what you are doing.
This could have been more true in Linux Red hat days (and I don't know squat about Red hat) but with Ubuntu any user who is able to configure anything in windows should be able to up and running with Ubuntu in no time. I'm not talking about users like 60 years old grannys who only know how to talk to their gandchildren by clicking on yahoo chat icon and don't know squat else. Any other average user who is even not an IT professional or savvy but have troubleshot windows and have some idea about what networking is etc should not have trouble with Ubuntu at all.
Last night I partitioned my xp drive to install ubuntu. At first I started getting errors that it cannot create partition. When I actually looked at the log errors from within the same dialogue box I was easily to figure out that it has to do with last abnormal windows shut down. All I had to do was restart windows and then shut down and then boot from ubuntu CD to install.
So far everything is niftier than xp. If I browse to an NAS (which I have been having problems with connecting in Win XP and all my backup + music is on that NAS), it is SO much more quicker than browsing it in Windows. The folders on it open as if it's local drive!
My internet speed has increased two fold without doing anything. While IE 7 would hang many times, opening firefox and going to yahoo is as if I'm opening an html file on my hard disk...actually, no, it's even probably quicker than that.
I'm sure I'll run into issues. I'm sure there will be times when I'll get frustrated and miss Windows but the thing is that there is so much support and help on the net freely available that you shouldn't have much problem.
Things is, people don't keep into perspective the amount of troubleshooting or configuration you have to do even within windows these days..just because it has become part of the routine so it doesn't bother them or they don't notice but with new system, everything is not familiar same way so any troubleshooting is noticeable immediately. In windows you've to firght with viruses and defragmentation and spywares and all other this and that on routinely basis. Even though there are tools available like Norton or O&O Defrag, they still cost money and some of these tools e.g. CCleaner, Spybot etc are all manual processes just remove junk or spyware from your system. Same thing with Deframentation. I've been using O&O defrag professional on trial basis for over a month. It automatically takes care of defragmentation in the background and I had been seeing a lot of improvement in performance since I had installed it...but still the point is that I'd have to pay $44 for it. With Ubuntu, there is no defrag issues to begin with..the only thing I might have to do is occassionally remove some junk files due to install/uninstall packages.