"Switch to Linux" Help

[robert99]

There is a special magazine edition that specifically helps a new user or someone just interested to get Linux installed and on the net within the hour. No technical stuff - only just what you need to get a fast, secure system filled with the best of open source software.

http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/

[46zilzal]

I am in the process of going to either Mint or Unbutu as I am sick and tired of the computer not letting me control what I want to save or delete in a platform....Windows really sucks in that regard, loads slowly, is full of secutiry holes and open to spyware

[JimG]

I am in the process of going to either Mint or Unbutu as I am sick and tired of the computer not letting me control what I want to save or delete in a platform....Windows really sucks in that regard, loads slowly, is full of secutiry holes and open to spyware

I presume you also have Windows to run horse racing software programs? I know squat about Linux but have never been a big Windows fan.

Jim

[46zilzal]

I presume you also have Windows to run horse racing software programs? I know squat about Linux but have never been a big Windows fan.

Jim
There is a DOS emulator with Linux

[Dave Schwartz]

Although there are no viruses on Linux, if you do not administer your security properly Linux is actually LESS secure than Windows!

You must keep your patches up to date.

Be careful.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[JustRalph]

I have a box with Ubuntu on it......... I like it............but I rarely use it.

It makes for a streamlined setup ............quick and not weighted down with bloatware

[PaceAdvantage]

The reason these other OS's "don't have any viruses" is because hardly anybody uses them compared to Windows...:lol:

If Linux or OSX were as ubiquitous as Windows, TRUST ME, there would be problems...

[DJofSD]

The reason these other OS's "don't have any viruses" is because hardly anybody uses them compared to Windows...:lol:

If Linux or OSX were as ubiquitous as Windows, TRUST ME, there would be problems...
That is a true statement but it is not the only reason why other platforms/operating systems seemingly do not have the same level of problems with malware that MS Windows has.

A major difference between Windows and other systems is the attention to security. While MS now gives some attention to security they still have the legacy of their past sins to deal with. Slowly, holes and design flaws are being addressed but they amount to being band-aids compared to an OS designed from the beginning to include security issues as a part of the design and not an after thought or necessary rework after the fact in order to placate the user community.

I have not kept current with the Trusted Systems evaluations but I'd be surprised if Windows ranks any higher than a B4 on the old NSA evaluating criteria.

[DJofSD]

The reason these other OS's "don't have any viruses" is because hardly anybody uses them compared to Windows...:lol:

If Linux or OSX were as ubiquitous as Windows, TRUST ME, there would be problems...
Mike, there are a lot more UNIX and LINUX systems out there than you might realize.

I'm familar with the IT operations of a couple F500 companies to the degree I know roughly the mix of the different platforms. These two companies have been UNIX (HP UNIX & LINUX) for a long time. Both of them litteraly can not function without those platforms.

Heck, even IBM mainframes play in the open OS arena. I recently read about a Colorado based company that provides billing and other market oriented support for smaller companies unable or unwilling to do it for themselves. It's all web enabled. They were running with the typical server farm that was growing and getting out of control. They made the bold leap to the IBM mainframe running LINUX. A very successful migration and they're extremely happy with the single footprint, easy to manage set up they now have.

[CBedo]

I've thought about moving to linux as well, but being that I'm not a monster power user, the positves of a windows machine still somewhat outweigh the negatives for me, especially the ability to easily run the programs I use the most (online poker software).

My plan is to wait for Windows 7 and then reevaluate.

[robert99]

The reason these other OS's "don't have any viruses" is because hardly anybody uses them compared to Windows...:lol:

If Linux or OSX were as ubiquitous as Windows, TRUST ME, there would be problems...

Mike ,
I would dearly like to trust you on non-computing matters, but you are spouting one of the oldest myths in the business. Any OS can be attacked but the inherent strength of Linux is that its OS kernel is purpose built protected from day one. With MS Windows the kernel and registry are wide open to malware deeply embedding and MS have to update the latest flaws found most every week. Even in Vista the user still has to decide whether a program is safe to run or not. In any case, WEB2 is the future for mainstream software users and Google will base that on Linux OS.

Busting The Myths
Myth: There’s Safety In Small Numbers
Perhaps the most oft-repeated myth regarding Windows vs. Linux security is the claim that Windows has more incidents of viruses, worms, Trojans and other problems because malicious hackers tend to confine their activities to breaking into the software with the largest installed base. This reasoning is applied to defend Windows and Windows applications. Windows dominates the desktop; therefore Windows and Windows applications are the focus of the most attacks, which is why you don’t see viruses, worms and Trojans for Linux. While this may be true, at least in part, the intentional implication is not necessarily true: That Linux and Linux applications are no more secure than Windows and Windows applications, but Linux is simply too trifling a target to bother attacking.

This reasoning backfires when one considers that Apache is by far the most popular web server software on the Internet. According to the September 2004 Netcraft web site survey, [1] 68% of web sites run the Apache web server. Only 21% of web sites run Microsoft IIS. If security problems boil down to the simple fact that malicious hackers target the largest installed base, it follows that we should see more worms, viruses, and other malware targeting Apache and the underlying operating systems for Apache than for Windows and IIS. Furthermore, we should see more successful attacks against Apache than against IIS, since the implication of the myth is that the problem is one of numbers, not vulnerabilities.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth1

[robert99]

I am in the process of going to either Mint or Unbutu as I am sick and tired of the computer not letting me control what I want to save or delete in a platform....Windows really sucks in that regard, loads slowly, is full of secutiry holes and open to spyware

The magazine referred to compares Ubuntu and Mint.

Ubuntu (humanity towards others) is the most popular Linux, Ubuntu 9.10 will be supported to 2014 for company development usage, it has a huge range of hardware drivers and software - it can also run from a single CD so you can try it out and install only if you like it.

Mint is a customised version of Ubuntu but selects the essential software range for you and includes closed source software Java, Flash etc out of the box as well as open source. It is made for occasional users of Linux who just want to run things as simply as possible with highly customised menus to help. Any software has included reviews and sceenshots inside the package manager to help you decide whether to install or not.

Both have virtualisation modes where you can run Windows and any Windows or Mac etc software.

[PaceAdvantage]

If security problems boil down to the simple fact that malicious hackers target the largest installed base, it follows that we should see more worms, viruses, and other malware targeting Apache and the underlying operating systems for Apache than for Windows and IIS. Furthermore, we should see more successful attacks against Apache than against IIS, since the implication of the myth is that the problem is one of numbers, not vulnerabilities.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth1Then again, those folks running Apache servers are 1000x more likely to do everything in their power to secure their systems properly, install robust hardware firewalls, make sure they don't expose their servers to obvious threats like russian porn websites...etc. etc. :lol:

Most of the common folk running Windows on their laptops, surfing porn-o-the-day websites and not knowing a firewall from a fire sale are way more vulnerable to attackers than the IT professionals and enthusiasts running Linux desktops and Apache servers out there....

[douglasw32]

PUPPY imho is the best Linux distro

[robert99]

PUPPY imho is the best Linux distro

Depends what type of user you are. If you want a minimal OS that runs on years old hardware then puppy is great. If you want an OS that runs blisteringly fast on the latest hardware then Puppy is also great.

There are Linux versions to suit all users and MS are now copying that facility with Windows 7.

[robert99]

Then again, those folks running Apache servers are 1000x more likely to do everything in their power to secure their systems properly, install robust hardware firewalls, make sure they don't expose their servers to obvious threats like russian porn websites...etc. etc. :lol:

Most of the common folk running Windows on their laptops, surfing porn-o-the-day websites and not knowing a firewall from a fire sale are way more vulnerable to attackers than the IT professionals and enthusiasts running Linux desktops and Apache servers out there....

Your logic and knowledge is a bit faulty here.
If you visit bad sites and have no knowledge of security needs then Windows is the last thing you would really want to use. Linux has all this security purpose built in from day one for novice users or professionals. That Linux is now so easy to install, run and run securely would make it the better choice for most novice and amateur users, but like sub-prime mortgages, they buy and trust what they are sold and that is nearly always Windows.

[tupper]

As was mentioned earlier, proprietary OSs can't match the swiftness and thoroughness of the open-source bug-patching/security-patching system.

In addition, open source Linux and Unix is generally more security hardened than Windows and OSX. Linux and BSD Unix have been designed for secure networking, from the ground and up.

The dominant Apache web server is an excellent argument against the notion that Linux/Unix has less viruses/worms merely due to fewer numbers.

However, that "fewer numbers" argument can be used in favor of Linux in another way -- there are too many different versions Linux to make it worthwhile for the crackers. There are currently 623 Linux distributions in the Distrowatch.com database, and 309 of those are considered "active." If Linux has end users divided amongst 309 versions (with differing kernels, kernel parameters, core processes, application settings, etc.), crackers have to create viruses and worms specifically for each Linux version (or for each distro-specific application). Thus, each virus affects fewer computers and is much less efficient and effective.

Also, I would like to add that I have personally run various Linux distros for years without a firewall, and I never encountered viruses, worms nor security breaches on those systems.

By the way, it is more difficult for a virus/worm to hide in Linux/Unix. There is no registry -- one can easily see a straightforward list of all things running on the system.

One last thing, Linux and BSD live CDs/DVDs are impervious to viruses/worms. Viruses can't be written to the running CD/DVD. If a virus/worm managed to infiltrate a running, live CD/DVD, it would disappear the moment the CD/DVD was rebooted.

[DJofSD]

Then again, those folks running Apache servers are 1000x more likely to do everything in their power to secure their systems properly, install robust hardware firewalls, make sure they don't expose their servers to obvious threats like russian porn websites...etc. etc. :lol:

Most of the common folk running Windows on their laptops, surfing porn-o-the-day websites and not knowing a firewall from a fire sale are way more vulnerable to attackers than the IT professionals and enthusiasts running Linux desktops and Apache servers out there....
I tend to disagree. In my limited experience with IT security people they try to do a good job but they often are reacting to situations and circumstances.

[PaceAdvantage]

However, that "fewer numbers" argument can be used in favor of Linux in another way -- there are too many different versions Linux to make it worthwhile for the crackers. There are currently 623 Linux distributions in the Distrowatch.com database, and 309 of those are considered "active." If Linux has end users divided amongst 309 versions (with differing kernels, kernel parameters, core processes, application settings, etc.), crackers have to create viruses and worms specifically for each Linux version (or for each distro-specific application). Thus, each virus affects fewer computers and is much less efficient and effective.Sure this sounds like a great way to thwart crackers and virus spreaders, but does this also mean if I write a program that runs under Linux, I have to make 309 versions? :lol:

You guys all make some excellent points, and you have obviously exposed my serious lack of knowledge in the world of Linux....which is why I ask the above question (which may sound like a dumb question to the Linux experts out there...)

[tupper]

... does this also mean if I write a program that runs under Linux, I have to make 309 versions?No. The application's developers usually provide a single "source code" file. The developers of a distro take that source code and "compile" it into the final, "binary" app, according to their distro's settings.

Applications in Linux/Unix are commonly called "packages." The packages are usually listed in a database, and, often, a "package manager" app uses this database to automatically download and install a desired package(s). The group of packages listed in a database is called a repository.

The Apple iPhone "apps store" is very similar to Linux package repsositories, except that, with Linux, everything is usually free.

I didn't mean to give the impression that each Linux distro is completely different from the next. Of the 309 distributions, many share (or "piggyback") package repositories, to avoid the job of compiling a lot of applications.

For instance, the two distros mentioned early in this thread -- Ubuntu and Mint -- share the Ubuntu package repository. Mint is derived from Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is derived from Debian Linux, so many of the over 18,000 Debian binary apps can be run by Ubuntu users. A lot of distros are based on Debian, just so they can use the 18,000 already-compiled binaries. The Live CD from which I am currently typing is Sidux, which is based on Debian.

Puppy (another distro mentioned in this thread) is not based on any other distro. It uses its own package repository, but I think that there is a way that it can use packages from Slackware Linux.

I have run Debian apps from Slackware (and vice versa) with success. In such cases, the smaller apps usually work better than the larger, more complex apps.

Incidentally, some distros are "source based," which means that all desired packages are compiled into binaries by the end user, directly from the original source code. Therefore, the apps become optimized for your specific hardware. Usually, these distros have their own programs and "scripts" that manage the compilation of the apps. However, many users prefer distros with already-compiled, binary package repositories, as compiling a package can take a lot of processor time.

Hope this explanation helps.

[robert99]

Would just add to Tupper's reply to confirm that the software writer writes ONE source code program which can be compiled for Windows 32/64, Macs or Linux etc. The Linux user essentially has all this done for him by the distributors of the Linux package he is running. Any updates are done in one go to the whole package so the user always has the latest software.

To help explain that Linux has moved on to suit the needs of the everyday user and is now easier to run than Windows is why I posted the thread.

A Linux developer/user normally has free access to the original source code and can modify it as he wants but many just run things out of the box.

The varieties of Linux are actually variations on the GNU operating system which sits on the common Linux kernel. To me there are far too many apparent variations which mostly do much the same thing as far as the user is concerned - but certainly do confuse people and waste a whole lot of productive time.

Windows 7 (Vista SP3) is now going this way with different packages for different hardware set-ups as well as different packages for home/business/ power users, 32 bit/64 bit etc.

[Pace Cap'n]

So I downloaded Ubuntu and burned to CD...when I went to boot from CD it started to load in DOS and stopped at a command prompt "A:/". I guess it wants me to enter a command, but what would it be?

P.S.: It was not terribly encouraging to see a copyright date of 1976 (yes, 1976) on the download.

[tupper]

So I downloaded Ubuntu and burned to CD...when I went to boot from CD it started to load in DOS and stopped at a command prompt "A:/". I guess it wants me to enter a command, but what would it be? Some Live CDs boot to a "command line" prompt and usually give a list of options, or instruct to press F2, F3, F4 for a list of options.

At the moment the prompt appears, just pressing <enter> will normally boot the default version of the distro. The default version often automatically boots after a few seconds of inactivity, anyway.

However, if your command prompt actually reads "A:/", then, as you said, you have booted into DOS, not Linux. Somehow, you have gotten into a version of DOS which is on your hard drive.

I would check the "boot order" setting in your BIOS. It should be set to boot first from the CD/DVD drive.

The first Ubuntu screen should look something like this (http://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/image67.png).

Hope this helps.

[tupper]

Here are some basic instructions (http://www.hiren.info/pages/bios-boot-cdrom) on how to set your BIOS to boot first from the CD/DVD.

This guide says to press <del> at at startup, but not all BIOSes/motherboards use the same key. The BIOS screen usually tells you which key to press to enter setup, but here is a list (http://www.pcdisktools.com/HowtoSetBIOS.htm) that gives the different setup keys for each brand.

Once your BIOS is set to boot first from the CD/DVD, keep it that way. It makes it easier to access your hard drive from a bootable CD. Just don't leave your Willie Nelson CD in the drive when you boot, because the computer will take a few seconds to try and boot from it, before it moves on to the hard drive.:)

[Pace Cap'n]

Thanks for the help. I have determined that the CD was improperly burned as a "bootable disk" rather than an image. Now I am having a devil of a time getting Nero to locate my download. Could it be that my system (Win98) is not recognizing the ".ISO"?

[tupper]

I have determined that the CD was improperly burned as a "bootable disk" rather than an image. Now I am having a devil of a time getting Nero to locate my download. Could it be that my system (Win98) is not recognizing the ".ISO"?I am guessing that the CD contains the "ISO" file. If the "ISO" image was properly burned to the CD, then there should be multiple files on the CD, not a single "ISO" file.

I don't know much about Nero, but perhaps Nero merely "moved" the "ISO" file to the CD, instead of "copying" it to the CD or instead of properly burning the image.

If Nero "moved" the "ISO" file to the CD, that might explain why you can't find it on your hard drive.

[robert99]

For the very first time Microsoft acknowledges Linux threat to the Windows client

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/08/06/microsoft-acknowledges-linux-threat-to-the-windows-client

"Microsoft also makes mention in the report that Linux was originally not a viable desktop OS competitor for Windows, but now has become one."

[headhawg]

As an ".iso" is a file, it appears that Nero did what tupper suggested -- it burned the file but not the image. Also, there is usually an option to delete the img/iso file when burning is completed so maybe that was enabled. Nero is not that good anyway, and there is plenty of excellent and free image burning software out there. I am partial to ImgBurn which can be found here (http://www.imgburn.com/). Don't know that it works with Win98, though.

And, as always, if you're not that computer savvy regarding burning images or doing other things then don't forget to RTFM.