An update from Linux-land
-
Last week I decided to try out Ubuntu as my primary desktop OS at home. My initial experiences and observations are here[^]. Now, part 2. Following the firewall advice from the earlier discussion, I decided to install Firestarter. First thing I did was went to their website and looked for a download link. Surprisingly, there isn't one. It simply says "Firestarter is available in the Ubuntu universe repository.". So following their directions, I hit the "start" menu, and go to "add/remove programs". Sure enough, in the list is Firestarter. I'm slightly puzzled, I think surely this will just be installing from my Ubuntu CD which was released several months ago, so where do I get an up to date version? Well, I tick the box to select it and proceed with the install. Quick confirmation prompt and Woosh, Firestarter latest version is downloaded and installed in about 15 seconds, no confusing questions about where to put the files, no config. It just works. Brilliant. I love this universe repository thing. There's stacks of software there, it all just installs dead easy, it all auto updates to the latest versions. On windows, every app you want, requires finding the website, downloading, installing (and every installer is different and asks lots of confusing questions), etc. The Ubuntu repositories cuts through all the complications and just makes it all easily available. After a bit of reading about this it becomes clear there are several different repositories offering software at different levels running from "Main" which is officially supported Ubuntu software, through non-open source software ("Restricted"), community maintained software ("Universe"), and non-free software ("Multiverse"). You can configure which of these repositories are made available to you through a nice little GUI app found in the administrative tools menu. Obviously, there's nothing stopping you from going to the vendors site and following the traditional Linux route of downloading and building the app from sources. This is a definite plus point for Ubuntu, finding and installing new software is simple and easy in comparison to windows. It's worth noting that this is an Ubuntu specific feature, not all Linux distributions are going to have this fantastic level of out of the box, pre-compiled, ready to go, software support. Anyway, after the little distra
CD/DVD - K3B Playing videos - Mplayer or VLC Playing DVDs - as above + dvdread and dvdcss PDF viewing - search in Synaptic for PDF, there are a couple of viewers VMware - err.. VirtualBox but USB support is tricky Elaine :rose:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
-
DaveyM69 wrote:
AVG[^] do it (not free but cheap)
That would just be the ultimate irony. Switch to a free OS and starting paying for software I previously got for free. :laugh: :laugh: So many people have said it's not necessary I'll probably just follow that advice now.
Simon
Simon Stevens wrote:
So many people have said it's not necessary I'll probably just follow that advice now.
It is not necessary if you do 2 things: 1) DO NOT RUN applications as root unless absolutely necessary 2) AVOID installing anything if it is not from your distribution or not a trusted web site
John
-
Last week I decided to try out Ubuntu as my primary desktop OS at home. My initial experiences and observations are here[^]. Now, part 2. Following the firewall advice from the earlier discussion, I decided to install Firestarter. First thing I did was went to their website and looked for a download link. Surprisingly, there isn't one. It simply says "Firestarter is available in the Ubuntu universe repository.". So following their directions, I hit the "start" menu, and go to "add/remove programs". Sure enough, in the list is Firestarter. I'm slightly puzzled, I think surely this will just be installing from my Ubuntu CD which was released several months ago, so where do I get an up to date version? Well, I tick the box to select it and proceed with the install. Quick confirmation prompt and Woosh, Firestarter latest version is downloaded and installed in about 15 seconds, no confusing questions about where to put the files, no config. It just works. Brilliant. I love this universe repository thing. There's stacks of software there, it all just installs dead easy, it all auto updates to the latest versions. On windows, every app you want, requires finding the website, downloading, installing (and every installer is different and asks lots of confusing questions), etc. The Ubuntu repositories cuts through all the complications and just makes it all easily available. After a bit of reading about this it becomes clear there are several different repositories offering software at different levels running from "Main" which is officially supported Ubuntu software, through non-open source software ("Restricted"), community maintained software ("Universe"), and non-free software ("Multiverse"). You can configure which of these repositories are made available to you through a nice little GUI app found in the administrative tools menu. Obviously, there's nothing stopping you from going to the vendors site and following the traditional Linux route of downloading and building the app from sources. This is a definite plus point for Ubuntu, finding and installing new software is simple and easy in comparison to windows. It's worth noting that this is an Ubuntu specific feature, not all Linux distributions are going to have this fantastic level of out of the box, pre-compiled, ready to go, software support. Anyway, after the little distra
Simon Stevens wrote:
Programming - Languages/IDEs/Frameworks
Take a look at KDevelop and all its integrated tools.
John
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
So many people have said it's not necessary I'll probably just follow that advice now.
It is not necessary if you do 2 things: 1) DO NOT RUN applications as root unless absolutely necessary 2) AVOID installing anything if it is not from your distribution or not a trusted web site
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
It is not necessary if you do 2 things: 1) DO NOT RUN applications as root unless absolutely necessary 2) AVOID installing anything if it is not from your distribution or not a trusted web site
-
- This won't help prevent viruses, only stop them doing bad things once I've got them surely? Interestingly, I follow these practises under windows (run as normal user, and only download trusted software). And a few others, like using the NoScripts[^] plug-in. I don't have a virus checker on windows and whenever I mention it everyone slams me for being stupid. :laugh:
Simon
-
-
John M. Drescher wrote:
It is not necessary if you do 2 things: 1) DO NOT RUN applications as root unless absolutely necessary 2) AVOID installing anything if it is not from your distribution or not a trusted web site
-
- This won't help prevent viruses, only stop them doing bad things once I've got them surely? Interestingly, I follow these practises under windows (run as normal user, and only download trusted software). And a few others, like using the NoScripts[^] plug-in. I don't have a virus checker on windows and whenever I mention it everyone slams me for being stupid. :laugh:
Simon
Simon Stevens wrote:
This won't help prevent viruses, only stop them doing bad things once I've got them surely?
Depending on your distribution this will prevent them from installing themselves as daemons (what windows calls services) and also from changing important system files so most likely a potential virus will not be active after a reboot.
John
-
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
This won't help prevent viruses, only stop them doing bad things once I've got them surely?
Depending on your distribution this will prevent them from installing themselves as daemons (what windows calls services) and also from changing important system files so most likely a potential virus will not be active after a reboot.
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
so most likely a potential virus will not be active after a reboot.
Ahh, good point.
Simon
-
John M. Drescher wrote:
so most likely a potential virus will not be active after a reboot.
Ahh, good point.
Simon
With that said it could however execute inside a users home folder (if you properly run things as a normal user) and have itself launched by the users .bashrc or other startup files but the damage would be limited to that user only as long as permissions were properly set (should be default under most distributions). I guess a lot of this is also true in the windows world if only the administrator has admin privileges...
John
modified on Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:52 AM
-
John M. Drescher wrote:
It is not necessary if you do 2 things: 1) DO NOT RUN applications as root unless absolutely necessary 2) AVOID installing anything if it is not from your distribution or not a trusted web site
-
- This won't help prevent viruses, only stop them doing bad things once I've got them surely? Interestingly, I follow these practises under windows (run as normal user, and only download trusted software). And a few others, like using the NoScripts[^] plug-in. I don't have a virus checker on windows and whenever I mention it everyone slams me for being stupid. :laugh:
Simon
Simon Stevens wrote:
Interestingly, I follow these practises under windows (run as normal user, and only download trusted software).
That is a very good practice to follow. If everyone did that viruses would not be the problem they are today and I would not have spent the last two weekends repairing two of my friends machines who both had current antivirus software installed.
John
-
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
Already do on windows, so that would be my obvious first choice too.
I don't want to bitch about open source software and so I wouldn't comment on GIMP. On Windows, my choice is Paint .NET.
Please leave us our small pleasures, they are small, but they are ours! - Mycroft Holmes ^ .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. [Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
Interestingly, I follow these practises under windows (run as normal user, and only download trusted software).
That is a very good practice to follow. If everyone did that viruses would not be the problem they are today and I would not have spent the last two weekends repairing two of my friends machines who both had current antivirus software installed.
John
teh catch being that running as a non administrator and using consumer software really sucks in XP and prior because of the amount of crapware that does without administrator privileges. VISTA UAC FTW!!!!!
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
teh catch being that running as a non administrator and using consumer software really sucks in XP and prior because of the amount of crapware that does without administrator privileges. VISTA UAC FTW!!!!!
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
dan neely wrote:
VISTA UAC
Only if that was not extremely annoying to the user. One example that I will always get a kick out of. A few months ago I tried to install putty from a network drive (on our work network) to C:\Program Files on a Vista laptop. Since putty does not have an installer the installation is copy the executable to a proper place and create a shortcut... So I selected the file and right clicked on copy, and I got past the "do you really want to see program files" dialog and I then clicked paste. This caused a pretty vista dialog asking me if I really wanted to do this because copying an executable from a network drive could be dangerous. I said yes and a second later I got the same dialog but this time it was not so pretty and looked like an XP style. I said yes again. And a second or so later I get a box saying that I can not do that! :omg: I really would have preferred to see that 2 dialogs ago instead of giving me hope. Anyways I copyied the file to the desktop then to program files and all was well. For an average joe windows user I could see them turning off UAC after this annoyance though..
John
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I don't want to bitch about open source software and so I wouldn't comment on GIMP. On Windows, my choice is Paint .NET.
:wtf: Hey Rajesh, you forgot the joke icon.
That is no joke. May be you had a bad experience with GIMP, in which case I'm glad it worked for you. But my experience was horrible. And as I said, as it is open source, I wouldn't want to complain anything about it.
Please leave us our small pleasures, they are small, but they are ours! - Mycroft Holmes ^ .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. [Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
-
That is no joke. May be you had a bad experience with GIMP, in which case I'm glad it worked for you. But my experience was horrible. And as I said, as it is open source, I wouldn't want to complain anything about it.
Please leave us our small pleasures, they are small, but they are ours! - Mycroft Holmes ^ .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. [Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
Hmm, bugga! Looks like I forgot the ;P icon in my last post. It interesting the different preferences that people (quite rightly) have. I tried Paint .NET about 18 months ago & was appalled to find I had downloaded a 1 point something Meg program that relied upon a something like 50meg framework. Of course I should have had the nous to recognise this requirement from the name, but never the less, it was a disappointing experience. Gimp on the other hand I find a joy to use. I paid for and own a copy of photoshop from a few years back now, and would only consider using instead of Gimp if there was a substantial sum of money involved. (or I had to work with psd files that I otherwise couldn't open) As it stands, if I can't do something graphical with the trio of Inkscape, Gimp & Blender - I can't do it with any other software I've been fortunate enough to experience. Granted - the ability to draw polygonal selection areas in gimp without using the Path tool would be nice, but (for me) it's absence is certainly no deal-breaker. Perhaps I should have another look at Paint.NET - there must certainly be something worth looking at if you hold it in such high regard. Thanks :rose:
-
Hmm, bugga! Looks like I forgot the ;P icon in my last post. It interesting the different preferences that people (quite rightly) have. I tried Paint .NET about 18 months ago & was appalled to find I had downloaded a 1 point something Meg program that relied upon a something like 50meg framework. Of course I should have had the nous to recognise this requirement from the name, but never the less, it was a disappointing experience. Gimp on the other hand I find a joy to use. I paid for and own a copy of photoshop from a few years back now, and would only consider using instead of Gimp if there was a substantial sum of money involved. (or I had to work with psd files that I otherwise couldn't open) As it stands, if I can't do something graphical with the trio of Inkscape, Gimp & Blender - I can't do it with any other software I've been fortunate enough to experience. Granted - the ability to draw polygonal selection areas in gimp without using the Path tool would be nice, but (for me) it's absence is certainly no deal-breaker. Perhaps I should have another look at Paint.NET - there must certainly be something worth looking at if you hold it in such high regard. Thanks :rose:
enhzflep wrote:
a 1 point something Meg program that relied upon a something like 50meg framework.
Oh! I hadn't even thought about it, because I do some occasional .NET development as well, and so I have those frameworks (all of them!) installed in place. But I agree, yours is a valid point.
enhzflep wrote:
Perhaps I should have another look at Paint.NET - there must certainly be something worth looking at if you hold it in such high regard.
Another noteworthy thing: I don't do intensive graphics work. That will be done by a separate team (who use photoshop). I just need an image manipulation tool to do basic things like resizing an image (very frequently done), cropping, masking, adding a few bits of special effects, adjusting the luminosity, RGB, etc., on photos, etc., Paint .NET loads fast, does the job well and the way I want it. So, my vote goes for it. For this, GIMP crashed, barfed on my laptop and arsed me once. Then I never bothered to give it a try again. :)
Please leave us our small pleasures, they are small, but they are ours! - Mycroft Holmes ^ .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. [Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
-
enhzflep wrote:
a 1 point something Meg program that relied upon a something like 50meg framework.
Oh! I hadn't even thought about it, because I do some occasional .NET development as well, and so I have those frameworks (all of them!) installed in place. But I agree, yours is a valid point.
enhzflep wrote:
Perhaps I should have another look at Paint.NET - there must certainly be something worth looking at if you hold it in such high regard.
Another noteworthy thing: I don't do intensive graphics work. That will be done by a separate team (who use photoshop). I just need an image manipulation tool to do basic things like resizing an image (very frequently done), cropping, masking, adding a few bits of special effects, adjusting the luminosity, RGB, etc., on photos, etc., Paint .NET loads fast, does the job well and the way I want it. So, my vote goes for it. For this, GIMP crashed, barfed on my laptop and arsed me once. Then I never bothered to give it a try again. :)
Please leave us our small pleasures, they are small, but they are ours! - Mycroft Holmes ^ .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. [Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
and arsed me once.
Probably moving out of the "acceptable to kid sisters" realm now, but I don't want any software capable of doing that any where near my PC!
Simon