Linux

How To Avoid Future WannaCry Style Ransomware Attacks

gregladen — Mon, 15 May 2017 07:32:51 +0000

How To Avoid Future WannaCry Style Ransomware Attacks

This is very simple, and it has more to do with the philosophy and marketing of operating systems than the technology of the operating systems themselves, though the technology does matter a great deal as well. First, lets have a look at how this ransomware attack was allowed to happen to begin with.

The vast majority of affected systems in this latest world wide cyber attack were Windows based computers that were not updated with recently available and easily deployed patch. The attack did not affect other operating systems, and Windows systems that had a recently released security patch were not affected. (I was going to put a link here to direct people to the Microsoft web page with info on what to do if you were attacked, but a minute or two of perusal on the Microsoft site mostly told me about Microsoft's new products, and I did not find any such page. If you have a link, please place it in a snark free comment below.)

Why was the patch not deployed on so many computers? For several reasons.

Some of the operating systems were running under administrative policies that did not allow patching for some reason or another. I've only heard rumors of this but it sounds like a blind-future style pre-decision, in the same category of other bone-headed human processes like no tolerance policies for knives in schools and three strikes you are out sentencing policies. It works like this: You remove thinking from the process by making all decisions in advance, and then get the heck out of there with limited liability and whatever happens happens. If you do this you are probably a member of congress or a school board member planning on retiring soon. It never goes well. Telling security IT people in advance what they can and can't do because of HR or personnel regulations is like going to a doctor and telling them what your diagnosis and treatment is going to be, in advance. You will die of something curable, eventually, if you do that regularly.

Some of the operating systems were running on computers that are, in theory, never supposed to be turned off. This is similar to the first reason in its stupidity level. For one thing, making it impossible to patch an OS ever is really not smart. For another thing, that computer you plan to never turn off is going to turn itself off now and then. But it is also bad at another level, the level of the operating system. Windows has operated, for years, under the principle that when enough stuff goes wrong, you turn off the computer and start again, and if that does not work you reinstall the operating system from scratch. Now, I know, you Windows lovers will jump in at this point and tell me that "Windows doesn't work that way any more" but you know what? After decades of hearing how Windows Past is not Windows Present, when it really is, I don't care what you say. Also, actual on the ground Windows users have been trained, by Microsoft policy, to reboot or reinstall for decades. Anyway, the point is, Windows can not be updated on the fly, and thus, the system utterly fails in a situation where updating is critical, which by the way is all the time and all machines, because even computers you use for nothing but curating recipes for muffins, if hooked to the Internet (where all the good muffin recipes are), can still be the platform for launching a secondary cyber attack.

Some of those operating systems were in health related fields (referring here to both of these first two excuses) and that is why so many health related facilities were hit initially.

Another reason, which is a bit tricky, is the problem with updating stolen software. If you stole the OS it might be hard to get an update or patch. It seems like a good idea for the company making the OS to do this, as it encourages buying the product and discourages stealing it. Yet, many tens of thousands of computers, maybe hundreds of thousands, are currently locked down by WannaCry because they were pirated, and not updated. This becomes a public health (cyber-health, eHealth) risk. It is like vaccination. We all suffer because so many others get the disease, even those of us who did not fail to do the right thing.

This is a moment when we look at something like computer operating systems and realize that they are actually a public good as much as, or more then, they are a commercial product. Think of roads and canals in the old days. Roads and canals were often privately owned (as were fire departments and police forces in many cases) and eventually it became apparent that these are all public goods, so they were essentially taken over by the government. Similarly, power companies and railroads. Not exactly taken over but made into quasi public entities through integration with public agencies and heavy regulation.

I've often argued that things like Google, Amazon.com, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have become the equivalent of public goods, like roads and the post office, etc., in a similar way. To some extent, this is also true of operating systems.

There is of course a solution to all of this. What we need is an operating system that is made by the public itself. If all interested parties simply became involved, and maybe large companies with a lot of stake in computers would put aside a meaningful amount of their own software development resources, and a few public and private agencies would provide some grants and bounties and stuff, we could have an operating system that was free, easily installed, updated every week with common updates (like, maybe, on Sunday evenings or something) with a very easy and easily automated system of updating, that would be great.

Ideally most software would come from well maintained and secure repositories that were checked for malicious code. There could be several different such repositories more or less redundant with each other but maybe tweaked to cater to different types of users. The added advantage of several different but similar repositories is this: even if some bad code gets into one repository, the fact that across users, many different repositories are used, would slow its spread.

By making the operating system free, easy, effective, powerful, flexible, and easily updated almost every one of the limitations in the way we do things that allowed WannCry to spread and ruin everything would simply not have happened. A few people would be hit, it would be a minor story.

On top of this, let's make this new operating system have a few other security related features.

For instance, monitoring code. The way it works now with Windows, is that a finite number of paid and I'm sure brilliant individuals are in charge of coding and maintaining the operating system, and updated and patches, while a much larger number of criminal-minded nefarious but also brilliant individuals are focused on breaking the security. This means that there is an uneven arms race where day to day Microsoft will always be a step ahead of the bad guys, except every now and then when the bad guys jump ahead and make a huge mess.

I propose that this ratio be reversed, that the arms race between the good and the evil become totally one sided in the other direction. Have a very large number of individuals, a proportion of the above mentioned community of private individuals and interested corporations and agencies, working on security, swamping out the nefarious bad guys. There would be very few moments when the bad guys got very far ahead of the good guys.

In addition, the operating system itself could have other security related features. For example, the basic tools inside the operating system could be well maintained, highly traditional, really clean and neat code, and free to use. So, for example, basic tasks that any new software might use are figured out, so you don't have to add your own new version of the code to do them. This means that new code will generally be fast, effective, clean, easier to maintain, and more secure.

Also, the operating system can work more like a prison than, say, a food court. In a food court, you do what you want to do (eat, meet your friends, hang out) in a rather chaotic environment where you can move freely from place to place. Someone puts their food down on a table to go back to the Azian Kuizine window to get the chopsticks they forgot, and you can grab their pot stickers, sit down at a nearby table, and no one can really figure out that you just sole their food. And so on.

In a prison, you can theoretically leave your cell and walk down the hall to the gym, then go to the cafeteria, then the law library. But, the entire route is blocked by a series of doors that only specific people have permission to open, at specific times, for specific reasons. Everything you do requires having permission at every step of of the way, and it is all constantly being carefully watched.

Life should be more like the food court. What happens inside computers should be more like the prison.

Of course, by now, most of you have figured out that I'm talking about Linux. Linux is an operating system that is already widely used when certain conditions pertain. Since the Android OS is based on Linux, and the majority of servers run Linux, and Linux is becoming the preferred desktop in China, it may well be that Linux is more widely deployed right now than any other operating system, though most Westerners think of it as nearly non-existent on desktops.

Critical tasks are often trusted to Linux or similar operating systems (Unix, BSD, etc.) because of reliability and security. When efficiency is required, Linux is often tapped because it can be deployed in a very efficient manner. Linux acts internally like the prison, not the food court. The system itself is constantly monitored open source code, and most of what runs on it is openly monitored as well. Software is usually distributed via secure repositories. The system is free and easily updated, there is no such thing as a pirated copy of Linux. There is a regular schedule of updates, they come out every Sunday.

Another important feature of Linux is the separation of the operating system and the surface appearance of the system. The operating system itself comes in a number of varieties, but most people use one of two: Red Hat or Debian (there are others). But the surface of the OS, the part the user sees, is not related to that at all. Most people use a "desktop" which provides the windows and stuff, the parts that you interface with, and there are several versions of this, from which users can more or less pick and chose.

Here is why this is important: The desktop provides the user experience, and the user experience sells the product. If you develop a proprietary operating system like Windows, many of your decisions, including when to produce major updates, etc. is driven by the marketing department. The development and deployment of the operating system is a complex process where designers and marketing gurus are at the same table, essentially, as security experts and developers concerned with efficiency.

In the Linux system, the security people and efficiency and functionality developers work most of the time independently from the equivalent of "marketers" or "designers" because of this two layer aspect of the system. It is quite interesting to visit the communities of desktop developers and hear what they are saying to each other, then visit the community of system developers and hear what they are saying to each other. They are pretty much two distinct conversations. There will never be a marketing or design decision about Linux that impacts security.

Linux is the female operating system in a patriarchic world. Refer to the appropriate John Lennon song for a starker analogy. It does a lot of the work, maybe most of the work, but is usually not recognized. When people make comparisons, Linux has to dance backwards and in high heels.

If I say, like I just said here, that "if Linux was widely in use, the WannaCry attack would have been much less severe" people will respond "Linux can be attacked too" and that will be taken by others, and possibly meant to begin with, as stating "Linux and Windows are the same, its just that attackers attack Windows and not Linux." That is a pernicious falsehood that feels a lot like many sexist comments about the limitations of women. Yes, Linux could in theory be attacked. No, Linux is pretty much not attacked very often or ever, so your fantasy about how it can be attacked has no empirical back up. No, Linux and Windows are not the same in which they are developed, designed, maintained, deployed, updated, or secured, and every single one of those differences gives Linux a huge leg up on security and Windows one or more disadvantages.

If a cyber attack is a mugger, Windows is a physically small drunken person with wads of money sticking out of his pockets, staggering down a dark ally near the convention hall during a mugger's conference, while Linux is a hundred sober and smart well trained Navy Seals each driving a separate armored car in undisclosed locations.

Yes, you can attack the Navy Seals. But if you do that, they'll make you wanna cry.

gregladen Mon, 05/15/2017 - 03:32

Tags

Linux

Technology

Cyber Attack

Microsoft Windows

Categories

Whilst I'm generally in favor of Linux being used in corporate environments such as the NHS, I would mention..

IT departments are often wary of their PCs automatically updating with the latest patches and upgrades. This has been known to break things, and having things suddenly break with no prior warning is an IT debt nightmare.

And Windows is still a better consumer OS than any Linux version, and that's after extensive use of both.

I've been using Linux for many years and I've never seen an automatic update break anything.

Windows updates break things all the time. This idea that the automatic updates break things comes from windows, not Linux, yet is being used to put Linux in its place. I blame the patriarchy!

Also, Linux does not automatically update automatically, and IT departments can more easily adjust how updates happen on Linux than on any other operating system, and also, they can know exactly what every update does rather than having to hope Microsoft tells you or to guess.

No, in the area of updating and maintenance, Linux is lightyears ahead of Windows in every respect.

Regarding the consumer OS, after extensive use of both, I totally disagree. But then, some people think Windows is better than OSX, and some people thing the opposite.

There are two factors that determine the user experience: What system you use for a period of time, and personal preference. Modern linux desktops are diverse and fantastic, and between Gnome, Mate, KDE, etc. there is a style for everyone. It may well be that if a user uses each of a few Linux desktops for six months each, OSX for six months, then Windows for 6 months, that in the end they'll prefer Windows. Or, they many not. It is very personal and experience based, and the vast majority of people have never used Linux for a period of time sufficient to test the experience.

So, no, you can't really credibly state that Windows is better than Linux for the end user.

There are, however, objective reasons to state the opposite. For example, both generally require a password to sign on. Windows requires that the password be linked to a Microsoft account, and since this brings the whole password thing into a new realm, Windows has special password requriements. If you've ever used an email to establish this account, you are now stuck with the history of what you've done before wrt user names, etc.

So, when I tried the other day to set up a small Windows tablet to carry out a specific task (monitoring the acivity of a robot, not one other thing, just that one task) it took me a half hour of dicking around just to establish the account. So I switched to a Liunux system and set up my user name and password as I wanted on that machine in five seconds.

Objectively, a large percentage of the things people using Windows call their IT people about are Windows-specific problems that do not exist on LInux. I know this from using both systems as well as sitting for year on numerous IT committees and hearing all the complaints.

So, I'll allow for the use experience to be mostly subjective, but to the extent that there are objective differences, wrt to using the operating system, Windows has some serious flaws.

No, windows is a worse consumer OS than any current Linux version.

And that is after extensive use of both.

Morovere, since it's under your control, even to fixing it (or as a business owner, getting someone to fix it), I get to control whether I actually DO need to upgrade.

Tell me, if Windows was so easy to use, why is the industry spending on average 5% of their budget on training for it???

For Samba it's part of the SUSE and RHEL panel to set it up, which version you use. And that's been the case since at least 2005 when I used YAST rather than ignored it and edited /etc and told YAST to leave it alone.

Not so easy to do it in Windows

"I blame the patriarchy! "

See, if more feminists took the piss out of its over-use, it would disarm the lunatic fringe (and there's always one to find on the internet) and show one very easy method to tell the "feminists" from "feminists".

Hell, it works better than railing against the over-use of blaming patriarchy, most likely.

I can understand, at some level, a corporate policy that prohibits individual users from upgrading their system. Anything that depends on a bunch of computers having the same operating system, including in many cases patch level, will break if users can install their own software.

It makes no sense for the HR people to tell the IT people that the latter cannot upgrade operating systems. The job of the IT department is to make sure systems are up-to-date and secure. If the IT department cannot or will not do that job, then sooner or later somebody will attack their systems. It's true that Windows operating systems are most vulnerable to this problem, but give it enough time and Linux or MacOS systems will be hacked, too.

Unfortunately, there have been too many lazy programmers in the Windows world who exploit undocumented features of the operating system. Every now and then one of those undocumented features will turn out to be the basis of a vulnerability, and the security patch disables it, along with any and all software that depends on it. I can't blame Microsoft for not having the resources to do this for every Windows program out there, but sometimes Microsoft Office products have used these undocumented features. This is the reason why some IT departments are reluctant to keep their OS patches current. My understanding is that this is not an issue for Linux, mainly because everything there is documented, and much less of an issue for MacOS than Windows because MacOS is Unix-based.

Some old machines are no longer patchable but still needed for applications where it still works but it can't be fixed, changed or replaced.

So two things, both coming from closed source.

1) Windows pre-XP is still "copyrighted" and still closed source, refusing to be used to educate the next generation of OS gurus in how Bill Gates and his company solved the problems of writing a consumer OS. Despite being unusable for sales, and therefore impossible to lose sales over, the only goddamned reason why copyright is even there.

2) All apps, pretty much, written specifically for windows is closed source, so now the company is gone there's nobody who CAN update it or even do the few little fiddles that might make it work. E.g. if it still wants to write to sys.ini.

Copyrights should not exist for compiled object code. It doesn't fit the "expressive works" and any display of art it gives is a performance art between the operator and the program AS IT RUNS. So it should never have gotten copyrights.

You should be allowed copyrights only if you give out the source code. One of the limitations then has to be about creating derivative works (the object code).

And when a work is abandoned and not supported, you lose all copyrights. After all, if it isn't working 15 years later and still needs a patch, either you still owe the customer the fix so they have what they paid for, or you stole from them the cash they paid. But if they can fix it themselves, you can point to that fact as why you don't have to run full codewarrior on Win95OSR2.1 to make it work.

And if you use copyprotection, you don't get to use copyrights too. Either it's intended to be ineffective protection, or it replaces copyrights agreements and puts its own private law on the product.

"Unfortunately, there have been too many lazy programmers in the Windows world who exploit undocumented features of the operating system"

As just such a programmer, I had to. It would not work and the bug HAD to be worked with or the product would never have worked and sold.

Then when, four years later, they DO fix the bug, it's not fixed in a sane way most of the time and it needs a switch to work with the bug as it was AND detect if it's patched and work it a different way (and inevitable it will introduce other bugs that we need to code to).

Sometimes, as with UEFI or ACPI, the actual implementation given by Microsoft to code against for our application DISOBEYED THE STANDARD IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTING. So we either code against the standard, in which case our product worked only when some manufacturer implemented THEIR product by the actual standard, or MS changed their hacks around it for their OS to run so that it could also co-exist with the standard implementation. Or we code up against what the current misimplementation (IOW bug) MS used and shipped.

Linux will never be a successful consumer OS so long as users need to use the CLI - that's why Windows and OSx are better consumer systems. For Windows the way to prevent these attacks is for the user or system administrator to use application whitelisting. If you haven't got access to Windows Group or Local Policy Editor to do this, or don't know how, then you can use the free CryptoPrevent tool at http://www.foolishit.com/download/cryptoprevent/ to do it for you

see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310791
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786941(v=ws.10).aspx

"Linux will never be a successful consumer OS so long as users need to use the CLI "

So Windows will no longer be a successful consumer OS because it has Power Shell?

Looking at the lack of uptake of Win Vista, 8, 10, you may be right.

Nah, you're talking shit. What you mean is "as long as there is some way to say there's a CLI, I'll insist you have to use it on Linux!".

"For Windows the way to prevent these attacks is for the user or system administrator to use application whitelisting."

And that is why Windows is worthless as a consumer OS. Hell, it's fucked as an OS for the corporate IT infrastructure, except as a honepot and training test.

And if there's one thing this incident tells us all, it's never download something from some random fuckwad on the internet's post.

":I can understand, at some level, a corporate policy that prohibits individual users from upgrading their system. Anything that depends on a bunch of computers having the same operating system, including in many cases patch level, will break if users can install their own software."

That's a common policy and a good one. It does not stop administrators from settng the policy on the user's machines to upgrade regularly.

If regular upgrades are a problem for an OS, and regular upgrades are necessary for the entire world to not get hacked by nefarious code, then that particular OS is not usable at all. I don't think that is the case ... I think admins can set this up to work, in fact, I know they can.

"It makes no sense for the HR people to tell the IT people that the latter cannot upgrade operating systems."

It certainly is a problem, and now perhaps people will think about it and solve that problem.

"" It’s true that Windows operating systems are most vulnerable to this problem, but give it enough time and Linux or MacOS systems will be hacked, too.""

That is exactly what I regard as a very dangerous and incorrect sentence. Technically it is not wrong, but it implies an equivalence between Windows and *nix based systems that is simply very very far from the truth, as I explain in the post. Given the fact that most people will interpret it as an equivalence, I reject it and object to it.

""Unfortunately, there have been too many lazy programmers in the Windows world who exploit undocumented features of the operating system. Every now and then one of those undocumented features will turn out to be the basis of a vulnerability, and the security patch disables it, along with any and all software that depends on it. I can’t blame Microsoft for not having the resources to do this for every Windows program out there, but sometimes Microsoft Office products have used these undocumented features. ""

See my discussion of the food court vs. prison analogy. Not only is it commonly the case that code is done badly in Windows, but it may be the case that to get some things done you have to do that.

Linux development over time has the annoying feature that old stuff gets scrubbed and upstream repair is a constant need. This is actually how a secure operating system is used. There is no old lurking dangerous code everyone forgot about in Linux. Again, a fundamental qualitative difference.

". This is the reason why some IT departments are reluctant to keep their OS patches current. My understanding is that this is not an issue for Linux, mainly because everything there is documented, and much less of an issue for MacOS than Windows because MacOS is Unix-based."

Indeed. I am actually not sure how things go with Macs. Much of the code that matters is proprietary and Apple has an approach to honesty roughly in line with, say, airlines. They don't have a corporate rule to be honest and forthcoming. So, I imagine there are some similar problems, but the OS itself is better designed, similar to Linux.

Wow #6:

I didn't mention in the post, but yes, Linux runs in patchable maintainable form on most machines, and even after 32 bit machines get left behind by a lot of applicants, it will still be maintainable because Linux is supposed to be available for very low power and legacy machines.

Doug: #8: that ship sailed.

Until recently and it is probably still true, to fix certain things on Mac OSX or Windows, you need the CLI. I know this is true on OSX. Not esoteric things. For example, turning off and on that stupid spotlight thing, that's a CLI job.

That is and always will be true, I think for al operating systems. So, this is an example of Linux having to dance backwards and in high heels. You can deploy a Linux desktop and use it all the time and not touch the command line. Really. You can. People do it all the time.

The Command line is used more than it need to be because, simply put, it is sometimes easier to copy and past a line of code some tech person emailed you on any of these systems. It is possible that some realy bad things that hapen require the CLI, in Linux, but if you look at instance of that, it is almost always become someone who was too smart for their own good messed with stuff you shouldn't mess with and broke something. In Windows, the way to fix that is to reinstall. In Mac systems thew way to fix that is to buy more hardware. In Linux the way to fix that is a simple command line.

So, by this criterion, Linux is ready for the desktop!

Wow said a lot of the things I said but faster.

Skip a couple of letters, it speeds it up...!

Windose is a Windose does

last month i went on holiday to Sydney. I took a 25 year old laptop.

I mostly used my android device for everything but the laptop was useful for somethings

25 years old! 1 slow single core CPU. A tiny 60GB drive. A real dog of a machine.

But i had installed Linux Lite

anyone who thinks Windows is better than Linux is in the same category of people who prefer iPhones over android

MS Office over google docs

and Gucci bags over a K2

it's a no-brainer

except for no-brainers

Greg - I guess it depends on what you as a user are doing with the OS. I can't remember the last time i HAD to use the CLI in Windows, and that's what I was referring to. Sure I do use it for somethings that are not native to Win - such as WHOIS. or because I know how and can't be bothered to install apps to do it for me run tracert and ping commands. As you said to me the last time this came up Greg - Linux is for smart people. I'm sure the overwhelming vast majority of Windows users have no idea what the CLI is, how to access it, or what it is used for and if they do run across it are afraid to do anything with it. That, at least, was my experience with them when doing tech support. Can't speak for Apple OS on that. Linux, you're going to need to know.

WoW #9 - do you make a habit of misrepresenting what people say so you can diss them? Just asking because I didn't say Linux was not a consumer desktop because it has a CLI but because users have to use it. That's is not eve close to saying that because Win has Power Shell it's not a consumer OS. But I'm pretty sure you knew that.

"Sure I do use it for somethings that are not native to Win – such as WHOIS. "

Whois is part of the tcpstack operating. ftp too. Never used that, either, hmm?

"or because I know how and can’t be bothered to install apps to do it for me run tracert and ping commands."

You just googled that shit, didn't you? Come on 'fess up!

" I’m sure the overwhelming vast majority of Windows users have no idea what the CLI is,"

The vast majority of Ubuntu users have never used the CLI. It's not for me, though I've used it at times, but I HAVE passed it on to three people.

Not one of which EVER used the command line.

And that was right back in the early releases before they started with the schedule the LTS and it was all about the branding EVERYTHING brown.

And, no "your OS is for smart people" doesn't work because SMART people know shinola when it happens.

"...and if they do run across it are afraid to do anything with it"

Then why did you promote earlier that to solve this issue, they

use application whitelisting. If you haven’t got access to Windows Group or Local Policy Editor to do this

And then asked them to download some random executable from a site URL that calls itself "foolish shit/download"?

"on that. Linux, you’re going to need to know. "

No you aren't. Not at all. Not even vaguely. There are advantages to the command line, but it's as necessary as hitting "Win+F2 regedit ENTER".

"WoW #9 – do you make a habit of misrepresenting what people say so you can diss them?"

Do you make a habit of making claims up so you can whine and make out you're the victim?

"I didn’t say Linux was not a consumer desktop because it has a CLI"

No, you said,

“Linux will never be a successful consumer OS so long as users need to use the CLI ”

and I pointed out this was bullshit.

"but because users have to use it."

But that's bullshit. You know, like I said. They need to use it as much as you need to use PowerShell. Less, even, since there's more tools built in to do what PowerShell was "invented" to do. Many of them because UNIX doesn't try and hide everything from you. For example _$XXX$ files, IIRC, but it's something like that pattern, are AUTOMATICALLY HIDDEN since WinXP in Explorer. Sony's CD Rootkit relied on a file with that pattern. Drop to Dos and the command line (either cmd.exe or command.com, depending on the version), and you can see it. Got a hidden file stoping uninstalling an application with a file like that? You NEED the command line. 100% ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

"But I’m pretty sure you knew that."

Nope, but I'm pretty sure you know you're talking bullshit.

You need the CLI on UNIX LESS than you need PowerShell. But if having to use the command line was the death knell, then you have it "proven" in Windows7+ and PowerShell.

But you;re talking bollocks.

As I said:

Nah, you’re talking shit. What you mean is “as long as there is some way to say there’s a CLI, I’ll insist you have to use it on Linux!”.

And we BOTH know you read that, and BOTH know why you ignored its existence: that it DESTROYS your claims against me.

#2 "Windows requires that the password be linked to a Microsoft account"

No it doesn't, this is optional - and can be prevented entirely by admins.

If it's on the store it does. And some apps are store only. Some are just sold and are linked to the Store (much like some purchases from Amazon are only a code for STEAM activation).

And please let us know which homeowners of PCs at that home have an admin staff?

Hard to tell how secure is Linux because the virus writers will target Windows. It is basically security through obscurity.

No, it;s quite easy to tell how secure it is. there;s the code right out there and scores of high quality tools to assess security.

It's a fallacy to claim that windows is popular because popularity does not mean easier. And there can be no security through obscurity, but even if there were, then you'd be maligning windows closed source, not linux openness.

Think of this: most of the internet infrastructure is unix based, today mostly linux. Smart TVs usually use Linux and Busybox today. And most of the valuables is behind a linux firewall, while home PCs contain cat pics and your porn history (or private browsing settings).

Which do you go for?

Stuff that hides important valuable stuff?
Stuff that holds cat pics?

Part of what does make linux secure is that it is not a monolith, unlike windows. There's no absolute required system content for all of them apart from the very basic stuff (the stuff that used to be on the three A labeled floppy disks you downloaded for Yggdrasil), and some general closed source stuff post-added on, such as flash from Adobe.

Even though half may be close enough to similar to be counted affected, there will be enough changes even among all RHEL2016 that your surface to attack is too small to replicate efficiently, slowing it down so it will be noted and guarded against.

Doesn't always work, but it's the closest you'll get to "security through obscurity" in Linux. And that isn't all that close because this security works (a variant of opposite of monoculture vulnerability: diversity based resistance)

Doug, I think we are in basic agreement here: All operating systems can be run by the average user without the CLI, all operating systems have some sort of CLI that is either a) convenient for those so inclined or b) available when the tech support person tells you do do something special.

"Hard to tell how secure is Linux because the virus writers will target Windows. It is basically security through obscurity."

Once again: Good grief.

security in an operating system?

is linux inherently more secure than windose?

when i was studying operating system design at uni i was working on VAX systems and i was running very early versions of linux as well as older OSs, and of course whatever Microsoft and Apple had at the time. We also studied IBM systems architecture. When i say studied i mean real study - not just playing with systems to be familiar with their interfaces CLI or otherwise.

then i went working all over the world on various operating systems

since then i've used whatever has been around for one thing or another

any system is only as secure as the human element

if someone send you a link to a RedHat RPM and you install it (as root) and incapacitate the SE system

if it's malicious then you're fucked

same on windows

probably the same on any system commonly in use

there are attempts to design systems that can't be compromised with various degrees of success - and concomitant usability

want something that can be used for anything anytime you want it?

i'd say you've got problems

want something that does just one job and nothing else?

buy a toaster but not a smart toaster

No, I won't touch Linux with a barge pole, for two reasons:
1/ I have a life. I do not have time to decipher an OS that appears to have been designed by a teenager with a bad case of aspergers and no concept of ITIL. I have 2 Linux machines and I do my best to never touch them because I simply do not have the time to teach myself in-depth technical details about something I really shouldn't need to know.
2/ It's not a serious OS for a corporate environment.

I was interested to see that the NHS trust where I worked (70-hour weeks) to help bring it into the 21st century has a big notice up on its web page saying, "We are unaffected by the cyber attack, please come to your appointments as usual". We implemented patching, endpoint security, eliminated admin accounts and generic accounts and got rid of all the junk that was crippling the IT teams' ability to be proactive (Apple computers and other unmanageable OSs) and got rid of all the rubbish that was running on a "server" under people's desks.

The real issue is as Greg notes in his images: people, procedures and equipment. Do this right and Microsoft gives you the kind of low-maintenance and smooth-running computing environment you can never have with that Linux stuff.

Well, yeah, that diatribe was a load of bull.

No, Linux does not appear to be written by a teenager. One day go and ask a grown up to get a book on computer design for operating systems and run through it a bit.

It really doesn't matter what else you blew out your piehole there since the opener was 100% sufficient to determine whether the content further was going to be of any value whatsoever.

So if you want a crumb of comfort, at least you didn't do as other blowhards are liable to do and circle around making any point for ages before giving the plot away.

I do not have time to decipher an OS that appears to have been designed by a teenager with a bad case of aspergers and no concept of ITIL.

Okay, ignorant and offensive. No surprise.

I have 2 Linux machines and I do my best to never touch them because I simply do not have the time to teach myself in-depth technical details about something I really shouldn’t need to know.

Lazy and not at all interested in learning.

I don't think the system is the problem.

A fair article giving criticism where due, there's a lot of these articles going round after Wcry.

The thing missing from all I have read so far regarding situations where people cannot update due to the need for legacy support is the simple fact that: The legacy part of the system can be run in a virtual environment on top of an up-to-date operating system.

This does not mean more work for IT administrators as some might believe

Simon: Interesting point.

Also, in regards to Linux, as mentioned in the post, the legacy hardware is not much of a problem and because of the separation of different layers of the Linux system, it isn't much of a problem for software either.

Craig: LOL. I'm calling you on this. You've not sat at a Linux desktop in ten years or you would not have said what you just said.

I'm never quite sure when I see anti-Linux misinformation like that, what the heck I'm looking at. Certainly not a cogent, up to date, informed analysis !

Speaking as a non-technically inclined user, someone who needs stuff to just work, I too am dubious that Linux would be that great of a system for most end-users (though it may well be superior for behind-the-scenes stuff).

I haven't made an attempt at Linux in a long while, so my knowledge of hands-on use is cursory at best. But reading Greg's post and others my sense is that you, Greg, are a tom more tech-savvy than I am. When I was young (in the 80s) and computers were more technically difficult for most users to manipulate I would spend hours learning the ins and outs of an OS. I liked IBM-based machines because you could get into the guts, and Macs looked boring to me.

Since then I have reversed, because I have stuff to do and a limited number of hours in the day. Since most popular office programs aren't native to Linux (Word etc) it seems to me that you're adding an extra step every time I need to write an article. That's just inconvenient and guaranteed to drive me nuts.

Again, I am a stupid user. I need to turn the computer on and not have to think about what I am doing because my work -- the stuff that feeds me -- has zero, nada, bubkes to do with operating systems. Where once I loved coding (if primitively) now all that stuff just frustrates the heck out of me.

I use Mac OS now, and I suspect newer versions of Windows would be as easy (though having used both I did not find them so, but that was a few years back) but as you say YMMV.

But my question would be for those of us that see computers as effectively mysterious black boxes that are magic, can Linux function?

Understand, I do know a bit about how systems work -- I write about computer security on occasion, and technology. But in terms of my day to day get-work-done stuff, I have to be as a babe in the woods, as it were. (Just like getting yourself to work you can't be worrying about how your car works; you need it to get you from point A to B with a minimum of fuss. I know how to replace brake pads and spark plugs and a lot of that, but I simply no longer have the time to do it anymore).

So looked at from that perspective, would a massive switch to Linux be that beneficial? (In its current form, anyway). Again, I am not doubting the technological superiority of Linux here.

Am I making sense?

I'm safe. The chances that my wife will ever read this comment are very tiny.

My wife is pretty much totally inept on computers. Our 18 year old daughter taunts her about her phone never having its notifications cleared. that she can't use the remotes for the TV, that she can't do anything technical.

But she has a small laptop/notebook she's been using for about 4 years. That's pretty much the only computer she ever uses though sometimes, if she needs lots of screen space she'll use our daughters desktop because it has two big screens.

her notebook is linux - that's all she uses though she can find her way around windows well enough to find chrome

that's all she needs you know - a browser - once she's in she can do everything she needs to do

these days kids are no longer taught Microsoft at school - they are taught google - google docs, google search, youtube, - everything

no more windows

anyone who looks at an operating system with doubt is obviously old, or (sorry to say it) very ignorant, or very very indoctrinated by either their workplace or their out of date schooling

most people on planet earth get by with an android hand held using facebook, some chat app variant, and maybe google and one or two other apps especially games if they are young

chromebooks are what everybody buys (unless they are an idiot or have more money than sense)

when you install linux onto a computer the most you need is a bowser and possibly 9though i doubt it these days) open office

with the associated icons on the desktop

that's about it

the ONLY exception is if you are running either bespoke or specialist software - which incidentally you also launch from a desktop icon

if my wife can get by using linux every day for 4 years then anybody can - and i mean anybody

all those who fear it do so because they are lazy, old, probably heavily overpaid and probably a waste of taxpayers money

I'm told (by Krebs on Security) that the Microsoft patch comes via the link at the bottom of this article:

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/msrc/2017/05/12/customer-guidance-f…

It was a long time ago, but this discussion came up at work, and a manager described how Linux is susceptible to viruses. The security thru obscurity is not that the code is obscure like Windows, but that it is so little used that hackers will target Windows. If I wanted a secure system, I would choose Linux or Mac, but I suspect if everyone started using it, a Mac would fail quickly. Not sure about Linux.

The Krebs bulletin itself is worth reading. It's here:

https://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/wanna-cry-ransomware/

It doesn't help that Microsoft's update tactics, littered with malware-type behavior, has put their own customers/clients on the defensive. MSs deserves a good deal of the blame.

Greg I agree we are pretty much in agreement here. I was just pointing out a difference as I see it. I do confess though that other that an older version of Ubuntu I have loaded on an old 32 bit laptop so that I can run BOINC on it I haven';t played with a Linux Desktop for quite awhile now - it's all been CentOS on my server.

"Whois is part of the tcpstack operating. ftp too. Never used that, either, hmm? "

WoW you are making a big fool of yourself . Tell you what take a fresh Win install (8.1 or below I haven't tried this on 10 yet) and open up the CLI and type whois - you won't get anywhere. Tracert and ping commands work but whois does not, you need to install something (like Whois v1.14 from Sysinternals) but you'll have to know how to modify your path command like I did if you want it to work from the CLI

I've been doing this shit since 1992 when I started my own 300 user BBS so get back to me when you have a clue.

You kind of lost me at "This is very simple". As someone who as example dealt with updating OpenSSL libraries on a small production environment and knows how much planning, scheduling and effort that took I cannot agree that security is simple.

OS has nothing to do here. Every system (and this goes not only for software or IT) is vulnerable at some extent in time and some vulnerabilities are far reaching.

Craig thomas wrote:

"Do this right and Microsoft gives you the kind of low-maintenance and smooth-running computing environment you can never have with that Linux stuff".

If you think it is Low-maintenance then you simply never dealt with the back-end stuff.

In general Microsoft environment is much harder, involved, convoluted and legacy heavy, overall difficult to harden in comparison to Linux and BSD.

Linux is no good for a corporate environment only when corporate environment is not serious about IT.

This is interesting, because what made me abandon Linux (Ubuntu) in it's role as a consumer OS was when applying updates trashed the graphics driver to the extent that the system would no longer boot to the GUI.

Obviously the games library was restricted, and the graphics performance was not as strong as on Windows. This is based on my direct observation. Note that games are a MAJOR consumer application for PCs.

Also used SUSE linux extensively at work (admittedly an earlier version), which again would frequently do bizarre things.

Now, IF I am doing stuff that relies on account management, requires long term stability, has 'server' in the name, does lights-out single-function stuff.. in these areas and others I would obviously choose Linux.

As far as automatic updates go.. no sane IT department of a large corporation has their computers of any sort automatically update. Because updates can and do break installed applications, on all systems. A good IT department will have test systems set up so that they can verify patches as they come out, then roll them out across the organisation. An underfunded IT department will block them and hope..

Greg, your claim that automatic updates never break things on Linux is (unfortunately) untrue. Look, I love Linux, would like nothing more than to live in your rainbows-and-unicorns-everyone-uses-Linux hypothetical future, I even once made a pledge to never again get a Windows machine.

Problem is, about twice a year I would find myself spending a day hacking around to fix stuff because, yes, an automatic update broke some stuff. I got sick of it, because I'm the kind of user who just wants shit to work, and now all my machines are Windows 10, because that's *almost* as good as Linux when it works, and it doesn't randomly break every six months.

Now, this is Ubuntu we're talking about, and I'm sure there are distros that are more stable or whatever, but at this point we're playing No True Scotsdistro. Bottom line is, Linux *does* sometimes auto-update-break.

You might want to try openSUSE Linux. I've been using it since 1997 and while occasionally in the past an update or version upgrade would glitch a program or two, it has been years since that has happened (and I support around 100 openSUSE users). I can't remember for sure how long ago I experienced an update glitch but I think it has to be at least four or five years ago. Ubuntu appears to be significantly buggier than openSUSE, so I would recommend giving openSUSE a try.

"The legacy part of the system can be run in a virtual environment on top of an up-to-date operating system."

It can also be run under WINE.

But then again, you need a full audit of the scenario, testing and compliance with laws, etc. And some things require hardware access that virtualisation and WINE don't allow (copy protection dongles for example)

And with emulation, you may still find yourself buggered by the exact same problem, since that is still the full OS there with all its flaws.

At least with WINE you have a different OS library call and therefore it's unlikely, unless the bug is part of the protocol, to be vulnerable.

"Greg, your claim that automatic updates never break things on Linux is (unfortunately) untrue. "

Uh, it wasn't said never. It is vastly less likely, and the system does the breaking only for hardware that isn't open source.

"Problem is, about twice a year I would find myself spending a day hacking around to fix stuff because, yes, an automatic update broke some stuff."

What stuff? How? And what fix worked?

It's pretty easy to fluff around with vague accusations, but I'd like to hear from the rare unicorn fart how it really exists.

"“Whois is part of the tcpstack operating. ftp too. Never used that, either, hmm? ”

WoW you are making a big fool of yourself "

MOrON CanT KeEp caPitAls WorkIng. Nope, tht statement there doesn't make a fool of me, it makes one of you. You could claim it DOESN'T make a fool of you and fails, but it doesn't make one of me.

Sorry.

"and open up the CLI and type whois – you won’t get anywhere. "

Ah, right, so since WinXP Windows has been even less of an operating system than anything else on the market except toys.

Well, I guess they want to sell you the actual tools you need to get it working rather than include them any more.

This is only a good thing if you like less for more money.

"I’ve been doing this shit since 1992"

Yeah, what? Trolling and making shit up since 1992, hm? Cool story bro, but you're talking bollocks. I can safely make this claim because there have been several claims from you that were absolutely fake and there's no reason to take anything else you claim as being any more based in reality.

"The security thru obscurity is not that the code is obscure like Windows, but that it is so little used that hackers will target Windows"

Well your manager was talking bullshit. And not even their own, they were copypasta-ing the FUD and BS from Microsoft.

He was wrong and you, like the good little cog you are, accepted your role to grind it on.

"I haven’t made an attempt at Linux in a long while,"

Then you're wrong. Your assertion is about as correct as claiming WinNT 3.0 will not be a successful home OS.

"But my question would be for those of us that see computers as effectively mysterious black boxes that are magic, can Linux function? "

Yes, and far easier and more securely than Windows, since it doesn't require you to piss about in the internals if there's anything that isn't allowed to be easily visible and touched by you, the user, that Microsoft thing is a braindead moron unable to get past the idea of the retractable cup holder.

You don't have to work against the OS to do things. Makes it a lot easier to use safely than Windows.

"So looked at from that perspective, would a massive switch to Linux be that beneficial?"

It depends on what your current system isn't doing. It works at least as well and your worries are vapour.

"but that it is so little used that hackers will target Windows"

No, they target windows because it's so easy.

And when you hack it, the OS is so petrified of letting anything "scary" be visible to the owner of the computer that MS believe to be a dangerous moron only capable of being terrified by plaintext and computer terms, that the virus is hidden from the owner by the OS making it much harder to find, let alone remove.

How many worms were of the form "nakedbutts.jpg.exe" but windows dropped off the extension because such things were "too technical" for the briandead sheeple that use windows, yourself included along with your manager, and that's not just ME saying it, but the designer of the OS you're using saying it, so they hide it in case they scare you off with this jargon. So, thinking this a piccy of booty and not a dangerous random executable, it was opened and all it needed to do to spread was display a picture of a butt so you'd pass it on to the rest of your work colleagues to infect.

jpg files were safe. And the OS told you it was a jpg.

"Operating Systems"

Once, there was a marvelous species of ape on planet Earth.

They were fearless, and adventurous, and performed incredible feats of engineering. A few even strapped themselves to the top of a giant rocket and landed on the moon, and returned.

And all of these wonders-- great cathedrals and bridges, harnessing electricity, and even learning the secrets of the atom-- were carried out with pencil and paper, and log tables, and slide rules.....

Some say there is a natural cycle of growth, and then decline, in all things....

@Craig Thomas #25:

[Linux is] not a serious OS for a corporate environment.

If ignorance was bliss you'd be euphoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters

Jesse #31:

My advice to everyone these days is, "Linux is for smart people, so maybe you want to avoid it."

That of course is meant as a joke, and smart people laugh. So, if someone doesn't laugh ...

Well, anyway, the point is that Linux has a handful of things that make it difficult for the average person to use. But, so does Windows. In fact, Windows has more. People who use windows instead of Linux specifically because Windows is easier than Linux to install, update, operate, fix, etc. are simply operating under a misconception.

Both Linux and the Microsoft operating system were once "CLI" only. The, Microsoft added a GUI that made it easier to use but that sapped the hardware so much that it was essentially useless, and for a very long time people avoided it (Windows 3.0 and 3.1) preferring the command line.

During the six month period of writing my thesis, I used Windows 3.1 now and then, in order to run Word for Windows, in order to make certain tables and print them out because I had more fonts. At the same time, I used a Mac in our lab to do half of my graphics. The other graphics were made using qPro or Harvard Graphics, all running from DOS. The text itself was produced and printed using WordPerfect for DOS. I left spaces on the printouts to literally cut and paste (using tape) the graphics produced using other methods.

What has happened in the years since then is that all three OS's, Windows, Mac, and Linux, have evolved fully functional GUI front ends that work very well and that do everything as each other. Each and every one of the three OS's has software that runs better on it than on other OS's, so no OS can claim to have some functionality that makes it the best or only choice for everyone. For me, I find Windows to be counterproductive, while Linux and Mac OSX get my jobs done for me. This is using zero fancy technical skill. When I want to apply fancy technical skills to, say, operate a robot or scrape web sites for data or whatever, I generally use Linux or I get an OSX machine to emulate Linux, essentially. There, it is really mainly a matter of which desk the computer is on in physical relationship to key variables such as where I'm sitting or where various hardware is.

Andrew #40:

First, a clarification on updates. A good IT department will do what you say. But from the end user's point of view, having things fed to you by an IT department, or being instructed to do things, is roughly the same thing as an end user having thier own process automated. In any event, I don't know how it works with Windows, maybe it is either all automatic or zero automatic, but for an IT manager managing Linux updates, there are a number of different and very good ways to make this automatic for the end user but controlled by the IT department.

Regarding the idea that updates cause problems in all systems, really, no.

This is extremely unusual for Linux. Yes, it can happen, but it very very rarely does. You had a problem with your driver and your graphics card, not with the OS. In any event, you can always start Linux after it has been trashed at the level you describe. Had that been Windows, your system may have been toast for real, but in your case, unless your boot drive was corrupted (which would have been a separate issue) you could have recovered, you just didn't know how to do it.

What you've done here is to eliminate from further consideration an entire operating system because you had a problem with it. I promise you this: If Windows was eliminated by each user, one at at time, because they had a serious problem while using it, there would be very few Windows users. You are, in fact, asking Linux to dance backwards and in high heels exactly as I describe in the post!

You are totally correct about games. As I say above in a comment, each OS has different things it is good at vs. not so good at. That is NOT something that applies only to Windows (for the good things) or Linux (for the bad things). It is true in both polar directions for each of the three main OSs.

As you say, if the main reason for using a computer is to play certain games, then by all means buy into Windows. If your main reason to use the computer is be be all smart and stuff, consider Linux!

"People who use windows instead of Linux specifically because Windows is easier than Linux to install, update, operate, fix, etc. are simply operating under a misconception. "

It's a misconception because they're being lied to by those who want to have some hippy anti-capitalist "free open communist software" thingy buried because, well, microsoft is everything good about the free market: you can just vote with your dollars and leave if you don't like it!

Of course if you DO leave, you're whined and moaned at for being an unrealistic commie hippie who wants everyone in caves and hair shirts and if only you used it you'd see it was fine.

You know, the same hypocrisy with free speech. All fine until the speech inconveniences someone, then you are disruptive and must only speak where nobody can hear.

"You are totally correct about games"

This, however, is just as true of Windows when it came out. And go to Steam or GoG to find there are a shedload of games. It's just that there's no way to buy a system without windows or hardware without windows drivers and if you aren't using it in windows, even if it's clearly an electrical fault, they'll weasel out of it and blame linux, so you have to have windows anyway.

A lot like anti-cyclists who complain about the cyclists without even caring that 90% of them have cars too, so pay for those roads.

So most of them already have Windows, 99% of the games that run on Linux also run on Windows, and the FUD bandied about really does make Linux undeservedly a niche.

But the games work, generally, BETTER because the OS is more efficient than windows so despite having to go through a translation layer to proffer Windows syscalls and then route them to the Linux syscalls that can implement them and no JIT compilation to optimise out redundant syscals or reorder them to fewer ops, it still frequently works faster on Linux.

WoW servers have been generally Linux and most of Bethesda's games where they have servers to download have been available on servers, because Linux is just faster and better at it and the lack of a driver for the latest GPU is irrelevant.

omg... where to start. Doug and others bashing ease of use for LInux desktop. My 70 year old dad, who isnt in IT but a expedite driver, has been running linux mint since version 6. He doesnt have windows on anything. He never has to go to the cli for anything. He is almost completely self sufficient. When he had windows, i was constantly helping him. Now it so long between he actually needs help, I have to study his setup just to remember how it is set up. So take your FUD elsewhere and maybe actually install a modern linux distro before you make a fool out of yourself again.

" when applying updates trashed the graphics driver to the extent that the system would no longer boot to the GUI."

This would have been a lie.

The driver would have had to be the propriatory one for NVidia. The open source one that doesn't have the latest support or the Intel driver gets tested.

You also get the VESA driver too, the fallback.

And when windows goes into rebootcycle you're even more trashed because the OS won't let you in any how.

You could, for example, hit Alt=F1 to get a command line AT ANY TIME. And it won't stop the GUI. You can swap back to that with Alt-F7. Alt-F10 is usually the kernel log where you can see it complain. And during the boot you can change from that progress bar to the text output of the bootprocess which would tell you.

So, no I don't buy the story. Not without a lot more than blank assertion, because there's either a lie or it's Nvidia's fault, which is highly unlikely.

Greg--
Thanks, that helps. Though I bristle at the "Linux is for smart people" thing a bit. I think of myself as a reasonably intelligent person, and so are you, but I would bet money that there are skills I have that you do not, and skills you have that I do not, and it's not indicative of intelligence.

Personally I find Windows to be a bit kludgy, because after 30 years I see it as still fundamentally a GUI tacked onto a CLI-type interface. IME it still behaves this way, even though theoretically Microsoft has revamped the code a lot. And the architecture of Windows made it really hard to diagnose problems.

My Mac OS is easier to run, I find problems that occur are easier to deal with. But that could be a function of more experience.

I think the issue that people like myself would have with Linux is similar to the issues with PGP, which is a perfectly servicable email encryption system. (Won't stop the NSA if they really want to read it, but it will slow them down). PGP was a big honking hassle to use, until recently when finally some good folks started writing apps that were intuitive for non-techies like me, that minimized the f-ing around when you want to send a goddamned email.

Linux I think is in a similar spot. I've seen the interface and used it a bit, and frankly I think it just needs a bit of work. Windows has things that make it tougher for average users also, but I suspect they are different things (I'd have to be more systematic about it at some point to articulate it better). But sometimes the kinds of problems Windows creates are the kinds of problems that nontechs can deal with, or at least work around, whereas Linux mayn't be in that position.

More scientifically, it'd be interesting to do some focus group / user tests with people who are not super into tech, just average people who use computers for various work tasks.

Again, I submit that it may be that behind the scenes, Linux is superior (the mac OS is based on Linux-like architecture, no?). But that doesn't matter for most people. My computer isn't as fast as a comparable Windows machine but I am not data crunching or gaming, so I don't notice. I suspect that Linux needs a tweak to its interface, and once it's something that anyone can just sit down and use without too much prompting (just as anyone can sit down at a Mac or PC and usually be fine) then it'll be in a position to really capture some end-user market share.

"Obviously the games library was restricted"

So how is your playthrough of the Windows version of The Last Of Us going? How about the Zelda series? The latest one looks great! And it'll be better on Windows with the extra hardware!

They're all restricted.

Partly because people keep trash talking Linux with lying memes.

When Win10 is the only game to play in town and people happily using a Win7 they can FINALLY work with have no choice, then Linux will come in and replace the library of games with the same things but for Linux and they'll find out that the NVidia driver is just as fast as the Windows one, the AMD one as flaky and unpredictable as the Windows one. Seriously, AMD have some quality issues with their testing. Not entirely their fault since Intel just keep undercutting and predatory pricing AMD into the ground and this leaves very little money on the also-ran stuff like graphics.

Indeed the Intel/AMD problem is a good mirror of the Windows/Linux one. Or USA/Cuba.

The problems pointed to are almost entirely due to the other agent deliberately ensuring the bad things happen to them.

Sans interference, we could actually decide if it did or did not work, but with it, we might have it that it would work, but sabotage works easier.

"Thanks, that helps. Though I bristle at the “Linux is for smart people” thing a bit."

Did you read the

ironic

description? Thin skinned and unwilling to read past what you want to see there.

This is not someone who can be trusted to use windows. It's the sort of process that leads to this worm promulgating, because they read something and then stopped when they read as much as confirmed what they wanted to see.

"More scientifically, it’d be interesting to do some focus group / user tests with people who are not super into tech, just average people who use computers for various work tasks. "

It's been done many many times. Mark Shuttleworth did it. RH do it, Mandriva did it. And would it change anything if it turned out (as it often does) that windows or the windows version is worse to use, would it result in Windows being scrapped? Hell no. People would use it "because that's what I'm used to". Because if you're used to it and therefore NOT that group you want to test against, it's harder to learn a different way than to remember the ways to avoid the pitfalls of this one.

GIMP generally pounds Adobe PS with users who have used NEITHER. But if you've used PS a fair bit, the disjoint in the way a SDI like PS and MDI like GIMP work is shocking. It's EASY to get over it, but those who use PS WANT to use PS and are primed by PR and fluffery to expect GIMP to be bad and then stop with the confirmation bias satisfied.

The problems for usability are not within the control of Adobe, though, except in so far as they have to keep adding more tickboxes otherwise they'd not sell any new versions. And each change has to supply more "eXperience" so ease of use is in competition with marketability. GIMP doesn't have that problem and it could be without that inimical influence PhotoShop would be better and easier to use than GIMP.

Then again, if GIMP had a serious amount of backing and support in industry (e.g. pantone patents GPLd), it could be better than THAT.

All we have is what we have.

And at the moment, GIMP is easier to learn if you haven't used anything like either program. If you've used either, the other one is a bit of a nightmare at best.

The discussion ultimately comes down to this linchpin:

Linux had a security architecture baked-in from the beginning. It has been shored up as needed, over time, but it's always been there.

Windows security was added only as an after-thought, requiring all kinds of retro-fits in both the kernel and applications, in order to maintain backward compatibility.

And for all you Linux-haters who talk about how "inconvenient" Linux is to the casual desktop user: My elderly mother has used Linux exclusively on her PC for 16 years and counting. She doesn't miss the instability or insecurity of Windows at all; she simply shakes her head at every proclamation that "Microsoft finally did it right!"

it;s more Linux has the design paradigm of UNIX, where the machine was a shared resource and you didn't own any of it yourself, you had to play with others and the system had to be secure against anyone even accidentally disrupting the work of others. So it had preemptive multitasking, mutliuser, "roaming profiles", network transparency, network access, accounts and privileges, and all those other things that Windows didn't even bother because

a) It was your computer and if you pegged the CPU at 100% in a bug, then you only hurt yourself, just switch it on and off again.
b) It had all resources local. A HDD, printer, keyboard, monitor, all of them local and YOURS
c) All that stuff was "scary geek", and avoid it, and if you can't avoid it, hide it, bury it deep, never to be found

They tried with NT3.5 to get an actual multiuser system working, but to market it to the crowd that wanted "It's my computer, my printer, my HDD, my desk, MY STUFF" crowd, it had to be twisted into another single-user system but this time with "privilege" as an added problem, which "had to be solved" by making anyone logged in superuser.

I can see that there were attempts to do it right but marketing overruled every attempt by the tech geeks and those who know how to make an OS to make the damned thing work better.

And since marketing were burdened with having to generate quarterly sales and easy pitches, they really didn't have a choice to do it differently either.

Understanding the problems of the people involved who may have been genuinely trying, however, doesn't change the fact that the eventual result was just a clusterfuck of bad choices.

It works DESPITE the design results, not because of them, is about the best you can say for Windows. The worst you could conclude is it works the way it does because that's how they designed it.

Mac OSX is basically a microkernel (ish) and a BSD, hence UNIX, userland, and therefore it inherits the same OS design choices.

There's a good goddamned reason why UNIX has lasted this long. And it's not fear of change.

James @#35

It doesn’t help that Microsoft’s update tactics, littered with malware-type behavior,...

You must be thinking about how MS forced a 'free' Windows 10 onto unsuspecting Windows 7 and Windows 8 users. I could explain fully what happened here but that would take too long and be familiar to anybody who suffered so I'll keep it brief.

I will say one thing, on the Windows 7 box (my wife's - she is not that computer savvy) we kept refusing Win 10 until one day a different dialogue popped up on start up asking to install or not. And not wishing her printer and scanner to be rendered unusable to make sure 10 stayed out of it and as the 'refuse' button seemed ambiguous I closed the dialogue with the close cross at top right. Now sneaky MS had programmed that to be a tacit request to install Win10 at next power up. Which it did. Luckily I was on hand to intervene and managed to roll back to Win 7 OK but then there where loads of copies of Win10 invitations waiting in the wings to install themselves including one update that kept installing itself and which triggered further Win 10 activity. After many hours of removing triggers for installing and hiding KBnnnnnn updates that could invoke an install of Win 10 some sanity exists with a small bug red flagging every time Windows update is opened.

My WIN 8 box, just about a year old and for which I had recently obtained software to make my orphaned film scanner work, was not so badly affected, but then I was watchful.

I completely agree about the respective security measure of Windows and Linux I have Ubuntu on an older PC here, 32 bit architecture so the latest version will not be installed.

The Linux limitation for me is with graphic software - Photography and vector graphic creation. Sure I have some apps on Ubuntu but they don't quite have the functionality.

The vector graphic software I use on Win 8 had one key useful feature when I first moved to XP, because it developed out of a vector graphic software on Acorn's RISC OS architecture (which had a much superior GUI at the time to anything else - font rendering was the best too) I could transfer DRAW format files across. That is of less importance now.

I used to run Win 3.1, 3.11, MS-Dos, PC-Dos and Win 95 sessions (with an Intel compatible co-processor) on my last Acorn RISC OS box (within RISC OS windows too) with scanners flatbed (OCR too) and film, external hard rives on SCSI with a CD writer, graphics tablet and modem. But that was late 1990s. The StrongArm processor didn't have the data volume handling capability for large image files and the graphic card capacity was limited.

The problem with Windows is the orphaning of peripherals which deters movement to the latest version because that is where the expense lies buying new kit and also software too. Not exactly an eco-friendly mode of operation. Good for business, for MS etc. that is but not for the planet. Just considering all those vulnerable computers upon which financial transactions take place gives pause for thought.

What sort of vector package? Inkscape is pretty much an industry standard, though not the only one.

And KDE should still have, if not as part of the default desktop in the days of the 2GB iso image, at least part of the repository, Digicam, which is a darkroom photo app that pretty much is the beginner level but actual darkroom photopress application. There are others more advanced, but I don't need more than Digicam and I'd have to look it up to point you to others with things like built in HDR compositing from a bracket image, etc. And Digicam may have that now, for all I know.

And one of the Photoshoppers' complaints about GIMP being unusable is the result of an ideology and design perspective that arose from vector programs: you have to define the stroke then ink that stroke to get a line, unlike make a line of a certain width like in PS. The system is still raster but it's operated in many cases like a vector design.

But maybe it's not drawing but layout? I can't remember the applications I've used in the past off the top of my head.

There are solutions out there, but you have to poke around a bit. Keep an eye out for Linux mags when shopping and take a look through for anything about interesting applications: most mags have at least one comparison test for "program to do X" with several of the current biggest contenders for it, and include them on the issue's DVD.

For anyone who hasn't used Linux or not for a while, an occasional purchase of a linux mag gives you usually a few live boot DVDs and several different applications to play around with.

Wow, you're correct that a lot of design decisions in Windows were influenced by marketing (something Bell Labs was forbidden to do with Unix), but Microsoft already knew the Unix security model, having licensed Unix in 1978 and marketed it as Xenix in 1980.

The constraints of the PC architecture had nothing to do with forcing such insecurity on users. The original Unix ran on 8K of RAM; SCO managed to port Xenix to the PC/XT by 1983. It's simply that Microsoft deliberately chose to push insecurity over security, as far as the eye could see. (The conspiracy theorist would then say Bill Gates cashed out and left before the folly of this decision was exposed.)

LionelA, you mention "eco-friendly." Windows comes in dead last in that regard, too. Between compatibility checks, privilege management, and DRM, running Windows consumes much more electricity than either Linux or MacOS to accomplish anything beyond simple math. Copying a file, fetching from the network, drawing on the screen, typing text, moving the mouse, everything takes more complicated code paths (ergo more electric usage) in Windows than in any other OS out there.

"The constraints of the PC architecture had nothing to do with forcing such insecurity on users."

No, it was the other way round. The constraints (design goal) of the PC forced such insecurity on users. When you only have one user, there's no difference between logged in and being admin, for one example. When there's no networrk, there's no need to protect against foreign computers.

And so on and so forth.

The design choice of windows as "your computer on your desk that only you use in isolation from all other computers" allowed insecure design choices to be benign, and these design choices were never undone (except as said before with WinNT 3.5, which was scrapped because "it was too complicated to sell (to the morons who buy our stuff)".

That has always been MS's design paradigm: you're too dumb to be allowed to use the computer, and everything should be hidden from you if at all possible.

Including file types.

"The constraints of the PC architecture had nothing to do with forcing such insecurity on users."

So, yeah, you're right, but I was saying it wasn't that either. I was saying it was the other way round.

On "Green", one way in which MS gets ahead, but really doesn't deserve to, is that ACPI is a defined standard, but pretty much every PC motherboard manufacturer ignores it and only writes to the current MS OS version's bug infested bastardisation of it instead.

So frequently, since each M/B has a different way of writing to the MS closed ACPI driver demands, linux finds itself unable to use some of the powersave features or unable to do one of the more esoteric suspend options.

When it comes to actually operating, it's better in pretty much all categories, because the design is more efficient, but ACPI is a moving and deliberately obscured target, and it can and does fail in some areas to deliver.

“but that it is so little used that hackers will target Windows”

No, they target windows because it’s so easy.

Hackers target Windows for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: "That's where the money is." For the last 20 years or so, Windows has been the most widely installed operating system, so successfully hacking Windows gets the hacker access to more machines than successfully hacking Linux or MacOS. If either of the latter two OS's ever became a majority of installed OS's, they would get a lot of the attention that Windows gets.

That said, it's a lot easier to find and exploit vulnerabilities in a Windows machine than in Linux or MacOS. So I expect that, were the numbers reversed, you would still see script kiddies attacking Windows machines. The professional/criminal hackers would go after Linux boxes, and accept the lower success rate as a cost of doing business. The one benefit for Windows users in this scenario is that, because the script kiddies are mainly in it for the lulz rather than the money, they would be slower to identify and exploit previously unknown vulnerabilities.

In the actual world, only a few hackers find going after *nix boxes to be worth the effort. Your risks are not zero, but if you keep your system up to date and you get hit anyway, it will mostly be a matter of bad luck. Your chances of getting hit if you run an up-to-date Windows system are much higher, and if you don't keep your system up to date, your chances of being hit rapidly approach 1, much faster than they would for other OS's.

One more thing: Unix systems have been connected to the internet almost from the time Unix was first developed. I can remember a time when, to do anything nontrivial with the internet, you had to be on either a Unix or a VMS box. (Telnet existed for MacOS and MS-DOS, but you used those machines as a gateway to the Unix/VMS box.) The latter OS was a proprietary system, and mostly disappeared after Digital Equipment Corporation was bought out. So Unix had some of its more blatant vulnerabilities identified and patched early on. (Read The Cuckoo's Egg for more on this point.)For Windows, and pre-OS X Macs, internet connectivity was an afterthought. Apple solved many of those issues by switching to a Unix-based kernel for OS X, but Windows had to go through finding its vulnerabilities the hard way. And is still going through that process, because unlike Unix, Windows does not have a history of people outside of Microsoft looking at OS source code to figure out just what the problem was.

"Hackers target Windows for the same reaso"n Willie Sutton robbed banks: “That’s where the money is.”"

Actually, the money is behind everything BUT windows.

Sun, HP, Linux, RISCOS, the several types of RTOS, CISCO et al.

THAT is where the money is. But Windows is much easier to hack.

Look at any previous hackathon.

"gets the hacker access to more machines"

Full of cat pics, porn browser caches and muffin recipies.

Lotsamoney! LOL!

Oh, what you can do with them as a Botnet, yes, you can then use them to threaten where the REAL money is, but the fact of the matter is the money isn't in the windows machines, it's behind linux firewalls, CISCO routers, HP servers and so on.

The constraints of the PC architecture had nothing to do with forcing such insecurity on users.

Gus is correct on this point. I'm not 100% sure that Linus Torvalds wrote Linux to run on an x86 box, but Linux was running on x86 boxes pretty much from the beginning, back when Windows was on version 1.0 or thereabouts.

It was the software design of Windows, not the PC architecture, that treated security as an afterthought.

I bought a new Sony VAIO desktop on Dec 29, 1997. It had Win95 on it. I got it to replace the Win3.11WFG running in the DOS box that OS//2 offered, that I had been using
to write custom software for my clients. That Sony was crashing several times an hour and to get any work done I had to save my work every five minutes to avoid re-writing lost code. Between Jan 1 and May 1 of 1998 I had to reinstall Win95 FIVE times. I thought Sony was a piece of trash, despite its reputation for quality. I decided to return to OS/2 and Win3.11WFG and went to Barnes & Nobel to buy the most recent version, Warp, IIRC. There I saw a book by Bill Brush titled "Learn Linux in 24 Hrs". It had a RH5.0 CD in the back. For $25 how could I go wrong? It took me about 30 hours to get the hang of RH Linux. I also noticed that the Sony never crashed once. I missed the Win95 look & feel and when in September of 1998 I saw that SuSE 5..3 had KDE Beta 1.0, which had an even better GUI than Win95, I switched. I used SuSE to earn a living for the next five year, without a crash, until Novell bought them out. After a couple years trying various distros I settled on Kubuntu for six years and then two years ago I install KDE Neon with Btrfs on two drives running RAID1, which I have been using for the last 2 years. I can't recall ever having a single crash while using Linux.

This thread reminds be of the "uptime wars" of the late 1990s and early 2000. Win95 users were countering Linux user claims of several hundred days of uptimes with similar times, always in a one-up-manship response. Then, Microsoft released the patch that fixes the clock bug which automatically rebooted a Win95 machine after 47 days of uptime. it revealed that all the two & three year uptime claims of Windows users were pure malarkey.

Because of my background many of my friends who run Windows would ask me to "fix" their machine. I would. But after a while it was obvious that I was repeatedly fixing the same problems, most of which were not under their control. So, I told them that I would no longer do Windows and if they wanted my help they would have to switch to Linux. Over a dozen took me up on the offer. Support requirements declined to near zero requests for help. Only one, whose Windows machine I cleaned up several times, went back to Windows because of the WinOnly games he was playing. Since then he's paid hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to get his box sanitized or the Windows reinstalled. The rest continued to use Linux until they died. The youngest of the bunch, and the only one of the dozen still living, is still using Linux. The only time he's called me is when he moved and needed help in setting up his laptop, printer and wireless at his new home.

I'm 76 years old and have used Linux for the last 19 years. It is even easier to install and use now than it was when I first began using RH 5.0.

"I’m not 100% sure that Linus Torvalds wrote Linux to run on an x86 box"

Oh, be 100% sure, Eric. He wanted Solaris x86 and its license was horrendously expensive and minix was only allowed as a teaching aid, and BSD was not ported and still mired in patents, so Linus started off with the GNU toolchain and the GPL license to write his own UNIX system for his own personal used, and released it for public participation in the pre-alpha coding stage as Linux 0.1.

It was not ported to any other architecture until, IIRC, about 0.3.1, where MIPS was added and the arch subdirectory added to the Linux source tree to contain all the bits that were supplying things like memorymapping and the CPU register access methods.

I wasn't saying the PC design did it, I was saying Windows. The use of PC means personal computer, not the IBM PC compatible architecture which was the hardware including the BIOS. Therefore PC and Windows is used interchangeably, as is common when talking about the IBM compatible software system.

Mind you the ISA architecture WAS badly designed, as was the memory management, leading to the "640k is enough for anyone", the ISA hole at 1M, EMM and XMM and the other 1M hole at 15M for the PCI bus MMU and register allocation, along with the lower register of 4 pages (16k), I think, that is unavailable to OS use and is today not even paged in.

Look, if you wish, at the old source code repositories for the bootup system for the DEC Alpha system. The MIPS is terrible, but x86 HORRENDOUS! Spark and Ultra aren't *great*, but x86 is insane!

Actually, the money is behind everything BUT windows.

As was noted upthread, one of the handful of good reasons there are businesses still running Windows is that they depend on software that only runs on Windows, and hasn't been ported to Linux or MacOS. There is probably less of that then there was ten years ago, but there is still a lot of business that runs on Windows.

And then there is inertia. Lots of IT departments insist on Windows because they don't want to change what they are doing. As of five years ago, that included the US Air Force: the people I know who worked at one nearby AFB who wanted to run anything but Windows had to get special permission to do so and jump through lots of procedural hoops. True, they had additional security measures, like key card access, but those were Windows machines. (That division was transferred to another base, so I no longer know anybody who works at that AFB.) I'm sure there are people who will pay good money to learn the Air Force's secrets. Insert standard jokes about military intelligence.

"This thread reminds be of the “uptime wars” of the late 1990s and early 2000. Win95 users were countering Linux user claims..."

My epiphany for the idiocy of MS proponents came when before the EU investigation, they were required to fess up to undocumented API calls in the OS used by, for example, Office. "No such thing!". And in the court case, when it concluded, and the API documentation fessed up, not a peep.

When later claims came about secret APIs, the same ones shouted out "But they've documented it all!!! The court case required it! PROVE that they have hidden API calls!".

Not having learned their lesson.

Then when an out of court settlement was the release of several more pages of API documentation that was never released to any developer, even pointing this out and their earlier protestations that no such thing existed (and twice) could even penetrate the rose tint of the specs they had embedded in their corneas.

"" Actually, the money is behind everything BUT windows."

As was noted upthread,..."

Eric, nothing that followed countered that. Not one thing. It was orthogonal, despite being true, had NOTHING to do with it.

Were you tacitly agreeing? Then why the segue? Why not post just what you put and NOT pair it to the comment I made in rebuttal to your intuit that there was money in Windows hacks?

Because what you posted had nothing to do with there being money or even anything particularly wanted in windows machines.

Power was run via Windows For Warships (tm), and possibly the fire control. But all that could be hacked was to turn the warship off. It couldn't be remote driven like Hollywood shows hackers doing.

Basically, there's no money there either.

" I’m sure there are people who will pay good money to learn the Air Force’s secrets."

They aren't held on Windows machines, and that's NOT a large target. WHATEVER machines they run, and most of their data doesn't reside or transmit via Windows boxen, there would be the same value in hacking them.

It's just and solely that Windows is EASIER to crack and, being spaghettid together to avoid the US antitrust getting IE out of Windows and avoiding fessing up, a shit-ton of userland was festered into the OS below the admin level and right down to ring-0 in some cases, so that they could claim it wasn't illegal bundling, it was a necessary part of the OS.

Therefore an error in IE was an error in the kernel.

And MS insisted on everyone using IE.

Homogenous monoculture vulnerability making it easier to crack, since one crack would infect the majority of machines, as long as it didn't require an additional install of a propriatory non-MS product, thereby making it possible the install doesn't exist to exploit.

More design decisions, and these ones not done for even vaguely reasonable reasons, that make it easier to hack windows.

It's hacked because it's easy, not because it's valuable or common.

Errata: it was SCO x86, not Solaris x86 that Linus tried to get a license for.

That was before McBride bought the trade name (but not the OS or the license or the coders, they were Tarantella) and drove it to the ground trying to do as MS directed and slow Linux adoption by a shakedown and scare tactics that it was all patented and unsafe compared to MS Windows...

If Linux were used as much as Windows,most of the interface and software issues would go away as more people are developing.

>Well your manager was talking bullshit. And not even their own, they were copypasta-ing the FUD and BS from Microsoft.\

I trust his competence over yours. He also would not be a Microsoft worshipper.

Question, what is the purpose of having autoupdates in Linux?

"I trust his competence over yours. "

Yes, but you trust your own competence over specialists in PCA or dendrochronology, so I really do not count your trust as being any value whatsoever.

Whether you trust him more than me or not, he was still talking complete and utter bollocks and was only parroting the MS FUD that they programmed him with and he swallowed for possibly ideological, possibly mental deficiency, reasons.

It's bollocks.

Fact.

"Question, what is the purpose of having autoupdates in Linux?"

So that the updates are done automatically.

Duh.

"If Linux were used as much as Windows,most of the interface and software issues would go away as more people are developing."

There aren't any interface issues, and you have not claimed any actual software issues.

However, the interfaces will still be varied and different, because there's no one place to define where you MUST place things. So each developer house is free to pursue their own decisions on what the interface should be.

I've put Linux into a number of large financial and government enterprises here in the UK. It's an easy sell; free as in freedom, and to keep the procurement team happy buy it from a reputable vendor (they don't like things that are free as in cash). I've spent many £millions in linux licenses over the years.

Often, IT depts don't want auto-updating systems - but that's easy to deal with by having various local rpm/dnf servers that will update virtual server pools as the patches are tested and so on.

The same principle can be used in IaaS with recipe driven instances that take updates from a controlled source. of course, Amazon offer their own AMI that updates using their own yum servers if that's your thing.

However, i've never managed to roll out a decent sized operation (i.e. more than a few thousand seats) to use Linux on the desktop. Might have more luck with Desktop As A Service in years to come.

We are perhaps 30 years behind development due to the PC Windows revolution. The billions of dollars wasted on the system is staggering. Academics warned everyone back in late 98 about this system and its vulnerabilities. Windows represesents one particular meme of American culture which I refer to as the "Used Car Salesman" marketing strategy. If you want to see a free market, go to China. If you want to see a closed market loop, go to the West. The western business model is the slowest economy to adapt to changes. Stick with Windows and all your proprietary business secrets will be an open book waiting to be taken advantage of. It's really that simple. Linux has far surpassed the desktop and internet experience of Windows. Those are a lot of blanket statements to throw out. To be fair, all windows needs to do is recompile all their product code under the Linux framework, create their own distribution specific version for users under a Linux, BSD or similar kernel and let the development therein move forward. Microsoft has managed to integrate some of there software products nicely in the last 5 years. People will pay for the value of good services and they would win hordes of developers for free if they actually opened up and got on the same page as everyone else. It's not a leadership trait to go against the entire social fabric of software development in the world, its a drag on progress and real competition would likely weed out the marketing of used car sales pitches which just repeat themselves over and over again. I decided to not invest any time in learning any Windows systems as of New Years Eve 1999. I do not reget that decision.

Greg,

Many thanks for your informative article, and for your thoroughly enjoyable writing style!

I started using computers circa 1972 during my formal education in applied science and mathematics. Luckily, we had a wonderful computer science lecturer whom instilled in us the importance of having our code properly peer reviewed (using code walk-throughs) before we even attempted to run it on a computer: which at the time, usage of mainframe computers was charged at the rate of tens of £ for each CPU second, or part thereof.

What I learnt way back then was that the more people we have to peer-review our work, the fewer errors will end up being in the output/outcome of our work; and that any remaining errors will be identified much faster.

I can see good reasons for charging customers for proprietary application software [problem-solving tools], but I've never been able to find an adequate justification for charging money for the computer operating systems on which these tools run. To me, copyrighting then insisting on payment for, a bug-ridden insecure non-open-source operating system is akin to the absurdity of copyrighting each fundamental particle that is discovered in the universe, each element in the periodic table, and each discovered sequence of DNA.

Intellectual property, my ass! Under some jurisdictions, ideas cannot be patented; only properly-working, via adequate proof of concept, instances of an idea can be patented.

Readers may have gathered from the above that I've long been a proponent of open-source operating systems, and many other types of mission-critical kernels and tools. Unfortunately, the Heartbleed security bug in the OpenSSL cryptography library somewhat shattered my long-held belief in the security advantages of open-source systems:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed

However, I shall always be extremely grateful to Linus Torvalds, without whom I would not have been able to provide solutions to some of my clients' problems.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

Thanks again for your article, Greg. Best wishes,
Pete

I think the worst thing about it was the fact that it has drained the talent. It's frequently more profitable for the market top dog to buy up talent and opposition and keep them doing nothing than to compete or let the talent work elsewhere.

MS should never have fought the breakup. It would have helped them produce better products instead of letting them fixate on a broken ideal of overwhelming and unremitting control of everyone's computer.

IMO fear kept it. Fear that in change it wouldn't work. A "Can't risk it" attitude that is is antithetical to the can-do that the USA had in the 50s and later (even if the country was as regressive as the UK had been at their worst and had been part of the reason for the collapse of the empire.

Lose top spot and you'll stop worrying about losing that position.

It's like a brand new car before the first dent: you're terrified of damaging the car. Once it's been pranged, however, you're no longer worried about it.

No, Greg, not 10 years, more like 2. Last time I logged into one of my Linux machines to do something very simple, I lost 3 days of my life. Complete waste of time. For me the OS is a platform, not a playground.

St Bart's -which was "crippled" by ransomware - is the UK's largest NHS Trust.
Do you know how many of the next 17 largest NHS Trusts were affected by this ransomware?
None.

I almost certainly know the difference between the NHS where I worked and St Bart's - our Trust ruthlessly eliminated all the kludge so that the many thousands of machines on our network were all 100% under the control of our WSUS and endpoint security systems.
When we started, malware was widespread and viruses used to hit on a frequent basis. Departments/units/wards/clinics & users were buying whatever IT hardware they felt like and attaching it to the network.
A year later all that was all history. We reduced the number of protocols running on the network from 5 down to 2, eliminated all the OSs except for two versions of Windows and two Unix clusters. Thanks to this, our IT support service was closing 80% of support tickets within 4 hours (it was more like 8 days when they were chasing their tails trying to deal with non-standard hardware). We had time to develop and put in new systems to address various technical and clinical risks. This reduced mortality AND we were detecting zero-hour viruses the instant they hit and handing them over to our endpoint security provider.

I am willing to bet that St Bart's is packed full of people who are "too special" to do their work on a standard Windows desktop and St Bart's were too gutless to repatch them into the university network where they belong.

" I lost 3 days of my life."

And nothing of value was lost.

I mean, cool story and all, bro, but it's a bloody fiction.

"I am willing to bet that St Bart’s is packed full of people who are “too special”"

I'm willing to bet that you will actually risk nothing on that bet. And it, too, is a load of bull.

Craig: ". Last time I logged into one of my Linux machines to do something very simple, I lost 3 days of my life."

You should definitely stay away from Linux machines!

Yeah, that crack cocaine really can hit some times. I remember a story from an older colleague and he lost 5 days once, just completely wasted, he still blames the booze!

Wow -

Just google 'login loop issue ubuntu'. Are they all liars as well? No, YOU are. How dare you go around calling people liars without the slightest bit of evidence. Idiot.

OK, so for some reason it's OK for one commenter (Wow) to lie, abuse people and spam threads to worthlessness, but anyone who complains about it gets their posts deleted?

I don't usually complain about such things - this coming under 'playing the ref' as some would have it, but the naked hypocrisy is not only annoying but flat out strange, progressives usually hold themselves to a higher standard and you must realize what you are doing. What gives?

OK, so Dodds is complaining about people who post on a blog are posting on a blog. And thats all he posted.

And while complaining about lying lies about its existence.

Apparently Dods is allowed to do this bullshit and lying and their posts aren't deleted. Nobody knows why, not Dodds anyway.

He usually complains about everything, but that was the first time he posted that actual post and this is somehow supposed to be significant and supporting something. But what that is is strange and nonexistent. And apparently this is something about progressives, but again, this is merely because dodds is really pissed off that there are people who don't agree with his politics and therefore they must do everything he says, even though he doesn't do any of that.

Nor, strangely, has this problem ever worried him before, at least accoeding to his current complaint by post, though he has frequently posted just the same sort of complaints against progressives not being better than he can't be bothered being himself on things he doesn't care about or even comprehend.

But you would have hoped that a party politcal line that relied on denigrating "snowflakes" and "safe spaces" and insist that there needed to be personal responsibility would have avoided being a snowflake demanding a safe space and eschew any personal responsibility.

They invent some excuse for that which they don't bother doing for anyone else unless they share the same political outlook.

Mind you a quick perusal of scienceblogs for dodds brings up why he's so salty: he's a pro nuke idiot who insists renewables are a dud.

So, really, he needs to be posting there.

Except there are far too many lies on there for him to bring himself to post that tired screed without being patently obvious as a hypocrite.

Duds, go to that link and collect a list of every claim of lie and count up who the accusation was from and about and total up the rate of lie claim. Then go through and find out each and every "misleading" deceptive claim made by everyone on that thread (remember, the thread was about renewables!) and get the full list.

Then denote how many of them are actually lies (whether outright lie or deceptive misleads).

Lastly go through each claim of moral superiority and find out if the outraged one is actually guilty of that same thing first.

You know, instead of picking out someone to silence because you don't want their view aired, actually do the work to find out of your preferred ideology is not blinkering you to your confirmation bias.

Humans are supposed to be better than you. Why aren't you?

The Cuckoo’s Egg

Now there is a blast from the past, I have just dug out my copy of Clifford Stoll's book and will give it another look over.

I recall the odure that was flying about in the late 1990s, when Win95 was revealing itself more as a revamp, if that, of Win 3.1 & 3.11 with the same old trouble from fragmentation of memory and lack of a concatenation routine with MS just increasing the amount of RAM in use for those housekeeping routines so that the problem took longer to surface. I cannot remember the jargon now (cardiac arrest and lack of oxygen made a hit) but this was all about the same time as the Halloween Documents came to the fore.

More here.

The proof is in the pudding, guys - the NHS Trusts that allow any old rubbish are dysfunctional. St Bart's failed because they let the ITIL-ignorant affect policy.
The Trust I worked at - and I was in meetings where Apple-ideologues were pretty much demanding a punch-up to defend their idiotic romance with overpriced and unmanageable machines - decided to switch off appletalk and cease providing network connectivity to any machine that wasn't on the single approved current Windows OS.That trust has not had any cyber security incidents since Nachi. 15 years later, St Bart's with their splatter of nonsensical OSes have been crippled by an easily avoidable threat.

"The proof is in the pudding, guys – the NHS Trusts that allow any old rubbish are dysfunctional"

According to you, they let you work there, so, yeah, proof enough you're an incompetent idiot and the reason why the NHS got hosed.

" Apple-ideologues"

Ah, your issue is not that it's "open sores" but that it's not Microsoft.

Craig, your attempts to deflect attention from your admitted unwillingness to learn new things is getting old.

* are getting old.

I wonder if he'll tell us what Linux systems he had and what he tried to do and see if anyone here can, from memory, figure out what he could have done in less than three days....

I promise not to use google, though that promise may mean that the command name may have the wrong switch, or the actual GUI button to click is incorrectly described if he insists it must be done by GUI and never CLI. It WILL be from memory after all.

I would also like to hear how appletalk caused SMBv1 bugs to be exploitable.

I use Linux at home and it's so much better than Windows there's simply no comparison.

With every install Windows' registry gets more corrupt, and with Linux I can wipe out installs with no trace using easy package managers - also installs are far easier - Google search to find the package name & issue an apt-get install command. It downloads/installs in two seconds, done.

Windows breaks all the time. Linux rarely if ever randomly breaks. I rarely have to reboot if I don't want to (maybe I'll save some power when I leave home, etc).

Why have a company that doesn't respect your rights as a consumer, forcing updates down your throat of a completely new version of the OS without your permission, giving governments all over the world their source code but not you? Use open source and open your world back up.

I run Linux on my personal machines. I do have a Windows drive in a desktop at home that my brother uses to run certain games that only run in Windows. I run the same machine with Linux, and only ever log into Windows on it for maintenance tasks.

Here are a few observations regarding things mentioned in this thread:

I have set up Linux machines for several people who don't use the command line, but somehow still manage to use their Linux machines regularly. Ease of maintenance and good performance on old hardware are the things they like best about it.

A normal update in Linux (rather than a distribution version upgrade, which tends to be a more involved undertaking) is not very likely to cause problems on the system as long as none of your low level system software has been replaced by software from a third party. Translated, that means that basically anything other than running a proprietary video card driver that you got somewhere other than your distribution's repository (which you can do if you know what you're doing) or mixing software from a repository for another distribution is not likely to cause a serious issue with your system. In my experience, it is much, much less likely to cause a serious issue than a Windows update is.

Games have a negligible effect on the desktop computer market. Games follow users. Users don't follow games. There are users who are exceptions to this, but they are a smaller minority than a lot of people seem to think. If users followed games, the Commodore Amiga would have dominated the desktop computer market. (The game console market is entirely different of course.)

Craig, the bottom line when it comes to your story about places that have been kept free from malware problems is that any environment which is very tightly controlled is easier to secure than one which is not. That doesn't say much of anything about the operating systems involved (incidentally, when was the last time Apple computers needed Appletalk for network communication? My guess would be while they were still on 68xxx series processors in the eighties. They certainly haven't needed it since the introduction of OS X.) I think your stories about Linux difficulties would have to be more specific to be taken seriously.

Most people who aren't running some specific software that is not available for Linux could do OK on a properly set up Linux box. When it comes to Linux equivalent software you enter into complexities of what users need and what they want. Not every user will have equivalent software available. and some will not like the closest equivalent that exists.

Windows is easier to use if you don't care if your computer is part of a botnet, with all the resource and legal problems that means.

Because at base windows OS is predicated on the idea that the user is a moron (and they will learn to be one, if only out of a desire to fit in or merely avoid risking it "proven" to be true) and must be protected from anything going on in the computer. So as long as you only bow your head and don't try to do something that is computer-ey (and if it gets difficult, stop doing that and either buy a bit of extra software to do it or claim it's not needed to save the cash), windows is easy to use.

But that still doesn't make it easier to use than Linux.

Buy a Linux Dell laptop and it's EASIER to use than windows since you don't have to deal with the problems of having your computer used as part of a botnet, which will at least slow your computer down and use some of your bandwidth. But if you don't care about that either, then they're both equally easy to use.

It's just that Linux doesn't fight you when trying to use it in case you screw things up. It assumes you're smart enough to use it rather than assumes you're too dumb.

Problem for windows is there's no such thing as fool-proof.

If you said FU to MS and stuck to XP, you may be slightly better off since there's a tool which may decrypt your machine without paying the ransom. However this titbit from the slashdot story was interesting:

The recovery technique is also of limited value because Windows XP computers weren't affected by last week's major outbreak of WCry.

For one it makes it even weirder that Appletalk could have had anything to do with it, but it also makes it realy weird that it's claimed to be an old SMB v1 protocol bug.

But WinXP had SMBv1.

Bebox was cool. Let you power off the processors individually, including all of them.

Things to do after installing Ubuntu 17.04

gregladen — Mon, 08 May 2017 15:18:07 +0000

Things to do after installing Ubuntu 17.04

We begin with the usual list of things you pretty much always do after installing every Linux OS. Why these things are not automatically done for you on installation is a bit mysterious, but down deep there are generally reasons (legal reasons) for some of these things. In fact, pretty much everything here, with some minor tweaking you can ignore, is the same as for Ubuntu 16. And 15, probably. If you've been upgrading to the latest Ubuntu on a regular basis, this might all be pretty automatic for you by now!

Anyway, after installing Ubuntu 17.04, consider these next moves:

Update and Patch Up

Update your operating system by opening a terminal and typing in these things (sudo will cause the terminal to ask for your password).

sudo apt update
sudo apt upgrade

Turn on the "Canonical Parter" repositories. Canonical is the company that makes and maintains Ubuntu. Go to Software & Updates and under the Other Software tab, check off Canonical Partners.

Go to "software and updates" and pick the tab for "Additional Drivers" and pick the graphics drivers that show up there as options, if necessary.

Most people will want to install media codecs so you can listen to, or better listen to, or watch, things.

It is easiest to do this from the command line (the terminal) by typing:

sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras

Install Gdebi package installer, which I think is not already installed on this distro. This is a program that installed the contents of ".deb" packages, which you will occasionally (like, in a bout one minute from not likely) download in order to install some programs. Gdebi allows you to right click, or in some other easy way, deploy the package (which will be a folder with stuff in it) to have it all install automatically.

Find and learn to use the software installation system that comes with Ubuntu.

You will want to install the Unity Tweak tool because it allows you to ... tweak Unity in ways the system configuration interface does not. Why are all the tweeky configury things not automatially in one place? I don't know, and this to me is a major failing of the effort to get people to use the Linux Desktop.

Anyway, type this:

sudo apt-get install unity-tweak-tool

Since Unity is will never be deployed with a distribution again after 17.04, that will be the last time you do that!

Install your favorite additional software

The distribution comes with piles of software already, but there are a few things you may want to install because you use them. Use the software installer to do so, or go to the appropriate web site to download the deb file (which you'll use gdebi to install).

I install Chrome Browser (others install Chromium, but I don't think that is the best option). Go to the Google Chrome web site to find it.
I use Dropbox, and if you do, go to the Dropbox site and install the latest version.
Skype is installed from the Skype site as well.
I like GIMP image processing. That should be in your software installer center.
I like VLC as a media player. This should be in your software installer center.

______________________
Book suggestions:

Ubuntu Unleashed 2017 Edition (Includes Content Update Program): Covering 16.10, 17.04, 17.10 (12th Edition)

The Linux Command Line: A Complete Introduction

______________________

Refinements

The Unity Tweak tool lets you change how application windows are managed, including minimizing them. Play around with the tweak too.

Go to the configuration panel and select the theme you like, or leave the theme along. I'm kind of beyond changing my theme all the time but it is fun if you are into it, go for it!

Don't bother

Many will suggest system cleaning and monitoring tools. I don't think most of these tools do much or provide much information beyond what you can get by using the command line tools that have always been there. Linux is not Windows. It takes care of itself and is not a crybaby. It is much more like a Mac in this way, and for good reasons: Both are Xnix operating systems, in the same family.

gregladen Mon, 05/08/2017 - 11:18

Tags

Given how Google monitors everything its users do, is Chrome browser a good browser to use?

You can have whatever relationship you want with Google. In the end, if you chose to have a google account and use one of their browsers, I suggest chrome over chromium.

The reason people use chromium instead of chrome is that the former is more OpenSource which in this case, means slightly more out of date and modestly broken. I don't think you get any privacy differences.

With Firefox, you get a very broken browser that is only considered less intrusive because they tell you it is less intrusive. Sort of how Julian Assange and his supporters tell you they would never spy on you, specifically, just them.

Yes, if you don't want Google in your life, do not use either browser! But, a very large number of users of many desktops seem to ignore the already installed firefox or variant and install chrome-ish browsers.

About 13% of the readers of this blog use Firefox, by the way.

"Things to do after installing Ubuntu 17.04" and therein lies the problem with all linux distros, including Ubuntu the most end user friendly one. As a desktop OS linux is losing ground - it's peak market penetration was in 2015 at 1.91% and has shrunk to 1.51% as of February '17. Great for geeks not so great for Jane and John Doe. Until it gets to a point where you do not, as a matter of course, have to use the CLI to update. upgrade, install apps etc., that is until users never have to open the CLI unless they want to, it can't hope to grow much further.

Link for market share https://www.statista.com/statistics/218089/global-market-share-of-windo…

Doug, note that there have always been things to do when Windows is installed, and many of those were things you could not do without a great deal of trouble, if at all, because of junkware. I've actually had to return a piece of hardware because a piece of junkware wold not allow itself to be removed (net nanny).

So I simply do not accept that the tweaking and stuff one does after installing Linux has nothing to do with the size of its market share.

There are reasons for the smaller market share. One is that the Linux desktop developers do not understand the average consumer. The other is passive aggressive refusal to develop basic apps that would make Linux useful to more people. Another is the fact that many developers, even those who might benefit from doing so, do not develop for Linux even though it is easy compared to developing for proprietary operating systems.

I think a big reason is that it has always been free and associated with free software. People assume that fee means junky or unsafe, which is a falsehood.

Having said all that, Linux is probably the most widely used OS on the planet. The server share and the Android portion are huge.

As far as desktop share goes, I'm pretty sure there is something wrong with those numbers since Linux is the official distribution in China. That is obviously not being counted here.

Anyway, the Linux desktop is not for everyone. It is, mainly, for smart people.

Greg - Re: your first paragraph. Aside from doing security/OS patching updates after installation - something all OSs require, that's really not been my experience From Win 7 on, and rarely in Win 95. Win 3.1 lots of problems (IRQ conflicts etc) no question. For me, it's just been install the OS add the programs you use from CD or download, update the software, and away I go. But that's just my experience YMMV of course.

Of course at the server level Linux is predominant. My servers have always been Linux and I've enjoyed playing with them

Gotta wonder what Linux OS's Ole Doug is using where he has to do everything by CLI. You are a little behind the times. Ever hear of synaptic or gdebi? Windows is now essentially banned in Russia and China because of all the back doors.
For the average home user Linux Mint,Ubuntu,Opensuse and the Arch based Manjaro works just fine. Try Libre Office which is compatible with Microsoft Office. You have software like Shotwell and Digikam for you digital cameras. Browsers,let's see,Firefox,Chrome,Opera,Qupzilla,Epiphany,Tor Browser ect. VLC player,SMplayer,Gnomeplayer,Audacious,Amarok,Clementine for playing music and vids. And a host of others like Skype, Qbittorrent,Virtual Box(Put Windows or any other OS on Virtualbox and run them on your Linux machine),KODI, Steam ect. You are about 20 years behind the times.

Looks like my pro-Linux comment got censored.

Frank, the comment(s) of a new commenter are automatically tossed in moderation until I release them.

Doug, windows does work better these days than in the past. It is still saddled with security issues. Also, the interface is not flexible like Linux us, and has gone the way if the evil ribbon.

Two words that strike fear into the hearts of any Windows network user: Roaming Profiles.

The words mean nothing to UNIX, since the design was always for roaming profiles. Only windows is STILL demanding you installed everything on the local C drive...

"The other is passive aggressive refusal to develop basic apps that would make Linux useful to more people."

More than slightly unfair.

For one, if they aped a basic app like some established player on windows, they'd be sued. See Lindows.

Second, if they aped a windows app, they'd be derided (and they are) for being a "me too".

Third, if they don't ape a windows app, they're dismissed as "not standard". See GIMP et al.

"“Things to do after installing Ubuntu 17.04” and therein lies the problem with all linux distros, including Ubuntu the most end user friendly one. "

So how is it different from Windows? You still admit you have to install the apps you use form CD.And read and agree to the license.

And most of that stuff is included on the average linux install DVD. Several programming languages, several semi-professional photo apps (including darkroom style ones like Digicam), an office suite (including full RDBMS) or two, typesetting, document converters out the wazoo, and so on. Already installed.

And most of the things not there are not there because the law makes giving them to you illegal in dumbass backward countries. Like DVD viewing software.

Which is also not included in Windows either, by the way.

"Until it gets to a point where you do not, as a matter of course, have to use the CLI to update. upgrade, install apps "

So ever since 2011 or maybe 2007, depending on your distro choice.

Wow, I have not suggested aping Windows or Windows apps.

And yes, the cli is it needed for the average desktop user in Linux no more than in windoze

No, but complaints about Linux replacing Windows is ALWAYS about how X (frequently Adobe PS, which includes stuff that is patented and licensed in its technology, which interferes with ANY program doing the same thing in the USA and Germany) isn't there and the replacements "not suitable".

And see my "Third....".

About the CLI, Remote Desktop is a VERY BAD way to get around having to have a CLI. Instead of saying by word what command and options to put into the command line, you have to say "Go to this menu, look for the icon that looks like a dog pissing on a policeman's helmet... Double click on that unless you've set single click in the options... what? You don't know if you have? Well, you may get two copies of the same program up, then..." and so on and so on and so on. And if they have a different version of the program, the menu items icons and hierarchy will have changed, so your instructions will merely confuse.

So they have to open up their computer COMPLETELY to some internet person to run to get the fix.

The CLI is pretty effing easy to helpdesk.

When I have to help someone with a Windows app, I know computers well enough to know roughly what I'm looking for, so it's some hunt-and-peck for the right thing. That can only be done with complete control of their PC, though. Command line commands are fairly invariant and are entirely, necessarily, word-based. Even if there's a lot of silly "punctuation" with "backslash dash colon" going on.

Windows tried to hide DOS and DOS was pretty minimal and pointless (Borland made their money because DOS was so worthless), and they brought that hiding into every windows OS since. They don't troubleshoot the PC with command lines in house so they don't see why anyone else needs it either. So they don't get it.

Same with Windows roaming. They work like that and see no reason to do anything anyone else does if it means changing the assumptions basic to the way windows works (like sole user of the same PC every day), and when they want to change the use-case, they tack on some crud to keep the paradigm and avoid looking too deep into the code to start from a better place.

After all, changing the paradigm only gets them a lot of work to no change they can sell as an improvement.

And it sells AD to help roaming work. And when AD is being "sold" to laymen or justified by them, they go and ask "What do you do to do $THIS in Linux, eh?" when $THIS is a kludge done by Windows to allow something UNIX (therefore Linux) has been doing since the 50s in a different way that doesn't require the hoop jumping and kludging.

But since it doesn't have $THIS, it's "not sufficient" and "incomplete".

Again, it has to ape what Windows does, even if it doesn't have to, to be accepted as a replacement for Windows.

Not Linux on computer, but wondered if Greg has seen this: a "command line" launcher for Android phones.

https://goo.gl/FQl4TF

Probably a good idea to put at least the summary of the product so people don't have to click on another random URL in a discussion that is happening around the latest SMB worm infection...

Hello All
Ive been using Win for yrs. Have seen bit of MC and thought Linux was just for programming Geeks. BUT how blind i was.
With RaspberryPI, Mint, Ubuntu, now using Ubuntu Mate its a real usable desk top and find im showing people more and more and showing how secure it is...
Hardcore Linux users may snub me saying Command Line is the way Not GUI .
My Laptop dual boots with Win10 and Linux Ubuntu Mate, Im finding im booting into Mate more and then using Win10 for Legacy systems i connect to.
IF your trying to use Linux like Windows DONT - Its its own beast, learn it as another operating system, I dont want to use Wine or run Windows Programs on it, i wan tto lean and explore Linux and slowly learning cmd lines.
when you are using a GUI like Win, IOS, Linux your restricted by the GUI but Linux cmd line opens up unrestricted scope
Yes somethings are frustrating and take time to sort out.
Im relativley new to Linux but have to admit its wining me over...
Its Free, havent had to pay for any software yet, Its Secure, update when i want in my time taking secs rather than minutes and then dont need to reboot
Its easy to call things we dont understand but i trying to learn it and enjoy it,
if i was a Whiz id ditch windows tomorrow

Ubuntu 17.04 and the future

gregladen — Mon, 08 May 2017 14:55:25 +0000

Ubuntu 17.04 and the future

A Zapus is a kind of jumping mouse. A Zesty Zapus is the new Ubuntu Linux operating system, 17.04.

It has just been released and has some important features. But Zesty Zapus is not as interesting at the Artful Aardvark, which I'll discuss briefly below.

Support of 32 bit hardware is waning across the Linux world, and in this release the 32 pit PowerPC is not supported. The 64 bit PowerPC still is, but I would not be surprised if that support dropped in the not too distant future.

There are various other changes deep under the hood that the average desktop user may not care about, including the use of systemd-resolved for the DNS resolver for networking.

Of special interest is that Ubuntu is now not by default using a swap partition. Swap is a place in your hardware, normally on a drive, that the operating system uses as extra memory, so that when you don't have enough physical memory, the swap can be used. There are two ways to make swap, one is by dedicating a hard drive or hard drive partition to it, the other is having the operating system use unused disk space on your computer for it. In the past it has been considered faster and more efficient to use a partition, but the non-partition option has always been in the background to use as needed and you didn't have to have a swap partition. Now, Linux seems to be moving away from the partition and using the swap file instead, and Ubuntu will do this by default.

Zesty Zapus uses Linux 4.10. It has "driverless printing" which is a new thing and works for some printers. There are updates to various software included with the distribution, including LibraOffice (now version 5.3, a fairly significant upgrade).

Several if not all of the major "Ubuntu Flavors" are also updated, including the one I prefer, which is Mate (I'll write about that elwsewhere).

Otherwise, this new release of Ubuntu will act a lot like the previous release.

But that will not be the case with the next release, 17.10, Artful Aardvark. As the alphabetical cycle of release names comes around full circle, so does the desktop paradigm. Ubuntu, controversially to some, not controversially to most, started out years ago using the Gnome desktop. Over time, Ubuntu created the "Unity Desktop" which was meant to unify the user experience across all devices including the as yet to exist and now never going to exist (I think) Ubuntu phone. In my view, Unity was a bad thing, I did not like the way it worked. On the other hand, the main Gnome people for reasons that are still mysterious to me, decided to copy Ubuntu and make Gnome look and act a lot like Unity.

Now, Ubuntu will kill Unity. The next release of Ubuntu will not included Unity, and will instead use Gnome.

So, to install Ubuntu 17.04, which you may not want to do (I'd wait until 17.10 if you want the Gnome interface) go HERE and follow the instructions. It is possible that you can upgrade your current installation to the new release, but if you have a non-Ubuntu OS or an older version, you may need to download an image and reinstall. Then, when you are done, you may want to do these things.

______________________
Book suggestions:

Ubuntu Unleashed 2017 Edition (Includes Content Update Program): Covering 16.10, 17.04, 17.10 (12th Edition)

The Linux Command Line: A Complete Introduction

______________________

gregladen Mon, 05/08/2017 - 10:55

Tags

Why Get A Pi? (Raspberry Pi)

gregladen — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:02:54 +0000

Why Get A Pi? (Raspberry Pi)

There is really no better time to get a Raspberry Pi. The new Raspberry Pi 3 has features that make it much more useful and fun, including more speed, built in bluetooth, and built in wifi.

The Raspberry Pi is a small computer that, out of the box, lacks storage drive or device, a monitor, a screen, or a mouse, but is otherwise a fully functional computer that can run a normal operating system. It costs very little, so if you happen to have a TV or monitor that can use a component or HDMI hookup, a keyboard, a mouse, and an appropriate microSD card, then you have a computer for $39.99. If, on the other hand, you need to buy those parts and the cables and such, then you have a $200 computer (or more) that isn't very fast but is still cool. Chances are, though, that you have at least some of these parts laying around.

I'll make some suggestions below as to how to set yourself up (including the option of buying a kit) but first let me say a little more about why you might want to do this.

Why Pi reason one: A kid

Maybe you have a kid in the house who is old enough to start to play around with a computer, but not old enough to not gob all over it, drop it, or mistake it for a bath toy. With a Raspberry Pi, you are not taking a big risk. First, it is cheap and easily replaced, compared to, say, a laptop. Second, if it does end up in the bath, it is probably easier to dry out than a notebook or desktop computer.

When Huxley was about five, I set him up with a Raspberry Pi hooked to an old TV we had laying around. I bought a new keyboard and mouse for it, and that keyboard and mouse has done a lot of good work since. He learned the basics of turning a computer on, turning a computer off, using the mouse, running some basic apps (like Tux Paint), etc.

Over the next year he continued to use the Pi but also graduated to a laptop his grandfather had laying around. It was a Windows laptop, so I wiped it and installed Linux. Huxley is now able to install software using the command line, and he is about as good at word processing as any average person. He's pretty good with graphics software as well. At school, he's been learning a watered down version of the iMac, he can use Windows, and he knows more about the Android and iOS operating systems than most. He turned 7 last week. I owe much of his rapid development to the Raspberry Pi. Also, to Linux; If Linux is one of your first operating systems, you will understand more quickly the things you need to know to make computers bend to your will.

Why Pi reason two: impress your friends

So, here's the scenario. A bunch of your friends get together now and then at a particular coffee shop, or the cafeteria, or perhaps your family gathers at the cabin, or at a favorite vacation spot. Pretty soon everyone pulls out a device. Most have phones, but here and there a laptop being used by someone who needs to get some real work done.

Well, you need to get some real work done too, so you pull out a box of Altoids, plug it into the nearest TV, sign in via your iPad and, using the iPad's virtual keyboard, get to work.

A Raspberry Pi can be cobbled together with a number of different bits and pieces, including some interesting options for the computer's case, to make what is essentially a laptop or a funky desktop. It can work as a "headless" server, so you use a different device to access it.

My most elaborate setup involved a super fast USB stick to run the operating system. The microSD is the usual boot device, but I hacked it to hand the boot process over to the faster USB stick and run the computer from there. An HDMI output ran to a small TV. The Pi was hooked directly into the internet via a LAN cord (there is a plug on the Pi). A powered USB hub allowed multiple additional possibilities. A bluetooth dongle gave the device that capability, and allowed use of a mouse and keyboard. Oh, and I overclocked it. That was a Raspberry Pi 2.

The Pi 3 comes with built in wireless and bluetooth, and is faster and thus not so much in need of overclocking.

Why Pi reasons three through infinity: Projects

The Raspberry Pi is, as noted, a basic computer, but it has a number of pins that give the hardware access to outside thingies. These GPIO pins let you hook sensors or actuators directly to the Pi, so you can build things with a brain. In addition, there is the usual serial (USB) interface.

There are two commonly used machines on which a very large number of Do It Yourself (DIY) projects have been based. A home media center. A garage door opener. A weather station. A personal web server. A remote control camera for security or to watch birds or game. A system for turning on and off all your things, including lights. A customized alarm clock. A bitcoin server. Any one of a number of different robots.

One device is the Arduino Uno R3 Microcontroller, or a related card, the other is the Raspberry Pi. If you look around you will find dozens of other circuit boards that do these things, but none of them have the huge support network, gazillion lines of pre-written code, and myriad bits of hardware designed to be added on to make things happen.

The Arduino controller is, frankly, the better choice of machine for many uses. If you need a smartish machine to do one thing, and only one thing, and that thing isn't too complicated, a Raspberry Pi is probably overkill and might have some downsides. A controller might even be better designed as hardware goes, as it is real time. Say you are building a model airplane and you want a smart device inside it controlling the various things that make it fly. You will be sending signals via radio to the plane. A controller can be set to cycle rapidly through the communications module to see if there are any instructions coming in, then to various sensor or actuator circuits to acquire information or to set the actuators to do things (change speed, etc.). You can be confident in advance that the controller will focus on nothing other than these jobs, and check each of these inputs and outputs several times (a known number of times) a second.

If, on the other hand, you use a computer -- any typical computer -- with a normal operating system like Linux, OSX, or Windows, then you can't be as sure. There can be a software based timer set up in the computer that will theoretically go from sensor or actuator to sensor or actuator, checking the communication module for commands every cycle. But those cycles are virtual. If somewhere along the way a backup program was installed to make a copy of a directory and put it on a USB stick every hour, then suddenly your computer is busy doing something else. If updates are automatic on your setup, same problem. Yes, you can configure a system to not do anything you don't want it to do, but you might not be perfect in you efforts. In other words, having a Raspberry Pi carry out time sensitive mission critical rapid fire acts is like hiring a potentially recidivistic but reformed fox to guard the henhouse. Yeah, it probably works, but if any chickens are missing ...

The Raspberry Pi, running a normal operating system, can do pretty much anything any other computer can do, and might in fact, do any of a number of different things while still carrying out the program you wrote to operate the air plane. But the Arduino controller can only do a few things, and you can't really accidentally have it programmed to send out bulk emails or get your fur coat cleaned while you are trying to control your expensive model airplane.

So, let's say I want a device in my garage that has a sensor that tells me if the garage door is open or closed, turning on a light on a second device in my house (connected by radio signal) if the door is open, and allowing me to open or close the garage door by pushing a button on that interior device. That would be easy using two Arduino boards, some sort of sensor, a cheap pair of radio communication thingies, and some lights and resistors. (Plus the appropriate way to close/open the door, for which there are several options.)

Say I want to have a device in the garage that senses if the door is open, has a camera that can be used to check out the garage, communicates the status of the door via the internet, and allows me to remotely open or close the door or look at the camera's image remotely form anywhere on my smart phone. You can totally do that with an Arduino controller, but that will involve adding a lot of parts and raising the cost, and you may be limited in other ways. A Raspberry Pi would be better for this application.

Say I want the device in the garage to have a movable pointable camera, a temperature sensor, a "door open" sensor, a door close/open actuator, and a way to turn on and off the main garage light. But, I want to control all of those functions from the Internet, and I want the same internet interface to also give me the temperature in my house and provide a view from a camera pointing out the front door. I also want the same system to give me access to my Google calendar.

For that, I'd want the Raspberry Pi running the web server, hard wired, perhaps, into my home LAN, and fitted with a Camera Module and a temperature sensor. I the Garage would be an Arduino with a movable camera and all that other stuff, controlled via the Pi that sits in my house.

And so on.

Very elaborate home automation systems have been built using a combination of various Arduino controllers and a Raspberry Pi at the center of it all.

The Raspberry Pi can run any software that normally runs on Linux, if that is the operating system you install (which is probably the case). Most projects that use the Pi as the central brain use Python, which is an all purpose programming language. The Arduino controller uses a form of C, but it is easy to use and for most functions, there is already code ready to use out of the box or with minor changes. The Pi can have huge programs and handle massive amounts of data, if you have a large enough USB stick or microSD card. The Arduino is very limited in space and memory, though it can be attached, with some extra work, to various mass storage devices.

I think you get the idea.

What kind of Pi do you want?

There are four kinds of Raspberry Pi. The Zero, the One, the Two, and the Three. If you are getting a new one, just get the three. It replaces the one and the two. (The Zero is a whole different thing, for advanced users.)

There is also the A vs. B model within these categories. None of that is important. Get the Pi 3 B. THIS ONE: Raspberry Pi 3 Model B Motherboard.

In order to make a Raspberry Pi work, you will need things like a power adapter, a keyboard, etc. You might want to put it in a case. You will need a microSD card with the operating system on it. Since the Pi is a DIY device, the basic unit comes with none of this and you have to figure it all out yourself.

Or, you can buy any one of dozens of available kits that have some combination of some of the basic parts needed. Kits don't have a monitor, keyboard, or mouse. The Raspberry Pi comes with the rarely used component jack (the yellow round thing on the back of your TV may work with it) and an HDMI output, for video, and several USB sockets. The PI 3 has bluetooth built in, so you can use a bluetooth mouse and keyboard if you want. The kits tend to have the Pi, an SD card often with the OS preloaded, an HDMI cable, a power supply, and a case. Most kits these days come with heat sinks, which are pretty much unnecessary but cool, that you can glue on to the Pi if you want.

I recently got the Vilros Raspberry Pi 3 Complete Starter Kit with Clear Case and 32GB SD Card, which came with the Pi 3 (with WiFi and Bluetooth, as mentioned), a power supply, a 32 GB Class 10 MicroSD card (you will want a class 10 card), a case, an HDMI cord, and two heat sinks. I think that normally lists for $90 but is perpetually on sale for much less.

For the more DIY oriented user, the CanaKit Raspberry Pi 3 Ultimate Starter Kit - 32 GB Edition comes with additional parts that will be helpful in building projects that exploit the Pi's input/output pins, such as LED lights, hookup wires, and resistors, a breakout cable, and a breadboard. The way the Pi is set up, you will want a breakout system to allow you to mess with electronic components more easily and safely (safe for the Pi, that is, with its sensitive computer circuity). If I was going to give a kit to someone who I knew was going to mess around with the hardware, this is the kit I'd probably pick.

The Operating System, which you can download at the Raspberry Pi site and install on the microSD card, also allows for some options. And, it can be a little confusing.

There is a "system" called "noobs" (for Noobie, I assume) which is the easy way to install Raspbian. Or, you can get Rraspbian sans Noob, which is apparently the hard way to install Raspbian. I've done both, but I don't remember if one is actually harder.

Raspbian is the basic OS for the Raspberry Pi, and it is a Linux distribution based on Debian (get it? Raspberry Pi Debian = Raspbian?)

The Raspbian distribution formerly used LXDE as the desktop, a lightweight, not very fancy, stable desktop. But, recently, the desktop was redesigned to be much sleeker and nicer (but still basic and efficient) and has been renamed Pixel. (Pixel as in Pi-something, but also, named in part after the author's experiences as a young child playing peek-a-poke in Basic on his IBM clone.)

You can also install a version of Ubuntu Mate. I've done that. I don't recommend it. The Pi is not meaty enough to pretend to be a normal desktop computer when saddled with the extra overhead. Pixel is the way to go. But it was fun to play around with. Another option is the OSMC, or Open Source Media Center, if you want to use the machine as a media center. There are others. I've no experience with them, so I can't tell you much about them. But I can tell you this very cool thing: You put the OS on the microSD, and put the microSD in the Pi, and that is what determines what OS you are using. So, you can swap between operating systems but just swapping cards. How cool is that?

One especially advanced but seemingly widespread use of the Pi is to build a gaming device. You install some software. Then, you install the bios of one or more gaming systems. Then you install the games that go with that gaming system. Obviously, you will only install systems and games that you already own, and not find anyplace on the Internet to download them. Then, you have all those old console games on your Pi. You'd probably buy some game controllers to hook up to that device, and you'd probably run it on your TV.

All the information you need to make all of this work can be found either on the Raspberry Pi site, or at a destination linked to from that site.

Raspberry Pi Cases

As noted, you can use the Raspberry pi as a regular, low power but usable, computer and at the same time make a cool case for it. This is a bit like having a laptop that you carry around, but instead of a laptop, it is a box of Altoids. Or some LEGOS.

Instructions to make the Altoids Pi case are here.

Ready-made LEGO cases are here and here.

Strange and wonderful devices

There are a gazillion projects on line that use the Raspberry Pi. Here, I'll give you just a few examples. Most of the examples use Raspberry Pi 1 or 2 (probably, 2 is the most common) and in most cases you'll want to use a 3. So, the best way to get good instructions for a project is to look at a few examples and hopefully among them will be one that uses the Pi 3.

Here is a somewhat slow but a good start on a PIrsonal Assistant. You can make this run faster if you tweak it (and use the Pi 3):

Do you know what Tor is? If not, maybe find out. Given the current political climate, it may become more important. Anyway, you can make a Tor Router.

There are many picture frame projects out there. Just search for Raspberry Pi Picture Frame.

Here is a system that controls your lights using voice commands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xibcbGl7VUw

If it was me, I'd skip the voice feedback. The detailed instructions are HERE.

At first I thought this Pi controlled espresso machine would be dumb, because really, what can a computer to do make an espresso machine work better. Then I looked more closely at it and realized this is a thing.

Stratux looks interesting. I remember my uncle, a Franciscan missionary who would stop by now and then on his way to this or that remote place, invented something like this back in the 60s. Stratus is a device you use to identify aircraft in your vicinity, using the plane's ADS-B broadcasts.

I'm not going to point to a particular media streaming project. There are many, many such projects and it all depends on what you want to do. Just do a search for using the OSMC system on Pi. Or, just a simple music streaming machine.

Same with console gaming projects.

People make Minecraft servers. Generally, if there is anything you might like to dedicate a computer to, that is on all the time, the Pi may be the way to go. It is very low power demanding, and cheap enough that you can dedicate this card to that one purpose, leave it running, and give it just enough maintenance to keep it from being coopted by nefarious hackers.

A print server, a file server, a local web server for your own uses, a system that puts your google calendar or other stuff on a TV screen (or other screen) for your convenience. Each of these idea has 20 or 30 iterations out there.

I hear someone is working on an "Election Converter" that runs on a Raspberry Pi 3. I'd send you a link but the instructions are written in Cyrillic.

gregladen Tue, 12/13/2016 - 09:02

Tags

It's a crime in life when the person with the most toy's Win's. What happened with Bernie Sanders? He seemed down to earth humble an honest Man more like Carter.We want the war to end?What a man to be in office. We are worried about climate Change and air pollution. Let's put the CEO of ExxonMobil in office too!And is he not close to Russia I don't think huge companies should be able to tax write off donations to an election that just sends messages that they want there bills,Laws or what ever not passed or passed what ever is in there favour. We need a new way to elect a person and money needs to be at the bottom. What happened to research?

This is why I'm getting a Pi, for this application specifically:
https://learn.adafruit.com/freq-show-raspberry-pi-rtl-sdr-scanner/overv…
I'll use it for both scanning for interference to my Ham radio, and also to make sure my signal is clean.
I think I'm going to use a 7 inch touch-screen and a case that includes both. Probably a battery that I can stick to the back.

The Collapse Of Arctic Sea Ice

gregladen — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:12:34 +0000

The Collapse Of Arctic Sea Ice

Andy Lee Robinson started the recent trend of making compelling graphics about climate change that move. He did a version of the Arctic Ice Death Spiral (a term coined by Joe Romm), which was highly acclaimed but that did not go as viral as it should have at the time. Then, a version with additive ribbon graphs about three years ago. He called that the "waterfall diagram" and it was picked up and used by the BBC at the time. Not long after, he came up with the disappearing block of ice motif. And now, Andy has an updated version, here:

This is ice VOLUME, not the oft cited surface area. Surface ice will always reform and melt in the Arctic, but long term there used to be a lot of thick ice that never melted during the summer. This long term thick ice would survive the summer melt, and allow new winter time surface ice to form more easily each year. As that ice disappears from various coastal areas in the high Arctic, new winter surface ice takes longer to get going.

The first version of this graphic, using ice blocks, was requested by Joe Romm, for Think Progress, in 2013, and appears here. Joe just wanted two ice cubes, side by side, and that is what Andy provided.

But Andy got thinking about the presentation of this very important climate change related metric. "After a while I thought it would be a nice challenge to try to animate it," he told me. "To accomplish this, I started from the same camera angle, zooming in, following the line to the minimum and then returning to the original location. This required a way to create hundreds of script files to describe each frame."

Andy told me that he is fluent in Perl, so he used that to calculate parameters for the objects he wanted to manipulate and substitute them in a povray script template. "At a resolution of 1920x1080, it takes between 15 minutes and 2 hours to make one, depending on what computer is working on it. I wrote spline and easing routines to calculate the smooth motions of the camera and cube sizing, and to interpolate the progression of the graph series." The MySQL is a shared database that each server has access to, in order to check out a frame, render and return the results over NFS to a shared directory.

"The same perl program is run on each server and therefore knows which frame to render next, and after a few days the finished frames can be assembled together using ffmpeg with music, in a wav file."

Andy, who is a gifted musician, composed the music himself.

"This uses 8 machines in total, including a linux laptop at 2 hours per frame! It was very painstaking work, writing all the code and parameters, but once done the images can be replicated automatically as new data appears. If only it would pay the rent!"

gregladen Thu, 10/13/2016 - 05:12

Tags

Linux

Technology

Arctic Sea Ice Volume

climate change

global warming

Technology

But don't worry: the human-caused mass extinction event currently happening will soon end.

Last one out, please lower the casket lid...

great graphic but scary as hell

What's the solution fewer airplanes, less coàl, electric cars, solar, wind,geothermal, a green economy; created and supported by developed nations that makes sense world wide. There are big money changes needed to rectify past mistakes.

It would be nice if climate change stopped being so political. The ice volume and surface area are something different. This is a great presentation tool.

It would be nice if climate change stopped being so political.

Tell the right wing ideologues. They are the ones who made it a politically loaded issue.

Are you aware of the research conducted by IceGeoHeat published in 2013? Also research conducted at the Thwaites glacier in the antarctic? Both suggest magma.

Fox: Yes, I'm aware of that issue!

Check this out for more on what we call geothermal flux in relation to glacial melt: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/geothermal-flux-west-antarctica-and…

OpenOffice May Close The Door

gregladen — Sat, 10 Sep 2016 08:05:39 +0000

OpenOffice May Close The Door

The history of what we call "OpenOffice" is complex and confusing. It started as a project of Sun corporation, to develop an office suit that was not Microsoft Office, to use internally. Later, a version became more generally available known as Star Office, but also, a version called "OpenOffice" soon became available as well. The current histories say that Star Office was commercial, but my memory is that it never cost money to regular users. I think the idea was that large corporations would pay, individuals not. This was all back around 2000, plus or minus a year or two.

In any event, the Open Office project built two things of great importance. First, it made a set of software applications roughly comparable to the key elements in Microsoft's Office Suite, including a word processor, a spreadsheet, a presentation app, and, depending, something that draws and something that relates to databases.

The second thing it did was to create and develop an important open source document format.

But, believe it or not, in the world of software development and programming, even in the happy fuzzy world of OpenSource, there can be fights. And, not just the fun and tongue in cheek fights over which religion you are (vi vs. Linux). These fights often involve differences in points of view between megacorporations that get involved in OpenSource projects, and the unwashed masses of programmers contributing to such things. The majority of code is written and maintained by corporations, much of that in the hands of a very small number, but the contributions from individuals not linked to corporations is extremely important.

In the case of OpenOffice, the tensions were between the broader Office-interested development community and big corporations shifted in 2010 when Sun corporation which had always been involved in OO development, was purchased by Oracle Corporation. Oracle has not been friendly to OpenSource in the past, so the wider community freaked. There is a side plot here involving Java, which we will ignore. Oracle didn't end up doing anything clearly bad against the OpenOffice project. But, they also ended up not doing anything good, either, which is essentially a death sentence for a project like this. Later in the same year, an organization called The Document Foundation was created and took on the job of forking OpenOffice.

Forking is where a given lineage of software is split to create an alternative. Sometimes this is to bring some software in a different direction, perhaps for a more specialized use. Sometimes it is a way of resolving conflict, much as hunter gatherers undergo fission and fusion in their settlement patterns, by separating antagonists or putting a distinct wall between antagonistic goals. In this case, while the latter is probably part of it, the main reason for the fork and its main effect was to get the project under the control of an active development community so work could be continued before the project stagnated.

That fork became known as LibreOffice. For some time now, it has been recommended that if you are going to install an OpenSource office suite on your Windows, Linux, or Apple Computer, it should be LibreOffice.

One could argue that the OpenOffice suit or its analog (earlier, Star office, later the LibreOffice fork) is the most important single project in OpenSource, because an office suite is a key part of almost all desktop computer configurations. Of course, most servers don't need or require an office suite, and there, web servers and database servers, and a few other things, are more important. But to the average end user (in business or private life) being able to open up a "Word Document" (a term misapplied to the category of "wordprocessor document"), or to run a spreadsheet, or to make a presentation, etc. is essential, and that is what an office suit provides. OpenOffice was comparable to Microsoft Office, and now, LibreOffice is comparable to Microsoft Office. By some accounts, better, though many Microsoft Office users have, well, a different religion.

Now, it is being reported that the mostly ignored, maligned by some, historically important yet now out of date OpenOffice project is about to byte the dust. As it were.

Dennis Hamilton, VP of the group that runs OpenOffice, "... proposed a shutdown of OpenOffice as one option if the project could not meet the goals it had set. 'My concern is that the project could end with a bang or a whimper. My interest is in seeing any retirement happen gracefully. That means we need to consider it as a contingency. For contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better than later.'" [Source]

Approximately 160 million copies of LibreOffice have been downloaded to date. The closing of the OpenOffice project, should that happen, will probably have little effect on LibreOffice, since most people had already walked away from the venerable old but flawed grandaddy of OO Suites.

gregladen Sat, 09/10/2016 - 04:05

Tags

I think you mean LibreOffice; it's great software, I have used it for some time.

https://www.libreoffice.org/

"most people had already walked away from the venerable old but flawed grandaddy of OO Suites."

OO had some issues of its own, but as I recall the biggest issues early in its life were incompatibilities with Microsoft Office documents, due to Microsoft's closed ecosystem and later, implementation of xml "standards" that were marginal at best.

That said, I use Microsoft Word only when required (we have some departmental forms that must be in Word format, and students must submit Word documents in Blackboard for a variety of reasons) but 99+% of my work at school my workflow is LaTeX, or RMarkdown, to produce pdfs and html files. It works, and in LaTeX, writing and maintaining a long file, across chapters, parts, and sections, is much easier than it is in Word.

I'll stop my dinosaur mode rant now.

That wasn't specifically a problem with OO vs other projects, it just had to so with the history of documents.

But, it also didn't happen as many say it did.

Inded. OO was pretty much as compatible with any Microsoft format as Microsoft was. If you took a range of MS Word implementations, and threw OO in there, and took all the MS document formats, and tested for cross-compatibility, you'd find a lot of problems, but they weren't clearly associated with OO. They occurred across MS Word implementations, mainly.

Then MS switched to DOCX and broke all compatibility with itself and OO. the, IIRC, MS was forced to make DOCX compatible with itself, and to follow standards, and all the compatibility issues more or less went way except for those using older MS Office versions.

Using Word (or any word processor) only when required is excellent advice. Unfortunately, many people use it all the time even for "text" documents!

You claim that your work is mainly LaTex. But that is not an editor. You must be using a text editor underneath it all.

Come clean, what text editor are you using??? vi or emacs? ???!!??

I upgraded my VirgoOffice to LibraOffice after consulting my Oracle. It said my StarOffice had moved into the House of the Sun, which was on a descending line, and would OpenOffice me to great misfortune if I didn't switch. And I've since found it to be much better.

This OLD programmer is STILL using a very old version of MS Word on my XP system. Haven't tried either OO or LO. The problem of using the new DOCX file format has not always been solved by the compatibility solution offered by Microsoft. (I have DOCX files which display as one line per page!) For simple documents I often use Wordpad, which allows text format and size control. It starts much faster and usually results in a smaller file. For just text, there's always Notepad, even for code editing. The disadvantage is you have to do cut-and-paste instead of drag-and-drop.

Gary, you may want to consider using RFT format in Word, then you are probably compatible with yourself !

Yes, you caught me in the error of seeming to say LaTeX is an editor.
I use emacs or Rstudio on my Mac at home (the latter allows me to include R code, output, graphics, and markdown or LaTeX formatting in a single file) , Texstudio and Rstudio on my Windows computer at school. Everything moves back and forth seamlessly between operating systems. Isn't that what we want to have happen?

And, the comments about the issues between Microsoft Office and Open Office were spot on - what I tried to get at. Those issues were a perfect illustration of the difference between philosophies and designs of open source software and commercial software.

emacs is the best editor. RStudio is great.

I don't use windows so I'm not familiar with Textstudio.

BBE editor is great on a mac. If you fully loaded your .emacs file and put everything on a set of menus, it would be BBEdit.

I think TextWrangler is the toned down free version of it. BBEdit is a great example of good proprietary software, but I do wish there was an OO and Linux version of something like it.

Thanks Greg! this was interesting. I have used OO for years now, but only rarely as needed. I was always very appreciative of the fact that they provided these tools for free vs the predatory pricing of MS. I would have been glad to buy MS Office for a reasonable price, but (I don't know what it is now) I recall seeing it at nearly $300 retail at times.
I had no idea about any of this backstory though.

@ Greg, #6. Thanks. I should have said I'm editing .RTF files with Wordpad. Their advantage is compatibility with many editors, and it's free on MS systems (at least so far). Here's a hack: if you really can't read the contents of a .DOCX file, just change the type to .ZIP and then find and copy the text content.

"emacs is the best editor."

My advisor would say the same thing about vim.

Texstudio is nothing special - command completion, integrated viewer - but it works.

Dean, your advisor must be some kind of monster!

Gary, yeah, I figured Wordpad would be RTF. So by using RTF in Word everything should work together nicely.

RTF covers pretty much most or all of one's needs.

I personally like markdown.

I've used both OpenOffice and LibreOffice.
All I can say about OO is "good riddance". LibreOffice is better.

Open Office was great - it could even open old documents created by Microsoft Office that newer versions of Microsoft Office couldn't. I was saddened when it went through the troubles, and I moved on to Libre Office once that was up and running, but I'll always remember Open Office with respect and affection.

Thanks for this article. I've been using Apache OpenOffice for a while — three versions, I think — on WinXP. I'm now on version 4.1.2. It sometimes fails to load, so that I have to reboot the machine. But that's rare, and I haven't had any other problems with it.

The article linked below compares it (briefly) with LibreOffice, and the comments give some good notes on the history of the two efforts. Apparently LibreOffice can use code from OpenOffice, but not vice-versa.

http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-di…

Things To Do After Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

gregladen — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:30:01 +0000

Things To Do After Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

This is one of four related posts:

Should You Install Ubuntu Linux?

Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

How to use Ubuntu Unity

Things To Do After Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

Some Linux/Ubuntu related books:

Ubuntu Unleashed 2016 Edition: Covering 15.10 and 16.04 (11th Edition)

Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Desktop: Applications and Administration

The Linux Command Line: A Complete Introduction

If you have already considered your options for installing Linux, done the installation, and learned your way around the Unity Desktop, then you are ready to tweak your system. This will be easiest if you use the terminal for several of the steps. Just copy and paste the lines I give you here. Note that in Linux, unless you change it, to paste into a terminal you hit shift-control-v, not just control-v.

Most of these commands start with the word “sudo.” This is because these tweaks change the software or the operating system, and Linux needs to know that the person in charge of the computer is doing that. Start a command with “sudo” and after you enter the command, you will be asked for your password. Enter the password, hit Enter, and you are good to go. If the next time you use “sudo” is soon enough, you won’t be asked for your password.

There is one other thing you might want to know so the rest of this makes sense.

Software, applications, apps (three words for the same thing) typically come in “packages.” A package is a bunch of stuff that includes information on what needs to be installed to make a piece of software work, what needs to be done to let the system know it is there, etc.

Packages live in repositories, and they live on the internet. (They can also live on a DVD but that is rarely done for the average user … there were in fact packages on your installation DVD but that’s the last time you’ll probably use DVD or USB stick based packages.)

Your computer, after installation, is set up to know about certain repositories. This is the great advantage of using Ubuntu or many of the other major distributions. You get that distribution’s repository, and the packages stored there are carefully maintained and secured. Installing off a major repository like this means no viruses, malware, “freeware” or other junk will get onto your computer. It also means that when you issue a general update command, your computer visits the repository and updates all of your installed software based on whatever is new or changed in the repository.

During the following process, you will likely add some new repositories to your computer’s database of repositories. Just follow the instructions. But note, in order for an added repository to be known about, you add it, then you update the package system. Again, just follow the instructions.

It is also possible to install software using a downloaded package. In the case of Ubuntu (or any debian based Linux distribution), these are files with the “deb” extention. If you have the right software installed, you should be able to just double click on a deb file and pick an option to install it. I include an example or two of that process in with the tweaks below.

Finally, as you will see, there are several different software interfaces to this installation system. For the most part, you can install anything from the available repositories using the Ubuntu software center. But the Ubuntu software center is one crappy piece of software, in my opinion. It looks slick, but is slow and clunky and frustrating.

There is a system that works better (it is more responsive) but harder to use (because it does not hold your hand much) called synaptic.

___________________

Check out:

UBUNTU AND LINUX BOOKS

BOOKS ON COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND COMPUTERS

___________________

But generally, the smoothest, quickest, easiest way to install most software from the repositories that your computer is aware of is with the command line, using the command “sudo apt-get install bla-bla-bla.” As shown below many times.

So, now, on to the tweaking.

1. Make the terminal program handy

First, open a terminal. You may have already placed an icon for the terminal on the Task Panel; if so, click that. If not, hit the “super” key (the Key Formerly Known as the Windows Key) to bring up the Unity dash. Then, type in “terminal” and choose the icon for the terminal program.

Now that the terminal program is running, you’ll see it in the Task Panel. If you’ve not already locked the terminal icon to the Task Panel, right click on that icon, and opt to have the terminal icon always be in “the launcher” even if it is not running.

2. Update the software and operating system you just installed

Even if the system was updating while installing (that was an option you had during the install), there are probably still some things that need updating. If you have not done so yet, type or copy/paste this into the terminal (shift-ctrl-v to paste in a terminal) and hit enter:

sudo apt-get update

You will be asked for your password. Type it in and hit “enter.”

If you are asked a question with a “Y/n” answer, type in “y” and otherwise follow any obvious instructions.

The updated command is a quick and dirty way of making sure that the software you have installed is updated. Chances are that when you do this after install, almost nothing will happen because little or no software will be ready for an upgrade.

When all the gobbledygook is done in the terminal, type in:

sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

The dist-upgrade command will, in short, do a more thorough job of updating the things that are installed on your sy stem (it does not upgrade you to a new distribution, it just updates the software with more awareness of what the distribution specifies in terms of packages and interrelations between packages). The details are not too important. What you need to know is that "apt-get update" is quick and useful, and "apt-get dist-upgrade" will take much longer to run, but do a much better job of updating things and cleaning up after itself, and should be done now and then.

If you are asked a question with a “Y/n” answer, type in “y” and otherwise follow any obvious instructions.

These steps can be fast or slow, depending.

3. Make installing software easier

First, enable the Canonical Partners’ Repository. This will allow you easier access to some software. A repository is where software lives, and your installation programs know about only certain repositories, and ignore others.

Open System Settings (on the Task Panel, the gear and wrench icon)
Click on "Software and Updates"
Go to Other Software tab.
Click the check box for "Canonical Partners"
You may be asked for your password.
You will be asked to "reload" the repository info. Do that.

There are a couple of applications for installing and updating software, and you can have fun with them, but two tools that are really helpful that Ubuntu mysteriously does not install by default should be installed now. One is called “synaptic” and it is a menu drive graphical interface to your repositories, the other is gdebi, which allows you to install software that comes to you via download in a “deb” package.

sudo apt install synaptic

sudo apt install gdebi

If asked to choose Y/n at any point, choose Y

4. Install Linux graphics drivers

This may not be important, or it may be, depending on your hardware. So just do it and see what happens!

Unity Dash >>> Software & Updates >>> Additional Drivers

Do whatever it says there to install any graphics drivers that may be available.

5. Allow Workspaces To Work

I have no idea why a Linux distribution would not have work spaces right there in your face by default, but Unity seems not to. Workspaces is one of those desktop things that makes non-Linux users go “wow, that’s cool, now I want Linux!”

A workspace is a desktop, and multiple workspaces are multiple desktops, on which one or more applications are running. Macs have something like this now (stolen from Linux, but implemented poorly). The Linux implementation is better. You smoothly sail between desktops with Ctrl Alt Arrow Keys, and Linux does not randomly make new desktops for you like a Mac does.

System Settings >>> Appearance >>> Behavior

Check the box to enable workspaces, and the box to Add show desktop icon to the launcher.

6. Install Java

Java is required for running many application’s on Linux platform, So should install java using these three commands in sequence (one at a time).

sudo apt-get install default-jre

7. Fix app menu problem

One of the bad things about Unity was to cause application menus to become invisible and to not be on the application. If you want to see the menus where they belong, you can fix that.

System Settings >>> Appearance >>> Behavior tab >> ‘Show the Menus for a Window’

Check ‘In the window’s title bar’

Check ‘Always displayed’

8. Classic Menu

One of the things I miss most from an old fashioned Gnome 2.0 style desktop is a simple menu, with submenus, that includes all the software installed on my system. To me, this is really important.

And, solvable. We can add a Gnome 2.0 style menu thingie to the app panel in Unity.

sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install classicmenu-indicator

You will have to log out and back in again for the menu to show up. Use the gear icon in the far upper right of the screen to log out/shut down, etc.

9. Show Your User Name On The Top Menu Bar

It may be useful to show your user name on the Top Menu Bar (the strip along the top of your screen). Here is one way to do that, using the terminal.

gsettings set com.canonical.indicator.session show-real-name-on-panel true

If you want to turn this back off, do this:

gsettings set com.canonical.indicator.session show-real-name-on-panel false

10. What about Adobe Flash? And Therefore, Chrome?

This is complicated. Flash turns out to be something of a nightmare. Perhaps it was a good idea at the time, but increasingly developers and such are avoiding using it. But you probably need Flash now and then, but almost always in a browser window. So, the way to handle this is to use Google Chrome as your browser. Not Chromium.

The Firefox browser is installed by default in most Linux distributions. This is cultural, maybe even political. Firefox as a piece of software, and an organization, has been central to the development of OpenSource software, so it is sort of worshiped. I recommend ignoring it. So, when you get to the part below about installing Chrome, do that.

If you google “how to install Google Chrome on Linux” you get this:

Click Download Chrome. Go here to do that.
Choose either 32 bit .deb (for 32bit Ubuntu) or 64 bit .deb (for 64bit Ubuntu)
Click Accept and Install.
Download .deb file to a folder (Downloads is the default folder)
Open up your Downloads folder.
Double-click the .deb file you just downloaded.
This should launch Ubuntu Software Centre.

NOTE: Google often updates its method of installing. I just installed Chrome and it took fewer steps than indicate above. If you've already installed gdebi (as suggested above) this will be very quick and automatic.

You will be asked if you want to make Chrome your default browser. I recommend doing this. Then, run Chrome and lock the icon to the Task Panel, because you will probably be using it a lot.

11. Install Dropbox…

… if you use Dropbox.

sudo apt install nautilus-dropbox

Then simply launch Dropbox from Unity Dash and follow the instructions.

An alternative method for installing Dropbox:

wget https://linux.dropbox.com/packages/ubuntu/dropbox_2015.10.28_amd64.deb

This uses the wget command to go on the internet and download a part of a web site, in this case, a file on the web site. This may not work if they changed the name of the file, but this is currently the correct name.

After downloading the package, install it using the previously installed deb package application:

sudo dpkg -i dropbox_2015.10.28_amd64.deb

12. Install VLC

Linux, and in this case, Ubuntu, comes with various multimedia playing software, but generally not with VLC, which is a very good piece of software. If you want, you can install it this way:

sudo apt-get install vlc browser-plugin-vlc

13. Install Gimp Image Editor

GIMP stands for “GNU Image Manipulation Program.” It is an OpenSource pixel-based image manipulation program for photographs, drawings, etc. In the old days, it was included in most Linux distributions but no longer is. If you want to install it:

sudo apt-get install gimp gimp-data gimp-plugin-registry gimp-data-extras

14. Install A Junk Cleaner (Bleachbit):

I’ve not used Bleachbit. But everyone seems to like it, and you might want to try it out. It cleans up internet histories, destroys temporary files, and other junk that tends to accumulate on your system.

Linux is not like Windows (or at least, like Windows was in the days I used it). It does not accumulate a lot of junk to the point where it slows down and stops. But it can accumulate some junk, and apparently, Bleachbit helps take care of this.

I've decided to remove the recommendation to install bleachbit. As I already suggested, Linux is designed in such a way that the things a clean-up program like bleachbit does are unnecessary. I suspect bleachbit is a bit like Linux based ant-virus software, something that former Windows users want to see, because such kludges are necessary in Windows.

So skip this step (I deleted the code for installing it anyway).

15. Install Skype…

… if you use it.

sudo apt-get install skype

16. Install the Unity Tweak Tool

You can configure, tweak, and generally mess around with your Unity Desktop using the installed System Settings and various esoteric bits of software, but if you install the Unity Tweak Tool you will probably find most of what you want to do, and more, there.

sudo apt install unity-tweak-tool

In the unlikely event that you end up messing up Unity with all your crazy tweaking….

…you can reset unity like this:

sudo apt-get install dconf-tools

dconf reset -f /org/compiz/

setsid unity

unity --reset-icons

Have Fun

Now, you know how to install software in Ubuntu, and generally, in debian based distributions, and you have some experience with the command line.

What you can do now is explore all the software that was automatically installed on your system, such as Libra Office (which stands in for Word, Excel, Power Point, etc) and all sorts of other cool stuff. If you installed the traditional style menu applet as described above, that is a good way to explore around among the available software offerings.

From now on, every now and then, run

sudo apt-get update

and

sudo apt-get upgrade

Also, on the standard Ubuntu distribution, there is a semi-automatic software updater that will remind you to update software now and then, or that can be set to do it automatically. I don’t like setting it for automatic on a laptop, but maybe on a desktop.

gregladen Thu, 06/23/2016 - 06:30

Tags

No, "apt-get update" will only fetch new information about available packages/updates to your system. It will not change installed software at all.

Changes to your system are made if you run "apt-get upgrade". This basically includes both your operating system and installed programs (though in a nutshell, this is not the same as distribution upgrade).

I also do not recommend using deb packages to install software for beginners. You won't get notifications of updates if you don't install software available a repository with apt-get.

Correct, as I implied, but I should probably be more clear.

The key points: update us faster, useful, easy. Upgrade takes longer, should be done now and then, but make sure your laptop is plugged in.

I agree on the deb packages. Often, the user does not have a choice.

Chrome takes care of its own upgrades, and Dropbox can only be installed this way.

I'm thinking of doing a separate post on packages and related matters, but I want to play around with the new software center first. So far it seems even more sucky than the earlier version.

In general, you're better off using "apt-get dist-upgrade" instead of "apt-get upgrade".

"apt-get dist-upgrade", in addition to performing the function of "apt-get upgrade", also intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of packages. "apt-get" has a "smart" conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important packages at the expense of less important ones if necessary. The "apt-get dist-upgrade" command may therefore remove some [no longer needed] packages.

"apt-get upgrade", by contrast, will leave packages at their current version if a new version of an installed package cannot be upgraded without changing the install status of another package.

Contrary to what the (unfortunate) name implies, "apt-get dist-upgrade" will not upgrade your Ubuntu distribution to a later version! It only upgrades your installed software packages in your current distro version. (If you run this command in 14.04, you will remain with 14.04.)

I've upgraded the text related to update and upgrade to reflect these excellent suggestions. I had originally thought my recommendations would need to be modified, but just had so much other stuff to do on this post that I didn't get to it. Much improved now, thanks.

The folks at Canonical admit that the "Ubuntu Software Center" in 16.04 is not "fully baked" (yet), but they had to ship on schedule...

The big reason why it sucks in 16.04 is because USC, which hadn't been getting much maintenance attention in the last few releases, was significantly changed for this version. Mainly by finally killing it: USC has had its internals replaced with the app "GNOME Software", basically the same thing, but based on the GNOME desktop environment, not Unity.

Part of the reason for doing this (other than to relieve themselves of the need to spend developer time maintaining their own software center) is that Canonical's new "universal Linux package install system", Snap Packages, was apparently easier to integrate with GNOME's software center app.

Eventually (as it sucks right now), this will give the Unity desktop on Ubuntu 16.04 a stable software center that will finally have other people working on it and maintaining it. (Canonical got way too busy with migrating Unity 7 to Unity 8, which is way behind schedule...)

Just keep updating your 16.04 system and you'll eventually get improved USC versions. Until then, "synaptic" is a reasonable alternative -- especially if you combine it with using web searches to locate and read about software packages you might be interested in. Google to find out about software, then use "synaptic" to install it. Soon enough, you'll be able to go back to doing both steps in the new USC.

11. sudo apt install nautilus-dropbox
should read
sudo apt-get install -y nautilus-dropbox

Libra Office should read LibreOffice

I've been having probs with Ubuntu Software center, and even after installing Gdebi and downloading packages and double clicking them, it opens software center and just keeps loading. Sometimes the ubuntu software center works fine and real fast cpmpared to 14.04, but today it just keeps loading...

BigZ, don't use the Ubuntu Software Center in 16.04. It's not ready for prime time (but had to be shipped on schedule anyway). Until it's fixed, use Synaptic.

Keep in mind that your '.deb' packages are associated with USC, not with Gdebi. So installing Gdebi and double-clicking a '.deb' file will still open USC.

Instead, right-click on a '.deb' file, select "Open With >", and select "Gdebi Package Installer". The same menu's "Properties" item allows you to make Gdebi the default instead of USC.

Great thanks. I have Synaptic so ill give it a try

thank you.

thank a lot

> In general, you’re better off using “apt-get dist-upgrade” instead of “apt-get upgrade”.

When I did this the Linux kernel was also upgraded. My Mediatek wifi adapter had not yet been upgraded to support that kernel and broke. Use dist-upgrade with caution.

Darrell makes an important point. For most people using run of the mill standard software, it is hard to break the software. But if you have something fairly specialized, esp. hardware with a non OS driver, etc. you may have problems.

In the case of the Mediatek wifi adapter, maybe update the driver here:

https://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/1796

For those like Darrell who have a need to keep the kernel -- or any other package -- from updating with apt-get (using either 'dist-upgrade' or just 'upgrade'), there is a command specifically for that purpose:

sudo apt-mark hold linux-images

which, in this example, will tell the package updating system "do not update the linux kernel or its associated packages".

The corresponding command, for when you're ready to resume kernel updates is

sudo apt-mark unhold linux-images

With this command, you can continue using

sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

safely, and still reap the additional benefits that 'dist-upgrade' provides over 'upgrade'.

(Apologies to Darrell for not thinking to add this caveat in my earlier post. I ran into this same problem myself with a system co-booting two different Linux distros, with the second install sharing the first distro's kernel in a 'chroot' -- and so I, too, needed to block any attempts for the second distro to try to update the kernel packages.)

I got a problem installing skype.
michael@michael-shop:~$ sudo apt install skype
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package skype

I thank you very match for your grade article, and grade help.

Michael,

For Skype, Google "skype linux" and follow the links.

Microsoft now owns Skype; it's proprietary software, not open source.

And because of that, Microsoft will not allow it to be distributed through any Linux software repositories. You have go to their website and download it. (They'll tell you how to install it. It's straightforward.)

Brainstorms, not fully true. I just installed Skype on my newly installed Linux Mate flavor.

I think a better way of describing the skype situation, which has always been true, and also, is somewhat true for Dropbox and some other apps, is this:

The method used to install this software is not fixed to the standard method for Linux, because the company or organization that puts it out choses not to do so. Therefore, the version available and how to install it, and how to update it, needs to be assessed by the user for each installation, like software was handled in the old days.

This applies to Chrome as well, by the way (but not Chromium).

Greg, true, but I was not wanting to make things look more complex, or, well, as complex as they actually are.

So, this is true of Skype, and Chrome, and also FlashPlayer. And others...

One thing that has helped the situation for many of these cases is that someone gets fed up and creates a "meta-package" or a "downloader package" (I'm not sure of the terminology) so that it looks as though the app is there in the repository. What the meta-package actually does is download a simple script that goes to the owner's website and downloads the necessary files, then installs them.

But this is just the complex details... More that what most people care to know. They just want to install their app.

Thanks for your post. I am new on Linux and you help me a lot,
Unfortunately, my desktop is still 32 bit and Chrome does not have this kind of option. That's why I am using Chromium, that you do not recommend. Why? And how to add Flash for this browser?

hello bro, thanks for this guide. it really helped me to fix many issues.

Updates for Ubuntu 16.04 and now won't recognise my login password any help please.

Is it 'sudo apt-get update' or 'sudo apt update' for 16.04

Charlie, Yash, google. Charlie, you can enter single user recovery mode which doesn't need a password, there is a command line associated with it, so you can easily copy the command needed to reset passwords. Yash, ffs, man, you can RTFM. "man apt" and "man apt-get" will find out which is a command you use.

Learn how to help yourselves.

sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

You said that earlier, though, and Yash never read it.

Teach a man a command, and he will use that command. Teach a man to use man, and he will know about every command.

And be sure to heap lots of insults upon him as you "teach" him. Right.

Might as well add a beating or two while you're at it.

NAh, I safe that for morons. And some morons I don't even have to insult, since they'll "see" them even when they don't exist!

A huge saving on the use of insults, I'm sure you'd agree!

Ubuntu 16.04 is very much impressive but now installing softwares for programming is giving me a hard time, help me please

nice work. well written. helpful. well done. appreciated. top regards.

Thank very much sir for your helpful and simple article but I've had a problem with displaying my username on the toolbar because when I write the com.canonical.indicator.session line the terminal can't find it what should I do about that?

It's worthwhile installing Mint Linux on a machine at some point and noting the differences. Mint comes with both Synaptic and Gdebi, and synaptic is essential, so thank you, Greg, for showing the newbies how to install it! It's also an idea to point out to the newbies that when you type your password into a terminal, nothing shows, not even asterisks! That got me the first time!
So, having got Synaptic installed, now go to System Settings>Software & Updates>Additional Drivers>Processor Microcode. In Mint you find that if you have an AMD or Intel processor, the option 'Using AMD/Intel microcode is ticked. In Ubuntu, the option 'Do not use this device' is ticked. To enable the microcode in Ubuntu, open Synaptic and type AMD or Intel into the search box. The AMD/Intel-microcode will be amongst the search results. Mark for installation and apply, and you will find the 'Using processor microcode' option is now ticked. You won't notice any difference. Is there a difference? It's there and Mint has it, so now you've got it in Ubuntu!
"Open as Administrator" -- Add this to the right-click context menu in Nautilus. It can be necessary when copying files from or to a USB stick, when you get the message that you can't do this 'because you are not the owner'. Mint has this as 'Open as Root'. To add it to Ubuntu, open Synaptic and type 'Nautilus' into the search. We find 'nautilus-admin' in the search results. Mark for installation and apply. Once installed, you will be prompted that the File Manager needs to be re-started. Click the button to re-start it.
Also in the 'Nautilus' search results, we find 'nautilus-wipe', a secure delete option. I've installed that a well.
In reply to Yash Pal (#24 above) - if you've done a 'sudo apt-get update', then 'sudo apt install' will work as well as 'sudo apt-get install'.

Thank you Greg for your suggestions. Just two things:

Your recipe about Java mentions three commands, but only one is written.

Chrome?! No. I see no good reason for all my online, in the best case, activity being stored on somebody else's disks. No serious advantages over Firefox, either.

PS: I see three options under the Submit Comment button below, but the first and third sound as if they do the same thing. I suspect one of them is really about new non-follow-up comments.

Hi Greg, after installing the latest Skype Beta for Linux, I now have the normal green Skype launcher icon in the top panel of my Ubuntu 16.04 Unity system, but it has added a second icon to the launcher on the left hand side of the screen. I have tried to get rid of this superfluous icon, but to no avail. If I right-click on the icon, I get a "quit" option which does not work. I have installed Ezame, that app also does not seem to have any effect. If I drag and drop the icon to trash, it just jumps back into place. Is there any way to get rid of this icon except by uninstalling Skype?

How to use Ubuntu Unity

gregladen — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:29:36 +0000

How to use Ubuntu Unity

This is one of four related posts:

Should You Install Ubuntu Linux?

Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

How to use Ubuntu Unity

Things To Do After Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

If you have installed Ubuntu with the Unity desktop, you'll learn how to use it mainly by playing around with it. Discoverability of its various functions is more or less built into the design. But there are a few things you will want to know right away in order to get up to speed efficiently.

The first thing you need to know about the Unity desktop is that the words people use for the various parts are all over the map. I’ll try to be consistent in my own use of terms, but if you read about Unity in other places, you may need to know, for example, that the “Task Panel” and the “Launcher” and the “Dock” are the same thing.

Task Panel (Launcher, Dock)

So, let’s start with the Task Panel (aka Launcher, or Doc). This works much like the doc on a Mac, but placed by default on the left side of your screen, which makes sense for wide screens. The Task Panel has a bunch of icons on it by default. You can remove or add icons as you wish. Most or all of these icons represent software you can run but that is not running now. This is your handy dandy way of running your most commonly used software (apps, applications). Just click on it and it will go.

Once an application is running, it will have a little thingie on the icon indicating that this is an active application. More than one instance (window, etc.) of an application running will cause the icon to have a slightly different look, and when you click on it you will see small versions of all the windows that are open, so you can pick the one you want to use.

You can quickly switch between applications by clicking on the icons of running applications.

If you start an application from somewhere other than the Task Panel, an icon for that application will normally be added to the Task Panel. This is your chance, using right clicking, to tell Unity to keep that icon on the Task Panel, for easy access, even after you shut that application down. Obviously, there is only so much room on the task panel for icons, but you can scroll up and down. You can also make the icons smaller, which will allow more to fit. But really, you should only keep the half dozen or so applications you use most of the time on the task bar.

Right clicking on an icon, as noted, gives you the option to lock it to, or unlock it from the Task Panel (but that menu item will call it a “launcher.”) But depending on the application, you may have a number of other choices. For example, clicking on the file manager will give you a list of commonly used (according to Unity’s designers) folders you may want to open.

The Dash

The top icon on the Task Panel opens the Dash. You can also open the Dash by pressing the Super Key (the key formally known as the Windows Key).

The Dash is a big giant square thing that comes flying out of the Dash Icon. there is a space on the top that is clearly for searching for things. A common use of the Dash is to open it, and then you start to type in the name of an application. The Dash will show you an ever-narrowing set of choices which you can pick, or, when you end up with only one choice, you just hit enter and that application runs.

If you have just installed Ubuntu and haven’t done any of the recommended tweaks, try this: Open the dash, and start typing in “terminal”. Once you see the terminal application as your choice, hit enter (or click on it). Now, the Terminal icon is on your Task Panel. Right click on the Terminal icon and lock it to your Task Panel. Once you are set up and using Ubuntu a lot, you may find that you rarely use the terminal, but when you are first installing and tweaking the system, you’ll find it handy to have this icon readily available.

The Dash has many other powers. It can show you recent files, recent downloads, recently used apps, etc. Searching for apps is pretty smart. Terms that are not in the name of the application but that suggest the application might (depending) show you an icon for the application. For example, the search term “Network” will get you several choices including the “System Monitor,” because the System Monitor monitors, among other things, the network.

The Dash has what are called “Lenses.” See the bottom of the Dash to find the “home” lens, the “applications” lens, etc. If you select the “music” lens, you see, and search will search among, the music files in your music directory.

Workspaces

Workspaces are one of those features of early Linux desktops (before Unity) that makes you look at Linux and go “I want that!!!” This idea has been implemented over the ages in Windows and other systems, with varying degrees of success or longevity, but it was originally implemented in Linux in a way that really works. It is now part of the Mac operating system, though that implementation is rather poor, in my opinion. But it was always there in Linux.

See this post on tweaks if your workspaces are not turned on. But if they are, there should be an icon in the Task Panel, near the bottom, which is a workspace switcher.

Here is what a workspace is. Imagine that you open three or four applications and have the windows all visible. That is a workspace. Now, you switch to a different workspace, and those windows are now not visible, because they were on the other workspace. You now have a clean workspace. You can now open other applications (or more instance of the same ones) on this clean workspace. Switching between workspaces allows you to have a handful of applications running and organized on the screen like you want them, but then, you can go to a different workspace and do entirely different work.

For example, I might have a file manager opened to a particular subdirectory, and a text editor or two, for a writing project, on one workspace. On a different workspace, I have an email client, and a web browser with a tab showing Facebook and another tab showing Twitter. I can ignore the email and social networking while I write, but now and then take a break and go over to the other workspace and screw around on social media and check my email.

Workspaces are a great way to pretend you are being very efficient!

When you hit the Workspace Switcher button you get a view of all your workspaces, and can chose among them. You can even drag open applications between workspaces. (And, by the way, you can configure a particular application to always be visible on all workspaces, and otherwise tweak the whole workspace thing quite a bit.)

But, there is a better way to switch between workspaces …

Hotkeys and shortcuts

This is a good point to talk for a moment about hot keys and shortcuts. There is a lot here but I’ll only mention a few features, starting with workspaces.

In Linux, generally (most desktops) including Unity, you usually move between workspaces by holding down the Alt and Control keys and then manipulating the arrow keys. Also, Alt-Tab moves between windows open on a given workspace. Try alt-tab then hold those keys down for a bit longer, and even more magic happens. So, between these two sets of shortcuts, you can move between all your different work thingies really efficiently.

There are a lot of shortcut keys available in Unity. To find a cheat sheet of these keys, press the Super Key and hold it down for a moment. The cheat sheet will appear in the middle of the screen.

All hotkeys and shortcuts can be changed and reconfigured, and you can add shortcuts that don’t exist until you think them up and figure out how to implement them. This is beyond the scope of this post, but you can play around with it later.

Top Menu bar and Application and System Indicators

Unless you’ve been living in a command line cave, you already know about Application and System indicators. In Unity, they are located on the Top Menu Bar. Just play around with them. If you click the time/date, you get a little calendar popout. You can see if you are connected to the internet, and what your volume is turned to. Depending on what software is installed, you may see the temperature at your local weather station, or an indicator telling you that you have new mail.

Menus, hidden, unhidden, and other

By default, in Unity, application menus, the menus that go with a specific program, are invisible unless you approach them with the mouse, and then they appear. But they are not located on the application itself, but rather, on the Top Menu Bar. See this post for instructions as to how to move them to the applications and make them not invisible.

Also, at that link, you’ll find instructions for installing a very cool applet to the Top Menu Bar which will give you an old fashioned menu showing, organized hierarchically, all the software that you have installed on your computer. This is how I usually run software that is not on the Task Panel.

Now, play

That’s all the important stuff you need to know right away. There’s more, but you’ll discover it over time. You can go to system settings, and to the various system setting tools suggested here to do things like moving the Task Panel to the bottom of the screen, changing your wallpaper (the image on the desktop) and choosing whether to show icons for hard drives or plugged in devices, the trash can, etc.

gregladen Thu, 06/23/2016 - 06:29

Tags

Greg... Have you finally seen the light about Unity??
:^D

No. I just fixed it to make it work for me! (See my other post, on tweaking.).

I've found that giving someone a quick run-through on Unity helps greatly -- because it can be confusing at first (because it's different), and because it's not entirely intuitive what you can do to customize it, how to do it, or even what you should do.

For example, having the menus be shown in the window title bars, not at the top like a Mac. Or how to turn on multiple desktops -- and navigate between them.

Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

gregladen — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:29:01 +0000

Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

This is one of four related posts:

Should You Install Ubuntu Linux?

Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

How to use Ubuntu Unity

Things To Do After Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

Linux isn't for everyone, so I'm not going to try to talk you into using this superior operating system if you have some reason to not do so. But if you have a computer that runs Windows, it isn't that hard to install Ubuntu. The main advantages of doing so are 1) You get to have a Linux computer and b) you get to not have a Windows computer.

Here, I have some advice on installing Ubuntu (this is general advice and applies across many versions).

How to install Ubuntu

If you are going to try Linux, I recommend installing Ubuntu’s latest version, which is Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Xenial Xerus.

A Linux distro (the specific version of Linux you install) includes a specific “desktop,” which is your user interface and a bunch of tools and stuff. The default Ubuntu desktop is called Unity. If you’ve never used Linux before, you’ll find the Unity desktop to be very good, especially if you tweak it a bit. If you have used Linux before, you may prefer a different style desktop. For me, I preferred the older style “Gnome 2.0” style desktop. The differences are cosmetic, but I happen to like the cosmeticology of the Gnome style better.

___________________

Check out:

UBUNTU AND LINUX BOOKS

BOOKS ON COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND COMPUTERS

___________________

What I liked most about the older style desktop is the presence of a menu that had submenus that organized all the applications (software, apps) installed on the system. I also prefer the synaptic system for installing new software over the Ubuntu “Software Center.” But, there is a menu that can be installed in Unity that serves this purpose, and it is easy to install synaptic installation software as well. So, even as an old time Gnome 2.0 guy, I have decided to go with Unity.

There are many forms of Linux out there, and one of the best maintained and well done versions is called debian. Ubuntu bases its distribution on debian, but modifies it in ways that are good. The most current version of Ubuntu is therefore the version of Linux that is most up to date but at the same time stable, and the best supported. This situation has developed to the extent that people are now often using, incorrectly but harmlessly, the term “Ubuntu” to mean “Linux” with the assumption that the Unity desktop is the primary desktop for Linux.

So, how do you install Linux, in the form of Ubuntu, on your computer?

Should you install Linux along side Windows (dual boot)?

If you just want to install Linux on a computer, where Linux will be the only operating system, skip this section.

The first thing you need to decide if if you want a dual boot system or not. Say you have Windows installed on your computer. If you make this a dual boot computer, you install Linux along side Windows. Then, when you fire up your computer you chose which operating system you want to use.

This may sound like a good idea, but I strongly recommend against it. It adds a significant layer of complexity to the process of installing the system. Also, things can go wrong. A normal single-boot installation of Linux will usually give you no problems, and it will be more stable as an operating system than any other operating system out there. But things can go wrong with dual booting which could drive you crazy and, depending on your hardware and a few other things, may cause you to unexpectedly lose the ability to use your computer.

Dual booting and partitioning are related operations, because in order to dual boot you will have to mess around with partitioning. How you do this will depend on whether or not Windows is already installed on your computer.

There are people who will tell you differently, that dual booting is harmless and fun and good. Those individuals are unique, special individuals with the ability to solve complex problems on their computers. They may have good reasons to have dual boot systems. In fact, many of them may have several different operating systems installed on one computer. This is because, as a hobby or for professional reasons, they need to have a lot of different operating systems. Good for them.

I recommend that if you are not sure if you want to use Linux, don’t install it along side Windows, but rather, find an extra computer (or buy a cheap used one somewhere), install Linux on it, and if you find yourself liking Linux more than you like Windows, go ahead and install Linux on your main, higher-end computer and be done with it.

Using two partitions is a good idea for some

As with dual booting, I recommend that the first time Linux user skip this idea entirely, but here are some thoughts on it in case you are interested.

One of the great things about Linux is that it uses the concept of a home directory. The home directory is a directory associated with a particular user, one for each user of the system. In most cases, a desktop or laptop computer has just one user, you. But you still get the home directory. (Apple’s OSX uses this system as well.)

This means that your data, configuration files for software, and all that stuff, ends up in one single directory. So, in theory, if you decide to install a whole new version of Linux, all you have to do is copy all of the contents of your home directory somewhere, install an entirely new system, then copy all that stuff into the new home directory and it is like you never left.

This also means that you only have to back up your home directory. Installing software on Linux is so easy that you really don’t have to back any of that up. By backing up your home directory, you are also backing up your settings and preferences for most of that software, so if you reinstall it, the software will figure out how to behave properly.

One method people use is to make a partition for their home directory and a separate partition for the system. You can think of a partition as roughly equivalent to a hard drive. On a simple system, the hard drive has one petition (that you need to know about … there are other specialized partitions that you don’t interact with). But you can divide (partition) the hard drive into multiple parts, put your operating system on one, and your data (home) on the other. The operating system, if you are running Linux, can be fairly small, while your data directory, in order to hold all those videos you take with your smart phone and your collection of cat picture, needs to be larger.

There is also a third partition you can make, called the swap partition. This is a separate dedicated part of your hard drive that the operating system uses to put stuff that won’t fit in RAM (memory). If you don’t have a dedicated swap partition, Linux will use another parittion for this purpose. It is probably slightly more efficient to have a dedicated swap partition, but with a reasonably fast computer with a good amount of ram, you probably won’t know the difference.

You can totally skip the separate partition thing and have Ubuntu put everything on one partition. The advantage of separate partitions are not worth the effort if you are not comfortable playing around with partitions. But, if you do, 10 gigabytes will comfortably hold the operating system, and the swap partition should be something like 5 or 6 gigabytes. The rest should be your home directory.

Simply installing Ubuntu on a computer.

There are two major divisions of operating systems for regular computers: 32 bit and 64 bit. If your computer can run a 64 bit operating system, and most made any time recently can, then you should install the 64 bit version of Ubuntu. You need to know that 32 bit operating systems are becoming a thing of the past, so, in fact, some software is no longer developed to run on such systems.

Due to an historical quirk, the 32 bit version of Linux is often has the word “Intel” in it, while the 64 bit version of Linux generally has the word “AMD” (a competitor of Intel) in it. This does not mean that you have to have an AMD processor in your computer to run the 64 bit system.

There are other forms of Linux that run on other processors. I’m assuming you have a typical run of the mill desktop that normally would run Windows, so it is probably an Intel or AMD 64 bit machine.

You should have three things handy in order to install Unbutu on a computer where it will be the only operating system.

1) The computer

2) Installation media that will fit in your computer, such as a CD, DVD, or a thumb drive

3) An internet connection that works

You can get the installation media by going to the Ubuntu site and downloading a file from Ubuntu and putting it on a medium of some sort.

When you are looking for the file, look for “Ubuntu Desktop.” There are other versions of Ubuntu, don’t use those. The current version is Ubuntu 16.04 LTS.

This page has the download materials and provides good guidance.

To do a clean install with a DVD, download the operating system from that link. The file will be called something like "ubuntu-16.04-desktop-amd64.iso”. The “iso” part means that it is a disk image that you will want to burn onto a DVD using a working computer.

This download took be about five minutes on a medium-fast Internet connection.

You then burn the iso image onto a DVD or USB stick.

Using a DVD

In Windows, you right click on the iso file and pick “burn disk image” and follow the instructions.

On a Mac, use “Disk Utility.” Insert the blank DVD and drag/drop the .iso file onto the left pane of the Disk Utility. Select it, and click the “Burn” button. Follow the instructions.

In Linux, insert the DVD or CD into your computer and if you are lucky a window will pop up asking if you want to burn the disk. Otherwise, run Brasero and follow the instructions to put the iso image on the disk.

Now, here comes the slightly tricky part. You want your computer to boot off of the DVD/CD drive. (Which, by the way, can be an external USB device if that is what you have.)

So, first, put the CD or DVD into the computer, turn the computer off properly, then turn it on. It might just boot off that disk and you are good to go.

But, just in case, watch your computer screen as the computer is booting up. Note any message that gives the name of a function key and tells you what it does. It may say something like “F2 = boot order” or “F9 = configure bla bla bla” or words to that effect.

If the computer did not actually boot off of the disk you inserted, turn it off again, and start it again, but as it is booting up press the function key that should get you to either boot sequence or configuration.

Using the arrow keys (the screen will give you info on what keys to use) find the part that shows the boot order. If your computer ignored the boot disk you inserted, you probably have “Internal Hard Drive” as the first place to boot from. But you should see other options down below. Using the arrow keys and other keys as suggested by the instruction on the screen to move the DVD drive, or whatever device you want to boot from, to the top of the list. Then save the configuration (i.e., with F10, or some other method … it will tell you on the screen) and exit out of the configuration thingie.

You may then have to restart one more time, but your computer will boot from the DVD and will actually start to run a mini version of Linux set up to help you install the operating system on this computer.

Using a USB

You can also boot from a USB thumb drive. You may have to make your computer boot first from the USB drive instead of an internal hard drive (see above) and, of course, you will have to make a bootable USB stick.

You need a USB stick with at least 2 gigs of space and that doesn’t hold anything important.

Then, if you are using Windows, install the Rufus USB installer. Run that program and follow the instructions to make a bootable USB drive. You’ll be using the same iso image you previously downloaded.

If you are using a Mac, install the UNetbootin utility and use that to make the bootable USB stick.

Insert the USB drive before you run UNetbootin, or UNertbootin may not recognize the USB you insert later.

Since this will be "unconfirmed software" open it by finding it in the finder (the actual finder, not a finder replacement or any other method), control-click on the icon for the software, and select "open." You will then be asked to confirm that you want to open it. Say yes. You will likely be asked for your password. Enter it.

Also, no matter what system you are using, make sure to "eject" the USB stick properly.

The installation process.

Note: It is possible that your computer will give you some sort of text-based menu when you boot off the USB or DVD drive. Just go with the default, and let the process continue until you get what looks like a normal graphical user interface that is, actually, a temporary Linux operating system running on your computer.

Also note, that during the install process, if you need to enter any numbers, there is a good chance the "numlock" button is turned off. You can, of course, turn it on.

If, as recommended, you are going to make your computer a Linux computer and not bother with a separate petition for home, swap, etc., then the rest is simple. I assume you have no data on this computer that needs to be backed up or saved. Indeed, you may have installed a new clean hard drive which is empty anyway.

You have inserted the boot medium, you taught your computer to boot off of it, you’ve restarted your computer, and now you are looking at a welcome screen that gives you two options: Try Ubuntu and Install Ubuntu.

If you pick “Try” then you now have a Linux operating system temporarily running on your computer and you can play with it. I’m not sure why you would bother with this.

If you pick “Install Ubuntu” then you have a series of easy tasks to perform, mostly picking the defaults.

Make sure to pick “Download updates while installing” and “Install third-party software for graphics and Wi-Fi hardware, etc. etc.”

If your computer is not currently logged into a network, you will have the option of doing so. Do so. You want to be hooked up to the network in order to download updates and stuff during installation.

Logging into the network may not be obvious. It isn't an option on the install screen, but rather on the desktop that is currently running on your computer. Click on the blank triangular thingie on the top menu bar -- this is the network applet. Pick your network, enter your password, etc.

Then you get to allocate drive space. For the simple, recommended, install, pick “Erase disk and install Ubuntu.” Pick “encrypt the new Ubuntu install” if you like. If you don’t know what LVM is, don’t bother with it.

Or, pick “something else” if you want to define different partitions for home directory, dual boot, swap files, etc. Then, good luck with that. For your first Linux install on a fresh machine, you don’t need to go down that rabbit hole. While such endeavors are not that difficult to do, you should probably make that the project for your next Linux install.

How to set up separate Root, Home and Swap paritions

Skip this part if you are doing the recommended default install. This will destroy everything on your hard drive. If it does not go well, you can always do a new fresh install and pick the default.

At this point you have booted off the DVD or USB and you have clicked the icon to “install Ubuntu.” You are now looking at several options, including “something else.”

Select “something else”

Accept (hit Continue) with the scary message “You have selected an entire device to partition. If you proceed with creating a new partition table on the device, then all current partitions will be removed…”

(But do note that you are about to blotto your computer, so there better not be anything you want to keep on it!)

Make the first partition for the Ubuntu install as a primary partition.

Put it at the beginning of this space

Use EXT4journalingfilesystem (unless you have some reason to use some other file system) … this will be the default already chosen.

Set the “mount point” as /

This is the partition in which your operating system will be placed, and is known as the root partition.

How big should it be? Ubuntu needs a minimum of 20 gb. I would make it larger. I used 50 gigs when I did this.

Hit OK

Make a swap partition

This is the partition your computer will use as “extra memory.”

Now select “free space” and set up a “logical” petition (at the beginning of this space) that is twice the size of your installed RAM.

If you don’t know how much RAM your computer has, open a terminal right there on the computer you are working with (The upper left button with the Ubuntu symbol on it, type in “terminal” and hit enter). In the terminal, type in

free -h

That will give you a total number (and other numbers) Round up to the nearest gigabyte and multiply by two.

Enter that number into “size” (if you want 16 gigs, it will be 16000 mb).

Select from the dropdown list “swap” to make this a swap file. Hit OK

Install the home directory (where all your stuff goes)

Select the free space again.

Just take for size whatever is left on your computer (hopefully a lot). Pick logical, beginning of this space, and EXT4journalingfilesystem again.

For mount point, enter

/home

This will be your home directory. Hit OK

Now, you’ll see a nice table with a graphic bar on the top showing you what you’ve set up. If it all looks OK to you, a small but not too small root directory, a smaller swap file (probably), and the rest a huge home file, hit “Install Now”

You’ll get another warning, but we don’t care about not stinking warnings.

Later, if you need to change any of these size requirements, run a live USB/DVD (like you did to make this install) and run “gparted” to change the partition sizes. (You can’t change the partition sizes from within an operating system. That would be like changing the fundemental fabric of the universe while you are actually in the universe. Not even The Doctor can do that)

And now, go back to the normal install.

Continuing with the default normal install...

If you have Windows installed, you may then get the option to Install Linux along side Windows. Pick that if you want, and chose how much hard drive space to allocate to each system.

After that are a few screens that are simple and self explanatory. Give the installation system a location, choose the kind of keyboard you want to use.

Then you get to chose your login and password details. Here you have to decide how simple vs. secure you want your system to be. You should make sure you never forget your user name and password or you will be locked out of your system.

So, enter your name, then pick a name for this computer for identification on networks, etc, then enter your user name which will contain no spaces or strange symbols, and be all lower case.

Then enter your password twice. The system will complain if your password is lower security, feel free to ignore this if you don’t care, pay attention to it if you want a more secure system. You are going to be using this password a lot. Just sayin’.

Check “require my password to log in” for most installations. You can also chose at this point to encrypt your home folder to limit access to your data if someone gets physical access to your computer.

Then, the system will install while you get to see some info about Ubuntu.

Then you are “done” in that you have a Linux computer. You may or may not have been prompted to remove the DVD or USB. If you restart the computer and fail to do so, you'll be back in the installation system. Just remove the DVD/USB and restart the computer.

Once the computer is restarted, you'll have to re-establish your network connection one more time. (This is your new system, it doesn't know about your networks or network password yet.)

At this point, go right to this post and start tweaking your computer. If you don't do that now, at least do the things noted below.

But there is something else you should do right away. Open a terminal (hit the super key, aka windows key, and start typing “terminal” and the terminal option will come up. Click it).

Then, type in:

sudo apt-get updates

You will be asked for your password, which hopefully you will remember. The computer will then go on the internet and find updates for stuff that was installed during the installation. Even though you told it to do something like this during installation, it probably didn’t do it for all the software that is now on your computer.

Following all this, you do now have a Linux computer. There are several things you can do after installing Ubuntu 16.04. First, go to this post to find out how to navigate around on your new Unity desktop, and then, see this post for how to tweak and refine your Linux installation in useful and important ways.

Have a good time using your Linux computer!

gregladen Thu, 06/23/2016 - 06:29

Tags

Hi Greg, I've not been around for a while but now have a new laptop without an O/S and would like to install Ubuntu 16.04 but struggling. I've put Rufus on to a USB stick and all the unzipped Ubuntu files (using an old Windows PC) but can't get further than the command prompt. Any advice will be much appreciated.

The easiest way to install, for an old PC (i.e., one that cannot boot a USB thumb drive), is to download the Ubuntu ISO and create a DVD from it, then boot the DVD to install.

If you're using Rufus, I assume that your PC will boot from a thumb drive. However, you should be using a downloaded Ubuntu ISO file with Rufus, not unzipped files. Refer to this procedure:
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/create-a-usb-stick-on-windows

Here's how I do it: Go to pendrivelinux.com to make your thumb drive. My preference is YUMI, which allows you to put multiple Linux ISOs on one thumb drive. When you boot the thumb drive, you can select which ISO to test drive or install. (It's also good for running various tools for testing, diagnosing, repairing, etc.)

You can get YUMI here:
http://www.pendrivelinux.com/yumi-multiboot-usb-creator/

Brainstorms, thanks for your reply. I'll have another attempt tonight after work. What I don't understand is why the file downloaded as a Zip file on to my old Windows PC, which is where I want to create the USB thumb drive to install Ubuntu 16.04 to my new laptop, which does not have an O/S installed.

Colin, that is odd... The files should download as ".iso" files, not ".zip" files. It's possible for (good) zipping applications to 'unzip' ISO files (7zip, for example, can do this), so this makes me wonder if your download app decided to name the ISO file with a ".zip" extension inappropriately.

Good luck, and be sure to read the other three posts from Greg -- and note my comments in this one regarding "rounding out the install":
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/06/23/should-i-install-linux-on-…

Brainstorms, thanks for your help. I downloaded again and it was saved as a Zip file on my old XP PC, but did work through Rufus OK, and loaded on to my new laptop, updates the lot.

Most of my experience is with XP, but have used Ubuntu largely for the past 2 years for web stuff, and haven't really grasped the Ubuntu file system equivalent of Windows Explorer.

A question though, what's the best way to copy Firefox bookmarks and cookies from my old laptop running on 14.04 (32 bit) to my new one running 16.06 (64 bit).

On my old laptop running 14.04, after a while I had problems installing updates due to partitioning size, and subsequently used Synaptic Package Manager to delete previously installed Linux images.

Is it still necessary to do this on 16.04 ?

Colin, you can either use a bookmark backup to transfer your bookmarks, or you can use Firefox Sync to do it:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/restore-bookmarks-from-backup-or-m…

Or you can manually copy the files containing this info to your new system:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/982636

Yes, it's still necessary to "prune" old kernels & header files periodically in 16.04. Ubuntu, being a Debian Linux derivative, does not do this by default. (Likely because it's too risky to assume the user doesn't want to keep particular old kernels.)

More details about this subject here:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/590673/why-doesnt-ubuntu-remove-old-kern…

On the zip thing, some browsers, systems, whatever, IIRC automatically make things into zip files when downloading, or at least, this was a thing that happened historically. Maybe that was the problem.

On firefox bookmarks, etc. I have no idea. I recommend Chrome/Chromium. If you have a google account, and you sign in on one of those browsers to your account, your bookmarks automatically load.

I imagine Firefox has something like that.

On old images, yes, as Brainstorms says, if your partition is too small, you need to prune.

But you can also make your partition larger, maybe?

Brainstorms/Greg, thanks for all your help and advice. Most of my stuff is now up and running OK. The only things I've not now got are Facebook and Twitter which I have direct links to on my old laptop (14.04) but can't find where to load from for 16.04. I enabled the 3rd party software options. Any ideas ?

But you can also make your partition larger, maybe?

That is where LVM really shines... (And LVM is easy to implement -- it's one of the best-written, best-documented Linux features. Very cool.)

Colin, Don't you access Facebook and Twitter from your web browser? (I'm not aware that either of these have a dedicated Linux application. Do they?)

Brainstorms, thanks for your reply. In 14.04, I had icons in the taskbar linking directly to Facebook and Twitter, however as far as I can see this type of feature has been deleted, so I'll have to use Firefox for now.

Colin, I think you're referring to Unity Web Apps. That was dropped, due to various issues. Details here:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/05/what-happened-ubuntu-unity-web-app-i…

He does say that it might be restored in Unity v8. And it's apparently possible to install it manually in 16.04 (and 14.04), as the packages are still in the repositories:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/762847/unable-to-install-unity-webapps-i…

This post has great resource article potential. Just one problem I can see, for future readers. In the "How to set up separate Root, Home and Swap paritions" section (your spelling, not mine) you neglected to mention you also need a "boot partition" to have a fully configured bootable system. It will be configured just as you want it, but it won't boot. In fact, it won't even install as the installer crashes! You might want to fix that, for the sake of those that follow.

Should you install Ubuntu Linux?

gregladen — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:28:43 +0000

Should you install Ubuntu Linux?

This is one of four related posts:

Should You Install Ubuntu Linux?

Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

How to use Ubuntu Unity

Things To Do After Installing Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

Why you should install Linux

Linux is an operating system, as are Windows and Apple’s OSX. It is the operating system that is used on the majority of computing devices. Linux is the basis for the Android operating system, so if you have a smart phone that is not an iPhone, then you are probably already using Linux. The majority of servers, such as computers that run cloud services and internet nodes, etc. run on Linux. Your wireless router probably runs on Linux. Many devices in the “internet of things” use Linux. Supercomputers often run on Linux.

There are a few reasons you might want your desktop (or laptop) to run on Linux. Perhaps you are annoyed with your current operating system. If, for example, you find yourself frequently having to reinstall Windows, you might want to switch to Linux, because reinstalling is almost never a solution to something being broken on a Linux machine. Perhaps you have an older computer and the newer version of Windows runs really slowly for you. Linux runs better on older hardware.

For the most part, for most things most people do, it really doesn’t matter much which operating system you chose among the main players (Windows, Linux, and Apple’s OSX). What matters most is what software you use (applications, apps). If a particular application that you need to use runs only on one operating system, pick that operating system. But first, check to see if you are right about what software runs on what systems.

Indeed, most of the commonly used applications have a version or equivilant that runs on each of the three main operating systems, or at least two of them. Microsoft Office runs on Windows and, somewhat less smoothly, on a Mac. You can also run MS Office software on Linux, but I don’t recommend it for the non-expert user. But all of the applications that make up Office have equivalent software that is designed just for the Mac (and won’t run on anything else) as well as equivalent (and some would say superior) software that is not only designed to run on Linux, but that will run on any computer.

Indeed, from a user’s point of view, getting used to some software on a particular operating system and then being forced by circumstances to switch to another operating system is hardest for Mac users (if you are using, say, Pages, Numbers, and Keynote … you are stuck with the Mac), less hard for Windows users (as noted, Office runs on a Mac but not really on Linux) and trivially easy for a Linux user, since the Libra Office suit, with a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software, drawing software, etc. runs the same on Linux, Windows, or a Mac.

In the old days it was said that you needed to use Microsoft Office on Windows or you would not be compatible with other people. That was never actually true. The compatibility issue was much more complex. There were instances where two people using Windows, and running Office, could not reliably exchange documents because they were using different versions of Office that did not play well with each other, but one of those individuals could easily exchange documents with someone using Open Office Writer (a word processor) on Linux.

But now, that falsehood is even less true than it ever was, and document formats are much more sensible and interchangeable today than they ever were in the past. So the compatibility issue is largely gone, even if it ever was semi-true but mostly misunderstood.

There are pieces of software that people love that require a particular operating system. The big fancy expensive Adobe products don’t run on Linux. Scrivener, a great writing application, is mainly Mac but will run on Windows and not really (but sort of) on Linux.

But it is also true that most software that most people use has an equivalent version on each of the other operating system. So, it really depends on what you want and need to do with your computer, and how much money you want to spend on hardware and software.

If you have an “extra” computer in your possession, and would like to have it usable for basic functions, such as using Google Chrome or Chromium to access the internet, basic text editing, advanced word processing, advanced spreadsheet and presentation work, etc. then installing Linux on that computer is a really good idea. It is probably an older computer, and as such will run much better with Linux than any other operating system, because Linux is so much more efficient. It will be free to do so. It will be relatively easy. Then, you’ll have a Linux computer that you will use now and then, and over time, you may decide that you like the operating system itself so much that you’ll totally switch to it. Or not. There is no problem with having more than one OS in your life.

Linux History and Background

This section is not really necessary if you are trying to decide whether to try out Linux, and you can skip it, though the background and history of Linux are interesting and may help you understand Linux a bit better. Also, this is a very brief version and there is much left out. Readers are welcome to identify important parts I’ve ignored and put them in the comments! In any event, be warned: I oversimplify here.

Many years ago, an operating system known as “Unix” was developed to address certain growing needs, especially the requirement that many users could hook into one machine and treat that machine as their own, keeping their stuff separate from that of all the other users.

Unix was also designed to run on several different machines. Previously, most operating systems were designed for a specific piece of hardware.

In 1983, Richard Stallman of MIT began a project called “GNU.” GNU stands for “GNU is Not Unix.” GNU was in fact not Unix, but it was meant to work just like UNIX.

At the same time, Stallman and his associates created a licensing system for software called the GNU General Public License, or GPL. This license was designed to guarantee that work carried out on the GNU project would be available for anyone else to use, as long as they followed the rules of the license, which essentially required that any new work based on GPL licensed work also had the GPL license attached to it.

This was the origin of the Open Source movement. The idea of this movement is simple. Instead of creating and selling proprietary operating systems and software, sold for a profit and protected by a user agreement, people would create software that users could obtain and use for free (free as in FREE beer) and this software would be free to modify and apply by anyone anywhere (free as in FREEdom).

The GPL project involved developing a large number of tools that could be used while operating a computer. For example, when using a computer with a command prompt (there were very few computers that used graphical user interfaces at the time) one might enter a command to list the files in the current directory, create a file, create a directory, move a file, search through a file for certain contents, etc. The GNU collection of tools eventually grew to include a large percentage of similar tools ever developed for proprietary computers, and much more, but under the GPL license. There were tools created back in the 80s and developed through the 90s that are still at the heart of many computer operations today.

In 1991, the Finnish computer science graduate student Linus Torvalds started to develop a “kernel” that would interface between certain hardware and the larger operating system. The details are a bit complex, but eventually, Torvald’s kernel and Stallman’s GNU tools were combined into a single operating system that would be called “GNU Linux.” Today we often say just “Linux” but the longer name better reflects what the operating system contains and how it came to be.

All of that history is interesting, but probably more relevant to you, is how Linux is maintained and deployed today.

Linux is maintained and developed by a community of thousands of programmers and other experts, globally. Each part of the project is maintained by a “maintainer” and different programmers send their work to that maintainer for approval. Most of these developers work for a company that is involved in computing somehow, committing part of their time to Linux development. All the work is done in the open and subject to comment and critique by everyone else.

This project makes sense, and is valuable to companies involved in computing, because the operating system itself is free for them (and everyone) to use, and direct involvement (by the larger community) means that the functions the operating system serves, and how this is done, is determined by a large scale very open conversation, rather than the more limited ideas of a smaller group of designers within a corporate and proprietary system.

Even more important is the simple fact that for most of the uses required by these companies, Linux is a superior operating system.

Also, and I’ll expand on this a bit below, the process does not involve marketing. Nobody is directing the work on the basis of perceived value on the market, or in relation to any profit motive. It is all about getting computers to do things effectively and efficiently, with security and usability firmly in mind.

When the first version of this operating system was released in 1991, it included 10,000 lines of computer code. Linux currently has just under 20,000,000 lines of code.

But, here is the important part. The developers of Linux are focused on certain principles. I can characterize those principles from my own observation, but much has been written and spoken about this, and you should seek more expert sources if you want the richest and most detailed story. The operating system needs to be small and efficient, and every aspect of it has to work as flawlessly as possible. The kernel, the deep inside part of the operating system, needs to be very stable and to only contain what is necessary for the kernel to run. There is a great deal of discussion as to what functions should be moved into the kernel vs. left out and treated more as a tool that may or may not be included in a particular installation. This is why the Linux Kernel can sit comfortably inside your cell phone and be amazing, and at the same time, manage a complex super computer with hundreds of processors.

One of the outcomes of this sort of careful curation of Linux is that sometimes changes made in the guts of the operating system require that related changes be propagated outward into other software. Since changes at this level can affect a lot of other things, they are carefully considered and avoided until necessary. But, once they occur, maintainers of the various parts of the operating system, as well as some of the software that runs on it, have to make the appropriate changes. The result is a bit more work than other methods might produce, but continuation of efficiency and stability of the operating system and its parts.

There was a lot of competition and bad feelings between the dominant desktop operating system’s developer, Microsoft, and Linux, several years ago. In my view, Linux has long been a superior operating system, measured in terms of how well it works, how adaptable it is, how quickly development responds to security threats, new application requirements, and so on. Also, by and large, Linux has run on a larger range of hardware. Most importantly, perhaps, as Microsoft’s Windows developed over time, it required more and more advanced hardware to operate. So, keeping your computer updated required not only adopting the newer versions of the operating system (and often paying for that) but also replacing old hardware with newer hardware now and then. Linux, by contrast, runs on most (nearly all) of the older computers.

Eventually the competition and fighting between the Windows and Linux camps died down, and now Microsoft not only uses Linux in many settings, but has become one of the top contributors of code to the Linux project, and supports OpenSource in many ways. For its part, Apple adopted an operating system very similar to Linux as the basis of OSX.

I suspect that eventually Microsoft will also adopt a Linux like underpinning for its own operating system.

The most important differences between Windows and Linux

There are a lot of differences between these operating systems that are internal and often esoteric. As implied above, Windows tends to be bloated (lots of code) and relatively inefficient, requiring fancier and more powerful hardware to run, while Linux is leaner and will run on nearly anything. This also means that installing Linux is usually easier and faster. Linux takes up less space on your hard drive, as do most of the different software applications that run on Linux.

The Windows operating system appears to the average user as a single entity, a whole thing, that runs your computer and peripherals and at the same time interfaces with the user using a fancy and occasionally redesigned graphical user interface. Everybody gets the same user interface.

Linux is distinctly different from Windows in that it can be thought of as having two parts (from the average desktop user’s perspective). The basic system, that runs everything, is the Linux kernel and the GNU tools and a few other things, down under the hood. If just this stuff is installed on your computer, you interface with it using a command line. Computers that are used as web servers or to do certain other work operate this way, since the computer’s work is being done without much direct human involvement except by experts who are comfortable using the command line. This saves resources and makes the computer run very efficiently. Indeed, many of these computers are “headless,” meaning they don’t even have a monitor. Since only the command line is being used, an expert can sign into the computer over a network and mess around with it easily in a terminal program that gives them access to the command line. Such computers, most of the time, run themselves and nobody has to look at what they are doing.

The second part of a desktop Linux system, one that you as a regular person would use, is called the “Desktop.” The word “desktop” is confusing and messy in the computer world. Here, we mean the set of tools and stuff that give you a graphical user interface for the entire system, and that runs your software in windows, like Microsoft Windows and Apple’s operating systems do.

Unlike Microsoft Windows or Apple’s OSX, there are many different desktops that function on Linux. Any individual or group of experts can design a new desktop and make it available for Linux users to use. When you sign on to a Linux computer, there is a moment when you have a choice to pick among the various desktops that are installed on that computer (if there is more than one). Most people have a preferred desktop and use that as the default. Some people like to collect and play around with different desktops.

Then, there is the concept of the “Distribution.” When you “get” Linux, you are actually getting a particular distribution (aka “distro”). The structure, history, and dynamics of distributions is actually very complex, but you don’t need to know any of it . All you really need to know is a simple definition of what a distribution is most of the time, and which distribution you should chose to install.

A distribution is the package of stuff that is needed for Linux to run on your computer. You can think of it simply as a system, like Microsoft gives you Windows, Apple gives you OSX, Linux gives you a particular distribution and that is the thing you install.

A typical Linux distribution of the kind you might install is in some ways similar and in some, very important ways, different from a products from Microsoft or Apple.

Like the other systems, a Linux Distro (short for distribution) includes the installer. So you get a CD, DVD, or thumb drive, boot from it, and the installer takes over, asks you some questions, and installs the Linux operating system on your computer.

A Linux distro has a single desktop that is automatically installed. To the user, this is the most important difference between distros. You pick a distro in part on the basis of what desktop you like. You can install other desktops later, of course. But most likely, you will simply pick a distro with a certain desktop and that will be your desktop.

A Linux distro includes a whole pile of other software and installs that at the same time that it installs your operating system. Typically, you get a web browser; an email program; an office suit with a word processor, spread sheet, presentation software, etc.; a text editor; calculator; music player; some graphics software; etc. This sounds like it might be annoying because it would take forever to install all that software, but software that runs on Linux is very efficient and takes up less space than for, say, Windows, so it does not really take all that long.

A Linux distro has a particular way to install, update, and maintain software. If you use a Mac, you are familiar with the paradigm, because Apple copied the Linux method. There will be one or more user interfaces that you can use to search for, pick out, and install software. Every now and then you can issue an update command and all of the installed software will be inspected and updated. Typically, your distro will install and set up at installation time, a program that initiates this automatically and gives you a message saying that you should update your software. You can opt to have this done in the background automatically, or you can do it yourself. Any of this can be done from the command line if you like.

A modern Mac does this as well. That is because down deep a Mac is running a Linux like operating system. Traditionally, Windows did not do this, though maybe Microsoft has learned to follow the Linux pattern of updating software. I’ve not had to update a Windows computer in a while.

Here’s a key point that distinguishes Linux from both Apple OSX and Windows. The Linux operating system itself is updated a little bit pretty much every week. And, it is updated more or less flawlessly. Your distro will probably be conservative. The basic Linux OS is updated, and that update is tested out and incorporated into a distro. That distro may have two versions, a bleeding edge version and a more stable version. So the change goes into the bleeding edge version then later into the stable version. Chances are your distro will actually be based on one of those distros, and there is yet another level of checking out the changes. Then it comes to your desktop.

When Microsoft updates its system, it test the update internally (maybe using beta testers). When Linux updates the system, it is tested by all those thousands of Linux experts who are involved in the project. This means that Microsoft has to do its updates differently, because an update is a major and costly project, just to test. So a typical Microsoft update (and Apple is similar) has more changes, more fixes, more tweaking, and this is why the first version of those updates is almost always at least a little broken or problematic for a good number of users.

Since Linux updates in smaller increments, and the increments are very widely tested, there is virtually never a problem with such an update. They just happen, everything works, and nothing goes wrong. And, it is lighting fast. The update is just several seconds to a few minutes long.

So, you want to install Linux?

The best way for a noob (a first timer) to try out Linux is to get a hold of that extra computer, make sure there is nothing on the hard drive that you need to save, and do a fresh install of the Ubuntu operating system on that hard drive. Ubuntu is one of many different distros, but it is the most user friendly and the best supported. There are actually several versions of Ubuntu, but you will want to install the standard mainstream version, which uses the “Unity Desktop.”

Click through to THIS POST to see an overview of how you might do this,

gregladen Thu, 06/23/2016 - 06:28

Tags