Used Ubuntu for a few hours, deleted it

[Sponsored Link]

Why? Because for anyone less than a programmer who gets a boner from looking at code, XP is infinitely superior than Ubuntu. Vista can fuck itself. I don't mean to start a flame thread, but really, ubuntu makes me jump through hoops just to install a graphic card. Not to mention, fetching data from my other partitions. I'm in now ways computer illiterate, I just think Ubuntu has a bunch of flashy useless features that are more than I need. Am I looking at this the wrong way?

Question: Did you have a dual boot set up, because those are a dick up your ass when it comes to convince. That's just my opinion.

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by hocker213

Question: Did you have a dual boot set up, because those are a dick up your ass when it comes to convince. That's just my opinion.

Yeah, I used wubi and it took 10 minutes to do with two clicks.

I agree with you on that one, Ubuntu doesn't come close to WinXP whatsoever. To be honest thats mostly because of the absolute shit driver availability though. Winxp does everything I want it to, and I havn't got a virus on my PC in over three years, and I don't even use AV software (periodically download, install, scan, uninstall every few months) but its always clean. XP starts up faster, run smoother and ACTUALLY FUCKING WORKS.

Overall, fuck *nix OS's, at least for 5 or so years, I figure by then there should be a distro worth using. Until then XP suits my needs perfectly.

I would use the old "If it aint broke, don't fix it" adage with unix. If you've mastered Windows to your needs and aren't complaining about it, don't change it. If you want to go "further down the rabbit hole," use unix.

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by hocker213

I would use the old "If it aint broke, don't fix it" adage with unix. If you've mastered Windows to your needs and aren't complaining about it, don't change it. If you want to go "further down the rabbit hole," use unix.

Thing is, I really wouldn't mind a more innovative and useful computer interface, but it's like falling in the rabbit hole with a parachute. Kinda pointless.

[coroner]

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

I'm in now ways computer illiterate, I just think Ubuntu has a bunch of flashy useless features that are more than I need. Am I looking at this the wrong way?

Yes.. absolutely.
The design of the system is why I use it, and once you learn something it isn't hard to understand and work with, sort of like building RPM packages for RPM based systems, it's confusing at first and there are a few things you don't get right away, but over time you start to think of things you can use those features for.. how to automate tasks, etc. This is UNIX systems administration.

While Ubuntu Linux is not UNIX, becoming familiar with it allows you to have a broader understanding of software than Windows, since you don't do shit but double click.

The overall system design outshines Windows by far.

[Sponsored Link]

^How? Why? I use windows every day. I don't like it, but I appreciate what it does. Ubuntu is the shit that I have to find a separate program for to INSTALL a driver. I have to install a fucking program (which I have to find first) to install a program. How is that better? Sure I can be all Matrix-ey and type code in the little script parser, but I don't want that shit. I want to click something and have it work and I could give a rats ass if Firefox was coded in Python or C#.

[ataraxia]

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

Why? Because for anyone less than a programmer who gets a boner from looking at code, XP is infinitely superior than Ubuntu. Vista can fuck itself. I don't mean to start a flame thread, but really, ubuntu makes me jump through hoops just to install a graphic card. Not to mention, fetching data from my other partitions. I'm in now ways computer illiterate, I just think Ubuntu has a bunch of flashy useless features that are more than I need. Am I looking at this the wrong way?

Ubuntu

See, there's your problem. You should have used Slackware.

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

Why? Because for anyone less than a programmer who gets a boner from looking at code, XP is infinitely superior than Ubuntu. Vista can fuck itself. I don't mean to start a flame thread, but really, ubuntu makes me jump through hoops just to install a graphic card. Not to mention, fetching data from my other partitions. I'm in now ways computer illiterate, I just think Ubuntu has a bunch of flashy useless features that are more than I need. Am I looking at this the wrong way?

You want a fucking medal or something ?

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by Bump in the night

You want a fucking medal or something ?

If I could just get dome out of it, I'd be on my merry way.

Originally Posted by Rem

I agree with you on that one, Ubuntu doesn't come close to WinXP whatsoever. To be honest thats mostly because of the absolute shit driver availability though. Winxp does everything I want it to, and I havn't got a virus on my PC in over three years, and I don't even use AV software (periodically download, install, scan, uninstall every few months) but its always clean. XP starts up faster, run smoother and ACTUALLY FUCKING WORKS.

Overall, fuck *nix OS's, at least for 5 or so years, I figure by then there should be a distro worth using. Until then XP suits my needs perfectly.

Windows XP is 8 fucking years old, it's legacy.
It's literaly swiss chease, the least secure OS still in use.
Tell me HOW THE FUCK are you sure you don't have a worm/virus if you don't perform regular file integrity checks? If you don't monitor your registery?
You expect every fucking piece of malware to pop-up a window that tells you your *infected*?

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by zeusy

Windows XP is 8 fucking years old, it's legacy.
It's literaly swiss chease, the least secure OS still in use.
Tell me HOW THE FUCK are you sure you don't have a worm/virus if you don't perform regular file integrity checks? If you don't monitor your registery?
You expect every fucking piece of malware to pop-up a window that tells you your *infected*?

Because I haven't been affected by any viruses or noticed anything?

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

... I don't mean to start a flame thread...

Yes you did...

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

^How? Why? I use windows every day. I don't like it, but I appreciate what it does. Ubuntu is the shit that I have to find a separate program for to INSTALL a driver. I have to install a fucking program (which I have to find first) to install a program. How is that better? Sure I can be all Matrix-ey and type code in the little script parser, but I don't want that shit. I want to click something and have it work and I could give a rats ass if Firefox was coded in Python or C#.

Windows requires program to for you to install before you can use flash, or run .net framework programs.

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by MR FLIBBLE

Yes you did...

I'm still wondering what the advantage is, besides seeing code.

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

Because I haven't been affected by any viruses or noticed anything?

Look if i were to spend hours programming a worm, I'd rather have it sit on the computer looking for card numbers and infecting other machines than destroying the whole 'puter. And maybe I also don't want the luser to notice it's presence, so it isn't reported to AV makers...

Money is not the only reason, maybe while your not looking and your computer is on, maybe that worm is participating in a botnet, and your computer will participate in illegal terrorist activities, such as trying to *crash* certain web sites. Or maybe the hacker would like a safe place where he can store his child porn?

Ditch XP, if you REALLY can't stand GNU/Linux, go for vista.

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

I'm still wondering what the advantage is, besides seeing code.

The major advantages for the casual luser are:
FREE FREE FREE. (No hidden cost, serial numbers you have to keep forever [...])
Customization. (Find a viable alternative to explorer.exe?)
Security (When it comes to viruses).
Usuability (Try running Vista on a P3 with 256MB)

I personally find Linux to be way more responsive (especially on high loads) than WinXP or Vista. And if some program misbehave or w.e. (Not specific to Linux, though) I can simply xkill/CTLR+C it, or if it still won't respond, kill it.

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by zeusy

Look if i were to spend hours programming a worm, I'd rather have it sit on the computer looking for card numbers and infecting other machines than destroying the whole 'puter. And maybe I also don't want the luser to notice it's presence, so it isn't reported to AV makers...

Money is not the only reason, maybe while your not looking and your computer is on, maybe that worm is participating in a botnet, and your computer will participate in illegal terrorist activities, such as trying to *crash* certain web sites. Or maybe the hacker would like a safe place where he can store his child porn?

Ditch XP, if you REALLY can't stand GNU/Linux, go for vista.

Are you serious? Ubuntu is better than XP because a TERRORIST can fucking send you a worm? Are you high? Honestly, are you high or just retarded?

[Sponsored Link]

Also, do you own a car? WELL WHY?! A terrorist could hide his child porn in YOUR car! Better drive a clunky shitmobile with no doors and no accessibility so that nothing can be done to it!

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

Are you serious? Ubuntu is better than XP because a TERRORIST can fucking send you a worm? Are you high? Honestly, are you high or just retarded?

What i said is that XP is old and insecure. I was simply giving examples of why certain malware won't *destroy* your computer and rather hide itself. There are very few if any VIRUSES on Linux based systems. I'm not saying Ubuntu is better, or worse, I'm saying for internet's security sake, don't use Win XP, or if you do at least get an AV.

[ataraxia]

Congratulations, you're better at using something you've used for four years than you are at using something you've used for four hours, and you've concluded that the first system is therefore easier to use.
*claps*
And the 2008 award in logic goes to...

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by zeusy

Customization. (Find a viable alternative to explorer.exe?)

blackbox / bb4win / bblean

I don't really understand the discontent with linux, especially ubuntu. I think linux takes some getting used to, and I actually find it easier to install software/drivers on linux than windows. It's kind of like how people refuse to use GIMP even though it does most of the same work that Photoshop can. People need to give things a chance. I don't prefer to use Mac OSX at the moment, but I'm sure I could get used to it if I gave it a fair trial. Though I'm not going to deny that ubuntu still has a ways to go before it becomes a real competitor, but I don't think that's far off in the future.

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

Also, do you own a car? WELL WHY?! A terrorist could hide his child porn in YOUR car! Better drive a clunky shitmobile with no doors and no accessibility so that nothing can be done to it!

Good point, unless you speak linux stay the fuck away.

and if you want to learn buy a book, a REAL one.

Like Linux for Dummis/Unix.

the linux is what 20 odd years?

i dunno but its best for people who understand the game

[coroner]

Originally Posted by madmentos

the linux is what 20 odd years?

The version 1.0 of the Linux kernel was introduced in 1991 to the general public.
It being 2008, that would be 17 years in development.

[PirateJoe]

Originally Posted by ataraxia

Congratulations, you're better at using something you've used for four years than you are at using something you've used for four hours, and you've concluded that the first system is therefore easier to use.
*claps*
And the 2008 award in logic goes to...

I lol'd.

But seriously OP is a retard if he can't figure out Ubuntu. Ubuntu is probably the most user friendly and windows-like distro out there. If, however, you don't have the patience to, you know, learn a little bit about the system you're operating, then I agree, there's no point in you using linux. Because while you can get away with that in windows, you simply cannot in linux, even Ubuntu.

So why go through the trouble? Others have listed a few reasons, but I'll recap: free (as in beer and freedom), extremely customizable, extremely efficient, stable, secure, and IMO, easier to troubleshoot.

Though in all honesty, you seem to be comfortable with windows, so stick with it. If you don't have viruses, or random crashes, or don't care about the 30 billion window managers you can choose from, then by all means, stick with what you know.

[Sponsored Link]

I'm glad you mention stability. Unbuntu crashed 5 minutes after starting with it.

Originally Posted by Sponsored Link

I'm glad you mention stability. Unbuntu crashed 5 minutes after starting with it.

LOL!!


What did you load it onto, we want brands, and statistics and
stupid lil numbers.

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by madmentos

LOL!!


What did you load it onto, we want brands, and statistics and
stupid lil numbers.

I was on totse in firefox on a fresh install.

Originally Posted by Quageschi

For smaller more niche markets open-source dominates, and hence Linux is great for those things.

Um... what about the server market? Google runs 450,000 servers all with GNU/Linux. Wikipedia runs 400 servers with (recently converted to) Ubuntu. The server market is dominated by GNU/Linux. IIRC 75% of the world's super computers run GNU/Linux.

Saying that linux is safer is a moot point, because if it were to gain more market share with non-tech savvy people, it would become just as vulnerable as windows.

That's the most common misconception and fallacy with GNU/Linux... that's assuming that GNU/Linux is built the same way as Windows. Certainly the number of viruses MAY increase, but even so, the damage wouldn't be as widespread as Windows'.

Read this article, it helps a lot in understand security with GNU/Linux vs. Windows: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10...dows_vs_linux/

Originally Posted by akiratheoni

Certainly the number of viruses MAY increase, but even so, the damage wouldn't be as widespread as Windows'.

It depends on your definition of virus.
If you call most malware viruses, then there's already plenty of it for linux.
Let's take for example, joe, who has a LAMP server.

He assumes because it's running has a non-priviledged user, it's not of use to anybody.
Let's say joe has some php script on his site which is vulnerable to some form of code injection, the attacker uploads a php script, which he executes, the script looks for other vulnerable host, then infects them using the same method.
In this example, Joe thought because Linux is said to be secure, he can't have malware

Moral, no OS can protect itself against the stupidity of it's users, or make assumptions about the programs that runs on it.

Note: The Linux kernel is not to blame in this situation.

If the number users increase, the number of stupid users also increase.
If the number of stupid users increase, malware also increase, since it's relies on the same stupid users to infect other nodes.

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by zeusy

It depends on your definition of virus.
If you call most malware viruses, then there's already plenty of it for linux.
Let's take for example, joe, who has a LAMP server.

He assumes because it's running has a non-priviledged user, it's not of use to anybody.
Let's say joe has some php script on his site which is vulnerable to some form of code injection, the attacker uploads a php script, which he executes, the script looks for other vulnerable host, then infects them using the same method.
In this example, Joe thought because Linux is said to be secure, he can't have malware

Moral, no OS can protect itself against the stupidity of it's users, or make assumptions about the programs that runs on it.

Note: The Linux kernel is not to blame in this situation.

If the number users increase, the number of stupid users also increase.
If the number of stupid users increase, malware also increase, since it's relies on the same stupid users to infect other nodes.

...so if the kernel Linux is not an issue here, why are you talking about Linux?

Yes, the script is vulnerable. The code injected will run at the level of the script. To a hardened host, this means that now Joe's apache chroot is owned, and he can maybe execute the other PHP scripts and _maybe_ listen to the SQL socket. Oh noes. Joe should not have been an idiot about his script, and running a server with PHP script on it is nothing like what the "average home user" will do with GNU/Linux.

Originally Posted by Prometheum

...so if the kernel Linux is not an issue here, why are you talking about Linux?

Yes, the script is vulnerable. The code injected will run at the level of the script. To a hardened host, this means that now Joe's apache chroot is owned, and he can maybe execute the other PHP scripts and _maybe_ listen to the SQL socket. Oh noes. Joe should not have been an idiot about his script, and running a server with PHP script on it is nothing like what the "average home user" will do with GNU/Linux.

It's an example, and you don't get my point.
My point is:

Originally Posted by zeusy

Moral, no OS can protect itself against the stupidity of it's users, or make assumptions about the programs that runs on it.

In other words, it's not because the Linux KERNEL can be trusted that other programs that runs on top of it cannot be used as a medium for the distribution of malware.

Originally Posted by ataraxia

you should install arch.
I can guarantee that once you have it installed you will find it ridiculously easy to use and maintain. ^.~

Arch love.

[Akdor 1154]

@OP: out of interest, what's your graphics card? I thought the Restricted Drivers Manager came installed by default - wasn't it just a "yes I agree that closed source is bad, mmkay, now install the damn drivers"?

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by Akdor 1154

@OP: out of interest, what's your graphics card? I thought the Restricted Drivers Manager came installed by default - wasn't it just a "yes I agree that closed source is bad, mmkay, now install the damn drivers"?

You're quite right, and that's been around since 7.04, meaning since April of 2007.

[Sponsored Link]

Originally Posted by Akdor 1154

@OP: out of interest, what's your graphics card? I thought the Restricted Drivers Manager came installed by default - wasn't it just a "yes I agree that closed source is bad, mmkay, now install the damn drivers"?

Didn't see anything like that, and its a 9600gt.

[Akdor 1154]

Maybe it's too new to be in Ubuntu's stock recognition lists. You should have at least done a system upgrade before throwing in the towel.
Yeah some cards are bitches to work with Linux, but traditionally the official nVidia support has been good. If you feel the need, you could go and bitch on the Ubuntu forums/launchpad, so they're aware of the problem and can work on fixing it (if it hasn't been already), at least.

-Jarrad