Community

I just spent last night installing Debian Linux for the first time. That was after a Slackware installation failed. In both cases you had better know Unix or Linux if you want to use these distros. They are definitely NOT for non-techies. Using either of these distros is very like purchasing a kit car. You get the parts but you have to know how they go together. I expected that with the Slackware but I had no idea that Debian was also so primitive. I eventually got a nice GUI environment going but it was a lot of work. Setting up a cron job to perform automatic software updates is something that a newbie would probably not think of doing. The nice thing is that the Debian does have a tool that you can use via cron.

Bottom line: newbies need a distro that incorporates a highly developed environment that includes automatic software update capabilities. Novell SuSE has the resources to do this. Most other distros don't have the resources or their engineering philosphy doesn't include that kind of thinking. Nothing wrong with that; it's just that they're not for newbies.

that their thinking doesn't include the concept of doing for the user what the user should do, rather than no capabilities to do it.

since basic cron and rpm / apt* can do the updates and are included. ( slak, and lfs excepting as they are not "package" systems. )

the distros definately not for newbies are slak, and the from scratch distros. building from sources requires a basic knowledge of linux that a newbie ain't gonna have.

*majority of distros will have one of the two big package management systems as distro default.

"...their thinking doesn't include the concept of doing for the user what the user should do..."

If it -should- be done, why not set it up at the time of installation and bypass the user entirely? At least include a prompt to set it up.

I think that all that a user should do is use the computer. The user friendly Linux distros that add a lot of automatic functionality are the way of the future. I don't believe in Unix purism. Plain 'meat and potatos' Unix isn't that great. Unix and Linux need to have applets added to the system to reduce the need for system administration and make running the system easier for nontechnical people.

Remember how MS got into trouble in the first place. Turn everything on by default, and do for the users so they don't have to know anything.

This over automation is WHY windows is constantly getting over run with viruses and why we NEED AV software to protect the system instead of holding MS accountable for fixing the system as a very wise man has already pointed out.

The less you expect out of someone, the less you will get. That is why you get so little from todays users.

By this theory, we should still start our cars with a crank in the front and use only manual transmissions. Just because MS didn't properly implement some features doesn't mean someone else can't do it right.

Yes, MS deserves some of the blame for marketing an unsecure system. A larger share of the blame should be placed on the @$$h0l3s who write viruses. THEY are the reason we need AV software. Blaming MS is like blaming GM for a car with no airbags. Your injuries aren't GM's fault, or your own for purchasing the car. Responsibility lies with the driver who hit you.

This theory says GM will install the safety features, but the buyer has to learn how to hook them up.

A common problem in comunication, people don't step away from what they already know to try to understand something new.

When there is a "feature" in windows that is regularly exploited by viruses, why isn't this "feature" fixed so a virus can't use that ever again?

If there is a DEFECT in a car that causes crashes, THEY do what is called a "recall" and FIX the problem. IF they DON'T do this, they end up in court and get sued for selling a flawed system that they could have fixed. Why can't we sue MS for selling a flawed system that THEY could have fixed?

Your looking too narrow at this strictly from a "windows is doing it right" point of view instead of looking at the big picture.

Anther thing about patches and updates. As a RULE, I never go with them as soon as available, just like I never buy the point 0 version of software. The point one version will have let other people test and find the bugs.

Have you ever heard of a MS patch crashing a server? The only solution is to boot to safemode, uninstall and reboot. How about patches that break applications?