Wouldn’t it be great to just get a PC with Linux already installed and ready to go? Novell thinks that’s a grand idea too, and on Oct. 25 announced agreements with four white-box PC manufacturers who will globally distribute PCs preloaded with SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10. Novell’s new PC vendors are European manufacturers ETegro Technologies, MAXDATA and Transtec, along with the U.S. PC OEM R Cubed Technologies. Each will sell notebooks and/or desktop PCs preloaded with SLED 10.
This is a good enough reason to switch to SUSE.
I’ve installed SuSE Enterprise 10 last night as duel boot (primary OS) with Windows XP and so far I’m pretty impressed, but there just seems to be numerous polishing issues remaining.
I’ve come from a background of Linux infrastructure management and even then I had to bring in some of my skills to get things working.
For instance, the OS comes with Firefox 1.5.x and I wanted to upgrade to 2.0. I downloaded the package available by default from getfirefox.com and it successfully opened in gzip software..
I was looking for something obvious about upgrading or installing, but the best I could find was the readme which referred me to a website. The website’s only advice for installing was a warning that it’ll replace all of the old version preserving my bookmarks, etc.
Puzzled I searched online for around 15 minutes to see but came up with little. I tried the software update feature but it didn’t discover the new firefox in the 110 updates it installed.
At this point in time I’ve reserved myself to just have 2.0 in a folder on the desktop and will run it from there. So.. tried to use it, and Flash works fine in Firefox 1.5 but not 2.0 on my system.
Going back to 1.5 it then told me that other instances of the firefox “process” were running and I had to close them or restart the computer. No visible firefox instances were running. I knew I could terminate them with some “ps aux | grep [f]irefox” and “kill -9” commands but frankly for a desktop OS that was something I was very suprised about.
I then tried to enable XGL… no go with my Geforce 6600 GT.. This is not a cutting edge card and certainly not old. I would have expected it to work.. no matter I started to download the drivers via YaST but then I had to add the nvidia source which I found out via Google I had to do. It presented the available downloads, but there were several and I just trusted the website message forum.. it worked.. except there are random artifacts now in the XGL interface.. fancy and all but not acceptable to have artifacts.
All this, not to mention I spent days trying to figure out why the installer couldn’t find the software catalog, only to discover by chance that even though it booted successfully off my DVD, it kept referring to the CD-ROM drive on the same IDE for the catalog which of coarse didn’t exist.. the fix was to eject the CD from the CD-ROM and only then would the installer find the catalog.
It’s only early days and I’m going to give this a serious go for at least a month but as a running score on my experience so far, I could only give SuSE a 5 out of 10 and certainly wouldn’t think that it’s ready for the prime time.
Also, please spare me the flaming or “oh but you didn’t do this”.. I’ve been trying to use this OS as a general non-technical user (which I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with for the past four years) and what their reactions would be..
The versions shipped with SLED10 will *never* change. Novell will backport security changes etc, but NEVER will they change the version. There are obvious reasons for NOT changing it.
As for your NVIDIA driver, you would have gotten them automatically, had you registered with Novell.
The problems you are experiencing has to do with yourself. You know less than you think, but more than you should, hence you’re breaking it yourself.
Like I said, spare me the flames.. I HAVE registered with Novell.
As for not knowing as much as I think in your humble opinion, you’re probably right I don’t know as much as maybe you think I should about SuSE, however you’ve missed one vital component here.. I was trying to see how the average user as I have experienced for years now would approach things. I was exploring SuSE and certainly wasn’t expecting to hit as many problems.
It’s nieve to think that everyone is going to elect to join the Novell network. People are concerned about privacy and security, and others will just not want to do it. I don’t belive they should just to get drivers. Security updates I can understand.
I certainly do not see how I know too little but too much and as a result broke things such as the installation issue I had, upgrading to the newer Firefox and the drivers.
An average user would let the os manage the updating of their browser and drivers. You, knowing more than an average user strived to go beyond the operating system and worry about individual package versioning, average users couldn’t care less, click browse no problem.
—
At this point in time I’ve reserved myself to just have 2.0 in a folder on the desktop and will run it from there. So.. tried to use it, and Flash works fine in Firefox 1.5 but not 2.0 on my system.
—
It doesn’t install from what I could tell. You just place the Firefox folder into your /home/”user” or /root directory then create a symbolic link to the firefox.sh script on your desktop.
You need to move libflashplayer.so and other files from the ~/.mozilla/plugins to the ~./firefox/plugins folder for Flash and other plugins to function.
If you don’t want to do all that, wait for FF 2.0 to appear on the guru repository or w/e and grab it from there. Note: openSUSE 10.2 has Firefox 2.0.
Why Mozilla doesn’t offer RPM or DEB packages or an automated installer for LSB compliant distribution (like SUSE) is beyond me.
—
Going back to 1.5 it then told me that other instances of the firefox “process” were running and I had to close them or restart the computer. No visible firefox instances were running. I knew I could terminate them with some “ps aux | grep [f]irefox” and “kill -9” commands but frankly for a desktop OS that was something I was very suprised about.
—
This sort of thing happens to me on Linux and Windows. On SUSE, I just open KSysGaurd and kill the misbehaving processes.
When windows are shown, I like to press Ctrl+Alt+Esc and click on them to terminate their instances.
—
I then tried to enable XGL… no go with my Geforce 6600 GT.. This is not a cutting edge card and certainly not old. I would have expected it to work.. no matter I started to download the drivers via YaST but then I had to add the nvidia source which I found out via Google I had to do. It presented the available downloads, but there were several and I just trusted the website message forum.. it worked.. except there are random artifacts now in the XGL interface.. fancy and all but not acceptable to have artifacts.
—
SUSE doesn’t ship with proprietary drivers anymore. You get the NV driver if you use an nVidia card. NV offers no 3D support for any modern card.
DRI is a bit more functional with ATI cards, but sucks donkeys on chipsets greater than R300.
In additon, XGL and Compiz are just temporary hacks that will cease to exist once the true compositing window managers in Gnome 2.18 and KDE 4 appear and proprietary drivers support AIGLX (soon).
—
All this, not to mention I spent days trying to figure out why the installer couldn’t find the software catalog, only to discover by chance that even though it booted successfully off my DVD, it kept referring to the CD-ROM drive on the same IDE for the catalog which of coarse didn’t exist.. the fix was to eject the CD from the CD-ROM and only then would the installer find the catalog.
—
This is probably a bug. Maybe file a bug report?
Package management is already better in openSUSE 10.2 Beta 1. Just wait for the Gold Master in December. 🙂
—
It’s only early days and I’m going to give this a serious go for at least a month but as a running score on my experience so far, I could only give SuSE a 5 out of 10 and certainly wouldn’t think that it’s ready for the prime time.
—
Things are getting better, just wait. Next year we’ll have the next generation KDE and Gnome desktops to displace Vista’s Aero and Leopard’s Aqua. 🙂
Plus SUSE and Kubuntu will be among the first to receive the KDE 4 treatment.
Hey thanks for the great reply. I’ll give this a go when I get home later on.
Hmm… some testing has revealed that plugins work in either the .mozilla/plugins (from previous firefox) or firefox/plugins folders.
I would just check to make sure “libflashplayer.so” in one of those. Then type “about:plugins” in the address bar to determine if Flash is successfully installed.
Why Mozilla doesn’t offer RPM or DEB packages or an automated installer for LSB compliant distribution (like SUSE) is beyond me.
Because not everybody uses a rpm or deb based packamanager.A pre-compiled binary in a zip is fair.
Any Linux distro in it’s current state of affairs is more of a closed appliance solution than a platform as far as nondeveloper oriented users are concerned. The philosophy here is that you should avoid using software from 3rd party sources and stick to whatever distro integrated.
It resembles a desktop OS but in reality it turns your PC into a multi function desktop appliance.
they said this with Lenovo, didn’t they?
Well, Transtec has been selling desktops and laptops with SuSE preinstalled for ages now. At least a year anyway, because we buy from Transtec here at work, and I’ve been working here for a year.
Here you go, a nice laptop with SuSE preinstalled:
http://www.transtec.co.uk/GB/E/products/Notebooks/transtecv210noteb…
I have pre-configured Linux (Fedora Core 5) on my laptop with all of the multi-media working correctly. However, why can they not offer this type of installation for the end user where they can get up and running out of the box?
This would help with the Linux adoption rate and allow regular users to enjoy the operating system without hours of searching user forums only to wipe it out and re-install Windows.
Just my opinion, it would help I think giving users a look at what Linux on the desktop can do, instead of what it cannot do.
I’ve come to the conclusion that for some users, though probably not anywhere near the majority, pre-loaded anything is a bad idea. Every time I’m confronted with default install options in Linux/FreeBSD I find I need to change something!
I can see that point of view, if they configured like Flash, Java, Movie Player, Real Player, Xine, XMMS (with codecs) and DVD codecs. I feel this would help the cause even if they had to a pay a fee for license keys. I can understand the need to change/configure for you liking I know I totally change my Linux workstation/laptop/servers all around.
SLED 10, which is what they’re talking, about does come with all that stuff pre-installed iirc.
If it’s Linux, you actually CAN.
True, but if you have to reinstall Linux because the vendor got it wrong the only advantage over having to get rid of Windows before you put Linux on the machine is that Microsoft lose the revenue. Microsoft losing the revenue for one box is unlikely to be much comfort to anyone but the most rabid Microsoft hater who has to reinstall Linux.
Yet, if you are of the sort that thinks that everyone gets everything crudtastically wrong except for you yourself, I doubt if there’s any comfort to be found anywhere under any circumstances. The advantage is that, like it has been stated ad nauseum in dozens of articles like these, the Linux is pre-installed and supported out-of-box. It is yet another path in which to INTRODUCE Linux to the general public in a way that is familiar and palatable to them. Thus, the same people who blindly trusted Microsoft to serve their best interests (which they may or may not have done) are merely just switch to trusting someone else (albeit blindly), the ones who desire to learn how to master and refine their computers have another opportunity to do so, and Microsoft (et al., if there were an et al. allowed) has to work all the harder to win customers back. Plus, if someone is merely unconcerned about change, they can stick with the obvious choice(s). So the pre-installer doesn’t get it perfect first shot from the gate… who does?
//Thus, the same people who blindly trusted Microsoft to serve their best interests (which they may or may not have done) are merely just switch to trusting someone else//
Microsoft agenda = make money for Microsoft. (Nothing wrong with that per se, but it isn’t the same agenda as end users of software would have).
Authors of FOSS software agenda = make the best software possible for users to use.
Just looking at the agenda of the people writing the software you might consider using can lead you to a decision. This isn’t a blind choice at all. The agendas are in plain sight.
Perhaps. I don’t know if it’s that simple though.
You cannot deny that vendors of paid linux distributions have a angenda to make money as well.
I think you’re comparing different entities here. Microsoft generally owns and controls the entire pipeline for software that it’s involved in (there are exceptions) and are certainly geared towards making a profit. This includes the “authors” of the software inside Microsoft.
The “authors” of free software don’t always control that pipeline of software conception, creation, delivery and support, so their agenda understabily could be believed to be as you’ve said to make the best software.
You could argue that you’re in some aspect encouraged to take the software, modify and repackage and then sell support services for it. This is of coarse conditional that the release the changes back to the community. There IS a benefit here for everyone if followed, but also a gearing towards making a profit.
The vendors of delivering and supporting the software, whilst they do contribute to the FOSS movement, do have a gearing towards making money as well.
So to be fair here, I would think it’s probably best to compare the entire FOSS movement (conception, creation, delivery and support) against Microsoft as a whole. If you view it in that context it’s not as simplistic as one is for profit, the other for the good of people.
And lets not forget the tremendous charatable contributions and recent appearance to be more open from Microsoft. I say appearance with emphasis because I’m sure this is geared towards some idea that there’s profit or lack of expense by doing so.
There is certainly gray areas in this on both sides in my view.
//You cannot deny that vendors of paid linux distributions have a angenda to make money as well. //
Linux distributions make money, as you put, via “then sell support services for it”. This is perfectly out in the open. You don’t have to pay for the support if you don’t require it. If you don’t require the support, the total TCO is $0.
Thus the authors of FOSS software are not served in any way by putting “bad” things (bad from the end users’ perspective) in the software. The FOSS software authors make no extra or less money (one way or another) via what they put into the software. OTOH, if the authors put the best code they can into the software, then they themselves benefit, distributors benefit, and end users benefit. Since the code is free of charge, there is no need at all to protect it from piracy, or to hide it from scrutiny, or to deceive anyone about what is in it.
With Windows however, with a different agenda, all I have to do is mention the keywords: WGA, call home, product keys, EULA, license fee, CAL, DRM, closed, proprietary, patent, royalty, lock-in … and the agenda is clear. Very clear. It is not the same agenda as end users have.
Edited 2006-10-27 03:32
Well when I tried to get a hold of Red Hat Enterprise from Red Hat they wanted $2000 or there abouts. I asked what for and they said for the support. I asked for the software without a fee other than postage and medium costs and I’ll support it myself without them. I was told bluntly that they wouldn’t sell/give it to me without a paid support subscription. There’s a for-profit agenda there.
As for Windows, you need to be clear here. You said Microsoft in the first instance, and now are referring to Windows. My comments were based on Microsoft the entity and not just Windows.
As far as WGA goes, I don’t see a problem with Microsoft legally protecting their commercial interests.
And to be fair, I don’t think anyone was objecting to Microsoft having a for-profit agenda.. they’re a for-profit organisation, as are some linux vendors such as Red Hat and Novell, irrespective of the fact that they give back to the FOSS community.
//Well when I tried to get a hold of Red Hat Enterprise from Red Hat they wanted $2000 or there abouts. I asked what for and they said for the support. I asked for the software without a fee other than postage and medium costs and I’ll support it myself without them. I was told bluntly that they wouldn’t sell/give it to me without a paid support subscription. There’s a for-profit agenda there. //
Of course there is. That is what RedHat sell. Support. If you don’t want the support they offer, you shouldn’t be calling RedHat.
If you just want the software you called the wrong company. Get the software alone (without support) from here:
http://www.centos.org/
or even here: http://fedora.redhat.com/
For SuSe, if you want software + support, get SLED. If you just want the software without support, get OpenSuse.
For Ubuntu, you get the software for free (in the sense that there are not two versions of it). They will even make you the disks for free. For support, arrange it and pay for it here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support
… and so on.
//As for Windows, you need to be clear here. You said Microsoft in the first instance, and now are referring to Windows. My comments were based on Microsoft the entity and not just Windows. //
What is your point exactly? Microsoft is the sole source supplier of Windows.
//As far as WGA goes, I don’t see a problem with Microsoft legally protecting their commercial interests.//
Neither do I. My point is that this and many other aspects of Microsoft software is not in the end user’s interest.
//And to be fair, I don’t think anyone was objecting to Microsoft having a for-profit agenda.. they’re a for-profit organisation, as are some linux vendors such as Red Hat and Novell, irrespective of the fact that they give back to the FOSS community.//
.. and equally to be fair, Ubuntu, Novell & RedHat all charge you for support & not for the the software, and you can get an unsupported version of all 3 (Ubuntu, Novell & RedHat … except that you can’t get the free version of RedHat from RedHat) at zero cost … unlike Microsoft Windows.
Precisely because none of the three charge you for the software, then they don’t mind you downloading the software (even if you are a direct competitor like CentOS), examining the software, auditing the software, copying & backing up the software, modifying the software to your own purpose, making as many copies as you want or giving it away to your friends. They don’t protect it from your view, and they don’t put things in it that you yourself would rather not have to contend with. They don’t charge you a per-user license for the software.
You get exactly the opposite treatment with Microsoft. Again, the difference in agendas is very clear here.
Edited 2006-10-27 05:48
I disagree. I feel I should be able to obtain a copy of Red Hat Enterprise without the support and only have to pay reasonable costs for the medium and the delivery. You could eliminate bandwidth costs using torrents for instance regarding downloading.
I frankly have no faith in using Fedora for infrastructure.
I’m not going to go around this again, I’ve made my point very clear in the first post about how the agendas aren’t necessarily as black and white as you’ve put it.
disagree. I feel I should be able to obtain a copy of Red Hat Enterprise without the support and only have to pay reasonable costs for the medium and the delivery.
You can; it’s called CentOS. There’s also White Box and maybe a few others.
Reading the FAQ, CentOS isn’t RHEL..
http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=13
//Reading the FAQ, CentOS isn’t RHEL.. //
That FAQ says this:
“CentOS is built from publicly available open source SRPMS.”
The SRPMS they get from RedHat’s site. RedHat are obliged to supply the source code, because it is licensed under the GPL.
CentOS make no claim that their code is equivalent to RHEL. But it just happens to be so.
Whitebox are a little more direct about it:
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
“Release information
This product is derived from the Free/Open Source Software made available by Red Hat, Inc but IS NOT produced, maintained or supported by Red Hat. Specifically, this product is forked from the source code for Red Hat’s _Red Hat Enterprise Linux_ products under the terms and conditions of its EULA.
There may be remaining packaging problems and other odd bugs. These are solely the responsibility of the White Box Linux effort and should not in any shape, manner or form reflect on the quality of Red Hat’s commercial product. In fact, if you need a fully tested and supported OS you probably should go buy their box set.
A fair amount of effort has gone into removing Red Hat’s trademarks and logos. Should you find one remaining, please report it so that it can be removed. Write me about this and any other problems at [email protected]. Or join the devel list and dive in!”
Do you understand now?
Whitebox could not put it more clearly for you unless they go over to your house and hit you with a cluebat: “In fact, if you need a fully tested and supported OS you probably should go buy their box set.”
In other words, if you want it supported, get it from RedHat.
But you said you wanted it without support. You can’t get that from RedHat, but you can get it from CentOS or from Whitebox.
Or, if you really want, you can download all of the source RPMs from RedHat servers and compile it all yourself. Its up to you.
Frankly, I’d go with Ubuntu server, myself.
Edited 2006-10-27 10:12
//I disagree. I feel I should be able to obtain a copy of Red Hat Enterprise without the support and only have to pay reasonable costs for the medium and the delivery. You could eliminate bandwidth costs using torrents for instance regarding downloading. //
I told you where to get your copy of Red Hat Enterprise without the support.
You get it from here: http://www.centos.org/
Or if you like, here is another place: http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
These are a companies that takes the source code that RedHat hosts, and removes all of RedHat trademark stuff (but otherwise leaves it unaltered), recompiles the source for you and packages it on a CD. RedHat don’t do that, they have decided to offer only support. So if you don’t want support, don’t go to RedHat.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? RedHat do not offer you code without support. If you don’t want support, don’t go to RedHat. It really is very simple. I’m sure you can get it if you try.
BTW, your agreeing or disagreeing with with RedHat’s business plan isn’t going to alter the fact that RedHat are a support company. What you feel about RedHat being a support company isn’t going to change RedHat’s business plan either.
On another note, if you want SLED with support, get it from here:
http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/
If you want it without support, get it from here:
http://en.opensuse.org/Welcome_to_openSUSE.org
For Ubuntu, get it from here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/
and if you want to pay for support in addition, get it from here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support
// If you don’t require the support, the total TCO is $0. //
This is completely false. TCO has a great deal more do with than just obtaining the software itself.
This is very true.
I already said that the vast majority of people would be happy with the options; I don’t have anything against preloaded Linux in principle, either. Quite the contrary: I say BRING IT ON!!!
Seems like this offering is geared towards businesses, at least the UK-based one is.
Ah, the day that I can walk into a supermarket and actually buy a desktop/laptop with Linux pre-installed!
I think I’ll do a happy-dance then.
Well, actually, I’d like more to be able to finally buy laptops (I’d say desktops too, buy I never buy pre-built PCs) without any OS whatsoever which should really show in their price too. And I mean quality laptops from big names, not some noname laptops. And I expect that if a laptop costs x+os price, then I should be able to buy the same laptop for x, and not at the same price, for a higher price, or not be able to buy at all. I don’t think I’m asking too much. Preinstalled Linux distro is one step, but I 1) don’t like or want suse, 2) I want to install my preferred distro.
l3v1:Well, actually, I’d like more to be able to finally buy laptops (I’d say desktops too, buy I never buy pre-built PCs) without any OS whatsoever which should really show in their price too. And I mean quality laptops from big names, not some noname laptops. And I expect that if a laptop costs x+os price, then I should be able to buy the same laptop for x, and not at the same price, for a higher price, or not be able to buy at all. I don’t think I’m asking too much.
No, you are not asking too much, just head over to the HP page and check out the HP Compaq business laptops such as the nx6325 or nc63110. You can get them with FreeDOS for about 50$ less than with MS Windows XP Pro.
EDIT: Of course i meant nc6310.
Edited 2006-10-27 19:32
I doubt most consumers would like installing the whole thing themselves though.
And if there’s <distro X> on there, at least you can be pretty sure that your wireless card, sound, … will actually work without much tweaking. And including <distro X> doesn’t mean you can’t install your own distro over it later. And, barring anti-competitive behaviour, laptop+”distro X” should still be cheaper that Laptop+WinXP Home.
… the beginning of a return to a healthy, non-monopolistic PC/laptop retail situation. Novell’s move is not just “nice”, “good for Linux” or whatever, it is simply necessary for the operating system world to be able to return to a normal situation.
I’d hope to see a flood of news coming soon…:
Red Hat Announces PCs preloaded with Fedora Core
Canonical Announces PCs preloaded with Ubuntu Linux
iXsystems Announces PCs preloaded with PCBSD
Mandriva Announces…(etc)
.. knowing that will take a while.
One thing that no-one (including the article linked to) is mentioning is that SLED 10 has a $46 annual fee (or $107 for 3 years) for updates. Does the pre-installed SLED 10 with these white box PCs come with free support for life or with the first year free or what?
I don’t think people will be happy to realise that they may have to pay extra at some point for OS/app patches that are free in almost all other Linux distros and, even more importantly, are free with Windows XP/Vista.
I tried SLED 10 and, whilst I liked it, the annual payment for fixes was unacceptable amd it got struck off my list to replace the current Linux distro I use at work. I’m holding out for CentOS 5 early next year – enterprise-level distro not only free to download, but free updates for 5 years.
While I agree with your general sentiment, companies have *already* had the ability to buy PC’s with Linux pre-installed from reputed companies (i.e., Hewlett Packard). They just had to look for them REALLY hard.
Most companies are extremely conservative, so Linux on the desktop isn’t immediately something they’re thinking about unless they already *have* a vested interest in Linux/Open source.
While a budget-conscious customer in a supermarket/chain of stores could decide to take “that laptop with a lower price” or “that laptop with the same price but higher specs”, even if it has Linux pre-installed. This could increase the popularity of Linux as a platform for the ‘home user’ *much* quicker than the uptake of conservative companies can (a lot of them only just finished migrating to WinXP…)
This is where marketing/advertising the product comes in, to convince the customer the product is just as much (or more) value as the competing product with ‘Windows-version-X, ‘recommended’ by company-Y’.
However, today there IS no such thing as a consumer-oriented laptop with Linux pre-installed, so there IS no chance to convince the consumer of the value of <distro X>, since there IS no competition (MS squashed it with their OEM agreements/extortion).
The obligatory phrase “<vendor> recommends Windows XP Home/Pro” also serves the purpose of creating doubt in the minds of users looking to buy a computer/notebook.
So let me rephrase:
I would like to see a consumer-oriented laptop with Linux pre-installed, stating something like “HP (or IBM/Dell/… ) recommends <brand> Linux X.x )”
Maybe some “smaller” vendor could take up the challenge
Edited 2006-10-27 11:52
What a joke. The LW1360 at http://www.shoprcubed.com/proddetail.asp?prod=LW1360 still doesn’t have full hardware support in Linux, although it was supposedly designed to be Linux compatible. After the web cam and the modem there’s an asterisk that signifies “Feature not supported in Linux at this time”. Why in the world would Novell give its approval to a crippled laptop?
One thing I can tell novell: work on bugs and usability!
It’s interesting that users trying Linux have a different expectation than they did when they first tried Windows. It seems that new Linux user expect everything to just work out of the box when they install the OS themselves, but I’ve never known Windows to just work when first installed.
It’s interesting that many would be new users know enough to get the OS up and running, but are then dissatisfied when they have to get drivers working. Yet, I’ve always had to hunt down drivers for Windows and make adjustments on the fly.
I think the real problem is that people forget why their installing Linux. I mean, you can surf the internet, write papers, and build software in Windows, but there is always an eminent safty threat if you aren’t aware of how to best protect yourself from others and yourself. With Linux, it’s a lot harder to screw yourself over. By default you get restricted user accounts. You can count the number of Linux focused virus’s on one hand. Linux can be grandmother friendly if you target the right distribution, but the reality is that for most people, you’re going to have to put in the same effort you overlook in Windows to have a linux desktop function like you want it to. There are no shortcuts just because the name says Linux and you feel that if your going to switch, you shouldn’t have to do the Windows post install two step.
Once you’ve put in the work, you can basically go off into the computer world naked and not have to worry (though I wouldn’t advise it), while in windows, a Bulet proof vest is mandatory for daily survival.
It seems that new Linux user expect everything to just work out of the box when they install the OS themselves, but I’ve never known Windows to just work when first installed.
You’ll have to clarify what you mean by “just work when first installed”. Windows doesn’t ship with every conceivable driver, so it’s therefore impossible for it to work without some kind of separate driver installation.
It’s interesting that many would be new users know enough to get the OS up and running, but are then dissatisfied when they have to get drivers working. Yet, I’ve always had to hunt down drivers for Windows and make adjustments on the fly.
I don’t think any user is happy about having to hunt for drivers; regardless of whether it’s for Linux or Windows.
Once you’ve put in the work, you can basically go off into the computer world naked and not have to worry (though I wouldn’t advise it), while in windows, a Bulet proof vest is mandatory for daily survival.
First, security is only one column in a larger decision matrix. I know plenty of users who use their machines simply for writing email and browsing the web. They simply don’t care about security at all. If something happens to their machine, they insert their system CD, reboot, and reinstall the OS in 30 minutes. In terms of effort, that isn’t a big deal for them. But it’s certainly less effort than learning an entirely new OS. Second, have you tried Vista yet? It uses restricted user accounts, IE (the biggest vector for malware) runs with restricted permissions (something that Firefox does not do yet, by the way), it requires a default password, and the firewall is enabled by default; hence, your complaint about security carries far less weight.
Versus competition from Dell, HP, etc?